OTTER & BIRDS: IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONTENTS

Transcription

1 THE HOY COMMUNITY WIND TURBINE OTTER & BIRDS OTTER & BIRDS: IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE OF REPORT SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT Brief site description Nature conservation designations sites Nature conservation designations species WORK DONE Survey objectives Summary of work carried out OTTER 2.1 OTTER SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS OTTER IMPACT ASSESSMENT. 7 3 BIRDS: METHODS, RESULTS & CONTEXT 3.1 VANTAGE POINT SURVEY Selection of target species for VP watches Vantage point survey - methods Location of VPs Summary of target species from VP watches Summary of non-target species from VP watches BREEDING BIRDS Brown and Shepherd style survey - method Brown and Shepherd style survey - results Breeding skuas and gulls Breeding Red-throated Divers wider area Breeding raptors wider area INCLUSION OF BIRD SPECIES IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Target species included in the impact assessment Target species excluded from the impact assessment Non-target species included in the impact assessment Non-target species excluded from the impact assessment.. 21

2 THE HOY COMMUNITY WIND TURBINE OTTER & BIRDS 4 COLLISION RISK & IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.1 COLLISION RISK Basis of collision risk calculations Measurement of observed at-risk flights Extrapolation from observations Avoidance rates Turbine-specific collision probabilities Collision risk results Collision risk assessment of significance POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIRDS Valuation of bird species Identification of potentially measurable impacts at Ore Farm Reasoning used in identifying potential measurable impacts IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR BIRDS Ore Farm impact assessment Construction disturbance in the breeding season Displacement from operational wind turbines breeding birds Displacement from operational wind turbines foraging birds Collision mortality OVERALL AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Overall impacts at Ore Farm Consideration of cumulative impacts. 40 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 TABLES COLLISION RISK WORKINGS MAPS

3 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Proposed community wind turbine Ore Farm, Hoy OTTER & BIRDS: IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE OF REPORT Bird and Otter survey work was commissioned by Scotrenewables Ltd for the site of a proposed single turbine at Ore Farm, Lyness, Hoy. This report gives a summary of the work carried out and the results arising from it, along with an assessment of the anticipated impacts on Otters and the important bird species. 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT Brief site description The proposed turbine position is in a grazed, but only partially improved field, that lies immediately inland from the road south of Lyness. There are similar enclosures on either side to north and south. The turbine field is low-lying and gently sloping; it lies alongside the Burn of Ore, about 500m from the burn s outflow into Ore Bay. The lower slopes of the Hoy Hills approach to about 500m to the northwest (Wee Fea) and one kilometre to the southwest (Binga Fea), and from their bases unmodified bog vegetation on deep peat reaches to the field s western boundary Nature conservation designations sites There is one area of land in the vicinity designated for nature conservation, at both a UK and European level it is covered by three separate designations as the Hoy Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Hoy Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Hoy Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The boundary of this area lies 2km to the west of the turbine position. Table 1 summarises the reasons for each designation. Firth Ecology, Dec

4 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 1. Summary of sites designated for their nature conservation interest. Designated site The Hoy SAC Geographic level of importance International EU Distance from proposed development (at closest point) 2000m Qualifying interests or notified features (numbers given are as at the time of designation) European priority interests: hard-water springs depositing lime, alpine and subalpine heaths, wet heaths, blanket bog, calcium-rich springs, calcareous rocky slopes, dry heaths, acid peatstained lakes and ponds, vegetated sea cliffs. The Hoy SPA International EU 2000m Article 4.1 important breeding populations of EC Annex I species: Red-throated Diver (58 pairs 6% of GB), Peregrine (6 pairs 0.5% of GB). Article 4.2 Internationally important breeding populations of migratory species: Great Skua (1,900 apparently occupied territories in % of UK and 14% of world population). The Hoy SSSI Article 4.2 internationally important assemblage of breeding seabirds: 120,000 individuals of 14 different species, specifically including important populations of Fulmar, Arctic Skua, Great Black-backed Gull, Kittiwake, Puffin and Guillemot. UK 2000m Botany: blanket bog; dystrophic loch; upland woodland; upland habitat assemblage with rare and uncommon species. Aggregations of breeding birds: Great Skua (1,900 territories 22% of UK, 14% of world), Arctic Skua (59 apparently occupied territories in % of UK), Red-throated Diver (58 pairs in % of UK), Peregrine, Fulmar, Great Black-backed Gull, and Guillemot. Breeding bird assemblages: internationally important numbers of seabirds 120,000 individuals of 14 different species; nationally important assemblage of moorland birds including the species above and Hen Harrier, Merlin, Golden Plover, Dunlin, Raven and Twite. Geology: Igneous petrology, Non-marine Devonian stratigraphy, Coastal geomorphology, Quaternary geology and geomorphology. Firth Ecology, Dec

5 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Of the various qualifying interests and features, it is only the birds that might in any way be affected by a single wind turbine situated at 2km distance. The seabirds are mainly located on the western side of the SSSI/SPA and, other than Great Black-backed Gulls and skuas, would not occur with any frequency over the farmland around Lyness. However, any of the moorland species could occur near the turbine, and the foraging habits of Red-throated Diver, Peregrine, Great Skua and Great Black-backed Gulls mean that they could overfly the development site on a regular basis. The same applies to Hen Harriers, Merlins and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Golden Plovers Nature conservation designations species Under UK legislation (the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981) general protection is given to nearly all species of wild birds to prevent capture or killing and to prevent damage to or the destruction of active nest sites. Protection is extended to certain species under Schedule 1 of this act, so that it is also an offence to cause disturbance to these birds at their nest. Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive lists bird species considered to be under threat in the EU and provides for the designation of protected areas (see above) but does not imply any specific protection of the birds themselves. In contrast, Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive lists plants and animals (other than birds), which are subject to protection from disturbance wherever they are found, both within and outside of designated areas these are termed European Protected Species. Table 2. Summary of listed species likely or possible at Ore Farm. Legislation Annex IV, Habitats Directive Schedule 1, Wildlife & Countryside Act Annex 1, EC Birds Directive Geographic level of importance Internatio nal EU European protected species UK Internatio nal EU Protection given Against: killing or taking; destruction or damage to breeding or resting place; deliberate disturbance. Against: killing or taking; destruction or damage to nest; disturbance at nest. Requirement to designate protected areas. Species likely or possible on a regular basis at or near Ore Farm Otter Red-throated Diver, Hen harrier, Merlin, Peregrine Red-throated Diver, Hen Harrier, Merlin, Peregrine, Golden Plover, Dunlin, Short-eared Owl Firth Ecology, Dec

6 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds 1.3 WORK DONE Survey objectives The objectives of the survey work were: Mammals to find out if there is any presence of Otters Lutra lutra (the only likely protected species) in the vicinity of the site. Birds to gather information regarding the birds on and around the turbine field throughout the year, specifically: to survey the breeding birds close to the turbine position; to gauge the extent to which qualifying interest and notified feature species from the SPA and SSSI might use, or fly over the site; to gauge the extent to which other Schedule 1 and Annex 1 species might use, or fly over the site; Summary of work carried out Otter survey work was undertaken in May 2008, covering the Burn of Ore out to 500m in either direction from the turbine position. Bird survey work comprised the following: breeding birds within 500m of turbine position April and June 2008; breeding skuas within 1km of turbine position June, July and August 2008; vantage point (VP) watches to record breeding bird flight activity around the turbine position April to August 2008; additional, diver-specific VP watches in the wider area July and August 2008; VP watches to record non-breeding bird activity around the turbine position September 2008 to March Annual, Orkney-wide surveys of breeding Hen Harriers and other moorland raptors have been carried out by the RSPB for a number of years, producing a comprehensive database. It was not therefore considered necessary to undertake extensive additional survey for breeding harriers or Merlins around the development site. The breeding Red-throated Divers on Hoy are surveyed annually by Jim and Stuart Williams, and again separate survey work was not undertaken. The total fieldwork time for this report amounted to 169 hours, and Table 3 below summarises the times spent on the various aspects of survey work by month. Detailed dates, times and weather conditions for the main and diver VP watches are given in Tables A and B, Appendix 1. Those for the walkover surveys are given in the relevant sections below (Tables 6 and 8). All fieldwork was carried out by Andrew Upton of Firth Ecology. Firth Ecology, Dec

7 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 3. Summary of ecological survey work undertaken at Ore Farm Month Otter survey Main Vantage Point survey (2006/07) Diver specific VP watches (2007) Breeding bird survey (2006) Breeding Skua survey Total hours in field for ecology work hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March Total hrs Because of the SPA interests, the duration of VP watch hours in each of the main breeding season months was at least 2.5 times the minimum SNHrecommended time of six hours per month. Since Peregrines and the other scarce raptors are present on Hoy all year, VP watches continued through to March 2009 at a rate of at least 6 hours per month. Firth Ecology, Dec

8 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds 2 OTTER 2.1 OTTER SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS Surveying for Otters took place on 21 st and 22 nd May 2008 in dry weather. On these dates the water levels were low, following several weeks of dry conditions. The search area covered the Burn of Ore and side ditches, out to 500m from the turbine position or to a point where they became so small as to be unsuitable for Otters. The banks of the burn are protected from grazing along the edge of the turbine field by fences, set well back on either side to enclose a strip of rough vegetation some tens of metres wide. To the west, inland across the open bog, the banks are open to low intensity sheep grazing, and to the east, down to the road, cattle and sheep have free access to cross the burn and shelter in a small plantation. Shorewards of the road, both banks are again undisturbed, with a dense thicket of willow scrub on the northern bank covering perhaps half a hectare. There is patchy Gorse scrub all along the banks, kept rather open where the cattle have access, but dense in places closer to the turbine position. There are also scattered but dense patches of Eared Willow set back from the burn. The watercourses walked were checked for spraint on prominent stones and for signs of tracks and slides, with particular attention being paid to crossing points and confluences. The ditch-sides and banks were checked for holes and cavities under boulders. All patches of dense scrub that might have offered resting places away from the watercourses (back to about 25m) were also checked. Otter signs were detected on this survey at various points along the Burn of Ore, in the form of spraint (mostly quite old), slides and a short trackway. No natural holes were found, but two particularly dense Gorse patches on the southern bank were clearly used as above-ground resting places. Both had a number of old spraints beneath a thick, low canopy and adjacent slides down into the water. One contained a recent spraint, in addition to a 15cm diameter pile of older deposits. There were possible tracks through adjacent willow scrub at the other, although these did not lead out beyond the bushes. These resting places are located at about 140 and 180m from the turbine position. A third area of more open gorse with rabbit holes beneath, at just over 100m from the turbine position, also held spraint and a slide down the bank this appeared less suitable as a lie-up. Lying at m from the turbine position, the thicket of dense, old willow scrub shoreward of the road appears to offer considerable scope for resting places or holts; beneath the scrub are thick patches of Great Woodrush and Meadowsweet and two derelict corrugated iron sheds, in which old spraints were found. No other signs were detected, but they could have been easily overlooked within such an inaccessible and relatively large area. Otters may also be particularly secretive near breeding sites, leaving very few of the normal signs, so the possibility of breeding here cannot be ruled out. Firth Ecology, Dec

9 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Beside the road bridge there is a 30cm square culvert in a low retaining wall that leads back to a dry sandy chamber no signs were found, but it seems highly likely that Otters would use this at times. There were no signs of Otters away from the main burn. 2.2 OTTER IMPACT ASSESSMENT Under the Habitats Directive it is illegal to damage an Otter s resting place or to disturb an Otter within it, or indeed anywhere else. SNH guidance indicates that disturbance due to construction activity is only likely to occur within about 30m of a resting place. There are no suitable features for Otters within at least 50m of the turbine position and the likely access route and, since the resting places that were found were at more than 100m, no disturbance would be expected during construction or operation of the turbine. Firth Ecology, Dec

10 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds 3 BIRDS: METHODS, RESULTS & CONTEXT 3.1 VANTAGE POINT SURVEY Selection of target species for VP watches The primary target species for VP survey work were those listed individually as qualifying interests of the Hoy SPA: Red-throated Diver Peregrine Great Skua Detailed records of flight paths were made for each primary target species and also for additional target species in the following categories: notified features of the Hoy SSSI with a very localised UK breeding distribution: Arctic Skua all Annex 1 species or Schedule 1 breeding species (not already covered) seen in flight from VP watches: Whooper Swan Hen Harrier Merlin Golden Plover Dunlin Whimbrel Arctic Tern other large species potentially affected by a wind turbine: Pink-footed Goose Greylag Goose (wintering Icelandic birds only) Brief notes were kept of all other bird species occurring close to the turbine position Vantage point survey methods A total of 135¼ hours, from 58 watches, across 38 different days was spent on the main VP survey. The turbine field itself, and the adjacent ground and slopes, were scanned continuously from each VP, using a combination of wide-angle binoculars and the naked eye. A 20-60x zoom telescope was also used to identify or follow particularly distant birds. When a target species was encountered in flight it was then followed for as long as it remained in sight, and the flight path plotted onto a map in the field. A note of flight height and behaviour (if relevant) was made for each sighting. However, there were too many flights of Great Skuas to be able to record each flight path in such detail. Instead a note was kept of the number of birds Firth Ecology, Dec

11 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds flying through a defined zone around the turbine position (a circle of 750m diameter) along with their broad direction of travel and their height. This was also the recording method used for geese and Arctic Skua. This method enabled a rough distinction to be made between skuas breeding on the SPA/SSSI and those nesting outside of the designated area to the southwest of the turbine position. The birds travelling NE/SW (and N/S) were taken to be from the local nesting area and therefore not belonging to the SPA/SSSI populations, whereas those travelling E/W were counted as being from the SPA/SSSI. Other than the target species, it was generally not possible to make specific counts of birds in flight, since there were times when doing so would have significantly distracted from the scanning effort e.g. in the early summer when breeding waders were on territory and making many flights within the field of view. A summary of all the non-target species seen was made at the end of each watch from the lower VP; this was not always carried out from the upper VP, especially in poorer light during early and late watches, since the distance from the turbine position made it more difficult to pick up the movements of low-flying, smaller species. For the additional diver watches the specific focus was on diver flight paths to and from the hills and shore, in order to build up a picture of the overall pattern of movements in the wider area Location of vantage points There were two main vantage points, the use of two different viewing angles allowing an appreciation of the activity occurring all around the turbine field. The lower VP was a lay-by at the eastern edge of the turbine field, 350m from the turbine position. A car was used as a hide from here, so as not to influence flight paths. The field dips gently away from this VP so that the ground at the turbine position was not in view, but the risk airspace at m height all around the turbine was visible. The upper VP was on the slopes of Wee Fea, at 85m above sea level and about 1.1km to the northwest of the turbine. This had a clear view across the entire turbine field. The precise position of the upper VP was varied to allow greater scanning up along the burn at times, or to be slightly lower and closer to the turbine field (especially during the winter). The main VPs are indicated on the flight path maps in Appendix 3. In total 58 watches (mostly between 2 and 3 hours long) were made, 26 from the lower point and 32 from the upper area. The survey area covered most of the visible ground, extending west and north from the shore to the skylines of Binga Fea and Wee Fea and up along the Burn of Ore. Higher observation points on Wee Fea were used for the diver watches during the summer, with scans covering to the north as well as to the south of Wee Fea. Their location is shown on the relevant diver flight path maps in Appendix 3. Firth Ecology, Dec

