ornithology - inverclyde wind farm wind farm environmental statement inverclyde renewables llp...

Inverclyde Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Inverclyde Renewables LLP

Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 8: Ornithology 8 - 1 ENVIRON

Ornithology8Introduction 8.1 This Chapter assesses the effects of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm development on

birds. Together with Chapter 7: Ecology it completes the assessment of the effects of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm development on the natural heritage.

8.2 The chapter considers the likely potential significant effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm on ornithological receptors. The specific objectives of the assessment were to:

identify designated sites and habitats in the vicinity of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm which may be affected by or connected to the proposed wind farm;

identify the presence/possible presence of protected terrestrial bird species and other species of particular conservation value;

describe the likely potential effects, including direct, indirect and secondary and cumulative effects as a result of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm both during construction and once completed;

describe the mitigation measures that have been put forward in order to avoid or reduce effects; and

assess the significance of residual effects that are likely to remain following implementation of mitigation and restoration measures.

8.3 The assessment uses data from specifically commissioned surveys in 2011-2012 and information and data from organisations and individuals with local knowledge who responded to consultations on the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm to form a comprehensive presentation of baseline ornithological conditions. Bird names used in this chapter follow the vernacular names recommended by the British Ornithologists' Union. These datasets were also used to highlight ornithological constraints and subsequently inform the iterative layout design process of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm.

8.4 This chapter and the impact assessment described within have been undertaken by:

Mike Austin, Ecologist - Author

Nick Wright, BSc (Hons), MRes, ACIEEM - Author

Kate Kennedy - BSc (Hons), ACIEEM - Author

Dr Rhys Bullman - BSc (Hons), PhD - Principal Ornithologist - Reviewer

8.5 The main assessment is supported by the following appendices:

Technical Appendix 8.1: Ornithology

Legislation and Policy Context

International Legislation and Policy 8.6 This assessment takes into account the requirements of the following international legislation,

regulations and other guidance:

Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (EU Birds Directive; the codified version of Directive 79/409/EEC);

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (the "Habitats Directive");

National Legislation and Policy 8.7 This assessment takes into account the requirements of the following national legislation,

regulations and other guidance:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2012 (as regards reserved matters in Scotland);

Planning Advice Note (PAN) 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2000;

IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006)1

Scottish Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011;

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003;

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2012;

Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004;

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (EIA Regulations);

Scottish Executive Ecological Advisers Unit Guidance (ref EJ K1-3);

Scottish Executive Interim Guidance on European Protected Species Development Sites and the Planning System (2001);

Scottish Planning Policy (2010);

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes (2001)2;

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), FCS Good practice during wind farm construction (2010)3;

1 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK. IEEM, Winchester. 2 Scottish Natural Heritage (2001) Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale Hydroelectric Schemes 3 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Land use Planning System Guidance Note



ENVIRON 8 – 2 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 8: Ornithology

Scottish Government National Planning Policy: Renewable energy advice on onshore wind turbines (2011)4; and

Scottish Biodiversity List

8.8 In particular it is noted that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, it is an offence with only limited exceptions, to:

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

intentionally or recklessly take, interfere with or destroy the egg of any wild bird; or

intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at (or near) a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

Regional Policy and Guidance 8.9 This assessment takes into account the relevent ecological and environmental objectives of the

Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park Authority. These objectives are;

To conserve and enhance the natural beauty. biodiversity and cultural heritage of Clyde Muirshiel Park.

To promote and foster environmentally sustainable development for the social and economic well-being of the people and communities within the Clyde Muirshiel Park area.

Local Policy East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire & Inverclyde Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)5.

8.10 The following bird species are listed as priority species within the East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire and Inverclyde Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) 2007:

Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus)

House sparrow (Passer domensticus)

Lesser whitethroat (sylvia curruca)

Issues Identified During Consultation 8.11 Table 8.1 outlines those responses to the scoping report issued January 2013 specifically

relating to ornithology alongside subsequent consultations.

4 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00405870.pdf 5 http://www.inverclyde.gov.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAA1ADIAOAA2AHwAfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0

Table 8.1 Issues identified during consultation

Consultee Issue Where/How this is addressed

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), response to scoping report (1st March 2013), ref. CNS/REN/WF/Greenock – CEA120383

Any Habitat Management Plan deemed necessary in light of ornithological survey results should concentrate on improving habitats for bird’s outwith the turbine envelope to provide better breeding/feeding/hunting habitat as a buffer around the wind farm to lessen risk of attracting birds into the turbine envelope. wind farm construction may impact on nesting birds. All birds nests are fully protected from damage, destruction or interference under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) whilst they are in use or being built. The ES needs to provide detailed information on any mitigation measures proposed with respect to nesting birds. The implications of any change in land management practice should also be considered and presented in relation to the bird species that breed within or use the proposed wind farm site.

Assessment of survey results did not consider a HMP to be necessary, however it was later requested by SNH. See response dated (4th March 2013) See potential effects sections 8.114 -8.180. See mitigation sections 8.181-8.195 See Table 8.17 for summary of effects and proposed mitigation for VORs.

RSPB, response to scoping report (4th March 2013)

We consider that this proposal may impact on Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA and that the SNH (2006) guidance should be used in conjunction with guidance for these specific designations. We wish to see historical records of breeding hen harriers examined, there are previous records of hen harrier nesting 100m west of the site boundary and within the heart of the site itself. We are currently experiencing a long-term crash in field-vole numbers but it is hoped and anticipated when vole numbers increase, hen harrier nesting success within the area would improve and historic sites may be re-colonised. The Environmental Statement should include full details of any proposed mitigation measures. We would ask that a Habitat Management Plan be prepared for the scheme, which would secure biodiversity objectives.

HMP proposed as requested by SNH. Assessment of survey results did not consider a HMP to be necessary. See potential effects sections 8.114 -8.180. See mitigation sections 8.181-8.195 See Table 8.17 for summary of effects and proposed mitigation for VORs.

SNH (Andrew MacGregor), by email (9th and 10th April 2013)

SNH provided summary information relating to the status and success of breeding hen harriers within the Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA

See potential effects sections 8.114 -8.180.




Assessment Methodology

Baseline Characterisation 8.12 In accordance with SNH guidance (SNH 2005)6, the desk study, field surveys and impact

assessment were all focused on bird species of conservation importance. For the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, species were regarded as being of conservation importance if they were at least one of the following:

bird species listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive;

bird species listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

bird species that are qualifying features of the conservation designated sites within up to 20 km of the proposed development;

regularly occurring migratory species where the UK holds an internationally-important proportion of the European population;

bird species that are Red- or Amber-listed in the UK's Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)7;

bird species identified as priorities on the Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL); and/or

bird species identified as priorities in the Inverclyde LBAP.

8.13 Species which met one or more of the above criteria, and which were identified as being associated with the proposed wind farm site (e.g. via the desk study or field surveys), formed the group of target species for this assessment.

Method of Assessment Desk Study

8.14 A detailed desk study searched for information on all International/European and national designated sites (i.e. SPAs, Ramsar Sites, SSSIs, and National Nature Reserves (NNRs)) within 20 km of the site (20 km being the recognised regular maximum foraging range of geese and is based on SNH's SPA connectivity guidance (SNH 2012a8)). The search also sought to identify all other statutory and non-statutory designated sites (e.g. Local Council Nature Sites (LCNS) and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)) within 10 km of the proposed site boundary.

8.15 Information was sourced using internet resources such as SNH's Sitelink website9 and the Joint Nature Conservancy Council (JNCC) website10 as well as Inverclyde Council's website5. All identified sites were mapped using ArcMap10.

6 Scottish Natural Heritage (2005). Survey Methods for use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore Wind Farms on Bird Communities.

November 2005 (revised December 2010). 7 Eaton M.A, Brown A.F, Noble D.G, Musgrove A.J,Hearn R.D, Aebischer N.J, Gibbons D.W, Evans A and Gregory R.D (2009) Bird of

Conservation Concern 3: The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 102 8 http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A675474.pdf 9 http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi

Field Surveys

8.16 A range of baseline field surveys were undertaken between March 2011 and November 2012 to identify the bird populations using the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm and suitable buffers surrounding it, in terms of breeding and wintering populations and overall flight activity (see Table 8.2). The study areas over which the different surveys were undertaken are shown in Figure 8.2. The following sections provide a summary of the methods used for each survey; whilst full details of methods and timings of visits for each survey are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1.

Table 8.2 Schedule of Bird Surveys Undertaken for Inverclyde Wind Farm

Survey Month

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Flight activity

2011 x x x x x x x x x x

2012 x x x x x x x x

Whooper swan flight activity

2011

2012 x

Breeding raptors

2011 x x x x

2012 x x x

Moorland breeding birds

2011 x x x

2012 x x x x

Black grouse

2011

2012 x x

Winter walkover

2011 x x

2012 x x x

Barn owl 2011 x x

2012

Flight Activity Surveys

8.17 Flight activity surveys were carried out at the site over one full year between 24 March 2011 and 30 August 2012 and followed the standard guidelines for conducting baseline ornithological surveys for onshore wind farms (SNH 2005)6. These surveys, which are designed to record the flight activity of birds using the airspace over the application site and the spatial and temporal variation in that usage, were conducted from two suitably elevated vantage points (VPs), the details of which are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1.

8.18 Given the proximity of the site to areas which are of recognised importance to migrating waterfowl (e.g. Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA) survey effort was increased to account for

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




potential increased flight activity during the autumn and spring passage periods in accordance with SNH guidance (SNH 2005)6. As such, a minimum of 36 hours of survey effort was completed in each season as follows;

Spring/Summer 2011 (March - August):69 hours

Winter 2011/12 (September 2011 - February 2012): 69 hours;

Spring/Summer 2012 (March - August 2012): 72 hours

8.19 As per SNH (2005) guidance, approximately 50 percent of these surveys were split between dusk and dawn surveys, and the remaining 50 percent were day surveys. Further details can be found in Table 1 of Technical Appendix 8.1.

8.20 The information collected on key target species flying over the site and the adjacent airspace was used to estimate the number of individuals per species, and the spatial and temporal activities, of birds flying within this 3-dimensional area. For onshore wind farm EIAs, this information is commonly used to undertake collision risk modelling (CRM) for species with a sufficient number of flight events recorded, based on the SNH recommended standard Band et al. (2007) method11, further details of which are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1.

Whooper Swan Surveys

8.21 In order to provide further flight activity information on the possible use of the airspace of the proposed development area at Inverclyde by whooper swan (the qualifying feature of the Black Cart SPA), further targeted vantage point surveys were carried out during the main autumn migration period for this species (November). A total of 6 hours at each VP was carried out in November 2012 and consisted of two dusk and two dawn surveys.

Barn Owl Surveys

8.22 This survey was designed to assess whether barn owls were using the site. All potential habitat (i.e. farm buildings, steadings and derelict buildings, and avoiding dense woodland) was searched for evidence of occupancy and/or nesting12.

8.23 Survey visits of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm and a surrounding 2 km buffer were undertaken in April and June 2011.

Black Grouse Surveys

8.24 This survey was designed to establish whether black grouse were using the habitat within and around the study area and, if so, whether birds were performing breeding display behaviour (lekking). The black grouse survey was designed to follow the methods of the 1995-96 National Survey (outlined in Hancock et al. 1999, and summarised in Gilbert et al. 1998)1314.

11 Band, W., Madders, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007) Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In,

de Lucas, M., Jans, G. & Ferrer, M. (eds), Birds and Wind Power, Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

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

13 Hancock, M., Baines, D., Gibbons, D., Etheridge, B. & Shepherd., M. 1999. Status of male black grouse Tetrao tetrix in Britain in 1995-96. Bird Study, 46, 1-15.

14 Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D. W. & Evans, J. 1998. Bird Monitoring Methods: A Manual of Techniques for Key UK Species. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Breeding Raptor Surveys

8.25 The proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm plus a 2 km buffer zone (Figure 8.2) was surveyed for all breeding raptor (and owl) species in 2012. Target species were any Annex 1 (EU Birds Directive) and Schedule 1 (Wildlife and Countryside Act) listed species. Visits were carried out under a SNH Schedule 1 license.

8.26 Species-specific survey protocols followed the guidelines as set out by Hardey et al. (2009) 12 Surveys were conducted in areas of suitable habitat within 2 km of the site from 17 March to 25 July in 2011 and 27 April to 31 July in 2012. Areas of suitable habitat included trees along the forest edge and older stands of trees within the forest, heather moor and other areas of open habitat, craggy rock faces and cliffs, and steep sided burns.

8.27 Surveyors repeatedly stopped to scan for birds whilst undertaking walkover surveys, and the location of any nest sites, or nesting / territorial activity of raptors was recorded. Full details of the survey methods are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1.

Moorland Breeding Bird Surveys

8.28 Surveys were undertaken in areas of open habitat (e.g. moorland and other non-forested areas) within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm and a surrounding 500 m buffer (Figure 8.2). Survey visits were undertaken between April and mid-July and followed the methodology detailed in Brown & Shepherd (1993)15. Full details of the survey methodology are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1.

