Camilty Wind Farm
Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology Appendix 11.1 Appendix 11.2 Appendix 11.3 Appendix 11.4 Appendix 11.5
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey Report Bat Survey Technical Report Terrestrial Ecology Survey Report (excluding bats) Calculation of Minimum Bat Turbine Buffer Distances
March 2013 Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
List of Appendices
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report
March 2013 Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
List of Appendices
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Introduction Background 11.1.1
RPS was commissioned by Partnerships for Renewables (PfR) to undertake an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey in relation to a proposed wind farm development at Forestry Commission Scotland’s Camilty Plantation site in West Lothian (central Ordnance Survey (OS) grid reference NT 0561 5932).
11.1.2
The requirement for these surveys was informed by an Ecological Site Sensitivity Appraisal1 which was conducted in February 2011. While this appraisal covered a larger area than which is under investigation in this report, it broadly concluded that the coniferous plantation woodland and associated habitats present were of low to moderate conservation value.
11.1.3
The key objectives of the Phase 1 habitat survey were:
To identify the broad habitat types and dominant floral communities within and immediately adjacent to the site boundary.
To identify the presence of any legally protected habitats, as well as those found within the UK and local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) frameworks.
To identify the presence of invasive plant species subject to legal control.
To identify any requirement of further ecological survey work to inform the development process for the proposed wind farm.
Definition of Terms 11.1.4
The following definitions are used in this report:
Survey area: an area encompassing the proposed development site and a 500 m buffer.
Proposed wind farm, site or site boundary: the planning application boundary.
Methodology Desk Study and Consultation 11.1.5
1 2
No formal desk study or consultation was conducted prior to undertaking the Phase 1 habitat survey. However, where relevant, information gathered during the Camilty Ecological Site Sensitivity Appraisal1 has been used to inform this report, including FCS records, information provided by The Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI) and those provided on the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway database2.
Camilty Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal (RPS, 2011). National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway database. http://data.nbn.org.uk/imt/
March 2013
1
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 11.1.6
The survey followed the methodology as described in JNCC (2010)3. Fieldwork was undertaken by an RPS ecologist with experience of Extended Phase 1 habitat surveys in upland environments on 4 October 2011 and covered all areas within the site boundary as well as those within a surrounding buffer of at least 250 m.
11.1.7
Indicative peat probing was undertaken in peat soil habitats to aid Phase 1 habitat classification. Peat depth was characterised as greater than or less than 0.5 m. This distinction is used to distinguish between some habitat classes, i.e. heathland, flushes and springs are generally considered to be associated with peat depths of 0.5 m (JNCC, 2010). Samples were only taken in areas where approximate peat depth was required as a diagnostic feature for habitat classification. No attempt was made at consistent spatial coverage of the survey area, with sampling frequency within a habitat polygon at the discretion of the surveyor. Note that these samples are not a substitute for an actual peat probing survey, but rather provide an indication of the broad habitat category present in a given polygon and should be treated as such within the context of a Phase 1 habitat survey only.
11.1.8
Scientific names for flora and fauna are given when the species is first mentioned in the text but not thereafter. Latin binomial system for vascular plants follows the nomenclature of Stace (2010)4. Information on protected species is contained in the target notes (Annex 1).
Survey Limitations 11.1.9
The survey was conducted relatively late in the season and when most flowering plants are dying back. As such, many plant species only displayed a limited presence of key identifying features such as leaves or flowers. However, the timing of the survey was sufficient for enabling the identification of the dominant habitat types within the survey area (one of the main aims of the survey), and consequently these timings are not considered to have posed a significant constraint to the objectives of the survey.
Results Desk Study Results 11.1.10
A number of designated sites were identified in close proximity to the survey area during the Camilty Ecological Site Sensitivity Appraisal. These include the Craigengar Special Area of Conservation (SAC) approximately 4 km to the southeast and Westwater Special Protection Area (SPA) and Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar Site) 8 km to the south. Within the survey boundary Cobbinshaw Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is connected to the southwest survey boundary. This site is notified for its blanket bog habitat and associated floral community.
11.1.11
The BSBI provided records of two species which are listed as key species in the West Lothian LBAP, and which occur within 2 km of the survey area. These are hairy stonecrop (Sedum villosum) and small cranberry (Vaccinium microcarpum). The former species is classed as ‘Near Threatened’ in the Red Data List.
3
Joint Nature Conservancy Council (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit. JNCC.
4
Stace, C.A. 2010. New Flora of the British Isles 3 Edition.
March 2013
-
rd
2
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.1.12
A search of the NBN database during the Ecological Site Sensitivity Appraisal identified the NT05 and NT06 10 km grid squares covering the site and surrounding area and found a number of notable plants with the potential to be present on site – see Annex 2.