12 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Summary of target species from VP watches Thirteen target species were recorded in flight from VP watches Table 4 gives a very brief summary of their numbers by month. Whilst all observed movements within the survey area were recorded for most of these species and are included in the figures in the table, the figures for skuas did not include the more distant birds or those flying near their nesting area to the southwest of the turbine position. Table 4. Numbers of each target species recorded in flight from VPs by month (- implies 0). Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total No. at risk (VP hrs) ½ ¾ Red-thr. Diver % Peregrine % Great Skua Arctic Skua Whooper Swan Hen Harrier % % % Merlin % Golden Plover % Dunlin Whimbrel Arctic Tern Pink-ftd Goose Greylag (Icelandic) % % The proportion of birds at risk varied markedly, as shown in the final column of Table 4. Of the more numerous species, the two skuas have the highest proportions of at-risk flights, which is as to be expected given their more tightly defined recording area around the turbine position. Hen Harriers were particularly unlikely to be at risk, mainly because so much of their foraging flight was at less than 20m above ground. Only very small numbers of Golden Plover and Arctic Tern were detected, so the fact that nearly all of these were at risk does not indicate any particular threat posed by the wind turbine. % at risk Firth Ecology, Dec

13 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Summary of non-target species from VP watches Records of non-target species were made from 49 watches. In addition to the 13 target species, a further 42 non-target species (plus hybrid crow) were recorded in flight within the survey area from VP watches. These include two of the SPA seabird assemblage species Fulmar and Great Black-backed Gull. Table 5. Summary of flight activity of non-target species from VP watches across the visible area; there were 49 watches in which recording took place, spread throughout the year. Species Overall watches detected Watches detected: March to August (N = 32 watches) No. % No. % nos per watch Watches detected: September to February (N = 17 watches) No. % nos per watch Main seasonal occurrence Hooded Crow 47 96% 31 97% % 1-22 All year Great Black-back 46 94% 31 97% % 1-20 All year Raven 40 82% 27 84% % 1-9 All year Herring Gull 36 73% 27 84% % 1-5 All year Curlew 30 61% 29 91% % 6 Mar-Aug Rock Dove 30 61% 23 72% % 2-21 All year Carrion Crow 30 61% 21 66% % 1 All year Common Gull 27 55% 26 81% % 60 Apr-Aug Lapwing 23 47% 21 66% % Mar-Sept Buzzard 20 41% 9 28% % 1-3 Sep-May Starling 20 41% 18 56% % 3-10 Mar-July Swallow 19 39% 18 56% % 15 May-Sep Greylag (local) 16 33% 16 50% Apr-July Skylark 16 33% 15 47% % 2 Mar-July Mallard 15 31% 11 34% % 1-35 Feb-Aug Woodpigeon 14 29% 12 38% % 1-2 Apr-Oct Oystercatcher 13 26% 13 41% Apr-July Black-headed Gull 13 26% 12 38% % 1 Apr-Aug Meadow Pipit 12 24% 10 31% 1-tens 2 12% 2-5 May-Sep Grey Heron 11 22% 5 16% % 1-3 Aug-Mar Sparrowhawk 11 22% 8 25% % 1 Apr-Sept Fulmar 10 20% 10 31% Mar-July Blackbird 9 18% 9 28% May-July Snipe 8 16% 6 19% % 1 Apr-Sept Lesser Black-back 7 14% 7 22% Apr-June Greenfinch 6 12% 5 16% % 5 Apr-Sept Linnet 4 8% 4 12% Jun-Aug Pied Wagtail 3 6% 2 6% % 1 May-Sep Crossbill 3 6% 3 9% July Firth Ecology, Dec

14 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds The results for the 28 non-target species seen on more than 5% of watches (plus the local breeding population of Greylag Goose) are summarised in Table 5 above, ordered in line with the number of watches from which they were seen and with the sightings split between approximate breeding and non-breeding seasons. Another 14 species were seen from just one or two watches. Those from two watches were: Kestrel (single birds in August & September); Collared Dove (two singles in July); Snow Bunting (38 on 17 th November and 2 on 5 th January); Reed Bunting (singles in March and April). Those from only one watch were: Wigeon (one bird with Mallards, 18 th August); Red Grouse (one bird in December, half-caught by a Hen Harrier, then chased by Ravens); Cormorant (one on 30 th September); Green Sandpiper (one heard in flight on 18 th August); Wheatear (one by upper VP on 16 th April); Fieldfare (flock of 25 on 5 th December); Jackdaw (2 on 22 nd May); Rook (1 on 25 th March); Goldfinch (1 on 30 th April); Siskin (a group of 8 on 29 th April). In addition to these, a single hybrid Hooded x Carrion Crow was seen on 5 th March. Three further species were recorded, but were not observed in flight: Teal (a pair by the dam on the Burn of Ore, 29 th April); Goosander (a female fishing along the burn, 5 th December); Pheasant (one or two birds on the ground on several occasions). 3.2 BREEDING BIRDS Brown & Shepherd style survey method Brown and Shepherd survey methodology is a standard means of counting and mapping breeding waders in unenclosed areas. It comprises two walkovers of the study area, aiming to approach within 100m of every point on the ground. A large-scale field map was used on which all bird sightings were marked, using BTO symbols. The area covered was a square out to m from the proposed turbine position, totalling about 110 hectares (1.10 km 2 ). Table 6 below gives the times and conditions for each survey. Firth Ecology, Dec

15 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 6. Brown & Shepherd surveys; times and conditions Date Time Wind Conditions 15 April :50 16:05 SE 3/4 50% cloud, dry 19 June :50 13:35 W3 80% cloud, intermittent, very light rain The method has been designed specifically for waders and was considered by its originators to give broadly realistic population estimates for most species, perhaps underestimated by around 20%. However, it only detected about 50% of Lapwing pairs and an uncertain, but probably low, proportion of Snipe. The stipulated survey time per unit area of about 1 minute per hectare was exceeded at Ore Farm. Taking additional time does not affect the validity of the results (indeed it may improve accuracy) but it does mean that direct comparison may not be possible with other surveys that followed the method more closely. For EIA purposes, however, the main aim is to gain as accurate a picture as possible of the birds on and around the development site. In addition to waders, records were made of all other species within the survey area. This method would almost certainly underestimate the numbers of passerines, particularly Meadow Pipit, but should be a fair reflection of their relative distribution within the area Brown & Shepherd style survey results Table 7 below summarises the records for the various species that were considered likely to have bred within the area. It excludes small numbers of waders and gulls resting at the mouth of the Burn of Ore and others simply overflying or flying away from the area. Proof of breeding was found on these surveys for: Great Skua (a nest with 2 eggs), Greylag Goose (a brood of 4 flightless young) and Stonechat (a male with 3 fledged young). Overall numbers are shown in the table, based on an amalgamation of the counts from both visits, but not duplicating birds found in the same location both times. For mobile species such as Curlew the highest number from either visit was taken. Maps 18 and 19 show the approximate locations of wader territories and those for Greylag Goose and the open ground passerines. The birds considered likely to have been nesting within 200m of the turbine position are: Lapwing (2), Curlew (3), Skylark (2) and Meadow Pipit (at least 3). Firth Ecology, Dec

16 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 7. Brown & Shepherd survey results estimated numbers of territories (blank implies zero). 15 April 08 Number of territories Open ground Scrub, trees & buildings Total area 19 June 08 Number of territories Open ground Scrub, trees & buildings Total area Overall no. territories Total area (1.10 km 2 ) Greylag Goose Mallard Pheasant Oystercatcher Lapwing Snipe Curlew Great Skua Woodpigeon Skylark Swallow Meadow Pipit Pied Wagtail Wren Stonechat Blackbird Song Thrush Sedge Warbler Willow Warbler Goldcrest Starling Chaffinch Greenfinch Reed Bunting Birds not shown on the maps are those where only feeding males were visible and probably not indicative of the actual nesting locations (i.e. Mallard and Pheasant), and the species associated with scrub, trees or buildings. The main concentrations for the scrub species were in the small triangular spruce plantation by the bend in the road, and in the thick willow scrub further down near the mouth of the burn. Away from these two areas there were only 3 territories of Wren and 1 of Blackbird, in patches of Gorse and Eared Willow. The derelict wartime buildings near the road held at least one pair each of Swallow and Starling and probably two of Pied Wagtail. The plantation, the main willow scrub and the buildings were all at least 200m from the turbine position. Crows were not recorded nesting within the survey square but a Hooded and Carrion Crow mixed pair were frequently seen in the area from VP watches Firth Ecology, Dec

17 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds and also from one of the walkover surveys. They may have had their nest beyond the survey area, and were probably unsuccessful in any breeding attempt Breeding skuas and gulls Map 17 shows the distribution of skua AOTs (apparently occupied territories) around the development site in Three visits were made covering the area out to at least 1km around the turbine position. Table 8 below gives the times and conditions for each survey. Table 8. Breeding skua surveys; times and conditions Date Time Wind Conditions 18 June :45 14:30 SE 3 75% cloud, occasional light showers 7 July :00 18:15 E 3 75% cloud, dry 18 August :00 16:45 SE 4 90% cloud, dry Two eggs and later 1 downy chick had been found at the closest nest to the south of the turbine, but it is not known whether this youngster had already fledged by the third visit, or if it did not survive. On 18 th August at least six juveniles were present within the main colony to the southwest. No young were seen at the territories to the northwest on any of the visits. In total there were 40 Great Skua AOTs within about 1.5km, at least 6 of which were successful. The breakdown within different distance zones was: at or within 500m: 2 at 500m to 1km: 11 at 1km to 1.5km: 27 All of these birds were located on low-lying bog or lower hill slopes outwith the SPA. They contributed much of the flight activity near the turbine position with a distinct northeast/southwest flight path between the main colony and Ore Bay. However, there were also birds flying east/west along the Burn of Ore and these were counted as SPA birds. Only one Arctic Skua AOT was found, at about 1km from the turbine position. There was some chasing by up to 3 birds there, but breeding was not successful. Chasing Arctic Skuas were also seen intermittently above Wee Fea and it is possible that another territory or two were located there at 1.5km or more from the turbine position. The locations of gull colonies in 2008 are also shown on Map 17. At the colony closest to the turbine position ( m to the northwest), the maximum number of individuals of each species was recorded on 19 th June: Firth Ecology, Dec

18 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds 60 Common Gulls, 2 Herring Gulls and 4 Great Black-backs. However this area was deserted by 7 th July, apart from one territorial Great Black-back. Similar numbers of the same species were present to the east of the road, at m, from the turbine position Breeding Red-throated Divers wider area The closest diver breeding loch is over 2.5km distant from the turbine position. However, from the flight paths observed (see Maps 5 to 8, Appendix 3) it is clear that divers from a wide area may fly close to the site. Table 9 gives the historic numbers of divers on Hoy and their breeding success as given in the Orkney Bird Reports was similar to the recent run of poorer years, even though breeding activity appeared to be late starting. Table 9. Red-throated Divers overall number of occupied sites, and breeding success on Hoy. Year Total no. occupied sites No. successful sites No. young fledged Breeding raptors wider area Three species of scarcer raptor have been known or suspected to breed within about 2km of the turbine position. The figures for these each year are given in Table 10, from unpublished raptor reports, and unpublished Raptor Study Group data. The closest location for each species is well over 1km distant. Table 10. Raptors numbers of occupied breeding sites around the development site 2002 to 2008; the number of successful nests is shown in brackets; n/d = no data. Species Between 1 and about 2km Hen Harrier 2 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) 2 (1) 2 (1) 1 (0) 2 (1) Merlin (1) 1 (1) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) Short-eared Owl n/d n/d (?) 0 0 Firth Ecology, Dec

19 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Peregrines do not nest within 2km and prefer the cliffs along the west coast of the island. In 2008 a pair of Sparrowhawks successfully reared young at a site just over 1km to the north of the turbine position. Buzzards were seen occasionally from VP watches, with 4 birds circling together at Wee Fea on 20 th May, but there was no indication of nesting close by, and none were recorded breeding anywhere in Orkney in Kestrels were only seen twice from all VP watches and not from any other fieldwork, indicating that breeding did not occur in the vicinity. 3.3 INCLUSION OF BIRD SPECIES IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Target species included in the impact assessment The target species to be considered are those seen most regularly from survey work and comprise qualifying interests and notified features of the nearby SPA and SSSI, other Annex 1/Schedule 1 breeding birds and one wintering species occurring in relatively large numbers. Individual tables detailing or summarising all the observed flights for these species are given in Tables C to K, Appendix 1 and collision risk workings for each are shown in Appendix 2. The individual flight paths for Red-throated Diver, Peregrine, Hen Harrier and Merlin are shown on the relevant maps in Appendix 3. The geographical context of their numbers around the development site is summarised below. The larger region of which Orkney is a part is taken as the SNH-defined Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ), which covers Orkney and northern Caithness Red-throated Diver: not breeding within 2.5km, but the birds flying regularly past the site in the summer months would be individuals from a number of the SPA breeding pairs and are important in that context. The SPA total is pairs, from about 100 in Orkney and 1,255 in Scotland (from the 2006 national survey as given in The Birds of Scotland 1 ). Peregrine: not breeding within several kilometres, but the birds seen occasionally throughout the year would relate to the SPA breeding population of up to six pairs, from around 15 pairs in Orkney as a whole. Those seen at the site are regarded as important at the SPA level. Great Skua: two pairs were on territory within 500m of the turbine in 2008, with a further 11 within 1km. These were part of at least 40 pairs breeding on low-lying bog outwith the SPA. The last count of skuas within the SPA totalled about 1,770 pairs in 2000, but the species is known to have declined since then, possibly by a substantial amount. The birds frequently flying close 1 Forrester RW et al (eds) (2007): The Birds of Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists Club, Aberlady. Firth Ecology, Dec