8.29 Further details of the survey timings and methods are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1.

Winter Walkover Surveys

8.30 To assess bird occurrence and abundance on the site over the winter period, five winter walkover surveys were completed between October 2011 and March 2012 in accordance with the SNH guidance6. The area covered includes the site plus a 500 m buffer (Figure 8.2). Full details of the survey methodology are provided in Technical Appendix 8.1.

Survey Limitations 8.31 The black grouse survey was not carried out strictly following the methods of the 1995-96

National Survey16. Consequently a follow up black grouse survey was carried out for May 2013 to adhere to the correct survey methodology. No presence of the species was recorded.

Significance Criteria 8.32 Assessment of the significance of effects on ornithological interests follows the general

assessment methodology set out in Chapter 2: EIA Process and Methodology, and is also broadly based on the staged process outlined in the ecological impact assessment guidelines from the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 20051). In the most

15 Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K.B. (1993) A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird Study 40: 189-195. 16 Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D. W. & Evans, J. 1998. Bird Monitoring Methods: A Manual of Techniques for Key UK Species. Royal Society for the

Protection of Birds.




recent 2006 version of these guidelines, a more flexible system is advocated that allows for a greater degree of professional judgment by the ecologist when assessing the significance of effects. In the present assessment, the 2005 IEEM method was followed as outlined below.

8.33 The stages in the assessment are as follows:

determine the nature conservation value of the ornithological interests present within the study area;

identify the potential effects based on the nature of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm;

determine the scale and magnitude of those effects;

determine the significance of those effects based on the magnitude and duration of the effects on the nature conservation value of the bird populations affected;

identify and assess mitigation measures required to address significant adverse effects; and,

determine the significance of any residual effects once the benefits of the prescribed mitigation measures have been assessed.

8.34 Evaluation of the ornithological resources identified by the baseline studies as Valued Ornithological Receptors (VORs) has been guided by the 2006 revision of the IEEM Guidelines. In accordance with these Guidelines, the importance of each VOR has been assessed in relation to the conservation status of the species over the full range of geographical scales as listed below (Table 8.3). These correspond with the categories of importance defined in the significance matrix (Table 8.6). Evaluating the VORs of the site was also informed by the following guidelines:

Assessing Significance of effects from Onshore Wind Farms on Birds Outwith Designated Areas. Scottish Natural Heritage, July 2006; and

Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Joint Nature Conservation, Committee, 1995.

8.35 In addition, evaluation of each VOR takes into account all qualifying species of designated sites within 20 km of the site (Table 8.9).

8.36 These criteria are intended as a guide and are not definitive. Attributing a value to a receptor is generally straightforward in the case of designated sites, as the designations themselves are normally indicative of a value level. For example, a species designated within an SPA under the Habitats Directive is implicitly of European (i.e. International) importance. In non-designated areas, various conservation criteria can be used (e.g. Annex 1, Birds of Conservation Concern, BAP species) alongside professional judgement when attributing a level of value to a particular species or individual habitat. In these cases, reference has also been made to respective national and regional populations, and population trends.

Table 8.3 Approach to Classifying Nature Conservation Value of the Ornithological Receptors at the Site

Conservation Importance (Sensitivity)

Conservation Value Examples

High International An internationally designated site (e.g. SPA) as designated under the Birds Directive or Ramsar, candidate sites, qualifying features connected to a nearby SPA, or an area meeting the criteria for an international designation. A regularly occurring, nationally important population of any species listed under Annex I of the EU Birds Directive, or regularly occurring migratory species connected to an SPA designated for this species under the Birds Directive.

National A nationally designated site, or area meeting criteria for national level designations (e.g. SSSI). A regularly occurring, regionally important population of any species listed as a UK BAP priority species and species listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Annex I of the EU Birds Directive. A nationally-rare species (<300 breeding pairs in the UK).

Medium Regional A regularly occurring, locally important population of any nationally important species listed as a UK BAP priority species and species listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Annex I of the Birds Directive. Sites which exceed the local authority-level designations but fall short of SSSI selection guidelines. A species for which a significant proportion (>1 %) of the regional population is found within the site. Significant presence LBAP species populations, where the action plan states that all areas of representative habitat or individuals of the species should be protected. A feature within the Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park which is cited in the CMRP’s Framework Guidance Document

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

Local All other species that are widespread and common and which are not present in locally, regionally or nationally important numbers which are considered to be of limited conservation importance (e.g. UK Birds of Conservation Concern Green List species).

Negligible Negligible Commonplace species of little or not conservation significance. Loss of such a species from the site would not be seen as detrimental to the ecology of the area.




Characterisation of effects 8.37 The potential effects are determined through understanding how each VOR responds to the

proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm. The elements used to define the scale of the effect of a wind farm include determining:

character of effect, to be described as; adverse/neutral/beneficial,; temporary/permanent; and direct/indirect/secondary;

- the potential duration, whether short-term (< 5years), medium-term (5-15 years) or long-term (15-25 years or longer);

- timing and frequency; whether the effects would be timed at a sensitive period, or the frequency will alter the effects;

- reversibility; whether the effects would be reversible in the short to medium term; - confidence in predictions; whether the predicted effect is certain / near certain (>95%),

probable (50 - 95%), unlikely (5 - 50%), or extremely unlikely (<5%) to occur; - whether the effect would potentially affect the long-term viability of a habitat or

population of species; and

- whether there are any cumulative effects that may affect the long-term integrity of the ecosystem(s) at the site.

Table 8.4 Defining the Magnitude of Effect on Valued Ornithological Receptors

Effect Magnitude Definition

Total / Near Total Would cause the regional loss of all, or a major proportion of a habitat or numbers of species’ within a regional population, or cause sufficient damage to immediately affect long-term viability. .

High Major effects on the feature / population which would have a sufficient effect to alter the nature of the feature in the short- to long- term and affect its long-term viability. For example, more than 20% regional habitat loss or long-term damage, or more than 20 % loss of a regional species’ population.

Medium Effects that are detectable in short -and medium- term, but which should not alter the long-term viability of the feature / population. For example, between 10-20 % regional habitat loss or 10-20% reduction of a species’ regional population

Low Minor effects, either of sufficiently small-scale or of short duration to cause no long-term harm to the habitat / population. For example, 9 % or less regional loss or damage..

Neutral A potential effect that is not expected to affect the habitat / population in any way

Assessment of Significance of Effects 8.38 The significance of the potential effects on each VOR is determined by considering the value of

each nature conservation interest and the degree to which it may be affected (the effect magnitude) by the proposed wind farm, i.e. by using the Tables 8.3 and 8.4 above. These are described as Major, Moderate, Minor and Negligible (Table 8.5). This is presented as a matrix (Table 8.6).

Table 8.5 Description of Significance Criteria

Significance Level Criteria

Major Only adverse effects are assigned this level of importance as they represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated with sites and features of international, national or regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging effect and loss of resource integrity. A major change at a regional or district scale site or feature may also enter this category.

Moderate These beneficial or adverse effects while important at a local scale are not likely to be key decision making issues. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such issues may influence decision making if they lead to an increase in the overall adverse effects on a particular area or on a particular resource.

Minor These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors but are unlikely to be of critical importance in the decision making process. Nevertheless they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the Scheme and consideration of mitigation or compensation measures.

Negligible No effect or an effect which is beneath the level of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. Such effects are not normally considered by the decision maker.

Significance Level Criteria

Table 8.6 Significance of the Effects Defined by the Relationship between the Receptor Sensitivity and Effect Magnitude

Effect Magnitude

Conservation Value/ Receptor Sensitivity

International High National High Regional Medium Local Low Negligible

Total / Near Total

Major Major Major Moderate Minor

High Major Major Major-Moderate Moderate Minor

Medium Major - Moderate Moderate Moderate - Minor Minor Minor

Low Moderate- Moderate-Minor Minor Minor Minor

Neutral None / Negligible Effects

8.39 Effects or residual effects are considered to be significant under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (EIA Regulations) if they are at a level of Moderate or Major significance, as shown in Table 8.6.

8.40 Some combinations of receptor sensitivity and effect magnitude may vary in the level of significance depending on the circumstances, which is why some of the cells in Table 8.6 have two levels within them. This allows for professional judgment to be applied when identifying the level of significance.

8.41 Effects / residual effects determined as negligible or minor are not considered to be significant with regard to the EIA regulations.

8.42 The significance levels generated from Table 8.6 were then assessed against the likelihood of such predictions occurring, and the confidence level of the effect on a population, based on




expert judgment and evidence from the existing literature. A scale of confidence, as recommended by IPCC (2005)17 can then be used:

Virtually certain: > 99 % probability of occurrence;

Very likely: > 90 % probability;

Likely: > 66 % probability;

About as likely as not: 33-66 % probability;

Unlikely: < 33 % probability;

Very unlikely: < 10 % probability; and

Exceptionally unlikely: < 1 % probability.

8.43 Where the assessment criteria arrives at an effect of variable significance (e.g. 'Major or Moderate') then the outcome is defined either by taking a precautionary, worst case scenario approach or, where possible, by applying professional judgment taking into consideration specialist knowledge of the receptor in question and confidence in the prediction.

8.44 The issue of what is a 'tolerable' level of effect has not been specifically defined, although it is generally accepted that populations or habitats usually have a threshold for absorbing deterioration and a certain capacity for self-regeneration. Therefore to be tolerable (and thus avoiding a significant effect), it should be demonstrated that the magnitude of any losses is within the regenerative capacity of the reference population or habitat to be absorbed, and result in the population or habitat extent remaining viable over the long-term.

8.45 The effects on a species may be assessed at a number of scales, ranging from local or regional to national or even international. Where an identified effect is not considered significant at a national level for instance, it may be so at a regional level. The main focus on the impact assessment will however be at the wider spatial levels (i.e. regional, national or international), which corresponds with SNH policy (2005)6 which states that: "SNH will not normally object to a wind farm proposal on account of purely local impacts, if the impacts are not avoidable by reasonable means, if they do not result in any wider impact on the regional population, and provided the impacts do not affect populations protected within a designated site". These conditions highlighted by SNH have been considered in the impact assessment process so that no potentially significant effects are omitted.

Baseline Conditions

Sources of Data 8.46 The predicted effect of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm on VORs was assessed based on

information in the published scientific literature and expert judgement.

8.47 Estimations of the possible extent and duration of effects are based on studies and key review papers in the scientific literature on ornithology and wind farms18 (Drewitt and Langston,

17 IPCC (2005). Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties. Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, July 2005.

200619). Disturbance and displacement distance ranges used in this assessment have been based on published papers including Ruddock and Whitfield (2007)20 and Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009)21. Estimations of regional populations have been gathered and interpreted from most recent published reports such as Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme annual reports e.g. Etheridge et al. (201222) and Forrester et al. (2007)23.

Current Baseline Desk Study and Consultation

8.48 Ornithological data on the site and its surroundings were collated from a range of existing sources (Table 8.7).

8.49 Sites designated for their nature conservation interests were identified up to 20 km from the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm. Further details of the sites designated for their ornithological interests are provided below (see Table 8.8).

8.50 In terms of ornithological value of the site itself, this was generally considered to be low and was expected to support a reasonably limited variety of common bird species throughout the year.

Table 8.7 Desk-based Consultation to Obtain Background Ornithological Data

Source Consultation and information obtained

National Biodiversity Network (NBN Gateway)

Data were downloaded from the Gateway for the surrounding area. These data are at 10 km resolution and do not contain breeding evidence. Although of limited value, the data provide some contextual information to support the baseline information.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and RSPB

Summary data on the status of hen harriers in relation to Inverclyde Wind Farm were provided. Data on osprey was requested but has not yet been received.

Black grouse study group Data on the location and status of black grouse within 5 km of proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm has been requested.

Designated Sites

8.51 There are no statutory sites located within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm boundary.

8.52 There are four designated sites within 20 km of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm; three of these are International/European sites (Table 8.8).

18 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. (2003). Wind Farms and Birds: an Analysis of the Effects of Wind Farms on Birds and Guidance on

Environmental Assessment Criteria and Site Selection Issues. BirdLife International report to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 59 pp.

19 DREWITT, A.L. and LANGSTON, R.H.W., 2008. Collision Effects of Wind-power Generators and Other Obstacles on Birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134(1 The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2008)

20 Ruddock, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007). A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird Species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage.

21 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. (2009). The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46 (6): 1323 - 1331.

22 Etheridge et all (2012) Scottish Raptor Monitoring Annual Report - http://www.scottishraptorstudygroup.org/srms.html 23 Forrester, R. W., Andrews, I. J., McInerny. C. J., Murray, R. D., McGowan, R. Y., Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M.W., Jardine, D.C. & Grundy, D.S.

(eds) (2007). The Birds of Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady




8.53 These designated sites and their location in relation to the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm are presented in Figure 8.3.

