Environmental Statement Section Template (UK) · hydrological connection or other pathway for effects. This approach was agreed with SNH during scoping consultation (Table 9-1). ECOLOGY

ECOLOGY 9

CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9-1 Approach and Methods .............................................................................................. 9-1

Study Area ............................................................................................................. 9-1 Effects Assessed in Full ......................................................................................... 9-2 Effects Scoped Out ................................................................................................ 9-2 Assessment Structure ............................................................................................ 9-4 Data Sources and Guidance .................................................................................. 9-5 Field Survey ........................................................................................................... 9-8 Consultation ......................................................................................................... 9-12 Good Practice Measures and Mitigation .............................................................. 9-17 Assessing Significance......................................................................................... 9-17

Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................. 9-20 Desk Study ........................................................................................................... 9-20 Vegetation Surveys .............................................................................................. 9-21 Faunal Baseline.................................................................................................... 9-30 Evaluation of Faunal Receptors ........................................................................... 9-34

Assessment of Effects ............................................................................................. 9-38 The Proposed Development Layout Considerations ............................................ 9-38 Good Practice Measures ...................................................................................... 9-38 Construction Effects of the Proposed Development ............................................. 9-40 Operational Effects of the Proposed Development .............................................. 9-44 Residual Effects ................................................................................................... 9-47 Cumulative Effects Assessment ........................................................................... 9-47 Further Survey Requirements and Monitoring (if required) .................................. 9-49 Summary of Effects .............................................................................................. 9-49 References ........................................................................................................... 9-50

ECOLOGY 9

HARRYBURN P a g e | 9-1 SLR Consulting Limited

INTRODUCTION

9.1 This Chapter describes and evaluates the current nature conservation interest of the site of the proposed Harryburn Wind Farm (henceforth referred to as the Site) and surrounding area. It goes on to assess the potential effects of the proposed development on important habitats and species and, where necessary, to describe proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures. This Chapter considers habitats and non-avian animal species. Potential effects on birds are considered separately in Chapter 8: Ornithology.

9.2 This Chapter is supported by a number of Technical Appendices, as listed

below: • Technical Appendix 9.1: Phase 1 Habitat and National Vegetation

Classification Survey Report (SLR Consulting); • Technical Appendix 9.2: Mammal Survey Report (SLR Consulting); • Technical Appendix 9.3: Bat Survey Report (SLR Consulting); • Technical Appendix 9.4: Fish Habitat Assessment Report (SLR

Consulting); • Technical Appendix 9.5: Review of Fish and North American Signal

Crayfish Distribution Data from the Lower Elvan and Glengonnar Waters, South Lanarkshire (Clyde River Foundation); and

• Technical Appendix 9.6: Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP).

APPROACH AND METHODS

Study Area

9.3 The study area used for the ecological impact assessment differs by receptor based on relevant good practice survey guidance. The study area used here for the assessment of impacts on vegetation is defined by the term ‘GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer’ and is significantly smaller than the baseline survey area. The GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer area has been determined by applying a 250m buffer around each turbine location and 100m around all other infrastructure. This buffer is in accordance with current guidance with respect to Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) (SEPA 2014) and is also considered valid for the assessment of impacts on other habitat types. For the faunal species which were surveyed for, the study areas are summarised in the Field Survey Methodology Section and are described in more detail within the relevant Technical Appendices. The study areas are also shown on the accompanying figure for each survey type (Figures 9.2 – 9.5).

9.4 It should be noted that most field surveys extended well beyond the application boundary. In part this was 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

ECOLOGY 9


Evolution). Survey coverage was also extended in certain areas to inform the development of the OHMP.

Effects Assessed in Full

9.5 The assessment concentrates on the effects of construction and operation of the proposed development upon important ecological receptors. The following potential effects have been assessed:

• habitat loss or damage (permanent and temporary) due to construction

of wind farm infrastructure; • inadvertent killing or injuring of fauna during construction; • disturbance to fauna during construction due to vehicular traffic,

operating plant and the presence of construction workers; • sedimentation or other pollution of watercourses from construction

activities; • disturbance to fauna due to vehicular traffic and the presence of people

during operation; • pollution due to environmental incidents (e.g. spillages) during

operation; and • collision with moving turbine blades and/or barotrauma (bats only).

9.6 Effects have been assessed in detail for all receptors of importance at a

South Lanarkshire level and/or subject to some form of legal protection and potentially vulnerable to significant effects from the proposed development. Ecological receptors assessed in full are: • Habitats / vegetation communities included on Annex 1 of the EC

Habitats Directive and/or representing potential GWDTE, as follows: o H12 Calluna vulgaris - Vaccinium myrtillus heath; o H18 Vaccinium myrtillus - Deschampsia flexuosa heath; o M15 Scirpus cespitosus - Erica tetralix wet heath; o M17 Scirpus cespitosus - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire; o M19 Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire; o M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket and raised mire; o M23 Juncus effusus / acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture; o M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire o MG10 Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush pasture o U6 Juncus squarrosus – Festuca ovina grassland

• common lizard Zootoca viviparia; • otter Lutra lutra; and • bats.

Effects Scoped Out

9.7 A number of statutory designated sites are present within 10km of the application boundary, as shown on Figure 9.1 and detailed in Table 9-2. However, all of these sites have been scoped out of the assessment due to there being no potential for significant effects due to distance and/or lack of hydrological connection or other pathway for effects. This approach was agreed with SNH during scoping consultation (Table 9-1).

ECOLOGY 9


9.8 Habitats which are considered to be of relatively low ecological value (see

Table 9-4), are not potential GWDTE, or would not be impacted upon by the proposed development have been scoped out of the assessment. These habitats are as follows:

• MG6 Lolium perenne – Cynosurus cristatus grassland; • U2 Deschampsia flexuosa grassland; • U4 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile grassland; • U5 Nardus stricta – Galium saxatile grassland; and • U20 Pteridium aquilium - Galium saxatile community.

9.9 Based on the results of the baseline surveys, desk study and consideration of the extent of the proposed development, effects on the following species have been scoped out of the assessment. For species which were scoped out at the scoping stage, in agreement with SNH please refer to the Consultation Section Table 9-1. For more information on each individual species/group please refer to Table 9-7. • Invertebrates: Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2016a) general pre-

application/scoping advice to developers of onshore wind farms states that: “there are some species, that with standard mitigation, are unlikely to experience a significant environmental effect during construction/operation of onshore wind farms (eg moths and other invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, etc). Such species do not require surveys to inform the EIA. Instead, we advise that you should be able to apply mitigation during construction to avoid committing an offence.” Due to the area of land take, being small in comparison with the availability of similar habitats in the wider area, significant negative effects on invertebrate species are not considered likely, therefore invertebrates have been scoped out of further assessment.

• Signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus has been recorded within the

Elvan Water; however this invasive non-native species which could pose a bio-security risk has been scoped out of further assessment for the following reasons. Only two water crossings will be required as a result of the proposed infrastructure. Both are at/or close to the top of the relevant watercourse. One of these watercourses was found to be dry at the time of survey and is only likely to flow following periods of rainfall. The second crossing is on a burn which flows from an area of peat, so is likely to carry relatively acidic water. Acidic water would deter the presence of signal crayfish as they are particularly sensitive to pH less than 6.0 especially when moulting (Reeve 2004). As a result of this, signal cray fish are not considered likely to be present in the two watercourses where water crossings would occur. Direct effects on them, which could pose a bio-security risk, are therefore not likely.

• Fish: There is a large natural barrier to movement from the sea to the

study area, so migratory fish, e.g. salmon Salmo salar and migratory lampreys are absent (see Technical Appendix 9.5). Although present, the study area is of only local importance for brown trout Salmo trutta

ECOLOGY 9


and less than local importance for brook lamprey Lampetra planeri (see Table 9-7). Effects on fish have therefore been scoped out of further assessment.

• Amphibians: great crested newt (GCN) Triturus cristatus is not

considered likely to be present, due to the lack of suitable habitat on or adjacent to the Site. Common toad Bufo bufo may be present in the lower elevations of the Site but is not considered likely to be present within the acid upland areas. No ponded areas would be affected by the proposed development therefore significant effects on common toad are not likely and common toad has therefore been scoped out of the assessment.

• Water Vole Arvicola amphibius: no signs of water vole activity were

noted during the 2015 surveys, therefore water vole are considered to be absent from the area and water vole has therefore been scoped out of the assessment.

• Roosting bats: during the 2015 surveys no suitable bat roost habitat

was identified within 200m of the proposed turbine locations, therefore in line with current guidance (Hundt 2012) the assessment of effects on roosting bats has been scoped out.

• Brown hare Lepus europaeus was observed to be present within the

Site and surrounding area with small numbers observed on a number of occasions during the 2015 ecological surveys, mostly in the southern part of the study area, where wind farm infrastructure would not be sited. Due to the mobility of this species and the limited habitat loss (for grazing) which would occur as result of this proposed development, detailed assessment of effects on this species have been scoped out.

• No red deer Cervus elaphus or roe deer Capreolus capreolus signs or

individuals were recorded within the study area during the 2015 survey period. As a result they are not considered to be present within the study area and have therefore been scoped out of this assessment.

• Other protected mammal species were scoped out of the assessment

due to lack of suitable habitat or the site being outside their known range (e.g. pine marten Martes martes, polecat Mustela putorius, wildcat Felis silvestris, red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris and all marine mammals.

Assessment Structure

9.10 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 9.1-9.5; summarises consultation undertaken and sets out how consultee comments have been addressed in the assessment; and details the

ECOLOGY 9


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 9.1-9.5).

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

• An Outline Habitat Management Plan (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

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

Legislation

9.12 The ecological assessment has been undertaken with reference to the following legislation: • The EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the

conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora); • The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland); • The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011; • The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; • The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as

amended in Scotland); and • The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended by the Nature

Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004).

Planning Policy

9.13 Relevant planning policy is summarised in Chapter 4: Renewable Energy and Planning Policy. Policies relevant to non-avian ecology are summarised below.

9.14 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 makes an essential contribution to the economy and cultural heritage of Scotland. All Public Bodies in Scotland, including planning authorities, have a duty to ‘further the

ECOLOGY 9


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

9.15 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; and

• Policy 17: Water environment and flooding: this policy supports the protection and enhancement of the water environment and the reduction of flood risk. Any development proposals which will have a significant impact on the water environment would not be permitted.

9.16 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

9.17 Other documents and guidance reviewed and applied in this assessment are outlined below.

9.18 The Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL) (Scottish Government, 2013) is a list of animals, plants and habitats that the Scottish Ministers consider to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland. Both scientific and social criteria have been used to define the SBL. Scientific criteria include all Priority Species and Priority Habitats included in the now superseded UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (UK Biodiversity Partnership, 2007 et seq. (JNCC 2016)), which occur in Scotland. Social criteria are based on the results of an omnibus survey of the Scottish public carried out in 2006, so it should therefore be noted that not all SBL species and habitats are necessarily rare or protected.

9.19 Following an audit of the county’s biodiversity resource, the first South Lanarkshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) was produced in 2003. The Plan was revised in 2010 and the South Lanarkshire Biodiversity Strategy was due to run until 2015. The revised plan went through a full Strategic Environmental Assessment and public consultation process. The plan has not been updated since this time but in the absence of a revised strategy for 2016 onwards this document has been assumed to be still in use. The LBAP contains a number of habitat plans such as the Upland Ecosystem Plan. The species which the LBAP refers to are those listed on the SBL.

