Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables
Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables Camilty Wind Farm - Partnerships for Renewables
Camilty Wind Farm sites for the same reasons given above in relation to wading bird species. However, at a distance of 19 km from the SPA, the proposed development is located within the 20 km foraging range of pink-footed geese. Therefore the birds observed flying over the site during flight activity surveys could potentially have been associated with the designated site. However, the core pink-footed goose roosting sites of the Firth of Forth (Skinflats, and Aberlady Bay) are located over 25 km and 40 km from the site respectively. Consequently, while some of the birds observed may have frequented these roosts at some point over the winter, it is unlikely that they will have commuted such distances to travel between these roost sites and foraging grounds in the vicinity of the proposed development. Therefore, in relation to the concerns raised by SNH over issues of connectivity, the likelihood of there being any connectivity between the Firth of Forth SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI and the proposed Camilty wind farm site is low. As such, potential impacts on this suite of designated sites will not be considered any further in this assessment. 12.3.41 With regard to the notified ornithological interests of Easter Inch Moss and Seafield Law LNR (short-eared owl and reed bunting), only reed bunting was recorded at the proposed Camilty wind farm site during the entire bird survey programme and even then the species was represented only by a single individual during one of the winter walkover surveys. Consequently, the survey data strongly indicates that there is no evidence of any connectivity between this LNR and the site. As such, potential impacts on this site will not be considered any further in this assessment. Reference Populations and Conservation Status 12.3.42 As described in the Assessment of the Significance of Effects section (12.2.35 onwards), the level of a potential effect on each VOR was determined by considering the magnitude, extent and duration of the effect in relation to the conservation importance (sensitivity) of the VOR within the context of the reference population. 12.3.43 According to SNH (2006), an effect is judged to be of concern where it would “adversely affect the favourable conservation status of a species, or stop a recovering species reaching favourable conservation status, at international or national level, or regionally”. This is likely to be the case where a substantial or moderate adverse effect, not likely to be tolerable, is predicted using the matrix procedure, although expert judgement is applied in all cases. 12.3.44 The term ‘favourable conservation status’ (as articulated within the Habitats Directive) is defined by SNH (2006) as “the sum of influences acting on it which may affect its long-term distribution and abundance, within the geographical area of interest (which for the purposes of the Directive is the EU)”. This interpretation has become increasingly common in court cases within the context of the Birds Directive. Conservation status is favourable where: • Population dynamics indicate that the species is maintaining its population size on a long-term basis as a viable component of its habitats; • The natural range of the species is not being reduced, nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future; and • There is (and will probably continue to be) a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis. 12.3.45 The conservation status of each VOR is therefore considered at the international, national and/or regional scale, depending on whether the population is breeding, migratory or March 2013 12-36 ES Chapter 12 Ornithology Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm overwintering. For non-breeding or migratory species, consideration at a national scale is more appropriate than at regional level or lower. 12.3.46 For breeding birds, the regional scale equates to SNH’s Natural Heritage Zones (NHZ) 12 , where there is high biogeographical coherence within each zone. In this case, the proposed Camilty wind farm site just lies within the West Central Belt (NHZ 17) but is within 500 m of the Border Hills (NHZ 20) and 2 km of the Eastern Lowlands (NHZ 16). The extent of these NHZs and the location of the proposed wind farm site within/between them is presented in Figure 12.5. However, given the site’s location at the foot of the Pentland Hills, it is considered that the Border Hills NHZ more closely reflects the upland moorland and plantation habitat within and around the development site, and so is used as the primary reference population. Other populations (e.g. Scottish Raptor Study Group survey areas) will however be considered where appropriate. 