Chapter 7 - Ornithology European importance; - E.ON · Chapter 7 - Ornithology Chapter 7 – Page 2 Corriemoillie Wind Farm Environmental Statement Commission Scotland (FCS), Scottish

Chapter 7 - Ornithology

Corriemoillie Wind Farm Environmental Statement Chapter 7 – Page 1

Chapter 7 - Ornithology Introduction

7.1 This chapter describes the findings of the ornithological assessment of the proposed Wind Farm. It details the methods used to establish the bird interest within the site boundary and surrounding area and the process used to determine the nature conservation importance of the bird populations present. The chapter then sets out the potential effects on birds during construction and operation and assesses the significance of potential impacts on populations at an appropriate bio-geographic scale. The means to mitigate any significant impacts are proposed and a summary of residual impacts is provided. An assessment of non-avian ecology is presented in Chapter 6 (Ecology), and complements this chapter. Technical data is provided in the Ornithology Technical Appendix 7A (Appendix 7A). Confidential ornithological information which cannot be made available to the public as a matter of law is provided in the Ornithology Confidential Annex, which has been made available to The Highland Council, SNH and RSPB only.

7.2 This chapter adopts a format in which Baseline Description, Assessment of Potential Effects, Mitigation and Assessment of Significance are considered separately for each species or species group.

7.3 This chapter includes the following sections:

• Consultations; • Legislation and Guidance; • Methodology - this section details the field survey methodologies used, assessment

methodologies and describes the possible potential effects that may result from the development of the proposed Wind Farm on avian receptors;

• Site design/layout - this section describes specific layout/design of the site which has been made by E.ON Climate & Renewables (ECR) to accommodate the presence of specific birds listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive and/or protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

• Receptor assessments - this section includes a description of baseline avian ecology at the site, followed by assessment of potential effects and proposed mitigation arranged by species or receptor (designated site etc);

• Summary of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to be developed; • Summary of residual effects - an assessment of the significance of the effects of the

proposed Wind Farm after mitigation has been implemented; and • Statement of significance.

Key Issues

7.4 The potential key avian ecology issues relating to the proposed Wind Farm are as follows:

• the potential for the proposed Wind Farm to adversely affect the conservation status of bird species afforded the highest level of statutory protection via inclusion in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive. Such an effect may arise through habitat loss, disturbance or displacement, more directly through collisions with the turbines, or indirectly through cumulative impacts;

• the potential for the proposed Wind Farm to adversely affect the integrity of the Achanalt, Beinn Dearg, Ben Wyvis and Cromarty Firth Special Protection Areas (SPA), or Glen Affric

to Strathconon potential SPA (pSPA), designated for their ornithological features of European importance;

• the potential for the proposed Wind Farm to adversely affect the conservation status of geese and other wildfowl due to the risk of turbine collisions as they fly through the area on migration or while commuting locally;

• the potential for the proposed Wind Farm to adversely affect the conservation status of breeding waders, through habitat loss, disturbance, displacement and collisions with the turbines;

• the potential for the proposed Wind Farm to adversely affect the conservation status of rare or vulnerable breeding passerines, primarily through habitat loss, disturbance and displacement; and

• the potential for the proposed Wind Farm to adversely affect the ornithological interests of local sites designated for their ornithological features.

7.5 The assessment is based on information available at the time of writing, and includes baseline data from September 2008 to August 2009 (inclusive), and from April to June 2010 (inclusive). Ornithological survey work (2002 to 2006 inclusive) was also carried out by Natural Research Projects Ltd. (NRP) at the proposed Wind Farm site. The majority of this work is not in accordance with current accepted methodologies and guidance for onshore Wind Farm developments. Data obtained from this survey therefore provides supplementary information to this assessment on historical breeding bird locations and populations.

Methodology

7.6 The following section illustrates consultee responses to the proposed Wind Farm and the legislation and guidance used in this assessment. This information has subsequently been utilised to inform appropriate methodologies, which identify the valued ecological receptors, and assess potential effects which may occur as a result of the proposed Wind Farm development.

Consultations

7.7 In March 2009 a scoping document prepared by RPS, which included an outline of ornithology survey methodologies, was issued to numerous consultees including The Highland Council Planning Department, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scotland. In addition 3 specific ornithology documents were sent to SNH (one in October 2008, one in May 2009 and one in August 2009). The first document outlined land access issues and the need to move a flight activity vantage point (VP); the second document outlined detailed ornithological survey methods which were not as per guidance but were necessary due to land access issues (this document was also sent to RSPB Scotland and the Highland Council Planning Department); and the third document outlined alterations to the Wind Farm design in order to mitigate against any adverse effects to two particularly sensitive bird species, this was based on baseline data gathered throughout the 2009 breeding season (information regarding the reasons for this design alteration can be found in the Ornithology Confidential Annex).

7.8 Consultees were asked to comment on the ornithological issues surrounding the proposed Wind Farm and the suitability of the proposed baseline survey methodologies, analysis and assessments proposed by RPS. Details of the scoping responses and additional ornithological consultations are summarised in Table 7.1.

7.9 A full data search of historical records of bird species of conservation concern was also conducted with the Highland Biological Recording Group, the Local Bird Recorder for the Highlands (Scottish Ornithologists Club (SOC)), RSPB Scotland, Highland Raptor Study Group (HRSG), Forestry


Chapter 7 – Page 2 Corriemoillie Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Commission Scotland (FCS), Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) and the National Biodiversity Network (NBN). Full details of the results of these consultations can be found in Appendix 7A and the Ornithological Confidential Annex.

Table 7.1 Scoping Responses Consultee Response

In October 2008 RPS contacted SNH to inform it that VP 3 had been dropped due to access restrictions and a new VP, VP4 would be used. VP4 was approximately 70m within the site boundary but was approx. 535m from the nearest proposed turbine (based on the initial Wind Farm design, this is now 240m for the final Wind Farm design). Also due to timing and bad weather conditions it was not possible to complete the required 12hour goose migratory watches from the three VPs in October. RPS requested that the October watch be carried out in early November and that the November migratory watches would be carried out from mid-November. SNH confirmed its acceptance of the location of VP4, as felt that it would not significantly affect bird activity. SNH highlighted that by missing the October survey hours during the goose migration period that RPS may have missed some pink-footed goose movements. However recent literature has indicated that goose migration periods appear to have slipped later into the year1. Therefore SNH confirmed that if October hours are completed in early November, and November hours are completed in mid-late November and an additional 12 hours are completed in early December then the migratory period would be covered to its satisfaction. In April 2009 RPS met Anne Murray of SNH to discuss changes to bird survey methodologies at Corriemoillie due to access restrictions. It was agreed that five VPs would be used to monitor breeding raptors within 2km of the site boundary to the west of the proposed development. In addition the VPs would note any red-throated diver activity and breeding birds, specifically waders, within 500m of the site boundary. RPS also took this opportunity to discuss survey methodologies for breeding birds within the site boundary and on adjacent moorland (where access was permissible), access track surveys and specific red-throated diver surveys if required. SNH confirmed its acceptance of all methodologies (baseline studies section and Appendix 7A for all methodology details). SNH also highlighted that RPS would need to fully explain and justify deviations from guidance, and be upfront about likely limitations of the survey data collected. Also for breeding bird survey data, any extrapolations using data obtained from the breeding bird survey, NRP data and the Lochluichart ES, justification and provision of details of how this was carried out.

Scottish Natural Heritage

With reference to Ornithology only, the SNH response to the project Scoping Report dated 21st May 2009 is as follows:

SNH was pleased to note that its guidance document on assessing impacts of onshore Wind Farms on bird communities was being taken into account, and that data gathered previously by NRP was being

1 http://www.wwt.org.uk/research/monitoring/pdf/2007%20Iceland-breeding%20goose%20census%20report.pdf.

Consultee Response utilised to target certain species for further surveys in 2009. SNH highlighted the need for the ES to refer to the following references:

• SNH Guidance "Calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no avoiding action" (2000); and

• Raptors: A field Guide to Survey and monitoring by J Hardey, H Crick, C Wernham, H Riley, B Etheridge and D Thompson (2006).

SNH also highlighted that the proposed Corriemoillie Wind Farm could have an effect on the Cromarty Firth SPA and that this site should be included in the ES ornithology assessment. In addition surveys for red-throated diver should be carried out (this should be a target species), and all other Annex 1 species should be recorded. SNH was contacted in 2009 to discuss mitigation for sensitive bird species, during the design process. SNH commented that it was very pleased to see that early consideration and inbuilt mitigation for sensitive species was being incorporated into the design of Corriemoillie Wind Farm. It was also pleased to see that account had been taken of other relevant Wind Farm cases where sensitive species were present but had not been accounted for in the design process, (information regarding the reasons for this design alteration can be found in the Ornithology Confidential Annex). In their planning consultation response letter to Highland Council (22 July 2010), SNH provided advice and recommendations to safeguard protected species. It was SNH’s view that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on golden eagle, as a qualifying interest of the proposed Glen Affric to Strathconon SPA. As a consequence, Highland Council is required to undertake an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives. However, based on the appraisal carried out to date SNH concluded that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. Despite agreed insignificant losses to the NHZ population of red-throated divers predicted, it would be SNH’s preference to create a turbine-free corridor along the main flight line. Limiting construction activity within 1km of black grouse leks after 8 a.m. should be considered. In their response (dated 20th April 2009) to the Corriemoillie Scoping Report, RSPB Scotland commended the decision to undertake fresh ornithological surveys, given the age of the NRP data. Furthermore, RSPB Scotland considered the suggested surveys and timings of surveys appropriate for the site.

RSPB Scotland

RSPB Scotland was informed of the methodology change due to access restrictions, and was asked to comment on the alternate methodologies being proposed. In its response dated 5th June 2009, RSPB Scotland believes that the suggested methods are the best available to assess the ornithological interest of the site and surrounding area. They do state that it will



Consultee Response compromise the quality of the data for the assessment and that additional information, particularly from the Lochluichart ES should be used although the data is now out of date. Although the suggested methods are accepted these should not be considered as a precedent for any future Wind Farm monitoring surveys. In their planning consultation response letter to Highland Council (22 March 2010), RPSB Scotland did not object to the development. They did however recommend the need for an appropriate assessment and commented on specific mitigation to safeguard important bird species, and post-construction monitoring. RSPB Scotland recommended restricting maintenance access within 500m of red-throated diver breeding sites during the breeding season to vehicles only. No work should be carried out within 500m during the construction period. No operations within 750m of black grouse leks should take place before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m. during the breeding season (mid-March to mid-May). Post-construction monitoring should focus on red-throated diver and golden eagle impacts and breeding wader mitigation effects.

Legislation and Guidance

7.10 The ecological baseline surveys and assessment have been carried out with reference to a number of national policy documents, as addressed in Chapter 4. Guidance and legislative documents with relevance to ornithology, are listed below:

• Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (EU Birds Directive)2 as amended by Directive 94/24/EC;

• The Conservation (Natural habitats etc) Regulations 1994 (Habitats Regulations); • The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007; • The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as regards reserved matters in

Scotland); • Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended3 by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act

2004; • Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact

Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006)4 ; • Band, W., Madders, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007). Developing field and analytical methods

to assess avian collision risk at Wind Farms5; • Birds of Conservation Concern 20096; • Survey Methods for Use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore Wind Farms on Bird

Communities 20057;

2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/1979/L/01979L0409-20070101-en.pdf 3 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1377 4 http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html 5 Band, W., Madders, M. and Whitfield, D.P. 2007. Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at Wind Farms. In de Lucas, M., Janss, G. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Power. Quercus. 6 Eaton, M., A., Brown, A., F., Noble, D., G., Musgrove, A., J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N., J., Gibbons, D., W., Evans, A. & Gregory, R., D. 2009. Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296-341.

• Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom 20068; • Bird Monitoring Methods 19989; • Raptors: A Field Guide to Survey and Monitoring10; and • Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation 200711.

7.11 Other guidance, strategies and policies have also been taken into account including the UK Biodiversity Action Plan priorities12 and the Highland Local Biodiversity Action Plans13.

Baseline Study Methodology

Desk Study 7.12 The purpose of the desktop study was to provide information on bird populations both on site,

and within the vicinity of the proposed Wind Farm, to identify target species for baseline surveys. Information gained via this exercise was used to estimate breeding populations on site and in the immediate surrounding area. This information combined with baseline survey results was utilised to put the Corriemoillie population into context in terms of its regional importance. Comparisons were made with local sites designated for important breeding and wintering bird assemblages, and the Northern Highlands Natural Heritage Zone14 (NHZ) populations where possible.

7.13 A search was made for all sites with an international, national or local authority designation for ornithological interests. This includes Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within a 10km radius of the proposed Wind Farm. In addition all SPAs within 25km of the proposed Wind Farm which have geese as a qualifying species were also included in this assessment (Figure 7.1).

7.14 The specific information collected primarily covers red-throated diver, raptors, geese, greenshank and golden plover. The following sources were accessed as part of the desktop study:

• previous ornithological surveys carried out by NRP between 2002 and 2006; • Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)15 website and SNH Sitelink16 websites to

provide information on designated sites in proximity to the proposed Wind Farm; • NBN website17; • HRSG for information on Annex 1 and Schedule 1 raptor records within 10km radius of the

proposed development; and

7 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). 2005. Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird communities. SNH, Battleby. 8 IEEM. 2006. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM, Winchester. 9 Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W., Evans, J. 1998. Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB, Sandy. 10 Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B., Thompson, D. 2006. Raptors: A Field Guide to Survey and Monitoring. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. 11 de Lucas, M., Guyonne, F.E. and Ferrer, M. (eds). 2007. Birds and Windfarms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid. 12 http://ukbap.org.uk/PrioritySpecies.aspx?group=1 13 http://www.highlandbiodiversity.com/htm/counties/ross_cromarty/ross_cromarty.php 14 Natural Heritage Zones have been defined throughout Scotland by SNH, as areas with shared natural heritage characteristics including species, habitats and landscapes in addition to a range of other geographical and geological features. SNH encourages the assessment of ecological impacts at the Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) level. Corriemoillie lies within NHZ 7. see http://www.snh.org.uk/futures/Data/pdfdocs/LANDSCAPES.pdf. 15 http://www.jncc.gov.uk 16 http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page 17 http://www.nbn.org.uk/



• scientific publications, SNH commissioned reports, and grey literature was reviewed to provide information on population estimates and species sensitivity.

Target Species 7.15 Information gathered via the desktop study identified which species the baseline surveys for the

ornithological assessment would focus on. These birds are defined as the target species which have an associated moderate to high conservation value. The target species at Corriemoillie were:

• red-throated diver; • raptors listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive and/or Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); • swans, geese and ducks (all species except mallard); • black grouse; • breeding waders (all species) with particular focus on greenshank and golden plover; and • other species included in the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)6

Access Restrictions 7.16 From October 2008 onwards, all access to land owned by Lochluichart Estate which is

immediately adjacent to the Wind Farm proposal, was strictly prohibited. This access restriction meant that outwith the site boundary, surveyors could not complete all ornithological surveys adequately as stipulated by SNH guidance, specifically a 500m buffer zone for breeding birds and a 2km buffer zone for breeding raptors and divers. Therefore adaptations to survey methodologies were implemented. This is described further in the Field Survey Methodology section and Appendix 7A.

Field Survey Methodology 7.17 Baseline surveys were conducted between September 2008 and August 2009 (inclusive) and

April to June 2010 (inclusive), to collect quantitative data and allow the effects of the proposed Wind Farm to be assessed. Study area boundaries are shown in Figures 7.2, 7.7 and 7.8.

7.18 All ornithology surveys were designed and conducted by RPS. Full details of survey timings, methodology and weather conditions can be found in Appendix 7A. All surveys were designed and conducted in compliance with SNH guidance. However certain surveys had to be altered due to access restrictions as previously mentioned. Where this was the case all methodologies were agreed with RSPB Scotland and SNH prior to commencement. Full details of survey deviations from guidance are presented in the Appendix 7A.

7.19 A summary of ornithological surveys is provided below.

Flight Activity Survey

7.20 Flight activity surveys using VPs were undertaken using the appropriate methodology advocated by SNH7. Surveys were carried out from September 2008 to August 2009 (inclusive).

7.21 Three VPs were used to overlook the study area, which was defined as the site application boundary plus a 500m buffer area. Due to access restrictions VP3 was dropped at the beginning of October 2008 as it was located on the Lochluichart Estate. A suitable location was identified for a new VP, VP4, in October 2008. The location of all four VPs is shown in Figure 7.3.

7.22 The coordinates for all VPs are given in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Site VP Locations VP Grid Reference 1 NH 34690 65477 2 NH 35255 66991 3 NH 33129 67015 4 NH 34947 68186

7.23 A full viewshed analysis showing the two VP combination scenarios are shown in Figure 7A.9 and 7A.10 of Appendix 7A.

7.24 Based on the identified target species (specifically geese), VP survey effort during key migratory periods adhered to SNH guidelines i.e. 36 hours per VP during the autumn (September-November) and spring (March-mid-May) migratory period. However due to extremely poor weather conditions in early May and land owner restrictions on access, the 12 hours proposed for each VP which would have been conducted before mid-May were not carried out. Instead VP hours were conducted in the latter part of May when access issues had been resolved. This is believed to not be an issue considering the key migratory period in autumn was covered and the peak spring migratory period in April was covered in accordance with SNH guidance and low levels of activity were recorded. In addition there are no SPAs designated for any goose species within 20km of the turbines. The information collected on key target species flying over the proposed Wind Farm site and the adjacent airspace, was used to predict the number of individuals per species that might collide with the wind turbine rotors. The model methods used were based on the Band Collision Risk Model5 recommended by SNH.