20 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds to the turbine position were from both the SPA population and the local breeders analysis of flight records indicated that about 37% were from the SPA and this species is considered important at both the SPA level and at the Orkney and NHZ level (for the birds outwith the designated area). This is because there are few birds nesting in northern Caithness, so the Orkney numbers are taken as equivalent to the NHZ numbers. Arctic Skua: one pair was on territory at about 1km from the turbine position in 2008, outside of the SPA it was not successful. There were about 50 pairs on the SSSI in 2000, which have almost certainly declined greatly since then. The birds flying close to the turbine position were from both the SSSI population and the local breeders analysis of flight records indicated that about 31% were from the SSSI and this species is considered important at the SSSI level. Even though much decreased, the one pair breeding off the SSSI within a kilometre of the site would not be important at the Orkney scale. Hen Harrier: the birds seen in the breeding season were probably associated with up to two nesting attempts. This compares to a Hoy population of 11 occupied sites in 2008, out of 62 in Orkney as a whole. There were at least three different individuals present in February and March 2009, being an adult male, an adult female and a young male. These are likely to represent a significant proportion of the Hoy birds. Several watches were carried out at dusk over the winter, but there was no indication that harriers roosted near the site. The numbers of this species around the development site are considered important at the NHZ level. Merlin: the birds seen would have related to at least one pair in the wider area. This compares to a Hoy population of 8 occupied sites in 2008, from an Orkney total of 18. There were no sightings overwinter (see Table 4 above). The numbers of this species around the site are considered important at the NHZ level. Greylag Goose: there were a few locally breeding pairs in 2008, but all of the birds between October and March have been counted as belonging to the Icelandic breeding population. The numbers feeding within the visible area from the upper VP varied from just 35 on 26 th January 2009 to 380 on 26 th February, with 399 on 5 th December These numbers will be a substantial proportion of the birds wintering on Hoy (where there were island totals of 575 and just 68 during the annual December goose counts in 2007 and 2008 respectively), but are less than 1% of the total numbers in Orkney, which have topped 60,000 in recent December counts. Nevertheless, because this species was the most numerous target species it is still included within the impact assessment Target species excluded from the impact assessment The other six target species were each seen only very occasionally and in small numbers (see Table 4 above). The context of their occurrence at Ore Farm is briefly discussed below and, since there is no scope for significant Firth Ecology, Dec

21 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds effects on any of them, they are not dealt with further in the impact assessment. Whooper Swan one group of 4 birds flying west on 21 st October 2008, at more than 2km to the south of the turbine position. This species occurs in Orkney on passage and in winter in numbers of up to a few hundreds, mostly concentrated on Shapinsay it would not be expected regularly near the development site. Pink-footed Goose one flock of 17 birds flew north on 28 th January 2009, very high and about a kilometre west of the turbine position. Up to several thousands of this species may spend the later part of the winter in Orkney, mainly on the East Mainland it would not be expected regularly near the development site. Golden Plover only three records: a group of 12 flying north through the zone on 16 th April 2008 were probably passage northern birds, of which many thousands can occur in Orkney, particularly on the East Mainland and the North Isles. Large numbers of passage birds would not be expected in the small, rough fields around the development. The two other records related to birds from the breeding population one heard display calling behind the upper VP on 29 th April and one flying through the risk zone on 19 th August. There are perhaps pairs in the Hoy hills, which might mostly fly to lower ground to feed however it is clear that the fields around the development site are not a favoured area and that flights through the risk airspace are few. Dunlin only one bird was seen, flying westwards past the upper VP on 20 th June There are perhaps pairs in the Hoy hills, mostly staying near their breeding grounds to feed. Regular movements past the development site would not be anticipated. Whimbrel two birds fed together on the turbine field on 29 th April 2008 and then flew off. These would have been migrants rather than members of the tiny Orkney breeding population based on the West Mainland. Spring passage of this species through Orkney was particularly prominent in Although Whimbrels might be fairly regular in small numbers each year in the vicinity of the development site, they would be only a tiny proportion of the overall passage population. Arctic Tern there were four detections of this species, all at risk height near the turbine position. Single birds passed through on 22 nd May and 18 th June, there were 2 on 8 th July and then a small group, estimated at 5 birds was heard at dusk on the same day. Given the Orkney breeding population of several thousands of birds (even in poor years), the low numbers and infrequency of this species at the development are of no particular concern. Firth Ecology, Dec

22 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Non-target species included in the impact assessment Selected non-target species are to be considered in the impact assessment, based on the status of each as observed from VP watches and from the surveys for breeding birds. These are: one of the SPA seabird assemblage species, two rare breeding species in Orkney, several uncommon species in Orkney and most of the waders and open ground passerines breeding within 500m of the turbine position. A brief summary of their context around the turbine position is given below. Great Black-backed Gull: frequent within the survey area, being seen from all but three VP watches. On various days from October to March there was a noticeable trickle of birds heading either generally southwest across the turbine position (8 th October, 6 th March, 24 th March) or west along the Burn of Ore (29 th December, 26 th January, 24 th February). The majority of these were below risk height and included adults and immatures, although most of the 20 birds on 8 th October passed at rotor blade height. During the breeding season Great Black-backs occurred mostly in ones and twos, often flying low; some were linked with territorial pairs in the immediate vicinity whilst a proportion headed east/west between the shore and the SPA. The SPA numbers have dropped dramatically since designation, with the two largest colonies having reduced from over 2,000 birds between them to just 80 in The birds near the development site will include SPA birds and those from outside the boundary, but no attempt was made to quantify this. Grey Heron: no longer breeds in Orkney the most recent colony was on Hoy, but has not been active since Although including the odd summering individual, the birds from this survey work would mostly have been passage and wintering birds, with a maximum of nine seen roosting together at the edge of a rushy field a kilometre south of the turbine position on 5 th March The Lyness fish cages, not far from Ore Farm, held up to 28 birds from September 2008 to the end of the year 5. The overall passage and wintering numbers are given as fairly common in the Orkney Bird Reports, implying 100 to 1,000 birds in the county it is likely to be at the lower end of this range, so nine birds is almost certainly more than 1% of the county numbers. Most birds seen in flight from VP watches were moving up or down along the Burn of Ore, generally low, but with three at risk height. Sparrowhawk: generally less than 10 pairs attempt to breed in Orkney each year, although there were 12 in 2008 of which a record eight pairs were successful. These included the site in the pines at 1km north of the turbine position. This species is much more common on the Scottish mainland. Buzzard: There are usually only two or three breeding attempts in Orkney each year, nearly all on Hoy, but in 2008 none were recorded. The four birds seen together in May 2008 would represent a very large proportion of the Orkney breeding population. However, this species is the commonest raptor in Scotland as a whole, including a healthy population in Caithness. 2 Orkney Bird Report Firth Ecology, Dec

23 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Lapwing: has declined across Scotland in the past few decades and this decline may be ongoing. However, it is still a common breeding species in Orkney (more than 1,000 pairs) and the two pairs breeding within 500m of the development site are of no particular importance in an Orkney context, but this species is included because it breeds so close to the turbine position. Snipe: An estimate of 5,402 pairs in Orkney is given in The Birds of Scotland, so the two or so pairs at about 500m from the turbine position are of no importance in an Orkney context, but this species is included because it breeds so close to the turbine position. Curlew: may be currently declining in Scotland generally, but has shown a recent increase in Orkney, for which an estimate of 6,202 pairs is quoted in The Birds of Scotland. The ten or so pairs within 500m of the turbine position are of no particular importance in an Orkney context, but this species is included because it breeds so close to the turbine position. Common Gull: there were over 11,000 pairs in Orkney during the last seabird census 3, with colonies distributed throughout the islands. However, numbers have almost certainly declined since then and the 120 birds within a kilometre of the turbine position would be 1% or more of the Orkney total. The nearest colony appeared to fail completely in 2008, in a year when there were mixed results across Orkney. Skylark: a common breeding species in Orkney (1,000 to 10,000 pairs). The six pairs within about 500m of the turbine position are of no particular importance in an Orkney context, but this species is included because it breeds so close to the turbine position. Meadow Pipit: an abundant breeding species in Orkney (more than 10,000 pairs). The 25 pairs around the turbine position, even if substantially underestimated, are of no particular importance in an Orkney context, but this species is included because it breeds so close to the turbine position. Stonechat: a fairly common breeding species in Orkney (100 to 1,000 pairs). The one pair within 500m of the turbine position is of no particular importance in an Orkney context, but this species is included because it breeds so close to the turbine position. Raven: probably less than 100 pairs in Orkney (there are about 50 on Mainland each year), so that even the small numbers near the development site are likely to represent more than 1% of the county population Non-target species excluded from the impact assessment All other non-target species are excluded. An insignificant impact is assumed for each of those seen only once or twice from VP watches (listed in 3 Churchill G (2004). Seabird 2000 in Orkney. Orkney Bird Report 2003, Kirkwall. Firth Ecology, Dec

24 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds paragraph above) as well as some of the most frequently recorded species which are common Orkney breeding or wintering species (e.g. Hooded Crow, Rock Dove, Herring Gull, Starling and Mallard). The species associated with scrub, woodland or buildings, and not breeding closer to the turbine position than 200m, are also not considered further, irrespective of their numerical context, since no measurable effect on them would be anticipated. Fulmar, an SPA assemblage species, was observed from ten watches between March and July, with between one and three single birds from each of these watches. Only three flew at risk height near the turbine position, the others being seen at some distance from the turbine or low to the ground. Due to the infrequency of sightings near the development, from an SPA population numbering over 19,000 pairs in , this species is also excluded from the impact assessment. The breeding Greylag Geese in Orkney, and particularly on Hoy are of recent origin, having been first introduced to the county on Shapinsay in the early 1980s 5. Since then the birds have spread widely throughout Orkney, perhaps augmented by birds of northern Scottish and/or Icelandic origin. They are still increasing and are now thought to number several hundred pairs, with many additional non-breeders. The number of individuals in Orkney after the breeding season (i.e. including young birds) was very approximately estimated at 10,000 for the purposes of the 2008 Icelandic-breeding Goose Census 6 ; a majority of these are likely to be in the West Mainland and the Wide Firth islands. This population is not threatened, indeed it is still expanding, and is of little conservation interest, other than the possible negative effects that the geese may exert on other species (such as Redthroated Divers) at some sites. Therefore, the small numbers present around the development site are not considered further within this impact assessment. The Oystercatcher too is excluded it is a mainly lowland breeding wader which is very common in Orkney (substantially more than 1,000 pairs) and perhaps still increasing (a 29% increase in Orkney from 1993 to 1998 is quoted in The Birds of Scotland). It was at very low breeding density near the development site, with only one pair at the edge of the 500m radius this is of no importance at any scale. Although still only an occasional species in Orkney, the single resident Carrion Crow at the development site is also excluded from the impact assessment, since crows have generally been found to be unaffected by wind farms, and because it is such a widespread and common species in the rest of Scotland. 4 Scottish Natural Heritage (2007): Proposed Marine Extension to the Hoy Special Protection Area: Case for Extension. Available online at: 5 Meek E R (2003): The Status of the Greylag Goose in Orkney. Orkney Bird Report 2002, Kirkwall. 6 Mitchell C (2009): Status and distribution of Icelandic-breeding Geese: results of the 2008 international census. Wildflowl & Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge. Firth Ecology, Dec

25 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds 4. COLLISION RISK & IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.1 COLLISION RISK Basis of collision risk calculations Calculations of collision risk have been carried out for the primary SPA target species and for Hen Harrier, Merlin, Arctic Skua and Greylag Goose. The workings are shown in Tables A to G, Appendix 2. A 500m radius around the turbine has been used for those species with mapped flight paths; a 375m radius has been used for the skuas and goose, since this was the zone through which flights were recorded from VP watches Measurement of observed at-risk flights For direct flying species, taken to be divers, skuas and geese, it is simply the number of birds passing through a vertical risk window that is the basis for the calculations. The proportion of these that would have flown through the rotor swept area is then simply taken as the proportion of the rotor swept area to the total area of the risk window, assuming randomly distributed flights through the risk zone. For the raptors the basis of the calculations is the observed flight length at risk within the risk airspace, and the element of this that is assumed to pass through the rotor blades is in the same proportion as that of the rotor swept volume to the overall risk volume. For reasonably direct flights across a small site, it is easiest and most accurate to simply measure the linear distance of the mapped flight path across the risk zone, and this has been the main approach used here. Where birds were first detected already at risk height within or near the risk zone, it has usually been possible to extrapolate backwards to account for the unseen element of flight at risk height. Such measurements from a map arrive directly at the distance traversed. Unless a bird moves more or less vertically up and down, the extra flight length due to a change in height is very small (based on Pythagoras theory) and treated as immaterial e.g. a bird falling the full 80m of the risk height band over 800m (less than the diameter of the risk zone) would have travelled 804m, just 0.5% more than the distance drawn on a map. Where birds circled across the risk airspace a very approximate measure has been used in which the actual flight length is taken as 3.14 times the linear distance covered by the bout of circling. Where circling was particularly extensive for one Peregrine flight an alternative, indirect approach was taken, which is the method commonly adopted for larger windfarms. It relies on the relationship between time, distance and speed the flight time at risk-height within the risk zone is measured in the field, to which an estimated flight speed is applied in order to arrive at the distance. One drawback with a small site is that the precise turbine position, and hence risk zone, are rarely known at the outset. An even greater source of error with a small site is the difficulty of knowing when a high Firth Ecology, Dec

26 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds flying bird has entered or left the risk airspace, particularly with a circular risk zone and if it is flying towards or away from the observer. This means that time measurements can only be very approximate. This approximation is then compounded by a broad estimate of flight speed, which obviously varies markedly under different conditions and behaviours Extrapolation from observations In order to produce meaningful results, the observations for a species should be representative of its flight activity throughout its season of occurrence. For the most important and frequent species, here the SPA Red-throated Divers and Great Skuas, allowances need to be made for biases in VP watches towards months or times of day when activity might have been markedly higher or lower than the average. Figures 1 and 2 show the observed diver activity by month and by time of day. These are broadly as expected, although the peak of activity close to the middle of the day has not been observed at other Orkney sites. The collision risk workings for Red-throated Divers have been based on extrapolation from observations for two seasonal categories (April/May and June/July/August) across five daily periods, which combine the two-hourly periods shown in Figure 2 (see the risk calculations in Appendix 2). Figures 3 and 4 show the observed Great Skua activity across the 375m risk radius by month and by time of day. Because of the lack of clear variation throughout the day (particularly for SPA birds at risk) the Great Skua calculations have been stratified by month only. The same approach has been used for Arctic Skuas. For the raptors there has been no attempt to stratify the calculations since, apart from Merlin, their activity was not clearly related to season (see Table 4 above), and flights at risk were few and intermittent. Extrapolation has been simply by the overall number of hours watched compared to the total annual daylight and twilight hours available for flight. Over the winter too few VP hours were watched to stratify by time of day, so the workings for Icelandic Greylag Goose simply take the overall VP hours from October to March compared to the total daylight and twilight hours for those months, plus 4 hours darkness per day. Adjustments have been built into the calculations to account for observation efficiency, since it is recognised that not all birds at risk will necessarily be detected from a VP watch. The following rates have been assumed, rather subjectively based on the likelihood of detection for the various species: Redthroated Diver, Greylag Goose and Great Skua (90%); Peregrine, Arctic Skua and Hen Harrier (80%), and Merlin (60%). Firth Ecology, Dec

