Environmental Statement Section Template (UK) · guidance, as defined by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) guidelines which ... to distance or other pathway fo, e.g. hydrological connectionr

ORNITHOLOGY 8

CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................ 8-1 Approach and Methods .............................................................................................. 8-1

Study Area ............................................................................................................. 8-1 Effects Assessed in Full ......................................................................................... 8-2 Effects Scoped Out ................................................................................................ 8-3 Assessment Structure ............................................................................................ 8-3 Data Sources and Guidance .................................................................................. 8-4 Desk Study ............................................................................................................. 8-6 Field Survey ........................................................................................................... 8-6 Collision Risk Analysis ........................................................................................... 8-9 Consultation ........................................................................................................... 8-9 Good Practice Measures and Mitigation .............................................................. 8-17 Assessing Significance......................................................................................... 8-17

Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................. 8-20 Designated Sites .................................................................................................. 8-20 Field Surveys ....................................................................................................... 8-21 Evaluation of Ornithological Receptors ................................................................ 8-25

Assessment of Effects ............................................................................................. 8-37 The Proposed Development Layout Considerations ............................................ 8-37 Good Practice Measures ...................................................................................... 8-37 Construction Effects of the Proposed Development ............................................. 8-39 Operational Effects of Proposed Development .................................................... 8-44 Residual Effects ................................................................................................... 8-56 Cumulative Effects Assessment ........................................................................... 8-57 Further Survey Requirements and Monitoring ..................................................... 8-60 Summary of Effects .............................................................................................. 8-61 References ........................................................................................................... 8-63

ORNITHOLOGY 8

HARRYBURN P a g e | 8-1 SLR Consulting Limited

INTRODUCTION

8.1 This Chapter describes and evaluates the current avian interest of the site of the proposed Harryburn Wind Farm (henceforth referred to as the Site and proposed development respectively) and surrounding area. It assesses the potential effects of the proposed development on important bird species and, where necessary, describes proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures. This Chapter considers avian species only. Potential effects on habitats and non-avian animal species are considered separately in Chapter 9: Ecology.

8.2 This Chapter is supported by a number of Technical Appendices:

• Technical Appendix 8.1: Elvanfoot Breeding Bird Report 2013 (BSG

Ecology); • Technical Appendix 8.2: Elvanfoot/ Leadhills/ Glengeith Wind Farm

Breeding Bird Survey Report 2014 (Jacobs); • Technical Appendix 8.3: Harryburn Wind Farm Wintering Bird Survey

2014/15 (Jacobs); • Technical Appendix 8.4: Harryburn Wind Farm Breeding Bird Survey

Report 2015 (Jacobs); • Technical Appendix 8.5: Harryburn Wind Farm Wintering Bird Survey

2015/16 (Jacobs); • Technical Appendix 8.6: Harryburn Wind Farm Bird Collision Risk

Modelling (CRM) Report (SLR Consulting); and • Technical Appendix 9.6: Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP).

8.3 A separate Confidential Appendix is also provided which contains data

relating to the nesting locations of sensitive species.

APPROACH AND METHODS

Study Area

8.4 The study area used for the ornithological impact assessment differs according to receptor as recommended by relevant good practice survey guidance, as defined by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) guidelines which were applicable at the time that baseline surveys were undertaken (SNH, 2005; SNH, 2014). These are summarised in the Field Survey Methodology Section and are described in more detail within the relevant Technical Appendices. The different ornithological survey areas are shown in Figure 8.1.

8.5 For the assessment of impacts on bird species a variety of buffer distances have been applied to each turbine location and around all other infrastructure where appropriate. These buffers are in accordance with current guidance and evidence-based research. Further details are provided in the Assessment of Effects Section.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


8.6 It should be noted that most field surveys extended well beyond the area in which the proposed turbines are located (see Figure 8.2). This was partly to ensure that appropriate buffer zones were surveyed, however the survey coverage also reflects the much larger area under consideration for proposed development at the time the surveys were undertaken (see Chapter 2: Site Description and Design Evolution).

Effects Assessed in Full

8.7 This assessment concentrates on the effects of construction and operation of the proposed development upon important ornithological receptors. The following potential effects have been assessed: • habitat loss or damage (permanent and temporary) due to construction of

wind farm infrastructure; • inadvertent destruction of nests during construction; • disturbance to birds during construction due to vehicular traffic, operating

plant and the presence of construction workers; • disturbance to birds due to the operation of the wind turbines, vehicular

traffic and the presence of people during operation; and • collision with moving turbine blades.

8.8 Effects have been assessed in detail for the following ornithological

receptors:

• Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus; • Pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus; • Red kite Milvus milvus; • Hen harrier Circus cyaneus; • Goshawk Accipiter gentilis; • Kestrel Falco tinnunculus; • Merlin Falco columbarius; • Peregrine Falco peregrinus; • Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria; • Snipe Gallinago gallinago; • Curlew Numenius arquata; • Black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus; and • Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus.

8.9 This list includes all species which are potentially vulnerable to significant

effects from the proposed development, which are also: • species for which the study area is considered to be important at a

regional (i.e. Natural Heritage Zone) level or above; • species listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive; and/or • breeding species listed on Schedule 1 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act

1981 (as amended in Scotland).

8.10 The list of species in paragraph 8.8 also includes two species, kestrel and black-headed gull, which do not meet these criteria, but were included at the

ORNITHOLOGY 8


request of SNH or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) during pre-scoping consultation.

Effects Scoped Out

8.11 A number of statutory designated sites are present within 10km of the Site, as shown on Figure 9.1 and detailed later in this Chapter (see paragraphs 8.65-67). However, all of these sites have been scoped out of the assessment due to there being no potential for significant effects, either due to distance or other pathway for effects, e.g. hydrological connection. This approach was agreed with SNH during scoping consultation (Table 8.2).

8.12 A small number of Annex 1 and/or Schedule 1 species were scoped out as

they were not considered potentially vulnerable to significant effects from the proposed development. These relate to species that were recorded during the baseline surveys but were only recorded flying over the wider study area (in numbers and/or locations unlikely to generate any significant collision risk). The following species have been scoped out on this basis:

• Osprey Pandion haliaetus; and • Barn owl Tyto alba.

8.13 Other species considered to be of local importance but not included on

Annex 1 or Schedule 1 were scoped out of the detailed assessment because effects on them are considered unlikely to be significant in policy terms and because, in accordance with CIEEM (2016), the assessment should focus on important receptors. In any case, most of the species of local importance are not considered potentially vulnerable to significant effects from the proposed development as they were generally recorded away from the proposed development. Receptors considered to be of local value, which have been scoped out of the assessment, are listed as follows:

• Greylag goose Anser anser; • Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus; • Lapwing Vanellus vanellus; • Redshank Tringa totanus; and • Long-eared owl Asio otus.

8.14 The populations of all other species recorded during baseline surveys are considered to be of negligible value and are therefore not subject to detailed assessment.

Assessment Structure

8.15 The assessment is structured as follows: • The remainder of the Approach and Methods Section outlines the data

sources and guidance used; summarises the field survey methodologies used (with further detail in Technical Appendices 8.1-8.5); summarises consultation undertaken and sets out how consultee comments have been

ORNITHOLOGY 8


addressed in the assessment; and details the assessment methodology used, including discussion of how significance has been assessed.

• The key findings from the various desk-based studies and field surveys undertaken are summarised in the Baseline Conditions Section (with further detail in Technical Appendices 8.1-8.5).

• The Assessment of Effects Section begins by describing how the layout has evolved to avoid potentially significant effects on birds as far as possible. It then sets out a range of good practice measures that would be adopted during construction to avoid or reduce effects. Effects during construction and operation are then assessed on the basis that all good practice measures are implemented.

• An OHMP has been prepared and included in Technical Appendix 9.6. The OHMP has been taken in to account when assessing the residual effects of the proposed development.

• Cumulative effects are also assessed and requirements for monitoring are also set out.

Data Sources and Guidance

8.16 The assessment has been carried out with reference to the following legislation, policy and guidance. Data sources used for the desk study are also detailed.

Legislation

8.17 The ornithological assessment has been undertaken with reference to the following legislation:

• Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds

Directive); • Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and

of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive); • The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended

in Scotland) (the Habitats Regulations), which transposes the Habitats Directive into UK law;

• The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland); • The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; • The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011; and • The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland)

Regulations 2000 and Amendment Regulations 2008.

Planning Policy

8.18 Relevant planning policy is summarised in Chapter 4: Renewable Energy and Planning Policy. Policies relevant to ornithology include:

• Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) identifies that biodiversity is important

because it provides natural services and products which we rely on, that it is an important element of sustainable development and that it makes an essential contribution to the economy and cultural heritage of Scotland. All Public Bodies in Scotland, including planning authorities, have a duty to

ORNITHOLOGY 8


‘further the conservation of biodiversity’ under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and the SPP highlights that this should be reflected in development plans and development management decisions.

Local Policy

8.19 South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) contains a number of policies relating to development and land use in South Lanarkshire. Those relevant to this Chapter are: • Policy 15: Natural and historic environment: this policy identifies a

hierarchy of natural and historic designations where different degrees of protection will be required.

8.20 The South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan also contains the following

Supplementary Guidance (SG) which is relevant to this Chapter: • SG No. 9 Natural and Historic Environment: The SG supports Policy 15 in

the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan by providing more detailed guidance on development that may have an impact on the natural and historic environment within South Lanarkshire.

Other Guidance

8.21 Other documents and guidance reviewed and applied in this assessment include (see also References Section at the of this Chapter):

• Band et al. (2007) Developing field and analytical methods to assess

avian collision risk at wind farms; • Eaton et al. (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status

of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man; • Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM)

(2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal;

• Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird Species;

• Scottish Government (2013) Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL); • Scottish Renewables (2015) Good Practice during Wind Farm

Construction. Version 3; • SNH (2000) Windfarms and birds: calculating a theoretical collision risk

assuming no avoidance action; • SNH (2006) Assessing Significance of Impacts from Onshore Wind Farms

on Birds Outwith Designated Areas; • SNH (2009). Environmental Statements and Annexes of Environmentally

Sensitive Bird Information; • SNH (2012a) Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy

Developments; • SNH (2012b) Guidance note on Habitat Management Plans; • SNH (2016) Assessing Connectivity with SPAs; • SNH (2013) Avoidance Rates for Wintering Species of Geese in Scotland

at Onshore Wind Farms; and

ORNITHOLOGY 8


• SNH (2014) Recommended Bird Survey Methods to Inform Impact Assessment of Onshore Wind Farms.

Desk Study

8.22 A desk study was undertaken to collate existing information on bird populations in and around the Site, and to identify target species for baseline surveys.

8.23 This information, combined with baseline survey results, was utilised to put each target bird species recorded within the study area into context in terms of its national, regional and local importance.

8.24 Primary sources of contextual data were as follows: • The Birds of Scotland (Forrester et al., 2007); • Bird Atlas 2007-11: The Breeding and Wintering Birds of Britain and

Ireland (Balmer et al., 2013); • Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Report 2014 (Challis et al., 2015); • ES chapters from nearby wind farm schemes (Leadhills, Clyde Extension); • Natural Heritage Zone Bird Population Estimates (Wilson et al. 2015).

8.25 The South Strathclyde Raptor Study Group (RSG) was approached for records of Annex I and Schedule 1 raptors from 2006-2016 within 2km of the Site (search area equivalent to the largest (2km) survey area shown on Figure 8.1). The RSG divided the search area into four quadrants around a central point and data were provided for each quadrant; however no exact nest locations were provided.

Designated Sites

8.26 A search was made for all sites with international, national or local authority designations for their ornithological interests. This included SPAs, Ramsar sites, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within a 10km radius of the Site. The following sources were accessed to obtain information on designated sites: • Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) website

(http://www.jncc.gov.uk); and • SNH Sitelink website (http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp).

Field Survey

8.27 Baseline surveys were conducted by Jacobs during the period April 2014 to May 2016. Surveys were also undertaken by BSG Ecology across a small part of the Site, to the northwest of Elvanfoot, in 2013.

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/

http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Target and Secondary Species

8.28 Following consultation and desk study by BSG Ecology and Jacobs, the following target species were identified as potentially present in the vicinity of the Site (Technical Appendices 8.1 and 8.2): • All wild goose, swan and duck species, with the exception of Canada

goose Branta canadensis; • Black grouse; • All raptors and owls listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive or Schedule 1

of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); • Kestrel; and • All wader species.

8.29 All other species, excluding ubiquitous species of low conservation concern

and most passerine species, were considered to be secondary species. These included the following: • All other waterfowl (e.g. grey heron, Ardea cinerea); • Red grouse; • Buzzard Buteo buteo; • Raven Corvus corax; • Any large aggregations of red-listed passerines or other species; and • Any crossbill species Loxia sp..

Baseline Survey Methodologies

8.30 Surveys were carried out in accordance with the relevant SNH Guidance applicable at the time that they were carried out (SNH 2005, revised 2010 & 2013; SNH 2014).

Survey Coverage

8.31 Surveys were carried out during 2013-2016, and coverage varied during this time as the proposed development evolved in size and scope (see Chapter 2: Site Description and Design Evolution).

8.32 Table 8-1 summarises the survey coverage (survey coverage in 2014-16 is also shown in Figure 8-1) and indicates how the information has been used to inform this assessment.

8.33 Data from the two year period April 2014 – May 2016, which covered the full

survey area, has been used to inform the assessment, with the data from breeding season 2013 available to provide additional context only. The 2013 data has not been used for assessment purposes due to the fact that survey coverage in that year was over a much smaller area and did not fully include the final turbine layout.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Table 8-1: Ornithology Survey Coverage

Month/ Year

Consultant undertaking surveys

Survey coverage Use of data in assessment

April 2013 – August 2013

BSG Ecology Elvanfoot only Data not used in assessment. Technical Appendix 8.1 provided for context only.


Jacobs Elvanfoot, Leadhills and Glengeith. Coverage was determined based on the maximum area under consideration for the siting of turbines plus appropriate buffer zones (where accessible).

Full use of data.

September 2014 – March 2015

Jacobs Similar to 2014 breeding season, but with a small reduction in the southern part of the study area resulting in an adjustment to the survey area and the loss of VP8.

Full use of data.


Jacobs As in winter 2014/15. Full use of data.

September 2015 – May 2016

Jacobs As in winter 2014/15. Full use of data for all species up to mid-March 2016. Data from mid-March to mid-May included for migratory wildfowl species only.

Flight Activity (Vantage Point) Surveys

8.34 Vantage Point (VP) surveys were undertaken from nine locations during April 2014 – March 2016. A tenth VP (VP8) was used for the first breeding season only before being dropped. This was due to changes in the study area extent. Survey hours completed per VP per season1 were as follows: • April 2014 – August 2014: 30 hours (‘standard’ VPs); • September 2014 – March 2015: 54 hours (36 hours of ‘standard’ VP

surveys plus 18 hours of additional autumn ‘migration’ VPs); • April – August 2015: 60 hours (42 hours of ‘standard’ VP surveys plus 18

hours of additional spring ‘migration’ VPs); • September 2015 – March 2016: (36 hours of ‘standard’ VP surveys plus

18 hours of additional autumn ‘migration’ VPs); and • March 2016 – May 2016: 18 hours (spring ‘migration’ VPs).