7.25 A full breakdown of all VP survey hours and detailed methodology can be found in the Ornithology Technical Appendix 7A.

Breeding Bird Survey

7.26 A breeding bird survey was undertaken within the forestry on site using a methodology based on the Brown & Shepherd (1993)18 method for surveying upland waders, and the Common Bird Census (CBC)19 method for surveying passerines. The methodology used involved a single surveyor walking all of the forestry rides, recording details of all birds seen and heard. This meant that all parts of the forestry were walked to within 70m within the site boundary. The surveys took place between dawn and 9am, during the time of peak activity for target species.

7.27 In areas of open moorland where access was permissible, breeding bird surveys were also carried out within a 500m buffer to the east of the site boundary (Figure 7.4), following the standard Brown & Shepherd (1993) methodology.

7.28 A three-visit approach was used for all breeding bird survey work, as recommended in SNH guidance for breeding bird surveys. The three survey visits were made in April, May and June 2009, in order to ensure that the key phases of the breeding cycle were covered.

18 Brown, A., F. & Shepherd, K., B. (1993). A method for censuring upland breeding waders. Bird Study 40: 189-195. 19 Marchant, J.H. (1983). Common Bird Census Instructions. BTO, Tring.



7.29 A full description of methodologies for this survey work, duration and timing of surveys are detailed in Appendix 7A. Sensitive breeding records are displayed in the Ornithology Confidential Annex.

Breeding Raptor Survey

7.30 The initial study area for this particular survey type was defined as the area within the site boundary plus a 2km buffer (Figure 7.5). However following access restrictions surveyors could not gain access to the 2km buffer to the northwest, west and southwest of the site boundary (Figure 7.5). Following consultation with SNH and RSPB Scotland (as in the consultation section) the following methodology was utilised to assess breeding raptor activity:

• five VPs overlooking the area to the northwest; west and southwest of the site boundary were used to assess raptor activity. Locations of these VPs are illustrated in Figure 7.6). A full viewshed analysis is shown in Figure 7A.3 of Appendix 7A;

• it is accepted that there are limitations to VP surveys when assessing breeding birds in comparison to surveyors intensely walking over all ground within the 2km buffer zone. It is also accepted that due to topography not all the ground within the 2km buffer could be viewed from the five VPs (Figure 7A.3 Appendix 7A);

• to compensate for these shortfalls, each VP was surveyed for 12 hours per month in each of April, May, June and July. VP observations were also spread throughout all periods of the day to include dawn and dusk hours; and

• SNH, RSPB Scotland, HRSG and Colin Crooke Highland Ornithology Ltd. have been contacted and provided additional raptor records for this area to aid any shortfalls in our data through the adapted methodology. Also ornithology data gathered during surveys for the Lochluichart Wind Farm (which covers the land where access was prohibited), has been used to supplement findings and contribute to this assessment.

7.31 Areas within the study area to the northeast, east and southeast of the site boundary (Figure 7.5) have been assessed using standard methods as accepted by SNH. All survey work for each species was undertaken in accordance with the methodologies stipulated in Hardey et al. (2006)10. Survey work was carried out monthly between mid-March to end of July 2009.

7.32 A full description of methodologies for this survey work, duration and timing of surveys are detailed in the Appendix 7A. Sensitive breeding records are displayed in the Ornithology Confidential Annex.

Breeding Red-throated Diver Survey

7.33 Information gathered during the desk study identified historic records of red-throated diver in the locality of the proposed Wind Farm.

7.34 Two survey visits between May and July 2009 (inclusive) were undertaken. All suitable lochans within the site boundary and the 2km study area (access permitted) were surveyed in order to identify breeding attempts (Figure 7A.6 Ornithology Technical Appendix. Methods followed those set out in Gilbert et al. (1998)9.

7.35 Where access was restricted, the five VPs used for breeding raptor surveys also targeted red-throated diver flights with the timing of these VPs coinciding with peak activities for this species, i.e. dawn and dusk, and their arrival on their breeding grounds (mid-late April).

7.36 Survey data from the Lochluichart Wind Farm Environmental Statement and surveys conducted at Corriemoillie by NRP have been utilised to provide additional information to this assessment for this species. Any records obtained via consultations have also been included in the assessment.

7.37 On the lochans where red-throated diver were present and believed to be breeding/attempting to breed, specific red-throated diver VPs were established. All incoming and out going flights from the lochan were recorded and breeding success/failure was established. The VP methodology follows that advocated by SNH7 for both Wind Farms in general and more specifically red-throated diver. The location of the VPs and viewsheds is shown in Figure 1 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex.


Breeding Black Grouse Survey

7.39 Black grouse surveys were conducted following the methodology detailed in Gilbert et al. (1998)9. This survey was conducted between April and mid-May 2009. Suitable lek habitat was identified from black grouse data obtained from RSPB Scotland, previous survey work carried out by NRP and the experience of two surveyors who completed this work. The suitable areas were surveyed three times; one visit in late April and two visits in early/mid May. In addition, VP sessions during the spring migratory period were timed to coincide with peak lek activity times.

7.40 A full description of methodologies for this survey work, duration and timing of surveys are detailed in Appendix 7A. Sensitive breeding/lekking records are displayed in the Ornithology Confidential Annex.

Winter Walkover Survey

7.41 Winter walkover surveys commenced in September 2008. The aim of these surveys was to record wintering birds using the forestry, within the site boundary, during the winter period.

7.42 Winter surveys ceased after the November 2008 visit as it was concluded that the site was species poor during the autumn/early winter and there was no benefit to continuing the survey work. Information obtained from NRP winter surveys has been used to supplement this assessment.

7.43 A full description of methodologies for this survey work, duration and timing of surveys are detailed in Appendix 7A (Figure 7A.7 for survey route).

Access Track Surveys

7.44 At the time of commencement of 2009 breeding bird surveys, the planned access track to the site took a southern route, from the A835 in the east, to the southeastern corner of the Wind Farm (Figure 7.7) – the November 2009 application. This route was surveyed in 2009, from April to July (inclusive). Prior to the 2010 breeding season the access track options were reassessed, and two alternatives were considered: an amended southern route approximately 1.7km in length, linking the A832 to the previously proposed access track route (Figure 7.7); and a northern route, approximately 0.3km in length linking the northern boundary of the development to the consented Lochluichart Wind Farm access track (Figure 7.8). Both options were surveyed in 2010, and it is the latter option (northern route) which was eventually selected for use. Formation of this track will comprise a minor section of newly built track and as such, land take has been minimised.

2009 Access Track Surveys



7.45 Breeding raptor surveys were undertaken between April and July 2009 along the previously-proposed southern access track route (November 2009 application). All suitable habitats for both breeding forestry species (goshawk, red kite etc) and open moorland species (hen harrier, merlin etc) within 1km of the access track route were surveyed as per SNH guidance7 and Hardy et al, (2006)10. A single VP was also used between mid-march and July (inclusive), to record displaying raptors (Figure 7.3). Viewshed analysis for this VP is shown in Figure 7A.8 in Appendix 7A.

7.46 Three breeding bird surveys covering the November 2009 access route were undertaken between April and June 2009 (inclusive). A combination of methods was used. Sections of existing track were walked slowly by surveyors. In areas where new track was proposed, open ground forestry rides within the forestry were utilised by surveyors. All birds observed exhibiting breeding behaviour and heard were recorded. In areas of open moorland the Brown & Shepherd (1993)18 methodology was used.

7.47 Black grouse surveys were undertaken with one visit in April and two visits in early/mid May 2009. Surveys were conducted following the methodology detailed in Gilbert et al. (1998)9. All suitable habitats within 1km of the southern access track were surveyed to locate any black grouse leks

7.48 Figure 7.7 illustrates the study areas for these surveys.

2010 Access Track Surveys

7.49 In 2010, only the area around the short section of the new part of the proposed northern access route was surveyed, which links the proposed development to the existing access road to the north. To the south, only the then-considered amended section of the southern access track was surveyed.

7.50 Breeding raptor surveys were conducted within a 1km buffer of survey areas from April to June 2010 (inclusive), following the methodology detailed in Gilbert et al. (1998) and Hardy et al. (2006)10.

7.51 Breeding bird surveys again followed the Brown and Shepherd (1993)18 methodology, occurring within a 500m buffer of both access track options. Three survey visits were made in April, May and June.

7.52 Black grouse surveys were conducted between April and June 2010 within a 1km buffer of both access track options following the methodology in Gilbert et al. (1998)9.


7.54 Figure 7.8 illustrates the study areas for these surveys.

Natural Research Projects Ltd Surveys 2002-2006 7.55 Table 7.3 summarises surveys and survey methodologies undertaken by NRP from 2002 to

2006.

Table 7.3 Summary of NRP Surveys 2002-2006 Survey Type 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Generic VPs Conducted

between April and December (Inclusive). Total of 127 hours of observation time.

Conducted between February and March. Total of 16 hours of observation time.

No survey Conducted between March and December (Inclusive). Total of 101 hours of observation time.

Conducted between January and March (Inclusive). Total of 20 hours of observation time.

Migration VPs Autumn geese migration VPs conducted between October and December (inclusive). Total of 23 hours of observation time.

No survey. Autumn geese migration VPs conducted between October and December (inclusive). Total of 21 hours of observation time.

Autumn geese migration VPs conducted between October and December (inclusive). Total of 24 hours of observation time. Spring migration VPs conducted between March and mid-May (inclusive). Total of 37 hours of observation time.

No survey.

Upland Breeding Bird Survey

Two visits between April and June using the Brown & Shepherd Methodology.

No survey. No survey. Two visits between April and June using the Brown & Shepherd Methodology. Including Access Track.

No survey.

Woodland Breeding Bird Survey

Two visits between April and June, no methodology described. Whole site

No survey. No survey. Two visits carried out in May and June.

No survey.



Survey Type 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 not covered just sampled.

Black Grouse Survey

No formal survey but forestry edges surveyed for this species.

No survey. No survey. Two Visits, one in late April and two visits in early/mid May.

No survey.

Raptor Surveys

No formal survey. Birds observed from VPs

No survey. No survey. Walkovers carried out in April, May and June searching for signs of breeding.

No survey.

Breeding Diver Survey

No Specific survey but birds were recorded during breeding bird surveys.

No survey. No survey. Surveys carried out in April, May and June with main focus on confirming breeding in July and August. Appropriate breeding methodology and VPs used.

Surveys carried out in June July and August. Appropriate breeding methodology and VPs used.

Winter Bird Survey Transects

Site area sampled via transects.

No survey. No survey. Transects across site. Carried out monthly between November and March (inclusive).

Transects carried out between January and March (inclusive).

Assessment of Significance

7.56 The approach taken to the assessment of ornithological impacts follows the guidance produced by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)4. These guidelines set out the process for assessment through the following stages:

• identification of Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) (the ecological components of highest value present at a site);

• determining the nature conservation value of the VERs present within the zone of influence that may be affected by the development;

• identifying the potential effects based on the nature of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development;

• determining the magnitude of the impacts including consideration of the sensitivity of the receptor and the duration and reversibility of the effect;

• determining the significance of the impacts based on the interaction between the effect magnitude/duration, and the nature conservation value and the likelihood of the effect occurring. In addition, sensitivity of the receptor affected is also considered for potential ornithological impacts;

• identifying mitigation measures required to address significant adverse effects; • determining the residual impact significance after the effects of mitigation have been

considered, including a description of any legal and policy consequences; and • identification of any monitoring requirements.

7.57 The assessment process involves identifying VERs. These ornithological receptors and their values are determined by the criteria defined in Table 7.4. It should be noted that these criteria are intended as a guide and are not definitive. Attributing a value to a receptor is generally straightforward in the case of designated sites, as the designations themselves are normally indicative of a value level. For example a moorland designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the Habitats Directive is implicitly of European (i.e. International) importance. Professional judgement is important when attributing a value level to a particular species or individual habitat. In these cases, reference has also been made to national guidelines for the selection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest20 in order to determine which level of significance should be applied. Social and economic factors are also considered when valuing receptors.

Table 7.4 Approach to Valuing Ecological Receptors Value Level Examples

International An internationally designated site (e.g. SPA) as designated under the Birds Directive, or Ramsar wetland sites designated under the Ramsar Convention), candidate site, qualifying feature (e.g. pink-footed geese connected to a nearby (SPA), or an area meeting the criteria for an international designation. A regularly occurring, nationally important population of any internationally important species listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive, or regularly occurring migratory species listed under Annex II/2 of the Birds Directive connected to an SPA designated for this species.

National A nationally designated site, or area meeting criteria for national level designations (e.g. Site of Special Scientific Interest [SSSI]). A regularly occurring, regionally important population of any nationally important species listed as a UK BAP priority species and Species listed under Schedule 1 or of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Annex I of the Birds Directive.

Regional A regularly occurring, locally important population of any nationally important species listed as a UK BAP priority species and Species listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Annex I of the Birds Directive. Sites which exceed the local authority-level designations but fall short of SSSI selection guidelines.

20 Nature Conservancy Council. 1989 (revised 1998). Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.



Value Level Examples

Local Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation or equivalent sites selected on local authority criteria (SWT Reserves). Local Nature Reserves (LNR). Other species of conservation concern, including species listed under the Local BAP (HLBAP) and the UK Birds of Conservation Concern.

Negligible All other species that are widespread and common and which are not present in locally, regionally or nationally important numbers which are considered to be of low or poor ecological value (e.g. UK Birds of Conservation Concern Green List species).

7.58 Effects on VERs are judged in terms of magnitude and duration21.

7.59 Magnitude refers to the size of an impact, and is determined on a quantitative basis where possible. This may relate to the area of habitat lost to the development footprint in the case of a habitat receptor, or predicted loss of individuals in the case of a population of a particular species of bird. Magnitude is assessed within five levels, as detailed in Table 7.5

Table 7.5 Criteria for Describing Spatial Magnitude (adapted from Percival 2007)22 Spatial magnitude

Description

Very high Total loss or very major alteration to key elements/features of the baseline (pre-development) conditions such that the post development character/composition/attributes would be fundamentally changed and may be lost from the site altogether. Guide: <20% of population/habitat

High Major loss or major alteration to key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that the post development character/composition/attributes would be fundamentally changed. Guide: 20-80% of population/habitat

Medium Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the baseline conditions such that post development character/composition/attributes would be partially changed. Guide: 5-20% of population/habitat

Low Minor shift away from baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration would be discernible but the underlying character/composition/attributes would be similar to pre-development circumstances/patterns. Guide: 1-5% of population/habitat

Negligible Very slight change from baseline condition. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to the “no change” situation. Guide: <1% population/habitat

21 Regini, K. 2000. Guidelines for ecological evaluation and impact assessment. Ecology and Environmental Management. In Practice, 29 (September), pp. 1, 3-7. Winchester, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. 22 Percival, S.M. 2007. Predicting the effects of Wind Farms on birds in the UK: the development of an objective assessment method. In de Lucas, M., Janss, G. & Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Power: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.

7.60 In the case of designated sites, spatial magnitude is assessed in respect of the area within the designated site boundary. For non-designated sites, spatial magnitude is assessed in respect of an appropriate scale depending on the value of the receptor e.g. Local. Impacts on breeding bird populations are assessed in a regional context.

7.61 Effects and spatial magnitude are assessed within the appropriate bio-geographic regions as recommended in SNH guidance23. These are detailed below:

• impacts on breeding bird populations are assessed in a regional context. The appropriate regional bio-geographic unit has been identified as the Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) by SNH. NHZ classifications represent areas with a high level of bio-geographic coherence, and are unrelated to administrative boundaries. At this stage, little data on bird populations for the majority of species is available at NHZ level. The constraints of available data therefore make assessment at NHZ level difficult. Corriemoillie lies within the North Highlands NHZ, and regional impacts are assessed within this area as far as is practicable;

• effects on non-breeding bird populations are assessed in a national context; and • any potential impacts on migratory goose populations of conservation importance are

assessed at an international level, in context with local sites for which these species are qualifying features.

7.62 Duration is defined as the time for which the impact is expected to last before recovery – i.e. return to pre-construction baseline conditions (Table 7.6).

Table 7.6 Criteria for Describing Duration24 Duration Definition Permanent Effects continuing indefinitely beyond the span of one human generation (taken

as approximately 25 years), except where there is likely to be substantial improvement after this period (e.g. the replacement of mature trees by young trees which need >25 years to reach maturity, or restoration of ground after removal of a development. Such exceptions can be termed “very long term effects”)

Temporary Long term (15 - 25 years or longer - see above) Medium term (5 – 15 years) Short term (up to 5 years)

7.63 Knowledge of how rapidly the population or performance of a species is likely to recover following loss or disturbance (e.g. by individuals being recruited from other populations elsewhere) is used to assess duration, where such information is available.

7.64 In addition, birds are assessed with consideration to their behavioural sensitivity and ability to recover from temporary adverse conditions. Behavioural sensitivity is determined subjectively based on the species’ ecology and behaviour, using the broad criteria set out in Table 7.7. The judgement takes account of information available on the responses of birds to various stimuli (e.g. predators, noise and disturbance by humans). It should be noted that behavioural sensitivity can differ between similar species and between different populations of the same species. Thus the

23 SNH. 2006. Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds outwith designated areas. SNH, Inverness. 24 Criteria for defining duration and sensitivity are based on tables provided by Mike Madders of Natural Research (Projects) Ltd.



behavioural responses of birds are likely to vary with both the nature and context of the stimulus and the experience of the individual bird. Sensitivity also depends on the activity of the bird, for example, a species is likely to be less tolerant of disturbance whilst breeding than at other times. In addition, individual birds of the same species will differ in their tolerance depending on the level of human disturbance that they regularly experience in a particular area, and have become habituated to (e.g. individuals that live in an area with high human population and activity levels are likely to have a greater tolerance than those that occupy remote locations with little or no human disturbance). However, tolerance is likely to increase as breeding progresses.