ECOLOGY 9


9.20 Further key guidance documents relating to the assessment of effects of

wind farms on non-avian ecological receptors that have been referenced in this assessment are as follows:

• Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom

(Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), 2016);

• SNH general pre-application/scoping advice to developers of onshore wind farms (SNH 2016a);

• Bat Conservation Trust. Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition as it contains a specific wind farm chapter (Hundt L. 2012);

• Bats and Wind Turbines Version 2, June 2012. Joint Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage publication which endorses the use of Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051. Bats and onshore wind turbines. 2nd edition, February 20121;

• Guidance on Assessing the Impacts of Development Proposals on Groundwater Abstractions and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) 2014);

• Good Practice During Wind Farm Construction (Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), SEPA and Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), 2010); and

• Planning for development: What to consider and include in Habitat Management Plans (SNH, 2016b).

Desk Study

9.21 Searches for statutory designated nature conservation sites such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs) were carried out using the Scottish Natural Heritage Interactive Map (SNH, 2016c) and covered an area of up to 10km from the application boundary.

9.22 South Lanarkshire does not have a biological recording centre, instead relying on the data collated within the National Biodiversity Network (NBN). The NBN data was originally accessed through the Scottish Natural Heritage Interactive Map (SNHi (July 2016)) and covered an area of up to 10km for high risk bat species (Natural England 2014), up to 5km for all other bat species and up to 2km for all other faunal species. Only data for species recorded within the last 20 years were considered relevant and collated for the desk search.

9.23 Scottish Badgers was contacted; however they indicated that they were likely

to hold relatively little data for the search area. As a result, it was decided to

1 The 2012 publication has been superseded by the TIN051 Third edition (Natural England 2014). Note also that updated guidance is currently in preparation. The SNH website [accessed 19 December 2016] states “New GB guidance on this subject is currently in preparation and will be published as soon as possible”.

ECOLOGY 9


rely on badger data collected through alternative sources, notably baseline survey data.

9.24 Clyde Bat Group covers the South Lanarkshire area, so was contacted

regarding records for the Site and 10km beyond this. It was confirmed that they held no data for the search area.

9.25 The South Lanarkshire and Scottish Borders website planning portals were

searched for relevant wind farm planning applications within 10km of the application area, with regards to ecological data. The ESs for two wind farms were found on the South Lanarkshire planning portal: Crookedstane and Lion Hill. In addition to this the Energy Consents Unit website was also searched and no relevant ecological data was found.

9.26 The Clyde River Foundation was contacted with regards to sourcing data

from electrofishing surveys undertaken over the last seven years (sampling between 2009 and 2015). Four data points were selected which lie in the lower Elvan Water and the Glengonnar Water. The data points selected are those which lie closest to the Site and cover a range of watercourse locations. All data points are located within or downstream of the catchment for the Site, so are relevant in respect of assessing potential effects. The data requested included both fish and crayfish records.

Field Survey

9.27 An initial ecological appraisal, informed by a site visit and desk study (publically accessible sources only) was undertaken in Spring 2015. This appraisal recommended a number of ecological surveys and the scope of survey work was subsequently agreed with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)2. The assessment has been informed by a range of field surveys undertaken in 2015 and 2016. The methodology for the 2015/16 surveys is briefly outlined below, for the full methodology please refer to Technical Appendices 9.1 – 9.5.

Vegetation Surveys

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

9.28 Prior to going to the site aerial photographs of the survey area were examined. Homogenous stands and mosaics of vegetation were identified and mapped onto the aerial photographs. The stands were then drawn as polygons on field maps; which could be ground truthed and surveyed quantitatively to record the species present once out in the field. This mapping was used for both the Phase 1 habitat survey and the NVC survey. Both surveys were undertaken simultaneously on the following dates: 27th – 31st July and 8th – 10th September 2015.

2 Letter from Duncan Watson of SLR to David Kelly of SNH dated 5th May 2015 and emails from David Kelly to Duncan Watson dated 13th May 2015 and 19th May 2015.

ECOLOGY 9


9.29 Additional Phase 1 habitat survey work to inform the development of the OHMP was undertaken on the 10th September 2015.

9.30 The survey area was generally restricted to land which, at the time of survey, was considered to have the potential to be affected by the proposed development. This included all land within which turbines and other infrastructure could be located plus a buffer zone of at least 250m (access permitting). In places additional land was also surveyed to inform the development of habitat management proposals. The survey area is shown on Figure 9.2.

9.31 The methodology used was based on the standard JNCC (2010) methodology. Target notes were made to describe in more detail (where required) the habitats present.

National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey

9.32 The NVC survey was undertaken using the NVC system (Rodwell 1991 et seq., 5 volumes) and in accordance with NVC survey guidelines (Rodwell 2006). The majority of the study area was covered in conjunction with the Phase 1 habitat survey on 27th – 31st July and 8th – 10th September 2015. Additional NVC survey work to inform the development of the OHMP was undertaken on 27th – 29th September 2016.

9.33 The NVC survey area was initially restricted to land which was considered to have the potential to be affected by the proposed development. This included all land within which turbines and other infrastructure could be located plus a buffer zone of at least 250m (access permitting). Additional areas of land were subsequently also targeted for NVC survey in order to inform the development of the OHMP. The survey extent is shown on Figure 9.3.

Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE)

9.34 Following the NVC survey, potential GWDTEs were identified in terms of their high, moderate or low potential groundwater dependence, based on SEPA (2014). A more detailed assessment of the likely groundwater dependence of these communities was then undertaken as part of the hydrogeology assessment (see Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and Hydrology).

Terrestrial Mammal Survey

9.35 The species of mammal specifically targeted by the survey were selected based on the presence of suitable habitat within the survey area and the known range of the species within Scotland. These comprised otter, water vole and badger (although evidence of other protected or notable mammal species was recorded as seen).

9.36 The mammal study area covered all areas which were considered to have the potential to be affected by the proposed development. This included all land within which turbines and other infrastructure could potentially be

ECOLOGY 9


located plus a buffer zone of at least 250m (access permitting). The survey area covered meets relevant species-specific guidance, e.g. for otter guidance states that survey should be carried out within 250m of turbine locations and other wind farm infrastructure (SNH 2016e). In addition to this, the mammal survey was extended to cover additional areas alongside the Phase 1 habitat survey, so that information could be used to inform the development of habitat management proposals.

9.37 The mammal surveys were undertaken during the 27th – 31st July, the 8th – 10th September 2015 and the 27th – 29th September 2016. Surveys followed standard methodologies in place at the time of survey, e.g. Chanin (2003), Strachan et al. (2011) and Neal and Cheeseman (2006).

Bat Survey

9.38 Current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines (Hundt 2012) advise that survey effort in relation to bats and wind farms should be based on whether a site is likely to be of low, medium or high risk for bats. The level of risk at this site, due to its open moorland nature and lack of woodland blocks within or adjacent to the turbine areas, was assessed as low.

9.39 The bat study area was restricted to land which (in July 2015) was considered to have the potential to be affected by the proposed development. This included all land within which turbines and other infrastructure could potentially be located, plus a buffer zone of 250m (access permitting). The survey area covered meets the survey criteria detailed within Hundt (2012).

9.40 A daytime survey for potential bat roost features within structures, trees and mineshafts was undertaken on the 30th March 2015. No features with bat roost potential were located at or within 250m from the area within which turbines were considered likely to be located, therefore no roost specific surveys were considered necessary.

9.41 No transect surveys were undertaken due to health and safety reasons (i.e. due to the danger of walking over uneven ground with steep slopes in the dark), however monthly static detector monitoring was undertaken, based on the guidance provided in Hundt (2012). To compensate for the lack of transect surveys and to reflect the fact that SNH reported that Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri (a high risk species) has previously been recorded in the area, it was agreed with SNH3 that monthly monitoring using static detectors would be undertaken instead of the three visits required for low risk sites by Hundt (2012).

9.42 14 Wildlife Acoustics SM2 static detectors were used; ten were stationed in

representative habitats within the area in which turbines were likely to be located and four in good bat foraging habitat around the site peripheries, e.g. in river/stream valleys or close to areas of woodland. The four detectors positioned in good bat foraging outside the main survey area were designed to act as controls and provide a direct comparison of bat activity levels with

3 Email confirmation from D. Kelly (SNH Operations Officer, Strathclyde & Ayrshire) to D. Watson (Technical Director, SLR), dated 19.05.2015 and 28.05.2015.

ECOLOGY 9


the recording locations within the Site. The static recording locations are shown on Figure 9.5. Each detector was left to record for at least five nights (usually much longer) per month, from May to September 2015 inclusive; although it should be noted that on some occasions not all detectors functioned for the full recording period, for more information please refer to Technical Appendix 9.3. The recording dates were as follows:

• May 06/05/15-15/05/15 • June 18/06/15-27/06/15 • July 30/06/15-07/07/15 • August 06/08/15-14/08/15 • September 30/08/15-08/09/15

9.43 Data were analysed using Kaleidoscope Pro (version 3.1.0) and the classifiers set Bats of United Kingdom 2.1.0 (Wildlife Acoustics). Any ambiguous records and all records of high risk species were subject to a double check by an experienced bat worker, using Russ (2012) to assign species where possible.

9.44 Since the bat surveys were undertaken a report has been published by the University of Exeter (Mathews et al. 2016) describing the results of a three year study of bats and wind turbines in the UK. Mathews et al. conclude that in order to account for the variability in bat activity that longer monitoring periods should be undertaken (than are required under current guidance). Current guidance for a site of low risk is to undertake three periods of monitoring over five nights, a total of 15 nights. It is therefore worth noting, that for this project, a total of 42 nights monitoring was undertaken, almost three times the recommended length of monitoring under current guidance and therefore addressing (to a certain degree at least) the concerns raised by Mathews et al.

Fish Habitat Assessment

9.45 A high-level Fish Habitat Assessment was carried out for all watercourses within the survey area based on an adapted version of the Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre (SFCC) Habitat Survey methodology (SFCC 2007).

9.46 The collected data were used to determine potential of each watercourse to offer suitable habitat for fish species of conservation importance (e.g. salmonids and lamprey).

Incidental Sightings

9.47 During all ecological surveys, incidental sightings of other notable fauna were also recorded e.g. common lizard.

ECOLOGY 9


Consultation

Scoping Responses

9.48 As stated previously after an initial site appraisal in April 2015, an informal consultation was undertaken with SNH and the scope of survey work was agreed4.

9.49 A formal scoping exercise was then undertaken in July 2016. Scoping responses containing comments relating to non-avian ecology and nature conservation were obtained from the following organisations:

• South Lanarkshire Council (SLC); • SNH; • SEPA; • Marine Scotland; • Crawford and Elvanfoot Community Council; • Leadhills Community Council; and • Wanlockhead Community Council.

9.50 A summary of the key points from the relevant scoping responses and details

of how comments have been addressed in the ES is provided in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1: Scoping Responses relating to Non-Avian Ecology Consultee Comment Response

South Lanarkshire Council

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, please see paragraphs 9.15- 9.16

For biodiversity, a cumulative assessment should be undertaken. In line with the South Lanarkshire Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (which should be referenced in the ES) an ecosystem approach to biodiversity conservation should be undertaken. A habitat management group should be convened as early as practicable and a draft HMP written for further consultation.