Field Survey Results 11.1.13
The survey results are presented in Figure 11.1.1. Features of interest are referenced throughout the following text with “Target Notes” (e.g. TN1) which are described in the Target Note Record (Annex 1) with locations shown on Figure 1. Individual habitat types are described in detail below, with the dominant species present listed along with their location within the survey area.
Coniferous Plantation Woodland 11.1.14
The survey area is dominated by coniferous plantation woodland containing a mix of different aged stands. The predominant species within the survey area are Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), with occasional stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris).
11.1.15
Due to the density of much of the mature canopy within the site, very little light penetrates the ground layer causing many previously existing species to be shaded out; thus needle litter becomes the dominating characteristic. Consequently, throughout many of the plantation areas there is little biological diversity within the floral ground layer.
11.1.16
Several areas have been recently planted as a second rotation crop and the canopy has not yet reached the thicket stage. Within these areas a number of acid and marshy grassland species such as wavy hair-grass (Deschampsia flexuosa), tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), purple moor grass (Molinea caerulea), sheep’s and red fescue grasses (Festuca ovina/rubra), and sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) have been able to recolonise. The wetter areas, such as the forestry drains, have been recolonised by rush species including soft rush (Juncus effusus) and sharp-flowered rush (Juncus acutiflorus).
11.1.17
Throughout the survey area, and particularly surrounding Camilty Moss and the plantation area to the south of the A70, a number of the forestry coupes have recently been felled using the fell and brash technique. This technique creates ‘brash lanes’ where the branches of the felled trees have been removed and piled. Between the brash lanes the vegetation is recolonising with an assemblage of species similar to those in the recently planted areas, along with several patches of rosebay willowherb (Epilobium angustifolium).
11.1.18
The forest ride and track systems throughout the survey area consist of a mixture of marshy grassland and mire habitats dependent on the topography, drainage, and soil type of the particular area.
Broadleaved Plantation Woodland 11.1.19
March 2013
As with the coniferous plantation woodland, there are a number of areas within the survey boundary which have been felled and restocked with broadleaved species such as silver birch (Betula pendula), downy birch (Betula pubescens), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), and alder (Alnus glutinosa). The majority of these areas are in the north of the site, with the forestry crop still being relatively young, thus allowing marshy grassland species to coexist within the broad-leaved crop. 3
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Semi-natural Broadleaved Woodland 11.1.20
Throughout the survey area there are numerous mature and immature broadleaved trees, including beech (Fagus sylvatica), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), alder, silver birch, downy birch, ash (Fraxinus excelsior), sessile oak (Quercus petraea), penduculate oak (Quercus robur), and rowan.
11.1.21
Semi-natural broadleaved woodland is included within both national and local BAP frameworks for the area.
Grassland and Field Boundaries 11.1.22
The south of the survey area is dominated by areas of marshy grassland interspersed with areas of semi-improved acid grassland. The marshy grassland is dominated by tussocks of soft rush with abundant purple moor grass, and tufted hair-grass between the rush tussocks. Herbs such as sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), lesser spearwort (Ranunculus flammula), marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre), and marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre) are abundant throughout these areas.
11.1.23
Marshy grassland areas are also common within the rides containing drains and burns across the site. These areas are dominated by a soft rush sward often containing a high percentage cover of purple moor grass. A number of areas within Camilty Plantation have been recently felled with marshy grassland species regenerating between the brash lanes left from forestry activities (TN15). These areas are currently still classified as recently felled under the Phase 1 nomenclature.
11.1.24
The areas of semi-improved acid grassland in the southeast of the site (TN37) are dominated by species such as sheep’s fescue and sweet vernal grass, with abundant heath bedstraw (Galium saxatile) and mosses such as Rhytideadelphus loreus within the sward. Due to the grazing that appears to take place within these areas, the additional nutrients have allowed the introduction of species such as creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Yorkshire fog which otherwise would be unable to exist. Heath rush (Juncus squarrosus) is also occasionally present throughout these acidic areas.
11.1.25
There are a number of poor semi-improved fields in the south of the site surrounding Crosswoodburn Farm. At the time of the survey these were being used for grazing sheep and segregated by wire fencing. Similarly the marshy grassland areas to the south of the A70 are used for grazing sheep, with patches of soft rush appearing to have been cropped through grazing.
11.1.26
None of the grassland types present within the survey boundary are listed within European legislation, and whilst marshy grassland areas have the potential to be listed within UK BAP frameworks, none present fall within the relevant categories.