Table 7.7 Behavioural Sensitivity of Birds Sensitivity Definition High Species or populations occupying habitats remote from human activities, or that

exhibit strong and long-lasting (guide: >20 mins) reactions to disturbance events.

Moderate Species or populations that appear to be warily tolerant of human activities, or exhibit short-term reactions (guide: 5-20 minutes) to disturbance events.

Low Species or populations occupying areas subject to frequent human activity and exhibiting mild and brief reaction (including flushing behaviour) to disturbance events.

7.65 Magnitude, duration and sensitivity are then considered alongside proposed mitigation, and the nature of the effect determined. The nature of any effect on a VER is assessed using the criteria in Table 7.8, which is based upon IEEM guidelines. The concept of “integrity” in this context refers to sustained coherence of ecological structure and function of a VER, and includes consideration of both temporal and spatial factors. It is to be noted that there may be positive effects on VERs as a result of development and mitigation, as well as negative.

Table 7.8 Nature of Ecological Effects Nature of Effect

Criteria

Major Negative

The change is likely to cause an adverse effect on the integrity of a VER.

Negative The change adversely affects the VER, but there will probably be no effect on its integrity.

Neutral No effect. Positive The change is likely to benefit the VER. Major Positive

The change is likely to cause a positive effect on the integrity of an ecological receptor.

7.66 Having followed this process, the significance of an impact is then determined. The 2006 IEEM guidelines use only two categories: “significant” or “not significant”. In assessing whether an impact is significant, the concept of “ecological integrity” is a guiding principle. This concept can be applied to both designated sites (for example a SSSI) and to defined populations (for example a regional breeding curlew population). This concept underpins much of the European legislation in relation to nature conservation.

Baseline Description & Assessment of Effects

Designated Site Summary

7.67 Consultation and a search of available digital datasets indicates that there are no statutory designations of European importance (e.g. Special Protected Areas [SPA]), national importance (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest [SSSI]) or non-statutory local importance (e.g. Scottish Wildlife Trust [SWT] reserves) within the application site boundary. Table 7.9 provides details of statutory designations of ornithological European importance within 10km of the site boundary and 25km if grey geese are listed as a qualifying species, statutory designations of national importance within 10km, and non-statutory designations within 5km of the application site. Full citations for statutory designated sites can be obtained at http://www.jncc.gov.uk. Locations of statutory designations are shown in Figure 7.1.

Table 7.9 Summary of Designated Sites Designation Site Name Distance from

Corriemoillie Wind Farm

Reason for Designation

Proposed SPA (pSPA)

Glen Affric to Strathconon

Located approx 3.6km south of the site

The pSPA supports, in summer, a nationally important population of the Annex 1 species golden eagle with 10 breeding pairs recorded in 2003, representing 2.2% of the British breeding population.

SPA/SSSI Achanalt Marshes

Located approx 7.6km southwest of the site.

The SPA is designated for regularly supporting, in summer, a nationally important population of the Annex 1 species wood sandpiper with an average of 3 breeding pairs between 1991-1995, representing 50% of the British breeding population. The SSSI is designated for supporting an extremely rich breeding bird assemblage, including, greenshank, dunlin, curlew and redshank.

SSSI Fannich Hills

Located approx 5.8km west of the site.

The SSSI is designated for its upland breeding bird assemblage.

SPA/SSSI Beinn Dearg Located approx 4.7km north of the site.

The SPA is designated for supporting a nationally important population of breeding dotterel. From 1987 to 1993, an average of 22 pairs of dotterel bred within the Beinn Dearg SPA, representing 3% of the British breeding population. The SSSI is designated for supporting a rich breeding bird assemblage.

SPA/SSSI/NNR/IBA

Ben Wyvis SSSI & SAC – approx 8.1km east SPA - approx8.9km east

The SPA is designated for supporting a nationally important population of breeding dotterel. From 1987 to 1993, an average of 20 pairs of dotterel bred within the Ben Wyvis SPA, representing 2% of the British breeding population.



Designation Site Name Distance from Corriemoillie Wind Farm

Reason for Designation

NNR – approx 7.6km east

The SSSI is designated for supporting a breeding population of Dotterel. The NNR is designated for supporting a breeding population of Dotterel.

SPA/Ramsar/SSSI

Cromarty Firth

Located approx 21 km southeast of the site.

The SPA is designated for supporting an internationally important population of wintering greylag geese (1,782, 2% of total Icelandic population, all of which winters in GB). The SPA also supports a nationally important wintering population of whooper swan (1992/93-96/97 winter peak mean of 64, 1% of GB). The SPA also supports in excess of 20,000 waterfowl each winter and is nationally important for breeding osprey and common tern. The Ramsar and SSSI citations include the same species for which the SPA is designated.

IBA Central Highland

Located approx 2.3km south of the site.

This non-statutory designation is for an area classified as being important by RSPB Scotland for raptors and other specialist montane and forest birds.

Potential Effects on Ornithological Receptors

7.68 The main ways in which a Wind Farm may affect ornithological receptors are via:

• Habitat loss for breeding, foraging or roosting; • Disturbance or Displacement; and • Collision with turbines.

7.69 In addition to effects which are directly related to the proposed Wind Farm, there may be other effects which arise as a result of the combined effects of multiple Wind Farms within the local or regional area. These cumulative effects may also result in effects which would previously be considered to be not significant becoming more important and significant in context.

7.70 Each of these forms of potential effect is discussed in turn below.

Habitat Loss 7.71 During the construction phase of the proposed Wind Farm, the potential effects of associated

noise and visual disturbance could lead to the temporary displacement or disruption of breeding and foraging birds. Potential effects are likely to be greatest during the breeding season (mainly between March and August, depending on species) and behavioural sensitivity to the effects will vary between species (Table 7.7). Disturbance of birds due to construction activities of this type have not been sufficiently quantified and the available information is often contradictory. However, larger bird species, those higher up the food chain or those that feed in flocks in the open tend to be more vulnerable to disturbance than small birds living in structurally complex or closed habitats such

as woodland (Hill et al. 1997)25 The potential effects associated with construction activities are only likely to occur for as long as the construction phase continues. The exception to this would be if an adverse effect on the breeding success of a receptor were such that the local population becomes extinct and replacement through recruitment or recolonisation does not occur.

Disturbance 7.72 The operation of turbines and associated human activities for maintenance purposes also has

the potential to cause disturbance and displace birds from the application site. Disturbance effects during the operational phase may be less than during the construction phase. Studies have shown that, in general, species are not disturbed beyond 500 to 800m from turbines and, in some cases, birds do not appear to have been disturbed at all. However, individual turbines, or the Wind Farm as a whole, may present a barrier to the movement of birds, restricting or displacing birds from much larger areas. The effect this would have on a population is subtle and difficult to predict with any great certainty. If birds regularly have to fly over or around obstacles or are forced into suboptimal habitats, this may result in reduced feeding efficiency and greater energy expenditure. By implication, this will reduce the efficiency with which they accumulate reserves, potentially affecting breeding success. During the lifetime of the Wind Farm, however, birds may habituate to the presence of turbines, thus the effect is likely to be greatest in the short-term.

Collision 7.73 Collision of a bird with the turbine rotors is almost certain to result in the death of the bird. In low

density populations, such as raptors, this could have a more adverse effect on the local population than in higher density populations (e.g., skylark) because a higher proportion of the local population would be affected in a low density population. The frequency and likelihood of a collision occurring depends on a number of factors. These include aspects of the size and behaviour of the bird (including their use of the site) the nature of the surrounding environment and the structure and layout of the turbines.

7.74 Collision risk is perceived to be higher for birds that spend much of the time in the air, such as foraging raptors and those that have regular flight paths between feeding and breeding/roosting grounds (e.g., geese and red-throated diver). The majority of bird fatalities at Wind Farms have occurred on major migration routes, in reduced visibility or at night26,27,28. Birds are also more susceptible if the Wind Farm is located in an area of unusually high prey density. A close array of turbines across a natural wind funnel (a “wind wall”) has also been known to cause increased bird mortality. For diurnal foraging raptors, the proximity of structures on which to perch can increase the likelihood of collision with turbines29.

25 25 Hill, D.A., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R. & Treweek, J. 1997. Bird disturbance: improving the quality of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 275-288. 26 Crockford, N.J. 1992. A review of the possible impacts of windfarms on birds and other wildlife. JNCC Report No. 27. JNCC, Peterborough; Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. & Mudge, G.P. 1996. Review of the impacts of windfarms and other aerial structures upon birds. SNH Review 21; Thelander, C.G., Smallwood, K.S. & Rugge, L. 2003. Bird risk behaviours and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area. Report to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado. 27 Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. and Mudge, G.P. 1996. Review of the impacts of Wind Farms and other aerial structures upon birds. Scottish Natural Heritage Review No. 21. SNH, Edinburgh. 28 Thelander, C.G., Smallwood, K.S. and Rugge, L. 2003. Bird risk behaviours and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of performance: March 1998 – December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado. 29 Orloff, S. & Flannery, A. 1996. Avian mortality in Altamont Pass WRA – final report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.



7.75 Where there has been sufficient flight activity at Potential Collision Risk Height (PCH), collision risk modelling has been conducted following the Band Model, in accordance with SNH guidance7,30. Full details of the methodology can be found in Appendix 7A.

7.76 It should be noted that operational disturbance and collision risk effects are mutually exclusive in a spatial sense, i.e., a bird that avoids the Wind Farm area due to disturbance cannot be at risk of collision with the turbine rotors at the same time. However, they are not mutually exclusive in a temporal sense; a bird may initially avoid the Wind Farm, but habituate to it, and would then be at risk of collision.

Cumulative Effects 7.77 Cumulative effects would not be detected when considering the proposed Wind Farm in

isolation, but become significant in combination with other effects. The context in which cumulative effects are considered depends upon the ecology of the species in question.

7.78 It may be appropriate to consider cumulative collision risk to geese associated with an SPA within the context of their wider foraging range. This may involve the consideration of Wind Farms within, for example, 20km of the SPA (the actual range considered would be informed by the available information on area use by the particular roost population).

7.79 For other receptors, such as breeding waders, it may be appropriate to consider the effects on the local population as identified in the assessment, in the context of any planned Wind Farms in the immediate vicinity which have the potential of causing additional displacement. It may be considered that breeding pairs will move into adjacent suitable habitat when the development is considered in isolation, where in reality this land may be unavailable due to consent or another proposed project, specifically the consented Lochluichart Wind Farm adjacent on the land to the west of the proposed Wind Farm.

7.80 Cumulative effects are only considered for receptors identified in this assessment.

7.81 Cumulative effects are considered as integral components of the assessment of effects on receptors within 10km of Corriemoillie.

Receptor Assessment

7.82 A summary of identified avian Valued Ecological Receptors (VERS) is provided in Table 7.10 below. The VER assigned to each of the species is based upon baseline results from all survey work as opposed to the species conservation/protection status.

Table 7.10 Summary of Identified Avian Receptors Value VER INTERNATIONAL Pink-footed goose

Greylag goose (Cromarty Firth SPA) Golden eagle (Glen Affric to Strathconon pSPA)

NATIONAL Red-throated diver Greenshank

REGIONAL Red Kite

30 SNH. 2000. Guidance Note: Windfarms and Birds: Calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no avoiding action. SNH, Battleby.

Value VER Marsh Harrier Hen Harrier Goshawk Osprey Merlin Peregrine falcon Golden plover

LOCAL Black grouse Dunlin Snipe Skylark Red-listed species (other than skylark) Waterfowl Crossbill (winter) Bullfinch (winter)

NEGLIGIBLE Breeding passerine assemblage (common species e.g., chaffinch, blue tit great tit etc.) Winter passerine assemblage Other raptors (buzzard, sparrowhawk & kestrel)

7.83 Receptors of negligible conservation importance are not considered further in this assessment as they were not recorded in important numbers. These receptors are generally common and widespread species.

7.84 The results of field surveys and historical data searches are summarised below. Results from all relevant surveys are compiled to produce a baseline description for each particular receptor detected or reported. These are then discussed as species groups or individual receptor accounts as appropriate. Potential construction and operational effects are also considered for each receptor.

7.85 Mitigation is discussed where appropriate. However, it should be considered that the principle mitigation measure adopted to minimise the ecological impact of the development has been the use of an iterative design process (as considered in Chapter 2 (Approach to EIA) and in the Confidential Annex). Use has been made of ecological constraints plans and ecological issues have been taken into account throughout the design process. This means that most mitigation measures are embedded within the overall design, allowing the opportunity to microsite turbines away from sensitive habitats or species. This section presents specific measures adopted through the different phases of the development. An ecological clerk of works (ECoW) would be appointed to oversee mitigation measures, and ensure best practice during the construction and decommissioning phases.

7.86 Potential decommissioning effects are considered to be of the same nature as construction effects, with the exception that habitat is likely to be restored and displaced birds able to return to abandoned territories.

7.87 Full details of survey results can be found in Appendix 7A, where they are presented for each discrete survey type.



Pink-footed Goose

Baseline

7.88 Seven flights of pink-footed geese were observed during flight activity surveys, totalling 589 birds. Only 3 of the 7 flights crossed the proposed Wind Farm site. Two of the three flights, totalling 54 birds, were observed from VP6. This VP was not part of the migratory geese survey work and was not in use during the 2008 autumn migratory period or all of the spring migratory period; therefore these flights can not be used in the collision risk model. All flights are shown in Figure 7.9, with full flight details presented in Table 7A.27 of Appendix 7A. Seven goose flights were recorded by NRP during all migration VP survey work in 2005 and 2006 (Data obtained does not stipulate species or number of birds or heights). No geese data is presented in the Lochluichart ES.

7.89 The single remaining pink-footed goose flight of 100 birds was recorded at Potential Collision Height (PCH) during the 2009 spring migratory period. Based on these results collision risk modelling has been completed for this species.

7.90 Due to the localised and vulnerable nature of the global population in winter, the pink-footed goose population in the UK is considered to be of international importance. It is considered that at least 50% of the world population winters in Scotland (Forester et al, 2007)31, with over 50% of UK wintering birds being concentrated into 10 or fewer sites.

7.91 Winter numbers of pink-footed goose in Scotland have been estimated at 100,000-150,00031. The total British population was estimated at 287,563 in November 2007 (Mitchell, 2008)32. There has been a large increase in the wintering population since the mid-1980s due to a combination of factors specifically, increased acreages of winter cereal and permanent grass leys, combined with a decline in shooting pressure and better protection of many major roosts.

7.92 Pink-footed goose has a favourable conservation status and its current British population is in excess of 250,000 birds. Furthermore, pink-footed goose is a legitimate quarry species an estimated 25,000 are legally shot in Britain each year (Frederiksen, 2002)33.

7.93 Pink-footed geese are considered to be of international value in the context of this assessment. Pink-footed geese are also a priority species of the Highland Ross and Cromarty Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP).

Potential Construction Effects

7.94 There are no known pink-footed goose roosts of national or international importance or important foraging grounds within 25km of the proposed Wind Farm. Therefore no birds will be displaced during construction activities. Subsequently there is no pathway for effect during the construction phase as identified in this assessment.

31 Forrester, R. W., Andrews, I., J., McInerny. C., J., Murray, R., D., McGowan, R., Y., Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M., W., Jardine, D., C. & Grundy, D., S. (eds). (2007). The Birds of Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady. 32 Mitchell, C. 2008. Status and distribution of Icelandic-breeding geese: results of the 2007 international census. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge. 33 Frederiksen, M. (2002). Indirect estimation of the number of migratory greylag and pink-footed geese shot in Britain. Wildfowl, 53, 27–34.

Potential Operation Effects

7.95 There is a possibility that pink-footed geese may collide with turbines. However no regular migratory flights were observed and there are no roosts within 20km and no regular foraging routes from known roosts were detected. A single flight of 100 birds was observed during the spring migratory period in 2009, the birds traversed the proposed Wind Farm site at PCH. Collision risk modelling has been carried out for the spring migratory period only as there were no flights recorded during the autumn migratory period.

7.96 Full details of collision risk modelling can be found in Appendix 7A.

7.97 SNH currently accepts a 99% avoidance rate for geese. Using a 99% avoidance rate, the model yields an estimated mortality of one bird every 0.6 years i.e. 1.6 bird collisions per year. This is equivalent to 41.5 geese, during the spring migratory period, during the life time of the Wind Farm Taking the lower estimate of the total number of pink-footed geese which winter in Scotland (100,000) this loss is equivalent to 0.0004% of the population, i.e. <1%. The estimated mortality avoidance rate is therefore considered to be of negligible magnitude in and national passage and subsequent international passage population context. This effect is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude and therefore not significant.

Greylag Goose

Baseline

7.98 A single greylag goose flight, of three birds, was recorded during flight activity surveys. There were no further observations of this species from targeted surveys or incidental records when other surveys were being undertaken. Collision risk modelling has not been conducted for this species as based on these data the result would be negligible. All flights are shown in Figure 7.9. Two single flights of greylag geese were observed during all migratory watches conducted by NRP in 2005 and 2006. One flight consisted of just a single bird and the other flight was of a skein of 30 birds (no height data available). In addition, seven goose flights were recorded but data obtained does not stipulate species, number of birds or heights. NRP data from 2002-2003 does indicate a brief passage of greylag geese in April 2003, however no detailed data was available. No goose data is presented in the Lochluichart ES.