A cumulative assessment is included in paragraphs 9.150 – 9.155 The South Lanarkshire Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan has been referenced and an OHMP is provided in Technical Appendix 9.6).

SNH SNH agreed that North Lowther Uplands SSSI 6km from the site will not be affected by the proposal. The other nearby nationally designated

Designated sites have been scoped out from further assessment.

4 Letter from Duncan Watson of SLR to David Kelly of SNH dated 5th May 2015 and emails from David Kelly to Duncan Watson dated 13th May 2015, 19th May 2015 and 28th May 2015.

ECOLOGY 9


Consultee Comment Response sites, can also be scoped out on the basis of there being a lack of ecological connectivity.

With respect to freshwater/fish surveys SNH recommended that any survey should cover all areas directly or indirectly affected by the development and appropriate buffers. SNH accepted that where there is already recent survey information it may be possible to use those results, provided that conditions in the intervening period (such as flood events) have not substantially altered the watercourse. SNH are broadly content with the proposed scope of EIA for other natural heritage interests (i.e. non-avian ecology).

Fish data have been obtained from the Clyde River Foundation for Elvan Water and Glengonnar Water (Technical Appendix 9.5: Review of Fish and North American Signal Crayfish Distribution Data from the Lower Elvan and Glengonnar Waters) and are considered to remain valid. No other watercourses with potential to support important fish populations are likely to be affected by the proposed development. Therefore no additional fish surveys were considered necessary.

The SNH General Scoping and Pre-application Advice note should be referred to where relevant.

The SNH General Scoping and Pre-application Advice note has been referred to.

SEPA Request that a map and assessment of impacts upon GWDTEs is included within the ES.

The location of potential GWDTEs was identified during the NVC survey and mapped (Figure 9.4). An assessment of the GWDTEs is provided in Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and Hydrology.

Marine Scotland

The proposed development area is located within the River Clyde catchment; however potential impacts may also extend into the neighbouring River Tweed catchment.

There is no hydrological connection between the site and the Tweed catchment.

We welcome the intention of the developer to obtain data (which should be up to date) and/or carry out site characterisation surveys of fish populations in watercourses likely to be impacted.

Fish data have been obtained from the Clyde River Foundation for Elvan Water and Glengonnar Water (Technical Appendix 9.5: Review of Fish and North American Signal Crayfish Distribution Data from the Lower Elvan and Glengonnar Waters) and are considered to remain valid. No other watercourses with potential to support important fish populations are likely to be affected by the proposed development. Therefore no additional fish surveys were considered necessary.

We advise the developer (in addition to obtaining data and/or carrying out

Effects on water quality are assessed in Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and

ECOLOGY 9


Consultee Comment Response site characterisation fish surveys) to carry out site characterisation water quality surveys (both hydrochemical and macroinvertebrate sampling) of watercourses likely to be impacted by the proposed development.

Hydrology.

Crawford and Elvanfoot Community Council

Strongly contest the limitation of the ecological baseline survey area to the current proposed 'turbine area' plus 250m buffer zone. The entire site area must be surveyed, and if negative effects are likely to arise beyond the site boundary, these must also be surveyed.

Ecological baseline survey areas all comply with relevant good practice guidance, including guidance from SNH. Most survey areas extend well beyond the proposed development boundaries (see Figures 9.2 – 9.6).

There is very recent evidence that larger fish including Brown Trout are returning to the lower reaches of the Elvan Water. The proposed site of a new bridge is on a flood plain and will therefore need to be significant in structure. A full and detailed assessment as to how this will affect the regeneration of the Elvan Water will be expected.

The proposed development no longer includes a new bridge over the Elvan Water.

The Clyde River has been regenerating for the past c20 years and has made real progress. With significant construction and ground disturbance taking place close to the water courses that run into the Clyde a full and detailed assessment will be expected as to if and by how much this river clean-up programme will be affected.

Effects on water quality are assessed in Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and Hydrology.

A survey of the lower reaches of the Elvan Water will be expected unless Clyde River Foundation has completed one after June 2015.

Fish data have been obtained from the Clyde River Foundation for Elvan Water and Glengonnar Water (multiple samples dated between 2009 and 2015) (Technical Appendix 9.5) and are considered to remain valid.

Leadhills Community Council

Ecology: The vegetation classification identifies the broad vegetation assemblages. This broad brush approach masks variations in the species mix in each classification category. More detail of the species mix through random sampling within each category would be helpful. Whilst the mountain hare may have been largely eradicated from the development site, it is considered

The results of vegetation surveys, including the results of quadrat sampling, are provided in Technical Appendix 9.1. The impact assessment has been limited to important receptors which could potentially be affected by the proposed development. As such mountain hare, which has not been recorded at the site during the survey period, is not subject to detailed

ECOLOGY 9


Consultee Comment Response that it should be included in the list of receptors in 7.2.1 of the Scoping Report.

assessment.

It is suggested that further survey is carried out to identify those workings where bats hibernate and roost and ascertain the species present, their feeding range and flight paths. It is requested that the latest information from an Exeter University study "Phase 2 of the National Bats and Wind Turbines Project" is referenced in the EIA.

No mine workings with the potential to support roosting bats have been identified within at least 250m of proposed turbine locations. Current Bat Conservation Trust guidelines require surveys of potential roost features within 200m of proposed turbine locations only. The Exeter University study referred to (Mathews et al., 2016) has been reviewed and is referenced in the assessment.

There is no mention of the Palmate Newts (Lissotriton helveticus) which have been recorded at various altitudes near the site and which are likely to exist within the development site. The presence of common lizards throughout the Lowther Hills and common toads on the lower slopes is also noted.

Palmate newt is a relatively common species and was therefore not surveyed for (surveys focussed on protected and notable species in accordance with SNH guidance). Common lizard is known to be present at the site and has been considered within this Chapter. Common toad has also been considered within this Chapter.

Whilst it is noted that this is included in the potential impacts of the proposals in 7.1.3 of the Scoping Report, it is suggested that the location of infrastructure be plotted, together with the more sensitive habitat types and the likely impact of ground water disturbance assessed.

The location of infrastructure has been overlain onto the maps provided in Figures 9.1-9.6. The likely impact of groundwater disturbance is assessed in Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and Hydrology.

The scoping document makes little reference to ecological restoration. The planting of native trees on the lower slopes will help to stabilise any lead (Pb) and other metals (cadmium and zinc) that may be mobilised in the soil following the area’s extensive historical mining activity. However consideration of this option should be carried out within the framework of a comprehensive restoration plan.

Outline proposals for habitat restoration and management have been included in an OHMP (Technical Appendix 9.6). The measures outlined aim to provide nature conservation enhancements as well as mitigation/compensation for negative impacts.

Throughout the report it is suggested that the decommissioning phase will be scoped out, given the uncertainties as to what lies in the future. It is suggested that should consent be given, conditions should be imposed requiring full details of the decommissioning process and

Decommissioning effects have not been assessed within this Chapter. Please refer to Chapter 3: Description of the Development for more information.

ECOLOGY 9


Consultee Comment Response an assessment of its impact on the ecological parameters existing at the time.

Wanlockhead Community Council

We strongly contest the developers proposed limitation of the Ecological Baseline Field Surveys area to the current proposed “turbine area” plus 250 metres buffer zone. There should be no arbitrary or self‐serving limitations on the Field Surveys boundary, thereby limiting full public scrutiny. The entire site area must be surveyed, and where negative environmental effects can arise beyond the site boundary, these areas must also be surveyed.

Ecological baseline survey areas all comply with relevant good practice guidance, including guidance from SNH. Most survey areas extend well beyond the proposed development boundaries (see Figures 9.2 – 9.6).

Mammals: We suggest that a further survey is carried out to identify those workings where bats hibernate and roost and ascertain the species present, their feeding range and flight paths. The local moors should also be properly surveyed for bats.

No mine workings with the potential to support roosting bats have been identified within at least 250m of proposed turbine locations. Current Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines require surveys of potential roost features within 200m of proposed turbine locations only. Bat activity surveys were undertaken in accordance with current BCT guidelines and the methodology was agreed with SNH.

Hedgehogs are most certainly present on the site. As such, again, the field survey must cover the entire site, and beyond. Based on local knowledge, we would suggest a strong otter survey across the watershed, since otter can move many miles between catchments. Local knowledge points to the presence of red squirrels and newts. Water vole have been found in upland areas too. Again, the field survey must cover the entire Site, and beyond.

SNH do not require surveys of hedgehog. Surveys for otter and water vole have been carried out in accordance with standard good practice guidance. There is no suitable habitat for red squirrels within the site. The scope, coverage and methodologies for mammal surveys were agreed with SNH.

Fish habitat: We request more detailed fish surveys (Scoping Report, 7.2.1) as the watercourses are likely to be affected directly or indirectly by remobilisation of heavy metal pollution on the local watercourses.

Fish data have been obtained from the Clyde River Foundation for Elvan Water and Glengonnar Water (multiple samples dated between 2009 and 2015) (Technical Appendix 9.5: Review of Fish and North American Signal Crayfish Distribution Data from the Lower Elvan and Glengonnar Waters) and are considered to remain valid. No other

ECOLOGY 9


Consultee Comment Response watercourses with potential to support important fish populations are likely to be affected by the proposed development. Therefore no additional fish surveys were considered necessary.

9.51 SNH and Marine Scotland provided comments on the gatecheck report

(comments dated November 2nd 2016). SNH requested the inclusion of a Decommissioning and Restoration Plan (DRP) and deer assessment within the ES. The approach to decommissioning is set out in Chapter 3: Description of the Development. With respect to deer, deer were not recorded during any of the surveys, despite several hundred hours spent on site, and a deer assessment is therefore not considered necessary. Marine Scotland requested that the ES includes details of proposed monitoring programmes and consideration of potential cumulative impacts of adjacent developments on water quality and fish populations. No monitoring for fish is considered necessary given significant effects on fish are not likely. Cumulative effects are assessed within this Chapter (paragraphs 9.150-9.155).

Good Practice Measures and Mitigation

9.52 Good practice measures and mitigation would be implemented during construction to avoid and reduce impacts. These measures are set out in the Assessment of Effects Section.

Assessing Significance

9.53 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.

Determining Importance

9.54 In accordance with the CIEEM guidelines only ecological receptors (habitats, species, ecosystems and their functions/processes), 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 will remain viable and sustainable.

9.55 Ecological 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. the former Strathclyde region);

ECOLOGY 9


• South Lanarkshire (i.e. the unitary authority area); • Local (i.e. within circa 5km); and • Less than local.

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

9.57 In accordance with CIEEM guidelines the value of habitats has been measured against published selection criteria where available. Examples of relevant criteria include Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive, the SBL and Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) contained within the South Lanarkshire LBAP.

9.58 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.

Impact Assessment

9.59 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.

9.60 When describing impacts, reference has been made to the following characteristics, as appropriate: • Positive or negative; • Extent; • Magnitude; • Duration; • Timing; • Frequency; and • Reversibility.

9.61 Both direct and indirect impacts are considered: direct ecological impacts are

changes that are directly attributable to a defined action, e.g. the physical loss of habitat occupied by a 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,

ECOLOGY 9


which, in the absence of mitigation, could lead to the drying out of marshy grassland.