1 For this purpose, the generic definition of breeding season is 1 April – 31 August and non-breeding season is 1 September – 31 March. For definitions of species-specific breeding seasons see Technical Appendix 8.6.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


8.35 VP locations and viewsheds are shown on Figure 8-2. Full details are provided in Technical Appendices 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5. It should be noted that, due to changes in the wind farm design during the EIA process, coverage of the submitted layout is achieved using data from six of the ten VPs. Therefore Collision Risk Analysis was undertaken using the data from VPs 1 – 6 only.

Moorland Breeding Birds Surveys

8.36 Surveys were undertaken using an adapted Brown and Shepherd (1993) methodology in both the 2014 and 2015 breeding seasons. Four visits were undertaken during April to July in each year. Full details are provided in the appended seasonal reports (Technical Appendices 8.2 and 8.4).

Black Grouse Surveys

8.37 Surveys were undertaken using the method outlined in Gilbert et al. (1998). Two visits were carried out in April and May in both 2014 and 2015. Full details are provided in the appended seasonal reports (Technical Appendices 8.2 and 8.4).

Raptor Surveys

8.38 Species-specific surveys were undertaken for hen harrier, goshawk, barn owl, long-eared owl, short-eared owl, merlin and peregrine (methodology following Hardey et al. (2009), plus Shawyer (2011) for barn owl. Full details are provided in the appended seasonal reports (Technical Appendices 8.2 and 8.4).

Collision Risk Analysis

8.39 For each target species, the number of ‘at risk’ flights was modelled for those with sufficient flights to provide a statistically satisfactory sample size (minimum of n=3). An annual collision rate was predicted using the Band et al. (2007) collision risk model. Full details are provided in Technical Appendix 8.6: Collision Risk Modelling Report.

Consultation

Scoping Responses

8.40 Informal consultation was undertaken with SNH and RSPB regarding the proposed scope of ornithological survey work in early 2015.

8.41 A formal scoping exercise was undertaken in July 2016. Scoping responses containing comments relating to ornithology were obtained from the following organisations:

• South Lanarkshire Council (SLC); • SNH; • RSPB;

ORNITHOLOGY 8


• Leadhills Community Council (LCC); and • Wanlockhead Community Council (WCC).

8.42 A summary of the key points from the relevant scoping responses and other consultations with the relevant organisations (both before and after the formal scoping exercise) is provided in Table 8-2, along with details of how comments have been addressed in the ES.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Table 8-2: Summary of Scoping Responses and Other Consultation with Respect to Ornithology

Consultee Date of

Consultation Response

Summary of Consultee Comments Response

SLC 15 July 2016

SLC stated that the ES should reference and use relevant policies from the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (Policy 15 Natural and historic environment) and supplementary guidance (SG No. 9 Natural and Historic Environment).

Relevant Policies from the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan have been referenced.

SLC stated that for biodiversity, a cumulative assessment should be undertaken.

A cumulative assessment is included in this Chapter.

SLC stated that a habitat management group should be convened as early as practicable and a draft HMP written for further consultation.

An OHMP is provided in Technical Appendix 9.6 and includes measures intended to benefit birds.

With specific regard to ornithological requirements SLC stated that they would be generally supportive of comments made by SNH and RSPB.

See SNH and RSPB responses.

SNH 3 March 2015

Email from David Kelly (SNH) to Martyn Owen (Jacobs) providing comments on letter dated 2 February 2015 summarising survey work completed to date and seeking agreement for the proposed scope of additional ornithological survey work. Also follow up emails dated 6 and 26 March 2015.

SNH advised against using the 2013 BSG data for the Elvanfoot area within the assessment.

2013 data has not been used in the assessment other than to provide context.

SNH made various comments regarding visibility from VPs and possible overlapping temporal coverage from VPs.

VP viewsheds are shown in Figure 8.2. Complete coverage was impossible due to topography and health and safety considerations. Temporally overlapping coverage from VPs was also unavoidable due to access and health and safety considerations and has been accounted for in the CRM (see Technical Appendix 8.6).

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Consultee Date of Consultation Response


SNH noted that 2014 breeding season survey hours were below the minimum recommended and that some of the spacing of survey visits was suboptimal.

Additional survey was carried out in 2015 to compensate for this.

SNH agreed that the proposed scope of survey work during the 2015 breeding season and the proposed scope of non-breeding season survey work, subject to better spacing of survey visits than in 2014 and subject to previous comments regarding VP coverage.

SNH comments were taken in account during 2015 breeding surveys and non-breeding season surveys (see Technical Appendices 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4).

21 June 2016

SNH Scoping Response

SNH stated that it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area (SPA) either directly or indirectly. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required.

Designated sites have been scoped out from further assessment.

SNH stated that they would welcome further engagement with the applicant over the layout as the design progresses.

Further consultation with SNH regarding the proposed turbine layout was undertaken in October 2016.

SNH noted that they provided pre-application bird advice, and the survey work looks to be generally appropriate. However they advised that their earlier more detailed advice should be covered in the ES.

SNH pre-scoping comments have been addressed in the ES and Technical Appendices 8.1-8.5.

SNH would welcome the applicant’s consideration of potential enhancement measures as well as mitigation within outline Habitat Management Plan proposals.

An OHMP is included as Technical Appendix 9.6 and includes compensation and enhancements for breeding waders.

21 October 2016

Email from Paul Taylor (SNH) to Duncan Watson (SLR) following phone conversations and provision of proposed layout and survey data for key bird species.

Discussion related primarily to avoidance of areas around Further explanation of factors incorporated into the layout

ORNITHOLOGY 8




recorded hen harrier and short-eared owl territories. No objection raised by SNH to draft layout presentation, although various questions raised regarding the rationale for buffer zones used.

design is provided in this Chapter.

SNH noted that it was difficult to comment meaningfully on mitigation, compensation or enhancement measures without knowing specifically what is proposed. SNH went on to say that both on- and off-site management could be options and that longer term nest surveillance could also be a useful measure, in liaison with RSG, RSPB etc.

Proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures are presented in the Chapter and Technical Appendix 9.6: OHMP. Proposed monitoring is described in paragraphs 8.207-8.209.

3 March 2017 Email from Paul Taylor (SNH) to Duncan Watson (SLR) following phone conversation on 14 February and emails on 14 and 16 February discussing the approach to the cumulative assessment. Subsequently discussed further by phone on 6 March.

SNH stated that the default approach is to assess cumulative impacts at the NHZ scale, unless there is a reasonable alternative. Any alternative scale needs to be justified on biological grounds. Requested that a clear explanation of the approach to the cumulative assessment is provided.

The methodology for the cumulative assessment is set out in the Approach and Methodology Section (paragraphs 8.58-8.64).

RSPB Scotland

16 March 2015 Email from Toby Wilson (RSPB) to Martyn Owen (Jacobs) providing comments on letter dated 2 February 2015 summarising survey work completed to date and seeking agreement for the proposed scope of additional ornithological survey work.

RSPB stated that the surveys undertaken and proposed look good. Requested that given its size the ES should mention the black-headed gull colony at the sub-station.

Black-headed gull is included in the assessment.

At this stage, any concerns RSPB would have relate to potential impacts on hen harriers, short-eared owls, golden plover and to a lesser extent other wader species.

Impact assessment covers hen harrier, short-eared owl, golden plover and other wader species.

ORNITHOLOGY 8




7 June 2016 RSPB Scotland Scoping Response

RSPB has concerns about the potential impact of this development on a range of upland breeding birds, in particular hen harrier, short-eared owl, golden plover and curlew. The ES must assess and present these impacts in the context of regional numbers and trends of these species.

A detailed assessment of impacts on hen harrier, short-eared owl, golden plover and curlew is presented in the ES.

We welcome the commitment that the design process will take into account the results of the bird survey work in order to mitigate. In particular, the location of turbines should seek to avoid key foraging areas for raptors and areas with high wader numbers. We are generally satisfied with the methodologies and level of detail. We are of the view that it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of an SPA either directly or indirectly.

The scheme design has sought to avoid raptor and owl breeding territories as far as possible. Avoidance of all areas occupied by breeding waders was not possible but the areas with the highest wader numbers have largely been avoided.

We welcome the proposal to develop a Habitat Management Plan (HMP). A draft version of the HMP (including a clear plan showing the identified HMP area) should be submitted along with the ES.

An OHMP is included in Technical Appendix 9.6.

LCC 29 June 2016 LCC state that a major omission in the scope of bird survey is the absence of surveys in the autumn to establish the numbers and species of migratory birds, particularly geese overflying the area. It is suggested that some of this survey work is done at night.

The scope of survey work was agreed with SNH and RSPB. Additional surveys were carried out during the autumn migration period, specifically targeted at migrating geese. Full details are provided in Technical Appendices 8.3 and 8.5 with a summary provided in this Chapter. Surveys at night were not considered necessary and would be unlikely to provide meaningful data in relation to migrating geese.

ORNITHOLOGY 8




LCC suggest that a survey is undertaken to establish the status of red kite locally.

Surveys for breeding raptors included red kite. Full details are provided in Technical Appendices 8.2 and 8.4 with a summary provided in this Chapter.

LCC consider that considerable weight should be given to the cumulative impacts of the extensive wind farms in the locality and those which have been consented or which are being planned.


LCC state that there is a long history of raptor persecution in the Leadhills area.

All bird surveyors were tasked with reporting any evidence of illegal activity, which would occur as a matter of course when undertaking any surveys of this type. Monitoring of breeding raptors is proposed.

LCC state that as well as physical impact with turbine blades it is understood that the pressure waves in the immediate vicinity of rotating blades can damage or critically injure birds and an assessment of the impact of this phenomenon should be carried out.

Collision risk modelling assumes that any birds flying close enough to moving turbine blades would be killed, whether by collision (most likely) or by other means. The results of collision risk modelling are provided in Technical Appendix 8.6 with a summary provided in this Chapter.

LCC state that there is evidence starting to emerge that ultrasound generated by turbines might have an impact on bird navigation systems.

We are not aware of any credible scientific evidence that ultrasound from turbines can impact on bird navigation systems.

WCC 21 July 2016 WCC believe this development will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area.

SNH state that it is unlikely that the proposal would have a significant effect on the SPA (see SNH response).

WCC state that the cumulative effect of existing, consented and proposed wind farms would mean the level of bird mortality caused by wind farms in this area may exceed the capacity for the bird population for


ORNITHOLOGY 8




regeneration.

WCC state that the wind farm could compromise future plans to release golden eagles in the South of Scotland.

We are currently unaware of any detailed plans to release golden eagles and it is therefore impossible to carry out a meaningful assessment of possible impacts.

WCC state that there have been numerous concerns regarding wildlife crime in the locality and they expect this to be taken into account in the bird surveys.

All bird surveyors were tasked with reporting any evidence of illegal activity, which would occur as a matter of course when undertaking any surveys of this type. Monitoring of breeding raptors is proposed.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Good Practice Measures and Mitigation

8.43 Good practice measures and mitigation would be implemented during construction to avoid and reduce impacts. These measures are set out in section titled ‘Assessment of Effects’ and in Technical Appendix 3.1: Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

Assessing Significance

8.44 The CIEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK (CIEEM, 2016) (henceforth referred to as the CIEEM guidelines) form the basis of the impact assessment presented in this Chapter. The CIEEM guidelines have been endorsed by SNH. Reference has also been made to relevant SNH guidance as appropriate.

Determining Importance

8.45 In accordance with the CIEEM guidelines, only ornithological receptors which are considered to be important and potentially affected by the project should be subject to detailed assessment. It is not necessary to carry out detailed assessment of receptors that are sufficiently widespread, unthreatened and resilient to project impacts and would remain viable and sustainable.

8.46 Ornithological receptors should be considered within a defined geographical context. For this project the following geographic frame of reference is used:

• International; • National (i.e. Scotland); • Regional (i.e. SNH Natural Heritage Zones 19 and 20); • Local (i.e. the Site plus circa 10km); and • Negligible.

8.47 For designated sites, importance should reflect the geographical context of the designation. For example, a SSSI would normally be considered nationally important.

8.48 In assigning a level of value to a species, it is necessary to consider its

distribution and status, including a consideration of trends based on available historical records. Reference has therefore been made to published lists and criteria where available. Examples of relevant lists and criteria include:

• species of European conservation importance (as listed on Annexes II, IV

and V of the Habitats Directive); and • species considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity in

Scotland, as listed under Part 1 Section 2(4) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

8.49 Reference has also been made in particular to published bird population estimates such as Wilson et al. (2015) for NHZs within Scotland and Musgrove et al. (2013) for Great Britain.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


8.50 Where appropriate, the value of species populations has been determined using the standard ‘1% criterion’ method (e.g. Holt et al., 2012). Using this method the presence of >1% of the international population of a species is considered internationally important, >1% of the national population is considered nationally important, etc.

Impact Assessment

8.51 The impact assessment process involves the following steps: • identifying and characterising impacts; • incorporating measures to avoid and mitigate (reduce) these impacts; • assessing the significance of any residual effects after mitigation; • identifying appropriate compensation measures to offset significant

residual effects (if required); and • identifying opportunities for ecological enhancement.

8.52 When describing impacts, reference has been made to the following characteristics, as appropriate:

• positive or negative; • extent; • magnitude; • duration; • timing; • frequency; and • reversibility.

8.53 Both direct and indirect impacts are considered. Direct impacts are changes

that are directly attributable to a defined action, e.g. the physical loss of habitat occupied by a bird species during the construction process. Indirect ecological impacts are attributable to an action, but which affect ecological resources through effects on an intermediary ecosystem, process or receptor, e.g. the creation of roads which cause hydrological changes, which, in the absence of mitigation, could lead to the drying out of wetland habitats used by important bird species.

8.54 For the purposes of this assessment, in accordance with CIEEM guidelines, a ‘significant effect’ is an effect that either supports or undermines conservation objectives for ‘important ornithological receptors’. Conservation objectives may be specific (e.g. for a designated site) or broad (e.g. national/local nature conservation policy). Effects can be considered significant at a wide range of scales from international to local. For example, a significant effect on a regionally important population of a species is likely to be of regional significance.

8.55 Consideration of conservation status is important for evaluating the effects of

impacts on bird species and assessing their significance. Conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the species concerned that may affect its abundance and distribution within a given geographical area.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Avoidance, Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement

8.56 A sequential process has been adopted to avoid, mitigate and compensate for ornithological impacts. This is often referred to as the ‘mitigation hierarchy’.

8.57 It is important for the EIA to clearly differentiate between avoidance mitigation, compensation and enhancement and these terms are defined here as follows:

• avoidance is used where an impact has been avoided e.g. through

changes in scheme design; • mitigation is used to refer to measures to reduce or remedy a specific

negative impact in situ; • compensation describes measures taken to offset residual effects, i.e.

where mitigation in situ is not possible; and • enhancement is the provision of new benefits for biodiversity that are

additional to those provided as part of mitigation or compensation measures, although they can be complementary.