Table 8.8 Statutory and Non-statutory Designated Sites within up to 20 km of Inverclyde

Designated Site Distance Qualifying features

Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA 2.5 km S SPA designated for hen harrier. For both breeding and wintering, 10 females between 1998 and 2004 -2% of the UK population

Inner Clyde SPA, SSSI and Ramsar 4.4 km NE SPA designated for wintering population of redshank. The Inner Clyde regularly supports nationally important wintering populations of several species of waterfowl, including redshank, red-throated diver, cormorant, eider, goldeneye, red-breasted merganser and oystercatcher.

Black Cart SPA 18 km SE This SPA regularly supports a wintering population of European importance of the Annex 1 species whooper swan Cygnus cygnus (average winter peak mean of 207 individuals between 1993 and 1997, 4% of GB and 1% of total Icelandic population). The population forages over the entire Black Cart SPA, roosts on the open water and uses the area as a severe winter refuge.

Castle Semple and Barr Lochs SSSI 15 km S The lochs are separated by the marshland vegetation of Aird Meadow and are surrounded by a number of fringing woodland and willow carr areas – all of which provide nesting habitat for a wide range of breeding bird species including great-crested grebe, teal, shoveler, tufted duck and water rail.

Field Survey Results Flight Activity Surveys

8.54 Twenty-one target species (as defined in section 2 of Technical Appendix 8.1) were recorded during the flight activity surveys between March 2011 and August 2012 (Table 8.9, Figure 8.2 and, Figures 8.4 to 8.6). Total numbers of each target species observed during flight activity surveys are shown in Table 8.9, and each species is discussed below in relation to its pattern of flight activity and susceptibility to turbine collisions. Species for which collision risk modelling was undertaken are shown in Table 8.9 in bold. Further details and a summary of the raw survey data are presented in Technical Appendix 8.1.

8.55 Collision risk modelling was only undertaken for species for which three or more independent 'at risk' flight events occurred throughout the entire survey period, as it was considered that reliable predictions of collision risk were unlikely for fewer events. A bird was considered to be "at risk" if flying over the wind farm polygon (WP) at Potential Collision Height (PCH) (20-150 m above ground).

8.56 Flight events are split between breeding and non-breeding periods. The breeding season period is classed as April to August inclusive for wildfowl, mid-March (nominally March 15th) to the end of August inclusive for raptors, and mid-March to July inclusive for waders (apart from golden plover, for which it is mid-April to July inclusive).

8.57 Of the target species, greylag goose had the most recorded flight events (at 14), with hen harrier (at 13), and curlew (at 13) also being frequently recorded during these surveys. All other target species recorded fewer than 10 individual flight events during the surveys. As stated above, collision risk for species with fewer than three 'at risk' flights would be low. Thus species for which CRM was undertaken were greylag goose, whooper swan, hen harrier, osprey and peregrine.

Table 8.9 The Total Number of Each Target Species Observed during the Flight Activity Surveys, Along with the Number Considered to be Potentially at Risk of Turbine Collision

Species Season*

Tota

l no.

of

Flig

ht E

vent

s (a

ll VP

s)

Tota

l Tim

e in

Fl

ight

(sec

)

Tota

l no.

of

Bird

s

No.

of B

irds

at

PCH

No.

of B

irds

at

PCH

with

in W

P

No.

of F

light

Ev

ents

for C

RM

WILDFOUL

Whooper swan non-breeding 6 10650 96 96 36 3

Greylag goose breeding 1 180 2 2 0 0

non-breeding 13 68460 270 270 88 5

Teal non-breeding 3 885 16 16 0 0

Mallard breeding 2 60 2 2 0 0

non-breeding 7 1785 21 21 0 0

Tufted duck breeding 1 450 5 5 0 0

Goldeneye non-breeding 1 225 5 5 5 1

RAPTORS & OWLS

Hen harrier breeding 1 180 1 1 1 1

non-breeding 12 1875 12 12 7 7

Goshawk non-breeding 1 120 1 1 1 1

Osprey breeding 4 810 4 4 3 3

non-breeding 2 195 2 2 0 0

Merlin breeding 2 255 2 2 0 0


Peregrine breeding 7 540 7 7 6 6


Long-eared owl breeding 1 45 1 1 0 0

Short-eared owl non-breeding 1 45 1 1 0 0

WADERS

Oystercatcher breeding 10 945 16 16 0 0

Golden plover non-breeding 2 2820 22 22 22 2




Species Season*

Tota

l no.

of

Flig

ht E

vent

s (a

ll VP

s)

Tota

l Tim

e in

Fl

ight

(sec

)

Tota

l no.

of

Bird

s

No.

of B

irds

at

PCH

No.

of B

irds

at

PCH

with

in W

P

No.

of F

light

Ev

ents

for C

RM

Lapwing breeding 6 885 11 11 0 0

non-breeding 1 6900 20 20 0 0

Snipe breeding 7 3975 11 11 0 0

Curlew breeding 13 1320 17 16 2 1

Common sandpiper breeding 1 15 1 1 0 0

OTHER SPECIES

Gannet non-breeding 1 210 1 1 1 1

Cormorant non-breeding 2 360 5 5 5 2

* breeding season is generally defined as April to August for wildfowl, March to July for waders (except golden plover which occurs on passage in April) and March to August for raptors

Whooper Swan

8.58 A total of six flights involving 96 birds were recorded, with 36 birds recorded in flight over the WP at PCH. (Figure 8.5). All flights were recorded during VP surveys as no whooper swans were recorded during the dedicated November 2012 surveys. Three flights involving 66 birds were recorded outside the WP (Figure 8.5). All six flights were recorded in winter 2011-12 (non-breeding season). This information was used to generate predicted mortality rates using collision risk modelling (CRM). These predictions are described and interpreted in the next section, with details presented in Table 8.13.

Greylag Goose

8.59 A total of 14 flights involving 272 birds were recorded, with all but one flight being recorded in winter 2011-12. Although all flights were recorded at PCH, the majority of flights were recorded outwith the WP. 88 birds were recorded over the WP at PCH. (Figure 8.1.5, Technical Appendix 8.1). This information was used to generate predicted mortality rates using collision risk modelling (CRM). These predictions are given in the next section. The collision risk for this species is presented in Table 8.13.

Teal

8.60 A total of three flights involving 16 birds were recorded, all in winter 2011-2012. Although all birds were recorded in flight at PCH, none were recorded over the WP (Figure 8.5). Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Mallard

8.61 A total of nine flights involving 23 birds were recorded, seven of these were recorded in winter 2011-2012. Although all birds were recorded in flight at PCH, none were recorded over the WP (Figure 8.5). Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Tufted Duck

8.62 One flight involving five birds was recorded, which was at PCH but not over the WP (Figure 8.5). Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Goldeneye

8.63 One flight involving five birds was recorded. Although these birds were recorded in flight at PCH within the WP (Figure 8.5), this was not considered sufficient to undertake CRM. Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Hen Harrier

8.64 A total of 13 flights, each involving a single bird, were recorded; with all but one flight being recorded in winter 2011-12. All flights were recorded at PCH, with five flights recorded outwith the WP and seven flights over the WP (Figure 8.4). This information was used to generate predicted mortality rates using CRM. These predictions are described and interpreted in the next section, with details presented in Table 8.13.

Goshawk

8.65 Only one flight involving one bird was recorded, outwith the breeding season (winter) at PCH over the WP. (Figure 8.4). This was not considered sufficient to undertake CRM and consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Merlin

8.66 A total of five flights involving five birds were recorded. Two flights were recorded in summer 2011-2012 and three flights were recorded in winter 2011-2012. All flights were recorded at PCH, however only two flights were recorded over the WP (Figure 8.4). Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Peregrine

8.67 A total of nine flights involving nine birds were recorded, with all but two flights being recorded in summer 2011-12. All flights were recorded at PCH, with two flights recorded outwith the WP and seven flights were recorded over the WP (Figure 8.4). This information was used to generate predicted mortality rates using CRM. These predictions are described and interpreted in the next section, with details presented in Table 8.13.

Long-eared Owl

8.68 Only one flight involving one bird was recorded. This flight was recorded within the breeding season at PCH but not over the WP. (Figure 8.4). Although it is acknowledged that long-eared owl is essentially a nocturnal species and consequently surveys may not accurately reflect true




activity, it is not thought that the individual recorded was attached to any occupied breeding territory. Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm.

Short-eared Owl

8.69 One flight involving one bird was recorded. This flight was recorded out with the breeding season (winter) at PCH but not over the WP. (Figure 8.4). Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Oystercatcher

8.70 A total of ten flights involving 16 birds were recorded, all of which were recorded in breeding season 2011-2012 (March-July). Although all birds were recorded in flight at PCH, no birds were recorded in flight over the WP (Figure 8.6). Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Golden Plover

8.71 Two flights involving 22 birds were recorded, all of which were recorded in winter 2011-2012. Although all birds were recorded in flight at PCH over the WP (Figure 8.6), two flights was not considered sufficient to undertake CRM. Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Lapwing

8.72 A total of seven flights involving 21 birds were recorded, six of these were recorded in breeding season 2011-2012 (March-July). Although all birds were recorded in flight at PCH, none were recorded in flight over the WP (Figure 8.6). Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Snipe

8.73 A total of seven flights involving 23 birds were recorded, all of these flights were recorded in breeding season 2011-2012 (March-July). Although all birds were recorded in flight at PCH, none were recorded in flight over the WP (Figure 8.6). Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Curlew

8.74 A total of 13 flights involving 17 birds were recorded, all of these flights were recorded in breeding season 2011-2012 (March-July). All birds were recorded in flight at PCH, but only two birds were recorded in flight over the WP (Figure 8.6). .Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Common Sandpiper

8.75 One flight involving one bird was recorded (Figure 8.6). This flight was recorded in breeding season 2011-2012 (March-July). Although at PCH, this single event was considered insufficient to undertake CRM. Consequently this species was not considered to be at risk from collision.

Raptor Surveys

8.76 One Annex I and Schedule 1 raptor species, Osprey, was recorded as present and probably breeding outside of the 2 km buffer of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm. The exact details of these records are confidential.

8.77 The following species accounts summarise the status of Annex I and Schedule 1 raptor species, from the EIA surveys conducted by RPS, consultation data and other data gathered from examining the NBN database.

Hen Harrier

8.78 The extent of undisturbed suitable habitat for breeding hen harrier is limited within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm. Although there is extensive heather it is generally not very tall, and so is largely unsuitable as nesting habitat for the species. In addition there is agricultural and recreational disturbance (footpaths) in close proximity of the heather dominated habitats which may deter settlement of hen harriers. No hen harrier breeding activity was recorded during any surveys in 2011 or 2012.

8.79 The only breeding season record involved a first year male in moult seen during a flight activity survey on 04 April 2012. Thirteen flights were recorded during VP surveys, eight of which were recorded flying within the WP at risk height.

8.80 SNH provided the following information: the 2 km buffer falls outwith the Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA, and there are no records of breeding hen harriers within that area between 2002-2007 or subsequently. There are breeding records close to the wind farm area in 1998 and 1999 (one record each) but nothing within 2 km since. There have not been any recorded breeding attempts closer than about 5 km from the wind farm area since 2004. The trend since 2004 has been shrinkage of the breeding distribution towards the south of the SPA (SNH6, A. MacGregor pers. comm24).

8.81 There is no data for hen harrier on the NBN database more recent than from 1985 to 1991.

Goshawk

8.82 There is no suitable, undisturbed habitat for breeding goshawk within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm although suitable breeding habitat does exist within the forestry area to the south of Gryfe Reservoir (over 1.5 km from the Development site).

8.83 One flight was recorded during VP surveys when an adult male flew south through the WP at risk height into the forest on the afternoon of 30 August 2012.

8.84 No data on goshawk has been provided through consultation or through the NBN database.

Osprey

8.85 One osprey territory was confirmed in 2011. It was located outside the 2 km buffer of the site boundary (exact details are confidential). Ospreys were also present in the same area in 2012.

24 http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A675475.pdf




8.86 Flights recorded during raptor surveys were generally outside the site boundary mainly relating to foraging flights over Gryfe reservoir. During the VP flight activity surveys there were six records of this species, three of which were recorded flying within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm.

8.87 No data on osprey has been provided through consultation or through the NBN database.

Merlin

8.88 The extent of undisturbed suitable habitat for breeding merlin is limited within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm site. In addition there is agricultural and recreational disturbance in close proximity of the heather dominated habitats which may deter settlement of merlins). No merlin breeding activity was recorded during any surveys in 2011 or 2012, although there were three flights recorded during the 2012 breeding season, involving an adult merlin hunting prey.

8.89 No data on merlin has been provided through consultation and there is no data on the NBN database more recent than from 1985 to 1991.

Peregrine

8.90 The extent of suitable, habitat for breeding peregrine is very limited within the Development site. No peregrine nests were confirmed during specific raptor surveys or the moorland breeding bird surveys.

8.91 During raptor surveys there were four records of peregrine, presumably of non-breeding birds, comprising one bird in flight in 2011 and three flights in 2012. The 2011 flight was outside the site boundary but within the buffer zone and consisted of a single male. One of the 2012 flights was within the site boundary and the remainder were outside the site and buffer boundary.

8.92 During the VP flight activity surveys there were nine flight records of this species. Eight of these were recorded flying within the site boundary.