7.99 At least 20% of the entire greylag goose population winters in the UK, with over 50% of UK wintering birds being concentrated into 10 or fewer sites. Despite this localisation, numbers are high and the species is a legitimate quarry species that can be hunted outside the close season (Hearn and Mitchell, 2004)34. The species is not afforded a high level of protection under European or UK Law, and is not the subject of a specific action plan within the UK or Highland Biodiversity process.

7.100 Greylag goose is on the UK Amber List of BoCC, due to the localised and vulnerable nature of the northwest European population. Of the three greylag goose populations found in Britain, the birds seen at Corriemoillie are likely to belong to the migratory population that breeds in Iceland, 95% of which winter in Scotland31.

7.101 The winter Icelandic population of greylag goose increased up to 1990 but has since declined slightly31. The species remains relatively abundant in Britain with wintering numbers estimated at 107, 137 in 2007, an increase of 30% on the 2006 figures32. Scottish numbers were considered to

34 Hearn, R., D. & Mitchell, C., R. (2004). Greylag Gosse Anser anser (Iceland population) in Britain and Ireland 1960/61-1999/2000. Waterbird Review Series, WWT and JNCC, Slimbridge.



be approximately 83,500 birds in November 200434. Within Scotland there has been a northwards range shift since the 1980s31. Currently, the majority of the population winters in north Scotland.

7.102 Despite inclusion on the Amber List, greylag goose has a favourable conservation status and its current British population is in excess of 100,000 birds. Furthermore greylag goose is a legitimate quarry species an estimated 25,000 are legally shot in Britain each year33.

7.103 Greylag geese are considered to be of international value in the context of this assessment. Greylag geese are also a priority species of the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.


7.104 The Cromarty Firth SPA, approximately 21km southeast of the proposed Wind Farm, is the nearest known greylag goose roost of national and international importance. Baseline results however indicate that the proposed Wind Farm is not near any known foraging areas or on any foraging routes for the Cromarty Firth birds. Therefore no birds will be displaced during construction activities subsequently there is no pathway for effect during the construction phase as identified in this assessment.


7.105 There is a possibility that greylag geese may collide with turbines. However, flight activity surveys did not detect a regular foraging route from the nearest known roost for this species (the Cromarty Firth SPA), or migratory flight routes across the site. The single flight of three birds that was recorded did occur at PCH traversing the proposed Wind Farm envelope. However a collision risk model has not being carried out for this species as the result based on these data would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of short-term duration negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Red-throated Diver

Baseline

7.106 Two red-throated diver territories were identified during breeding bird surveys in 2009. One of these failed at the egg-laying stage, and the other successfully reared one chick.

7.107 A total of 52 red-throated diver flights were observed during flight activity surveys. Although the flights did not conform to a predictable model, these flights were predictable in the sense that they were spatially localised to particular areas of the site, due to their association with breeding territories and flyways to and from feeding waterbodies. Therefore, only the 35 flights that crossed the proposed Wind Farm (inclusive of a 200m buffer of rotor swept area) were considered in collision risk modelling. Of these flights, 31 were at PCH (total of 1395 seconds). A total of 27 flights were recorded originating from and terminating at the successful breeding territory (15 incoming and 12 outgoing), which was also responsible for the majority of flights crossing the proposed Wind Farm area. Fewer flights were recorded from the failed territory, due to the difference in behaviour of chick-rearing and non-breeding birds. None of these flights crossed the Wind Farm.

7.108 Due to the sensitive nature of this species all flight line data is displayed in Figures 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex. Details of observed flight activity are provided in Appendix 7A.

7.109 A small number of flights were recorded that were not associated with either breeding territory. These did not follow regular flyways, and are likely to be attributed to non-breeding adults or immature birds.

7.110 Historical information indicates that the territory that was unsuccessful in 2009 was occupied in 2005, successfully rearing one chick (data from NRP surveys).

7.111 In 2006, the two territories were not found to be occupied. However, a territory to the west was detected, and the pair successfully reared one chick (data from NRP surveys). This territory was also occupied in 2004, and successfully reared one chick (data from the Lochluichart ES). This territory was not occupied in 2009.

7.112 No territories were detected in 2003 (data from the Lochluichart ES).

7.113 Full details for the red-throated diver baseline are provided in the Confidential Annex, due to the sensitive nature of this information.

7.114 There is an estimated breeding population of 227 red-throated diver territories on mainland Scotland, in the context of an estimated Scottish breeding population of 1255 pairs (based upon the results of the last national survey in 2006)35. The mainland population was found to have increased by 14.1% between 1994 and 2006. Therefore, although a species of European conservation concern, the mainland Scotland red-throated diver breeding population appears to be stable, and may be increasing.

7.115 Red-throated divers are listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive, Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and the Amber list of BoCC.

7.116 Red-throated divers are considered to be of national importance in the context of this assessment.


7.117 As the forestry will be felled prior to construction, the habitat onsite will be altered. However, the habitats used by breeding red-throated divers will remain unchanged and so no effect is predicted. As all tree felling will be completed outside the breeding season, this will not result in disturbance to breeding red-throated divers.

7.118 Red-throated divers are highly susceptible to human disturbance, which is thought to be one of the main causes of breeding failure for this species. Therefore, it is proposed that a 500m and 750m buffers will be implemented for all red-throated diver territories, where restrictions on construction activities will be applied as appropriate, so as to prevent displacement36. Although these distances are based upon human disturbance, they have been accepted by SNH for construction activities at other Wind Farm sites, including Carraig Gheal Wind Farm.

7.119 Red-throated diver reactions to activity appear to be mainly due to visual disturbance as a result of presence of pedestrians and appear to be less affected by transient disturbance caused as a result of vehicles passing within view of lochans37. This also appears to be the case with other

35 Dillon, I.A., Smith, T.D., Williams, S.J., Haysom, S. and Eaton, M.A. 2009. Status of red-throated divers Gavia stellata in Britain in 2006. Bird Study 56, 147-157. 36 Ruddock, M. and Whitfield, D.P. 2007. A review of disturbance distances in selected bird species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage. SNH, Inverness. 37 Chris Cathrine, pers. obs.



birds38. One breeding territory is located within line-of-sight of proposed construction areas, while the other is located outwith line-of-sight of any activities. A stand of trees will be retained around the breeding lochan that would otherwise be in line-of-sight of construction activities in an attempt to avoid disturbance from certain activities during the breeding season. It is proposed that restrictions on construction activities within agreed buffers are designed with consideration to line-of-site. It is considered that the proposed mitigation is likely to avoid disturbance to breeding red-throated divers, and enable the retention of territories during the construction phase. If trees are lost (e.g. due to wind throw) then a buffer of at least 500m will be implemented around red-throated diver territories.

7.120 However, due to the paucity of studies concerning construction disturbance to red-throated divers and the uncertainty associated with the efficacy of the proposed mitigation a precautionary approach has been adopted in this assessment.

7.121 Construction activities are likely to be undertaken during the breeding season within line-of-site of one of the breeding territories. It is therefore considered that one breeding territory (equivalent to <0.5% of the mainland Scotland breeding population) will be lost from the breeding population through displacement for a single season. This effect is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude and so not significant.

Potential Operational Effects

7.122 Historical records indicate that occupied breeding territories in the study area have varied each year, and it has been noted that alternative sites may be used in different breeding seasons where there is an abundance of available lochans compared to the number of breeding pairs39. On Lewis, distances of approximately 1km between nest sites used in consecutive years are not unusual40. However, red-throated divers are generally believed to have high site fidelity, and so it has been assumed in this assessment that they would return to the identified breeding territories each year in the absence of a change in conditions41.

7.123 Red-throated divers continued to breed successfully within 200m of an operational turbine at Burgar Hill Wind Farm (Orkney) without a habituation period, and will breed close to roads. As one territory at Corriemoillie is located more than 1km from the nearest operational turbine location, no effect is predicted due to operational disturbance on this pair.

7.124 The second territory is located beyond 200m of any turbine locations. It is considered possible that this pair will continue to use their traditional lochan, and that there may be no interruption in occupancy after construction, as occurred at Burgar Hill Wind Farm. However, Burgar Hill Wind Farm is smaller than that proposed at this site, and the situation of the breeding territories differ in relation to infrastructure. However, due to this uncertainty surrounding how breeding red-throated divers may react to operational turbines in this situation, a precautionary approach has been adopted in this assessment. It is therefore considered that one breeding territory (equivalent to <0.5% of the mainland Scotland breeding population) could be lost from the breeding population through displacement. This effect is considered to be of permanent duration but negligible magnitude and so not significant.

38 Cameron MacIver, pers. comm. 39 Pendlebury, C., Zisman, S., Walls, R., Sweeney, J., McLoughlin, E., Robinson, C., Turner, L. and Loughrey, J. 2008. Literature review to assess bird species connectivity to Special Protection Areas, A report by RPS under contract to SNH. RPS, Glasgow. 40 Andrew Stevenson, pers. comm. 41 Okill, D. 2002. Ringing red-throated divers. Or, banding red-throated loons. Newsletter, Diver/Loon Specialist Group 4, 5-7.

7.125 Should this territory be lost, the risk of collision would be trivial, as the majority of flights that cross the proposed Wind Farm follow a flyway associated with this territory. In this event there would be a risk of an effect of short-term duration and negligible magnitude and so not significant.

7.126 However, should the red-throated diver territory be retained there would be a higher risk of mortality through collision with turbines. Collision risk modelling was therefore completed for breeding red-throated divers and full details are presented in Appendix 7A. However, the final Wind Farm layout was designed with a 500m corridor to allow the continued unimpeded use of the flyway associated with this territory. To demonstrate the efficacy of this corridor, two models were calculated. The first does not consider the corridor, and shows the potential collision risk for red-throated divers with no consideration to the flyway. The second shows the potential effect when the corridor design is taken into account by calculating potential collision risk using only the flights that do not follow the unimpeded flyway.

7.127 In the absence of the corridor the model yielded an estimated mortality of one bird every 4.99 years assuming the standard 95% avoidance rate. However, SNH has accepted an avoidance rate of 98% for other Wind Farm applications42. This avoidance rate is considered more realistic, considering there has been only a single recorded collision of a red-throated diver with an operational wind turbine, while birds have been observed to fly between turbines at Burgar Hill, where no collisions have been recorded. The 98% avoidance rate yields an estimated mortality of one bird every 12.47 years, or slightly more than two birds during the operational life of the Wind Farm. Although it is thought that red-throated divers reach breeding maturity within two or three years, they have a high rate of breeding failure and so low fledging rate (0.1943). Based on this, it is estimated that the replacement of two individuals would take at least 16 years. Therefore, this would be considered to be a negative effect of long-term duration and low magnitude, and so significant.

7.128 However, when collision risk is modelled taking the corridor into account the standard avoidance rate of 95% yields an estimated mortality of one bird every 14.52 years, while the more realistic avoidance rate of 98% yields an estimate of one bird every 36.1 years. This is less than one bird during the lifetime of the proposed Wind Farm. In the unlikely event that a single bird was lost, it is considered that it would take at least 8 years for this bird to be replaced. With the corridor in place, this effect is considered to be of medium-term duration and negligible magnitude and so not significant.

Golden Eagle

Baseline

7.129 A total of 22 golden eagle flights were recorded during all flight activity surveys conducted from VPs1-9, totalling 23 birds. Collision risk modelling has been carried out for this species based on these data for both the breeding and non-breeding season. Full details of flights can be found in Table 7A. 61 of Appendix 7A. Due to their sensitive nature, all Flight lines for this species are shown in Figure 10 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex.

7.130 Survey work conducted by NRP in 2002 and 2003 indicated a low level of activity of this species over the site during the autumn period. No records of this species were observed between 2005 and 2006. Data obtained from the Lochluichart ES states that 10 flights of this species were observed, nine of which were of juvenile birds and the remaining one flight, an adult.

42 SNH. 2009. Response to proposed Viking Wind Farm, Shetland. 43 Bundy, G. 1976. Breeding biology of the red-throated diver. Bird Study 23, 249-256.



7.131 Based on these results collision risk modelling has been carried out for this species on the data recorded during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons.

7.132 No nest sites were located during breeding raptor surveys and breeding raptor VPs within the 2km study area. In addition there are no known golden eagle nesting locations within 5km of the proposed Wind Farm (Ornithology Confidential Annex). Based on radio tracking and intensive observations, home range sizes for 11 golden eagle territories in western Scotland have been estimated at 1.7km-4.6km44.

7.133 There is little or no suitable habitat within the site boundary for this species. The site lies within a shallow bowl covered with plantation forestry. There are very few if any suitable cliffs/crags or ledges with a preferred northerly or easterly aspect to support a nesting attempt by this species. Approximately 4% of golden eagle nests recorded in Scotland have been tree nests; this has typically been in mature Scots pine10. The Corriemoillie Forest is very poor quality coniferous plantation and would not suit a nesting attempt by this species There is however suitable foraging and breeding habitat for this species to the north, northwest, west and south of Corriemoillie Forest.

7.134 The most recent national survey for this species conducted in 2003 estimated the Scottish population to be 441 pairs45. In 2006, 122 known home ranges in the Highlands were checked for occupancy, 101 of these (83%) were occupied. Only 30 pairs from the 101 occupied territories successfully fledged young46. Of the 101 occupied territories visited in the Highlands only 1 territory was monitored in Easter Ross46.

7.135 There are 90 known golden eagle territories in NHZ7. During the 1992 national population survey only 45 of these were occupied; in the last national survey in 2003 this had reduced to 43 occupied territories47.

7.136 The Glen Affric to Strathconon pSPA holds good numbers of golden eagle at moderate density and with high productivity. The site supports 10 pairs of golden eagle, 2.2% of the GB population (2003 national survey data)48. Whilst complete monitoring of this area has not been undertaken annually, numbers have been consistent in recent decades (nine active pairs in 1992 and 10 in 1982) and no eagle territories are known to have fallen vacant since the time of the 2003 survey. The mean young fledged per pair on Glen Affric to Strathconon was 0.33 in 1992 and 0.40 in 2003 compared with the national average of 0.32 fledged per pair in 1992 and 0.36 in 2003.

7.137 Golden eagles only start to breed from the age of four. At this stage the bird is classed as a sub-adult, eagles do not become adults until the age of seven31. The species is therefore long lived but with a low productivity rate and the population has low recruitment levels.

44 Haworth, P.F. et al. 2006. Ranging distance of resident Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos in western Scotland according to season and breeding status. Bird Study, 53, 265-273 45 Eaton, M.A., Dillon, I., A, Stirling-Aird, P.K. & Whitfield, F.P. (2007). The status of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos in Britain in 2003. Bird Study 54: 212-220. 46 Etheridge, B., Holling, M., Riley, H., Wernham, C., Thomson, D. (2008). Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Report 2006. Scottish Ornithologist Club. 47 Whitfield, D P, Fielding, A H, McLeod, D R A and Haworth, P F. (2008). A conservation framework for golden eagles: implications for their conservation and management in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.193 48 http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/GEConsult/5.4A-GLENAFFRICSTRATHCONONCASE-B437667.pdf 50 Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2006). Upland raptors and the assessment of Wind Farm impacts. Ibis, 148, 43-56.

7.138 Golden eagle is listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) and the amber list of BoCC. Golden eagle is a priority species on the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.

7.139 Baseline results indicate this species does use the moorland to the west of the and there are known territories within 5-10km of the site. Based on the proximity of the pSPA where golden eagle is a qualifying feature, this species is therefore considered to be of International ecological importance.


7.140 Golden eagles have been rated as having high sensitivity to Wind Farms by Madders and Whitfield (2006)50, with evidence from Walker et al. (2005)51 suggesting that range use changed for a pair of resident golden eagles after a Wind Farm in Scotland was constructed within a territory (although there were possibly other confounding habitat management factors). Studies in the USA conversely have not noted any displacement effects due to the operation of Wind Farms (Madders & Whitfield 200650).

7.141 González et al. (2006)52 recommended that after an extensive study of golden eagles in Spain, a minimal protection buffer of 500m with a vulnerable zone extending to 800m in which some low-level human activities are allowed. In the UK, recommended buffer zones have ranged from 750–1500m (McGrady et al. 199753, Currie & Elliott 199754), and 900 – 1100m (Petty, 199855).

7.142 From an extensive literature and peer review of golden eagle disturbance effects (including the above papers), Ruddock and Whitfield (200756) recommended that golden eagles are potentially affected to an upper limit of 750-1000m. No reviewer recommended a distance of greater than 2km.

7.143 Using the above information, baseline results that foraging takes place over the adjacent moorland and that the nearest known nesting location is greater than 5km, as a precaution it is considered that Corriemoillie lies at the edge of a territory range. Baseline results indicate a higher level of activity during the breeding season compared to the non-breeding season. However the relatively low levels of activity indicate that the site and adjacent moorland is of marginal importance for foraging during the breeding season and of relatively low importance during the non-breeding season.

7.144 Overall construction effects on this species is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude, and so not significant.