Assessment of Cumulative Effects

8.58 Cumulative effects result from effects arising from two or more developments. Effects may be:

• additive (i.e. the sum of effects of different developments); • antagonistic (i.e. the sum of effects are less than in a multiple independent

additive model); or • synergistic (i.e. the cumulative effect is greater than the sum of the

multiple individual effects).

8.59 SNH has produced guidance on assessing cumulative effects on birds due to onshore wind energy developments (SNH 2012a). While antagonistic or synergistic models may occur in real-life settings, the approach adopted in the SNH guidance is based on a simpler additive model. The approach adopted here is based on the SNH (2012a) guidance.

8.60 Cumulative effects have been assessed for all species for which detailed assessment has been undertaken in this ES (see list in paragraph 8.8). The potential for cumulative effects due to habitat loss, disturbance/displacement and collision has been assessed. The cumulative assessment is based on consideration of residual effects, i.e. assuming that proposed mitigation and compensation measures for other projects are implemented.

8.61 The cumulative assessment includes other wind farms which are either: operational, under construction, consented but not yet under construction, or for which planning applications have been submitted. In the scoping report it was also proposed that the nearby North Lowther Wind Farm would be included in the cumulative assessment if sufficient data were available. However, at the time of writing an application for North Lowther Wind Farm

ORNITHOLOGY 8


has yet to be submitted and data on which to base a meaningful assessment of cumulative effects are not available.

8.62 With regard to the spatial extent of the cumulative assessment, SNH

comments during consultation (see Table 8.2) indicated that the default approach should be to assess cumulative effects at the NHZ scale, unless there is a reasonable alternative. In this case, where the Site is located close to the boundary of two NHZs, this would have entailed consideration of over 180 other wind farm developments. SNH (2012a) guidance recognises that access to relevant data for other projects is not always possible and states that SNH will make such data available to developers, bearing in mind issues such as commercial confidentiality and environmental sensitivity, when this will materially assist a developer in undertaking a cumulative assessment. However, in this case, SNH has not been able to provide any assistance in sourcing data for other projects.

8.63 Given that data for many of the 180+ other projects are not likely to be

publically available, the results of any cumulative assessment are unlikely to be robust and it is unlikely to be possible to draw meaningful conclusions. As such, the level of work required to carry out such an extensive assessment cannot be justified. A more reasonable alternative approach has therefore been adopted here whereby the core foraging range for each species included in the assessment, taken from SNH (2016), has been used to determine the spatial extent of the cumulative assessment. In this case, the maximum core foraging range for any of the species included in the assessment is 5km (merlin). A merlin territory could therefore, theoretically, be affected by wind farms located up to 5km from a nest site. A precautionary approach has therefore been adopted in which other wind farms within 10km of the proposed development (i.e. all developments which could theoretically affect a merlin territory located 5km from the proposed development) have been included in the cumulative assessment.

8.64 The significance of potential cumulative effects has been determined using

the same method adopted in the assessment of effects for the proposed development considered on its own. Cumulative effects are therefore considered significant if they undermine conservation objectives for important ornithological receptors. Cumulative effects can be considered significant at a wide range of scales from international to local. For example, a significant cumulative effect on a regional population of a species is likely to be of regional significance.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Designated Sites

8.65 Statutory designated sites within 10km are shown on Figure 9.1. A brief description of each site designated for its ornithological interest is provided in paragraphs 8.65-67 (other sites are covered in Chapter 9: Ecology and Chapter 11: Geology and Peat respectively). There are no non-statutory designated sites within 2km.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


8.66 The only statutory designated sites within 10km with an ornithological interest are the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA and underlying North Lowther Uplands SSSI. These sites are approximately 6km to the west of the site at its closest point. The SPA qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive:

During the breeding season: • golden plover, 154 pairs representing at least 0.7% of the breeding

population in Great Britain (1999); • hen harrier, 29 pairs representing at least 6.0% of the breeding population

in Great Britain (1994-1998); • merlin, 9 pairs representing at least 0.7% of the breeding population in

Great Britain (1989/90 and 1997/98 4 year mean); • peregrine, 6 pairs representing at least 0.5% of the breeding population in

Great Britain (1992 - 1996 5 year mean); and • short-eared owl, 26 pairs representing at least 3.0% of the breeding

population in Great Britain (1997-1998). Over winter:

• hen harrier, 12 individuals representing at least 2.0% of the wintering population in Great Britain (1991 - 1995 5 year mean).

8.67 The North Lowther Uplands SSSI citation states that the range of habitats,

many of them heather dominated, provide a mosaic of breeding and foraging habitats for the diverse upland bird community which is of national importance. Amongst the species present are hen harrier, short-eared owl, merlin, peregrine, golden plover, red grouse, raven, dunlin, snipe, teal, curlew, redshank, whinchat and wheatear. The breeding population of hen harriers is of both national and European importance.

Field Surveys

Flight Activity Surveys

8.68 Full details of the flight activity surveys are provided in Technical Appendices 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5. A seasonal summary of flight activity within the collision risk zone, defined as the area encompassed by the Wind Farm Polygon (WP) (i.e. within 200m of the outermost turbine blades) and at Potential Collision Height (PCH) (i.e. within the rotor-swept area), (i.e. ‘at risk’ flights), is provided in Table 8-3.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Table 8-3: Summary of ‘At Risk’ Flights of Target Species by Season

Species Season Total number of birds recorded in flight

Number in flight over WP risk zone

Number at PCH in WP risk zone

Birds Flight events

Whooper swan

Non-breeding (including spring and autumn migration)

240 42 42 3

Pink-footed goose


4965 1316 1053 21

Greylag goose


161 7 3 2

Red kite Breeding 26 7 5 4

Non-breeding 19 4 5 4

Hen harrier

Breeding 233 118 39 39


Goshawk Breeding 51 17 6 6


Osprey Breeding 4 3 3 3


Kestrel Breeding 92 29 15 15


Merlin Breeding 13 5 1 1


Peregrine Breeding 32 14 7 7


Golden plover

Breeding 199 83 89 54


Lapwing Breeding 88 9 9 3


Snipe Breeding 35 7 3 2


Curlew Breeding 298 73 42 30


Short-eared owl

Breeding 161 74 8 8


ORNITHOLOGY 8


Moorland Breeding Bird Surveys

8.69 Full results of the Moorland Breeding Bird Surveys are presented in Technical Appendices 8.2 and 8.4. The numbers of territories of wader species recorded in 2014 and 2015 were assessed as in Table 8-4, which shows the numbers of territories within the relevant survey boundary and within 500m of the proposed turbine layout (numbers within species-specific disturbance distances are given in the section titled ‘Assessment of Effects’).

8.70 Surveys in 2013 undertaken by BSG Ecology (Technical Appendix 8.1) recorded a similar range of wader species within a much smaller survey area north of Elvanfoot.

Table 8-4: Wader Species Territory Counts 2014-2015

Species Total within survey area Total within 500m of turbines

2014 2015 2014 2015

Oystercatcher 43 25 0 0

Ringed plover 3 5 0 0

Golden plover 18 23 14 12

Lapwing 39 76 0 0

Snipe 10 25 0 2

Curlew 30 73 1 8

Redshank 7 4 0 0

Common sandpiper 13 9 0 0

Black Grouse Surveys

8.71 No black grouse leks were recorded within 1.5km of the turbine layout. Four incidental records of black grouse were made during surveys in 2013, 2014 and 2015 (further information is provided in Technical Appendices 8.1, 8.2 and 8.4).

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Breeding Raptor and Owl Surveys

8.72 Full results of the Breeding Raptor and Owl Surveys are presented in Technical Appendices 8.2 and 8.4. The breeding status of raptor species was assessed as in Table 8-5, which shows the numbers of territories in 2014 and 2015 within the raptor survey boundary (numbers within species-specific disturbance distances are given in the section titled ‘Assessment of Effects’). Full details of the locations of nesting Annex 1 and Schedule 1 raptor and owl species are confidential and are provided in a separate Confidential Appendix.

Table 8-5: Raptor and Owl Species Breeding Status

Species 2014 2015

Red kite No evidence of breeding within 2km – foraging only.

No evidence of breeding within 2km – foraging only.

Hen harrier One confirmed and two probable breeding territories.

Three confirmed territories and one probable breeding territory.

Goshawk No evidence of breeding within 2km – foraging only

One confirmed breeding territory.

Osprey No evidence of breeding within 2km.

No evidence of breeding within 2km.

Kestrel No evidence of breeding within 2km – foraging only.

One probable breeding territory.

Merlin One confirmed and one probable breeding territory.

One confirmed breeding territory.

Peregrine No evidence of breeding within 2km – foraging only.

No evidence of breeding within 2km – foraging only.

Barn owl None recorded. Recorded as present but no evidence of breeding.

Long-eared owl None recorded. Two confirmed breeding territories.

Short-eared owl Nine confirmed and one probable breeding territories.

Five confirmed and two possible breeding territories.

8.73 Data from the RSG from the same study area over the 2006-2016 period

confirmed survey findings of between one to three hen harrier territories in 2014-15, along with one merlin breeding territory and one goshawk breeding territory. Although present, hen harrier was not confirmed breeding by the RSG during the period 2006-13. Peregrine, kestrel, buzzard, long-eared owl, short-eared owl were also recorded within the study area during 2006-16. A traditional peregrine eyrie in the area has not been occupied during the last ten years.

8.74 Surveys in 2013 undertaken by BSG Ecology (Technical Appendix 8.1) found

no evidence of breeding Annex 1 or Schedule 1 raptor and owl species in the

ORNITHOLOGY 8


area north of Elvanfoot. One osprey and one hen harrier flight were recorded during flight activity surveys.

Evaluation of Ornithological Receptors

8.75 An evaluation of the importance of the relevant study areas for each target species recorded during the baseline surveys is provided in Table 8-6.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Table 8-6: Evaluation of Target Species Populations within the Study Area

Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification

National Whooper swan

• Annex 1 • Schedule 1 • SBL priority species • The most recent census of whooper swan recorded 34,004 birds in

2015, with 3,784 in Scotland (Hall et al. 2016). • The most recent estimate of peak winter abundance in all NHZs in

Scotland is 9,283 with estimates from the two relevant NHZs of 1,188 in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and 33 in The Border Hills (NHZ 20), based on a combination of data from the five year period of 2009/2010 to 2013/2014) (Wilson et al., 2015).

• There are no sites designated for whooper swan within 20km. • Baseline surveys recorded a total of 178 birds in flight across two non-

breeding seasons.

The study area covered by the VP surveys is not used by whooper swan, other than by birds flying over in winter. Even allowing for some duplication of recording across the two winters, the number of birds recorded flying over is likely to represent more than 1% of the national (Scotland) population. The study area is therefore considered to be nationally important for over-flying whooper swan.

National Short-eared owl

• Annex I • SBL priority • UK BoCC Amber List • In Scotland, short- eared owl is a restricted resident breeder, with birds

typically moving between separate breeding and wintering areas. Highest nesting densities are found in the uplands of south, central and eastern areas, with the number of breeding pairs across Scotland estimated at 125-1,250 pairs (Forrester et al., 2007) or 1,088 pairs (Wilson et al., 2015).

• The estimate of the number of breeding pairs of short-eared owl in the two relevant NHZs is c.35 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and c.35 pairs in The Border Hills (NHZ 20) (Wilson et al., 2015).

• Baseline studies identified up to ten breeding territories in 2014 and

Numbers fluctuate widely between years in response to field vole numbers making comparison of study area for breeding raptors/owls and national/regional populations difficult. However, 10 pairs in 2014 could represent >1% of the Scottish population and adopting a precautionary approach the study area is therefore considered to be nationally important for breeding short-eared owl.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification seven in 2015. It should be noted that this species is considered nomadic in nature with its movements, with breeding density and productivity linked to the cyclical populations of field voles (Forrester et al., 2007). RSG data from 2006-2016 indicates that 2014 was an exceptional year for this species.

National Black-headed gull

• UK BoCC Amber List • SBL priority species • In the UK, the species has declined both in breeding and wintering

population and range (Eaton et al. 2015). The breeding population of the UK has been estimated as 130,000 pairs with 2,200,000 wintering (Musgrove et al. 2013).

• Forrester et al. 2007 gave an estimate of 43,200 pairs breeding in Scotland.

• No estimates are available for the NHZ populations (Wilson et al., 2015). • A breeding colony is present within the existing electricity substation and

gas compound just west of Elvanfoot with 250 nests recorded in 2013 & 2014 and 750 nests in 2015. Recorded as a secondary species in 298 five-minute periods during VP surveys, with most activity recorded from VP6 near Elvanfoot (close to the colony).

The breeding colony west of Elvanfoot represents 0.6-1.7% of the national population. Adopting a precautionary approach and using the higher figure, the colony is potentially nationally important.

Regional Pink-footed goose

• UK BoCC Amber List • Scotland is a key wintering area for birds breeding in Iceland and

Greenland; large feeding and roosting flocks are present in eastern and central Scotland, especially in autumn and early winter (Forrester et al., 2007).

• The total UK pink-footed goose population was around 230,000 individuals in 2002, based on a population status report from SNH (Trinder et al. 2005). In the most recent study, Mitchell (2016) estimated the total international pink-footed goose population in October 2015 to be 536,871 birds (all but 8,000 of these wintering in the UK), up by 36.5% on the previous year.

The study area covered by the VP surveys is not used by pink-footed geese, other than by birds flying over. Allowing for some duplication of recording across the two winters, the number of birds recorded flying over is likely to represent less than 1% of the national wintering population, although the numbers represent >1% of the combined NHZ19 / NHZ20 population. The study area is therefore considered to be regionally important for over-flying pink-footed geese.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification • The most recent estimate of peak winter abundance in the two relevant

NHZs is 34,621 in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and 47,407 in The Border Hills (NHZ 20), based on a combination of data from the five year period of 2009/2010 to 2013/2014) (Wilson et al., 2015).

• There are no sites designated for pink-footed goose within 20km. • Baseline surveys recorded 4,965 birds in flight across two non-breeding

seasons.

Regional Hen harrier • Annex I • Schedule 1 • SBL priority species • UK BoCC Red List • The Scottish breeding population is estimated as 501 breeding pairs

(Wilson et al., 2015). • Southern Uplands: 57 (49-74) territorial pairs in 2010 (Hayhow et al.,

2013); 60 home ranges occupied in 2014 (Challis et al., 2015). • The most recent estimate of the number of breeding pairs of hen harrier

in the two relevant NHZs is 18 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and 13 pairs in The Border Hills (NHZ 20) (Wilson et al., 2015).

• Baseline breeding bird surveys identified up to 3 breeding hen harrier territories within the Survey Area in 2014 and 2015.

3 pairs of hen harrier represents 0.6% of the Scottish population and 9.7% of the combined NHZ19 / NHZ20 population and 5-5.3% of the Southern Uplands population. The study area for breeding raptors/owls is therefore considered to be regionally important for breeding hen harrier.