8.93 No data on peregrine has been provided through consultation and there is no data on the NBN database more recent than from 1985 to 1991.

Short-eared Owl

8.94 The extent of undisturbed suitable habitat for breeding short-eared owl is also limited within the Development site. Although there is extensive heather it is generally not very deep. In addition there is agricultural and recreational disturbance.

8.95 The only records of short-eared owl were outside of the breeding season (Table 8.9 and Table 8.11

8.96 No data on short-eared owl has been provided through consultation and there is no data on the NBN database more recent than from 1985 to 1991.

Moorland Breeding Birds

8.97 Results show that the habitat at Inverclyde supports a typical assemblage of moorland birds and many species hold several breeding territories.

8.98 All species with a conservation designation recorded as holding a breeding territory based on the results of breeding bird surveys are presented in Table 8.10. Figure 8.8 shows the locations of the approximate breeding territories centres, derived from the breeding moorland bird survey for all of these target species. All the breeding bird survey territory results, including those for species without any conservation designations, are presented in Technical Appendix 8.1.

Table 8.10 Red- and Amber-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and BAP species recorded during the 2011 and 2012 breeding bird surveys

Species Conservation status Estimated no. of breeding territories within survey area

2011 2012

Red grouse Amber-listed; SBL 2 1

Kestrel Amber-listed; SBL 1 1

Oystercatcher Amber-listed 0 2

Lapwing Red-listed; LBAP 1 0

Snipe Amber-listed; LBAP 1 6

Curlew Amber-listed; SBL; LBAP 2 3

Common sandpiper Amber-listed 1 0

Cuckoo Red-listed; SBL 1 1

Skylark Red-listed; SBL 82 41

Swallow Amber-listed 1 1

Meadow pipit Amber-listed 17/km2 9/km2

Dunnock Amber-listed (ssp. occidentalis, Eastern Scotland) 1 3

Wheatear Amber-listed 6 1

Song thrush Red-listed; SBL; LBAP 1 0

Mistle thrush Amber-listed 1 0

Grasshopper warbler Red-listed; SBL 4 0

Common whitethroat Amber-listed 1 0

Willow warbler Amber-listed 22 11

Linnet Red-listed; SBL 2 3

Lesser redpoll Red-listed; SBL 0 1

Reed bunting Amber-listed; SBL 4 2

Winter Walkover Surveys

8.99 The winter walkover surveys recorded a total of 44 species within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm boundary plus 500 m buffer (see Table 8.10) of which 28 were target species. These are the species are listed in Table 8.11. A total of three Annex 1 species were recorded during winter walkover surveys; merlin, peregrine and short-eared owl. Of these three species,




only merlin (one record of one bird) and short-eared owl (two records of single birds) were recorded within the site boundary.

Table 8.11 Red- and Amber-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and BAP species Recorded During the 2011/12 Winter Bird Surveys

Species Legal/ Conservation Status

Counts – Individuals within Survey Area

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

Greylag goose

Amber-listed 119 1

Teal Amber-listed 45 5 22

Mallard Amber-listed 2 17 4 4

Goldeneye Amber-listed 1

Red grouse Amber-listed; SBL 3

Kestrel Amber-listed; SBL 3 2 9

Merlin Annex 1; Schedule 1; Amber-listed; SBL

1

Peregrine Annex 1; Schedule 1; SBL

1 1

Oystercatcher Amber-listed 2

Lapwing Red-listed 15 21

Curlew Amber-listed; SBL 3 2

Woodcock Amber-listed, SBL 2

Snipe Amber-listed 1 5 1 1

Black-headed gull

Amber-listed 2

Common gull Amber-listed 5 5

Lesser black-backed gull

Amber-listed 4

Herring gull Red-listed; SBL 1 1

Short-eared owl

Annex 1; Amber-listed; SBL

2

Skylark Red-listed; SBL 6 30 10

Starling Red-listed; SBL 5 500

Fieldfare Red-listed 179 10 12

Redwing Schedule 1; red-listed; SBL

1

Mistle thrush Amber-listed 2

Dunnock Amber-listed 3 1

Meadow pipit Amber-listed 12 1 4 6

Species Legal/ Conservation Status

Counts – Individuals within Survey Area

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

Bullfinch Amber-listed; SBL 3

Reed bunting Amber-listed; SBL 4 2

Collision Risk Modelling

8.100 CRM followed the method described by Band et al. (2007)25 which is recommended by SNH. This involves a three-step process by first using flight activity survey results as a sample to estimate the number of flights likely to take place at rotor height during a certain period of time (usually either a year or a breeding season), then calculating what proportion of these will take place within the total rotor swept area of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, assuming no avoidance actions, thus placing a bird at risk of collision. The next step is then to calculate the probability that if a flight passes within the rotor swept area of a turbine, then that bird would be struck by a rotating blade. This probability is multiplied by the number of at-risk flights estimated in Stage 1. The final stage is then to account for the birds' likely ability to avoid colliding with turbines in the vast majority of occasions, by behavioural actions either close to individual rotors or by avoiding the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm as a whole. This avoidance rate (typically at least 98% and up to 99% for geese - SNH 201026) is then multiplied by the figure calculated at Stage 2 to give an overall estimate of mortality rate.

8.101 For each target species for which sufficient flight events were recorded, an annual collision rate was predicted using either a directional or non-directional version of the model. The choice of model for each target species was based on its pattern of flight behaviour within the survey area. The directional model is appropriate when a species tends to move across the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm area in a particular direction. This type of flight behaviour is characteristic of species on migration or making regular movements between feeding and roosting sites and SNH advocates using it for groups such as geese, swans, divers and ducks. A non-directional model is more appropriate where the flights of a particular species are not predominantly in any direction. This is usually the case for birds moving around within a breeding or hunting territory that is wholly or partly within the site of interest. This approach, which assumes that the direction of flights is random, is usually appropriate for breeding and non-breeding raptors and waders.

8.102 The Risk Zone within which birds were considered to be at risk of collision was taken to be the area enclosed by the tips of the outermost turbine rotors, plus a 200 m buffer to allow for a degree of surveyor error when mapping flightlines, which is considered to be in line with SNH (2005)6 guidance.

8.103 Three candidate turbines were considered during the CRM process. Results are presented here for the turbine model producing the 'worst-case' CRM results (i.e. the Siemens Wind

25 Band, W., Madders, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007) Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In,

de Lucas, M., Jans, G. & Ferrer, M. (eds), Birds and Wind Power, Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 26 http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C278917.pdf




Turbine SWT-2.3-93 109.8 m to tip model, which has a maximum hub height of 63.3 m and a maximum blade length of 46.5 m).

8.104 A summary of the output from the CRM is presented in Table 8.12, with full details given in Technical Appendix 8.1, together with all VP flight survey data.

Table 8.12 The Results of Collision Risk Modelling Undertaken for Target Species at Inverclyde (based on Siemens WT-2.3-93)

Species Recommended Avoidance Rate

Number of Collisions Predicted per Year

Estimated Time Period between Predicted Collisions (years)

Whooper swan 98% 1.4 0.7

Greylag goose 99% 2.6 0.4

Hen harrier 99% 0.04 23

Osprey 98% 0.09 11-12

Peregrine 98% 0.07 14-15

Preliminary VOR - Scoping

8.105 A total of 47 species met at least one of the criteria identified in paragraph 8.10 and therefore constitute the preliminary VORs of the site. A summary of their presence, conservation status and value, and legislative protection is given in Table 1, Technical Appendix 8.2.

8.106 The aim of this assessment is to report on potential significant effects, based on the EIA Regulations guidance, rather than every perceivable effect. As such, a number of species were discounted from the assessment as the baseline survey results indicated that significant effects were not likely to occur at a regional scale or above (for example if no breeding was recorded and site usage was rare). Consequently such effects do not require assessment under the terms of the EIA Regulations and SNH (2005)6 guidelines.

8.107 Species that were scoped in or out of the assessment are shown in Technical Appendix 8.2. Although a number of the species that have been scoped out are priority species within the UKBAP, LBAP and/or are Red- or Amber-listed species of BoCC27, and would therefore generally be considered of Regional conservation value, their conservation status reflects a decline in numbers rather than rarity or a concentration of population in a few sites when in fact they remain relatively common and widespread in the UK. Even though these species (e.g. linnet, dunnock, song thrush) were identified as breeding or at least being present within the study area, they occurred in very low numbers (absolutely and/or relative to national and regional populations) in an area of limited habitat suitability.

8.108 SNH (2005)6 states that "the inclusion of a species within an LBAP should not lead to SNH objecting to a proposal because of local effects on that species, unless in SNH's judgement the status of the species regionally or nationally could be compromised by the development". This

27 Eaton M.A, Brown A.F, Noble D.G, Musgrove A.J,Hearn R.D, Aebischer N.J, Gibbons D.W, Evans A and Gregory R.D (2009) Bird of

Conservation Concern 3: The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 102

can be reasonably expanded to include SBL or Red-listed species that are included in their respective classification based on a relative decline in numbers from a high baseline rather than an inherent rareness at a national level. These species were therefore omitted from the impact assessment.

8.109 Furthermore, fieldfare and redwing which appear on the red-list of birds of conservation concern and are specially protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) are so listed because the UK is at the edge of their breeding range and has very small breeding numbers. However, they are very common winter visitors in the UK occurring in numbers of tens of thousands nationwide. Indeed, no breeding evidence by either of these species was recorded in the study area and therefore both were omitted from the impact assessment.

8.110 With regard to all omitted species of conservation value, it was concluded that based on population estimates in Murray et al. (1998), Forrester et al. (2007)28 and Pearce-Higgins et al (2012)29 none were found in regionally-important numbers within the study area, and are at most of District conservation value.

8.111 The assessment (presented in Technical Appendix 8.2) shows that five species would be considered to have 'flights potentially at risk' and are therefore considered individually, with the remainder of breeding species not being of regional or greater significance alone, but are considered as part of the overall breeding bird assemblage within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm boundary. The following VORs were therefore subject to impact assessment, and correspond with selection guidelines in SNH (2005)6:

whooper swan;

greylag goose (non-breeding);

hen harrier;

osprey; and

peregrine.

8.112 The following species have been excluded from further assessment for the reasons set out in Technical Appendix 8.1: Appendix Table 8.3.1.

Teal

Mallard

Tufted duck

Goldeneye

Red grouse

Gannet

Red kite 28 Forrester, R. W., Andrews, I. J., McInerny. C. J., Murray, R. D., McGowan, R. Y., Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M.W., Jardine, D.C. & Grundy, D.S.

(eds) (2007). The Birds of Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady 29 Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Stephen, L., Douse, A. & Langston, R. H. W. (2012) Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during

construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis.




Goshawk

Kestrel

Merlin

Oystercatcher

Golden plover

Lapwing

Snipe

Woodcock

Curlew

Common sandpiper

Black-headed gull

Common gull


Herring gull

Cuckoo

Long-eared owl

Short-eared owl

Skylark

Swallow

Meadow pipit

Dunnock

Robin

Wheatear

Fieldfare

Song thrush

Redwing

Mistle thrush

Grasshopper warbler

Common whitethroat

Willow warbler

Starling

Linnet

Lesser redpoll

Bullfinch

Reed bunting

VOR Sensitivity

Whooper swan

8.113 Whooper swan is listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and is Amber-listed due to the species' low breeding population (<300 pairs) and localisation (at least 50% of the wintering population found at 10 or fewer sites) within the UK. There are five biogeographic populations of whooper swan, birds wintering in the UK and Ireland being from the Icelandic breeding population (WWT, 2009). A small number of birds that breed in Scotland and Ireland are thought to be largely sedentary during the winter (Gibbons et al. 199330). A census, coordinated by WWT as part of the International Swan Census, was carried out during January 2010, when the number of birds present in the UK was estimated to be 16,502 with 2,659 in Scotland (9.1% of International population)31. There was a significant increase across censuses (1986-2010) in the proportion of birds wintering in England, in comparison with the rest of the range, whereas the Republic of Ireland and Scotland saw a significant decline30. This suggests an overall shift to the south-east in the swans' winter distribution, though a prolonged period of cold, snowy weather prior to the January 2010 census may have resulted in more birds moving south from Scotland, or potentially from mainland Europe, in this year30.

8.114 The cited population for the Black Cart SPA was 220 individuals (mean 5 yr. peak 1993-97). However, more recent counts indicate the numbers using the SPA declined to about 100 in 2007/0832. This contrasts with a British population which increased steadily between the late 1980s and 2007/0833. Harding (2008) commented that further analysis is required to determine whether this decline in the peak over winter count for the Black Cart population represents a decline in the number of birds passing through the area on autumn or spring passage, or a decline in the number of birds overwintering in the area.31. However, Holt et al. 2012 reported a subsequent recovery in SPA numbers (221 in November 2009)32

8.115 The census data therefore indicates that the population is increasing internationally and nationally; and that the winter distribution of whooper swan in the UK has shifted south-east30. A possible cause of this is the increase the birds' preference for foraging on postharvest sugar beet waste in East Anglia, as with pink-footed goose30. There was a peak count at the Black Cart SPA of 221 in November 2009 which is equivalent to the SPA cited population. It is surmised that recent declines in numbers within the SPA are related to changes in distribution rather than any deterioration in its conservation status. As such, whooper swan is considered to have a favourable conservation status at an international, national and regional level.