51 Walker, D., M. McGrady, A. McCluskie, M. Madders & D. R. A. McLeod. 2005. Resident Golden Eagle ranging behaviour before and after construction of a Wind Farm in Argyll. Scottish Birds 25:24- 52 González, L.M., Arroyo, B.E., Margalida, A., Sanchez, R. & Oria, J. (2006). Effect of human activities on the behaviour of breeding Spanish imperial eagles (Aquila adalberti): management implications for the conservation of a threatened species. Animal Conservation, 9, 85-93. 53 McGrady, M.J., McLeod, D.R., Petty, S.J., Grant, J.R. & Bainbridge, I.P. (1997). Golden Eagles and Forestry. Research Information Note 292. Forestry Commission, Farnham, UK. 54 Currie, F. & Elliott, G. (1997). Forests and Birds: A Guide to Managing Forests for Rare Birds. Forestry Authority, Cambridge and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, UK. 55 Petty, S.J. 1998. Ecology & conservation of raptors in forests. Forestry Commission Bulletin, 118. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh. 56 Ruddock, M. and Whitfield, D.P. 2007. A review of disturbance distances in selected bird species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage. SNH, Inverness.



7.145 There is a possibility that golden eagles may collide with the turbines. Initial studies into Wind Farms reported that up to 67 golden eagles were killed annually at Altamont Pass in California (Smallwood and Thelander, 2008 in RSPB sensitivities57), with proportionally more golden eagles being killed than would have been predicted by chance. This is likely to have been due to hunting behaviour (Orloff & Flannery, 1992)29 and poor turbine placement for eagle foraging.

7.146 In contrast, throughout the whole of Europe, Hötker et al. (2004)58 found only one reported casualty of a golden eagle due to collision with a wind turbine in Spain.

7.147 More recent evidence from operational Wind Farms has shown that golden eagles actively avoid turbines51. From a recent review of monitoring studies at four operational Wind Farms in the USA, a precautionary avoidance level of 99% was recommended (Whitfield, 200959).

7.148 A total of 22 flights were recorded during all flight activity surveys but of these only six were recorded at PCH within the 2km VP viewsheds. Five of the six flights were recorded during the breeding season (total time at PCH = 600 seconds), the remaining one flight was observed during the non-breeding season (total time at PCH = 157.5 seconds).

7.149 Collision risk modelling has been calculated for this species for both the breeding and non-breeding season. Two models have been calculated. A standard average model has been produced which assumes that activity will remain the same, and a weighted average model which assumes activity will increase over the site post-felling. Of all the flights observed only eight traversed the proposed Wind Farm envelope and the majority of flight activity for this species was recorded on moorland to the west and northwest of Corriemoillie Forest. It is most likely that Corriemoillie will become more suitable for golden eagle to forage over post felling. Full details of collision risk modelling are provided in Appendix 7A.

7.150 The turbine collision avoidance rate for this species was set at 99%59. During the non-breeding season the standard average model calculates a collision risk of one golden eagle every 257.58 years. The weighted average model for the non-breeding period calculates a collision risk of one golden eagle every 85.86 years. Assuming 86 birds are present during the winter period (this is based on 43 pairs holding territories from 2003 national survey and that birds are present all year), this level of predicted mortality for the weighted average model, which represents a worst case scenario, is a loss of 0.01% of the NHZ7 population. This assumption does not account for juvenile or sub-adult non-breeding birds which may be in NHZ7 during the winter. This is considered to be an impact of negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

7.151 The standard average model based on data obtained from the breeding season calculates a collision risk of one golden eagle every 97.73 years. This equates to 0.01 collisions per year and no birds during the life time of the Wind Farm. The weighted average model for the breeding season calculates a collision risk of one golden eagle every 12.38 years, this equates to 0.08 collisions per year and approximately two birds during the life time of the Wind Farm. Making the same assumptions as above on the NHZ7 population and using the weighted average model which represents a worst case scenario, this would be a loss of 0.09% of the NHZ7 population. Again this

57 Bright, J., Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans, R., Gardner, S. & Pearce-Higgins, J. (2008). Map of bird sensitivities to Wind Farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conservation. Biological Conservation 141: 2342-2356. 58 Hotker, H., Thomsen, KM., & Jeromin, H. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy sources: the example of birds and bats-facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU, Bergenhusen. 59 Whitfield, P.D. (2009). Collision avoidance of golden eagles at Wind Farms under the 'Band' collision risk model. Report to Scottish Natural Heritage. Natural research Projects Ltd.

assumption does not take into account additional juvenile and sub-adult birds which would be part of the NHZ7 golden eagle population during the breeding season. This is considered to be an impact of short-term duration and negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Greenshank

Baseline

7.152 Four greenshank territories were identified during breeding bird surveys in 2009. Two of these were within the application site boundary (northwest and central), and a third was located east of the site along the November 2009 access route. The fourth was outwith the study area, east of the site. Two of the three territories within the study area failed to rear young (northwest site and southern access track), while the central territory raised one chick. All 2009 territories are shown in Figure 7.11. In 2010 two territories were located within the northern access route survey area (c. 500m and 600m from the proposed track), one of which to the northwest of the Wind Farm area may be the same as that recorded in 2009 (Figure 7.11).

7.153 Data collected by NRP in 2005 identified three greenshank territories, indicating a similar population density, and suggesting a stable population within the study area.

7.154 A feeding area was also identified during surveys in 2009 (shown in Figure 7.11). This area offers open habitat with scattered small pools, making it ideal for foraging greenshank. It is likely that birds from both territories located within the site boundary commute to this location to forage as there is little alternative foraging habitat within the site, due to the extent of the commercial forestry plantation.

7.155 A total of 28 greenshank flights were observed during flight activity surveys in the 2009 breeding season, and 26 of these were detected within viewsheds. Seventeen of these flights were at PCH and totalled 1050 seconds of flight activity. Activity was observed throughout the application site and surrounding moorland and was associated with the breeding territories. All greenshank flights are shown in Figure 7.10. Collision risk modelling has been carried out for this species.

7.156 There is an estimated breeding population of 390 territories in South Scotland (all mainland areas excluding Caithness and Sutherland). This compares to an estimated Scottish population of 1080 pairs based upon the results of the last national survey in 199560. This area was further subdivided in a more recent study, where an increase of 79% was detected between 1980-1991 and 2000-2002 during upland breeding bird surveys in West Flows. This indicated a favourable population status in the local area, and concluded that greenshank have a favourable conservation status throughout Scotland61.

7.157 Greenshank are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

7.158 Greenshank are considered to be of national importance in the context of this assessment.


7.159 As the forestry will be felled prior to construction, the habitat onsite will be altered. However, the resulting open ground will be similar to surrounding habitat, which is suitable for breeding

60 Hancock, M.H., Gibbons, D.W. and Thompson, P.S. 1997. The status of breeding Greenshank Tringa nebularia in the United Kingdom in 1995. Bird Study 44, 290-302. 61 Sim, I.M.W., Gregory, R.D., Hancock, M.H. and Brown, A.F. 2005. Recent changed in the abundance of British upland breeding birds. Bird Study 52, 261-275.



greenshank. It is also likely that the ground conditions will become wetter in the absence of trees. This could create suitable foraging habitat.

7.160 As all tree felling will be completed outside the breeding season, this will not result in disturbance to breeding greenshank.

7.161 Construction activities will cause disturbance, and greenshank may be displaced from the foraging area due to its close proximity to turbine 4 (100m). However, the felling of the surrounding forestry will improve the suitability of other areas of the site for foraging birds. Therefore, no effect is predicted.

7.162 There is a paucity of studies considering disturbance effects on greenshank. A maximum disturbance distance of 300m has been suggested for wood sandpiper, which are closely related56. It is proposed that a 300m buffer is implemented for all greenshank territories, where restrictions on construction activities will apply so as to prevent displacement.

7.163 However, as there is a degree of uncertainty as to the efficacy of the proposed construction phase mitigation, a precautionary approach has been adopted in this assessment. It is therefore considered that the two breeding territories within the proposed Wind Farm site will be lost from the breeding population through displacement for a single season. This effect is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude and so not significant.

Potential Operational Effects

7.164 Greenshank are known to have high site fidelity, and so can be expected to return to breeding territories each year. Although specific disturbance studies have not been conducted, it is thought that breeding greenshank will behave similarly to golden plovers, which may be displaced within 200m of operational turbines62,63,64

. This has been considered in the final layout design, and no turbines are to be located within 200m of greenshank breeding territories in an attempt to avoid the permanent displacement of greenshank breeding within the application site boundary. However, it is possible that the two territories breeding within the site boundary may be displaced, and permanently lost from the breeding population. This is equivalent to a loss of 0.5% of the South Scotland population as estimated in 1995. Coupled with the positive trend detected for this population, this effect is considered to be of permanent duration and negligible magnitude and so not significant.

7.165 Tracks and areas of hardstanding are believed to present a potential barrier to dispersal to greenshank as a result of young becoming trapped in associated ditches and drowning63. Young greenshank are led by their parents to small waterbodies located close to the nest site. As the track design has avoided intersecting potential routes between nest locations and nearby waterbodies, no effect is predicted.

7.166 Should all territories be lost within the proposed Wind Farm site, there would be no risk of collision.

7.167 However, should the greenshank territories be retained through the integrated mitigation and improvement in foraging habitat there would be a risk of mortality through collision with turbines.

62 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W. and Bright, J.A. 2008. Assessing the cumulative impacts of Wind Farms on peatland birds: a case study of golden plover Pluvialis apricaria in Scotland. Mires and Peat 4, Article 1. 63 Thompson, D. 2007. Proposed Wind Farm development at Achany Estate, Lairg, Sutherland & Proposed Wind Farm development at Beinn Rosail, Strath, Oykel, Invercassley, Sutherland: Principal Precognition. SNH.

Collision risk modelling was therefore completed for breeding greenshank and full details are presented in Appendix 7A.

7.168 A highly precautionary model was adopted, designed to estimate mortality in the event that the site was fully occupied. The model yielded an estimated mortality of one bird every 5.65 years assuming the standard 95% avoidance rate. However, this avoidance rate is considered over-precautionary and unrealistic for waders. Therefore, the avoidance rate of 99% was applied, as suggested for application with golden plovers64. This rate yields an estimated mortality of one bird every 28.23 years, which is less than one bird during the 25 year operational life of the Wind Farm. Should a greenshank be lost to collision, this could result in the loss of a breeding territory. However, it is anticipated that another territory would become established and the lost bird replaced to the population within two years (the age at which greenshank reach maturity).

7.169 This estimated mortality is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude in the context of the South Scotland breeding population, and therefore not significant. The South Scotland breeding population relates to the whole Scottish population outwith Caithness and Sutherland.

Red Kite

Baseline

7.170 A total of 12 red kite flights were recorded during all flight activity surveys conducted from VPs1-9, totalling 14 birds. Of the 12 flights recorded only eight flights occurred at PCH traversing the Wind Farm envelope. Of those eight flights at PCH and within the proposed Wind Farm envelope, four flights were recorded during the non-breeding season (total time at PCH = 1837.5 seconds), and the other four flights were recorded during the breeding season (total time at PCH = 71.25 seconds). Full details of flights can be found in Table 7A. 44 of the Ornithology Technical Appendix 7A. Due to their sensitive nature, all flight lines for this species are shown in Figure 11 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex. During previous survey work conducted by NRP between 2005 and 2006, this species was not recorded. However during NRP survey work between 2002-2003 a small amount of activity was noted in July 2003 (no details provided). This species was not recorded during survey work conducted for Lochluichart ES.

7.171 Based on these results, collision risk modelling has been carried out for this species on the data recorded during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons.

7.172 No nest sites were located during breeding raptor surveys and breeding raptor VPs within the 2km study area. A breeding site for this species is located within 10km of the proposed Wind Farm. This species is well monitored in this area, and so this is likely to be an accurate picture of the local population. Due to the sensitive nature of this information, full details can be found in Confidential Annex. Furthermore there are no SPA's within 10km of the proposed Corriemoillie Wind Farm site that have red kite as a qualifying species.

7.173 Red kites have undergone a rapid population expansion in Scotland in the last 15-20 years. This has occurred via a three phase re-introduction programme in three areas of Scotland one of which occurred in the Highlands; with some birds being released on the Black Isle between 1989-199310. There were estimated to be between 1,463 and 1,713 pairs of red kites breeding in Britain in 2007, with an estimated 50 pairs recorded in the Highland re-introduction programme areas in

64 Whitfield, D.P. 2007. The effects of Wind Farms on shorebirds (Waders: Charadrii), especially with regard to wintering golden plovers. Natural Research Ltd., Banchory.



200865. It has been estimated that in 2009 the Scottish breeding population reached a minimum of 149 pairs66. The Scottish population in winter is estimated at between 300-350 birds31.

7.174 Red kite is listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) and the amber list of BoCC. Red Kite is also a priority species within the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.

7.175 Due to the absence of any breeding locations within 2km of the Corriemoillie Wind Farm site and the low levels of activity recorded for this species during all flight activity surveys, this species is considered to be of regional ecological value.


7.176 The site is not important for foraging red kite during the breeding season based on flight activity survey data. However red kites spent a longer period of time over the site during the winter period, suggesting the site is used by red kites during the winter for foraging.

7.177 There is a possibility that red kite will be displaced from the site during the construction phase of the proposed Wind Farm during winter only. However due to the infrequent activity observed it is likely that the site and surrounding area are a marginal foraging area for this species and there are no winter roosts located on site or within 2km of the site based on the low activity observed.

7.178 Radiotracking work carried out by the RSPB has found sub-adult red kites regularly ranging within 10km from their winter roosts, with maximum distances being 20km (Kevin Duffy pers. comm.). Other accounts have estimated that red kites normally forage within 4km of their roost site during winter, utilising a maximum area of up to 2000-3000ha (English Nature 2002)67. Studies of Welsh birds have found individuals travelling 10km in a single day (Cramp & Simmons 1980)68. Studies in Germany found red kites foraging up to 10km from the roost site (Davis & Davis 1981)69.

7.179 If the proposed Wind Farm does lie within a red kite winter foraging area, this only comprises a very small amount of that foraging area based on figures obtained from these studies. In addition, more suitable habitat for this species, i.e. mature woodland for breeding and roosting, with extensive open low ground, moorland areas and marginal agricultural habitats for foraging, is available to the south of the site.

7.180 Any impacts during the construction phase on this species will be short-term duration and negligible magnitude based on information presented above. For these reasons no significant effect is predicted for this receptor during the construction phase


7.181 There is a possibility that red kites may collide with turbines. However, the flight activity survey did not detect regular foraging activity across the site or local area, and there are no known territories within 2km of the application site. Only four red kite flights were observed during flight activity surveys within viewshed areas in the breeding season and four in winter. All of these flights were at PCH. Activity was distributed over the site and surrounding area, with slightly higher levels

65 http://www.gigrin.co.uk/red_kites_in_the_united_kingdom_breeding_pairs_1989-2007.html 66 http://www.scottishraptorgroups.org/news.php?month=10&year=2009 67 English Nature. 2002. Return of the red kite: the red kite reintroduction programme in England. English Nature. 68 Cramp, S. & Simmons, K.E.L., eds. 1980. The handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: the birds of the Western Palaearctic; Volume II: Hawks to Bustards. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 69 Davis, P.E. & Davis, J.E. 1981. The food of the Red Kite in Wales. Bird Study, 28, 33-39.

in winter and more activity over moorland surrounding the site. This higher level of activity may be due to increased foraging ranges and dispersing young in winter. Collision risk modeling was conducted for this species as a precaution, given the borderline level of flight activity and the possibility that the site may become more suitable for foraging birds after the forestry is felled.

7.182 Full details of collision risk modeling are provided in Appendix 7A.

7.183 Using an avoidance rate of 98%, the model yields an estimated mortality of one bird every 170.2 years during the breeding season and one bird every 14.13 years during the winter. This is equivalent to one to two birds lost to the wintering population during the operational phase of the Wind Farm. This is less than the number of young fledged in a single year in Scotland. In 2006 79 young were fledged from 35 sites in the highlands alone (Etheridge et al., 200646).

7.184 The estimated collision mortality during the breeding season of 0.01 red kite collisions per year represents a loss of 0.01% of the regional population, based on 50 pairs recorded in 2008. This is less than 1% of the breeding population if a pair is lost as a result of death to one adult. The risk of loss of birds during the breeding season throughout the operational phase is short-term duration and negligible magnitude therefore not significant.

7.185 The estimated collision mortality during the non-breeding season of 0.07 red kite collisions per year represents a worst case scenario loss of 0.023% of the national population, based on winter estimate of 300 birds in Scotland. This is less than 1% of the national wintering population if a bird is lost as a result of death to one adult. The risk of loss of birds during the non-breeding season throughout the operational phase is therefore negligible.

7.186 This estimated collision mortality is considered to be of negligible magnitude in regional (NHZ7) breeding and national wintering population contexts, and therefore not significant.

Marsh Harrier

Baseline

7.187 A single marsh harrier flight was recorded during all flight activity surveys. There were no further observations of this species from targeted surveys or incidental records when other surveys were being undertaken. The flight was not observed traversing the proposed Wind Farm envelope. Collision risk modelling has not been conducted for this species as based on these data the result would be negligible. Due to their sensitive nature, all flight lines for this species are shown in Figure 12 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex. During previous survey work conducted by NRP this species was not recorded. This species was not recorded during survey work conducted for Lochluichart ES.

7.188 No nest sites were located during breeding raptor surveys and breeding raptor VPs within the 2km study area. Furthermore HRSG and Colin Crooke Highland Ornithology Ltd are not aware of any known nest location for this species within 10km of the proposed Corriemoillie Wind Farm. During previous survey work conducted by NRP no marsh harrier flights were observed.

7.189 Marsh harrier is a rare breeder in Scotland with only 9 pairs recorded in 2006. All birds from the Scottish population are thought to migrate to Europe and Africa during the winter with the possible exception of some female birds which winter in south and east England31. The main Scottish marsh harrier population is located at the Tay Estuary which hosts a small but regular population of between 3-5 nesting pairs.