Regional Goshawk • Schedule 1 • UK BoCC Green List • Raptor workers monitored 192 pairs in Scotland in 2014, including

Dumfries and Galloway where there were 35 home ranges, of which 30 were occupied and in the Borders where 24 out of 48 home ranges were occupied (Challis et al., 2015).

• The most recent estimate (compiled from 2013 survey data) of the

One breeding pair represents less than 1% of the Scottish population and 4% of the combined NHZ19 / NHZ20 population with a number of foraging flights recorded. The study area for breeding raptors/owls is considered to be regionally important for goshawk.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification number of breeding pairs of goshawk in all NHZs in Scotland is 136 with estimates from the most relevant NHZs of 31 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and 13 in The Border Hills (NHZ 20) (Wilson et al., 2015).

• Baseline surveys recorded 106 goshawk flights from VP surveys across both years.

• One goshawk territory was recorded in the periphery of the survey area. The extent of suitable breeding habitat is limited, and the survey data suggest that the majority of the study area is used for foraging.

Regional Merlin • Annex I • Schedule 1 • SBL priority species • BoCC Red List • The total Scottish merlin breeding population is estimated at

approximately 800 pairs, with a winter population of 3,000+ birds (Forrester et al. 2007). Wilson et al. (2015) estimated 433 pairs across all NHZs in Scotland.

• Raptor workers identified 10 pairs on breeding territories in South Lanarkshire during 2014 (Challis et al., 2015). The most recent estimate of the number of breeding pairs of merlin in the two relevant NHZs is c.12 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and c.22 pairs in The Border Hills (NHZ 20) (Wilson et al., 2015).

• Baseline breeding bird surveys identified one confirmed and one unconfirmed breeding territory in 2014 and one confirmed territory in 2015.

A maximum of 2 pairs of merlin represents between 0.25-0.46% of the Scottish population and 5.9% of the combined NHZ19 / NHZ20 population and 20% of the South Lanarkshire population. The study area for breeding raptors/owls is therefore considered to be regionally important for breeding merlin.

Regional Golden plover • Annex I • SBL priority species • UK BoCC Amber List • The Scottish breeding population is estimated as 15,000 breeding pairs

A maximum of 23 pairs represents between 0.06-0.15% of the Scottish population and cannot therefore be regarded as nationally important. However, 23 pairs represents 1.3% of the combined NHZ19 / NHZ20

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification (Forrester et al., 2007) or 37,480 breeding pairs (Wilson et al., 2015).

• The Scottish wintering population was estimated by Forrester et al. 2007 as 25,000-35,000.

• The most recent estimate of the number of golden plover breeding pairs in the two relevant NHZs is c. 778 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and c. 1,058 pairs in The Border Hills (NHZ 20) (Wilson et al., 2015).

• Baseline breeding bird surveys identified 18 and 23 breeding golden plover territories within the Survey Area in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

• Baseline winter surveys recorded a maximum of 45 birds concurrently.

population and the study area for breeding waders is therefore considered to be regionally important for breeding golden plover. The number of non-breeding golden plover recorded within the study area covered by the VP surveys is well below the threshold for national importance (0.18%) and although data are not available for the regional wintering population, a maximum of 45 birds is considered unlikely to be more than locally important.

Regional Snipe • UK BoCC Amber List • SBL priority species • The UK breeding population is estimated to be 80,000 pairs (Musgrove

et al. 2013), with the Scottish population at 34,000-40,000 pairs, reducing to 10,000-30,000 birds in the winter (Forrester et al. 2007).

• Breeding Bird Survey data have shown the population decreasing by 23% in Scotland between 2004 and 2014 (Robinson et al., 2016).

• The most recent estimate of the number of breeding pairs of snipe in the two relevant NHZs is c.1,252 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and c.908 pairs in The Border Hills (NHZ 20), out of an estimate of 34,594 pairs across all NHZs in Scotland (Wilson et al., 2015).

• Upland breeding bird surveys identified 10 and 25 snipe territories within the Survey Area in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

A maximum of 25 pairs of snipe represents between 0.06-0.07% of the Scottish population but 1.2% of the combined NHZ19 / NHZ20 population. The study area for breeding waders is therefore considered to be regionally important for breeding snipe.

Regional Curlew • UK BoCC Red List • SBL priority species • In the UK, the species has declined considerably over the last several

decades, with an estimated loss of 60% of the population since the

A maximum of 73 pairs of curlew represents 0.24% of the most conservative estimate of the current Scottish population but up to 1.3% of the combined NHZ19 / NHZ20 population. The study area for breeding

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification 1970s (Eaton et al. 2010). Breeding Bird Survey data have shown the population decreasing by 25% in Scotland between 2004 and 2014 (Robinson et al., 2016). The breeding population of the UK has been estimated as 68,000 pairs (Musgrove et al. 2013).

• Forrester et al. 2007 gave an estimate of 58,800 pairs breeding in Scotland, although this figure is almost certainly too high given recent population declines, and is much more likely to be nearer the estimate of 30,194 pairs across all NHZs in Scotland given by Wilson et al. (2015). The estimate of the number of breeding pairs of curlew in the two relevant NHZs is c.4,284 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and c.1,400 pairs in The Border Hills (NHZ 20) (Wilson et al., 2015). According to Wilson et al. (2015) NHZ 19 is likely to be the NHZ with the highest population of curlews in Scotland.

• Baseline surveys indicated the number of estimated territories within the survey area as 30 in 2014 and 73 in 2015.

waders is therefore considered to be regionally important for breeding curlew.

Local Greylag goose • UK BoCC Amber List • In the UK, the species has declined both in breeding and wintering

population and range (Eaton et al. 2015). The breeding population of the UK has been estimated as 46,000 pairs with 220,000 wintering (Musgrove et al. 2013).

• Forrester et al. 2007 gave an estimate of 20,000 pairs breeding and an additional 85,000+ wintering in Scotland.

• No estimates are available for the NHZ populations (Wilson et al., 2015). • Baseline surveys recorded 161 birds in flight. These are likely to have

been a mixture of locally breeding feral birds and wintering birds from further north. It is possible that feral birds breed in the vicinity of the Clyde valley.

The study area covered by the VP surveys is predominantly used only by greylag goose flying over. This study area is considered to be no more than locally important for over-flying greylag goose due to the relatively low level of activity.

Local Red kite • Annex I • Schedule 1 • SBL priority species

No occupied breeding territories have been recorded within the study area for breeding raptors/owls and suitable breeding habitat is limited. This study area is used for foraging

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification • Raptor workers monitored 239 pairs in Scotland in 2014, including

Dumfries and Galloway where there were 91 home ranges, of which 86 were occupied (Challis et al., 2015).

• The most recent estimate of the number of breeding pairs of red kite in the most relevant NHZ was compiled from 2013 survey data (83 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) (Wilson et al., 2015)).

• Baseline surveys recorded 45 red kites from baseline VP surveys; 26 from the breeding season and 19 during the non-breeding season.

• No evidence to suggest breeding by red kite was observed within the survey area in either 2014 or 2015. The extent of suitable breeding habitat is limited to woodland areas around the periphery of the survey area, and the survey data suggest that the study area is used only for foraging.

only and is therefore considered to be locally important for red kite only.

Local Peregrine • Annex I • Schedule 1 • SBL priority species • There are estimated to be around 600 pairs breeding in Scotland, where

the winter population is around 2,000–2,500 birds (Forrester et al. 2007). • Raptor workers in South Lanarkshire checked 14 home ranges in 2014,

of which seven were occupied (Challis et al., 2015). The most recent estimate of the number of breeding pairs of peregrine in the two relevant NHZs is c.34 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and c.27 pairs in The Border Hills (NHZ 20), out of an estimate of 485 pairs across all NHZs in Scotland (Wilson et al., 2015).

• No evidence was gathered during baseline surveys to suggest that breeding occurred within 2km survey buffer zone. The number of observations of adult birds during the breeding season suggests it is possible that this species bred in the general vicinity of the study area (although outwith the survey area). A historical breeding location is present within the study area but has not been used for at least 10

No occupied breeding territories have been recorded within the study area for breeding raptors/owls at least 10 years. This study area is used for foraging only and is therefore considered to be locally important for peregrine only.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification years.

Local Osprey • Annex 1 • Schedule 1 • UK BoCC Amber List • SBL priority species • Raptor workers monitored 209 pairs in Scotland in 2014, including


• The most recent estimate (compiled from 2013 survey data) of the number of breeding pairs of osprey in all NHZs in Scotland is 197 with estimates from the most relevant NHZs of 6 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and 13 in The Border Hills (NHZ 20) (Wilson et al., 2015).

• Baseline surveys recorded 6 osprey flights from VP surveys during the periods April – October 2014 and 2015 combined.

• There is no evidence to suggest breeding by osprey was observed within the survey area in either 2014 or 2015. The extent of suitable breeding or foraging habitat is limited to areas around the periphery of the survey area, and the survey data suggest that the study area is used only by migrating birds.

The study area covered by the VP surveys is not used by osprey, other than by occasional birds flying over. The study area is therefore considered to be no more than locally important for osprey.

Local Kestrel • UK BoCC Amber List • SBL priority species • Wilson et al., 2015 derived an estimate of the Scottish population of

c.3,850 pairs based on smoothed annual trends calculated from BBS data, which indicates a decline of 65% in the period 1995− 2012 (Harris et al. 2014). Wilson et al., 2015 estimate of the number of breeding pairs of kestrel in the two relevant NHZs as c.667 pairs in The Western Southern Uplands and Inner Solway (NHZ 19) and c.341 pairs in The Border Hills (NHZ 20).

One probable breeding pair represents 0.09% of the combined NHZ19 / NHZ20 population and, whilst a number of foraging flights were recorded, the study area for breeding raptors/owls is considered to be no more than locally important for kestrel.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification • There were 233 kestrel flights recorded during baseline VP surveys. 92

of these were during the breeding season. It is probable that a pair bred in the east of the survey area in 2015.

Local Redshank • UK BoCC Amber List • In the UK, the species has declined both in breeding and wintering

population and range (Eaton et al. 2015). Breeding Bird Survey data have shown the population decreasing by 26% in the UK between 2004 and 2014 (Robinson et al., 2016). The breeding population of the UK has been estimated as 24,000 pairs (Musgrove et al. 2013).

• Forrester et al. 2007 gave an estimate of 11,700-17,500 pairs breeding in Scotland.

• No estimates are available for the NHZ populations (Wilson et al., 2015). • Baseline surveys indicated the number of estimated territories within the

survey area as 7 in 2014 and 4 in 2015.

The breeding wader study area population represents considerably less than 1% of the national population and is also likely to represent less than 1% of the regional population. This study area is therefore considered to be no more than locally important for redshank.

Local Oystercatcher • UK BoCC Amber List • In the UK, the species has declined both in breeding and wintering

population and range (Eaton et al. 2015). Breeding Bird Survey data have shown the population decreasing by 16% in Scotland between 2004 and 2014 (Robinson et al., 2016). The breeding population of the UK has been estimated as 110,000 pairs with 320,000 wintering (Musgrove et al. 2013).


• No estimates are available for the NHZ populations (Wilson et al., 2015). • Baseline surveys indicated that the number of estimated territories within

the survey area as 43 in 2014 and 25 in 2015, with a total of 24 birds recorded in flight during the breeding season across both years.

The breeding wader study area population represents considerably less than 1% of the national population and is also likely to represent less than 1% of the regional population. This study area is therefore considered to be no more than locally important for oystercatcher.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification

Local Lapwing • UK BoCC Red List • SBL priority species • In the UK, the species has declined both in breeding and wintering

population and range (Eaton et al. 2015). Breeding Bird Survey data have shown the population decreasing by 38% in Scotland between 2004 and 2014 (Robinson et al., 2016). The breeding population of the UK has been estimated as 130,000 pairs with 620,000 wintering (Musgrove et al. 2013).


• No estimates are available for the NHZ populations (Wilson et al., 2015). • Baseline surveys indicated that the number of estimated territories within

the survey area as 39 in 2014 and 76 in 2015, with a total of 151 birds recorded in flight during the breeding season across both years.

The breeding wader study area population represents considerably less than 1% of the national population and is also likely to represent less than 1% of the regional population. The study area is therefore considered to be no more than locally important for lapwing.

Local Mediterranean gull

• Schedule 1 • UK BoCC Amber List • In the UK, the population has expanded rapidly in recent years and the

most recent five-year mean is 922 breeding pairs. No pairs are known to have bred in Scotland in 2014 (Holling et al., 2016).

• One or two birds were recorded around the black-headed gull colony in both 2014 and 2015, although breeding was not confirmed.

Although Mediterranean gull is currently very rare in Scotland, breeding has not been confirmed and the presence of individual birds within the black-headed gull colony west of Elvanfoot is currently therefore considered to be of no more than local importance.

Local Barn owl • Schedule 1 • SBL priority species • UK BoCC Green List • Raptor workers monitored 639 pairs in Scotland in 2014, including


No occupied breeding territories have been recorded within the breeding raptor/owl study area and suitable breeding habitat is limited. The study area is therefore considered to be no more than locally important for barn owl.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Value VORs Species Information, Status & Baseline Justification • No estimates are available for the NHZ populations (Wilson et al., 2015). • Baseline surveys recorded only one foraging and one dead barn owl,

with no evidence of breeding. However, a number of buildings around the periphery of the study area were assessed as potentially suitable for breeding.

Local Long-eared owl

• UK BoCC Green List • The breeding population of the UK has been estimated as 3,500 pairs

(Musgrove et al. 2013). • In Scotland, long- eared owl is a resident breeder typically found in

wooded edges of moorland and rough grassland, with birds recorded predominantly in the south, east and north-east. It is a secretive species and is considered to be under-recorded. Forrester et al. 2007 gave an estimate of 600-2,200 pairs breeding in Scotland.

• No estimates are available for the NHZ populations (Wilson et al., 2015). • One long-eared owl territory was recorded in the periphery of the study

area.

The breeding raptor/owl study area population represents less than 1% of the national population and is also likely to represent less than 1% of the regional population (given issues of under-recording). The study area is therefore considered to be no more than locally important for long-eared owl.

Negligible All other species

• See Technical Appendices 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 for baseline survey results All other species are either relatively common and widespread and/or were recorded only infrequently/in small numbers and are therefore not considered important.

ORNITHOLOGY 8

HARRYBURN Page | 8-37 SLR Consulting Limited

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

The Proposed Development Layout Considerations

8.76 The assessment of effects is based on the information outlined in Chapter 3: Description of the Development. The proposed development has undergone a number of design iterations and evolution in response to the constraints identified as part of the baseline studies and field studies. With respect to ornithology, the following measures were incorporated to avoid or minimise negative effects: • Wind turbines were located away from hen harrier nest locations identified

in 2014 and 2015 by a minimum of 500m. This is based on Ruddock and Whitfield (2007), which gave a range of values suggesting a maximum disturbance buffer of 500-750m. This is to minimise disturbance during construction and operation.

• Wind turbines were located away from merlin nest locations identified in 2014 and 2015 by a minimum of 500m. This is based on Ruddock and Whitfield (2007), which gave the range of values suggesting a maximum disturbance buffer of 300-500m.This is to minimise disturbance during construction and operation.