30 Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B. and Chapman, R.A. (1993). The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. T. & A. D. Poyser,

London 31 Hall, C., Glanville, J.R, Boland, H., Einarsson, Ó., McElwaine, G., Holt, C.A., Spray, C.J. & Rees, E.C. 2012. Population size and breeding

success of Icelandic Whooper Swans Cygnus cygnus: results of the 2010 international census. Wildfowl 62: 73–96. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

32 Harding, N. (2008). Whooper Swan (Cygnus Cygnus) Distribution and Habitat Use in the Black Cart Floodplain During Winter 2007/2008. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.310 (ROAME No. R07LI08).

33 Holt, C.A., Austin, G.E., Calbrade, N.A., Mellan, H.J., Hearn, R.D., Stroud, D.A., Wotton, S.R. & Musgrove, A.J. 2012. Waterbirds in the UK 2010/11: The Wetland Bird Survey. BTO/RSPB/ JNCC, Thetford.




Greylag goose

8.116 Greylag goose is listed in Annex 2.2 of the EU Birds Directive (birds which may potentially be hunted under national legislation only within certain specified Member States), Schedule 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (birds which may be killed or taken outside of the close season), and is Amber-listed due to importance of national population (at least 20% of European non-breeding population occurring in the UK). The relevant population in this context is the Icelandic breeding population, which almost entirely moves to the UK in the winter34. Recently this Icelandic population has wintered further north in Scotland and now occurs almost exclusively on Orkney, where in the region of 81,000 birds were recorded in 2010/1131. The 'feral', 're-established' or British population is increasing in Scotland. The threshold for declaring sites of national importance for the British population is 1,400 individuals31.

8.117 The evidence indicates that the birds using Inverclyde in the non-breeding season are not likely to be of the Icelandic population (which is in favourable conservation status anyway). The British population has not yet been recognised internationally36, and as this population currently has no conservation status, no assessment of its favourability can be made at this time. However, it is clear from Holt et al. 2012 that this population is increasing nationally36.

Hen harrier

8.118 Hen Harrier is listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and is Red-listed due to the species' vulnerability and long-term decline in population within the UK. The latest national survey in 2010 showed an estimated population of 662 pairs of which 505 (76%) were in Scotland, which represents a significant decline since the previous survey in 2004 (Hayhow et al. in prep, cited in Etheridge et al. 201224)). This represents a 20% decline from the 633 territorial pairs estimated in Scotland in 2004. Previous data indicated that the UK population remained fairly stable at 578-700 breeding pairs over the preceding twenty years35. The decline was particularly marked in southern Scotland, with the most recent national survey reporting 21 breeding pairs in South Strathclyde in 2010, a 74% decrease since 2004 (Etheridge et al. 201224). The decline is generally attributed to a combination of factors including predation and human disturbance in areas where they are perceived to threaten grouse shooting interests. However, with regard to the trend in the reduction in numbers in the Renfrewshire Heights SPA, the nearest designated site for the species, persecution is not thought to be an issue here, although persecution at distant wintering grounds is a possible factor (A. MacGregor, SNH, pers. Comm28.). The site information indicates that the SPA held an average of ten breeding pairs during 1998-2004.

8.119 Over the recent past, the Scottish Raptor Study Group's Southwest Scotland and Southern Uplands monitoring region has also attained the lowest hen harrier productivity in mainland Scotland. According to Etheridge et al. (201024), the area's main problem is the high nest

34 Hearn, RD & CR Mitchell. 2004. Greylag Goose Anser anser (Iceland population) in Britain and Ireland 1960/61 – 1999/2000. Waterbird

Review Series, The Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust/Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Slimbridge. 35 Bright J. A., Langston, R.H.W., Bullman, R., Evans, R.J., Gardner, S. Pearce-Higgins, J. and Wilson, E. (2006). Map of bird sensitivities to

wind farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conservation. Biological Conservation 141: 2342-2356.

failure rate, much of it due to human interference. Of 32 pairs monitored in 2010, 10 (31%) failed before laying, seven (22%) probably failed during incubation and a further four (13%) during the chick-rearing period. The eleven nests that succeeded produced 41 young, nearly four young each, suggesting this region has the potential to be very productive. This is backed by Fielding et al. (2011) who concluded that there is strong evidence in five NHZs that illegal persecution is causing the failure of a majority of breeding attempts, leading to reduced occupancy and/or fewer successful nests, and affecting the conservation status of the species. Although the West Central Belt NHZ was assessed to have favourable conservation status, there are records of ten persecution incidents (one confirmed and seven probable) made up of eight nest destruction or disturbance, one shooting and two unknown, so there is some cause for concern. The effect of this disturbance may be reflected in the relatively low proportion of successful nests, combined with a relatively large standard deviation which means that year on year the proportion can vary considerably.

8.120 In this recent Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom, gathered breeding data for each NHZ, with the most recent West Central Belt estimate having 32 occupied sites, with half being successful in fledging at least one young. An attempt was made to assess the conservation status of each NHZ, based on three criteria: (i) productivity (at least 1.2 young per breeding attempt to be 'favourable'); (ii) habitat occupancy (greater than 44.1% occupancy of surveyed habitat to be 'favourable'); and (iii) density (at least 2.12 pairs per 100 km2 to be 'favourable'). The West Central Belt NHZ was considered to have a 'favourable' conservation status based on all three tests. Hen harrier is thus considered to have an unfavourable conservation status at a national level and a favourable conservation status at a regional level.

Osprey

8.121 Osprey is listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, and Schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The species has shown a steady long-term increase in breeding numbers since its mid- 20th century re-establishment, and this increase is continuing according to the most recent Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Reports (Etheridge et al., 201224). In 2010, 190 pairs were present at 229 nest sites checked in Scotland. The latest Raptor Study Monitoring Report (2010) indicated that there were 24 monitored pairs in Central Scotland and two in South Strathclyde study areas; and further afield, 20 pairs in Argyll, eight in Dumfries & Galloway and 10 in Lothian & Borders study areas. All these areas should increases between 2009 and 2010.

8.122 Productivity across Scotland in 2010 was 1.6 fledged young per pair, with similar productivity in both Central Scotland (38 fledged from 24 pairs) and South Strathclyde (3 fledged from 2 pairs) (Etheridge et al. 201224).

8.123 The evidence indicates that ospreys are slowly colonising the south of Scotland and that the regional population does appear to be increasing. Therefore, osprey is considered to have a favourable conservation status at a national and regional (NHZ) level.




Peregrine

8.124 Peregrine is listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, and Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The breeding population in the UK was severely depleted in the 1950s and 1960s due to the effects of pesticide contamination (Crick and Ratcliffe, 199536), but has subsequently recovered. The UK breeding population in 2002 was estimated to be 1,402 pairs, a 13% increase on the 1991 survey results (Banks et al. 200337). Similar increases across Europe have resulted in a downgrading of conservation listing from 'SPEC 3 (rare)' to 'secure' (BirdLife International 200438), and consequently the species has recently been moved from the amber to the green list in the UK. There are estimated to be around 600 pairs breeding in Scotland, where the winter population is around 2,000-2,500 birds39.

8.125 Regional trends have varied across the UK, but populations in Southern Scotland have fared comparatively well, with increases of 11% in the south-west, and 13% in the south-east according to the 2002 survey. In 2010, 26 pairs were monitored within the South Strathclyde study area by the SRSG (Etheridge et al. 201224), with 15 successful pairs fledging 31 young. The population has remained relatively stable since 2005, ranging from 26-31 monitored pairs over that time. As such, peregrine is considered to have a favourable conservation status at a national and regional (NHZ) level.

Future Baseline 8.126 Consideration has been given to predicted land use changes on site and in adjacent areas

during the lifetime of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm. Specifically, this has examined whether or not these changes are likely to affect the breeding distribution, abundance and flight activity of VORs.

Potential Effects 8.127 The key ornithological issues associated with the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm are likely to

relate to its potential to adversely affect the:

Conservation status of bird species given the highest level of statutory protection through inclusion in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive and/or Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) through habitat loss, disturbance, displacement and collisions with turbines;

Conservation status of locally-breeding raptors, waders and wildfowl through habitat loss, disturbance, displacement and collisions with turbines;

Conservation status of resident raptors during winter, or of passage or wintering geese, swans and other waterfowl due to the risk of turbine collisions if they fly through the

36 Crick, H.Q.P. & Ratcliffe, D.A. (1995) The Peregrine Falco peregrinus population of the United Kingdom in 1991. Bird Study 42: 1–19. 37 Banks, A.N., Coombes, R.H. & Crick, H.Q.P. (2003) The Peregrine Falcon breeding population of the UK & Isle of Man in 2002. Research

Report 330. BTO, Thetford 38 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/docs/SOWB2004_en.pdf 39 Forrester, R. W., Andrews, I. J., McInerny. C. J., Murray, R. D., McGowan, R. Y., Zonfrillo, B., Betts, M.W., Jardine, D.C. & Grundy, D.S.

(eds) (2007). The Birds of Scotland. The Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, Aberlady

proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm development area on migration or while commuting between local feeding and roosting areas; and

Ornithological interests of local sites designated for bird species.

8.128 The potential effects and impacts are discussed in relation to the three main phases of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm: construction, operation and decommissioning. The VORs evaluated are:

whooper swan;

greylag goose (non-breeding);

hen harrier;

osprey; and

peregrine.

Potential Construction and Decommissioning Effects 8.129 The potential construction effects would be associated with the indirect effects of habitat loss

associated with direct land take for the installation of turbines and the related infrastructure as described in Chapter 4: Description of the Development. There would also be the potential for disturbance caused by construction operations, which may directly displace birds from breeding sites, directly affecting breeding success, or may temporarily displace birds from foraging areas, affecting their breeding success and winter survival.

8.130 Decommissioning effects are assumed to be the same as those identified for construction. This assumes that there is no permanent displacement of birds from the wind farm due to disturbance effects. Decommissioning effects are not considered separately for each species.

8.131 In addition to these possible effects on individuals and populations, any wind farm construction work undertaken during the bird breeding season (March to July, inclusive) carries a risk of illegal destruction, damage or disturbance to occupied bird nests. The nests of nearly all bird species are protected by the law and it is necessary to take measures to ensure compliance with the appropriate legislation.

8.132 Details of the law protecting nesting birds and the best practice measures to be adopted to ensure compliance are given later (under Mitigation).

Potential Operational Effects 8.133 Potential operational effects include:

Disturbance/ displacement effects;

Barrier effects; and

Collision effects.

Disturbance/displacement and barrier effects

8.134 The operation of turbines and the associated human maintenance activity has the potential to cause disturbance and displace birds from the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm site. However, disturbance effects will be far less intensive than during the construction phase.




8.135 Review studies have shown that, in general, species are not disturbed beyond 800 m from turbines and in some cases, birds have not been disturbed at all404142. Individual turbines or the wind farm as a whole however, may present a barrier to the movement of birds, restricting or displacing birds from much larger areas. The effect this would have on a population is subtle, and difficult to predict with any certainty. If birds regularly have to fly over or around obstacles or are forced into suboptimal habitats, this may for example result in greater energy expenditure. By implication, this can have detrimental effects on energetic balances and may reduce body condition, potentially reducing their survival or breeding success.

8.136 During the lifetime of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, birds of some species at least, may habituate to the presence of turbines, however, and so this effect may decline in the long-term43.

Collision

8.137 Collision of a bird with the turbine rotors would generally result in the death of the bird. The effect of such collision mortality on a population is influenced by several characteristics of the affected population, notably its size, density, recruitment rate (additions to the population through reproduction), mortality rate in the absence of collision mortality, and immigration and emigration rates to and from the population.

8.138 In general, the effect of an individual (of breeding age) being lost from the population would be greater for species that occur at low density, are relatively long-lived and have low annual reproductive rates. Such species include wildfowl, gulls and the larger raptors. Conversely, the effect would often be insignificant for short-lived species with high reproductive rates, including most passerines (e.g. skylark).

8.139 In broad terms, the number of collisions during a given period (e.g. a year) is the product of two factors:

8.140 The number of birds flying through the rotor swept-area during the period (the number of rotor transits). The number of rotor transits is influenced by the frequency with which a species flies through the wind farm area and, crucially, the probability that any bird on a collision course would take avoiding action (the avoidance rate); and

8.141 The probability that a bird would be struck by the rotors on any given transit. The probability of collision for a bird passing through the rotors is mainly determined by the size of the bird, its mode of flight (flapping or gliding) and its flight speed, along with the dimensions of the rotors and the speed at which they rotate.

40 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. (2003). Wind Farms and Birds: an Analysis of the Effects of Wind Farms on Birds and Guidance on

Environmental Assessment Criteria and Site Selection Issues. BirdLife International report to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 59 pp.

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

42 Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. (2009). The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46 (6): 1323 - 1331.