7.190 Scottish Marsh Harriers rely solely on reed bed habitats for nesting purposes though chicks from the Tay region have successfully nested in arable crops in England. It has been shown that there is a strong preference for fertile arable farmland adjacent to the breeding site, which clearly augments the range and abundance of prey species31.

7.191 The Scottish population still remains extremely fragile, the reasons for which remain unclear. Whilst the limited area of suitable wetland habitat in Scotland may be a factor which restricts expansion in the long term, given a number of apparently suitable sites, there is ample opportunity for colonisation and expansion in the short term70.

7.192 Marsh Harrier is listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) and the amber list of BoCC.



7.194 There is no pathway for effect during the construction phase as identified in this assessment.


7.195 There is a possibility that marsh harrier may collide with turbines. However only one flight was recorded and this did not traverse the proposed Wind Farm envelope. It is likely that bird (recorded in April 2009) was en route to its breeding site or was a non-breeding bird.

7.196 Collision risk modelling has therefore not been completed for this species, as the result would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Hen Harrier

Baseline

7.197 A total of four flights were recorded during all flight activity surveys. Three of the four flights recorded were at PCH and traversed the proposed Wind Farm envelope. One of the three flights occurred during the non-breeding period (total time at PCH = 15 seconds) with the other two being recorded during the breeding period (total time at PCH = 161.25 seconds). Full details of flights can be found in Table 7A. 52 of Appendix 7A. Due to their sensitive nature, all flight lines for this species are shown in Figure 12 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex. Surveys conducted by NRP observed a single flight of this species in 2005. During NRP survey work between 2002-2003 a small amount of activity was observed in May 2003 (no detailed data was provided). This species was not recorded during survey work conducted for Lochluichart ES.

7.198 Based on these results collision risk modelling has been carried out for this species on the data recorded during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons.

7.199 No nest sites were located during breeding raptor surveys and breeding raptor VPs within the 2km study area. There are no SPA's within 10km of the proposed Wind Farm that has hen harrier listed as a qualifying species.

70 http://www.scottishraptorgroups.org/raptors/marsh_harrier.php

7.200 National surveys show the UK population to have remained fairly stable at 578-700 breeding pairs over the last twenty years71. There are however, large regional differences in the population trend. The most recent national survey reported 102 breeding pairs in the Northern Highlands in 2004 (17.1% of the Scottish population), a 240% increase since 199872. However, there was a large discrepancy between the two methods for calculating trends in the North Highlands suggesting that this increase in the population is not as large in reality.

7.201 Hen Harrier is listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) and the red list of BoCC. Hen Harrier is listed as a priority species on the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.



7.203 During the construction phases of the project there is potential for disturbance-displacement from foraging areas for birds throughout the year. However, since the site is not within the core foraging range of a breeding hen harrier pair (2km, according to SNH guidelines7), and therefore does not represent an important breeding or feeding resource for hen harriers, any such effects (of low magnitude) would have no more than a minor impact on the conservation status of the species at any level (not significant). The same applies for wintering harriers, since there is no known SPA roost location within 2km of the site. Any winter displacement is therefore not predicted to be detrimental to SPA or SPA-associated wintering harriers. Therefore any impact would be short-term duration and negligible in magnitude therefore not significant.


7.204 There is a possibility that hen harrier may collide with turbines. However, the flight activity survey did not detect regular foraging activity across the site or local area, and there are no known territories within 2km of the application site. Only two hen harrier flights were observed during flight activity surveys within viewshed areas in the breeding season and 1 in winter. All of these flights were at PCH. Activity was distributed over the site and surrounding area, with slightly higher levels in the breeding season and more activity over the site. Collision risk modelling was conducted for this species as a precaution, given the borderline level of flight activity, and the possibility that the site may become more suitable for foraging birds after the forestry is felled.

7.205 Full details of collision risk modelling are provided in Appendix 7A.

7.206 Using an avoidance rate of 99%, the model yields an estimated mortality of one bird every 434.12 years during the breeding season and one every 3897.93 years during the winter. This is equivalent to no birds lost to the breeding or wintering population during the operational phase of the proposed Wind Farm.

71 Bright, J., Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans, R., Gardner, S., and Pearce-Higgins, J. 2006. Map of bird sensitivities to Wind Farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conservation. Biological Conservation 141: 2342-2356 . 72 Sim, I.M.W., Dillon, I.A., Eaton, M.A., Etheridge, B., Lindley, P., Riley, H., Saunders, R., Sharpe, C., Tickner, M. (2007). Status of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus in the UK and Isle of Man in 2004, and a comparison with the 1988/89 and 1998 surveys. Bird Study, 54(2): 256-267.



7.207 This estimated collision mortality is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude in regional (NHZ7) breeding and national wintering population contexts, and therefore not significant.

7.208 There is an increasing body of evidence that hen harriers can successfully breed within close proximity to Wind Farms. A recent review on levels of turbine avoidance at various Wind Farms suggest breeding hen harrier densities may be reduced only within a 250m buffer of the turbines, and no effects over 800m have been shown for any species studied73. Although not fully in the public domain, reliable verbal accounts confirm that at Paul’s Hill Wind Farm (24 turbines operational since 2006) and Lendrum Hill Wind Farm (24 turbines), successful nesting has taken place in successive years within approximately 300m of these operational Wind Farms.

7.209 Furthermore, no harrier collisions have been recorded at the two operational Wind Farms mentioned above, and only two collisions have been recorded at any Wind Farms in the UK, Europe or North America. The recorded UK collision was at a Wind Farm in County Antrim in 200774 and was believed to be as a result of a wintering bird not familiar with its surroundings colliding during a period of poor visibility. This suggests that flight behaviours of hen harriers are such that collision-risk with turbines is minimal.

Goshawk

Baseline

7.210 There were no goshawk flights observed traversing the proposed Wind Farm envelope during flight activity surveys. A single sighting was observed during breeding raptor surveys outwith the proposed Wind Farm site, to the south. Two flights of Goshawk were recorded from the November 2009 access track VP in 2009 but these were over 2km from the proposed Wind Farm. Due to their sensitive nature, all Flight lines for this species are shown in Figure 15 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex. During previous survey work conducted by NRP this species was not recorded. This species was not recorded during survey work conducted for Lochluichart ES.

7.211 Collision risk modelling has not been conducted for this species as the result would be insignificant.

7.212 No goshawk nest sites were located during breeding raptor surveys and breeding raptor VPs within the 2km study area. There are no confirmed goshawk territories within 5km of the proposed Wind Farm (Ornithology Confidential Annex).

7.213 Goshawk is under-recorded within NHZ7, the species has never become as well established in this region compared to the adjacent northeast Highlands. The core populations for this species are located in Dumfries & Galloway and Lothian and Borders46.

7.214 The most recent population estimate for Scotland is at least 130 breeding pairs, with between 350 and 450 individuals in winter31.

7.215 Goshawk is listed Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended).

73 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L.H., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P., & Bullman, R. (2009). The distribution of breeding birds around upland Wind Farms. Journal of Applied Ecology. 74 Scott, D. and McHaffie, P. (2008). Hen harrier circus cyaneus killed at windfarm site in County Antrim. Irish Birds 8: 436-437

7.216 Due to the absence of any breeding locations within 2km of the proposed Wind Farm site and the extremely low levels of activity recorded for this species during all flight activity surveys, this species is considered to be of regional ecological value.


7.217 There are no breeding sites within 2km of the proposed Wind Farm therefore during the construction phase there will be no disturbance/displacement of this species, i.e. no significant impact.


7.218 There is no pathway for effect during the operational phase as identified in this assessment.

7.219 Collision risk modelling has not been completed for this species, as the result would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Osprey

Baseline

7.220 A total of five flights totalling five birds were observed during flight activity surveys. Four of the five flights traversed the proposed Wind Farm envelope at PCH (total time at PCH - 352.5 seconds). All four flights occurred during the raptor breeding season. Osprey flights were also recorded from the November 2009 access track VP. However due to the sensitive nature of these data all flight line observations for this species are displayed in Figures 13 and 15 of the Ornithology Confidential Annex. Surveys conducted by NRP observed no flights of this species in 2005 or 2006. During NRP survey work between 2002-2003 a small amount of activity was observed in July 2003 (no detailed data was provided). This species was not recorded during survey work conducted for Lochluichart ES.

7.221 Based on these data, collision risk modelling has not been conducted for this species as the result would be insignificant. A single osprey nest location occurs at approximately 2km from the proposed Wind Farm site (Ornithology Confidential Annex). Regular foraging activity was not observed, in fact that which was recorded was very infrequent. The pair were also known to have successfully raised chicks, therefore foraging activity would be expected to have been greater, but the proposed Wind Farm site and surrounding lochans appear to have been infrequently used if at all.

7.222 Foraging locations are usually within 10km of nesting locations, with some males recorded as making regular foraging flights of approximately 20km (Roy Dennis pers. comm.). One satellite-tracked individual has been recorded occasionally to hunt at 28km from the nest (Roy Dennis pers. comm.). Expected activity across the site would be much higher than that observed from a successful pair, if it was key foraging habitat for this species.

7.223 Historically, Osprey was widespread in Scotland, but suffered severe persecution during the early 19th century. By 1900 it was nearly extirpated from Scotland, with the last confirmed breeding record at Loch Loyne in 1916. Since the early 1960’s the ospreys’ breeding range in Scotland has slowly expanded. By 2006 it was widely accepted that the population was approaching 200 pairs with approximately half of the population occurring in the Highlands. Osprey is an increasing summer breeding visitor to mainland Scotland, but is still believed to be recovering its previously lost range31. The Scottish Osprey population winters in sub-Saharan Africa68.



7.224 In 2006, 106 known nest locations in the Highlands were checked for occupancy. Of the 106 sites 74 were occupied which fledged a total of 97 young46.

7.225 Osprey is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive. Osprey is listed as a priority species on the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.

7.226 Although a breeding site was located, the activity across the proposed Wind Farm site was low. This species is therefore considered to be of regional ecological value.


7.227 There is a possibility that osprey may be disturbed during the construction phase. Current accepted disturbance distances for this species are between 500-750m56 No construction activity for the proposed Wind Farm will take place within this distance of the known nesting location.

7.228 There is one breeding site at approximately 2km from the proposed Wind Farm site therefore there is a theoretical potential for disturbance-displacement of osprey from foraging areas during the construction and operational phases of the project. However, the proposed Wind Farm site and immediate surrounding area based on baseline results is not a significant foraging area for this species. It is concluded therefore that during the construction phase any disturbance/displacement effects to this species will be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude, i.e. not significant.


7.229 There is a possibility that osprey may collide with turbines. However, the flight activity survey did not detect regular foraging activity across the site or local area, even though there is one known breeding location at approximately 2km from the application site. Only five osprey flights were observed during flight activity surveys, all at PCH. Four of the five flights were observed traversing the proposed turbine envelope. Collision risk modelling has therefore not been completed for this species, as the result would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Merlin

Baseline

7.230 There were no merlin flights observed traversing the proposed Wind Farm envelope during flight activity surveys. Two merlin flights were observed during breeding raptors surveys, both were outwith the proposed Wind Farm envelope and were greater than 1km from the proposed site boundary. During previous survey work conducted by NRP between 2005 and 2006 no observations of this species were recorded. Data obtained from the Lochluichart ES indicated two single hunting flights of this species. It was perceived birds were breeding to the east of Lochluichart lodge but this was not confirmed.

7.231 Collision risk modelling has not been conducted for this species as the result would be insignificant.

7.232 No merlin territories or nest sites were located during breeding raptor surveys and breeding raptor VPs within the 2km study area. There are no confirmed merlin territories within 3km of the proposed Wind Farm (Ornithology Confidential Annex).

7.233 In Britain, the species breeds on moorland, notably in the Scottish Highlands and Islands, the Welsh mountains, the English Pennines and the Scottish Southern Uplands. There are an estimated 1,330 breeding pairs of merlin in the UK75.

7.234 The most recent breeding merlin population estimate for Scotland is at least 800 pairs31. A larger winter population of 3000+ birds includes Icelandic birds overwintering in Scotland31.

7.235 Merlin is listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) and the amber list of BoCC.

7.236 Due to the absence of any breeding locations within 2km of the proposed Wind Farm site and the extremely low levels of activity recorded for this species during all flight activity surveys, this species is considered to be of regional ecological value.


7.237 There is a theoretical potential for disturbance or displacement of merlin from foraging areas during the construction and operational phases of the project. However, the proposed Wind Farm site and its immediate surrounding area is evidently not an important feeding area for this species.

7.238 There are no breeding sites within 2km of the proposed Wind Farm. Therefore during the construction phase any impacts will be short-term duration and negligible magnitude i.e. no significant impact.


7.239 There is a possibility that merlin may collide with turbines. However, the flight activity survey did not detect foraging activity across the site or local area, and there are no known territories within 2km of the application site. Only two merlin flights were observed during flight activity surveys, and both of these flights were outwith the proposed Wind Farm site boundary. Collision risk modelling has therefore not been completed for this species, as the result would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Peregrine Falcon

Baseline

7.240 Peregrine were observed on three occasions during flight activity surveys. Only two of the three flights traversed the application site boundary, and both were recorded during the non-breeding season and in total lasted 225 seconds at PCH. Collision risk modelling has not been conducted for this species as the result would be insignificant. A further two flights of this species were observed in 2009 from the November 2009 access track VP. Both flights were approximately 2km from the proposed Wind Farm site boundary. Due to their sensitive nature, all flight lines for this species are shown in Figures 12 and 15 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex. During previous survey work conducted by NRP between 2005 and 2006 no observations of this species were recorded. During NRP survey work between 2002-2003 a small amount of activity was observed in June 2003 (no detailed data was provided). Data obtained from the Lochluichart ES indicated two single hunting flights of this species by the same bird on the same day in February 2003. No territories of this species were observed.

75 Baker, H., Stroud, D. A., Aebischer, N. J., Cranswick, P. A., Gregory,R. D., McSorley, C. A., Noble, D.G & Rehfisch, M. M. (2006) Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds 99: 25-44.



7.241 No peregrine territories or nest sites were located during breeding raptor surveys and breeding raptor VPs within the 2km study area. There are no confirmed peregrine territories within 3km of the proposed Wind Farm; however known territories are present within 5km (Ornithology Confidential Annex).

7.242 The last national survey of breeding peregrines, in 2002, located 1,402 breeding pairs, a 9% increase over the population found by the previous survey in 1991(BTO,2009)76. There are an estimated 600 pairs of peregrine falcon in Scotland46. There is no data available regarding the number of breeding peregrine within the NHZ7 at present.

7.243 Peregrines are listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive, Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the Amber List.

7.244 Due to the absence of any breeding locations within 2km of the proposed Wind Farm site and the low levels of activity recorded for this species during all flight activity surveys, this species is considered to be of regional ecological value.


7.245 There is a theoretical potential for disturbance or displacement of peregrine from foraging areas during the construction and operational phases of the project during the winter. However, the proposed Wind Farm site and immediate surrounding area is evidently not an important foraging area for this species.

7.246 As well as successfully breeding in active quarries and urban areas in the UK, post-construction monitoring of two south Scotland Wind Farms by RPS has revealed that peregrine has bred successfully within 500m of turbines. Percival (1998) reported that at a Wind Farm site in the UK, one or two pairs of peregrines were nesting near a Wind Farm of 22 turbines, one within 250 m of turbines with no apparent effect.

7.247 There are no breeding sites within 2km of the proposed Wind Farm; therefore during the construction phase any impacts on this species will be short-term duration and negligible magnitude i.e. no significant impact.


7.248 There is a possibility that peregrines may collide with turbines. However, the flight activity survey did not detect a regular foraging activity across the site or local area, and there are no known territories within 2km of the application site. Only two peregrine flights were observed during flight activity surveys, although both of these flights were at PCH and both flights were observed traversing the proposed turbine envelope. Collision risk modelling has not been completed for this species, as given the small number of flights observed, the result would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Golden Plover

Baseline

7.249 A total of 11 flights totalling 14 birds were observed during all flight activity surveys. Ten of the 11 flights were recorded at PCH and all occurred during the breeding season (total time at PCH =

76 BTO (2009). 2002 National Peregrine Survey described at: http://www.bto.org/survey/complete/peregrine.htm.

465 seconds). Only two of the ten flights at PCH traversed the proposed Wind Farm envelope. Collision risk modelling has been carried out for this species. Full details of flights can be found in Table 7A.71 of Appendix 7A. All flight lines for this species are displayed in Figure 7.10.

7.250 Previous survey work conducted by NRP between 2002-2003 recorded 2 pairs breeding within the buffer zone of the proposed Wind Farm site (buffer zone distance not defined but was less than 500m). No territories were recorded during the 2005 breeding bird survey conducted by NRP. Data obtained from the Lochluichart ES indicated five breeding pairs within their survey area.

7.251 In 2009, two territories were identified within the 500m breeding bird survey study area where access was permissible (Figure 7.11) and a third territory was identified through flight activity from VPs overlooking moorland to the west (restricted access zone). Based on these data and results from NRP and Lochluchart ES it is estimated that between three and five pairs were present within the whole 500m study area (Table 7A.19 in Appendix 7A for details).

7.252 During breeding bird surveys in 2010 along the northern access route, a single territory was recorded approximately 300m from the proposed track (Figure 7.11).

