Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) March 2016 Akuo Energy
353617 EVT EMP 004 A Bird Survey Report Krnovo Wind Farm November 2015 February 2016) Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) March 2016 2 March 2016 Akuo Energy 140, Av. des Champs Elysées, 75008, Paris Mott MacDonald, 22 Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JD, United Kingdom T +44 0)1223 463500 F +44 0)1223 461007 W www.mottmac.com
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Issue and revision record Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A 2 March 2016 Tristan Folland Iain Bray Nik Stone First Issue Information class: Standard This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the abovecaptioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Contents Chapter Title Page 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Project description 1 1.3 Scope of this report 1 2 Survey Methodology 2 2.1 Vantage Point Surveys 2 3 Results 5 3.1 Target Species 5 3.2 Vantage Point Surveys 5 4 Annual Collision Risk Assessment 9 5 Discussion 11 5.1 Winter bird surveys 11 5.2 Collision Risk Assessment 11 6 References 12 Appendices 13 Appendix A. Flight Lines 14
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction Mott MacDonald was commissioned by Akuo Energy to undertake ornithological monitoring in relation to the Krnovo wind farm, Montenegro the Project ) in April 2015. 1.2 Project description The Project is located within the central area of Montenegro on the border of three municipalities; Nikšić, Šavnik and Plužine. It comprises the installation of 26, 2/3MW wind turbine generators WTG) as well as the construction of a new substation at Krnovo connected by a 20km double circuit 110kV transmission line. In addition to this infrastructure, the Project will reconstruct 3.8km of existing paved roads and create 13km of new roads mostly upgrading of existing gravel roads). 1.3 Scope of this report The aim of this report is to provide an overview of the ornithological monitoring results from the vantage point surveys conducted in November and December 2015; and January and February 2016. It specifically targets the occurrence and use of the wind farm area of species which have the potential to collide with the operational WTGs. 1
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) 2 Survey Methodology 2.1 Vantage Point Surveys The VP survey methodology below is in accordance with national guidance Prakljačić et al. 2011) and international good practice Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014). The survey was performed by two surveyors experienced in the identification of species within Montenegro. Winter surveys were undertaken on the following dates including: 1315 November 2015; 1113 December 2015; 36 January 2016; and 57 February 2016. In order to ensure that bird activity was monitored across the whole wind farm area a total of five vantage point survey locations were used covering the Project site VP1 to VP5) and two vantage points VP6 and VP7) covering a control area. At least 20 hours of survey were carried out at each vantage point. Survey duration lasted between two and three hours. 2
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Figure 2.1: Vantage Point locations The surveys were carried out during suitable weather conditions i.e. not during periods of high winds and heavy rain). The start/finish times were between dawn and dusk; varied to account for any diurnal differences in species flight activities. During the VP surveys, details of all target species were recorded when observed within the 2km study area of the VP location. This included all species of conservation value at risk of collision with the operational WTGs such as raptors and waterbirds. Species of conservation concern include all those species listed as nearthreatened or threatened on the European Red List of Birds BirdLife International, 2015). Information was recorded onto a proforma and included: species, sex where possible), number and duration of flight height in 15 second intervals. Five different height categories <50m, 50m100m, 100m 150m, 150m200m, >200m) were used. In addition, the location and flight direction of target species were recorded onto a field map of the study area one map per vantage point per survey). 3
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) In addition to target species, information on secondary species was also recorded. This included species at less risk of collision with the operational WTGs such as herons and/or raptors and waterbirds not considered to be of conservation value. For these secondary species, the number of individuals, flight direction and general flight height were recorded during the VP surveys. Recording of secondary species was subsidiary to recording of target species. 4