27 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds ARph bph APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG Figure 1. Red-throated Diver activity by month. (bph is birds per hour; ARph is number at risk per hour) ARph bph pre SR SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 MID SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS Daily period Figure 2. Red-throated Diver activity by 2-hourly periods. (SR = sunrise; SS = sunset; bph is birds per hour; ARph is number at risk per hour). Firth Ecology, Dec

28 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds ARph SPA ARph bph APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT Figure 3. Great Skua activity by month. (bph is birds per hour; ARph is number at risk per hour) ARph SPA ARph bph pre SR SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 MID SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS Figure 4. Great Skua activity by 2-hourly periods. (SR = sunrise; SS = sunset; bph is birds per hour; ARph is number at risk per hour). Firth Ecology, Dec

29 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Avoidance rates The assumption that has the greatest effect on the outcome of collision risk calculations is undoubtedly the choice of avoidance rate. The avoidance rate is the rate at which birds, which would otherwise have flown through the rotor blades, take action to avoid them, either at a distance or close up. Until recently a default, precautionary avoidance rate of 95% was used, due to the lack of quantified rates for most species. A 95% avoidance rate means that the remaining 5% of birds are subject to collision. However, a small change in avoidance rate will produce a relatively much larger change in the number of predicted fatalities e.g. increasing avoidance from 95% to 98% reduces fatalities from 5% to 2%, a drop in the actual number of fatalities by 60%. The 95% figure is generally acknowledged to be too low for most birds. A review of raptor casualty rates at various US windfarms has calculated Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus hudsonius avoidance rates of 92% (one site), well over 99% (four separate studies at one site) and 100% (one site) 7. Very recently Natural Research Ltd have recommended a realistic avoidance rate of 99% for Hen Harriers, based on such results from the US and from one Spanish site 8 (prior to this they had suggested that rates higher than 97.5% appeared realistic 9 ). The calculations for Hen Harrier here show the risk based on 99% and a more precautionary 98% avoidance rate. There is no accepted avoidance rate for the two falcon species and the calculations show the results at rates of 95% and 98%. The 95% figure is especially low for waterbirds such as gulls and geese. Very recently, an avoidance rate for geese of 99.93% has been calculated 10 and SNH now accept a 99% avoidance rate for geese as precautionary, which is the rate used here. Many EIAs use avoidance rates of 99% or more for birds such as wildfowl, waders and gulls, based on the findings of post-construction studies at windfarms such as Blyth in northeast England and sites in the Netherlands 11. For this reason the avoidance rates used here for skuas, of 98% and 99%, are taken to be precautionary Turbine-specific collision probabilities Once the number of birds at risk has been calculated, the number that will fly through a set of rotor blades whilst they are actually turning needs to be 7 Whitfield D P & Band W (2004 manuscript in preparation): Estimates of collision avoidance rates at operational wind farms in the USA. SNH. 8 Whitfield D P & Madders M (2006): A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers Circus cyaneus and an estimation of collision avoidance rates. Natural Research Information Note 1 (revised). Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK. 9 Whitfield D P & Madders M (2005): A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers Circus cyaneus. Natural Research Information Note 1. Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK. 10 Fernley J, Lowther S & Whitfield P (2006): A Review of Goose Collisions at Operating Wind Farms and Estimation of the Goose Avoidance Rate. Natural Research Ltd, West Coast Energy and Hyder Consulting. 11 Chamberlain et al (2006): The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis 148: (BOU Wind Fire & Water: Renewable Energy & Birds, spring 2005 conference proceedings) Firth Ecology, Dec

30 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds estimated, along with the proportion of them that would be struck by a blade. The assumptions incorporated are: That the turbines will be operational for 90% of the time; That birds will show certain probabilities of collision should they fly through the rotor blade area. This is a function of the dimensions of blade and bird, and the speeds of blade (in revolutions per minute) and bird. These characteristics are input into the Band Model spreadsheet as supplied by SNH and give a likelihood of collision for each species. The Band Model workings for each are included within Tables A to G in Appendix Collision risk results Table 11 summarises the results of the collision risk calculations, which are detailed in Appendix 2. All of the Red-throated Divers and Peregrines have been assumed to be from their SPA breeding populations, but the Great Skuas flying across the site were partly from the closest breeding colony situated outwith the SPA, and the workings have been split to show the proportion considered to relate to SPA breeders. A similar split has been carried out for the SSSI Arctic Skuas. Table 11. Summary of calculated collision rates. Species NB. these figures are subject to wide, or very wide, margins for error No. of birds observed at risk Avoidance rate used Predicted no. fatalities per year Predicted no. of years between fatalities Predicted no. of fatalities over 20 years Red-throated 95% Diver 98% Peregrine 3 95% % Great Skua 98% c (SPA) 99% c. 6 Great Skua (all 98% c birds) 99% c. 15 Arctic Skua 98% (SSSI) 99% Arctic Skua 98% c (all birds) 99% Hen Harrier 6 98% % Merlin 3 95% % Greylag Goose % c. 12 Firth Ecology, Dec

31 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds For all the species where a collision is calculated at less than once every 20 years, i.e. less than one fatality over the lifetime of the development, it is assumed that there will be no significant impact at any population level. This applies to each of the raptors and the SSSI Arctic Skuas Collision risk assessment of significance Where the calculated rates of collision are higher than one every 20 years, a simple comparison of the calculated annual fatalities may be made against background survival and mortality rates to give an indication of the likely effect on a population. For the Greylag Goose a survival rate is given in the recent SNH population viability analysis 12 and this is used. The 93% survival rate for Great Skuas given on the BTO (British Trust for Ornithology) website 13 is at the highest end of a range of figures from one study quoted in a 2007 BTO report on offshore windfarms 14 ; 89% was the average and 90% was found in another study 90% is the figure that has been adopted here. The BTO offshore windfarm report also gave survival rates for Arctic Skua and Redthroated Diver, which are used here. Table 12 below shows the calculated annual fatalities as a percentage change in the background survival and mortality rates for the relevant population. It is the actual percentage changes (decreases in survival rates, or increases in mortality rates) that are relevant in assessing impact. The population sizes used are indicated in the table, with their derivation. For all of the species under consideration the natural survival rate is well above 50%. Where this is the case, the proportional change in mortality rate is higher than the proportional change in survival rate, so a comparison to mortality rates is the more conservative option. In this assessment it is assumed that there will be a negligible effect on any population where the mortality rate of the population is increased by less than 1% of its background value. From Table 12 it can be seen that this applies to all species and populations, although several show increases of greater than 0.25% at the more precautionary avoidance rates. 12 Trinder M et al (2005): Status and population viability analyses of geese in Scotland. SNH Commissioned Report No Maclean IMD, Frederikson M and Rehfisch MM (2007): Potential use of population viability analysis to assess the impact of offshore windfarms on bird populations. BTO Research Report No. 480 to COWRIE. BTO, Thetford. Firth Ecology, Dec

32 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 12. Comparison of calculated fatalities to background mortality and survival using a range of avoidance rates the % increases/decreases shown relate to the changes in actual numbers of deaths/survivors. Species Red-thr. Diver Great Skua Great Skua Arctic Skua Greylag Goose Relevant population Popn size (indivs)* Annual survival rate (adult unless stated) Annual mortality rate (100 survival rate) Expected no. background deaths p.a. SPA % 16.0% 18.9 SPA % 10.0% Orkney % 10.0% Orkney % 16.0% 57.6 Avoidance rate Calculated fatalities p.a. (from Table 11) Calculated % increase in mortality Calculated % decrease in survival 95% % 0.085% 98% % 0.034% 98% % 0.029% 99% % 0.015% 98% % 0.058% 99% % 0.029% 98% % 0.018% 99% % 0.009% Orkney % 23.0% % % 0.001% * Red-throated Diver: SPA numbers estimated as the 3-year mean of occupied sites on Hoy ( ), multiplied by 2. Great Skua: SPA numbers estimated as the SPA total in 2000 (of 1770 AOT) allowing for a decline of 35% and multiplied by 2. Great Skua: Orkney numbers estimated as the county total in 2000 (of 2209 AOT) allowing for a decline of 35% and multiplied by 2. Arctic Skua: estimated at 180 pairs (from 2008 Orkney Bird Report) and multiplied by 2. Greylag: the Orkney December count from the 2008 Icelandic-breeding goose census. Firth Ecology, Dec

33 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds 4.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIRDS Valuation of bird species Following the approach recommended by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) 15, species are not given a value simply because they have been placed on a national, regional or county red-list or priority list, since such lists do not necessarily reflect the ecological value of the species at the site being considered, or indeed at any level. For instance the Skylark is red-listed and is a UKBAP priority species, but Orkney populations are neither particularly threatened nor important in conservation terms. Similarly the Orkney LBAP has produced a long bird list of species that are considered to be of conservation concern in Orkney, but with no specific reasons given and no associated action plans. Some of these birds are of no particular ecological value and it would be incorrect to simply use this list to give values for environmental impact assessment. However, environmental receptors may be more objectively valued in terms of their numerical importance at a geographical scale. In line with the convention used for waterfowl, numbers of a species have been valued in this report as important in a particular geographical context if they exceed 1% of that geographic population. Such a context may vary from a local scale up to international; the scale used here is shown in Table 13 and goes down to the Orkney level. Other than the qualifying interests of designated sites, SNH are generally only concerned about populations that are important at the NHZ level or above 16. In addition, the populations of a designated site may be valued at the legislative importance of the designation in this case the Hoy SPA and SSSI are international (EU) and national level designations. Table 13. Scales of importance for valuation UK National Regional (NHZ) County UK Scotland SNH-defined North Caithness & Orkney Natural Heritage Zone Orkney The numerical context of each of the species considered within the impact assessment has been discussed briefly in the preceding sections. Table 14 summarises their valuation at the Ore Farm development site several occur in numbers of no particular importance, but they are included for impact assessment where there is recent evidence of a quantifiable effect based on a study at 12 large wind farms and control sites in the UK uplands Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006): Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006) Scottish Natural Heritage (2006): Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds outwith designated areas. SNH Guidance. Available online at: 17 Pearce-Higgins J W et al (2009): The distribution of breeding birds around upland windfarms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 9999, (Early view available online). Firth Ecology, Dec

34 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 14. Scale of value Valuation of bird species considered within the impact assessment for Ore Farm (each is listed at its highest value except where different populations are involved) Species SPA qualifying interest breeding species: SPA qualifying seabird assemblage species: SSSI notified feature breeding species: Regionally (NHZ) important numbers of Annex 1/Schedule 1 breeding species: Regionally (NHZ) important numbers of breeding species outside the SPA/SSSI: County importance rare breeding birds in Orkney: County importance numbers of colonial and uncommon breeding species: County importance numbers of non-breeding species in the vicinity of the turbine position: Open ground breeding birds within 500m of turbine position: Non-breeding species occurring in large numbers: Red-throated Diver, Peregrine, Great Skua Great Black-backed Gull Arctic Skua Hen Harrier, Merlin Great Skua Sparrowhawk, Buzzard Common Gull, Raven Grey Heron Lapwing, Snipe, Curlew, Skylark, Meadow Pipit, Stonechat Greylag Goose (Icelandic), Identification of potentially measurable impacts at Ore Farm The first step in this impact assessment is to identify where there might be the potential for a measurable impact on any of the above species. The potential impacts of windfarms on birds are considered to be habitat loss displacement (to breeding, roosting, foraging or flighting birds) due to avoidance of operational wind turbines, disturbance due to increased human access, disturbance during construction and decommissioning, and mortality due to collisions. Table 15 below considers each of these impacts against each of the valued species and indicates where a potentially measurable effect might occur, which therefore needs to be considered further. The following paragraphs explain the reasoning behind the scores given. Firth Ecology, Dec

35 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 15. Level of potential impacts on each valued bird initial identification of potentially measurable effects. [Blank implies no effect anticipated; x denotes negligible effect; X denotes possible measurable effect] Geographical scale of value Receptor Habitat loss Construction disturbance (breeding season) Construction disturbance (non-breeding season) Operational disturbance (increased visitors/access) Displacement (breeding birds) Displacement (foraging, roosting & flighting birds) SPA Red-throated Diver x X SPA Peregrine x X SPA Great Skua x X SPA Great Black-backed Gull x X SSSI Arctic Skua x X NHZ Hen Harrier X x x X X NHZ Merlin x X NHZ Great Skua (outside SPA) X X x X County Sparrowhawk x X County Buzzard x x X County Common Gull X x X x x County Grey Heron x x X County Raven x x X Local Greylag Goose (Icelandic) x x X X Local Lapwing x X x x X x Local Snipe x X X x Local Curlew x X x X x Local Skylark x X x X x Local Meadow Pipit x X x X x Local Stonechat x X x X Collision mortality Reasoning used in identifying potential measurable impacts Habitat loss is a nil impact for species merely overflying the development site, and negligible for all species that might utilise the turbine field, since the footprint of the development is so small, and is to be located on more or less improved or otherwise disturbed agricultural land. Disturbance during construction and decommissioning might extend out to several hundred metres for the larger, most sensitive species, although no specific figures are known. However, no impact would be anticipated for the Firth Ecology, Dec

36 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds species nesting at a kilometre or more away, which covers the SPA and SSSI breeders and all of the raptors, leaving the waders and other species nesting on the open ground within about m of the turbine position to be considered further. An effect is also considered possible on foraging Hen Harriers, which were relatively frequent close to the turbine position. For non-breeding birds in general, their populations would be little affected by the localised impact from the erection of a single turbine, unless they have very specific habitat requirements close by. This is partly because wintering and passage numbers can be rather variable from year to year due to weather conditions, availability of food supplies etc. Within winters too, feeding birds can be very mobile, and for birds dependent on improved agricultural land, there is an abundant resource available in Orkney, although it is more localised on Hoy. However, it would be expected that the likely small numbers of any displaced birds would simply be accommodated elsewhere within the area. The most frequent foraging raptors might be affected, but since they too are not tied to nest sites outside the breeding season, they should be able to avoid the area without any negative effect on numbers or survival. Operational disturbance due to increased human visitors and access is considered to be immaterial for all species given the turbine s proximity to existing sources of disturbance at the road and nearby agricultural buildings. The development site is unlikely to attract many visitors other than for site maintenance, and such visits would be relatively infrequent in comparison to farming operations. Human presence would remain close to the turbine position or switchgear building. Displacement of breeding birds from operational wind turbines has been the subject of various research efforts. There is the potential for any of the species closest to the turbine to be displaced, so the impacts on all of these are considered further. Displacement of foraging, roosting and flighting birds from operational wind turbines. For a single turbine set in an open agricultural landscape, no significant effect on flighting birds would be anticipated. This includes the SPA Red-throated Diver, Great Skua and Great Black-back and the SSSI Arctic Skua. The minor amendments to flight patterns that might result would not be expected to add significantly to the energy costs of flying to and from distant breeding areas to feed. The same applies to passage and wintering birds, so that the only potentially measurable impact might be on those that forage frequently close to the turbine position i.e. Hen Harrier and Greylag Goose. Collision mortality is considered to be an immaterial impact for the smaller passerine species with large populations and high reproductive rates (Skylark and Meadow Pipit). There would also be negligible effects on the populations of species that are widespread and common in both Orkney and the UK (Common Gull, Lapwing, Snipe, Curlew), and the reductions in breeding numbers close to turbines found by the recent large-scale study would Firth Ecology, Dec