12.3.47 With regard to overwintering migratory species (e.g. pink-footed geese and greylag geese), SNH consider the national or migratory flyway population to be the most relevant geographical scale upon which to assess impacts in such species (SNH, 2006). 12.3.48 In order to determine whether the conservation status of a species’ population will be adversely affected, it is necessary to obtain the best data on each VOR’s current population and recent trends. These are presented below. Goshawk 12.3.49 Goshawk is listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, although it is greenlisted in the latest BoCC report (Eaton et al. 2009) due to its expansion since the mid 20th century. There are thought to be approximately 400 pairs in the UK (Robinson, 2005), with at least 130 pairs in Scotland (Forrester et al. 2007). The population is slowly expanding from two main population clusters, one in the Borders and one in northeast Scotland (Marquiss et al. 2003). Further expansion is predicted in these areas due to the apparent abundance of breeding habitat in the wider area, mainly coniferous forests which are relatively undisturbed and free from persecution (Forrester et al. 2007). 12.3.50 In Lothian and Borders (the most representative regional reference area to the Border Hills NHZ) during 2010, surveys by the Raptor Study Group found a total of 28 out of 58 known home ranges which were occupied by pairs. Breeding success in the 28 occupied home ranges was around 2.0 fledged young per nesting pair. This productivity figure is slightly higher than the Scottish average of 1.9 young per nesting pair (from 97 pairs checked), which although reasonably high at 82% success, was down on the previous three years recorded by the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme. 12.3.51 A further 11 home ranges were identified which showed signs of occupancy by at least one bird (Etheridge et al. 2012). The NHZ breeding population is therefore at least 28 pairs. However, population estimates of goshawk are likely to be underestimates (Forrester et al. 2007) based on the species’ elusive behaviour (Murray et al. 1998). Therefore, given that the Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group surveys will undoubtedly have missed some unknown breeding pairs, the breeding population is estimated to be in the region of 28-35 pairs. The total population is thus likely to be between 65-85 individual birds. 12 SNH Natural heritage Futures website (http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-snh/what-we-do/nhf/nhf-downloads/). March 2013 12-37 ES Chapter 12 Ornithology Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
- Page 338 and 339: Camilty Wind Farm Siltbusters or eq
- Page 340 and 341: Camilty Wind Farm 11.9 Cumulative E
- Page 342 and 343: Camilty Wind Farm 11.9.22 It is con
- Page 344 and 345: Camilty Wind Farm Table 11.22 Summa
- Page 346 and 347: Camilty Wind Farm Receptor Effect D
- Page 348 and 349: Camilty Wind Farm Receptor Effect D
- Page 350 and 351: Camilty Wind Farm Receptor Effect D
- Page 352 and 353: Camilty Wind Farm • NBN Gateway W
- Page 354 and 355: Camilty Wind Farm 12.2 Methodology
- Page 356 and 357: Camilty Wind Farm activity, particu
- Page 358 and 359: Camilty Wind Farm 12.2.10 In additi
- Page 360 and 361: Camilty Wind Farm Flight Activity S
- Page 362 and 363: Camilty Wind Farm (ii) For a sample
- Page 364 and 365: Camilty Wind Farm 12.2.40 The Town
- Page 366 and 367: Camilty Wind Farm Level of Effect S
- Page 368 and 369: Camilty Wind Farm Table 12.8 Desk-b
- Page 370 and 371: Camilty Wind Farm Table 12.10 Fligh
- Page 372 and 373: Camilty Wind Farm 12.3.19 All speci
- Page 374 and 375: Camilty Wind Farm Table 12.13 Speci
- Page 376 and 377: Camilty Wind Farm Collision Risk Mo
- Page 378 and 379: Camilty Wind Farm • Goshawk; •
- Page 380 and 381: Camilty Wind Farm Species Recorded
- Page 382 and 383: Camilty Wind Farm Species Recorded
- Page 384 and 385: Camilty Wind Farm Species Recorded
- Page 386 and 387: Camilty Wind Farm Species Recorded
- Page 390 and 391: Camilty Wind Farm 12.3.52 In summar
- Page 392 and 393: Camilty Wind Farm Given that the Ph
- Page 394 and 395: Camilty Wind Farm three VORs (i.e.
- Page 396 and 397: Camilty Wind Farm there is an abund
- Page 398 and 399: Camilty Wind Farm 12.5.40 It is exp
- Page 400 and 401: Camilty Wind Farm 12.5.49 Based on
- Page 402 and 403: Camilty Wind Farm above), then conn
- Page 404 and 405: Camilty Wind Farm 12.5.67 The most
- Page 406 and 407: Camilty Wind Farm (or during any ma
- Page 408 and 409: Camilty Wind Farm while all other s
- Page 410 and 411: Camilty Wind Farm 12.8 Cumulative E
- Page 412 and 413: Camilty Wind Farm stages of develop
- Page 414 and 415: Camilty Wind Farm wind farms are al
- Page 416 and 417: Camilty Wind Farm 12.8.36 Surveys a
- Page 418 and 419: Camilty Wind Farm considered to mat
- Page 420 and 421: Camilty Wind Farm Receptor Sensitiv
- Page 422 and 423: Camilty Wind Farm Receptor Sensitiv
- Page 424 and 425: Camilty Wind Farm • IPCC (2005).