9.62 For the purposes of this assessment, in accordance with CIEEM guidelines, a ‘significant effect’ is an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological receptors’ or for biodiversity in general. 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 (see paragraph 9.55). For example, a significant effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest is likely to be of national significance whilst a significant effect on a regionally important population of a species is likely to be of regional significance.

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

impacts on individual habitats and species and assessing their significance:

• Habitats – conservation status is determined by the sum of the influences acting on the habitat that may affect its extent, structure and functions as well as its distribution and its typical species within a given geographical area.

• Species – 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.

Avoidance, Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement

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

9.65 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 Impacts and Effects

9.66 Cumulative effects can result from individually insignificant but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time or concentrated in a particular location. The potential for cumulative effects with other wind farm proposals has been assessed here.

ECOLOGY 9


9.67 Except where other developments are located directly adjacent to the proposed development site, which is not the case here, potential cumulative effects are only likely to be significant for other developments within the same hydrological catchments (aquatic receptors) or located within the regular range of more mobile species, e.g. bats.

9.68 As such for aquatic receptors the cumulative assessment has been restricted

to proposed developments within the same sub-catchments as the site and within a distance of 5km from the proposed development, which is in line with the methodology used in Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and Hydrology. For bat species, all wind farms within 10km have been taken into consideration.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Desk Study

9.69 Statutory designated sites within 10km are shown on Figure 9.1. Table 9-2 presents a brief description of each site (excluding sites designated solely for their ornithological or geological interest, which are covered in Chapter 8: Ornithology and Chapter 11: Geology and Peat respectively). There are no non-statutory designated sites within 2km.

Table 9-2: Statutory designated sites within 10km (excluding sites designated solely for ornithological or geological interests)

Site Name Designation Distance /

Direction from Site Boundary

Reasons for Designation

Red Moss SSSI / SAC 5.5km NW SAC active raised bogs SSSI Raised bogs

North Lowther Uplands

SSSI 5.7km W Assemblage of upland habitats

Shiel Dod SSSI 7km S Assemblage of upland habitats

Coshogle Wood SSSI 10km SW Upland oak woodland

Mennock Water SSSI 9.3km SW Lowland neutral grassland and upland oak woodland

River Tweed SSSI / SAC 8.5km E SAC qualifying features are: Atlantic salmon, brook lamprey, river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis, sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, otter and rivers with floating vegetation dominated by water crowfoot. SSSI also designated for: trophic range river/stream, vascular plant assemblage, beetle assemblage and fly assemblage.

9.70 Table 9-3 provides a summary of the results of the protected species search undertaken through the SNHi and NBN portals.

ECOLOGY 9


Table 9-3: Existing Records of Protected and Notable Species

Species Notes

Otter Records indicate presence on the Elvan Water, River Clyde and Glengonnar Water.

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus

Crawford based record 1.7km north east of site boundary.

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus


Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus


Common and soprano pipistrelle

Roost of approximately 35 individuals in Leadhills village, 2km southwest of the site boundary.

Vegetation Surveys

Evaluation of Floral Receptors

9.71 Phase 1 habitats and NVC communities within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer, are shown in Table 9-4 with more detailed habitat descriptions and quadrat data covering the whole of the survey area provided in Technical Appendix 9.1: Phase 1 Habitat and NVC Survey Report. The mapped results are shown on Figures 9.2-9.4. Table 9-4 also evaluates the importance of each habitat or community and provides the reasoning for the evaluation made. NVC communities are all grouped according to the Phase 1 habitat category under which they are best categorised. SNH is in the process of adopting the European Nature Information System (EUNIS) classification system for terrestrial habitat data and mapping. For ease of reading the EUNIS habitat types have not been described within this section, but for more information please refer to Technical Appendix 9.1: Phase 1 Habitat and NVC Survey Report.

9.72 Table 9-4 also summarises the conservation status for each habitat / community. For habitats where they create a mosaic, the mosaics have been evaluated based on their floristic composition, underlying substrate and occurrence within the study area.

ECOLOGY 9


Table 9-4: Evaluation of the Phase 1 habitats NVC communities present within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer

NVC Community Name Area Ha Conservation status

Likely Groundwater Dependency

Reason for evaluation Evaluation

D1.1 Dry Dwarf shrub heath - Acid

H12 Calluna vulgaris - Vaccinium myrtillus heath

97.84 Annex 1 SBL HAP

- There is an estimated 1,700,000 to 2,500,000ha of upland heathland in Scotland (SNH N.d). H10 and H12 are the most common forms of dry heath in Scotland (SNH n.d.). The GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer contains some relatively large/continuous areas of H12 community often dominated by Calluna vulgaris and managed primarily through muir burn. Some of the H12 present is also considered likely to have been derived from the burning of the M15 wet heath, and is considered likely to be in an unfavourable condition, with excess presence of Calluna vulgaris, to the exclusion of other dwarf shrub species. The UK BAP describes the H12 community, when in a favourable condition, as being ‘dominated by dwarf shrubs such as ling heather, bilberry, crowberry and bell heather’ (Maddock, 2008). Given the very small proportion of the Scottish heathland resource and the unfavourable condition of some areas the area within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer is not considered to be regionally important. A relatively large area of this Annex 1 habitat is present however, which is therefore considered to be of value at a South Lanarkshire level.

South Lanarkshire

H18 Vaccinium myrtillus - Deschampsia flexuosa heath

5.13 Annex 1 SBL

- There is an estimated 1,700,000 to 2,500,000 ha of upland heathland in Scotland (SNH n.d.). However H18 comprises a much smaller proportion of the total

South Lanarkshire

ECOLOGY 9





HAP than H12 and H10. Smaller areas of this community type are present and were found to be relatively species rich, and are therefore regarded as being good quality examples of this habitat type.

D2 Wet dwarf shrub heath

M15 Scirpus cespitosus - Erica tetralix wet heath


Moderate There is an estimated 462,000 ha of wet dwarf shrub heath in the UK (JNCC, 2012). On a more regional scale heathland habitats are widespread in the region, the MLURI (1993) reports that the Strathclyde Region has an estimated coverage of 1,376.72km2 of heathland habitats. This habitat type covers relatively large areas within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer, especially on wetter slopes where peat deposits are present but less deep than those under the blanket bog. In some areas the M15 was considered to be quite diverse, in others Molinia caerulea begins to dominate, leading towards a M25 species poor community. Given the relatively small proportion of the regional resource the area within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer is not considered to be regionally important. A relatively large area of this Annex 1 habitat is present however, which is therefore considered to be of value at a South Lanarkshire level.

South Lanarkshire

M15/M25 1.62 - - This mosaic occurs as a transition of M15 and M25 communities based on wet peaty soils. Where the transition to M25 occurs, the density of purple moor grass often significantly increases and can end up being dominant, to the exclusion of all other species. The small area present is considered to be of no

Local

ECOLOGY 9





more than local value.

D5 Dry heath Acid/grassland mosaic

H12/U5 mosaic of acid grassland communities

4.82 - - This community generally occurs on steeper slopes where the peaty soils have given way to more mineral soils. Patches of well grazed heather are often interspersed with tightly grazed grassland, dominated by Nardus stricta. This habitat is relatively species poor and fragmented, so is not considered to be of significant conservation value.

Local

E1.7 Mire, wet modified bog

M17 Scirpus cespitosus - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire


- There is an estimated 2,200,000 ha of blanket bog in the UK (BARS, 2012; JNCC, 2012) and 1,759,000ha in Scotland (BARS, 2012). On a more regional scale, peat bog is considered to be widespread in the region. MLURI (1993) reports that the Strathclyde Region has an estimated coverage of 1,718.8km2 of peatland habitats. All of the areas of this community within the study area have been subject to artificial drainage and in some areas over grazing. While the depth of peat still remains, in some areas the species richness and abundance of Sphagnum spp. mosses have reduced and the quality of the habitat is likely to deteriorate further in time as the effects of drainage and muir burn continue to be felt. However it is still considered that these bog areas could still be successfully restored. Therefore they are considered to be of greater than local value.

South Lanarkshire

ECOLOGY 9





M19 Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire


- There is an estimated 2,200,000 ha of blanket bog in the UK (BARS, 2012; JNCC, 2012) and 1,759,000 ha in Scotland (BARS, 2012). MLURI (1993) reports that the Strathclyde Region has an estimated coverage of 1,718.8km2 of peatland habitats. The majority of areas representing this habitat have been subject to some form of drainage and areas were often recorded as becoming eroded through gully formation, or subject to drying out, effects which are considered likely to increase in time. Despite this however, it is anticipated that the majority of areas which have been subject to artificial drainage are still actively peat forming as they contain species such as Sphagnum and Eriophorum. Given the relatively small proportion of the regional resource and the modified nature of the habitat the area within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer is not considered to be regionally important. A relatively large area of this Annex 1 habitat is present however, which is therefore considered to be of value at a South Lanarkshire level.

South Lanarkshire

M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket and raised mire


- Relatively large areas of this habitat are present; and where present are generally characteristic of ombrogenous peats on bogs where certain types of treatment have become of over-riding importance in determining the nature of the vegetation, such as heavy grazing together with burning. This habitat is generally considered to be floristically impoverished (Rodwell, 1991 et seq); but does still over lie relatively deep peat deposits. Where species diversity is reduced, it is considered unlikely that this

South Lanarkshire

ECOLOGY 9





habitat would still be peat forming. However, a relatively large area of this Annex 1 habitat is present, which is therefore considered to be of value at a South Lanarkshire level.

Mosaic of bog communities M20/M19

14.07 Annex 1 based on community type

- This mosaic has been given the same value as the highest valued constituent community, due to M19 being considered to be an Annex 1 habitat, although one that has been subject to manmade drainage and muir burn. This mosaic likely represents a transition between the communities that it represents. In this case the mosaic overlies peat, which in some areas is relatively deep.

South Lanarkshire

B5 Marsh/marshy grassland

M23 Juncus effusus/ acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture

15.05 SBL HAP

High This community is generally located along ditches, streams and where seep lines/springs are present on hillsides. In the study area M23 is overwhelmingly dominated by Juncus acutiflorus, however in some of the wetter areas, Juncus effusus attains dominance. The species diversity within this community can be quite high, especially in areas where there is less disturbance from grazing animals. However in areas where grazing occurs, this community can be relatively species poor. This is a common and widespread habitat type which is only present across a relatively small area. Given there are some relatively species-rich areas however it is considered to have some importance at a local level.

Local

M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire

52.09 Annex 1* SBL*

Moderate This habitat only qualifies as an Annex 1 habitat where it is present over peat that is more than 0.5m

Local

ECOLOGY 9





HAP deep. It is therefore considered that only a small portion (<15%) of the M25 community present within the study area would qualify as Annex 1 - M25. Generally this community is present on hill slopes, where species diversity has been lost (sometimes totally) and purple moor grass has attained almost total dominance. The M25 within the study area is likely to have been partially derived from excessive muir burn, drainage and grazing.

MG10 Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush pasture

1.02 SBL Moderate This community is relatively common in the region (pers. obs.) and comprises semi improved grazing pastures with a large component of soft rush, indicating that the ground is wet and poorly drained. Holcus - Juncus rush-pasture is described by Averis et al. (2004) as being widespread in lowland Great Britain, occurring at low altitudes in most upland areas. Averis et al. further describes the conservation value of this community as “an impoverished vegetation type and it seldom contains any uncommon species”.