37 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds encompass any effect due to collision mortality, so that collision risk is not an additional impact to consider for the waders over and above the quantified displacement impact. Therefore the species for which collision mortality is considered further are those linked to the SPA/SSSI or those that are uncommon or rare in Orkney. 4.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR BIRDS Ore Farm impact assessment Only the impacts identified as potentially non-negligible, and the species that might be affected by them, are treated at this stage (see Table 15 above). In line with the most recent IEEM guidelines, the final assessment of impacts classes them as either significant or insignificant on the affected population, at a given geographical scale. The lowest scales on which impacts are scored as significant in this section are site level, which means the immediate locality the development site out to just a few kilometres, and local which here means Hoy. The impacts are summarised in Table 16 and the reasons behind each of the impact assessments are explained in the following paragraphs Construction disturbance in the breeding season Although only short-term (one season), the disturbance due to construction might be expected to affect a relatively wide area around the site, perhaps to a kilometre or so for the most sensitive species if they were in view of the construction activity. An effect could be exerted by direct disturbance at the nest, or by a reduction in foraging success (and hence breeding success) if birds avoid favoured foraging areas close to the construction site. An impact due to disturbance at the nest is expected for those species that are found at much less than 500m from the site and in full view of the major construction activities. It is assumed here that each of the listed species would suffer a degree of breeding failure, the significance of which would vary according to the number of the affected pairs and their relative importance to the wider population. It is therefore only considered likely to be significant for Common Gull and Curlew, which have ten or more pairs within about 500m. The scale of the significance for these species is very localised, since it would be a one-off effect on birds that are numerous throughout the county. Each of the other breeding species is represented by only one or two pairs within 500m, or is more or less abundant in Orkney, so that disturbance affecting one season is not considered significant at any level. Firth Ecology, Dec

38 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 16. Summary of impact assessment on birds after impact avoidance and mitigation. [ Local refers to the Hoy scale; Site level refers to the immediate vicinity of the development, out to a few kilometres]. Impact Scale at which impact significant Construction/decom. disturbance (breeding season) Nature of impact: short term (1) to permanent (5) very local (1) to widespread (5) very unlikely (1) to certain (5) Species potentially impacted Hen Harrier (foraging) Great Skua (non-spa) Common Gull Lapwing Snipe Curlew Skylark Meadow Pipit Stonechat Assessment of impact Significant insignificant Significant insignificant insignificant Significant insignificant insignificant insignificant Local Site level Site level Displacement (nesting birds) Great Skua (non-spa) Common Gull Lapwing Snipe Curlew Skylark Meadow Pipit Stonechat insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant Significant insignificant insignificant insignificant Site level Displacement (foraging birds) Population effects due to collision fatalities Hen Harrier Greylag Goose (Icelandic) Red-throated Diver Peregrine Great Skua (SPA) Great Black-back (SPA) Arctic Skua (SSSI) Hen Harrier Merlin Great Skua (non-spa) Sparrowhawk Buzzard Common Gull Grey Heron Raven Greylag Goose (Icelandic) Lapwing Snipe Curlew insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant insignificant Firth Ecology, Dec

39 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds A reduction in foraging around the site due to disturbance from construction activities could potentially affect the Hen Harriers that breed in the vicinity, and which were regularly observed hunting in the survey area. It is known that Hen Harrier breeding success in Orkney is related to food supply in the early breeding season 18, so pressure on regularly used foraging areas could affect the outcome of breeding attempts in the wider area. This is particularly so because each foraging male may be supporting more than one female. As a one-off impact this is rated as significant at a local (Hoy) scale, where there were 11 occupied sites in 2008, compared to 62 in total for Orkney. The key time for harriers is the pre-laying period from March to May, by which time egg-laying should be complete. The main construction works could be planned to take place after the end of May to avoid this impact Displacement from operational wind turbines breeding birds There is considerable uncertainty in the prediction of bird displacement due simply to the presence of operational wind turbines. It has been generally found that large bird species are not affected if a turbine is more than 300m from a nest site 19. Various studies on upland wind farms in the UK have indicated that breeding waders, Red Grouse and Skylarks are not displaced from the vicinity of wind turbines at all, at least not in the early years 20. However, at one site in Germany, reductions in numbers were measured within 200m of turbines for Black-tailed Godwit and Redshank, and a more recent analysis of the distribution of breeding birds and foraging raptors around 12 large upland wind farms and nearby control areas in the UK has quantified statistically significant effects on a number of species 21. Table 17 gives the results from this study in terms of the maximum distance at which an effect was detected and the percentage reduction in numbers within 500m of wind turbines. The application of these results at Ore Farm is also shown. Based on this table, the only significant effect, and that at only a local scale is the likely displacement of 4 to 5 pairs of Curlew. 18 Amar A (2001): Determining the cause of the Hen Harrier decline on Orkney. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen. 19 Percival SM (2003): Birds and wind farms in Ireland: a review of potential issues and impact assessment. Available online at: 20 Langston R H W & Pullan J D (2003): Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Secretariat memorandum for the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 23 rd meeting in Strasbourg 1-4 December Directorate of Culture and of Cultural and Natural Heritage, Council of Europe. 21 Pearce-Higgins J W et al (2009): The distribution of breeding birds around upland windfarms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 9999, (Early view available online). Firth Ecology, Dec

40 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds Table 17. Likely reductions around turbine position at Ore Farm (n/s = not statistically significant). Species Results from 12 UK windfarms Maximum red- Overall distance uction affected within 500m Minimum distance from turbines No. pairs within c.500m Ore Farm Expected loss (pairs) Lapwing 200m 38.9% 100m Comment Snipe 400m 47.5% c.500m 2 0 Both at c.500m Curlew 800m 42.4% 100m Skylark n/s n/s 100m 6 0 1? Meadow Pipit 100m 14.7% <100m Stonechat none none c.400m 1 0 No. pairs & expected loss likely to be understated due to detectability Displacement from operational wind turbines foraging birds For non-breeding birds feeding on open agricultural land, displacement may occur at a wider distance around the turbine than for nesting birds. Such effects have been noted out to 600m for White-fronted Geese (one study in Germany) and from 200m to 500m for various wildfowl and waders in the Netherlands and Denmark 19, 22. The highest number Greylag Geese recorded feeding within the visible area from the upper VP at Ore Farm was 399 on 5 th December The geese were never seen within the turbine field, but concentrated on the fields to the east of the road at 250m or more from the turbine, or in fields to the south at a kilometre or more. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated on feeding Greylags at Ore Farm. Based on considerable field experience of wind farms and Hen Harriers, Natural Research Ltd consider that foraging harriers are unlikely to be deterred beyond about 100m from a turbine 23, although the above-mentioned study at 12 upland wind farms and controls in the UK found a reduction in both Hen Harrier and Buzzard foraging close to the turbines, out to at least 250m and amounting to a reduction in time spent of 40 to 50% within 500m. However, for Hen Harrier this outcome may have been affected by the fact that the wind farms were likely to have been located at precautionary 22 Larsen J K and Madsen J (2000): Effects of wind turbines and other physical elements on field utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A landscape perspective. Landscape Ecology 15, Whitfield D P & Madders M (2006): A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers Circus cyaneus and an estimation of collision avoidance rates. Natural Research Information Note 1 (revised). Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK. Firth Ecology, Dec

41 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds distances from harrier nest sites, so the % reduction is perhaps less reliable than for the other species in the study. At Ore Farm there were a number of foraging harrier flight paths at about 100m from the turbine position, particularly along the course of the burn and the adjacent rough grassland and bushes there, and in the context of the overall harrier flight activity (see Map 10, Appendix 3) there was a slight concentration at about 200m from the turbine along the fence lines at the west edge of the field. However, the overall effect of partial avoidance of this small area is considered to be insignificant for the local harrier population Collision mortality The collision risks calculated above (see Table 11) indicate that none of the target raptor species would be under any material threat, with collisions calculated at much less than once over a typical twenty-year project lifetime. Collision risk workings have not been undertaken for Sparrowhawk or Buzzard, but a simple comparison may be made by looking at the number of flights recorded at risk there were between three and six each for Hen Harrier, Peregrine and Merlin, compared to four for Sparrowhawk and eight for Buzzard. It would seem likely that the collision rates for these species would be in the same general region as those for the target raptors i.e. with a collision rate of much less than one every 20 years. The Buzzard might well be more prone to collision due to its habit of hanging on the wind or making prolonged circling flights, but this was not observed frequently at Ore Farm. Therefore, even for the much smaller Orkney populations of these two raptors, no significant mortality impact is anticipated. The effect of the calculated collision rates for the SPA and SSSI species, even at precautionary avoidance rates, would be to raise background mortality rates by less than 0.5%. Such small percentage increases are considered to be immaterial for their designated populations. The highest collision risk among the valued non-target species might be borne by the Great Black-backed Gull and Raven. Both were much more frequently observed at risk than the raptors, but considerably less so than the Great Skuas. Collision rates at rather less than one per annum might be likely, which would not be considered significant on either species. There were just three Heron flights seen at risk, so the calculated collision rate would be similar in magnitude to those for the raptors i.e. less than one every 20 years, and again not significant. Firth Ecology, Dec

42 The Hoy Community Wind Turbine Otter & Birds 4.4 OVERALL AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Overall impacts at Ore Farm The potentially significant impacts are summarised in Table 16 and considered in more detail in sections to above. There are no significant impacts on any bird species beyond the local area. Most birds would be affected by more than one potential impact, but even the sum of the impacts on each (individually assessed as insignificant or significant locally) would not be expected to give rise to a wider significant impact on any species. In general terms, if construction were to take place in the breeding season there would be a one-season-only disturbance impact on some nesting species, none of which are listed in Schedule 1. There could also be a reduction in harrier foraging, with possible effects on local breeding success in that year. Longer-term, throughout the lifetime of the development, there would be some reductions in certain breeding species close to the turbine and probably a slight reduction in raptor foraging there. Collision risk could be measurable for Greylag Goose and Great Skua, but the very large local populations of both these species means that the additional mortality would be of no significance. These low predicted impacts on birds are due to the fact that the proposal is small and the single turbine is situated well away from the SPA boundary and any Schedule 1 breeding species. The fact that there have been so many aspects to consider is a reflection of the potential flighting and foraging patterns of the SPA species and raptors in the wider area, and the general Orkney context with its high densities of breeding waders and wintering geese Consideration of cumulative impacts There are no other wind farm developments currently in the planning system on Hoy, so there will be no cumulative impacts on the Hoy SPA and SSSI (although collision risk to Great Skuas occurs at several Mainland developments, which would almost certainly include foraging birds from the Hoy colonies). The main species affected are those of the wider countryside, which are likely to be present at most of the existing, approved and proposed wind development sites throughout the county. Because of its small scale, the proposed Ore Farm development contributes in only a minor way to potential cumulative effects. The localised displacement of breeding Curlews could occur at most, or all, of the other sites but since this is a common and widespread species in Orkney, it is not anticipated that current levels of cumulative wind farm impacts would significantly affect its county population. Firth Ecology, Dec

43 APPENDIX 1 TABLES Page A. Main VP summary, April 2008 to March B. Diver VP summary, April to August C. Red-throated Divers from main VPs 5 D. Red-throated Diver watch summary 7 E. All Peregrine flights 9 F. Great Skuas within 750m zone 10 G. Great Skua watch summary 12 H. Arctic Skuas within 750m zone 14 I. All Hen Harrier flights 15 J. All Merlin flights 17 K. Icelandic Greylag flights - summary 18

44 TABLE A. Main VP summary, April 2008 to March 2009 APPENDIX 1 [Key at end] Cloud Date Times Total VP Main Other cover Number of target species detected across whole survey area hrs wind wind & rain RH PE NX AC WS HH ML GP DN WM AT PG GJ 14-Apr-08 15:30-17: lower NW3/4 1/8; dry Apr-08 18:25-20: upper Var0/1 NW3 2/8; dry Apr-08 09:15-11: upper E4 5/8; dry 4 16-Apr-08 06:15-08: upper S2 S3 1/8; dry Apr-08 05:20-07: lower WNW5 5/8; os Apr-08 10:30-12: upper W5/6 4/8; dry Apr-08 16:45-18: upper Var0/2 SE2/3 4/8; dry Apr-08 08:20-10: lower SE3/4 8/8; dry May-08 11:40-13: lower SSE3 SE3 3/8: dry May-08 14:15-16: lower SE3 2/8; dry May-08 17:35-19: upper SE3/4 1/8; dry May-08 20:05-22: upper E3 2/8; dry May-08 03:50-06: upper SE3 SE4 4/8; dry May-08 06:55-09: lower SE4/5 7/8; os May-08 09:55-12: lower SE4/5 7/8; dry Jun-08 14:35-17: lower S2/3 SW1/2 7/8; lr Jun-08 17:35-20: lower NE1/2 SW1/2 6/8; lr Jun-08 20:35-23: upper NE2/3 NE1/2 7/8; lr Jun-08 02:35-04: upper WNW6 6/8; os Jun-08 05:15-07: upper WNW6 5/8; os Jun-08 07:50-10: lower WNW6 WNW6/7 4/8; dry Jun-08 10:40-12: lower WNW6/7 4/8; os (Continued) 1

45 TABLE A. Main VP summary, April 2008 to March 2009 APPENDIX 1 Cloud Date Times Total VP Main Other cover Number of target species detected across whole survey area hrs wind wind & rain RH PE NX AC WS HH ML GP DN WM AT PG GJ 07-Jul-08 03:00-05: upper N5/6 8/8; lr Jul-08 11:50-14: lower E3 SE3 7/8; dry Jul-08 20:30-21: lower NE3 8/8; lr Jul-08 05:00-07: lower N2/3 8/8; dry Jul-08 18:15-20: lower E3 E2/3 5/8; dry Jul-08 20:45-23: lower E2/3 E2 7/8; dry Jul-08 09:05-12: lower NNE3 NNE2/3 8/8; dry Jul-08 09:50-12: lower W6 W5 6/8; lr Jul-08 03:30-06: upper W2/3 3/8; dry Aug-08 08:40-11: lower SE4 8/8; dry Aug-08 14:30-16: lower NE3 8/8; dry Aug-08 17:00-19: upper NE3 6/8; dry Aug-08 19:30-21: upper NE3 5/8; dry Aug-08 05:00-08: upper NE3 7/8; dry Aug-08 10:30-13: lower NE2 8/8; dry Sep-08 14:20-16: lower SE5 8/8; dry Sep-08 08:40-11: upper SE4 SE4/5 6/8; dry Sep-08 12:46-15: upper NW3/4 NW3 6/8; os Oct-08 09:40-12: upper W4/5 4/8; os Oct-08 15:50-18: upper SW5/6 7/8; os 21-Oct-08 13:54-16: lower W6 7/8; fs Nov-08 09:18-12: upper SW 4 8/8; dry Nov-08 12:55-15: upper NW 4 NW 3 7/8; os (Continued) 2