- Page 426 and 427: Camilty Wind Farm 13 Hydrology, Hyd
- Page 428 and 429: Camilty Wind Farm Table 13.1 Criter
- Page 430 and 431: Camilty Wind Farm 13.2.6 Effects ar
- Page 432 and 433: Camilty Wind Farm Baseline Survey G
- Page 434 and 435: Camilty Wind Farm Source Other guid
- Page 436 and 437: Camilty Wind Farm Land-use and Topo
<strong>Camilty</strong> <strong>Wind</strong> <strong>Farm</strong><br />
overwintering. For non-breeding or migratory species, consideration at a national scale is<br />
more appropriate than at regional level or lower.<br />
12.3.46 For breeding birds, the regional scale equates to SNH’s Natural Heritage Zones (NHZ) 12 ,<br />
where there is high biogeographical coherence within each zone. In this case, the proposed<br />
<strong>Camilty</strong> wind farm site just lies within the West Central Belt (NHZ 17) but is within 500 m of<br />
the Border Hills (NHZ 20) and 2 km of the Eastern Lowlands (NHZ 16). The extent of these<br />
NHZs and the location of the proposed wind farm site within/between them is presented in<br />
Figure 12.5. However, given the site’s location at the foot of the Pentland Hills, it is<br />
considered that the Border Hills NHZ more closely reflects the upland moorland and<br />
plantation habitat within and around the development site, and so is used as the primary<br />
reference population. Other populations (e.g. Scottish Raptor Study Group survey areas) will<br />
however be considered where appropriate.<br />
12.3.47 With regard to overwintering migratory species (e.g. pink-footed geese and greylag geese),<br />
SNH consider the national or migratory flyway population to be the most relevant<br />
geographical scale upon which to assess impacts in such species (SNH, 2006).<br />
12.3.48 In order to determine whether the conservation status of a species’ population will be<br />
adversely affected, it is necessary to obtain the best data on each VOR’s current population<br />
and recent trends. These are presented below.<br />
Goshawk<br />
12.3.49 Goshawk is listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, although it is greenlisted<br />
in the latest BoCC report (Eaton et al. 2009) due to its expansion since the mid 20th<br />
century. There are thought to be approximately 400 pairs in the UK (Robinson, 2005), with at<br />
least 130 pairs in Scotland (Forrester et al. 2007). The population is slowly expanding from<br />
two main population clusters, one in the Borders and one in northeast Scotland (Marquiss et<br />
al. 2003). Further expansion is predicted in these areas due to the apparent abundance of<br />
breeding habitat in the wider area, mainly coniferous <strong>for</strong>ests which are relatively undisturbed<br />
and free from persecution (Forrester et al. 2007).<br />
12.3.50 In Lothian and Borders (the most representative regional reference area to the Border Hills<br />
NHZ) during 2010, surveys by the Raptor Study Group found a total of 28 out of 58 known<br />
home ranges which were occupied by pairs. Breeding success in the 28 occupied home<br />
ranges was around 2.0 fledged young per nesting pair. This productivity figure is slightly<br />
higher than the Scottish average of 1.9 young per nesting pair (from 97 pairs checked), which<br />
although reasonably high at 82% success, was down on the previous three years recorded<br />
by the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme.<br />
12.3.51 A further 11 home ranges were identified which showed signs of occupancy by at least one<br />
bird (Etheridge et al. 2012). The NHZ breeding population is there<strong>for</strong>e at least 28 pairs.<br />
However, population estimates of goshawk are likely to be underestimates (Forrester et al.<br />
2007) based on the species’ elusive behaviour (Murray et al. 1998). There<strong>for</strong>e, given that the<br />
Lothian and Borders Raptor Study Group surveys will undoubtedly have missed some<br />
unknown breeding pairs, the breeding population is estimated to be in the region of 28-35<br />
pairs. The total population is thus likely to be between 65-85 individual birds.<br />
12 SNH Natural heritage Futures website (http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-snh/what-we-do/nhf/nhf-downloads/).<br />
March 2013 12-37 ES Chapter 12<br />
Ornithology<br />
Copyright <strong>Partnerships</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Renewables</strong> Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©