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) 3 Results 3.1 Target Species One target and six secondary target species were recorded during the vantage point surveys. These are summarised in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Target and secondary target species Species European Red List Target Secondary Target Resident/Migratory Accipiter gentilis Least Concern Resident Accipiter nisus Least Concern Resident Aquila chrysaetos Least Concern Resident Buteo buteo Least Concern Resident Buteo lagopus Least Concern Migratory Circus cyaneus Near Threatened Migratory Falco tinnunculus Least Concern Resident 3.2 Vantage Point Surveys The environmental conditions encountered on site were typical of winter. Of the seven species recorded Table 3.2), all were raptors; one species Circus cyaneus) is considered to be nearthreatened in Europe. There was no significant difference in the abundance of birds between the project site VP15) and the control site VP67) t=0.83, df=22, p= 0.414). Within the project area the most observations were made from VP4 and the fewest at VP3. The difference in the number of observations between VP4 and 3 was however only seven observations. Vantage point data were subjected to Principal Component Analysis PCA) using the FactoMiner plugin in R3.1.2 for Windows R Development Core Team, 2014). For clarity, data relating to common resident species Buteo buteo and Falco tinnunculus) and control VP6 and VP7 were excluded from the analysis. Birds only occurred as singletons and therefore there was a linear 1:1) relationship between observation frequency total number of observations) and abundance total number of birds recorded). For this reason vantage points can be divided into two groups Figure 3.1) based on the number of observations made at each vantage point. The difference in the number of observations of Aquila chrysaetos and Circus cyaneus separated the two groups of turbines, one group in the north VP4, VP5) and one group in the south VP1, VP2 and VP3). The majority of Aquila chrysaetos observations were from VP4 and VP5 and the majority of the observations of Circus cyaneus were from VP1, VP2 and VP3 Table 3.2: Species observation frequency and cumulative abundance per VP Species VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5 VP 6 VP 7 Accipiter gentilis 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 0,0 1,1 Accipiter nisus 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 1,1 2,2 Aquila chrysaetos 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,3 1,1 0,0 0,0 Buteo buteo 10,10 12,12 7,7 10,10 12,12 6,6 3,3 5
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Species VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5 VP 6 VP 7 Buteo lagopus 0,0 0,0 1,1 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 Circus cyaneus 2,2 2,2 1,1 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 Falco tinnunculus 1,1 2,2 1,1 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 * Target species in bold type. Figure 3.1: PCA of vantage point observation frequency and abundance 6
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Flight paths recorded for primary and secondary target species are presented in Appendix A of this report. Dominant flight directions observed during the vantage point surveys highlight predominance for a general northsouth movement of birds across the northern turbine alignment Figure 3.2). Movements of birds in a general eastwest direction were predominant across the southern turbine alignment Figure 3.3). Figure 3.2: VP1 Flight Direction northern turbine alignment) VP4 WNW W NW NNW 3 N NNE 2.5 NE 2 1.5 1 ENE 0.5 0 E NNW NW WNW W 4 N NNE 3 NE 2 ENE 1 0 E WSW ESE WSW ESE SW SSW S SSE SE SW SSW S SSE SE VP5 2 N NNW NNE NW 1.5 NE WNW 1 0.5 ENE W 0 E WSW ESE SW SSW S SSE SE 7
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Figure 3.3: Flight Direction southern turbine alignment) VP2 VP 3 NNW NW WNW W 7 N NNE 6 5 NE 4 3 ENE 2 1 0 E NNW NW WNW W 4 N NNE 3 NE 2 ENE 1 0 E WSW ESE WSW ESE SW SSW S SSE SE SW SSW S SSE SE 8
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) 4 Annual Collision Risk Assessment The data collected from the vantage point surveys April 2015February 2016) were put into a Collision Risk Model CRM) Band et al, 2007) to estimate the annual collision risk for the northern turbine array Table 4.1) and southern turbine array Table 4.2). The CRM was based on a 32 turbine layout in order to provide a worstcase scenario estimate. Only those species recorded flying through the collision risk window 50150m) are considered to be at risk of colliding with a wind turbine. The minimum and maximum heights of the turbine blades are considered to be 33.5 and 136.5m respectively. The following species were not recorded within the collision risk window: Accipiter gentilis; Accipiter nisus; Buteo rufinus; Circus cyaneus; Circus macrourus; and Grus grus. The 0.99 99%) avoidance rate is recommended by SNH Scottish Natural Heritage, 2010) for most species except for example Falco tinnunculus where a 0.95 95%) avoidance rate is recommended. The CRM shows a higher collision risk in the northern turbine array compared to the southern turbine array. This may be as a result of birds using the increasing elevation north of the northern turbine array to gain altitude having been hunting or passing low over the plateau between the turbine arrays. For all species the collision risk appears to be low with, for example, one collision estimated every 5.8 years for Buteo buteo =1/0.09+0.08) and one every five years for Falco tinnunculus =1/0.18+.02) across both the northern and southern arrays combined. For migratory species the estimated annual mortality is considered to be very small with, for example, one collision every 333 years for Circus aeruginosus across both the northern and southern arrays combined. Table 4.1: Species Estimated Collision Risk northern turbine array) Avoiding action None 0.9 0.95 0.99 Buteo buteo 8.65 0.87 0.43 0.09 Falco tinnunculus 3.63 0.36 0.18 0.04 Corvus cornax 2.05 0.21 0.10 0.02 Aquila chrysaetos 0.46 0.05 0.02 0.005 Circus aeruginosus 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.002 Falco vespertinus 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.002 Circus pygargus 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.002 Buteo lagopus 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.001 Pernis apivorus 0.05 0.005 0.002 0.0005 Circaetus gallicus 0.02 0.002 0.001 0.0002 9