Less than Local

Marshy Grassland mosaics: M25/M23, M25/U5

3.37 - Moderate/High Generally these mosaics represent transitional communities, often affected by man-made drainage, over-grazing or muir burn. Sometimes however, mosaics are simply a result of complicated ground topology. None of these mosaics were found to represent significantly species diverse, good quality community types and all are relatively small so are considered to be of local conservation importance only.

Local

ECOLOGY 9





B1.1 Acid grassland unimproved

U2 Deschampsia flexuosa grassland

3.36 - - This community was found to be quite limited within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer and was associated with areas of recent muir burn, where Deschampsia flexuosa had become dominant, to the exclusion of heather and other ericoids. It is possible that this community is transient, and will be lost as the heather plants grow and re-establish dominance.

Less than local

U4+ Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile grassland

1.07 - - Widespread and common in the region (pers. obs). Averis et al. (2004) state: There are Festuca-Agrostis-Galium grasslands throughout upland Great Britain from southwest England to Orkney and Shetland. This community does have a wide variation in species composition, with some areas found to be species rich with a wide range of wildflowers. These areas tended to occur only where the grazing pressure from sheep/rabbits and brown hare was reduced.

Less than local

U5 Nardus stricta – Galium saxatile grassland

1.30 SBL - Widespread and common in the region (pers obs.). Averis et al. (2004) describes the distribution of this community as: ubiquitous throughout the British uplands, but is most common where there has been a long history of sheep grazing. Some of the largest stands are in the… Southern Uplands... Where grazing pressure is, or has historically been quite high, less palatable grasses such as mat grass have gained dominance. Small scattered areas of this community are present within the study area.

Less than local

ECOLOGY 9





U6 Juncus squarrosus – Festuca ovina grassland

9.12 SBL Moderate Widespread and common in the region (pers. obs.). Averis et al. (2004) describes this community as occurring throughout the north and west of Great Britain, being especially common in upland areas with a long history of heavy grazing and frequent burning, e.g. in the Southern Uplands. Within the study area, this habitat occurs on wetter ground, often where bog and heath habitats transition due to changes in topology. U6 is also present in areas where tracks and animal traffic are present as the heath rush rosettes are very hardy and not palatable, so they can blanket the ground in areas. Some of the U6 is also likely to overlie peaty soils.

Local

C1.1 Tall herb and fern bracken continuous

U20 Pteridium aquilium - Galium saxatile community

2.80 - - Widespread and common in the region (pers. obs.) This community generally grows over U4 grasslands, which become shaded out by early summer.

Less than local

B2.2 Neutral grassland semi-improved

MG6 Lolium perenne – Cynosurus cristatus grassland

3.26 - - This is an agriculturally improved grassland, which has generally been ploughed and reseeded following the application of lime to reduce the soil acidity. Often heavily grazed within the study area, this community was not found to be species rich or diverse.

Less than local

Total Area 446.69 *M25 can be associated with the Phase 1 habitats marshy grassland or mire, wet modified bog depending on peat depth. +U4 has been classified here as unimproved which it predominantly was. However, within the survey area some improvement through drainage and manure input had occurred, in limited areas.

ECOLOGY 9


Faunal Baseline

9.73 A summary of the protected or otherwise notable fauna recorded within the relevant study areas during the various ecological surveys and/or for which records were provided during the desk study is provided below. Further details are provided in Technical Appendices 9.2-9.5. Relevant legislation and information pertaining to conservation status is provided in Table 9-8.

Fish

9.74 A summary assessment of habitat suitability for fish of conservation importance is provided in Technical Appendix 9.4. In summary, the watercourses which are present within or hydrologically connected to the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer area are as follows: • The Collins Burn and the Harry Burn, which are connected to River

Clyde, but both burns offers limited suitable habitat for fish; • The Elvan Water and Glengonner Water, which are connected to River

Clyde and fish are known to be present; • Shortcleuch Water, which becomes the Elvan Water and provides

suitable fish habitat; and • Hawshaw Burn, which is connected to the Glencaple Burn, both

provide limited suitable habitat for fish.

9.75 The two proposed watercourse crossing locations were also subject to survey. Both crossings are on the Leadhills plateau: a tributary of the Elvan Water (near to T9) and a tributary of the Glengonnar Water (near to T13). The tributary burn close to T13 was found to be dry at the time of survey. The tributary of the Elvan Water close to T9 contained water, but upstream and downstream of this crossing point, the burn was choked with marshy vegetation at time of survey and considered unsuitable for fish.

Fish Distribution Data from the Lower Elvan and Glengonner Waters

9.76 A review of fish distribution data from the Lower Elvan and Glengonner Waters, carried out by the Clyde River Foundation, is contained in Technical Appendix 9.5: Review of Fish and North American Signal Crayfish Distribution Data from the Lower Elvan and Glengonnar Waters. In summary the four monitoring locations included in the review have been surveyed a number of times since 2009. Sites CEL004F and CGG001F were sampled four times each between 2009 and 2015 and sites CEL002F and CGG010F were sampled twice each within that period (locations shown in Figure 9.6).

9.77 The results provide evidence that stable multiple year classes (ages) of brown trout were present at all sites in all years. The trout densities found during the surveys are typical for upper Clyde tributaries, with those in the Glengonnar Water considered to perhaps be on the high side.

ECOLOGY 9


9.78 Brook lamprey were recorded only at one site on one occasion, on the Elvan Water at Site CEL004F on 10th July 2015.

9.79 There is a large natural barrier to movement from the sea to the study area,

so salmon, eel Anguilla Anguilla and migratory lampreys are absent. The barrier is caused by the Stonebyres Falls near Lanark, a naturally occurring series of bedrock steps.

Amphibians and Reptiles

9.80 Common frog was incidentally noted during the NVC surveys. No other amphibian species were noted during the site surveys as incidental sightings. No permanent ponds were noted in the study area, but small ephemeral acidic peaty areas of standing water were found to be present in the peatland drains. These however were considered not to be suitable for breeding GCN due to the acidic nature of the waters contained within them. Langton et al. (2001) states that: although GCN have been found in both acid and alkaline ponds (pH 4.4-9.5), they tend to be found more frequently in close to neutral or slightly alkaline water.

9.81 A small number of common lizard sightings were made within the study area during the vegetation and mammal surveys.

Otter

9.82 Otter was found to be present within the study area. Signs of otter activity were found on the Harry Burn, Collins Burn and Ellershie Burn (Figure 9.5). Otter signs were also found on the Glengeith Burn and on the Laggen Gill. The otter signs are shown on Figure 9.5. To avoid the possible risk of persecution the locations of otter resting places are shown in a separate confidential appendix.

Water Vole

9.83 Water vole was not found during the survey and only limited potentially suitable habitat was noted, specifically in the Elvanfoot part of the study area.

Badger

9.84 No field signs of badger were found during the surveys. The majority of habitats in the study area were assessed to be of limited suitability for badger. The site contains mostly open upland habitat with wet ground present, offering limited suitability for setts and foraging.

Bats

9.85 No potentially suitable bat roost features were identified within at least 250m of infrastructure locations during the various ecological surveys. In addition a mining desk study undertaken by Wardell Armstrong in 2015 identified no open adits or mine entrances within at least 250m (Technical Appendix 11.3: Mining Assessment).

ECOLOGY 9


9.86 Over a total of up to 42 days recording at 14 locations, 6,267 bat registrations

were recorded from at least five species of bat, as follows: • Common pipistrelle; • Soprano Pipistrelle; • Myotis Myotis spp. (not differentiated to species level); • Noctule Nyctalus noctula; • Leisler’s; and • Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii / common pipistrelle (definite

distinction could not be made on call analysis alone).

9.87 Bat passes were recorded within the study area every month that the detectors were deployed, as shown in Table 9-5. However, it is evident from the survey results that early season usage of the study area is low (possibly attributable to a cold spring), with greatest bat activity (largely attributable to common and soprano pipistrelle) recorded in September.

Table 9-5: Average bat passes per recorded night, by month and

species

May June July August Sept

No. nights recorded5

9 9 7 8 9

Species

Myotis sp (Myo) 0.22 1.00 3.00 6.25 25.00

Leisler’s (NYLE) 0.33 0.11 0.13

Noctule (NYLO) 0.11 0.11 0.33

Nathusius’/Common pipistrelle (PINA/PIPI)

0.11 0.22

Common pipistrelle (PIPI)

0.67 21.00 17.86 89.00 133.67

Soprano pipistrelle (PIPY)

0.11 110.11 25.57 88.63 206.56

Social/song-flight* 0.43 0.11

Nyctalus social/song-flight*

0.44

Average passes per night, all species

1.44 132.89 46.86 184.00 365.89

*call not identifiable to species level (i.e. Leisler’s or noctule)

5 Some of the detectors did not record for the full survey duration at all locations. Please see Technical Appendix 9.3 for more information.

ECOLOGY 9


9.88 Bats were recorded at all locations, but were only recorded in all five months at one location, Location 14 (a control location – Figure 9.5). This is illustrated in Table 9-6, which also demonstrates that, as expected, the control locations, based at lower elevations, close to linear features, had significantly higher average number of bat passes per night than the detectors within the areas within which wind turbines could be located, where bat activity for all species was generally very low. Control locations are those marked with an asterisk.

Table 9-6: Average bat passes per recorded night6 at each location, by

species

Location PIPI PIPY MYO NYNO NYLE PINA/ PIPI

All species combined

Social Calls

Total no of species recorded

1* 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.12 3

2* 11.36 35.50 0.29 0.02 0.02 0.07 47.26 Yes 6

3 0 Yes 1

4 0.17 0.10 0.02 0.29 Yes 3

5 0.40 0.14 0.21 0.75 3

6 0.02 0.02 0.04 2

7 0.98 0.76 0.02 1.76 3

8 0.19 0.10 0.29 2

9 0.19 0.10 0.02 0.31 3

10* 32.89 57.54 6.94 97.37 3

11 0.06 0.06 1

12 11.12 3.83 0.40 0.02 15.37 4

13 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.3 3

14* 1.33 0.38 0.48 0.05 2.24 4

9.89 With respect to “high risk” bat species as described in Natural England (2014), noctule and Leisler’s bats were both recorded during the surveys. Nathusius’ pipistrelle may have been present, but could not be conclusively identified through sonogram alone.

9.90 A total of five registrations each were recorded for noctule and Leisler’s bat. Registrations were recorded for both species in May, June and August, with noctule additionally recorded in September. Of these, a combined total of only three registrations were from within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer area. No more than two registrations were recorded in any month and the recordings for both species were spread over four locations.

6 All locations recorded for 42 nights, except Location 3 which recorded for 31 nights, Location 10 which recorded for 35 and Location 11 which recorded for 32.

ECOLOGY 9


9.91 With regards to the layout of the proposed development, five static detectors

were located within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer area (of a total of 14 used in the wider study area). Of these, four recorded no high risk species at all. Only one location (Location 7) recorded a high risk species, a single noctule bat pass in September. The results show that there is a very low level of activity of “high risk” Nyctalus (i.e. noctule and Leisler’s) bats within the proposed development turbine area.