• Wind turbines were located away from short-eared owl nest locations identified in 2014 and 2015 by a minimum of 300m in all but one case. This is based on Ruddock and Whitfield (2007), which gave the range of values suggesting a wide range of typical distances at which short-eared owls were disturbed by an approaching observer, from < 10m to 300 – 500m. It should be noted that for other technical design reasons one short-eared owl nesting location (recorded in 2014 but not 2015) lies closer than 300m (260m) from a proposed turbine location. In this case the nest site (which was noted in one year only, in a year of high short-eared owl numbers) is situated downhill from the turbine in question which offers some topographical screening from the turbine location. In addition, good practice measures to avoid disturbance during construction have been proposed – see paragraphs 8.82-8.83.

8.77 Due partly to the relatively high breeding numbers of golden plover within the

parts of the study area best suited for wind turbine development and the focus on avoiding raptor and owl nest sites, it was not possible to take breeding golden plover into account during the design of the proposed development. Good practice measures to avoid disturbance during construction have been proposed however – see paragraphs 8.82-8.83.

Good Practice Measures

8.78 Full details of construction mitigation measures would be provided in a CEMP. A draft CEMP is included as Technical Appendix 3.1.

8.79 Good practice measures would be necessary to reduce the possibility of

damage and destruction (and disturbance in the case of highly sensitive

ORNITHOLOGY 8


species such as raptors and waders) to occupied bird nests during the construction phase.

Timing and Pre-Commencement Surveys

8.80 Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland), 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 (applies year round for nests of birds included in Schedule A1);

• obstruct or prevent any wild bird from using its nest; • intentionally or recklessly take, interfere with or destroy the egg of any wild

bird; • 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;

• intentionally or recklessly harass any wild bird included in Schedule 1A; or • knowingly cause or permit any of the above acts.

8.81 Avoidance of damage or destruction of nests or disturbance to sensitive

species whilst nesting can be achieved through careful timing of construction activities; for example restricting these activities as far as practicable in the early part of the breeding season until the location and breeding status of nesting birds has been established. If site clearance and construction activities are required to take place during the main breeding bird season, from mid-March-August inclusive, pre-commencement survey work would be undertaken to ensure that nest destruction and disturbance to sensitive species (i.e. Schedule 1/Annex 1 raptors/owls and breeding waders) are avoided. Where applicable, construction would not take place within specified disturbance-free buffer zones for certain sensitive species during the breeding season.

8.82 Disturbance-free buffer zones around nest sites of sensitive species would

be as listed in paragraph 8.83. It should be noted that these distances represent a guide only and these may vary according to topography and other factors at each site. For raptor and owl species these restrictions would apply to the entire breeding cycle (from site prospecting, through incubation and the provisioning of dependent young which remain in the nest until fledged). For waders they only apply until the chicks have hatched and are capable of walking away from any sources of disturbance.

8.83 Based on 2014-15 survey data and the relevant literature where available

(e.g. Ruddock and Whitfield 2007), the following disturbance-free buffer zones are considered likely to be required. These distances are to be applied to prevent nest failure due to disturbance during construction.

• Hen harrier – 500m • Merlin – 500m • Golden plover – 200m • Snipe – 300m

ORNITHOLOGY 8


• Curlew – 300m • Short-eared owl – 300m

8.84 In addition, if large numbers of nesting gulls are still present in the colony

within the existing electricity substation, construction of the substation would avoid the period whilst gulls are nesting (likely to be April-July inclusive but precise dates to be advised by the Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW)) to avoid disturbance to the colony. A pre-construction survey, to determine the status of the colony, would be undertaken during the spring prior to construction commencing.

Ecological Clerk of Works

8.85 A suitably qualified ECoW would be employed for the duration of the construction period, although this may not necessarily be a full-time role throughout. The role of the ECoW would include the tasks outlined in Chapter 9: Ecology but with specific roles with regard to the bird interest of the Site : • Prior to the start of construction and/or the breeding bird season, the

ECoW would make contractors aware of the ornithological sensitivities within the Site (particularly with regard to the potential presence of Schedule 1 / Annex 1 and other sensitive breeding species); and

• The ECoW would undertake surveys for nesting birds throughout the construction period that falls within the nesting season and set up and monitor appropriate exclusion areas whilst nests of relevant species are in use.

Construction Effects of the Proposed Development

8.86 Potential effects, assuming that the good practice mitigation measures outlined in paragraphs 8.78-8.85 are implemented, are addressed for each important receptor in turn.

Nest Damage or Destruction

8.87 Damage or destruction to active nests could contravene the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland). However, the good practice measures outlined in paragraphs 8.78-8.85 would avoid the likelihood of damage, destruction or disturbance to occupied bird nests during the construction phase. As such, no significant effects are predicted for any species due to nest damage or destruction.

Habitat Loss

8.88 Construction of turbine bases, access tracks and other structures would lead to direct and indirect habitat loss (see Chapter 9: Ecology, Table 9.8). The combined loss of all habitat types during construction, including drying effects, vegetation changes and possible damage during construction amounts to 48.22ha. This habitat loss is only likely to affect important species breeding within the study area, which are likely to use these habitats

ORNITHOLOGY 8


for nesting and foraging (i.e. hen harrier, merlin, golden plover, snipe, curlew and short-eared owl) and therefore other species are not considered here.

Hen harrier

8.89 No direct loss of hen harrier nesting habitat would occur as these locations have been taken into consideration during the design process. Some potential foraging habitat would be affected; however the magnitude of this possible habitat loss is considered negligible within the context of a pair’s foraging range, which in Scotland commonly extends up to 3-4km for males and 2-3km for females (Watson 1977). Compared to the overall habitat available in NHZ 19 and NHZ 20 (around 5377km2, from Fielding et al. 2011), the loss would be negligible and not significant.

Merlin

8.90 No direct loss of merlin nesting habitat would occur as these locations have been taken into consideration during the design process. Some potential foraging habitat would be affected; however the magnitude of this possible habitat loss is considered negligible within the context of a pair’s foraging range, which in Scotland commonly extends up to at least 5.6km from nest sites (Rebecca et al. 1990, in Forrester et al. 2007) and the extent of habitat loss is considered negligible and not significant.

Golden plover

8.91 The effects of direct habitat loss on golden plover due to wind farms are generally considered to be not significant compared to the species’ overall territory size (core range of 3km (SNH, 2016)). With abundant habitat suitable for nesting and foraging, it is considered that there would be no significant effect on the conservation status of the species in terms of habitat loss.

Snipe

8.92 The effects of habitat loss on snipe are likely to be not significant. No snipe territories were recorded within the wind farm polygon (i.e. the area within 200m of the outermost proposed wind turbines) in 2014 and only 2 territories were recorded in that area in 2015 (see Figure 8.4). A small number of snipe territories were also located in the vicinity of the proposed access track in 2015 but the extent of habitat loss along the access track would be very small. In addition, habitat suitable for nesting and foraging (damp marshy grassland and wet bogs) is abundant in areas not affected by the proposed development.

Curlew

8.93 The effects of direct habitat loss on curlew due to wind farms are generally considered to be not significant compared to the species’ overall territory size (core range of 1km, with maximum range up to 2km (SNH, 2016)). With abundant habitat suitable for nesting and foraging, it is considered that there

ORNITHOLOGY 8


would be no significant effect on the conservation status of the species in terms of habitat loss.

Short-eared owl

8.94 No direct loss of short-eared owl nesting habitat would occur as all known nesting locations have been taken into consideration during the design process. No wind turbines would be positioned within at least 260m of any confirmed or probable short-eared owl nest sites recorded in 2014 and 2015 and, in addition, six of the 17 confirmed or possible territories identified in 2014-15 are located over 2km from the proposed development. Some potential foraging habitat would be affected, however the magnitude of predicted habitat loss is considered negligible within the context of a pair’s foraging range (core range of 2km extending out to 5km (SNH, 2012)). Compared to the overall habitat available locally and in the wider NHZ, the loss would be negligible and not significant.

Disturbance / Displacement

8.95 During the construction stage of the proposed development, the potential effects of associated noise and visual disturbance could lead to the temporary displacement or disruption of breeding and foraging birds. The level of impact depends on the timing of potentially disturbing activities, the extent of displacement (both spatially and temporally) and the availability of suitable habitats in the surrounding area for displaced birds to occupy.

8.96 Potential effects are likely to be greatest during the breeding season

(predominantly between March and August, depending on the species under consideration) and behavioural sensitivity to the effects would vary between species.

8.97 Disturbance of birds due to construction activities of this type have not been

sufficiently quantified in the literature and the available information is often contradictory. However, it is likely that construction impacts would be greater on species that are intolerant of noise and other sources of disturbance. 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).

8.98 The potential effects associated with construction activities are only likely to

occur for as long as the construction phase continues and are thus generally short-term in nature. The exception to this would be if a negative effect on the breeding success of a receptor were such that the local population becomes extinct and replacement through recruitment or re-colonisation does not occur. For example, a study by Pearce-Higgins et al. (2012) found that snipe and curlew densities declined significantly on wind farms during construction and had not recovered by the first year post-construction.

8.99 Disturbance/displacement effects during construction are only likely to affect

species breeding within the relevant parts of the study area (i.e. hen harrier, merlin, golden plover, snipe, curlew, short-eared owl, black-headed gull and

ORNITHOLOGY 8


(possibly) Mediterranean gull). Whilst other important, wide-ranging species may suffer some disturbance whilst foraging, effects are not likely to be significant given the large size of their respective foraging ranges and the wide availability of alternative foraging habitat. As such, other species are not considered further.

8.100 Construction disturbance can be readily mitigated by avoiding sensitive areas

through the implementation of appropriately defined buffer zones and by timing construction activities to avoid periods where sensitive species are present (if and where possible), such as the breeding season. A range of good practice measures have therefore been proposed to mitigate for potential construction disturbance effects.

Hen harrier

8.101 During wind farm construction, displacement has been suggested potentially to occur up to 500m around nest sites with some disruption up to 1km, depending on line of visibility (Madders 2004 cited in Bright et al. 2006). Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) suggested a maximum disturbance buffer of 500-750m for hen harrier, although the median static disturbance distance was around 300m. According to Ruddock and Whitfield (2007), signs of active disturbance were evident at much greater distances during chick-rearing than during incubation (median: 225m and 30m respectively).

8.102 The employment of good practice measures would serve to minimise the risk

of short-term population losses, by avoiding construction activity around any active nest sites (by up to 500m depending on topography). Some disturbance to foraging birds is possible but the area affected is likely to be very small in the context of a pair’s foraging range.

8.103 Following the implementation of the proposed good practice measures, disturbance/displacement of hen harriers during construction would be negligible and not significant.

Merlin

8.104 Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) showed that maximum disturbance distances for nesting merlin are likely to range from 300m to 500m, although this is likely to be based on local characteristics such as topography and line of sight, in particular whether birds are tree-or ground-nesting. The location of breeding pairs in the study area in 2014 and 2015 on sloping valleys facing away from turbine areas on the flat hilltops suggests that the potential disturbance distances would be at the lower end of the predicted range. In addition, all recorded nesting attempts in 2014-15 were located >500m from the proposed development.

8.105 In the event that merlin chooses to nest closer to the proposed development

during construction, good practice measures would be employed to avoid construction activity around any active nest sites (by up to 500m depending on topography). Some disturbance to foraging birds is possible but the area affected is likely to be very small in the context of a pair’s foraging range.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


8.106 On this basis, and following the implementation of the proposed good practice measures, if required, disturbance/displacement to merlin during construction would be negligible and not significant.

Golden plover

8.107 Bright et al. (2006) reported that distances at which golden plover react to human disturbance range from 50m to 400m, but around 200m seems to be the normal limit of any effects (e.g. Finney et al. 2005, Hötker et al. 2006). Golden plover territories that are within 200m of proposed turbine locations, and therefore potentially susceptible to construction disturbance, are shown in Figure 8.3. The number of territories located within 200m of proposed turbine locations in 2014 and 2015 was seven and four respectively. Additional territories are also located within 200m of proposed access tracks.

8.108 The employment of good practice measures would serve to minimise disturbance, by avoiding construction activity around nest sites by up to 200m depending on topography. On this basis, while some disturbance to birds away from the nest is possible, negative effects are not likely to be significant.

Snipe

8.109 Although there is a lack of absolute evidence regarding construction disturbance in the scientific literature, the disturbance distance to which human activity would affect snipe is likely to be low, based on the species’ propensity to remain still until flushed at close proximity. Their predominantly crepuscular2 activity also means that any construction work on site is unlikely to take place at the same time as peaks in snipe courtship or feeding activities.

8.110 The employment of good practice measures would serve to minimise

disturbance, by avoiding construction activity around nest sites by up to 300m depending on topography. On this basis any negative effects are not likely to be significant.

Curlew

8.111 Results from the study by Pearce-Higgins et al., (2012) suggest that curlew populations may decline by about 40% as a result of disturbance from construction work within a 620m circular buffer around the proposed turbines. This supports earlier work (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009) which demonstrated a 30% lower density of birds within a 1,000m buffer around the proposed wind turbines than expected from the habitat. Other studies (e.g. Whitfield et al., 2010) involving long-term monitoring found no evidence of displacement due to wind farm infrastructure.

8.112 The employment of good practice measures would serve to minimise disturbance, by avoiding construction activity around nest sites by up to

2 Appearing or active in twilight.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


300m depending on topography. On this basis any negative effects are not likely to be significant.

Black-headed and Mediterranean gulls

8.113 The proposed substation and battery storage compound is located adjacent to the gull colony at the existing electricity substation. Whilst gulls are likely to tolerate a degree of disturbance (as evidenced by the establishment of the colony within an active industrial site) intensive construction works could lead to disturbance. In turn, disturbance could affect breeding productivity (e.g. by making nests more susceptible to predation) and could also cause displacement.

8.114 The employment of the proposed good practice measures would serve to minimise disturbance, by avoiding construction activity adjacent to the colony whilst the colony is occupied. On this basis any negative effects are not likely to be significant.

Short-eared owl

8.115 Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) reported a wide range of typical distances at which short-eared owls were disturbed by an approaching observer, from < 10m to 300 – 500m. This broad range presumably reflected a wide range in responses to disturbance by this species.

8.116 The employment of good practice measures would serve to minimise the risk of short-term population losses, by avoiding construction activity around any active nest sites by up to 300m depending on topography. Some disturbance to foraging birds is possible but the area affected is likely to be very small in the context of a pair’s foraging range.

8.117 Following the implementation of the proposed good practice measures, disturbance/displacement of short-eared owls during construction would be negligible and not significant.

Operational Effects of Proposed Development

Disturbance / Displacement

8.118 The operation of wind turbines and associated human activities for maintenance purposes also has the potential to cause disturbance and displace birds from the Site. Disturbance effects during the operational phase may be less than during the construction phase, as species may become habituated to wind turbines and disturbance due to human activities would be considerably reduced.