46 TABLE A. Main VP summary, April 2008 to March 2009 APPENDIX 1 Cloud Date Times Total VP Main Other cover Number of target species detected across whole survey area hrs wind wind & rain RH PE NX AC WS HH ML GP DN WM AT PG GJ 05-Dec-08 13:45-16: upper NE 4/5 NE 3/4 5/8; os Dec-08 11:55-13: upper SW 6 8/8; os Dec-08 09:15-11: upper S 4/5 4/8; dry Jan-09 14:00-16: upper SW 4/5 0/8; dry Jan-09 09:05-11: upper SW 4/5 SW 3/4 4/8; dry 1 28-Jan-09 11:45-13: upper SW 4 SW 4/5 3/8; dry Feb-09 12:00-14: upper SE 0-1 3/8; dry Feb-09 09:35-11: upper W 3 W 4 5/8; dry Feb-09 14:15-16: upper WNW 5 WNW 4/5 3/8; dry Mar-09 15:55-18: upper WSW 1/2 5/8; os 06-Mar-09 09:50-11: lower SW 3 3/8; dry 1 24-Mar-09 15:00-18: lower SW 4/5 SW 3 8/8; fs 3 25-Mar-09 08:40-10: lower NW 3 6/8; dry TOTALS RH Red-throated Diver AT Arctic Tern os occasional short and/or light showers PE Peregrine DN Dunlin fs frequent showers NX Great Skua WS Whooper Swan lr more extended light rain (but not for whole watch) AC Arctic Skua 08:24-10:44 watch broken up (e.g. by rain, low cloud, or catching up with recording) 3

47 TABLE B. Diver VP summary, April to August 2008 APPENDIX 1 Date Times Total hours Wee Fea VP Main wind Other wind Cloud cover & precipitation No. of Redthroated Divers Diver flights per hour 22-Jul-08 15:30-18: summit SW3 SW2/3 6/8; os Jul-08 10:20-11: E end SW3 SSE3 3/8; dry 0-23-Jul-08 11:55-13: mid SSE3 3/8; dry Aug-08 17:05-19: mid SE4 7/8; dry Aug-08 19:40-21: mid SE4 SE3/4 8/8; dry Aug-08 09:15-12: mid NE3 E3 7/8; dry Aug-08 08:35-10: mid NE3 7/8; lr TOTALS os fs lr occasional short and/or light showers frequent showers more extended light rain (but never for whole watch) 4

48 TABLE C. Red-throated Divers from main VPs APPENDIX 1 TABLE OF ALL DIVERS DETECTED WITHIN SURVEY AREA (From Wee Fea, south to beyond Binga Fea) - Cross-referenced to Maps 1 to 4 Risk zone used is a 500m radius around the turbine position. Flight no. Flight calls heard only-direction uncertain Counted as at risk by extrapolation backwards Outside of timed watches & not included in totals Date Time Session Wind direction No. birds IN OUT Indeterminate Over risk zone Height in risk zone At risk IN 1 29-Apr-08 07:13 SR+2 WNW5 1 1 Y " 18:17 SS-4 SE2/3 1 1 Y >100 A " 18:59 SS May-08 18:32 SS-4 SE3/4 1 1 N - 22-May-08 05:07 SR+2 SE3/4 1 1 N 4 " 05:10 SR+2 SE3/4 1 1 N 5 18-Jun-08 14:38 SS-8 SE2/3 2 2 Y c " 14:53 SS-8 SE2/3 1 1 N 7 " 15:19 SS-8 S2/3 1 1 Y " 19:27 SS-4 NE2 1 1 N 9 " 20:46 SS-2 NE2/3 1 1 Y c " 20:48 SS-2 NE2/3 1 1 N 11 " 21:00 SS-2 NE2/3 2 2 N 12 " 21:28 SS-2 NE2/3 1 1 N 13 " 21:33 SS-2 NE2/3 1 1 Y " 21:49 SS-2 NE2/3 1 1 Y c " 22:12 SS-2 N1/2 1 1 N Jun-08 02:57 pre SR WNW6 1 1 Y c " 05:47 SR+2 WNW6 1 1 Y " 07:07 SR+4 WNW6 1 1 N 19 7-Jul-08 04:02 pre SR N5/6 1 1 N 20 " 04:10 pre SR N5/6 1 1 N 21 " 13:07 mid E3 1 1 Y?c " 14:34 SS-8 SE3 1 1 N 23 " 20:49 SS-2 NE3 1 1 N 24 " 20:53 SS-2 NE3 1 1 Y Jul-08 05:08 SR+2 NE2/3 1 1 Y c " 05:40 SR+2 NE2/3 2 2 Y " 06:15 SR+4 NE2/3 1 1 Y " 06:58 SR+4 NE2/3 2 2 N 29 " 18:51 SS-4 E3 1 1 Y " 19:45 SS-4 E3 1 1 N 31 " 20:58 SS-2 E2/3 1 1 Y c " 21:45 SS-2 E2/3 1 1 N 33 " 22:00 SS-2 E2 1 1 Y Jul-08 11:09 SR+8 NNE2/3 1 1 N Jul-08 10:49 SR+8 W5 1 1 N 36 " 11:04 SR+8 W5 1 1 N Jul-08 03:47 pre SR W2/3 1 1 N 38 " 03:52 pre SR W2/3 2 2 Y?c " 04:22 pre SR W2/3 1 1 N Jul-08 04:45 SR+2 W2/3 1 1 N 41 " 05:03 SR+2 W2/3 1 1 N 42 " 05:03 SR+2 W2/3 2 2 N 43 " 05:29 SR+2 W2/3 1 1 N At risk OUT 5

49 TABLE C. Red-throated Divers from main VPs APPENDIX 1 Flight calls heard only-direction uncertain Counted as at risk by extrapolation backwards Flight no. Date Time Session Wind direction No. birds IN OUT Indeterminate At risk IN At risk OUT - 18-Aug-08 10:09 SR+6 SE4 1 1 N 44 " 10:20 SR+6 SE4 1 1 N Aug-08 17:13 SS-4 NE3 1 1 Y " 17:30 SS-4 NE3 1 1 N 47 " 20:40 SS-2 NE3 2 2 N 48 " 21:02 post SS NE3 2 2 Y c Aug-08 06:32 SR+2 NE3 1 1 N 50 " 06:42 SR+2 NE3 1 1 N 51 " 06:49 SR+2 NE3 1 1 N 52 " 06:55 SR+2 NE3 2 2 N 53 " 07:19 SR+2 NE3 1 1 Y c Aug-08 10:38 SR+6 NE2 1 1 N 55 " 12:35 SR+8 NE2 2 2 N TOTALS FROM TIMED WATCHES

50 TABLE D. Red-throated Diver watch summary APPENDIX 1 ORE FARM 2008 Hours watched Date pre-sr SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 Mid SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS total Monthly figures hrs birds bph 14-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug ORE FARM 2008 Number of birds Date pre-sr SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 Mid SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS total Monthly figures birds hrs bph 14-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug total hrs bph

51 TABLE D. Red-throated Diver watch summary APPENDIX 1 ORE FARM 2008 Number at risk Date pre-sr SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 Mid SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS total Monthly figures no. AR hrs AR ph 14-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug total hrs At-risk p hr

52 TABLE E. All Peregrine flights APPENDIX 1 TABLE OF ALL PEREGRINES DETECTED WITHIN SURVEY AREA Cross-referenced to Map 9 Risk zone used is a 500m radius around the turbine position. Counted as at risk by extrapolation backwards Outside of timed watches & not included in totals Flight no. Date VP Time Length of flight time (mins) Wind Age of bird Height at detection (m) Flying within risk zone? Height Distance at within risk zone risk (m) Notes 1 16-Apr-08 upper 07:29 c.1 S2 imm. on post N - - perched 13 mins, then across level & shallow dive out of sight A 18-Jun-08 n/a 14:20 <1 SE2/3 ad. on rock N - - flying away as I drove past 2 20-Jun-09 lower 10:01 c.1 SE3/4 ad. <10 Y ? 650 angling down when first detected, so assumed at risk; estimated distance at risk extrapolated straight backwards across zone & rounded up to next 50m 3 19-Aug-08 upper 18:25 <1 NE3 [juv.] [low] N - - soon lost against hillside 4 30-Sep-08 upper 13:21 c.7 NW3/4 ad Y 20 > " upper 15:11 <1 NW3/4 juv. c.50 N Dec-08 upper 13:37 c.1 SW6 ad. c.20 N - - gradually rising so that circling within risk zone at upper end of m band & soon above it; no more than 90 seconds at risk height within zone, in fairly slow gliding flight (estimated at 15 m/sec) low past VP without noticing me until after it alighted on post; skimmed away rising off slope before down & away out of sight - 5-Jan-09 upper 14:20 - SW4/5 - - N Feb-09 upper 14:12 c.3 SE0-1? N Feb-09 upper 09:52 c.1 W3/4? Y a small flock of gulls and Curlews at the mouth of the burn suddenly up in alarm - presumed Peregrine about, but not seen steady flapping climb, then shallow stoop to SW rising when detected, so not long at risk height prior; total at risk estimated & rounded up to next 50m TOTAL DISTANCE OBSERVED AT RISK 2500 m 9

53 TABLE F. Great Skuas within 750m zone APPENDIX 1 Categorised into SPA and non-spa birds, IN and OUT from breeding areas. This table summarises only those birds flying across a 375m radius around the turbine position. Birds at risk (AR) were those at m above ground. Date (2008) Session Wind direction SPA out SPA in all SPA Other out Other in all Other Overall total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR 29-Apr SR+2 WNW SR+6 W5/ SR+8 W5/ SS-6 W5/ SS-4 SE2/ Apr SR+4 SE3/ SR+6 SE3/ May SR+8 SSE mid SE SS-8 SE SS-6 SE SS-4 SE SS-2 SE post SS E May SR+2 SE SR+4 SE4/ SR+6 SE4/ SR+8 SE4/ Jun SS-8 S2/ SS-6 SW1/ SS-4 NE SS-2 NE2/ post SS N1/ Jun pre SR WNW SR+2 WNW SR+4 WNW SR+6 WNW SR+8 WNW mid WNW Jul SR+2 N5/ SR+8 E mid E SS-8 SE SS-2 NE Jul SR+2 NE2/ SR+4 NE2/ SS-4 E2/ SS-2 E2/ post SS E Jul SR+6 NNE SR+8 NNE2/ Jul SR+6 W SR+8 W Jul pre SR W2/ SR+2 W2/ Aug SR+4 SE SR+6 SE Aug SS-8 NE SS-6 NE SS-4 NE SS-2 NE post SS NE

54 TABLE F. Great Skuas within 750m zone APPENDIX 1 Categorised into SPA and non-spa birds, IN and OUT from breeding areas. This table summarises only those birds flying across a 375m radius around the turbine position. Birds at risk (AR) were those at m above ground. Date (2008) Session Wind direction SPA out SPA in all SPA Other out Other in all Other Overall total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR 20-Aug pre SR NE SR+2 NE SR+4 NE Aug SR+6 NE SR+8 NE SS-8 NE Sep SS-6 SE SS-4 SE Sep SR+2 SE Sep SS-6 NW SS-4 NW TOTALS

55 TABLE G. Great Skua watch summary APPENDIX 1 ORE FARM 2008 Hours watched Date pre-sr SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 Mid SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS total Monthly figures hrs birds bph 14-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep ORE FARM 2008 Number of birds Date pre-sr SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 Mid SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS total Monthly figures birds hrs bph 14-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep total hrs bph

56 TABLE G. Great Skua watch summary APPENDIX 1 ORE FARM 2008 Total numbers at risk Date pre-sr SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 Mid SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS total Monthly figures no. AR hrs bph 14-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep total hrs At-risk p hr ORE FARM 2008 SPA numbers at risk Date pre-sr SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 Mid SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post SS total Monthly figures no. AR hrs bph 14-Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep total hrs At-risk p hr

57 TABLE H. Arctic Skuas within 750m zone APPENDIX 1 Categorised into SSSI and non-sssi birds, IN and OUT from breeding areas. This table summarises only those birds flying across a 375m radius around the turbine position. Birds at risk (AR) were those at m above ground. Date (2008) Wind direction SSSI out SSSI in all SSSI Other out Other in all Other Overall total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR total AR 29-Apr WNW " W5/ Apr SE3/ May SE3/ May SE4/ " SE4/ Jun S2/ " NE Jun WNW Jul E " NE Jul NE2/ " E2/ Jul NNE Jul W Jul W2/ Aug SE Aug NE TOTALS

58 TABLE I. All Hen Harrier flights APPENDIX 1 TABLE OF ALL HEN HARRIERS DETECTED WITHIN SURVEY AREA Cross-referenced to Maps 11 to 15 Risk zone used is a 500m radius around the turbine position. Flight no. Counted as at risk by extrapolation backwards Outside of timed watches & not included in totals Date VP Time Length of flight time (mins) Wind Age/ sex of bird Height at detection (m) Flying within risk zone? Height Distance at within risk zone risk (m) 1 14-Apr-08 lower 15:51 <1 NW3/4 m <20 Y <20 - stayed low & soon out of sight 2 " lower 15:58 c.1 NW3/4 f <10 Y <10 - stayed low 3 " lower 16:40 c.3 NW3/4 f N - - circle up & glide down 4 " lower 17:18 c.16 NW3/4 m <10 Y Notes drifting slowly at 20-50m when at risk within zone; straight element measured & rounded up to 350m, circling elements measured, multiplied by 3.14 & rounded up to 800m 5 " upper 20:26 c.1 Var0-1 m <5 N - - low foraging 6 15-Apr-08 upper 09:26 c.2 E4 f <20 N - - mostly stayed <20m 7 " upper 10:05 c.2 E4 f <5 N - - low foraging 8 " upper 10:48 <1 E4 f N " upper 11:31 c.5 E4 f c.50 N - - very briefly seen hanging on wind above Binga Fea shallow glide out from slope them low away Apr-08 lower 06:50 c.2 WNW5 f <5 Y <5 - low foraging 11 " lower 07:03 <1 WNW5 f <1 N - - low, mobbed by Common Gulls 12 " upper 10:45 c.5 W5/6 f Y 20 > rising, so over 100m in zone, then glide down; at risk element measured & rounded up 13 " upper 10:55 c.5 W5/6 [fym] <5 N - - low foraging 14 " upper 12:10 c.4 W5/6 f >100 N - - soaring then down to alight 15 " upper 12:14 c.2 W5/6 m <20 N - - stayed low 16 " upper 17:47 c.6 Var0-2 m N - - carrying prey; mobbed by gull 17 " upper 18:08 c.3 SE2/3 f >100 N - - shallow glide across May-08 lower 15:49 c.1 SE3 m <5 Y <5 - low foraging A " lower n/a - SE3 m N - - circling up over Wee Fea May-08 lower 09:11 <1 SE4/5 m <10 N " lower 10:39 c.6 SE4/8 m <5 Y <5 - low foraging Jun-08 lower 16:32 c.2 SW2/3 m <5 N - - low foraging 22 " lower 19:30 c.3 NE2 m c.50 Y c flapping flight - extrapolated back & rounded up 23 " upper 21:22 c.2 NE2 m N - - shallow glide down to forage Jun-08 lower 08:57 c.3 WNW6 m <5 Y <20 - low foraging 25 " lower 09:32 c.3 WNW6 m <5 N - - low foraging 26 " lower 09:59 c.6 WNW6 m <5 Y <5 - low foraging 27 " lower 11:10 <1 WNW6 m <10 N " lower 11:16 c.3 WNW6 m c.10 Y <10 - low foraging 29 " lower 11:27 c.9 WNW6 m <5 Y <10 - low foraging 30 " lower 12:35 <1 WNW6 m <5 N - - B 21-Jun-08 upper 12:17 - SE1/2 m N - - up to where circling C " upper 13:15 - SE1/2 m <20 N - - caught prey & ate it himself 31 7-Jul-08 lower 13:57 c.3 SE3 m Y straight flight rounded up 32 9-Jul-08 lower 10:09 c.1 NNE3 m c.20 Y c straight flight rounded up Jul-08 lower 12:40 c.2 W5/6 f <5 Y <5 - low foraging (Continued) 15