9.92 Nathusius’ pipistrelle was potentially recorded on a total of three occasions,

in all instances outside the study area at a control location, Location 2 – once in June and twice in September. The calls could not be reliably distinguished from common pipistrelle, and so a precautionary approach has been adopted which assumes that these calls could relate to Nathusius’ pipistrelle (when in practice they could just be common pipistrelle calls). Due to the very low numbers of registrations, no discernible seasonal or other patterns can be determined. The small number of registrations, assuming they relate to Nathusius’ pipistrelle, is considered to reflect a very low number of bats using the area surrounding the survey area.

9.93 The remaining species recorded are considered to be of low risk of collision

with wind turbines. Of the nine species of bat included on the Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL), three (noctule, common and soprano pipistrelle) were recorded during the surveys. Furthermore, although Myotis were not split to species level, it is considered most likely, based upon local known occurrence and species habitat preferences, that calls are from Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii and/or Whiskered/Brandts bats M. mystacinus/brandtii, all of which are on the SBL.

9.94 The most commonly recorded bat species was the soprano pipistrelle,

followed by the common pipistrelle. The highest number of average bat passes for these two species were made at the control locations, but also at Location 12. Although not a control location, Location 12 is located in the Lead Burn valley, at low altitude, 2km from the nearest proposed turbine location. Myotis bats were recorded at low levels, with on average less than one bat pass per night at all locations except Location 10, a control location on the Elvan Water.

Brown Hare

9.95 Although not surveyed for, a number of brown hare sightings were made across the study area during the surveys.

Evaluation of Faunal Receptors

9.96 An evaluation of the non-avian faunal ecological receptors, which are either known to be present or considered likely to be present within the relevant study areas, is provided in Table 9-7.

ECOLOGY 9


Table 9-7: Evaluation of Non-avian Faunal Receptors

Receptor Legal / Conservation Status Reason for Evaluation Evaluation

Common lizard

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland), as specified in Schedule 5 (partial protection only). SBL Species

The majority of the habitats present on the site such as the heathland and blanket bog, as well as the purple moor grass tussocks are considered to provide suitable habitat for common lizard. These are also habitats which are widespread and relatively common in the wider area. Common lizard is described as being widespread throughout Scotland (SNH 2016d) (with the exception of the Central Lowlands and the Northern Isles). Therefore as lizard presence is expected here, it is not assessed to be of a higher than local value.

Local value

Brown trout SBL species

The fish data found multiple year classes (ages) of brown trout were present in the Elvan and Glengonnar Waters. The trout densities found during the surveys are typical for upper Clyde tributaries. The smaller watercourses which are present within the Site are generally considered to have low value for fish due to their steep narrow nature. Therefore the habitats present are not considered to be of greater than local value for brown trout.

Local value

Brook lamprey SBL Species Brook lamprey were found on one survey location at one location on the Elvan Water (10/07/2015). Technical Appendix 9.5 states that brook lamprey are present in areas of suitable habitat in the upper Clyde area. The species is at least present intermittently in the lower Elvan Water. Whilst this species may be intermittently present in suitable habitat, the majority of the water courses in the study are unlikely to be suitable, due to often being steep, ephemeral and flowing through peaty soils with no gravel substrates. As a result the study area is assessed to be of less than local value to this species.

Less than Local

Otter Protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended in Scotland) Schedule 2. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland), full protection under

Signs of otter were found during the 2015 mammal surveys. Otter signs were found within the study area, including feeding, resting and holt signs. It is therefore considered that otter are present within the study area, and utilise some of the larger burns and rivers as part of a regular territory. Otter occur at

Local value

ECOLOGY 9


Receptor Legal / Conservation Status Reason for Evaluation Evaluation Schedule 5. SBL Species

very low population densities, with the average home range size of a female being around 20km of watercourse and that of a male, around 32km, although the home ranges of some male otters can be considerably larger than this (SNH 2016f). Based on this information, the study area is likely only to support a low number of otter, as the length of suitable watercourses (with food availability) are limited.

Common and soprano pipistrelle Protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended in Scotland) Schedule 2. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland), full protection under Schedule 5. SBL Species

No evidence of roosting bats within at least 200m of the turbine locations. Evaluating the common and soprano pipistrelle populations within the study area is difficult in the absence of published criteria or data on local/regional populations. However as no potential roosting habitat was noted with in the study area, in addition to which the majority of the study area comprises open wind swept habitat, with limited suitable (and sheltered) foraging habitat, the study area is therefore assessed not to be of greater than local value to bats.

Local value

Nyctalus bats (Noctule and Leisler’s bat)

Protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended in Scotland) Schedule 2. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), full protection under Schedule 5. Noctule is an SBL Species

No evidence of roosting bats within 200m of the turbine locations. Bats of the Nyctalus genus were recorded very infrequently across the survey area in addition to which no potential roosting habitat was noted within the study area. The majority of the study area comprises open wind swept habitat, with limited suitable (and sheltered) foraging habitat.

Less than local value

Myotis bat Protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended in Scotland) Schedule 2. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland), full protection under Schedule 5. SBL Species

No evidence of roosting bats within 200m of the turbine locations. Myotis bats were only recorded at very low levels across the study area. The bat pass rate was always low with the highest average within the study area (i.e. excluding control locations) of 0.4 bat passes per night, in addition to which no potential roosting habitat was noted with in the study area. The majority of the study area comprises open wind swept habitat, with limited suitable (and sheltered) foraging habitat.


ECOLOGY 9


Receptor Legal / Conservation Status Reason for Evaluation Evaluation

Nathusius’ Pipistrelle Protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended in Scotland) Schedule 2. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland), full protection under Schedule 5. SBL Species

No evidence of roosting bats within 200m of the turbine locations. No confirmed calls from Nathusius’ pipistrelle were recorded, all were only possible. The three possible records for this species were only made at location 2, a control location outside of the study area. It is therefore assessed that if Nathusius bats are present, they are present sporadically but at a very low density as the study area provides no potential roosting habitat and generally comprises open, wind swept habitats which are likely to provide suboptimal foraging habitat.


Brown Hare SBL species

Small numbers of this species were recorded during the various surveys. Brown hare are described as a widespread species (The Mammal Society 2016). The habitats present within the study area are generally suitable for this species, providing both grazing and shelter. As the habitats present within the study area are also generally common within the wider area, the study area is considered only to be of local value to this species.

Local value

ECOLOGY 9


ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

The Proposed Development Layout Considerations

9.97 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 ecology the following measures were incorporated to avoid or minimise negative effects: • Wind farm infrastructure was located a minimum of 50m from

watercourses, as shown on the 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey mapping, except where the three watercourse crossings are to be located;

• Wind turbines and tracks were located away from areas of Annex 1 habitat, e.g. the blanket bog (M17, M19 and M20) and wet heath (M15) where practicable and where not possible to do this areas of deeper peat were avoided as far as possible; and

• Track length was minimised as far as possible to reduce land take.

Good Practice Measures

Good Practice Mitigation Measures

9.98 Full details of construction mitigation measures would be provided in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) including Construction Method Statements and a Peat Management Plan (PMP) to be agreed with South Lanarkshire Council, in consultation with SNH and SEPA, post-consent but prior to development commencing. A draft CEMP is included as Technical Appendix 3.1 and a draft Soils and Peat Management Plan is included as Technical Appendix 11.2.

Working in Peatland Environments

9.99 During the construction phase, good practice techniques as contained within SNH (2015) will be implemented. Further details are provided in Technical Appendix 3.1: CEMP.

Pre-Construction Surveys

9.100 Due to the time that will have elapsed since the last surveys and the possibility that otter activity could have changed in the intervening period, a pre-construction survey for otter would be undertaken. This would cover all watercourses within 250m of wind farm infrastructure. The results of the pre-construction survey would inform the need for further mitigation with regards to otter in respect of working practices (see below) or to consult with SNH if required.

ECOLOGY 9


Ecological Clerk of Works

9.101 A suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works (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 following tasks: • Give toolbox talks to all staff onsite, e.g. an ecological induction, so

staff are aware of the ecological sensitivities on the Site and the legal implications of not complying with agreed working practices;

• Mark out areas to highlight sensitive areas (e.g. deeper peat); • Undertake pre-construction surveys (otter) and advise on ecological

issues where required; and • Supervision of areas which require reptile mitigation (i.e. supervision

during vegetation clearance). The ECoW may also undertake additional roles such as assisting with water quality monitoring or checking for nesting birds (see Chapter 8: Ornithology and Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and Hydrology).

Common Lizard

9.102 In order to comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended in Scotland) mitigation would be employed to reduce the chances of inadvertently killing or injuring individual common lizards during construction works. Given that large areas of suitable habitat would remain unaffected by the works and given also the large spatial scale of the works, fencing and translocation are not considered appropriate. Proposed mitigation therefore involves habitat management and identification / removal of potential refugia and hibernacula if present. The proposed site speed limit of 15mph would also reduce the likelihood of accidental injury/killing of common lizards by construction traffic.

9.103 Where appropriate and safe to do so, all construction working areas with potentially suitable habitats for reptiles (heath, bog and tussocky grassland) would initially be cut or stripped during the active season for reptiles (April to October), under the guidance of the ECoW, who would search for and remove any suitable refugia prior to cutting. Working areas would then be kept unsuitable for reptiles through regular cutting, as required, until construction in that location commences.

Otter

9.104 During construction, site speed limits of 15mph would reduce the likelihood of accidental injury/killing of otter by construction traffic.

9.105 All potentially dangerous substances or materials within the temporary

construction compound would be carefully stored to prevent them causing any harm to otters which may enter the compound at night. During construction, all excavations greater than 1m depth would either be covered

ECOLOGY 9


at night or designed to include a ramp to allow otters and other animals, a means of escape should they fall in.

Pollution Prevention

9.106 Good practice measures in relation to pollution risk and sediment management are set out in Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and Hydrology and in Technical Appendix 3.1: Outline CEMP.

Re-instatement of Habitats

9.107 Good practice techniques for vegetation and habitat reinstatement would be adopted and implemented on areas subject to disturbance during construction as soon as is practicable. Further information regarding the reinstatement of areas within peatland habitats is provided in Technical Appendix 11.2 Soils and Peat Management Plan.

Construction Effects of the Proposed Development

9.108 Potential effects, assuming that the good practice mitigation measures outlined above are implemented, are addressed for each receptor in turn in paragraphs 9.109 to 9.13.

Habitats

9.109 Impacts on habitats are categorised as follows: • direct habitat loss – this includes habitats present under the footprint of

the development and includes areas which will be subject to cut and fill, grading and potential cable laying; and

• indirect habitat loss – for peatland and marshy grassland habitats which lie within 10m of the direct habitat loss areas; the allowance of 10m is to allow for drying effects and vegetation changes. For other habitats an allowance of 5m is included to allow for possible indirect loss due to damage during construction.

9.110 For the purposes of the assessment a precautionary approach has been

taken which assumes that habitat loss represents a permanent, irreversible negative effect, although in practice some areas may be able to be restored, e.g. during reinstatement following construction.

9.111 Table 9-8 details the estimated direct and indirect land take for all NVC communities identified within the survey area. Annex 1 habitats have been further denoted with an *.