43 Madsen J., and Boertmann, D. (2008). Animal behavioural adaptation to changing landscapes: spring-staging geese habituate to wind farms. Landscape Ecology 23:1007–11

8.142 Collision risk is perceived to be higher in species that spend much of their time in the air, such as foraging raptors and those that have regular flight paths between feeding and breeding/roosting grounds (e.g. divers and geese). Vulnerability to collision is also influenced by factors such as the flight manoeuvrability of a species and its tendency to fly in conditions of reduced visibility (e.g. at night or in fog).

8.143 The size and location of the turbine array in relation to local topography can also influence collision rate greatly. The proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm contains no topographical factors that are likely to increase the risk of bird collision.

8.144 It should be noted that operational disturbance and collision risk effects can be mutually exclusive in a spatial sense i.e. a bird that avoids the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm cannot be at risk of collision with the turbine rotors at the same time. However, they are not mutually exclusive in a temporal sense; a bird may initially avoid the wind farm, but habituate to it, and would then be at risk of collision. The estimated collision risk models were calculated under the assumption that flight activity during the operational phase would be similar to pre-development levels.

8.145 Full details of the methodology used in the collision risk calculations are given in Technical Appendix 8.1 (Section 2.9).

Mitigation

Mitigation by Design 8.146 Throughout the EIA process, information obtained about sensitive ornithological features has

fed into the wind farm design in order to minimise the potential for adverse effects (See also Chapter 3, Design Evolution and Alternatives). This has resulted in the following design decision:

8.147 Turbine location avoided potential effect on raptor flight activity.

Mitigation During Construction 8.148 All relevant mitigation measures would be implemented through a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) as outlines in Chapter 5: Construction and Environmental Management. This would detail the relevant measures following best practice as described in this section.

Best Practice: Breeding Birds

8.149 The CEMP would require strict compliance with all legislation concerning disturbance to breeding birds during the construction of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm.

Ecological Clerk of Works

8.150 Compliance with the law (for example to avoid intentional nest destruction of any species) would be supported by the appointment of a suitably experienced Ecological Clerk of Works




(ECoW) to carry out pre-construction surveys and locate any active nests close to construction works shortly before these commence. There would be a clear line of responsibility to ensure all mitigation measures are adhered to by all parties, including the appointed contractor, which would be specified in the CEMP.

Timing of Construction Activities and Pre-construction Checks

8.151 Site clearance and construction activities would be timed to take place outside the main breeding season so as to avoid nest destruction and disturbance to nesting birds, where possible. The breeding season is taken to extend from March to August inclusive; but for the majority of birds the main breeding season extends from mid-March to at least the end of July (depending on the species concerned).

8.152 SNH (2006)6 recognises that avoiding construction work within the breeding season for birds may not be possible, as the season coincides with the best weather for construction. Therefore, should it not be possible to limit construction works to the non-breeding season then certain precautionary measures would be taken. For instance, attempts would be made to at least start the works before mid-March. This allows the birds the opportunity to take potential disturbance into account in the process of selecting a nest site, and those birds with a choice of nest sites may select an alternative area where disturbance is less intrusive in which to nest for that season.

8.153 During the breeding season, pre-construction checks would be made ahead of the works in all areas of potential bird nesting habitat by the ECoW, or other suitably qualified ecologist, in order to check for the presence of nesting birds. Any active nests found would be cordoned off to a suitable distance for the species concerned (up to 50 m for open-ground nesting species) and all site personnel would be made aware of the works exclusion zone through toolbox talks presented by the ECoW. Construction operations would be delayed within the cordon until the young have fledged and the nest becomes vacant. This would be confirmed by the ECoW prior to the recommencement of construction.

8.154 In the unlikely event that any specially protected Annex 1 of Schedule 1 bird species establish a nest site in close proximity to the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm footprint then a buffer zone would be established around that nest site and no works would be permitted within that area. Senior site personnel would be made aware of the species presence, its protection status and the associated works exclusion zone, through toolbox talks presented by the ECoW, while all other site personal would be made aware of the exclusion zone only. The upper limit of the relevant species disturbance range would be established to start with but possibly reduced depending on the circumstances (e.g. line of sight) in consultation with SNH44.

8.155 The nesting site would be regularly monitored by the ECoW or other suitably-qualified ecologist to check on the progress of the nesting attempt and identify whether the birds were displaying any signs of distress through disturbance associated with the construction works. As the breeding season progresses, it may be feasible to reduce the extent of the works exclusion

44 Ruddock, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007). A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird Species. A report from Natural Research

(Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage.

zone based on increased tolerance or reduced susceptibility to disturbance and the nature of the disturbance source. Further details of such reduced buffer zones are provided for a variety of species in Ruddock and Whitfield (2007)43

8.156 All such restrictions regarding the protection and best practice measures relating to nesting birds would be specified in the CEMP.

8.157 A Species and Habitat Management Plan (SHMP) would be developed to detail suitable mitigation and compensation measures to be implemented to offset potential significant direct and indirect habitat used by birds caused by the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm. It would be implemented from construction stage and throughout the 25 year lifespan of the wind farm.

8.158 The SHMP would concentrate on improving habitats for bird's outwith the turbine envelope to provide better breeding/feeding/hunting habitat as a buffer around the wind farm to lessen risk of attracting birds into the turbine envelope.

8.159 The same mitigation would apply to the decommissioning phase as to the construction phase, to ensure that potential effects upon the ornithological receptors are minimised.

Mitigation During Operation 8.160 A Species and Habitat Management Plan (SHMP) would be developed to detail suitable

mitigation and compensation measures to be implemented to offset potential significant direct and indirect habitat used by birds caused by the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm. It would be implemented from construction stage and throughout the 25 year lifespan of the wind farm. No other mitigation has been deemed necessary.

Assessment of Residual Effects

Residual Construction and Decommissioning Effects Land-take Effects

8.161 Direct land take for the installation of the turbines and related infrastructure would result in the permanent loss of approximately 5.2 ha of land within the 209.8 ha application site (2.49% of the total area).

8.162 For the target species, the potential for a direct effect resulting from such limited land take is considered to be negligible, with impacts that are not significant.

Disturbance Effects on the VORs

Whooper swan

8.163 Whooper swan does not use the site for breeding or foraging. Consequently, there is no potential for the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm to disturb or displace feeding or roosting whooper swans (no effect) during construction or decommissioning.




Greylag goose

8.164 Considering the non-breeding population of greylag goose, which does not use the site for foraging, there is no potential for a direct effect resulting from disturbance effects during construction. Consequently, there is no potential for the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm to disturb or displace feeding greylag geese (no effect).

Hen harrier

8.165 There are historical breeding records of hen harrier close to the boundary of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, but these were as long ago as 1998 and 1999 (SNH6, A. MacGregor pers. comm.26). There have been no breeding attempts within 5 km since 2004, and furthermore since 2004 the distribution of hen harriers has retracted southwards within the Renfrewshire Heights SPA (SNH6, A. MacGregor pers. comm26.). Although there are positive management measures in place in order to encourage breeding hen harriers back into the northern part of the SPA, there is no indication of this happening in the near future.

8.166 Ruddock & Whitfield (2007)43 found that the median disturbance range of chick-rearing hen harriers was 225 m with the mean value of 276 m for incubating birds. During wind farm construction, displacement has been suggested potentially to occur up to 500 m around construction sites with some disruption up to 1 km, depending on line of visibility45. As there are no current breeding locations within 5 km of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, it is predicted that there would not be any disturbance-displacement effects on breeding hen harriers (no effect).

Osprey

8.167 Ospreys occupied a territory more than 2 km from the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm in 2011. It is unlikely that future osprey breeding sites would be much closer than this and certainly no closer than 1 km due to the extent of available suitable habitat.

8.168 Ruddock & Whitfield (2007)43 found that the median disturbance range of chick-rearing ospreys was 225 m with the mean value of 329 m for incubating birds. The expert survey revealed a wide range in opinion on typical disturbance distances with static disturbance ranging from 100 - 150 m to 500 - 750 m, and an upper limit of active disturbance at 500 - 750 m. Therefore, as there are no current breeding locations within 2 km of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, it seems likely that disturbance-displacement effects on breeding ospreys would be of negligible significance and are considered not significant.

Peregrine

8.169 There are no current peregrine breeding locations within 2 km of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, and the extent of suitable breeding habitat is limited.

45 Bright J. A., Langston, R.H.W., Bullman, R., Evans, R.J., Gardner, S. Pearce-Higgins, J. and Wilson, E. (2006). Map of bird sensitivities to

wind farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conservation. Biological Conservation 141: 2342-2356.

8.170 Therefore, as there are no current breeding locations within 2 km of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, there is no potential for the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm to disturb or displace this species from nesting areas and it breeding peregrines (no effect).

Residual Operational Effects Whooper swan

Disturbance/ displacement and barrier effects

8.171 Whooper swan does not use the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm for foraging or roosting. Consequently, there is no potential for the proposed wind farm to disturb or displace feeding or roosting whooper swans (no effect).

8.172 There were a small number of whooper swan flights through the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm (Figure 8.5), possibly relating to birds utilising the adjacent waterbodies. Although there is the potential for the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm to cause some barrier effect by causing the birds to fly over or around the obstacles, it is difficult to predict to what extent this would occur and it may well be that whooper swans would become accustomed to the presence of the turbines over time. There are no obvious local feeding or roosting areas and it is likely that whooper swans pass on a broad front through the area to or from the Black Cart SPA (18 km to the south-east). As whooper swan movements are widespread and the area of airspace covered by turbines is relatively small, this is unlikely to result in a significant barrier effect to any individual. The potential for any effects resulting from barrier effects during operation is therefore considered to be negligible, with effects that are not significant.

Collision risk

8.173 As a large and relatively less maneuverable species, whooper swan is potentially vulnerable to collisions with turbines, particularly during periods of poor visibility. CRM using flight activity at Inverclyde predicts one collision event approximately every 9 months (1.4 per year).

8.174 Six flights by whooper swan were recorded during flight activity surveys (Table 8.13). An examination of the data shows that flights occurred at the site during spring and autumn migration periods only. It should be noted that surveys in November 2012 did not record any whooper swan flights during six hours of surveys from each of two VPs.

Table 8.13 Whooper Swan Flight Information

Flight ID Date Flock size Time at PCH (secs) Time at PCH within WF (secs)

3 24-Mar-11 13 150 0

15 24-Mar-11 39 75 0

26 25-Mar-11 19 120 120

97 14-Nov-11 12 45 45

98 28-Nov-11 8 45 0

117 22-Mar-12 5 285 285




8.175 The flight information indicates that whooper swan flights occur over the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm during narrow time periods in March and November; therefore this is the only period during which there is a potential collision risk. Satellite tracking of whooper swans in relation to offshore wind farm developments has shown that in the Inner Hebrides, travel is mainly during daylight hours, and therefore birds may be at lower risk of collision46. In general, it was statistically tested that when weather was overcast birds tended to stop moving, indicating that they are unlikely to travel during adverse conditions with poor visibility. In addition, records of two birds passing through the operational Barrow and Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farms showed possible evidence of avoidance reactions, by rapidly ascending over the turbines, during dawn and night respectively. An ongoing German review lists only two whooper swan fatalities at EU onshore wind farms up to 18th December 2012 (one each in Germany and Norway). This is a very low figure in the context of the European population (>65,000 individuals).

8.176 It is likely that birds crossing the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm include individuals or family groups passing to or from the Black Cart SPA. The cited population for the SPA was 220 individuals (mean 5 yr. peak 1993-97). However, more recent counts indicate the numbers using the SPA declined to about 100 in 2007/08 (Harding 200847). Holt et al. (201236) reported a subsequent recovery in SPA numbers (221 in 2009/10).

8.177 Adult survival rates are quoted as 80.1% with no available data for juveniles (BTO Birdfacts). For the SPA, using the maximum count of 79 adults from 2007/08 (Harding, 2008) this gives a background mortality of 16. An increase in adult mortality of one to two birds amounts to an increase of 1.6% on background mortality. However, this is in the context of a low SPA population in 2007/08 (for which the cause of decline is unknown). Assuming a proportion of 14% of juveniles in the 2009/10 count of 221 (based on proportions within national WeBS counts as stated in Holt et al. (2012) 36 this gives an adult population of 190. On this population there is a background mortality of 38, and an increase of one on this equates to an increase in overall background adult mortality from 14% to 14.6%.

8.178 Considering the evidence provided, it follows that while there is some collision risk predicted for whooper swan, the predicted effect on the regional population would be minor and not significant.

Greylag Goose


8.179 A small number of greylag goose flights were recorded through the site (Figure 8.5). Although there is the potential for the new turbines to cause some barrier effect by causing the birds to fly over or around the obstacles, as with whooper swan it is difficult to predict to what extent this would occur. There is evidently some use by greylag goose of Gryfe Reservoir as a roosting area but the main activity by the species at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm related

46 Griffin L., Rees E., and Hughes B. (2010). The Migration of Whooper Swans in Relation to Offshore Wind Farms. Final Report to COWRIE

Ltd. March 2010 (COWRIE Project Code: SWAN-06-08). 47 Harding, N. (2008). Whooper Swan (Cygnus Cygnus) Distribution and Habitat Use in the Black Cart Floodplain During Winter 2007/2008.

Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.310 (ROAME No. R07LI08).

primarily to flights passing directly over the site. As movements appear to be widespread and the area of airspace covered by turbines is relatively small, this is unlikely to result in a significant barrier effect to any individual. The potential for any effects on greylag goose resulting from barrier effects during operation is therefore considered to be negligible and not significant.

Collision risk

8.180 13 flights (270 individuals) were recorded over the survey area during two winters of flight activity surveys. Of these flights, five (88 individuals) flew within 200 m of the rotor swept area of the proposed turbines at PCH (Table 8.9). CRM using flight activity at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm predicts one collision event approximately every five months (2.6 per year).

8.181 The greylag goose population at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm does not appear to be connected to any SPA, nor are there any sensible, reliable regional population estimates for greylag goose in NHZ 17. In the context of the Scottish wintering population (85,000), it follows that while there is some collision risk predicted for greylag goose at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, the predicted effect on the national population would be negligible and not significant.

Hen Harrier


8.182 There have been no hen harrier breeding attempts recorded within 5 km of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm since 2004, and furthermore since 2004 the distribution of hen harriers has retracted southwards within the Renfrewshire Heights SPA (SNH, A. MacGregor pers. comm.).

8.183 Although there are positive management measures in place in order to encourage breeding hen harriers back into the northern part of the SPA, there is no indication of this happening in the near future. Factors influencing hen harrier distribution through the SPA possibly include low vole numbers (indirect evidence for which comes from analysis of prey brought to nests during a CCTV project) and a succession of cold and/or wet springs. Persecution is not thought to be an issue within the SPA, although persecution at distant wintering grounds is a possible factor (SNH, A. MacGregor pers. comm.).

8.184 It has been widely recorded that, in general, operational wind farms do not appear to displace foraging harriers through disturbance. Madders and Whitfield (2006) considered that, if displacement of foraging hen harrier occurs, it is likely to be within 100 m from turbines, if at all. In studies on the range of features important in determining nest-site selection by hen harriers, the factors found to be most important were heather cover, the presence of incised valleys and burns, and aspect4849. The wider area within and around the Renfrewshire Heights SPA has

48 Watson, D. 1977. The Hen Harrier. T. & A.D. Poyser, Berkhamsted 49 Redpath, S. M., Madders, M., Donnelly, E., Anderson, B., Thirgood, S. J. & Mclead, D. 1998. Nest site selection by hen harriers in Scotland.

Bird Study, 45, 51–61.




an abundance of such habitat and habitat remains suitable throughout the SPA (SNH, A. MacGregor pers. comm. 26). It is clear that there is room for expansion of the hen harrier population within the SPA before extralimital pairs would be available to nest within close proximity of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm.

8.185 As there are no current breeding locations within 5 km of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm it seems likely that there would not be any disturbance-displacement effects on breeding hen harriers (no effect). In the event of an expansion of the SPA population towards Inverclyde, or a satellite pair nesting in close proximity, this issue would be addressed through the Species and Habitat Management Plan (SHMP). It is therefore predicted that disturbance-displacement effects on breeding hen harriers would be negligible and not significant.

8.186 The potential for any effects on hen harrier due to barrier effects is predicted to be negligible due to the species' propensity for flying well below rotor heights when foraging, and there being no evidence that the site forms part of a migratory route (no effect).

Collision risk

8.187 Collision risks to foraging hen harrier are considered to be low in comparison with other raptor species based on their hunting behaviour and associated low flight heights. An avoidance rate of 99% was recommended by Whitfield and Madders (2006)50 to reflect this, based on mortality and avoidance rates from eight operational wind farms in the USA. This was subsequently accepted by SNH (2010)26. It is acknowledged that hen harriers would fly at greater heights (potentially at collision risk) when travelling greater distances between destinations, and when around the nest, during courtship, territorial display flights and food-passing. Madden and Porter (2007)51 showed that hen harriers managed to avoid turbines, even when erected in their nesting or foraging areas. This finding was also observed for foraging birds by Scott and McHaffie (2008)52. Furthermore, very few collisions have been recorded at any wind farms in the UK, Europe or North America. Hen harrier collisions in the UK are very rare. An example of such an event was at a wind farm in County Antrim in 2007, but was believed to be a result of a wintering bird not familiar with its surroundings colliding during a period of poor visibility51. This suggests that flight behaviours of hen harriers are such that collision risk with turbines would be minimal.

8.188 Flight activity surveys at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm recorded one breeding season and 12 non-breeding season flights over two years. CRM conducted on these flight data predicts one collision event approximately every 23 years. This additional mortality of 0.04 birds per year is not considered significant at a regional level. Even within a declining population, this rate (likely up to one bird lost over the 25-year lifespan of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm) and collision risk would not affect the conservation status of the species.

50 Madders, M. and Whitfield, P., 2006 (Natural Research Ltd). Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis (2006), 148, 43–

56. 51 Madden, B. and Porter, B. (2007). Do wind turbines displace hen harriers Circus cyaneus from foraging habitat? Preliminary results of a case

study at the Derrybrien Wind Farm, County Galway. Irish Birds 8: 231-236. 52 Scott, D. and McHaffie, P. (2008). Hen harrier Circus cyaneus killed at wind farm site in County Antrim. Irish Birds 8: 436-437

Osprey

Disturbance / Displacement and Barrier Effects

8.189 Ospreys occupied a territory more than 2 km from the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm in 2011. It is unlikely that future osprey breeding sites would be much closer than this and certainly no closer than 1 km due to the extent of available suitable habitat. Ruddock & Whitfield (2007)43 found that the median disturbance range of chick-rearing ospreys was 225 m with the mean value of 329 m for incubating birds. The expert survey revealed a wide range in opinion on typical disturbance distances with static disturbance ranging from 100 - 150 m to 500 - 750 m, and an upper limit of active disturbance at 500 - 750 m. Therefore, as there are no current breeding locations within 2 km of the Inverclyde proposed development area, it seems likely that disturbance-displacement effects on breeding ospreys would be negligible and not significant.

Collision Risk

8.190 Flight activity surveys at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm recorded four breeding season and two non-breeding season osprey flights over two years. The two non-breeding season flights were both in the autumn (on 8 September 2011) and probably involved young birds reared locally. Examination of the flightlines (Figure 8.4) shows that the majority of the recorded activity was over the surrounding reservoirs and not over the site. CRM conducted on this flight data predicts one collision event approximately every 11-12 years. Within the context of an increasing regional population, this additional mortality of 0.09 birds per year (likely up to two birds over the lifetime of the wind farm) is not considered significant.

Peregrine

Disturbance / Displacement and Barrier Effects

8.191 There are no current peregrine breeding locations within 2 km and the extent of suitable breeding habitat is limited.

8.192 Therefore, as there are no current breeding locations within 2 km of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, it seems likely that disturbance-displacement effects on breeding peregrines would be negligible and not significant.

8.193 The site is evidently not favoured by any breeding pair and therefore a breeding range would not be disrupted by barrier effects caused by the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm.

Collision Risk

8.194 Flight activity surveys at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm recorded seven breeding season and two non-breeding season peregrine flights over two years. CRM conducted on these flight data predicts one collision event approximately every 14-15 years. It is thought that birds observed were either immature or non-breeding birds, and so any additional mortality would not significantly affect breeding numbers in the NHZ. Within the context of a regional population in favourable conservation status, this additional mortality of 0.07 birds per year (0.1%) (likely up




to two birds over the lifetime of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm) is not considered significant.

Effects on Designated Sites

Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA

8.195 This SSSI/SPA is located 2.5 km to the south of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm and is designated for its population of hen harrier (cited population 10 breeding females). Based on likely foraging ranges, birds recorded at Inverclyde may be linked to the SSSI/SPA. However, the only predicted effect of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm on hen harrier is through collision mortality, which is predicted to be not significant (likely one collision throughout the lifetime of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm). Therefore it follows that any effect on Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA would not be significant.

Inner Clyde SSSI, SPA and Ramsar

8.196 This SSSI/SPA/Ramsar (located 4.4 km to the north-east of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm) is of international importance for its overwintering population of redshank and of national importance for its wintering populations of waterfowl (including redshank, red-throated diver, cormorant, eider, goldeneye, red-breasted merganser and oystercatcher). Of these, the only species recorded at Inverclyde were cormorant, goldeneye and oystercatcher. None of these species was recorded regularly or in significant numbers within the site. Therefore it follows that there would be no effect on Inner Clyde SSSI/SPA and Ramsar.

Black Cart SPA

8.197 This SPA is located 18 km to the south-east of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm and is designated for its wintering population of whooper swan (cited population 207, average winter peak 1993-1997). Based on the fact whooper swans do not use the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm or its environs for foraging or roosting it can be concluded that there is no linkage to the SPA. Furthermore, the only predicted effect of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm on whooper swan is through collision mortality, which is predicted to be not significant (likely one to two collisions per year). Therefore it follows that any effect on Black Cart SPA would not be significant.

Castle Semple and Barr Lochs SSSI

8.198 This SSSI is located 15 km to the south of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm. The lochs are designated for their breeding bird assemblage (including great-crested grebe, teal, shoveler, tufted duck and water rail). Based on likely foraging ranges and the fact that none of these species was recorded in significant numbers within the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm, it is predicted that there would be no effect on the Castle Semple and Barr Lochs SSSI.

Cumulative Effects 8.199 The above sections have considered the implications of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm on

ornithological receptors in isolation from potential effects of other plans and projects.

Environmental Impact Assessment also requires that the proposed development be assessed cumulatively, so any combined implications can be identified.

8.200 According to the latest SNH guidance (SNH, 2012b)53, an assessment of cumulative effects associated with a specific development proposal should encompass the effects of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm in combination with:

existing developments, either built or under construction;

approved developments, awaiting implementation; and

proposals awaiting determination within the planning process with design information in the public domain. Proposals and design information may be deemed to be in the public domain once an application has been lodged, and the decision-making authority has formally registered the application.

Table 8.14 Sites Considered for Cumulative Ornithological Impact Assessment.

Wind Farm Site No Turbines NHZ Development Status

Data available for assessment

High Mathernock Farm

1 West Central Belt Consented Basic Assessment of the Impact on Birds Report

Merkins 10 West Central Belt Application None

Cove Community Wind Farm

3 Argyll West & Islands Application None

Priestside Farm 2 Inverclyde Refused Impact on the habitat of Birds and Badgers report

8.201 The search area for this assessment extends to 15 km from the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm site for all VORs. This is considered to be sufficient in relation to the maximum foraging range of birds that may use the airspace over the proposed wind farm. The assessment includes projects which are completed, under construction and consented, as well as those which are in the planning application or scoping process with design information in the public domain. There is a single turbine and a two turbine proposal within 15 km radius of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm site which meets the criteria for cumulative assessment:

High Mathernock Farm

Preistside Farm

8.202 Currently there is no agreed method for determining significant adverse cumulative effects. SNH guidance6 on cumulative effects on wind farms recommends a 5-stage process to aid in the ornithological assessment:

Define the species to be considered

Consider the limits or 'search area' of the study

Decide the methods to be employed

Review the findings of existing studies

53 http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A675475.pdf




Draw conclusions of cumulative effects within the study area.

8.203 The main focus of considering cumulative effects should be an attempt to identify any situation where effects that are minor in isolation have a greater additive effect, so as to be significant according to the EIA Regulations. This could occur in a situation where there is more than one development proposal that in isolation affects either a single pair of birds, or a population of birds of high conservation value at a minor level.

8.204 In line with SNH guidance, the key species considered in this assessment are species found within the study area that are considered of high conservation importance; and/or species found within the study area that are considered to be vulnerable to wind farms by virtue of their behaviour or ecology.

8.205 The assessment of cumulative effects from other development projects, in combination with those associated with the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm on VORs, considered all development types with the potential to have an effect.

High Matherock Farm 8.206 This is a single turbine development located approximately 2 km from the proposed Inverclyde

Wind Farm. No EIA was required for this development; however a Full Planning Application was required which involved a Basic Assessment of the Impact on Birds, carried out in July 2010. This assessment found no European Protected Species, potentially at risk of effect from onshore wind farms on site.

8.207 This assessment also involved a cumulative assessment of the potential effect on species for which designations are given within 20 km of the site location. This assessment considered the following ''features'' to be significant for the proposal:

Whooper Swan (Black Cart SSSI): aggregation of non-breeding species

Hen Harrier (Renfrewshire Height SSSI/SPA): aggregation of breeding birds/breeding population Annex 1 species

Red Throated Diver (Inner Clyde SPA): wintering population of nationally important numbers

8.208 Although the assessment considered that the above species could potentially be affected by the High Matherock development, the risk were assessed to be low - very low:

Whooper Swan: low risk

Hen Harrier: low risk

Red Throated Diver: very low risk

8.209 A three hour walkover survey was carried out to record the species of bird present on site in July 2010, the table below presents is the results of this survey.