59 TABLE I. All Hen Harrier flights APPENDIX 1 Cross-referenced to Maps 12 to 16 Flight no. Date VP Time Length of flight time (mins) Wind Age/ sex of bird Height at detection (m) Flying within risk zone? Height Distance at within risk zone risk (m) 34 9-Sep-08 lower 16:09 c.11 SE5 rt <5 Y <20 - low foraging 35 " lower 16:27 c.2 SE5 [juv m] <5 Y <20 - mobbing crow then away 36 " lower 16:46 c.1 SE5 rt <5 Y <20 - unsuccessfully chasing pipit Sep-08 upper 14:03 c.8 NW3/4 rt <5 Y <10 - stayed <20m 38 8-Oct-08 upper 10:30 c.5 W4/5 rt <5 Y <20 - stayed <20m, mostly foraging 39 " upper 10:37 c.3 W4/5 rt <5 Y <5 - low foraging 40 " upper 11:55 c.5 W4/5 rt <10 Y <20 - mostly low foraging Oct-08 lower 14:08 c.2 W6 rt <5 Y <10 - low foraging 42 " lower 14:26 <1 W6 [fym] <10 Y <10 - low foraging Nov-08 upper 09:36 c.8 SW4 fym <10 Y <20 - Notes interacting with crow, 2 Buzzards and young Herring Gull, but staying <20m Nov-08 upper 14:15 c.20 NW4 rt <10 Y <10 - inteacting with crow at first, then foraging extensively 45 " upper 15:49 c.1 NW4 [fym] Y <20 - chasing with crow 46 5-Dec-08 upper 14:37 c.2 NE4 rt <10 Y <20 - lost in shower; probably down to shelter in Bracken Dec-08 upper 12:25 c.4 SW6 rt <10 N - - low foraging Dec-08 upper 09:37 c.3 S4/5 rt c.20 N across burn then lower 49 " upper 09:39 c.5 S4/5 f N - - hanging on wind at first then lower 50 " upper 09:58 c.1 S4/5 rt N - - down away from slope 51 " upper 10:51 c.12 S4/5 f <5 Y <20 - struck at Red Grouse near start & must have injured it because 2 Ravens immediately came down to chase it (probably unsuccessfully). Harrier always <20m, mostly <10m Jan-09 upper 13:03 <1 SW4 m <5 N - - very soon down into rushes 53 9-Feb-09 upper 13:04 c.3 SE0-1 rt <5 N - - low foraging 54 " upper 13:36 c.2 SE0-1 f on post Y <10 - stayed <10m away - " upper 13:36 - SE0-1 rt on post Y - - found close to no. 54 on the fence - not seen departing 55 " upper 13:55 c.2 SE0-1 f <5 N - - low foraging 56 " upper 14:15 c.3 SE0-1 f <5 N - - low foraging Feb-09 upper 09:52 <1 W3/4 m <5 Y <5 - glimpsed below Peregrine; low foraging 58 " upper 11:11 <1 W4 f <5 N - - low foraging Mar-09 lower 15:00 c.4 S4/5 f <5 N - - low foraging 60 " lower 17:09 c.1 SW3 m <10 Y <10 - low foraging 61 " lower 18:09 c.7 SW3 m c.20 Y c Mar-09 lower 08:59 c.6 NW3 fym ground Y <5-63 " lower 09:45 c.5 NW3 f <10 Y <10 - mostly low 64 " lower 09:58 <1 NW3 [f] <10 N - - stayed <20m TOTAL DISTANCE OBSERVED AT RISK 3700 m level flight across zone; extrapolated back and straight section rounded up to 550m. Circle section measured & rounded up to 300m flew up at last second as a Buzzard pounced down hard; away low 16

60 TABLE J. All Merlin flights APPENDIX 1 TABLE OF ALL MERLINS DETECTED WITHIN SURVEY AREA Cross-referenced to Map 16 Risk zone used is a 500m radius around the turbine position. Flight no. Counted as at risk by extrapolation backwards Date VP Time Length of flight time (mins) Wind Age/ sex of bird Height at detection (m) Flying within risk zone? Height Distance at within risk zone risk (m) - 30-Apr-08 lower 08:25 c.5 SE3/4? - N " lower 08:42 c.1 SE3/4 m c.20 N - - Notes mobbing a group of Hooded Crows well outside risk zone - interacting with a Great Skua - " lower 09:08 <1 SE3/4? N - - up against a Bonxie again - 20-May-08 lower 12:39 - SE3? N - - small raptor, presumably Merlin soaring high and distant in shimmer to SW - " lower 12:51 <1 SE3? N - - briefly mobbing a Raven 1 " lower 13:34 <1 SE3? c.20 N - - probable Merlin, very briefly up over skyline - 22-May-08 upper 05:49 <1 SE4? - N - - briefly mobbing a Bonxie - " upper 05:57 c.2 SE4 m N - - mobbing 3 or 4 Bonxies - " upper 06:19 <1 SE4 m - N - - briefly mobbing a Bonxie - 18-Jun-08 upper 21:18 <1 NE2/3? <20 N Jul-08 lower 10:14 c.3 NNE3? Y Sep-08 upper 09:02 c.1 SE4 f/juv Y briefly mobbing a Bonxie, the alighting - not seen departing level across zone; measured & rounded up to 900m measured and rounded up to 400m 4 30-Sep-08 upper 15:26 <1 NW3/4? <5 N - - saw me at VP & low away 5 6-Mar-09 lower 11:50 c.3 SW3 m Y level in at lower end, then rising to by far end of risk zone, then low over hill; extrapolated back straight & rounded up TOTAL DISTANCE OBSERVED AT RISK 2300 m 17

61 TABLE K. Icelandic Greylag flights - summary APPENDIX 1 Birds at risk were those at m above ground. Date (2008) Wind direction Flights within risk zone At risk Not at risk Flights beyond risk zone Total ALL flights 8-Oct W4/ Oct W Nov SW Nov NW Dec N Jan SW4/ Jan SW3/ Jan SW Feb-09 SE Feb W3/ Feb WNW Feb NNE Mar NW TOTALS

62 APPENDIX 2 COLLISION RISK WORKINGS Page A. Red-throated Diver 1 B. Peregrine 4 C. Great Skua 6 D. Arctic Skua 9 E. Hen Harrier 12 F. Merlin 14 G. Greylag Goose (Icelandic) 16

63 TABLE A. Red-throated Diver Collision risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 1 - EXTRAPOLATION OF NUMBERS AT RISK TO WHOLE SEASON AVAILABLE HOURS BY 2-HOURLY PERIOD AVAILABLE HOURS BY COMBINED PERIODS Total pre SR Total SR+2 Total SR+4 Total SR+6 Total SR+8 Total mid Total SS-8 Total SS-6 Total SS-4 Total SS-2 Total post SS pre SR SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post April April May May June July July Aug Aug totals: totals: Overall totals: Overall totals: (4.42 mid hours in August taken into SR+8) HOURS WATCHED BY COMBINED PERIODS BIRDS SEEN AT RISK BY COMBINED PERIODS EXTRAPOLATED BIRDS AT RISK pre SR SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post pre SR SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 SS-8 April May June July August SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post pre SR SR+2 SR+4 SR+6 SR+8 SS-8 SS-6 SS-4 SS-2 post Totals totals: Overall totals:

64 TABLE A (ctd) Red-throated Diver Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 2. Calculation of collision risk for a Red-throated Diver passing through the rotor area Only enter input parameters in blue K: [1D or [3D] (0 or 1) 1 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius NoBlades 3 Upwind: Downwind: MaxChord 2.44 m r/r c/c α collide contribution collide contribution check area Pitch (degrees) 30 radius chord alpha length p(collision) from radius r length p(collision) from radius r total BirdLength 0.61 m Wingspan 1.11 m F: Flapping (0) or gliding (+1) Bird speed 17 m/sec RotorDiam 44 m RotationPeriod 2.60 sec Bird aspect ratio: b W Band Overall p(collision) = Upwind 15.7% Downwind 8.0% 1.00 Average 11.8% 2

65 TABLE A (ctd) Red-throated Diver Collision RIsk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 3. Collision risk calculations on an area basis Without avoidance: a expected number of passes through 500m radius (from stage 1) b expected number of passes accounting for an observer efficiency of: 90% (a / 90%) 836 c area of risk window: 1000m width x 80m height (m 2 ) d rotor swept area: 22 x 22 x (m 2 ) 1521 e rotor swept area as % of risk window (d/e x 100) 1.90% f number of flights through rotor swept area (b x e) 15.9 g h number of flights when rotor blades are turning, assuming that the turbine is operational for 90% of the time: (f x 90%) 14.3 number of birds expected to collide, using the average probability of collision from stage 2 of: 11.8% (g x 11.8%) 1.69 Application of avoidance rates: Number of fatalities expected per year, and the average number of years expected between fatalities (the fatality interval) using a range of avoidance rates: Possible avoidance rates 95.0% 98.0% 98.5% 99.0% Fatality rate (100% - avoidance rate) 5.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% No. of fatalities per year (h x fatality rate) Fatality interval (1/fatalities per year)

66 TABLE B. Peregrine Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 1 - Extrapolation of flight length at risk to whole year Observed flight length at risk from VP hours - see Table E, Appendix Total extrapolated flight length at risk for 5184 daylight hours in the year: STAGE 2. Only enter input parameters in blue Calculation of collision risk for a Peregrine passing through the rotor area K: [1D or [3D] (0 or 1) 1 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius NoBlades 3 Upwind: Downwind: MaxChord 2.44 m r/r c/c α collide contribution collide contribution check area Pitch (degrees) 30 radius chord alpha length p(collision) from radius r length p(collision) from radius r total BirdLength 0.42 m Wingspan 1.03 m F: Flapping (0) or gliding (+1) Bird speed 15 m/sec RotorDiam 44 m RotationPeriod 2.60 sec Bird aspect ratio: b W Band Overall p(collision) = Upwind 15.5% Downwind 7.4% 1.00 Average 11.5% 4

67 TABLE B (ctd) Peregrine Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 3. Without avoidance: Collision risk calculations on a volume basis a Annual expected distance traversed at risk height within 200m risk zone (from stage 1) b Notional distance traversed at risk accounting for an observer efficiency of: 80% (a / 80%) c Risk area on the ground: a circle 500m in radius: 500 x 500 x d Risk volume: risk area x the m flight bracket (m 3 ) (c x 80) e Rotor swept area ; the area of a circle with its radius as the blade length: 22 x 22 x (m 2 ) 1521 f Maximum chord (width) of blade 2.44 g Maximum angle of pitch assumed (degrees) 30 h Assumed depth of rotor blade (f x sine g) j Total risk depth is blade depth + bird length (h m) k Rotor swept volume (m 3 ) (e x j) m Proportion of rotor swept volume to total risk volume (k/d x 100) % n Distance (in m) traversed per year through rotor swept volume (b x m) 4.75 p Number of traverses through rotor swept volume ( n / j ) 2.90 q r Number of traverses when rotorblades are turning, assuming turbine is operational for 90% of the time (p x 90%) 2.61 number of birds expected to collide, using the weighted probability calculated in stage 2, of: 11.5% (q x 11.5%) 0.30 Application of avoidance rates: Number of fatalities expected per year, and the average number of years expected between fatalities (the fatality interval) using a range of avoidance rates: Possible avoidance rates 95.0% 97.5% 99.0% Fatality rate (100% - avoidance rate) 5.0% 2.5% 1.0% No. of fatalities per year (r x fatality rate) Fatality interval (1/fatalities per year)

68 TABLE C. Great Skua Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 1 - EXTRAPOLATION OF NUMBERS AT RISK TO WHOLE SEASON Month Total daylight hours Hours watched * Numbers observed at risk SPA Non- All SPA birds Extrapolated at risk SPA Non- All SPA birds April May June July August September totals: * excludes time spent following primary target species 6

69 TABLE C (ctd) Great Skua Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 2. Only enter input parameters in blue Calculation of collision risk for a Great Skua passing through the rotor area K: [1D or [3D] (0 or 1) 1 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius NoBlades 3 Upwind: Downwind: MaxChord 2.44 m r/r c/c α collide contribution collide contribution check area Pitch (degrees) 30 radius chord alpha length p(collision) from radius r length p(collision) from radius r total BirdLength 0.56 m Wingspan 1.36 m F: Flapping (0) or gliding (+1) Bird speed 14 m/sec RotorDiam 44 m RotationPeriod 2.60 sec Bird aspect ratio: b W Band Overall p(collision) = Upwind 17.5% Downwind 9.2% 1.00 Average 13.3% 7