8.119 Studies have shown that, in general, species are not disturbed beyond 500m

to 800m from wind turbines (e.g. Drewitt and Langston, 2006 and references therein; Hötker et al., 2006; Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009) and, in some cases, birds do not appear to have been disturbed at all (e.g. Devereux et al., 2008; Whitfield et al., 2010; Douglas et al., 2011; Fielding and Haworth, 2013).

ORNITHOLOGY 8


8.120 There is less consensus of opinion about disturbance effects closer to

windfarm infrastructure. Pearce-Higgins et al., (2009) found evidence of lower frequencies of occurrence of some species within the vicinity of wind turbines during the breeding season, with a significant reduction in frequency of occurrence, compared to control sites, in seven of the 12 species studied. A recent study by Sansom et al. (2016) reported no displacement of golden plover during wind farm construction, but a significant reduction in abundance during the operational phase. Other studies of golden plover (Douglas et al., 2011) and curlew (Whitfield et al., 2010), involving long-term monitoring found no evidence of displacement due to wind farm infrastructure in either species.

8.121 Disturbance/displacement effects during operation are only likely to affect

species breeding within the relevant parts of the study area, i.e. close to the proposed wind turbines. Disturbance relating to the substation and access tracks is not likely to be significant during operation. As such, the assessment concentrates on hen harrier, merlin, golden plover, snipe, curlew and short-eared owl. Whilst other important, wide-ranging species may suffer some disturbance from wind turbines whilst foraging, effects are not likely to be significant given the large size of their respective foraging ranges and the wide availability of alternative foraging habitat. Other species are therefore not considered further.

Hen Harrier

8.122 It has been widely recorded that in general operational wind farms do not appear to displace foraging harriers through disturbance. Whitfield and Madders (2006) considered that if displacement of foraging hen harrier occurs, it is likely to be within 100m from the proposed wind turbines, if at all.

8.123 There is an increasing body of evidence that hen harriers can successfully breed within close proximity to wind farms, at 200–300m from operational wind turbines or closer (Ruddock and Whitfield 2007).

8.124 In studies on the range of features important in determining nest-site selection by hen harriers, the factors found to be most important were heather cover, the presence of incised valleys and burns, and aspect (Watson 1977, Redpath et al. 1998). The wider area within and around the Site has extensive areas of such habitat (albeit in variable condition).

8.125 Due to the wide availability of suitable nesting and foraging habitats areas in the vicinity of the Site and the evidence of very limited displacement at other sites, effects due to disturbance/displacement of hen harrier associated with wind farm operation are not considered significant.

Merlin

8.126 Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) suggest that the maximum disturbance distances for nesting merlin are likely to range from 300m to 500m. With the position of the nearest breeding location in 2014 and 2015 being more than

ORNITHOLOGY 8


500m away, it is unlikely that breeding merlin would be affected by disturbance.

8.127 Due to the wide availability of suitable nesting and foraging habitats areas in

the vicinity of the Site and the lack of breeding records close to the proposed development, effects due to disturbance/displacement of merlin associated with wind farm operation are not considered significant.

Golden plover

8.128 Some studies have reported evidence of reduced habitat usage by golden plover within varying distances of wind turbines, the most recent of which (Samson et al. 2016) suggested a significant reduction in the abundance of golden plover around an operational wind farm in the Scottish Highlands. The study concluded that disturbance activity during construction had no significant effect on golden plover breeding abundance or distribution. In contrast, once wind turbines were erected, golden plover abundance was significantly reduced within the wind farm (-79%) relative to the baseline, with no comparable changes in buffer or control areas. Golden plovers were found to be displaced by up to 400m from wind turbines during operation.

8.129 Pearce-Higgins et al., (2009) reported evidence of reduced habitat usage by

golden plover within 200m of wind turbines. In contrast, an updated study of displacement effects of wind farms on upland breeding birds, by the same lead author (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2012), found little evidence for consistent population declines in golden plover.

8.130 Other studies involving long-term monitoring at wind farm sites found no

evidence of displacement due to wind farm infrastructure in golden plover (Douglas et al., 2011; Fielding and Haworth, 2013).

8.131 Whilst there is clearly some uncertainty over the extent of potential

disturbance impacts on golden plover during wind farm operation (and impacts may vary from site to site), a precautionary approach has been adopted here based on the worst case scenario reported by Samson et al. (2016). 12 golden plover breeding territories were located within 400m of the proposed wind turbines during the 2014 and 2015 moorland breeding bird surveys (Figure 8.3). A reduction of 79% is therefore equivalent to a loss of 9-10 pairs.

8.132 There is wide availability of suitable nesting and foraging habitats in the

areas beyond 400m from the proposed wind turbines. It is likely that some of these areas could support any displaced golden plovers, although the number of displaced birds which could be accommodated is not known. As such a worst case scenario which assumes that all birds would be displaced from the study area has been assumed.

8.133 Displacement of 10 breeding pairs during operation is equivalent to 0.54% of

the combined estimated breeding populations of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the Site (1,836 breeding pairs). Even under the worst case scenario outlined the number of displaced birds represents less than 1% of the relevant NHZ populations and is therefore not significant at a regional level.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


This level of displacement is, however, considered to be significant for golden plover at the local level.

Snipe

8.134 Pearce-Higgins et al., (2012) reported evidence of reduced habitat usage by snipe within operational wind farms. Snipe were also shown by Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) to use areas of habitat within 400m of wind turbines less than expected, leading to an expected 48% decline in abundance within 500m of the wind turbines.

8.135 On the basis of two snipe territories within 400m of proposed turbine

locations in 2015 (Figure 8.4) one pair may be displaced by the proposed development. This would result in the possible loss of <0.1% of the NHZ population and is therefore not significant at a regional level. In the context of up to 25 pairs of snipe within the study area the possible loss of one pair is not likely to be significant at a local level either. As such, the potential effect as a result of displacement during wind farm operation is considered not significant for snipe.

Curlew

8.136 Whilst there is some uncertainty over the extent of potential disturbance impacts on curlew during wind farm operation (see Construction Effects Section), a precautionary approach has been adopted here. Using the disturbance buffer of 1,000m suggested by Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009) there were 11 and 17 estimated territories in 2014 and 2015 respectively (Figure 8.5). On the basis of a decline of 30%, between three and five pairs may be permanently displaced by the proposed development.

8.137 Using the worst case scenario of the displacement of five breeding pairs this

would result in the possible loss of 0.1% of the NHZ population and is therefore not significant at a regional level. This level of displacement is, however, considered likely to be significant for curlew at the local level.

Short-eared owl

8.138 Unfortunately, there is no directly relevant literature to draw on for this species in terms of likely disturbance/displacement during wind farm operation. As stated previously, Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) reported a wide range of typical distances at which short-eared owls were disturbed by an approaching observer, from < 10m to 300 – 500m and a buffer of at least 300m has therefore been incorporated around all bar one known nest location. In addition, the wider area within and around the study area has an abundance of potential breeding and foraging habitat for short-eared owl. Due to the wide availability of suitable nesting and foraging habitats areas in the vicinity of the Site, effects due to disturbance/displacement of short-eared owl associated with wind farm operation are not considered likely to be significant.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Collision with Wind Turbines

8.139 Collision of a bird with turbine rotors is almost certain to result in the death of the bird. In low density populations (e.g. raptors) this could have a greater negative effect on the local population than in higher density populations (e.g. passerines) because a higher proportion of the local population would be affected in a low density population. Larger birds such as raptors also tend to live longer and have slower reproductive rates, which can also increase the impact of collisions on the relevant 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 a site), the nature of the surrounding environment, and the structure and layout of the wind turbines.

8.140 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). The risk of bird collisions at wind farms is greatest in areas where large concentrations of birds are present (such as on major migration routes), and in poor flying conditions, such as rain, fog, strong winds that affect birds’ ability to control flight manoeuvres, or on dark nights when visibility is reduced (Langston and Pullan, 2003; Drewitt and Langston, 2006 and references therein). Birds may also be more susceptible if the wind farm is located in an area of high prey density. For diurnal foraging raptors, the proximity of structures on which to perch can increase the likelihood of collision with wind turbines (e.g. Percival, 2005 and references therein).

8.141 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; i.e. a bird may initially avoid the wind farm but habituate to it, and would then be at risk of collision.

8.142 Passerines nesting within a wind farm site would be expected to be regularly

flying between wind turbines and could therefore be expected to be most at risk of collision. However, passerines tend to fly below Potential Collision Height (PCH) and evidence suggests that passerines collide with wind turbines infrequently. Moreover, most of the species concerned are of low or negligible conservation value. Collision is therefore mainly considered in relation to species of high sensitivity, e.g. target raptor species and species not particularly manoeuvrable in flight, such as geese and swans (SNH, 2013).

8.143 Species with sufficient data (minimum of three flights per season and/or

minimum of 10 birds) to undertake CRM are considered at risk of collision with the proposed wind turbines at the Site. Important species that were subject to CRM are as follows:

• Whooper swan • Pink-footed goose • Red kite

ORNITHOLOGY 8


• Hen harrier • Goshawk • Kestrel • Merlin • Peregrine • Golden plover • Snipe • Curlew • Short-eared owl

8.144 The results of CRM for additional species of local value with sufficient flight

data are omitted here but included in Technical Appendix 8.6. None of these species are predicted to be subject to significant effects due to collision.

8.145 Gulls were not included in the list of target species agreed with SNH and RSPB and therefore it is not possible to model collision risk for black-headed gull (Mediterranean gull was not recorded during VP surveys). Secondary species recording during VP surveys highlighted that most black-headed gull flight activity was recorded from VP6 (205 out of 298 records), which is located close to the colony and mostly covers an area away from proposed turbine locations. Collision risk is therefore considered unlikely to be significant for black-headed gull.

8.146 For all other species, the number of flights within the Collision Risk Zone, i.e.

flights through the Wind Farm Polygon (WP) at PCH, was so low that CRM was not warranted and collision risk is considered negligible.

Whooper swan

8.147 Of the 10 flights recorded during baseline non-breeding season VPs, three were through the CRZ (involving 42 individuals). CRM was undertaken and, assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), the predicted mortality rate was one collision every 6.5 years. The annual predicted collision mortality rate of 0.15 represents 0.01% of total population estimate of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the Site, and 0.004% of the most recent Scottish wintering population estimate (Hall et al. 2016).

8.148 It is likely that, even if actually realised, the predicted collision rate would be

undetectable against background annual mortality; annual mortality of adult whooper swans has been estimated at 19.9% (Brazil, 2003).

8.149 Three whooper swan collisions have been reported at European wind farms (Dürr, 2017) with none in the UK, and it appears that collisions of this species are relatively rare.

8.150 As such, the potential effect of collision is considered to be not significant for whooper swan.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Pink-footed goose

8.151 Of the 94 flights recorded during baseline non-breeding season VPs, 21 were through the CRZ (involving 1,053 individuals). CRM was undertaken and, assuming a 99.8% avoidance rate (SNH, 2013), the predicted mortality rate was one collision every 1.3 years. The annual predicted collision mortality rate of 0.79 represents 0.001% of total population estimate of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the Site, and 0.0001% of the most recent Scottish wintering population estimate (Mitchell, 2016).

8.152 It is likely that, even if actually realised, the predicted collision rate would be

undetectable against background annual mortality; annual mortality of pink-footed geese older than approximately six months that overwinter in the UK has been estimated at 14% (Trinder et al., 2005).

8.153 No pink-footed goose collisions have been reported at European wind farms

(Dürr, 2017) and it appears that collisions of this species are relatively rare. 8.154 As such, the potential effect of collision is considered to be not significant for

pink-footed goose.

Red kite

8.155 Of the 19 red kite flights recorded during the non-breeding season VPs, four were through the CRZ at PCH and CRM was conducted for this season. Assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.02 mortalities were predicted per non-breeding season. Of the 26 red kite flights recorded during breeding season VPs, four were through the CRZ at PCH. CRM was therefore conducted for this season and, assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.065 mortalities were predicted per breeding season.

8.156 If predicted annual mortality (0.073 individuals per year) relates to individuals

from the breeding population, this equates to <0.1% of the NHZ 19 breeding population (166 breeding individuals) (there are no breeding red kites in NHZ 20) and represents 0.02% of the Scottish breeding population (478 breeding individuals; Challis et al., 2015)

8.157 It is likely that, even if actually realised, the predicted collision rate of 1 bird

every 13.6 years would not result in a population decline of red kites breeding in NHZ 19 (based on the precautionary assumption that all birds are NHZ breeding birds). In the context of background annual adult mortality of 39% (BTO Birdfacts), which amounts to 65 birds in the context of the NHZ 19 population of 166, the additional annual mortality of 0.073 birds is not significant for red kite.

8.158 395 red kite collisions have been reported at European wind farms, five of

which were in the UK (Dürr, 2017). The majority of these collisions (335) were reported from German wind farms. Three of the recorded incidents in the UK have occurred at one site (Braes of Doune) where the observed collision rate lies within the predicted level of kite mortality modelled for the site. The survival of the radio tagged study population has otherwise been very good (Natural Research 2017).

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Hen harrier

8.159 Of the 66 hen harrier flights recorded during the non-breeding season VPs, three were through the CRZ at PCH and CRM was conducted for this season. Assuming a 99% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.01 mortalities were predicted per non-breeding season. Of the 233 hen harrier flights recorded during breeding season VPs, 39 were through the CRZ at PCH. CRM was therefore conducted for this season and, assuming a 99% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.1 mortalities were predicted per breeding season.

8.160 If predicted annual mortality (0.095 individuals per year, one collision every

10.5 years) relates to individuals from the breeding population, this equates to 0.15% of the combined estimated breeding populations of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the proposed development (NHZs 19 and 20: 62 individuals) and represents 0.009% of the Scottish breeding population (1,002 breeding individuals; Wilson et al., 2015).


every 10.5 years would not result in a population decline of hen harriers breeding in NHZ 19 and NHZ 20 (based on the precautionary assumption that all birds are NHZ breeding birds). In the context of background annual adult mortality of 19% (BTO Birdfacts), which amounts to 12.5 birds in the context of the combined NHZ 19 and 20 population of 62, the additional annual mortality of 0.095 birds is not significant for hen harrier (0.88% increase on background mortality).

8.162 Seven hen harrier collisions have been reported at European wind farms,

three of which were in the UK (Dürr, 2017). Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be other, unpublished collisions of this species, hen harrier collisions nevertheless appear to be an uncommon event.

Goshawk

8.163 Of the 49 goshawk flights recorded during the non-breeding season VPs, eight were through the CRZ at PCH and CRM was conducted for this season. Assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.05 mortalities were predicted per non-breeding season. Of the 51 goshawk flights recorded during breeding season VPs, six were through the CRZ at PCH. CRM was therefore conducted for this season and, assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.06 mortalities were predicted per breeding season.