Table 8.15: High Matherock Bird Survey Results

Species BoCC Listing* Number recorded

Grey Heron Green 1

Common Buzzard Green 1

Wood Pigeon Green 5

Wren Green 1

Magpie Green 3

Carrion Crow Green 18

Common Raven Green 5

Common Chaffinch Green 2

Goldfinch Green 3

Siskin Green 1

Common Kestrel Amber 1

Common Gull Amber 3

Lesser Black Backed Gull Amber 2

Common Swift Amber 5

Barn Swallow Amber 6

Meadow Pipit Amber 6

Willow Warbler Amber 3

Lesser Redpoll Amber 3

Sky Lark Red 1

Common Starling Red 5

Linnet Red 5

Yellowhammer Red 2

*Birds of Conservation Concern 2013: http://www.rspb.org.uk/images/BoCCtcm-9217852.pdf

8.210 It is concluded that given its small size of the High Matherock Farm development, and the low risk the development poses, the proposed Inverclyde development would not add cumulatively to the effects any bird species within the surrounding area. Therefore, the cumulative effect is assessed as negligible and not significant.

Preistside Farm 8.211 This is a single turbine development located approximately 1 km from the proposed Inverclyde

Wind Farm. This development was refused planning permission by Inverclyde Council on 23rd April 2013, Refusal was not on ecological/ornithological grounds. No EIA was carried out for this development; however a full Planning Application was required. An assessment of the impact on birds to be was carried out, details of which were presented in the document "Priestside Farm Development of Two Wind Turbines: Habitat, Birds & Badgers" and was provided to Inverclyde Council as part of the Planning Application. This assessment found no




bird species of high conservation value, potentially at risk of effect from onshore wind farms on site.

8.212 Three Winter Walkover Bird Surveys were conducted (27 Jan 11, 7 March 11 & 30 Nov 12), and three Modified Common Bird Census Surveys (28 April 11, 15 May 11 & 10 June 11). The observations of these surveys are presented in table 8.16 below.

Table 8.16: Priestside Farm Winter Walkover and Modified Common Bird Census Survey

Species BoCC Listing* Breeding Status

Pheasant Green Not breeding on site

Grey Heron Green Not breeding on site

Common Buzzard Green Breeding ~300m away from turbine

Chaffinch Green Probable breeder

Greenfinch Green Possible breeder

Goldfinch Green Possible breeder

Common Crossbill Green Not breeding on site

Greylag Goose Amber Breeds and roosts several km away off-site

Mallard Amber Not breeding on site

Kestrel Amber Not breeding on site

Snipe Amber 1-2 pairs breeding on site

Woodcock Amber Absent

Reed Bunting Amber Probable breeding just out

Hen Harrier Red Not breeding on site

Linnet Red Probable breeder

Lesser Redpoll Red Possible breeder

Yellowhammer Red

*Birds of Conservation Concern 2013: http://www.rspb.org.uk/images/BoCCtcm-9217852.pdf

8.213 Although the assessment considered that the following species could potentially be affected by the Preistside Farm development, the level of risk for all species was assessed to be very low:

Whooper Swan: very low risk

Greylag goose: very low risk

Hen Harrier: very low risk

Red Throated Diver: very low risk

8.214 It is concluded that as the Preistside Farm development has been refused planning consent the proposed Inverclyde development would not add cumulatively to the effects on any bird species within the surrounding area. Therefore, the cumulative effect is assessed as negligible and not significant.

8.215 Even if an amended application is submitted in the future, the scale of it is not likely to greatly exceed that of the refused application, and if anything, would more likely be reduced. Given its small size and the very low level of risk posed, it is unlikely that the development would create a significant cumulatively effects for any bird species within the surrounding area.

Summary 8.216 Table 8.15 below summarises the potential effects of the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm,

recommended mitigation and enhancement actions and residual significance of the effects.

8.217 Providing the proposed mitigation measures are fully implemented, it is predicted there would be no long-term significant negative effects on any of the locally occurring species of importance.

8.218 This chapter has assessed the likely significance of effects of the proposed development on bird species at the proposed Inverclyde Wind Farm.

8.219 Vantage point flight activity surveys, raptors & owl surveys, winter walkover surveys, breeding bird surveys and appropriate species specific surveys were undertaken across the site and the results used to inform the Inverclyde Wind Farm design and subsequent effect assessment and mitigation measures.

8.220 By applying effective mitigation measures, the residual effects of this development on all bird species are assessed as being 'negligible' and therefore are not significant.




Table 8.17: Summary of Residual Impacts

VOR Likely Significant Effects Mitigation Proposed Means of Implementation Outcome/Residual Effects

Construction

Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA Adverse effect on species of designation Application of Best Practice Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Negligible

Inner Clyde SSSI, SPA and Ramsar None N/A N/A N/A

Black Cart SPA Adverse effect on species of designation Application of Best Practice Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Negligible

Castle Semple and Barr Lochs SSSI None N/A N/A N/A

Whooper swan Land-take Effects Application of Best Practice Pre-construction Checks

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)Provision of ECoW on site

Negligible

Disturbance Effects Application of Best Practice Timing of Construction Activities Pre-construction Checks

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)Provision of ECoW on site

Negligible

Greylag goose Land-take Effects Application of Best Practice Pre-construction Checks Improving habitats for bird’s outwith the turbine envelope

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) Provision of ECoW on site Species & Habitat Management Plan

Negligible


Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) Provision of ECoW on site

Negligible

Hen harrier Land-take Effects Application of Best Practice Pre-construction Checks Improving habitats for bird’s outwith the turbine envelope


Negligible



Negligible

Osprey Land-take Effects Application of Best Practice Pre-construction Checks


Negligible



Negligible

Peregrine Land-take Effects Application of Best Practice Pre-construction Checks Improving habitats for bird’s outwith the turbine envelope


Negligible



Negligible




VOR Likely Significant Effects Mitigation Proposed Means of Implementation Outcome/Residual Effects

Operational

Renfrewshire Heights SSSI/SPA Adverse effect on species of designation Application of Best Practice Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Negligible

Inner Clyde SSSI, SPA and Ramsar None N/A N/A N/A

Black Cart SPA Adverse effect on species of designation Application of Best Practice Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Negligible

Castle Semple and Barr Lochs SSSI None N/A N/A N/A

Whooper swan Disturbance/ displacement and Barrier effects;

Application of Best Practice Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Negligible

Collision effects. Application of Best Practice Post construction monitoring

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Negligible

Greylag goose Disturbance/ displacement and Barrier effects;


Negligible

Collision effects. Application of Best Practice Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Negligible

Hen harrier Disturbance/ displacement and Barrier effects;


Negligible

Collision effects. Application of Best Practice Post construction monitoring

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Negligible

Osprey Disturbance/ displacement and Barrier effects;


Negligible


Negligible

Peregrine Disturbance/ displacement and Barrier effects;


Negligible


Negligible

E

EE

EE

E

E

EE

E

_̂

_̂1

2

227000.000000 228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3

7 Walker Street, Edinburgh EH3 7JY

Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com

Inverclyde Wind FarmEnvironmental Statement

Applicant: Inverclyde Renewables LLP

Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:20,000

±

0 1 2 30.5 km

Title: Figure 8.1Vantage Point Locations and Viewsheds

© Crown copyright 2013. All rightsreserved. Licence number 0100031673

Drawn by: MD

LegendSite boundary

E Turbines

_̂ Vantage point

Viewshed (20m above ground)

VP1

VP2

E

EE

EE

E

E

EE

E

227000.000000 228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:21,000

±

0 0.95 1.9 2.850.475 km

Title: Figure 8.2Survey Areas


Drawn by: OR

LegendSite boundary

E Turbines

Original site boundary

MBBS survey area (500 m buffer, undertaken in open ground)

Black grouse survey area (1.5 km buffer)

Breeding raptor survey area(2 km buffer)

Black Cart SPA

Inner Clyde Ramsar, SPA & SSSI

West Central Belt NHZ

Argyll West and Islands NHZ

Loch Lomond, The Trossachs and Breadalbane NHZ

Renfrewshire Heights SPA & SSSI

Castle Semple and Barr Lochs SSSI

210000.000000 220000.000000 230000.000000 240000.000000 250000.000000

6600

00.0

0000

0

6600

00.0

0000

0

6700

00.0

0000

0

6700

00.0

0000

0

6800

00.0

0000

0

6800

00.0

0000

0

6900

00.0

0000

0

6900

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:150,000

±

0 5 10 15 202.5 km

Title: Figure 8.3 Designated Sites and NHZ

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013

Drawn by: OR

Legend

Site boundary

Natural Heritage Zone

Clyde Muirshiels RegionalPark

Ornithological designations

Special Protection Area(SPA)

Ramsar

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

E

EE

EE

E

E

EE

E

227000.000000 228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:21,000

±

0 1 2 30.5 km

Title: Figure 8.4Raptor Species Flightlines 2011-2012


Drawn by: OR

Legend

Site boundary

E Turbines

Flightlines

Goshawk

Hen harrier

Kestrel

Long-eared owl

Merlin

Osprey

Peregrine

Red kite

Short-eared owl

E

EE

EE

E

E

EE

E

227000.000000 228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:21,000

±

0 1 2 30.5 km

Title: Figure 8.5Wildfowl Species Flightlines 2011-2012

Drawn by: OR

LegendSite boundary

E Turbines

Flightlines

Goldeneye

Mallard

Shelduck

Teal

Tufted duck

Whooper swan

Greylag goose


E

EE

EE

E

E

EE

E

227000.000000 228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:21,000

±

0 1 2 30.5 km

Title: Figure 8.6Wader Species Flightlines 2011-2012

Drawn by: OR

Legend

Site boundary

E Turbines

Flightlines

Common sandpiper

Curlew

Golden plover

Lapwing

Oyster catcher

Snipe


E

EE

EE

E

E

EE

E

227000.000000 228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

6750

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:21,000

±

0 1 2 30.5 km

Title: Figure 8.7Breeding Raptor Survey Results 2011-2012

Drawn by: OR

LegendSite boundary

E Turbines

Flightlines

Buzzard

Kestrel

Osprey

Peregrine

Sparrow hawk


E

EE

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

S.

S.

S.S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.S.

S.

S.

S.S.

S.S.

S.S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.S.

S.

S.

S. S.

S.

S.

S.S.

S.S.

S.

S.S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.S.

S.

S.

S.S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S.

S. S.

S.

S.

S.

WR

WR

WR

WR

WRWR

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

SL

R.

R.

GO

CH

CH

CH

CH

CG

C.

BZ

B.

B.

B.

B.

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WWWW

WW

WWWW

WW

WW

WW WW

WW

WWWW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WHW.

W.

W.

W.

W.

W.

SN

RG

RG

RB

RB

RB

RB

M.

K.

D.

CU

CU

CS

ST

ST

LI

LI

L.

GH

GH

GH

GH

CK

228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:15,000

±

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 km

Title: Figure 8.8Moorland Breeding Bird Survey Results

Drawn by: OR

LegendSite boundary

E Turbines

MBBS survey area (500 m buffer, undertaken in open ground)

MBBS territory (2011/2012)

Blackbird

Buzzard

Carrion crow

Canada goose

Chaffinch

Cuckoo

Common sandpiper

Curlew

Dunnock

Grasshopper warbler

Goldfinch

Golden plover

Lapwing

Linnet

Mistle thrush

Osprey

Robin

Reed bunting

Red grouse

Skylark

Swallow

Snipe

Starling

Sedge warbler

Wheatear

Whitethroat

Wren

Willow warbler


E

EE

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:15,000

±

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 km

Title: Figure 8.9aWinter Walkover Survey Results2011 - 2012 Species A - L

Drawn by: MD

LegendSite boundary

E Turbines

Winter walkover survey area (500 m buffer)

Winter walkover species A - L

Blackbird

Bullfinch

Black-headed gull

Buzzard

Carrion crow

Canada goose

Chaffinch

Common gull

Curlew

Dunnock

Feildfare

Goosander

Greylag goose

Goldeneye

Goldfinch

Grey heron

Herring gull

Jay

Golden plover

Lapwing



E

EE

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

228000.000000 229000.000000 230000.000000 231000.000000 232000.000000

6710

00.0

0000

0

6710

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6720

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6730

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

6740

00.0

0000

0

Scale @ A3


Tel: +44 (0)131 225 9899Fax: +44 (0)131 220 3411

www.environcorp.com



Date: April 2013

Issue: A

1:15,000

±

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 km

Title: Figure 8.9bWinter Walkover Survey Results 2011-2012 Species M - Z

Drawn by: MD

LegendSite boundary

E Turbines

Winter walkover survey area (500 m buffer)

Winter walkover species M-Z

Mistle thrush

Mallard

Magpie

Merlin

Meadow pipit

Mute swan

Oystercatcher

Peregrine

Robin

Reed bunting

Redwing

Red grouse

Raven

Skylark

Stonechat

Short-eared owl

Starling

Snipe

Teal

Wookcock

Wren


ornithology - inverclyde wind farm wind farm environmental statement inverclyde renewables llp...

Documents