ECOLOGY 9


Table 9-8: Summary of Land Take by NVC Community Type

NVC Community Name Area Within GWDTE / Vegetation Buffer Ha

Direct loss Ha

Indirect loss Ha

Total loss Ha

H12* Calluna vulgaris - Vaccinium myrtillus heath

97.84 6.24 3.3 9.54

H18* Vaccinium myrtillus - Deschampsia flexuosa heath

5.13 0.40 0.2 0.60

M15* Scirpus cespitosus - Erica tetralix wet heath

114.51 8.69 4.49 13.18

Mosaic: M15/M25 1.62 0 0 0

H12/U5 mosaic of dry heath and acid grassland communities

4.82 0.16 0.11 0.27

M17* Scirpus cespitosus - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire

3.08 0.21 0.33 0.54

M19* Calluna vulgaris - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire

50.16 2.53 3.25 5.78

M20* Eriophorum vaginatum blanket and raised mire

56.74 4.41 5.07 9.48

Mosaic of bog communities M20/M19* 14.07 0.07 0.1 0.17


15.05 0.82 0.59 1.41

M25* Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire

52.09 3.03 1.29 4.32


1.02 0.03 0.01 0.04

Mosaics: M23/M25, M25/U5 3.37 0.09 0.08 0.17

U2 Deschampsia flexuosa grassland 3.36 0.63 0.27 0.9

U4 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile grassland

1.07 0.08 0.04 0.12

U5 Nardus stricta – Galium saxatile grassland

1.30 0 0 0


9.12 0.74 0.3 1.04

U20 Pteridium aquilium - Galium saxatile community

2.08 0.22 0.11 0.33

MG6 Lolium perenne – Cynosurus cristatus grassland

3.26 0.18 0.15 0.33

Total Area 446.69 28.53 19.69 48.22

9.112 For heathland communities (wet and dry, including mosaics) total loss would

be 23.59ha and for blanket bog communities the total loss would be 15.97ha (excluding M25 community). For marshy grassland total loss would be 5.94ha and for all other habitats, generally acid grassland habitats and their mosaics, loss would be 2.72ha.

ECOLOGY 9


9.113 The loss of 23.59ha of heathland communities and 15.97ha of blanket bog

communities (albeit drained and drying blanket bog) is considered to constitute a significant negative effect on features of importance at a South Lanarkshire level.

9.114 The marshy grassland and acid grassland communities are widespread and

common in the region. The loss of these habitats is assessed to be not significant.

GWDTE Communities

9.115 Table 9-9 shows the habitat loss (direct and indirect) for all potential GWDTE communities. All communities and their mosaics assessed to be of low or negligible potential groundwater dependency have been excluded from this table.

Table 9-9: Summary of Land Take by Potential GWDTE Status and

Community Type NVC Community Name

Area within GWDTE/vegetation Buffer Ha

Direct loss Ha

Indirect loss Ha

Total loss Ha

Potential dependency

M15 Scirpus cespitosus - Erica tetralix wet heath

114.51 8.69 4.49 13.18 Moderate


15.05 0.82 0.59 1.41 High

M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire

52.09 3.03 1.29 4.32 Moderate


1.02 0.03 0.01 0.04 Moderate

Mosaics: M25/U5 3.37 0.09 0.08 0.17 Moderate


9.12 0.74 0.3 1.04 Moderate

Total 195.16 13.4 6.76 20.16 9.116 The communities above have conferred upon them a potential to have a high

or moderate groundwater dependency. For a detailed assessment of the groundwater dependency of these habitats, with regards to hydrological modelling, please refer to Technical Appendix 13.1 GWDTE Assessment. In summary the GWDTE assessment concludes that: “areas identified as being potentially moderately or highly groundwater dependent are likely to be sustained by incident rainfall and local surface water runoff rather than by groundwater”.

ECOLOGY 9


Fauna

Reptiles – Common Lizard

9.117 Common lizard is present in small numbers within the study area. The construction of turbines and associated infrastructure would result in the direct loss of 28.53ha of land. The loss of this amount of suitable habitat for reptiles is not considered significant, given the relatively low number of lizards thought to be present and the extensive availability of similar habitats, across the study area and wider surrounding area. Indirect loss of habitats has not been considered here, as it is anticipated that areas which are subject to drying or other damage would still be used by common lizard for activities such as basking and potentially foraging.

9.118 Good practice mitigation measures aimed at common lizard (see paragraphs

9.102 and 9.103), would be implemented during the construction phase, to prevent the inadvertent injuring or killing individuals. On the basis that the proposed measures are implemented no significant effects are predicted and no contravention of the relevant legislation is likely.

Otter

9.119 Otter has been recorded within the study area in a number of locations, on the main burns. With regards to the proposed development area most evidence was recorded over 250m from infrastructure locations. All otter holts or resting places recorded during the surveys were located >100m from proposed infrastructure locations. However, these are located on the other side of the main West Coast railway line and A702 and are therefore not likely to be subject to disturbance. Otter could use other watercourses within 250m of the proposed development, although their use is considered likely to be occasional due to the small size of the watercourses and lack of fish and other prey items.

9.120 The loss of predominantly upland habitats and the creation of two watercourse crossings (both on the upper parts of burns which had no recorded otter activity) is not likely to have a significant effect on otter with regards to habitat loss and potential disturbance.

9.121 The death or injury of an otter during construction could have a significant effect on the conservation status of this species. However, following the implementation of the good practice measures outlined above the death or injury to otters during construction is not considered likely.

Bats

9.122 The bat survey results show that the proposed development area was subject to very low levels of usage by bats. Construction would mainly take place during daylight hours during the season when bats are active (April to October, 0700 to 1900 hours). Any disturbance to foraging bats during construction is therefore likely to be minimal and not significant.

ECOLOGY 9


9.123 The infrastructure footprint would cause the direct loss of 28.53ha of upland bog, heath and grassland habitats. The loss of this sub-optimal foraging habitat, when compared with the availability of higher quality foraging habitats within the wider area, e.g. woodland edge habitat, sheltered valleys and riparian habitat, is not likely to have a significant effect on the conservation status of bats.

Habitat Management Plan

9.124 A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) would be produced and agreed with South Lanarkshire Council, in consultation with SNH, prior to development commencing. The HMP would provide compensation for the habitats to be lost during construction and additional nature conservation enhancements that would apply for the lifetime of the wind farm and potentially beyond.

9.125 An Outline HMP is included in Technical Appendix 9.6: Outline Habitat Management Plan with a brief summary of key points provided below. A plan showing the habitat restoration areas referred to below is contained within Technical Appendix 9.6.

9.126 The main aim of the OHMP with regards to non-avian ecology is the

restoration of up to 72 ha of blanket bog habitat in 3 target areas. The three areas targeted for restoration are as follows:

• Area A – adjacent to Glenochar Burn (11 ha) • Area B – adjacent to the River Clyde (12 ha) • Area C – Elvanfoot area (49 ha)

9.127 Restoration will be undertaken through a combination of activities, tailored to each restoration area and including: pre-works drainage slope survey, installation of dip wells, blocking of ditches, and a reduction in grazing pressure.

9.128 Ongoing monitoring will involve vegetation surveys and dipwell monitoring. Initially monitoring will be undertaken in years’ 1 – 5 post restoration, then at five yearly intervals thereafter for the lifetime of the wind farm.

Operational Effects of the Proposed Development

9.129 Operational effects, (assuming that the stated good practice mitigation measures are implemented), are addressed for relevant receptors in paragraphs 9.130 to 9.145.

Habitats

9.130 During the operational phase, no significant effects on retained habitats are predicted. Infrastructure would be in place and only occasional service vehicles would be present on the Site, with the potential for incidents and spillages affecting sensitive habitats considered to be very low. In addition to this good practice measures would be implemented further reducing the risk of an incident occurring.

ECOLOGY 9


Fauna

Common Lizard

9.131 During the operation of the proposed development, only minimal maintenance traffic would be present on the Site and this would be restricted to driving onsite access tracks only, with an applied speed limit. As a result of this no effects upon common lizard are predicted.

Otter

9.132 Human activity associated with wind farm maintenance would be limited to the permanent infrastructure areas and only minimal maintenance traffic would be present, which would be restricted to the access tracks and subject to speed limits. As discussed in the Construction Effects Section, paragraphs 9.119 to 9.121 otter usage of the watercourses within the proposed development area is likely to be occasional at most and therefore the potential for otter to be affected during wind farm operation is therefore very low.

9.133 No hazardous chemicals would be stored on the site during the operational phase, and activities involving excavations would have ceased. During major maintenance events, temporary storage of hazardous chemicals may occur onsite, but would be subject to implementation of standard pollution prevention control measures. As a result there would be limited mechanisms present for causing water pollution.

9.134 Based on the above, and assuming that all stated good practice measures are implemented, no significant effects on otter are considered likely.

Bats

9.135 New guidance on bats and wind turbines in Great Britain is currently in preparation and is due to be published shortly. In the absence of new guidance at this time this assessment is based on existing interim guidance (Natural England 2014) and the recently published findings of a three year study of bats and wind turbines in the UK (Mathews et al. 2016), which are likely to be reflected in the new guidance.

9.136 Mathews et al. (2016) recorded casualty rates of between 0-5.25 bats per turbine per month across a total of 46 commercial wind turbine sites located throughout the UK. No casualties were recorded at one third of the sites included in the study (although this doesn’t necessarily imply that casualties have never occurred at these sites) and it was concluded that casualties are relatively rare events.

9.137 The study found that casualty rates were highly variable, mostly due to site

specific factors. Collision risk was generally lowest at sites with low bat activity but not all differences between sites could be explained by differences in bat activity levels.

ECOLOGY 9


9.138 Natural England (2014) provides information regarding the likely risk to individual bat species and populations from wind turbine strike. The three species highlighted as being at high risk from wind turbines are Leisler’s, noctule and Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Noctule and Leisler’s bats were confirmed during the surveys through call analysis, whereas Nathusius’ presence was not confirmed, but considered to be possible.

9.139 Five static detectors were located within the GWDTE/Vegetation Buffer area

(of a total of 14 used in the wider study area). Of these, four static detectors recorded no high risk species. Only one location (location 7) recorded a high risk species, a single noctule bat pass in September, which averages out as 0.02 passes per night.

9.140 High risk species were also recorded only very infrequently elsewhere within

the study area or at the control locations (a maximum of 0.55 passes per night) indicating that they are also rare within the surrounding area.

9.141 Mathews et al. (2016) found that most bat fatalities at UK wind farms related

to common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle (40.6% and 48.6% of recorded fatalities respectively). The potential impact on common and soprano pipistrelle bats has therefore also been assessed, despite these species being considered at low risk, at a population level, by Natural England (2014).

9.142 The highest numbers of bat passes for common and soprano pipistrelle were

made at the control locations and at Location 12 (2km south of the nearest turbine location). For the remainder of the study area, the average bat passes per night for common and soprano pipistrelle was always less than one. This level of activity represents very low levels of bat activity in the area. As a result a non-significant impact on common or soprano pipistrelle is predicted as a result of the proposed development.

9.143 Myotis bats were also recorded at low levels, with on average less than one

bat pass per night at all locations except Location 10, a control location on the Elvan Water (1.25km from the nearest turbine location). This level of activity represents very low levels of bat activity in the area. Natural England (2014) describes Myotis bats as being at a low level risk from wind turbines. As a result a non-significant impact on Myotis bats is predicted as a result of the proposed development.

9.144 Mathews et al. (2016) conclude that sites with low bat activity are likely to

have significantly fewer bat casualties. They also note though that there can be considerable variability between sites and therefore at this time, at most sites, it is difficult to predict the level of bat casualties with a high degree of certainty.