8.164 If predicted annual mortality (0.1 individuals per year, one collision every 9.9

years) relates to individuals from the breeding population, this equates to 0.12% of the combined estimated breeding populations of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the proposed development (NHZs 19 and 20: 88 individuals) and represents 0.04% of the Scottish breeding population (272 breeding individuals; Wilson et al., 2015).


every 9.9 years would not result in a population decline of goshawk breeding in NHZ 19 and NHZ 20 (based on the precautionary assumption that all birds are NHZ breeding birds). In the context of background annual adult mortality

ORNITHOLOGY 8


of 17%, which amounts to 14.96 birds in the context of the combined NHZ 19 and 20 population of 88, the additional annual mortality of 0.1 birds is not significant for goshawk (0.7% increase on background mortality).

8.166 Thirteen goshawk collisions have been reported at European wind farms,

none of which were in the UK (Dürr, 2017).

Kestrel

8.167 Despite being a small, manoeuvrable species, evidence is emerging that kestrel should be considered as vulnerable to collisions with wind turbines. This is due to its flight and hunting behaviour (review in Marques et al. 2014): kiting and hovering are associated with strong winds, which often produce unpredictable gusts that may suddenly change a bird’s position (Hoover and Morrison, 2005). Additionally, while birds are hunting and focused on prey, they possibly lose track of wind turbine position (Krijgsveld et al., 2009; Smallwood et al., 2009).

8.168 Of the 141 kestrel flights recorded during the non-breeding season VPs, 20

were through the CRZ at PCH and CRM was conducted for this season. Assuming a 95% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.25 mortalities were predicted per non-breeding season. Of the 92 kestrel flights recorded during breeding season VPs, 15 were through the CRZ at PCH. CRM was therefore conducted for this season and, assuming a 95% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.25 mortalities were predicted per breeding season.


from the breeding population, this equates to 0.02% of the combined estimated breeding populations of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the proposed development (NHZs 19 and 20: 2,016 individuals) and represents <0.01% of the Scottish breeding population (7,700 breeding individuals; Wilson et al., 2015).

8.170 It is likely that, even if actually realised, the predicted collision rate of 0.5

birds per year would not result in a population decline of kestrel breeding in NHZ 19 and NHZ 20 (based on the precautionary assumption that all birds are NHZ breeding birds). In the context of background annual adult mortality of 31% (BTO Birdfacts), which amounts to 625 birds in the context of the combined NHZ 19 and 20 population of 2,016, the additional annual mortality of 0.5 birds is not significant for kestrel (0.08% increase on background mortality).

8.171 Dürr (2017) lists 490 kestrel collisions that have been reported at European

wind farms, none of which were in the UK (although it is likely that kestrel collisions have been under-reported).

Merlin

8.172 As a small, manoeuvrable species, merlin is generally not considered to be at particular risk of collisions with wind turbines. This is particularly the case due to the height of the planned wind turbines, with the lower rotor swept

ORNITHOLOGY 8


height being 38m and therefore below normal flight heights of merlin prey (small passerines).

8.173 Merlin flight activity within the survey area comprised ten flights recorded

within the CRZ across the survey programme, three of which were at PCH. Assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), CRM was conducted for both seasons resulting in an annual collision rate of 0.002. This low rate is unlikely to have any measurable effect on the population of merlin and is not significant.

8.174 Dürr (2017) reports four merlin collisions outside the UK and an additional three merlin collisions have been recorded in the UK, at Braes of Doune wind farm (Natural Research, 2016). Thus, merlin collisions appear to be a relatively rare event.

Peregrine

8.175 Of the 63 peregrine flights recorded during the non-breeding season VPs, 12 were through the CRZ at PCH and CRM was conducted for this season. Assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.053 mortalities were predicted per non-breeding season. Of the 32 peregrine flights recorded during breeding season VPs, seven were through the CRZ at PCH. CRM was therefore conducted for this season and, assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.036 mortalities were predicted per breeding season.


from the breeding population, this equates to 0.07% of the combined estimated breeding populations of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the proposed development (NHZs 19 and 20: 122 individuals) and represents <0.01% of the Scottish breeding population (970 breeding individuals; Wilson et al., 2015).


birds per year would not result in a population decline of peregrine breeding in NHZ 19 and NHZ 20 (based on the precautionary assumption that all birds are NHZ breeding birds). In the context of background annual adult mortality of 20% (BTO Birdfacts), which amounts to 24 birds in the context of the combined NHZ 19 and 20 population of 122 birds, the additional annual mortality of 0.09 birds is not significant for peregrine (increase of 0.37% on background mortality).

8.178 A total of 24 peregrine collisions have been reported at European wind farms,

one of which was in the UK (Dürr, 2017). It is acknowledged that there have been other collisions of this species, the details of which are unpublished, nevertheless peregrine collisions appear to be a relatively rare event.

Golden plover

8.179 Of the 44 golden plover flights recorded during the non-breeding season VPs, 17 were through the CRZ at PCH and CRM was conducted for this season. Assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 1.36 mortalities were predicted per non-breeding season. Of the 145 golden plover flights recorded

ORNITHOLOGY 8


during breeding season VPs, 54 were through the CRZ at PCH. CRM was therefore conducted for this season and, assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.7 mortalities were predicted per breeding season.


from the breeding population, this equates to 0.05% of the combined estimated breeding populations of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the proposed development (NHZs 19 and 20: 3,672 individuals) and represents 0.002% of the Scottish breeding population (74,960 breeding individuals; Wilson et al., 2015).


birds per year would not result in a population decline of golden plover breeding in NHZ 19 and NHZ 20 (based on the precautionary assumption that all birds are NHZ breeding birds). In the context of background annual adult mortality of 27% (BTO Birdfacts), which amounts to 991 birds in the context of the combined NHZ 19 and 20 population of 3,672 birds, the additional annual mortality of 1.8 birds is not significant for golden plover (increase of 0.2% on background mortality). It should also be stressed that if operational displacement occurs as predicted, collision risk is likely to be significantly lower than the numbers presented here.

8.182 Thirty-nine golden plover collisions have been reported at European wind

farms, none of which were in the UK (Dürr 2017). Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be other, unpublished collisions of this species, golden plover collisions nevertheless appear to be an uncommon event.

Snipe

8.183 Low levels of flight activity by snipe were recorded during the VP surveys (two breeding season flights and one non-breeding season through the CRZ at PCH). Assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), CRM was conducted for both the non-breeding and breeding seasons resulting in an annual collision rate of 0.008 (one collision every 125 years). This low rate is unlikely to have any measurable effect on the population of snipe and is not significant.

8.184 Dürr (2017) reports 18 snipe collisions at European wind farm sites including

one in the UK. However, it is likely that instances of turbine collisions are under reported for this species due to its small size and cryptic plumage.

Curlew

8.185 Curlews may be sensitive to collisions with wind turbines, and male display flights can range over a wide area. However, if displacement occurs as predicted the collision risk figures presented here are likely to overestimate collision risk substantially.

8.186 Of the 25 curlew flights recorded during the non-breeding season VPs, three

were through the CRZ at PCH and CRM was conducted for this season. Assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.01 mortalities were predicted per non-breeding season. Of the 256 curlew flights recorded during

ORNITHOLOGY 8


breeding season VPs, 30 were through the CRZ at PCH. CRM was therefore conducted for this season and, assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.101 mortalities were predicted per breeding season.


from the breeding population, this equates to 0.001% of the combined estimated breeding populations of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the proposed development (NHZs 19 and 20: 11,368 individuals) and represents 0.0002% of the Scottish breeding population (69,188 breeding individuals; Wilson et al., 2015).


birds per year would not result in a population decline of curlew breeding in NHZ 19 and NHZ 20 (based on the precautionary assumption that all birds are NHZ breeding birds). In the context of background annual adult mortality of 26.4% (BTO Birdfacts), which amounts to 3001 birds in the context of the combined NHZ 19 and 20 population of 11,368 birds, the additional annual mortality of 0.085 birds is not significant for curlew (increase of 0.005% on background mortality).

8.189 Eleven curlew collisions have been reported at European wind farms, none of

which were in the UK (Dürr 2017). Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be other, unpublished collisions of this species, curlew collisions nevertheless appear to be an uncommon event.

Short-eared owl

8.190 Of the 159 short-eared owl flights recorded during the breeding season VP surveys, eight were through the CRZ at PCH and CRM was conducted for this season. Assuming a 98% avoidance rate (SNH, 2010), 0.034 mortalities were predicted per breeding season. Only one flight was recorded outside of the breeding season therefore CRM was not undertaken for this period.


from the breeding population, this equates to 0.02% of the combined estimated breeding populations of the two NHZs in the vicinity of the proposed development (NHZs 19 and 20: 140 individuals) and represents 0.002% of the Scottish breeding population (2,176 breeding individuals; Wilson et al., 2015).


birds per year would not result in a population decline of short-eared owl breeding in NHZ 19 and NHZ 20 (based on the precautionary assumption that all birds are NHZ breeding birds). No data are available on background annual adult mortality for short-eared owl (BTO Birdfacts), but it is considered that the additional annual mortality of 0.027 birds is not significant for short-eared owl.

8.193 Three short-eared owl collisions have been reported at European wind farms,

none of which were in the UK (Dürr 2017). Whilst it is acknowledged that there are other, unpublished collisions of this species, short-eared owl collisions nevertheless appear to be an uncommon event.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Habitat Management Plan

8.194 A detailed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) would be produced and agreed with SLC, in consultation with SNH, prior to development commencing. The HMP would provide compensation for potential locally significant displacement effects on breeding waders during operation of the proposed development and would also provide additional nature conservation enhancements that would apply for the lifetime of the wind farm and potentially beyond.

8.195 An OHMP is included in Technical Appendix 9.6 with a brief summary of key points relevant to ornithology provided in paragraphs 8.196-8.198.

8.196 The main aim of the OHMP with regards to birds is to increase breeding wader populations within two areas totalling 167ha, through targeted habitat management. A plan showing the proposed habitat management areas is contained within Technical Appendix 9.6.

8.197 Habitat management would include a range of measures including: management of grazing density and timing; scrape creation; management of tall vegetation (e.g. rushes); raising the water table through ditch blocking; and control of bracken. Detailed prescriptions would be developed on a field-by-field or area-by-area basis and taking into account the specific requirements of target species, in the detailed HMP.

8.198 Monitoring would be undertaken annually for the first five years of operation

to determine whether objectives have been met and whether changes to management prescriptions are required. Monitoring would include breeding wader surveys and monitoring of habitats to record the presence and abundance of specific habitat features of value to waders.

Residual Effects

8.199 During operation, the potential loss of up to 10 pairs of golden plover and up to five pairs of curlew due to displacement would constitute a significant negative effect on receptors of importance at a local level.

8.200 In order to compensate for these negative effects, an HMP would be implemented (see paragraphs 8.194-198). This would include the management of up to 167ha of land specifically for the benefit of breeding waders (oystercatcher, lapwing, redshank, snipe and curlew) which would offset these negative effects through population increases and maintaining or improving breeding productivity in these species. The HMP would also provide additional nature conservation enhancement.

8.201 With regards to other avian receptors, assuming the proposed good practice mitigation measures are implemented, no significant residual effects are likely during the construction or operation phases.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Cumulative Effects Assessment

8.202 Other projects considered in the cumulative effects assessment are shown in Table 8-7 and on Figure 7.6a. These include all wind farms within 10km which are either operational, under construction, consented or for which a planning application has been submitted. Other wind farms that are still at the scoping stage, e.g. North Lowther, for which detailed bird data are not available, have not been included in the cumulative assessment. Priestgill Wind Farm has been included in the cumulative assessment, despite being submitted after the list of cumulative sites was agreed. Priestgill has been included because it is relatively close to the Site and because the ES (Muirhall Energy, 2016) predicts negative effects on curlew, one of the species for which potentially significant effects are predicted as a result of the proposed development.

Table 8-7: Other Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects

Assessment

Project Status Distance (km)3

No. of Turbines

Andershaw Operational 8.0 11

Clyde Operational 3.7 152

Clyde Extension In Construction 8.3 53

Crookedstane Approved 4.7 4

Glentaggart In Planning 9.9 5

Lion Hill Approved 8.6 4

Middle Muir Approved 7.2 15

Priestgill In Planning 6.4 7

8.203 A summary of disturbance/displacement effects for the other projects, where

data are available, is provided in Table 8-8 and a summary of predicted collision mortality is provided in Table 8-9. The figures presented in Tables 8-8 and 8-9 are taken directly from the relevant ESs (SSE, 2011; Sgurr Energy, 2013a; Sgurr Energy. 2013b; Banks Renewables, 2016; Infinis, 2011; Muirhall Energy, 2016). No re-analysis of displacement figures has been carried out and collision risk figures have not been checked (although avoidance rates have been amended, where necessary, to match those used in this assessment). Where blank cells are present in the tables it indicates that data were not provided in the relevant ESs.

3 Distances have been measured from the nearest turbine at the proposed development to the nearest turbine of the project considered.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Table 8-8: Predicted Displacement Effects (Number of Pairs Displaced) for Other Projects Project Hen harrier Merlin Golden plover Snipe Curlew Short-eared

owl Andershaw Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Clyde Clyde Extension4 1 7 6 Crookedstane Negligible for all species Glentaggart Lion Hill Negligible for all species Middle Muir Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Priestgill5 9

Table 8-9: Predicted Collision Mortality (Collisions per Year)6 for Other Projects

Project Whooper

swan 98%

Pink-footed goose 99.8%

Red kite 98%

Hen harrier

99%

Goshawk 98%

Merlin 98%

Peregrine 98%

Kestrel 95%

Golden plover 98%

Snipe 98%

Curlew 98%

Short-eared owl

98% Andershaw Negligible Not

recorded Not

recorded Negligible Negligible

Clyde 0.12 0.012 0.001 0.015 Clyde Extension 42.8 0.042 0.037 0.024 0.861 Crookedstane Glentaggart 0.004 Lion Hill 0.17

4 The displacement figures presented for Clyde Extension do not include potential enhancements provided through the HMP. 5 The displacement figures presented for Priestgill represent a worst-case. 6 The avoidance rate used is shown for each species and matches current SNH guidance.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Project Whooper swan 98%

Pink-footed goose 99.8%

Red kite 98%

Hen harrier

99%

Goshawk 98%

Merlin 98%

Peregrine 98%

Kestrel 95%

Golden plover 98%

Snipe 98%

Curlew 98%

Short-eared owl

98% Middle Muir Negligible Not

recorded Not

recorded Negligible Negligible

Priestgill 5.17

7 Based on 2014 survey data. Collision risk estimates for 2011 survey data were much lower. It was also noted that predicted displacement and collision effects are mutually exclusive, i.e. collision could not take place if birds were displaced.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


8.204 A summary of cumulative effects, including the proposed development and the other projects within 10km for which data are available, is provided in Tables 8-10 (displacement) and 8-11 (collision mortality).