7.253 Golden plover breed in northern latitudes across the Western Palaearctic from Iceland to western Siberia. Breeding habitats include heather moorland, blanket bog, acid grasslands, forest edge tundra and montane plateau. The European population is believed to number 440,000-785,000 pairs77. The race apricaria breeds in the British Isles, at the southern limit of the species’ distribution. In Britain, the species favours moorland and boggy habitats in the uplands of northern and western Scotland (including the Outer Hebrides).

7.254 Whilst the core population in northern Europe is believed to be stable, the southern populations including those of P. a. apricaria in Britain and Ireland are believed to have been declining since the 19th century. A comparison of the species distribution between the two national breeding bird atlases in 1968-71 and 1988-91 reveals a 7% range contraction in Britain, with this being most pronounced in the southern populations including those of Wales, the Pennines, southwest Scotland and the eastern Highlands78.

7.255 The most recent breeding population estimate of 22,600 pairs75 in Britain suggests that the core British populations in upland Scotland remain strong, albeit at a lower level than in the 19th century. The BTO’s breeding bird survey records between 1994 and 2007 show a decrease in Scotland of 5%79, although breeding densities in Scotland of 2-7 pairs per km2 are among the highest anywhere in the species’ range77.

7.256 Golden plover is listed in Annex 1 on the EU Birds Directive (migratory). Birds observed at Corriemoillie are not associated with any designated sites (SPA or SSSI), the presence of territories and minor flight activity means this species is considered to be of regional ecological importance.


7.257 The site is currently unsuitable for golden plover, and no territories are present.

77 Hagemeijer, W.J.M., Blair, M. (Eds.), 1997. The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance. T. & A.D. Poyser, London 78 Byrkjedal & Thompson. 1998. Tundra Plovers. T & A.D. Poyser, London. 79 Risely, K., Noble, D.G. & Baillie, S.R. (2008). The Breeding Bird Survey 2007. BTO Research Report 508. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.



7.258 The territory located to the west of the site will be displaced and assumed to be lost to the population by the construction of the adjacent consented Lochluichart Wind Farm. It is proposed that a 250m buffer is implemented around any golden plover territories in which restrictions on construction activities will apply, as has been accepted at Carraig Gheal Wind Farm. As all detected territories are located beyond 300m of the site infrastructure, any effect on golden plover is considered highly unlikely.


7.259 After the trees have been felled and the proposed Wind Farm constructed, the site will become more suitable for breeding golden plover. Therefore, the trees will be mulched and the mulch used to cover the area within 200m of turbine locations. This will deter golden plovers from breeding within close proximity to turbines by making the habitat unsuitable by preventing the regeneration of bog during the operational life of the proposed Wind Farm. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) will benefit golden plover by improving suitability of habitat beyond 200m of turbines through active management to encourage bog regeneration.

7.260 There is a possibility that golden plover may collide with turbines. Almost all golden plover flights were observed over the moorland due west of the Corriemoillie site (Figure 7.10). Although only two flights traversed the proposed Wind Farm area, all ten flights at PCH have been used in the collision risk model. A weighted average collision risk model has been calculated for this species. This has been based upon the flightlines observed over moorland areas rather than the forestry, as this is where the majority of flightlines occurred. This represents a more realistic but very precautionary assessment assuming that golden plover will move into the proposed Wind Farm area after felling takes place and occupy all available suitable habitat. Therefore this collision risk is a worst case scenario for this species. Full details of how this has been modelled are provided in Appendix 7A.

7.261 Full details of collision risk modelling are provided in Appendix 7A.

7.262 Whitfield (2007)64 estimated avoidance rates for a range of North American waders, including the closely related American golden plover, concluding that the species was able to take avoiding action in over 99% of potential collision events. It is reasonable to assume on the basis of this research that golden plover will also have an avoidance rate in excess of 99%. Such a high avoidance rate is in line with the fact that only seven golden plover fatalities have ever been attributed to turbine collisions (England: 1; Norway: 2; Germany: 2; Netherlands: 1; and Sweden: 1), despite large numbers of golden plovers occurring at Wind Farm sites throughout Europe80.

7.263 Using an avoidance rate of 99%, the model yields an estimated mortality of 1 bird every 24.99 years during the breeding season. This is equivalent to zero to one birds lost to the breeding population during the operational phase of the Wind Farm. The Scottish breeding population has recently been estimated as 15,000 pairs31. The estimated collision mortality during the breeding season of 0.04 golden plover collisions per year represents a loss of >0.01% of the Scottish breeding population.

7.264 Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009)73 have shown that at 11 Wind Farms across Scotland, golden plover avoid turbines within 500m, although there was also a possible avoidance of tracks. Evidence suggests that an effect of human activity disturbance, which may occur during construction periods, is also of similar extent. Bright et al. (2006)71 reported distances at which golden plover react to human disturbance range from 50m to 400m and concluded that breeding golden plover would appear to be affected by human disturbance over distances of a “few hundred

80 RPS (2008) Golden Plovers and Wind farms Joint Study Report 3.

metres”. Furthermore, data from the golden plover and Wind Farms joint study currently being carried out by RPS, indicates that golden plover have successfully bred at a Beinn Tharsuinn Wind Farm in Sutherland, within 150m of the turbines. As such, no pairs are likely to be displaced.

7.265 The birds observed at Corriemoillie are not associated with any statutory designated sites. Furthermore there are no designated sites within 10km of the proposed Wind Farm for which golden plover are a qualifying species. Although no regional or NHZ7 population data is available for this species, the loss of a single breeding bird during the life time of the proposed Wind Farm is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Black Grouse

Baseline

7.266 No black grouse flights were observed traversing the proposed Wind Farm envelope during flight activity surveys. A single male black grouse was recorded on separate occasions lekking during black grouse surveys in 2009. The first observation recorded the bird lekking due south of Lochan Dubh na Curra and the second observation recorded the bird lekking due west of Lochan Dubh na Curra. Three flights of a single bird were observed during raptor surveys of the access track and a single male bird was flushed during a raptor walkover survey approximately 1.5km northwest of the site. However due to the sensitive nature of these data all flightline observations for this species are displayed in Figure 9 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex.

7.267 In 2010, a single male was again heard lekking to the west of Lochan Dubh na Curra, in a similar area to 2009. In addition, a second single male was heard lekking approximately 600m from the proposed northern access track route, and 1.1km from the nearest turbine.

7.268 During previous survey work conducted by NRP between 2002-2003 a single lek of four to five males was recorded. In 2005 NRP recorded three single males lekking in different locations, two further observations of a single male bird, one female and one bird was heard calling. Records from 2005 are shown in Figure 9 in the Ornithology Confidential Annex. Data obtained from the Lochluichart ES indicates no black grouse observation in the survey area.

7.269 The black grouse is one of the fastest declining bird species in the UK. Its population has declined in many parts of the UK over the last century, and in the last two to three decades this has accelerated, leading to considerable range contraction and concerns about further localised extinctions81. As a result, black grouse has been set as a priority for conservation action, featuring in SNH’s Species Framework, the Scottish Biodiversity List, and the Birds of Conservation Concern Red List. Black grouse are also the subject of UK Biodiversity Action Plans.

7.270 Estimates of numbers in the UK have been derived from two national surveys. A 2005 survey82 estimated 5,078 displaying males in the UK, and revealed a 29% decline in Scotland since the previous survey completed in 1995-9681: Scotland is however still the species’ stronghold in the UK with 66% of the population.

7.271 Black grouse is on the UK Red List of BoCC and is a Priority Species within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Black Grouse is also listed as a priority species on the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.

81 Hancock, M., Baines, D., Gibbons, D., Etheridge, B. & Shepherd, M. 1999. Status of male black grouse Tetrao tetrix in Britain in 1995-96. Bird Study 46: 1-15. 82 Sim, I.M.W., Eaton, M.A., Setchfield, R.P., Warren, P.K., Lindley, P. (2008). Abundance of male Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix in Britain in 2005, and change since 1995-96. Bird Study, Nov 2008



7.272 With the closest recorded lek of one bird in 2010 being 1.1km from the proposed Wind Farm site and the lack of flight activity across the site and adjacent land, black grouse is considered to be of local ecological importance.


7.273 There is a potential for black grouse to be displaced during the construction phase. The single lekking birds observed that were greater than 200m are considered as 2 separate leks. Sim et al. (2005) estimated that a total of 770 lekking males were present in north Scotland during the last national survey. This was a decline of 16% compared to the 1995-1996 estimates for the region82.

7.274 Based on these data the loss of up to three individual lekking birds via construction of both the proposed Wind Farm and northern access track constitutes approximately 0.39% of the regional population. This is less than 1% regional population loss. It is considered that this will be a short duration impact of neglible magnitude on the regional population and is not significant.

7.275 The population in this area is believed to be slowly spreading west with birds beginning to colonise Strathbran Forest. Therefore, based on SNH and RSPB recommendations it is suggested that during construction of the proposed Wind Farm no activity takes place within 1km of either location lek location during the spring lek period (15 March to 15 May), and if this is unavoidable, activity will not occur before 8am and after 6pm.

7.276 This species is discussed in the Habitat Management Plan (HMP).


7.277 There were no records of black grouse traversing the proposed Wind Farm, hence collision risk modelling has not been completed for this species, as the result would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of short-term duration and negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Dunlin

Baseline

7.278 No dunlin flights were recorded during flight activity surveys. A single territory was recorded within the breeding bird survey study area (Figure 7.11). During previous survey work conducted by NRP between 2002 to 2006 no dunlin territories were recorded. Data obtained from the Lochluichart ES indicated a single successful pair was present in 2003 within the southern section of their survey area. Based on these data and results from NRP and Lochluichart ES it is estimated that between one and two pairs were present within the whole 500m study area (Table 7A.19 Appendix 7A).

7.279 The Scottish breeding population for the race Calidris alpina schinzii is believed to be 15,600-28,600 pairs, which is around 85% of the British breeding population. Dunlin has a discontinuous breeding distribution in Scotland this is determined by habitat. In the uplands birds are concentrated in the Flow Country of Sutherland and Caithness and the peatland of the Northern Isles. Upland bird breeding tends to occur around 900m in open moorland31. The Highland Bird Report refers to this species as an uncommon breeder in the Highlands.

7.280 Dunlin has recently been added to the BoCC Red-list.

7.281 Based on these data, dunlin are considered to be of local ecological importance.


7.282 The site is not important for this species either for foraging or breeding. The single territory observed is at the outer limit of the breeding bird survey study area. The site and adjacent moorland is not suitable for this species, as the majority of the population breed at much higher altitudes and prefer dry conditions, the proposed Wind Farm site is extremely wet.

7.283 It is therefore concluded that there is no pathway for effect during the construction phase as identified in this assessment.


7.284 There is a possibility that dunlin may collide with turbines. However, the flight activity survey did not detect foraging activity across the site or local area. No flights of this species were recorded. Collision risk modelling has therefore not been completed for this species, as the result would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Snipe

Baseline

7.285 Two snipe territories were observed within the breeding bird survey study area. One territory in the restricted access zone was identified via high levels of flight activity from VP surveys; the second territory was located both within the access track site boundary and the site breeding bird survey study area (Figure7.11). A total of 16 flights for this species were observed during flight activity surveys. All flights occurred on the same day during the breeding season and all were at PCH (Figure 7.10). This high level of activity resulted in the assumption of the second snipe territory present within the restricted access zone.

7.286 None of the flights observed traversed the proposed Wind Farm envelope, therefore collision risk modelling has not been carried out for this species.

7.287 During the breeding bird survey conducted by NRP in 2005 four snipe territories were identified. Only two of the four territories that were recorded were inside the proposed Wind Farm site boundary. Data obtained from the Lochluichart ES indicates the presence of two territories within their survey area in 2003.

7.288 Based on these data and results from NRP and Lochluchart ES it is estimated that between two and three pairs were present within the whole 500m study area (Table 7A.19 Appendix 7A).

7.289 The Scottish breeding population of common snipe (race Gallinago gallinago gallinago) is believed to be 34,000-40,000 pairs. An estimated 8,150 pairs breed in the Scottish uplands. The Scottish population of snipe represents 65% of the British total for this species31.

7.290 Snipe are amber-listed on the BoCC. Snipe is also listed as a priority species on the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.

7.291 Based on this information snipe is considered to be of local ecological importance.


7.292 There is a possibility that snipe will be displaced from the proposed Wind Farm area during the construction phase. The two estimated territories represent approximately 0.02% of the upland Scottish breeding population. If displacement of the territory to the west of the proposed Wind Farm



does occur, as a result of the consented Lochluichart Wind Farm, before construction of Corriemoillie, this would be lost to the local population. However, it is very unlikely that birds displaced from suitable habitat within the Lochluichart Wind Farm envelope would move into the proposed Wind Farm area prior to construction, due to the highly unsuitable habitat currently present. As such, any potential effect as a result of construction is considered to be of negligible magnitude, and so not significant.


7.293 There is a possibility that snipe may collide with turbines. However, the flight activity survey did not detect foraging activity across the site. No flights of this species were recorded over the site at PCH. Collision risk modelling has therefore not been completed for this species, as the result would be negligible. As such, any potential effect as a result of collision risk is considered to be of negligible magnitude, and so not significant.

Skylark

Baseline

7.294 During previous survey work conducted by NRP between 2002-2003, 34 skylark territories were recorded within the buffer zone of the proposed Wind Farm site (buffer zone distance not defined but was less than 500m). In 2005 NRP recorded 14 territories within the same survey area. Data obtained from the Lochluichart ES indicated a total of 30-40 territories within their survey area.

7.295 In 2009, 13 skylark territories were identified within the 500m breeding bird survey study area where access was permissible (Figure 7.12). Based on these data and results from NRP and Lochluichart ES it is estimated that between 28-30 territories were present within the whole 500m study area (Table 7A.13 Appendix 7A).

7.296 The estimated 28-32 breeding territories within the breeding bird survey study area in 2009 represents an average density of 5-5.7 pairs per km2. The average breeding skylark density in Britain for moorland habitats is 12.95 pairs km2 83. At its highest estimated population density for Corriemoillie 5.7 pairs per km2 is much less than the British average density for this habitat type (only 44%). Unfortunately data for this species for constructed Wind Farm sites in the area, specifically Novar Wind Farm and Fairburn Wind Farm, were not available.

7.297 The numbers involved therefore, do not approach significance in a British or Scottish context (population approx. 1 million pairs and approx. 280,000 pairs, respectively)84. To represent even 1% of the NHZ or regional populations, these populations would need to number around 1,600 pairs or more.

7.298 The skylark is BoCC Red-listed and is a Priority Species within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Skylark is also listed as a priority species on the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.

7.299 Based on the results obtained from baseline studies this species is considered to be of local ecological importance.


83 Browne, S., Vickery, J., & Chamberlain, D. Densities and population estimates of breeding Skylarks Alauda arvensis in Britain in 1997. Bird Study (2000) 47, pp 52-65. 84 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/BirdsInEuropeII/BiE2004Sp3024.pdf

7.300 Land take for the proposed Wind Farm site will be of low magnitude compared to the extent of the application site. Skylark territories were relatively evenly spread across suitable open habitat within the study area (where surveyed). Felling of the coniferous forestry plantation would have a positive impact on this species, as it would create open moorland habitat for skylark to exploit through foraging and breeding and therefore increase the local population. Any impact on this species during the construction phase will be short-term duration and neutral magnitude therefore not significant.

7.301 There is evidence that skylarks are relatively unaffected by the disturbance associated with Wind Farms: a German study reviewing the effects of turbine installation at four coastal sites in Germany found no effect on numbers and distribution of skylarks85. A review by Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009)73 showed only marginal effects up to 200m for breeding skylarks.


7.302 During the operational phase, disturbance effects are likely to be of low magnitude and it is considered that the impact of operational disturbance on the conservation status of skylark will be negligible and therefore considered to be not significant. Birds are likely to move into the area post-felling (refer to potential construction effects for this species on disturbance).

7.303 Conventionally, collision risk is not assessed for passerine birds due to their very low probability of collision and tendency to fly below PCH for the vast majority of the time. On this basis there is considered to be very little risk of turbine collisions for this species, and therefore that there will be no significant impact on the conservation status of skylark (not significant).

Red-Listed species (other than skylark) 7.304 The following red listed species of BoCC were recorded within the proposed Wind Farm site

during the 2009 breeding birds survey:

• three lesser redpoll territories; • one cuckoo territory; and • eight song thrush territories (also a priority species on the Highland Ross and Cromarty

LBAP).

7.305 All territories for red-listed species of BoCC are shown in Figure 7.12

7.306 All three species were recorded by NRP during point count surveys in 2005. The Lochluichart ES does not indicate the presence of any of these species within their survey area.

7.307 Although song thrush, lesser redpoll and cuckoo are priority species within the UKBAP, and are Red-listed species of BoCC, their presence reflects a decline in numbers rather than rareness; they are still relatively common and widespread in the UK.

7.308 It is assumed that as these are forestry species all territories will be lost when the forest is felled during the construction phase. Forestry felling should take place outwith the breeding season. However it is unlikely that the birds will be lost to the local population as there is a large amount of suitable woodland within this locality.

85 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. 2003 Wind farms and birds: an analysis of the effects of Wind Farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Report by Birdlife International on behalf of the Bern Convention. RSPB, Sandy.



7.309 Approximately 7,500-15,000 lesser redpoll breed in Scotland. Using the lower population estimate, the loss of three pairs represents 0.04% of the population. Approximately 2,100-4,400 common cuckoo breed in Scotland. Using the lower population estimate, the loss of one pair represents 0.05% of the population. Approximately 250,000-260,000 song thrushes breed in Scotland. Using the lower population estimate, the loss of eight pairs represents 0.003% of the population. Based on these data if the birds are lost to the local population then the loss will be less than 1% of the breeding populations. This impact is considered to be permanent in duration negligible in magnitude and therefore not significant.