70 TABLE C (ctd) Great Skua Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 3. Collision risk calculations on an area basis Without avoidance: SPA birds All birds a expected number of passes through 375m radius (from stage 1) b expected number of passes accounting for an observer efficiency of: 90% (a / 90%) c area of risk window: 750m width x 80m height (m 2 ) d rotor swept area: 22 x 22 x (m 2 ) e rotor swept area as % of risk window (d/e x 100) 2.54% 2.54% f number of flights through rotor swept area (b x e) g h number of flights when rotor blades are turning, assuming that the turbine is operational for 90% of the time: (f x 90%) number of birds expected to collide, using the average probability of collision from stage 2 of: 13.3% (g x 13.3%) Application of avoidance rates: Number of fatalities expected per year, and the average number of years expected between fatalities (the fatality interval) using a range of avoidance rates: SPA birds All birds Possible avoidance rates 98.0% 99.0% 99.5% 98.0% 99.0% 99.5% Fatality rate (100% - avoidance rate) 2.0% 1.0% 0.5% 2.0% 1.0% 0.5% No. of fatalities per year (h x fatality rate) Fatality interval (1/fatalities per year)

71 TABLE D. Arctic Skua Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 1 - EXTRAPOLATION OF NUMBERS AT RISK TO WHOLE SEASON Month Total daylight hours Hours watched * Numbers observed at risk SSSI Non- All SSSI birds Extrapolated at risk SSSI Non- All SSSI birds April May June July August totals: * excludes time spent following primary target species 9

72 TABLE D. Arctic Skua Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 2. Only enter input parameters in blue Calculation of collision risk for an Arctic Skua passing through the rotor area K: [1D or [3D] (0 or 1) 1 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius NoBlades 3 Upwind: Downwind: MaxChord 2.44 m r/r c/c α collide contribution collide contribution check area Pitch (degrees) 30 radius chord alpha length p(collision) from radius r length p(collision) from radius r total BirdLength 0.44 m Wingspan 1.18 m F: Flapping (0) or gliding (+1) Bird speed 14 m/sec RotorDiam 44 m RotationPeriod 2.60 sec Bird aspect ratio: b W Band Overall p(collision) = Upwind 16.5% Downwind 8.2% 1.00 Average 12.3% 10

73 TABLE D. Arctic Skua Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 3. Collision risk calculations on an area basis Without avoidance: SSSI birds All birds a expected number of passes through 375m radius (from stage 1) b expected number of passes accounting for an observer efficiency of: 90% (a / 90%) c area of risk window: 750m width x 80m height (m 2 ) d rotor swept area: 22 x 22 x (m 2 ) e rotor swept area as % of risk window (d/e x 100) 2.54% 2.54% f number of flights through rotor swept area (b x e) g h number of flights when rotor blades are turning, assuming that the turbine is operational for 90% of the time: (f x 90%) number of birds expected to collide, using the average probability of collision from stage 2 of: 12.3% (g x 12.3%) Application of avoidance rates: Number of fatalities expected per year, and the average number of years expected between fatalities (the fatality interval) using a range of avoidance rates: SSSI birds All birds Possible avoidance rates 98.0% 99.0% 99.5% 98.0% 99.0% 99.5% Fatality rate (100% - avoidance rate) 2.0% 1.0% 0.5% 2.0% 1.0% 0.5% No. of fatalities per year (h x fatality rate) Fatality interval (1/fatalities per year)

74 TABLE E. Hen Harrier Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 1 - Extrapolation of flight length at risk to whole year Observed flight length at risk from VP hours - see Table I, Appendix Total extrapolated flight length at risk for 5184 daylight hours in the year: STAGE 2. Only enter input parameters in blue Calculation of collision risk for a Hen Harrier passing through the rotor area K: [1D or [3D] (0 or 1) 1 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius NoBlades 3 Upwind: Downwind: MaxChord 2.44 m r/r c/c α collide contribution collide contribution check area Pitch (degrees) 30 radius chord alpha length p(collision) from radius r length p(collision) from radius r total W Band BirdLength 0.48 m Wingspan 1.1 m F: Flapping (0) or gliding (+1) Bird speed 10 m/sec RotorDiam 44 m RotationPeriod 2.60 sec Bird aspect ratio: b Overall p(collision) = Upwind 19.8% Downwind 10.5% 1.00 Average 15.1% 12

75 TABLE E (ctd) Hen Harrier Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 3. Collision risk calculations on a volume basis Without avoidance: a Annual expected distance traversed at risk height within 500m risk zone (from stage 1) b Notional distance traversed at risk accounting for an observer efficiency of: 80% (a / 80%) c Risk area on the ground: a circle 500m in radius: 500 x 500 x d Risk volume: risk area x the m flight bracket (m 3 ) (c x 80) e Rotor swept area ; the area of a circle with its radius as the blade length: 22 x 22 x (m 2 ) 1521 f Maximum chord (width) of blade 2.44 g Maximum angle of pitch assumed (degrees) 30 h Assumed depth of rotor blade (f x sine g) j Total risk depth is blade depth + bird length (h m) k Rotor swept volume (m 3 ) (e x j) m Proportion of rotor swept volume to total risk volume (k/d x 100) % n Distance (in m) traversed per year through rotor swept volume (b x m) 7.29 p Number of traverses through rotor swept volume ( n / j ) 4.29 q r Number of traverses when rotorblades are turning, assuming turbines are operational for 90% of the time (p x 90%) 3.86 number of birds expected to collide, using the weighted probability calculated in stage 2, of: 15.1% (q x 15.1%) 0.58 Application of avoidance rates: Number of fatalities expected per year, and the average number of years expected between fatalities (the fatality interval) using a range of avoidance rates: Possible avoidance rates 95.0% 98.0% 99.0% 99.5% Fatality rate (100% - avoidance rate) 5.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.5% No. of fatalities per year (r x fatality rate) Fatality interval (1/fatalities per year)

76 TABLE F. Merlin Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 1 - Extrapolation of flight length at risk to whole year Observed flight length at risk from VP hours - see Table J, Appendix Total extrapolated flight length at risk for 5184 daylight hours in the year: STAGE 2. Only enter input parameters in blue Calculation of collision risk for a Merlin passing through the rotor area K: [1D or [3D] (0 or 1) 1 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius NoBlades 3 Upwind: Downwind: MaxChord 2.44 m r/r c/c α collide contribution collide contribution check area Pitch (degrees) 30 radius chord alpha length p(collision) from radius r length p(collision) from radius r total BirdLength 0.28 m Wingspan 0.56 m F: Flapping (0) or gliding (+1) Bird speed 15 m/sec RotorDiam 44 m RotationPeriod 2.60 sec Bird aspect ratio: b W Band Overall p(collision) = Upwind 13.7% Downwind 5.6% 1.00 Average 9.6% 14

77 TABLE F (ctd) Merlin Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 3. Collision risk calculations on a volume basis Without avoidance: a Annual expected distance traversed at risk height within 500m zone (from stage 1) b Notional distance traversed at risk accounting for an observer efficiency of: 60% (a / 60%) c Risk area on the ground: a circle 500m in radius: 500 x 500 x d Risk volume: risk area x the m flight bracket (m 3 ) (c x 80) e Rotor swept area ; the area of a circle with its radius as the blade length: 22 x 22 x (m 2 ) 1521 f Maximum chord (width) of blade 2.44 g Maximum angle of pitch assumed (degrees) 30 h Assumed depth of rotor blade (f x sine g) j Total risk depth is blade depth + bird length (h + 0.5m) k Rotor swept volume (m 3 ) (e x j) m Proportion of rotor swept volume to total risk volume (k/d x 100) % n Distance (in m) traversed per year through rotor swept volume (b x m) 6.12 p Number of traverses through rotor swept volume ( n / j ) 3.56 q r Number of traverses when rotorblades are turning, assuming turbine is operational for 90% of the time (p x 90%) 3.20 number of birds expected to collide, using the weighted probability calculated in stage 2, of: 9.6% (q x 9.6%) 0.31 Application of avoidance rates: Number of fatalities expected per year, and the average number of years expected between fatalities (the fatality interval) using a range of avoidance rates: Possible avoidance rates 95.0% 97.5% 99.0% 99.5% Fatality rate (100% - avoidance rate) 5.0% 2.5% 1.0% 0.5% No. of fatalities per year (r x fatality rate) Fatality interval (1/fatalities per year)

78 TABLE G. Greylag Goose (Icelandic) Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 1 - EXTRAPOLATION OF NUMBERS AT RISK TO WHOLE SEASON Month Total daylight hours Additional 2 hours each day before dawn & after dusk Total available flying hours Hours watched * Numbers observed at risk Extrapolated at risk October November December January February March totals: * excludes time spent following primary target species 16

79 TABLE G (ctd) Greylag Goose (Icelandic) Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 2. Only enter input parameters in blue Calculation of collision risk for a Greylag Goose passing through the rotor area K: [1D or [3D] (0 or 1) 1 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius NoBlades 3 Upwind: Downwind: MaxChord 2.44 m r/r c/c α collide contribution collide contribution check area Pitch (degrees) 30 radius chord alpha length p(collision) from radius r length p(collision) from radius r total BirdLength 0.83 m Wingspan 1.64 m F: Flapping (0) or gliding (+1) Bird speed 17 m/sec RotorDiam 44 m RotationPeriod 2.60 sec Bird aspect ratio: b W Band Overall p(collision) = Upwind 17.8% Downwind 10.2% 1.00 Average 14.0% 17

80 TABLE G (ctd) Greylag Goose (Icelandic) Collision Risk APPENDIX 2 STAGE 3. Collision risk calculations on an area basis Without avoidance: a expected number of passes through 375m radius (from stage 1) b expected number of passes accounting for an observer efficiency of: 90% (a / 90%) c area of risk window: 750m width x 80m height (m 2 ) d rotor swept area: 22 x 22 x (m 2 ) 1521 e rotor swept area as % of risk window (d/e x 100) 2.54% f number of flights through rotor swept area (b x e) g h number of flights when rotor blades are turning, assuming that the turbine is operational for 90% of the time: (f x 90%) number of birds expected to collide, using the average probability of collision from stage 2 of: 14.0% (g x 14.0%) Application of avoidance rates: Number of fatalities expected per year, and the average number of years expected between fatalities (the fatality interval) using a range of avoidance rates: Possible avoidance rates 95.0% 98.0% 99.0% 99.5% Fatality rate (100% - avoidance rate) 5.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.5% No. of fatalities per year (h x fatality rate) Fatality interval (1/fatalities per year)

81 APPENDIX 3 MAPS Red-throated Diver 1-8 Peregrine 9 Hen Harrier Merlin 16 Skuas & gulls 17 Breeding birds 18-19

82 ORE FARM 2008 KEY: Flights from main VP watches April & May 2008, cross-referenced to Table C, Appendix 1 Incoming flight Outgoing flight Social/unclassified VPs used Turbine position & 500m radius Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number Red-throated Diver A

83 ORE FARM 2008 Red-throated Diver KEY: Flights from main VP watches June 2008, cross-referenced to Table C, Appendix 1 Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number Incoming flight Outgoing flight Social/unclassified VPs used Turbine position & 500m radius

84 ORE FARM 2008 Red-throated Diver KEY: Flights from main VP watches July 2008, cross-referenced to Table C, Appendix 1 Incoming flight Outgoing flight Social/unclassified VPs used Turbine position & 500m radius 43 Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number

85 ORE FARM 2008 Red-throated Diver KEY: Flights from main VP watches August 2008, cross-referenced to Table C, Appendix 1 Incoming flight Outgoing flight Social/unclassified VPs used Turbine position & 500m radius Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number

86 ORE FARM 2008 KEY: Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number Incoming flight Outgoing flight Social/unclassified VPs used Turbine position & 500m radius Red-throated Diver All flights from main VP watches 5

87 ORE FARM 2008 Red-throated Diver KEY: Incoming flight Outgoing flight Social/unclassified VPs used Turbine position & 500m radius Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number ALL flights from diver VPs 6

88 ORE FARM 2008 KEY: Red-throated Diver Outgoing flights from ALL fieldwork Outgoing from main VP Outgoing from diver VP Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number VPs used Turbine position & 500m radius 7

89 ORE FARM 2008 KEY: Incoming from main VP Incoming from diver VP Red-throated Diver Incoming flights from ALL fieldwork Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number VPs used Turbine position & 500m radius 8

90 ORE FARM 2008/09 Peregrine KEY: All flights cross-referenced to Table E, Appendix 1 Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number Flight at <20m Flight at m Flight at >100m VPs used Location of prey remains Turbine position with 500m & 1km radii A

91 ORE FARM 2008/09 KEY: Hen Harrier All flights Flight path Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number VPs used Turbine position with 100m, 500m & 1km radii 10

92 ORE FARM 2008/09 KEY: Hen Harrier All flights April 2008, cross-referenced to Table I, Appendix 1 Flight path (different colours simply for clarity) VPs used Turbine position with 500m & 1000m radii Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number

93 ORE FARM 2008/09 KEY: All flights May -June 2008, cross-referenced to Table I, Appendix 1 Flight path (different colours simply for clarity) VPs used Turbine position with 500m & 1000m radii Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number Hen Harrier 19 A B C

94 ORE FARM 2008/09 Hen Harrier KEY: All flights July -October 2008, cross-referenced to Table I, Appendix 1 Flight path (different colours simply for clarity) VPs used Turbine position with 500m & 1000m radii 35 Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number

95 ORE FARM 2008/09 Hen Harrier KEY: All flights November 2008-March 2009, cross-referenced to Table I, Appendix 1 Flight path (different colours simply for clarity) VPs used Turbine position with 500m & 1000m radii Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number

96 ORE FARM 2008/09 KEY: Hen Harrier All high flights cross-referenced to Table I, Appendix 1 Element of flight at <20m Element of flight at m Element of flight at >100m VPs used Turbine position with 500m & 1000m radii A 49 Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number B C

97 ORE FARM 2008/09 Merlin KEY: All flights cross-referenced to Table J, Appendix 1 Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number Flight at <20m Flight at m Flight at >100m VPs used Turbine position with 500m & 1000m radii

98 ORE FARM 2008 KEY: Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number Individual Great skua AOT Individual Arctic Skua AOT Cluster of Great Skua AOTs (with maximum count) Gull colony (with maximum count of individuals) Turbine position with 500m & 1000m radii SPA/SSSI boundary 60 Common Gulls 2 Herring Gulls 4 Great Black-backs Skuas and Gulls Location of colonies and AOTs (apparently occupied territories) 11 Common Gulls 8 Great Skua AOT 52 Common Gulls 2 Herring Gulls 1 Great Black-back 27 Great Skua AOT 17

99 ORE FARM 2008 Breeding Waders & Greylag Goose KEY: Approximate territory Locations: OC Oystercatcher L. Lapwing SN CU GJ Snipe Curlew Greylag Goose Turbine position with 200m & 500m radii Survey area boundary SN CU GJ CU CU GJ CU GJ CU L. GJ CU CU L. CU CU CU CU OC SN L. CU Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number CU GJ 18

100 ORE FARM 2008 Breeding open ground passerines KEY: Approximate territory Locations: S. Skylark MP Meadow Pipit SC RB Stonechat Reed Bunting Turbine position with 200m & 500m radii Survey area boundary MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP MP RB SC MP MP MP MP MP MP S. MP MP S. S. MP MP MP MP S. MP S. S. MP Ordnance Survey Crown copyright All rights reserved. Licence number MP MP MP SC MP 19