Table 8-10: Summary of Cumulative Effects – Displacement

Project Golden plover Curlew

Harryburn 10 5

Clyde Extension 7 6

Priestgill 9

Total 17 20

Table 8-11: Summary of Cumulative Effects – Collision Mortality (Collisions per Year)

Project Pink-footed

goose Hen harrier

Merlin Peregrine Curlew

Harryburn 0.79 0.095 0.002 0.09 0.085

Clyde 0.12 0.012 0.001 0.015

Clyde Extension 42.8 0.042 0.037 0.024 0.861

Glentaggart 0.004

Lion Hill 0.17

Priestgill 5.1

Total 43.71 0.153 0.04 0.129 6.22

8.205 The cumulative displacement of golden plover as a result of the proposed development and Clyde Extension represents 0.92% of the regional (NHZ 19 and NHZ 20) population. The cumulative displacement of curlew as a result of the proposed development, Clyde Extension and Priestgill represents 0.35% of the regional population. The cumulative effect, even excluding any beneficial effects as a result of the HMPs for Harryburn and Clyde Extension, is therefore not significant at a regional level for either species. The cumulative displacement is considered likely to be significant for golden plover and curlew at the local level however.

8.206 The cumulative collision mortality as a result of the proposed development,

Clyde, Clyde Extension, Glentaggart, Lion Hill and Priestgill is not considered to be significant in terms of the regional populations of any of the species assessed.

Further Survey Requirements and Monitoring

8.207 Due to the uncertainty in the predictions of displacement effects on breeding waders, notably golden plover and lapwing, monitoring of breeding waders would be undertaken. Monitoring would commence during the year prior to construction (in order to provide an up to date baseline) and would then take

ORNITHOLOGY 8


place annually during construction and for the first five years of operation. The need for further monitoring would be reviewed at the end of Year 5. Monitoring would cover the area within 1000m of the proposed development (i.e. the maximum potential disturbance distance) and would follow the same methods used during the wader surveys in 2014 and 2015 (Technical Appendices 8.2 and 8.4).

8.208 Although no significant effects are predicted, due to their importance in the study area, monitoring of breeding raptors would also be undertaken to confirm that there are no displacement effects which are attributable to disturbance from the wind farm. This monitoring would also serve the purpose of providing surveillance of nests and would therefore help to identify possible causes of nest failure. It would also address potential concerns regarding alleged persecution raised in some of the scoping responses. Monitoring would commence during the year prior to construction (in order to provide an up to date baseline) and would then take place annually during construction and for the first five years of operation. The need for further monitoring would be reviewed at the end of Year 5. Monitoring would cover the area within 2km of the proposed development and would follow the same methods used during the breeding raptor surveys in 2014 and 2015 (Technical Appendices 8.2 and 8.4). The possible use of remote cameras to monitor nest productivity would also be considered instead of later survey visits, if this can be done without causing undue disturbance to nests.

8.209 Monitoring would also be undertaken as part of the HMP in order to assess the efficacy of the implemented measures (see Technical Appendix 9.6: Outline Habitat Management Plan).

Summary of Effects

8.210 Following the avoidance of important ornithological receptors, where possible, during the project design and the implementation of a range of good practice measures no significant negative effects are predicted during the construction phase.

8.211 During operation, potential displacement of golden plover and curlew would constitute a significant negative effect on receptors of importance at a local level. The implementation of the proposed HMP would offset these effects and would also provide additional nature conservation enhancement. Following the avoidance of important ornithological receptors, where possible, during the project design no significant negative effects on other receptors are predicted during the operation phase.

8.212 Table 8-12 provides a summary of the effects, mitigation/compensation measures and residual effects.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Table 8-12: Summary of Effects

Predicted Effect Good Practice Mitigation Measures

Significance Proposed Compensation

Construction

Loss or damage to up to 48.2ha of habitat for hen harrier, merlin, golden plover, snipe, curlew and short-eared owl

n/a Not significant n/a

Disturbance to breeding hen harrier, merlin, golden plover, snipe, curlew and short-eared owl

Implementation of disturbance-free buffer zones around nest sites

Not significant n/a

Disturbance to breeding black-headed gull colony

Construction of substation to avoid the period April-July if colony still occupied by large numbers of gulls

Not significant n/a

Operation

Disturbance / displacement of golden plover and curlew

n/a Significant at Local Level

Management of 167ha for breeding waders as part of HMP.

Disturbance / displacement of hen harrier, merlin, snipe and short-eared owl


Collision with turbines (whooper swan, pink-footed goose, red kite, hen harrier, goshawk, kestrel, merlin, peregrine, golden plover, snipe, curlew and short-eared owl)


8.213 In addition, cumulative effects are predicted as a result of the proposed

development and Clyde Extension in respect of the potential displacement of golden plover. Cumulative effects are also predicted as a result of the proposed development, Clyde Extension and Priestgill in respect of the potential displacement of curlew. These cumulative effects are considered significant at a local level. However, the implementation of the proposed HMPs for the proposed development and Clyde Extension should offset

ORNITHOLOGY 8


these effects and would also provide additional nature conservation enhancement. No other significant cumulative effects are predicted.

References

Balmer, D.E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B.J., Swann, R.L., Downie, I.S. & Fuller, R.J. (2013). Bird Atlas 2007-11: the breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO Books, Thetford.

Band, W., Madders, M., & Whitfield, D.P. 2007. Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In: de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E.& Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation, pp. 259-275. Quercus, Madrid.

Banks Renewables (2016). Lethans Wind Farm FEI, TA7.6 Cumulative Assessment Data Summary.

Bright J. A. Langston, R.H.W., Bullman, R., Evans, R.J., Gardner, S. Pearce-Higgins, J. and Wilson, E. (2006). Map of bird sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conservation. Biological Conservation 141: 2342-2356.

Brown, A. F. and Shepherd, K. B. (1993). A Method for Censusing Upland Breeding Waders. Bird Study 40, 189-195.

BTO Birdfacts: http://app.bto.org/birdfacts

Challis, A., Wilson, M., Holling, M., Roos, S., Stevenson, A. & Patrick Stirling-Aird, P. (2015). Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Report 2014. BTO Scotland, Stirling.

CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester

Devereux, C.L., Denny, M.J.H. and Whittingham, M.J. (2008). Minimal Effects of Wind Turbines on the Distribution of Wintering Farmland Birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1689–1694.

Douglas, D.J.T., Bellamy, P.E. and Pearce-Higgins, J.W. (2011). Changes in the Abundance and Distribution of Upland Breeding Birds at an Operational Wind Farm. Bird Study 58, 37-43.

Drewitt, A.L. and Langston, R.H.W. (2006). Assessing the Impacts of Wind Farms on Birds. Ibis 148, 29- 42.

Dürr, T. (2017). Vogelverluste an Windenergieanlagen / bird fatalities at windturbines in Europe. Daten aus der zentralen Fundkartei der Staatlichen Vogelschutzwarte im Landesamt für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz Brandenburg zusammengestellt. Tobias Dürr; Stand vom: 6 February 2017. Available from http://www.lugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.312579.de.

Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746.

http://app.bto.org/birdfacts

http://www.lugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.312579.de

http://www.lugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.312579.de

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Etheridge, B., Riley, H.T., Wernham, C.V., Holling, M. & Thompson, D.B.A. (2011). Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Report 2008. Scottish Raptor Study Groups, Dunblane.

Fielding, A., Haworth, P., Whitfield, P., McLeod, D. & Riley, H. 2011. A Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom. JNCC Report 441. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Madders 2004

Fielding, A.H. and Haworth, P.F. (2013). Farr Wind Farm: A Review of Displacement Disturbance on Golden Plover Arising from Operational Turbines 2005-2013. Haworth Conservation, Isle of Mull, Scotland.

Finney, S. K., Pearce-Higgins, J. W. & Yalden, D. W. (2005) The effect of recreational disturbance on an upland breeding bird, the golden plover Pluvialis apricaria. Biological Conservation 121: 53-63.

Forrester, R. W., Andrews, l. J., Mclnerny. 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.

Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. and Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB, Sandy.

Hall, C., Crowe, O., McElwaine, G., Einarsson, Ó., Calbrade, N. & Rees, E. (2016). Population size and breeding success of the Icelandic Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus: results of the 2015 international census. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl (2016) 66: 75–97.

Hardey, J., Crick, H.Q.P., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B., Thompson, D. (2009). Raptors a field guide for surveys and monitoring (2nd Edition). The Stationery Office Edinburgh.

Harris, S. J., Risely, K., Massimino, D., Newson, S. E., Eaton, M. A., Musgrove, A. J., Noble, D. G., Procter, D., Baillie, S. R. (2014). The Breeding Bird Survey 2013. BTO Research Report 658. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.

Hill, D.A. Hockin, D. Price, D. Tucker, G. Morris, R. and Treweek, J. (1997). Bird Disturbance: Improving the Quality of Disturbance Research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 275-288.

Holling, M. & the Rare Breeding Birds Panel. 2016. Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 2014. British Birds, Vo. 109, No. 9, 491-545

Holt, C., Austin, G., Calbrade, N., Mellan, H., Hearn, R., Stroud, D. Wotton, S. & Musgrove, A. 2012. Waterbirds in the UK 2010/11 The Wetland Bird Survey. British Trust for Ornithology, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Joint Nature Conservation Committee in association with Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

Hötker, H., Thomsen, K.-M. & H. Jeromin (2006): Impacts on 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.

ORNITHOLOGY 8


http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Guidancenote32Birddisturbance.pdf/$FILE/Guidancenote32Birddisturbance.pdf

Infinis (2011). Glentaggart Wind Farm, Environmental Statement, Chapter 9, Ornithology.

Krijgsveld K.L., Akershoek K., Schenk F., Dijk F. & Dirksen S. 2009. Collision risk of birds with modern large wind turbines. Ardea 97(3): 357–366.

Langston, R.H.W. and Pullan, J.D. (2003). Windfarms and Birds: an Analysis of the Effects of Wind Farms on Birds, and Guidance on Environmental Assessment Criteria and Site Selection Issues. Report T-PVS/Inf. 2003. 12, by BirdLife International to the Council of Europe, Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. RSPB/BirdLife in the UK.

Madders, M. and Whitfield, D. P. (2006) Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis 148: 43-56.

Marques, A.T., Batalha, H., Rodrigues, S., Costa, H., Pereira, M. J. R., Fonseca, C., Mascarenhas, M., and Bernardino, J. (2014). Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strategies. Biological Conservation, 179: 40–52

Mitchell, C. 2016. Status and distribution of Icelandic-breeding geese: results of the 2015 international census. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge. 20pp.

Muirhall Energy Ltd. (2016). Priestgill Wind Farm Environmental Statement. Chapter 7: Ornithology.

Musgrove, A., Aebischer, N., Eaton, M., Hearn, R., Newson, S., Noble, D., Parsons, M., Risely, K. & Stroud, D. (2013). Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds, 106, 64-100.Hayhow et al., 2013

Natural Research Projects (2017). Red Kite studies at Braes of Doune. https://www.natural-research.org/ecological-consultancy-company/recent-commercial-projects/windfarm-impact-studies-on-kites-at-braes-of-doune-scotland/

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A. and Langston, R. H. W. (2012). Greater Impacts of Wind Farms on Bird Populations During Construction Than Subsequent Operation: Results of a Multi-site and Multi-species Analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 386–394.

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. and Bullman, R. (2009). The Distribution of Breeding Birds Around Upland Wind Farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1323-1331.

Percival, S. (2005). Birds and Windfarms: What are the Real Issues? British Birds 98, 194-204.

Redpath, S. M., Madders, M., Donnelly, E., Anderson, B., Thirgood, S. J. & Mclead, D. 1998. Nest site selection by hen harriers in Scotland. Bird Study 45: 51–61.

Robinson, R.A., Leech, D.I., Massimino, D., Woodward, I., Eglington, S.M., Marchant, J.H., Sullivan, M.J.P., Barimore, C., Dadam, D., Hammond, M.J., Harris, S.J., Noble, D.G., Walker, R.H. & Baillie, S.R. (2016) BirdTrends 2016: trends in numbers,



https://www.natural-research.org/ecological-consultancy-company/recent-commercial-projects/windfarm-impact-studies-on-kites-at-braes-of-doune-scotland/

https://www.natural-research.org/ecological-consultancy-company/recent-commercial-projects/windfarm-impact-studies-on-kites-at-braes-of-doune-scotland/

ORNITHOLOGY 8


breeding success and survival for UK breeding birds. Research Report 691. BTO, Thetford. www.bto.org/birdtrends

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;

Sansom, A., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., and Douglas, D.J.T. (2016) Negative impact of wind energy development on a breeding shorebird assessed with BACI study design. Ibis 158, 3, 541-555.

Scottish Government (2013). Scottish Biodiversity List. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Wildlife-Habitats/16118/Biodiversitylist/SBL

Scottish Natural Heritage (2000). Windfarms and birds: calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no avoidance action. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2005 rev 2013). Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore wind farms on bird communities. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2006). Assessing Significance of Impacts from Onshore Wind Farms on Birds Outwith Designated Areas. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2012a). Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2012b). Guidance note on Habitat Management Plans. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2013). Avoidance Rates For Wintering Species of Geese in Scotland at Onshore Wind Farms. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2014). Recommended Bird Survey Methods To Inform Impact Assessment Of Onshore Wind Farms. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2016). Assessing Connectivity with Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Version 3 – June 2016. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Natural Heritage(2009). Environmental Statements and Annexes of Environmentally Sensitive Bird Information. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.

Scottish Renewables (2015). Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction. Version 3.

Sgurr Energy (2013). Crookedstane Wind Farm, Environmental Statement, Chapter 8, Ornithology.

Sgurr Energy (2013). Lion Hill Wind Farm, Environmental Statement, Chapter 8, Ornithology.

Shawyer, C. R. 2011. Barn Owl Tyto alba Survey Methodology and Techniques for use in Ecological Assessment: Developing Best Practice in Survey and Reporting. IEEM, Winchester.

http://www.bto.org/birdtrends

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Wildlife-Habitats/16118/Biodiversitylist/SBL

ORNITHOLOGY 8


Smallwood, K.S., Rugge, L. & Morrison, M.L. (2009). Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 73, Issue 7, September 2009, pp 1082–1098.

SSE (2011). Clyde Extension Environmental Statement, Chapter 8, Ornithology.

Trinder, M., Rowcliffe, M., Pettifor, R., Rees, E., Griffin, L., Ogilvie, M. and Percival, S. (2005). Status and Population Viability Analyses of Geese in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 107.

Watson, D. 1977. The Hen Harrier. T & A.D. Poyser, London.

Whitfield, D.P. & Madders, M. 2006. A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers Circus cyaneus and an estimation of collision avoidance rates. Natural Research Information Note 1 (revised). Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK.

Whitfield, D.P., Green, M. and Fielding, A.H. (2010). Are Breeding Eurasian Curlew Numenius Arquata Displaced by Wind Energy Developments? Natural Research Projects Ltd, Banchory, Scotland.

Wilson, M. W., Austin, G. E., Gillings S. and Wernham, C. V. (2015). Natural Heritage Zone Bird Population Estimates. SWBSG Commissioned report number SWBSG_1504. pp72. Available from:www.swbsg.org

Wilson, T. and Brown, D. (2014). The Clyde Valley Wader Initiative: How applied ecology is informing the conservation of waders in South Lanarkshire. The Glasgow Naturalist, Volume 26, Part 1, 41-50.

Documents

Environmental Statement Section Template (UK) · guidance, as defined by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) guidelines which ... to distance or other pathway fo, e.g. hydrological connectionr