Waterfowl 7.310 Two wigeon flights and three teal flights were recorded during flight activity surveys. All flights

were recorded in close proximity to Lochan Dubh Beag (Figure 7.13). None of the flights recorded were at PCH and all flights are on the edge of the site boundary. Neither species was recorded by either NRP or during ornithology surveys for the Lochluichart Wind Farm. Neither species was believed to be holding territories during breeding bird surveys.

7.311 The three teal flights were recorded during the breeding season. It is probable that birds were breeding on the adjacent moorland and feeding at Lochan Dubh Beag. The two wigeon flights were observed in April 2009 and the same day. It is probable that this was a single bird moving through the area as no further observations were recorded.

7.312 Both species are listed on the amber list of BoCC. Wigeon are a priority species listed on the Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP.

7.313 The worst case scenario is that during construction teal will be displaced from their feeding area. However if the birds are breeding on the adjacent moorland to the west then they will have been displaced by the Lochluichart Wind Farm prior to the construction of Corriemoillie. There are no predicted impacts on wigeon. It is considered that there will be a negligible magnitude of impact on both species i.e. not significant.

7.314 In terms of operational effects, no birds were observed at PCH thus collision risk modelling was no carried out for either species. There is therefore no pathway for effect during the operational phase as identified in this assessment.

Crossbill & Bullfinch 7.315 Crossbill and Bullfinch were recorded during winter walkover surveys in both 2008 and in 2005

and 2006 by NRP.

7.316 A total of 19 bullfinch observations were recorded in 2008, over half of which consisted of just a single bird. A maximum flock size of nine birds was recorded. In 2005 and 2006 only one observation of a single bird was recorded.

7.317 A total of eight crossbill observations were recorded in 2008, three of which were individual birds. Maximum flock size was 17 birds. In 2005 and 2006 four observations of crossbill were recorded, two of which were of individual birds. The maximum flock size was eight birds.

7.318 Neither species was recorded during any breeding bird survey work.

7.319 These data suggest that the proposed Wind Farm site is not important to these species during the breeding season. The infrequent number of records suggests that at the most the site is of

marginal importance for both these species for winter foraging. Therefore the loss of the forestry after felling represents a marginal loss of winter foraging habitat for these species.

7.320 It is considered that based on this data there will be permanent duration but of negligible magnitude of impact on both these species during the construction phase of the Wind Farm i.e. not significant.

7.321 Collision risk modelling is not carried out for passerines. There is therefore no pathway for effect during the operational phase as identified in this assessment.

Access Track Bird Assemblage 7.322 This section discusses those birds observed within the breeding bird survey study areas of the

northern access track that have not already been discussed.

7.323 There were no Annex 1 or Schedule 1 protected raptors breeding within the 1km buffer of the access track in 2009 or 2010.

7.324 The following species of BoCC were recorded within the proposed northern access track breeding bird survey area:

• three skylark territories (Highland Ross and Cromarty LBAP species) (Figure 7.12); and • three meadow pipit territories (Amber-listed, not shown).

7.325 Construction of the access track is predicted to have a lower magnitude of impact on this breeding bird assemblage than is predicted for the construction of the proposed Wind Farm.

Impacts on SPAs’ and Need for Appropriate Assessment 7.326 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended (the Habitats

Regulations) require an Appropriate Assessment to be carried out by the competent authority, to determine whether or not a development, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, risks having an adverse impact on the integrity of an SPA.

7.327 Table 7.9 provides details of all current and proposed SPAs within 10km (and 25km for geese) of the proposed Corriemoillie Wind Farm. In relation to SPA’s within 10km, none of the qualifying species for Achanalt SPA, Beinn Dearg SPA or Ben Wyviss SPA were recorded during any of the ornithology surveys conducted by RPS between September 2008 to August 2009, April to June 2010, or by NRP between 2002 to 2006. It is therefore concluded that the proposed Wind Farm will have no impact on the integrity of these SPAs’ from an ornithological perspective.

7.328 Greylag geese are a qualifying species of the Cromarty Firth SPA. During Ornithology survey work a low level of activity of greylag geese and pink footed geese was recorded. It was however concluded that the proposed Wind Farm site and adjacent area was of marginal use during the migratory period and was not used at all for daily foraging or roosting activities. It is therefore concluded that the proposed Wind Farm will have no impact on the integrity of the Cromarty Firth SPA goose population.

7.329 The proposed turbine locations, access track and their 500m buffers are all more than 6km from the range of the closest pair of golden eagles within the Glen Affric and Strathconon pSPA. Based on territory modelling for SNH, the boundary of the pSPA was drawn to include the actual hunting range of this pair of eagles (SNH letter, 3 June 2010). SNH concluded that it was unlikely that the pair would expand their range to include the Wind Farm area. Although eagles have been



recorded flying over the development site, standard collision risk calculations predict a collision rate of one bird every 98 years (breeding seasons), and this risk is likely to be of a realistic magnitude of impacts on breeding pSPA pairs. SNH also consider the impacts on immature and juvenile birds to be very low, with a worst-case scenario using a weighted average collision risk model (Appendix 7A, Table 7A.69) where eagles expand their territory to include the proposed Wind Farm site during the non-breeding season, of one bird every 86 years.

7.330 As the Wind Farm site is considered to be of unsuitable feeding habitat, there will be no displacement of breeding birds or non-breeding birds from favoured feeding areas.

7.331 In summary, SNH advised in their letter to Highland Council that in light of the above information (presented in their June 2010 letter and summarised here), that “based on the appraisal carried out to date, the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site [the Glen Affric and Strathconon pSPA]”.

7.332 In light of these conclusions it is our professional opinion that an Appropriate Assessment to assess the impacts of the proposed Wind Farm on the aforementioned SPAs and pSPA will not be required.

7.333 Golden plover, greenshank, snipe and dunlin were all recorded within the ornithology study areas in the 2009 and 2010 breeding seasons. These species are included (as part of an upland breeding bird assemblage) as qualifying species for the Achnalt SSSI, Fannich Hills SSSI, Beinn Dearg SSSI and Ben Wyviss SSSI (Table 7.9). It is highly unlikely that the birds observed within the Corriemoillie study areas are associated with any of these SSSI populations as they are all greater than 5km from the site. It is therefore concluded that there is no pathway for the proposed Wind Farm to have an impact on these populations.

Cumulative Impacts 7.334 The above sections have considered the implications of the proposed Wind Farm at

Corriemoillie in isolation from other potential effects. The EIA regulations also require that the proposed Wind Farm be assessed cumulatively with other plans or projects.

7.335 Currently there is no agreed method for determining significant adverse cumulative impacts. SNH (2005a)86 guidance on cumulative effects on Wind Farms recommends a five-stage process to aid in the ornithological assessment:

• Define the species to be considered; • Consider the limits or ‘search area’ of the study; • Decide the methods to be employed; • Review the findings of existing studies; and • Draw conclusions of cumulative effects within the study area.

7.336 The main focus of considering cumulative effects should be an attempt to identify any situation where effects that are minor in isolation have a greater additive effect. This could occur in a situation where there is more than one Wind Farm (or other development) proposal that in isolation affects either a single pair of birds, or a population of birds of high conservation value at a minor level.

7.337 In line with SNH guidance, target species considered in this assessment are:

86 SNH (2005a). Cumulative Effects on Windfarms: Version 2. Scottish Natural Heritage.

• species found at Corriemoillie that are considered of high conservation importance; and • species found at Corriemoillie that are considered to be vulnerable to Wind Farms by virtue

of their behaviour or ecology.

7.338 Species therefore considered are geese and other waterfowl, raptors and waders, which may have extensive ranges that may potentially include more than one development. Although some UK BAP priority passerine species found at Corriemoillie are considered to be of local conservation value, due to their small territory ranges and relatively low breeding density, no cumulative effects on these species are predicted.

7.339 The proposed Wind Farm is assessed as having no more than a low impact on any target species.

7.340 Existing and proposed developments were considered within 10km of the proposed Wind Farm site. There is one known proposed project that has the potential to interact with the ornithological interests of the proposed Wind Farm in such a way as to result in potential cumulative impacts. This is Lochluichart Wind Farm.

7.341 Table 7.11 details the predicted effects after mitigation (where required) has been considered. As decommissioning activities are of a similar type and intensity as construction activities, the assessment considers that the potential effects of decommissioning will be similar in nature to the potential effects of construction. In the case of this development, mitigation measures during construction would also apply to the decommissioning phase and so are not repeated. This is likely to be a precautionary approach as in practice many of the decommissioning impacts are likely to be of a smaller scale than the construction impact.

Table 7.11 Summary of Proposed and Current Projects within 10km of Corriemoillie Wind Farm Lochluichart Wind Farm Status Consented Number of turbines 17 Distance from Corriemoillie proposed wind turbines

Approximately 390m

Main habitats affected

Wet modified bog (9.6ha), wet dwarf shrub heath (11.9ha), mixed plantation woodland (4.8)ha and semi improved acid grassland (0.8)ha.

Significant impacts A medium to low significant impact on golden plover through the displacement of 2 pairs. Golden eagle activity was noted during the original ES. The second addendum states that collision risk to this species will not be significant.

Potential cumulative impacts with Corriemoillie

Golden eagle

Impact significance with Corriemoillie

Any difference to overall golden eagle collision risk when assessed in combination with the results presented in the Lochluichart result would be trivial.



7.342 The authors are aware of the proposed Western Isle Connection route that will pass through the Corriemoillie Forest. It is not possible at this stage to make an assessment on the cumulative impacts of this development as it has not been confirmed whether the route will by overland transmission lines or underground cables. Once this is confirmed suitable mitigation measure as approved by consultees will be implemented to reduce any potential effects on birds.

Mitigation

Site Design/ Layout

7.343 The layout of the proposed Wind Farm has incorporated specific mitigation measures into the design, in order to account for the presence of specific sensitive species within the site boundary. Due to the sensitive nature of these species this can not be discussed further in this chapter. However full details of the mitigation and its incorporation into the proposed Wind Farm design are described in the Ornithology Confidential Annex.

Best Practice Regarding Breeding Birds

7.344 Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act (2004), it is an offence, with only limited exceptions, to:

• intentionally or recklessly take, interfere with, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built;

• intentionally or recklessly take, interfere with or destroy the egg of any wild bird; and • intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building,

or at (or near) a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

7.345 Best practice will be necessary to reduce the possibility of illegal damage, destruction or disturbance to occupied bird nests during the construction phase. Three best practice measures will be adopted: timing, pre-construction surveys, and the use of an Environmental Clerk of Works.

7.346 If site clearance and construction activities are required to take place during the main breeding bird season, from mid-March to July inclusive, pre-commencement survey work will be required to ensure that nest destruction and disturbance to breeding birds are avoided. Where applicable construction will not take place within disturbance buffer zones set by SNH for certain sensitive species, during the breeding season.

7.347 Compliance with the law will also be achieved by the appointment of a suitably experienced ornithologist as Environmental Clerk of Works during the bird breeding season (mid-March to July, inclusive). Among other tasks, this will involve locating any active nests close to construction works shortly before these commence. Any active nests found will be cordoned off to a suitable distance for the species concerned (up to 50m for open-ground nesting species and 20 m for woodland and scrub nesters) and construction operations delayed within the cordon until the young have fledged and the nest becomes vacant.

7.348 There will be a clear line of responsibility for ensuring these measures are adhered to.

Habitat Management Plan (HMP)

7.349 The following section discusses possible HMP proposals for the proposed Wind Farm.

7.350 Post consent bird monitoring will be carried out as stipulated in the SNH (2009) guidance note87, and will focus primarily on red-throated diver and golden eagle impacts, and breeding wader mitigation effects.

7.351 There is a possibility that after forestry felling the site will become more suitable for breeding waders. Chapter 8 (Forestry) discusses the option of mulching some of the forestry on site. If forestry was mulched around all turbines to a distance of 200m this would mean the habitat around the turbines would be unsuitable for breeding waders thus reducing any risk of collision. Habitat beyond the 200m turbine buffer zones could then be enhanced and bog habitat reinstated that would be suitable and benefit a variety of waders as well as local/regional biodiversity.

7.352 Anecdotal evidence from local birders indicates that black grouse are starting to expand their range in a westerly direction from Strathbran forest. In recent decades this species has suffered a large population decline and a contraction in the extent of its range throughout Scotland. It is also the object of several conservation projects in Scotland specifically in Dumfries and Galloway and Argyll and Bute.

7.353 In order to encourage the expansion of this species local range and population in the local of Corriemoillie it is proposed that black grouse is a target species of any HMP. A suitable amount of land either within the Corriemoillie estate or neighbouring estates where landowner agreements can be secured, should be managed or enhanced for the benefit of the species. Any such management agreement would be designed following consultation with RSPB Scotland, SNH and The Highland Council Biodiversity Officer.

87 SNH Guidance note. (2009). Monitoring the impacts of onshore Wind Farms on birds.



Summary of Residual Effects

Table 7.12 Summary of Residual Effects

VER Value Potential Effect Mitigation Magnitude Duration Nature Significance Level of Certainty/Comments Construction and Decommissioning Impacts Red-throated diver

National Displacement (breeding).

Ornithology Confidential Annex

Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Greenshank National Displacement (breeding).

Restrictions on construction activities will apply within 300m buffers

Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Displacement (breeding).

None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Golden eagle

National

Displacement (non-breeding).


Red kite Regional Displacement (non-breeding).


Displacement (breeding).


Hen harrier Regional

Displacement (non-breeding).


Osprey Regional Disturbance (breeding)


Merlin Regional Displacement None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Peregrine falcon

Regional Displacement None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Black Grouse

Local Displacement (spring lek)

None required but will be part of HMP

Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is not considered to likely. However due to the large decline in this species across Scotland it should be a priority in the HMP.

Snipe Local Displacement (breeding)

None required Negligible Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Skylark Local Displacement (breeding)

None required Low Short-term Neutral Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Red-listed species

Local Displacement (breeding)

None required Negligible Permanent Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Crossbill & Bullfinch

Local Displacement (non-breeding)

None required Negligible Permanent Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Access track breeding bird assemblage

Displacement (breeding)

None required Negligible Short-term. Neutral Not significant A measurable effect on the local or regional population is considered to be highly unlikely.



VER Value Potential Effect Mitigation Magnitude Duration Nature Significance Level of Certainty/Comments Operational Effects Pink-footed goose

International Collision None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant Collision risk to this species is considered to be negligible. A measurable effect on international or national populations is considered to be highly unlikely.

Greylag goose

International Collision None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on international or national population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Displacement None required Negligible Permanent Negative Not significant It is considered possible that territories will be retained. However, as there is uncertainty regarding the behaviour of red-thoated divers in this situation a precautionary approach has been adopted.

Red-throated diver

National

Collision Site layout / design includes corridor to allow unimpeded use of flyway

Negligible Medium-term

Negative Not significant This assessment considers the risk of collision in the event that the breeding territory associated with the flyway is retained. If red-throated diver are displaced from this territory, the residual collision risk to non-breeding birds would be trivial and not significant.

Displacement Site layout/design. HMP will ensure that habitat within 200m of turbines is unsuitable for breeding greenshank. Habitat suitability beyond 200m will be improved for this species.

Negligible Permanent Positive Not significant It is considered likely that territories will be retained through mitigation. However, as this mitigation is untested and due to the paucity of studies specific to greenshank, a highly precautionary approach has been adopted. The HMP will improve suitability for this species, while ensuring that habitat within 200m of turbines remains unsuitable. Therefore a negligible but positive effect is predicted for this species.

Greenshank National

Collision None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant This assessment considers the risk of collision in the event that territories are retained through mitigation. If greenshank are displaced from the site, there will be no effect as a result of collision mortality.

Golden eagle

National Collision Non required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the national or regional population is considered unlikely and any collision risk is trivial

Red kite Regional Collision None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the regional or local population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Hen harrier Regional Collision None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the regional or local population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Osprey Regional Collision None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the regional or local population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Merlin Regional Collision None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the regional or local population is considered to be highly unlikely.

Peregrine falcon

Regional Collision None required Negligible Short-term Negative Not significant A measurable effect on the regional or local population is considered to be highly unlikely.



VER Value Potential Effect Mitigation Magnitude Duration Nature Significance Level of Certainty/Comments Golden plover

Regional Collision HMP will ensure that habitat within 200m of turbines is unsuitable for breeding golden plovers. Habitat suitability beyond 200m will be improved for this species.

Negligible Permanent Positive Not significant Collision risk was modelled assuming golden povers will occupy all available suitable habitat within the site after construction. The HMP will improve suitability for this species, while ensuring that habitat within 200m of turbines remains unsuitable. Therefore a negligible but positive effect is predicted for this species. A measurable effect on the regional or local population is considered to be highly unlikely.



Statement of Significance

7.354 An assessment has been made of the likely effects of the proposed Wind Farm during the construction, operation and decommissioning stages. It is concluded that, provided best practice is followed to avoid disturbance to breeding birds, including exclusion zones, avoiding damage or destruction to their occupied nests, there will be no major or moderate impacts on any valued ornithological receptor. Mitigation is recommended to minimise potential effects on VERs identified. After mitigation is considered, the impact on VERs is assessed as not significant.

7.355 A HMP would have a positive impact on breeding moorland birds including black grouse, golden plover, skylark and greenshank and local biodiversity.

Documents

Chapter 7 - Ornithology European importance; - E.ON · Chapter 7 - Ornithology Chapter 7 – Page 2 Corriemoillie Wind Farm Environmental Statement Commission Scotland (FCS), Scottish