9.145 The above notwithstanding, the evidence from the surveys indicates that bat

activity levels in the proposed development area (and the wider surrounding area) are very low for all high risk species identified by Natural England (2014), i.e. noctule, Leislers bat and Nathusius’ pipistrelle. The risk of significant numbers of casualties occurring is therefore very low and no significant effects are likely. Common and soprano pipistrelle activity was

ECOLOGY 9


also found to be low within the study area; therefore the risk of significant number of causalities occurring is considered to be low and no significant effects are likely.

Residual Effects

9.146 During the construction phase, the loss of 23.59ha of heathland communities (wet, dry and mosaics) and 15.97ha of blanket bog communities, including mosaics, (albeit drained and drying blanket bog) is considered to constitute a significant negative effect on features of importance at a South Lanarkshire level.

9.147 In order to compensate for this habitat loss, an HMP would be implemented (see Technical Appendix 9.6: Outline Habitat Management Plan). This would include the restoration of up to 72 ha of blanket bog, which would offset the predicted loss of habitat and provide some additional nature conservation enhancement.

9.148 No other effects on habitats are likely to be significant.

9.149 With regards to faunal receptors, assuming the proposed good practice mitigation measures are implemented, no significant residual effects are likely during the construction and operation phases.

Cumulative Effects Assessment

Projects Considered

9.150 When undertaking the cumulative effects assessment it is important to consider only those projects which could potentially contribute to significant cumulative effects with the proposed development. As set out in paragraphs 9.66 – 9.68, for this assessment potential cumulative effects have been assessed for the following receptors and developments: • cumulative effects on aquatic receptors within the same sub-

catchments and within 5km; and • cumulative effects on bat populations, which are possible in

combination with other wind farms within 10km.

9.151 Other projects considered in the cumulative effects assessment are shown in Table 9-11 and on Figure 7.6a. These include all wind farms within the relevant areas which are either operational, under construction, consented or for which a planning application has been submitted. In addition, as requested at the scoping stage, an assessment of potential cumulative effects with the proposed North Lowther Wind Farm has been included based on the limited information available (an application has yet to be submitted for this scheme).

ECOLOGY 9


Table 9-10: Other Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Assessment

Project Status Distance7 Turbines

Andershaw Operational 8.0 11

Clyde Operational 3.7 152

Clyde Extension In Construction 9.7 10

Clyde Extension In Construction 8.3 43

Crookedstane Approved 4.7 5

Glentaggart In Planning 9.9 5

Lion Hill Approved 8.6 4

Middle Muir Approved 7.2 15

North Lowther Scoping 5.0 35

9.152 For the cumulative effects on aquatic receptors, the only potential for significant cumulative effects would be during the construction phase via the discharge of particulate matter into watercourses, or through a pollution incident. Wind farms which are already operational are not likely to give rise to significant cumulative effects and the assessment has therefore been restricted to wind farms within the same catchment which are yet to be constructed.

9.153 The proposed development lies within the Shortcleugh / Elvan Water and

Glengonnar Water sub-catchments of the River Clyde (Figure 13.1). There is no existing or proposed wind farm development in these catchments; cumulative effects in these catchments are therefore not considered further. This assessment is in line with that presented in Chapter 13: Hydrogeology and Hydrology.

9.154 With regards to cumulative effects on bats, all wind farms within 10km have

been considered. In order to fully assess cumulative effects the bat survey data for each wind farm should be reviewed. Data for Crookedstane and Lion Hill were both available. No bat surveys were undertaken at Lion Hill, as the site was considered of such low suitability for bats (foraging and roosting) that surveys were not considered necessary. At Lion Hill, bat surveys confirmed low levels of bat activity particularly associated with woodland edge habitat. Common and soprano pipistrelles were most frequently recorded. A small number of bats from the Myotis genus were also recorded. No ‘high risk’ bat species were recorded.

9.155 For all of the other wind farms within 10km, no or very limited bat data were

readily available and a meaningful assessment of potential cumulative effects is therefore not possible. Given the upland nature of the other sites it is unlikely that any of the other wind farms would give rise to significant negative effects on bats. In turn significant cumulative effects are unlikely,

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

ECOLOGY 9


although this conclusion is subject to some uncertainty, in light of the lack of data for other wind farms and the uncertainty in assessing the site-specific level of risk to bats (see paragraph 9.144).

Further Survey Requirements and Monitoring (if required)

9.156 Monitoring would be undertaken as part of the HMP in order to assess the efficacy of the implemented measures (see paragraph 9.128 and Technical Appendix 9.6: Outline Habitat Management Plan).

Summary of Effects

9.1 Following the avoidance of important receptors during the project design and the implementation of a range of good practice measures and mitigation provided by the HMP, no significant negative effects are predicted during the construction phase.

9.2 With the implementation of continued good practice measures and the ongoing implementation of the HMP, no significant negative effects are predicted during the operational phase.

9.3 Table 9-11 provides a summary of the effects, mitigation and residual effects.

ECOLOGY 9


Table 9-11: Summary of Effects

Predicted Effect Good Practice measures

Significance Additional Mitigation

Residual Significance

Construction

Loss (temporary and permanent) of up to 23.59ha heathland habitats and up to 15.97ha blanket bog habitats of value at a South Lanarkshire level

Implementation of an HMP which includes for restoration of peatland habitats.

Significant at a South Lanarkshire level

Restoration of up to 72 ha of peatland habitat as part of HMP

Not significant

Temporary and permanent loss of up to 8.66ha of non-peatland habitats.

Reinstatement of habitats subject to temporary loss.

Not significant

None Not significant

Loss of up to 28.53ha of low value habitat for common lizard and bats

Reinstatement of habitats subject to temporary loss

Not significant

None Not significant

Inadvertent killing or injury of common lizard or otter

Pre-construction surveys Measures to make habitat unsuitable (common lizard) Site speed limits Covering/ramping of excavations

Not significant

None Not Significant

Operation

Bats – Collision with moving turbines / barotrauma

n/a Not significant

None Not Significant

References

Averis, A., Averis, B., Birks, J., Horsfield, D., Thompson, D., & Yeo, M., (2004), An Illustrated Guide to British Upland Vegetation, c.470, figs, B5 softback, ISBN 1 86107 553 7

BARS. (2012). Biodiversity Action Reporting System [Previously available on Line] Available at: [www.ukbap-reporting.org.uk] [Accessed 20/11/14]

Chanin P (2003) Ecology of the European Otter. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers, Ecology Series No. 10. English Nature, Peterborough.

ECOLOGY 9


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

Hundt L. (2012) Bat Conservation Trust. Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition.

JNCC (2010). Joint Nature Conservation Committee Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. A technique for environmental audit. Revised re-print. JNCC, Peterborough.

JNCC (2011) UKBAP priority habitats. [On Line] Available at: <http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf> [Previously accessed and downloaded14/10/13]

JNCC (2016) UK Biodiveristy Partnership (2007) species and habitats lists [On line] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5705 [Accessed 20 November 2016]

Langton, T.E.S., Beckett, C.L., and Foster, J.P. (2001), Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook, Froglife, Halesworth.

Maddock, A (eds) (2008) UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions [On line] Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/UKBAPPriorityHabitatDescriptionsfinalAllhabitats 20081022.pdf [Accessed April 2015]

Mathews F., Richardson S., Linott P. and Hosken D. (2016) Understanding the risk to European protected species (bats) at onshore wind turbine sites to inform risk management. Final report. University of Exeter.

Natural England (2014) Technical Information Note TIN051 Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim Guidance. Third Edition.

Neal E. and Cheesman C. (2006) Badgers. Poyser Natural History, Cambridge, UK.

Reeve, I D (2004). The removal of the North American signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) from the River Clyde. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 020 (ROAME No. F00LI12). Rodwell J.S (Editor) (1991 et seq.) British Plant Communities. Cambridge University Press.

Rodwell, J.S, (2006), NVC Users' Handbook, 68 pages, ISBN 978 1 86107 574 1

Russ, J. (2012) British Bat Calls: A guide to species identification, Pelagic Publishing, ISBN 978-1907807251

Scottish Executive (2013) Scottish Government Scottish Biodiversity List SBL [online] Available at: www.scotland.gov.uk [Accessed 06 August 2016].

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5705

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/UKBAPPriorityHabitatDescriptionsfinalAllhabitats%2020081022.pdf

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/UKBAPPriorityHabitatDescriptionsfinalAllhabitats%2020081022.pdf

ECOLOGY 9


Scottish Renewables, SNH, SEPA and Forestry Commission Scotland (2010) Good practice during wind farm construction Version 3. [Online] Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/onshore-wind/good-practice-during-wind farm-const/ [Accessed 20 November 2016]

SEPA (2014). Guidance on Assessing the Impacts of Development Proposals on Groundwater Abstractions and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems. Land Use Planning System SEPA Guidance Note 31 (LUPS – GN31). Version 1 Issued 07 October 2014.

SFCC (2007) Habitat Surveys, Training Course manual, Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre. [On line] Available at: http://www.sfcc.co.uk/ [Accessed 15 November 2016].

SNH (2015) Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction. [On line] Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1168678.pdf> [Accessed 09 January 2017]

SNH (2016) Otters and Development, Scottish Wildlife Series. [On line] Available at: http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/wildlife/otters/biology.asp> [Accessed 04 January 2017]

SNH (2016a) SNH general pre-application/scoping advice to developers of onshore wind farms. [on line] Available at: < http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1150291.pdf> [Accessed 07 November 2016]

SNH (2016b) Planning for development: What to consider and include in Habitat management Plans. Guidance, Version 2 March 2016.

SNH (2016c) Interactive map showing species and places. [Online] Available at http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and-research/snhi-information-service/map/ [Accessed 20 November 2016]

SNH (2016d) Information in reptiles [online] Available at: <http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/amphibians-and-reptiles/reptiles/> [accessed 20 November 2016]

SNH (2016e) Assessing the impacts of developments (otters) [On line] Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/wildlife-and-you/otters/assessing/> [Accessed 20 November 2016].

SNH (n.d.) Upland heathland (UK BAP Priority Habitat). [On Line] Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1509891.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2017]

South Lanarkshire Biodiversity Partnership (2010) South Lanarkshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan [Online] Available at: http://www.southlanarkshirebiodiversity.co.uk/ [Accessed 22 November 2016]

Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T. & Gelling, M. (2011) Water vole Conservation Handbook (third edition). WildCRu: Oxford.

http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/onshore-wind/good-practice-during-windfarm-const/

http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/onshore-wind/good-practice-during-windfarm-const/

http://www.sfcc.co.uk/

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1168678.pdf

http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/wildlife/otters/biology.asp


http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and-research/snhi-information-service/map/

http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/amphibians-and-reptiles/reptiles/

http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/amphibians-and-reptiles/reptiles/

http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/wildlife-and-you/otters/assessing/


http://www.southlanarkshirebiodiversity.co.uk/

ECOLOGY 9


The Mammal Society (2016) Species Fact Sheets, Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus). [On line] Available at: http://www.mammal.org.uk/sites/default/files/factsheets/brown_hare_complete.pdf. [Accessed 06 January 2017]

http://www.mammal.org.uk/sites/default/files/factsheets/brown_hare_complete.pdf

Documents

Environmental Statement Section Template (UK) · hydrological connection or other pathway for effects. This approach was agreed with SNH during scoping consultation (Table 9-1). ECOLOGY