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Table 4.2: Estimated Collision Risk southern turbine array) Species Avoiding action None 0.9 0.95 0.99 Buteo buteo 0.41 0.39 0.08 0.08 Falco tinnunculus 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 Circus aeruginosus 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.001 Circus pygargus 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.001 Buteo lagopus 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001 Falco subbuteo 0.002 0.002 0.0005 0.0005 10
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) 5 Discussion 5.1 Winter bird surveys Weather conditions were not typical for winter in Montenegro, being mild with little snow cover. The mild conditions may have led to an increase in bird activity compared to typical winter conditions with deep snow cover on the ground. The vantage point survey results are therefore likely to be an over estimate of bird activity for the area during winter. There was no significant difference in bird abundance between the site and the control site. Circus cyaneus was recorded at low frequency and in small numbers and was the only primary target species. Secondary target species were also recorded at low frequency and in small numbers and there is no evidence to indicate that there is a significant risk of collision with respect to winter birds. In relative terms, the species richness in the northern extent of the Project area was greater when compared to the southern extent of the Project area. 5.2 Collision Risk Assessment It is currently considered that, taking into account monthly data collection between April 2015 and February 2016 Mott MacDonald, 2015a; 2015b), the impact of collision is not significant and that mitigation will not be required. Post construction monitoring should be undertaken in accordance with Scottish Natural Heritage guidance 2009) in Years 1, 2, 3 and 5, 10 and 15 of operation. This will allow confirmation of the predicted impact against any realised impact.. Operational monitoring should include systematic carcass searches in accordance with Scottish Natural Heritage guidance 2009) and Atienza et al 2009) and should account for search, observer and scavenger bias. A post construction environmental management plan should be prepared and include a fully detailed methodology for carcass searches and breeding raptor surveys; the numbers of several breeding raptors being of bwere of national significance in terms of making up at least 1% of the national population estimate Mott MacDonald, 2015). 11
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) 6 References Atienza, J.C., Martín Fierro, I., Infante, O., Valls, J. & Domínguez, J., 2011.Guidelines for assessing the Impact of Wind Farms on Birds and Bats Version 4). SEO/BirdLife, Madrid. Band, W., Madders, M., & Whitfield, D.P. 2007. Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In: de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E.& Ferrer, M. eds.) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation, pp. 259275. Quercus, Madrid. Mott MacDonald, 2015a. Krnovo Wind Farm. Bird Survey Report AprilJune 2015). Mott MacDonald, Cambridge. Mott MacDonald, 2015b. Krnovo Wind Farm. Bird Survey Report JulyOctober 2015). Mott MacDonald, Cambridge. Prakljačić, B., Saveljić, D., Vujović, A., Jovićević, M., 2011. Windmills and birds: recommendations for making environmental impact assessment. R Development Core Team, 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Scottish Natural Heritage, 2009. Guidance note. Guidance on Methods for Monitoring Bird Populations at Onshore Wind Farms. January, 2009. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/c205417.pdf> [Accessed on 1 March 2016]. Scottish Natural Heritage, 2010. SNH Avoidance Rate Information & Guidance Note. September, 2010. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/b721137.pdf> [Accessed on 1 March 2016]. Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014. Guidance. Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of onshore wind farms. May 2014. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/c278917.pdf> [Accessed on 1 March 2016]. 12
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Appendices Appendix A. Flight Lines 14 13
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) Appendix A. Flight Lines 14
[ [ Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China Hong Kong), Esri Thailand), Location Map Legend Turbine base indicative) SPECIES Accipiter gentilis VP1 Vantage point # * VP4 # * Accipiter nisus VP5 # * Aquila chrysaetos Buteo lagopus * # Circus cyaneus Falco tinnunculus Buteo buteo A 01/03/2016 For issue Rev Date Client VP2 IB NS Drawn Ch'k'd App'd Akuo Energy 140, Av. des Champs Elysées 75008, Paris # * Environment Division 22 Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JD, United Kingdom T +44 0)1223 463 500 F +44 0)1223 461 007 W www.mottmac.com VP3 Project Title Krnovo Wind Farm * # Drawing Title Flight lines November 2015 February 2016) Scale Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China Hong Kong), Esri Thailand), MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2015 TF Description This document should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than those for which it was originally prepared and for which Mott MacDonald Ltd. was commissioned. Mott MacDonald Ltd. accepts no responsibility for this document to any other than the person by whom it was commissioned. 1:25000 @ A3 GIS File Krnovo Winter Birds.mxd Drawing No. MM Project No. 353617 MMD353617EnvGIS00XXW001 Status APR Rev A
Bird Survey Report November 2015 February 2016) 16