Heath and Mire 11.1.27
March 2013
Throughout the survey area there are few areas of heath present, as the majority of the survey area has a peat depth greater than 0.5 m. An area of wet heath (TN35) is present in the south east of the survey area bordering the plantation forestry before areas of acid and marshy grassland become dominant. This wet heath area is dominated by heather (Calluna vulgaris) and bilberry (Vaccinium mrytillus), with abundant purple moor grass present throughout the ericoid (heath, or heath-like) sward. The peat depth within the area is less than 0.5 m. 4
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.1.28
There are a variety of mire habitats present within the survey area where the peat depth is greater than 0.5 m. The type of mire is typically dependent on the topography and management regime that the area has previously undergone. As most of the survey area has at one point or another been afforested, many of the areas of mire fall either within the wet or dry modified bog categories (TN14, TN25). These modified bogs have had their hydrological nature altered, often having a limited abundance of Sphagnum mosses and thus no longer actively forming peat. Wet modified bogs are typified by the presence of purple moor grass on peat with a depth greater than 0.5 m, whereas dry modified bogs are generally rich in ericoid shrubs whilst being present on peat of similar depths. The ride systems throughout the afforested areas of the survey area are generally of a mosaic dominated by these two mire types.
11.1.29
Areas of blanket bog are present within the survey area where afforestation has not taken place. Two such examples are in the north west of the survey area (e.g. around TN28) and the south of the survey area (TN22) where Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI joins the survey area boundary. These areas have a peat depth greater than 0.5 m, containing a sward dominated by ericoid species such as heather, cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix), and bilberry, with a ground layer containing Sphagna such as S. capillofolium, S. fallax, S. tenellum, S. cuspidatum, and S. subnitens.
11.1.30
Both the wet heath and blanket bog areas are recognised as Annex 1 Biotope types under the EC Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations 1994 (as amended), and as UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats. They are also listed on the Scottish Biodiversity List as of conservation importance for Scotland.
Watercourses and Waterbodies 11.1.31
The watercourses within the survey area include the Otter Burn, Powfastle Burn, Shear Burn, Crosswood Burn, Kelly Syke, Green Burn and Black Burn. These burns drain the survey area flowing from the south west to the north east, passing through the site and ultimately discharging into the Camilty Water in the north east of the survey area. The majority of the burns are narrow, between 0.5 m and 1.5 m in width, often choked with soft rush, running between a mixture of mineral soil or peat banks generally between 0.5 m and 1 m in height.
11.1.32
Despite the abundant rainfall preceding the survey, none of the burns were in spate, only carrying a moderate amount of water and generally appearing to be slow flowing. The burn margins typically comprised either marshy grassland or ericoid species depending on the habitat that they were flowing through. One exception to this is the Green Burn, the tributary to Crosswood Burn which flows alongside the southern edge of the A70. This burn was surrounded by areas of semi-improved acid grassland dominated by sheep’s fescue and sweet vernal grass, with abundant creeping thistle and occasional common nettle (Urtica dioica) along the banks. These areas appear to have been affected by additional nutrients from sheep grazing in the area.
11.1.33
The start of Camilty Water in the northeast of the survey area (TN13) is approximately 10 m in width, running between 0.5 m steep mineral soil banks. The base of the burn contains a gravel substrate and there is little emergent vegetation within the burn or along the banks.
March 2013
5
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.1.34
Within the survey area there are numerous small forestry drains, many of which are choked with either soft rush, brash from felling activities, or Sphagnum mosses. These have not been mapped for the purpose of this survey.
11.1.35
All major waterbodies are present in the north of the survey area (TN4, TN10). These are drainage pools from previous forestry activities, with two main systems being linked by a single drain running through a gulley containing banks of semi-improved neutral grassland (TN9). The pools contain areas of open water fringed by emergent vegetation dominated by soft rush, with scattered willow scrub (Salix spp.) and silver birch saplings surrounding these areas. The pools in the wider context are surrounded by areas of marshy grassland dominated by soft rush and tufted hair grass.
11.1.36
One additional small water body was found in the northwest of the survey area at TN28. This pool appeared to be artificial and approximately 15 m by 15 m in size. The pool was fringed by emergent vegetation dominated by soft rush, with peat banks approximately 0.5 m in height covered by heather. The water within the pool appeared cloudy and dark in colour probably due to the surface water run off from the surrounding blanket bog, and as such the water is assumed to be dystrophic in nature. It is thought the pool is unlikely to support any fish species.
11.1.37
Watercourses are included within both UK and local BAP frameworks, however, the dystrophic nature of many of the artificial water bodies on site precludes their inclusion within the same lists.
Invasive Species Subject to Legal Control 11.1.38
March 2013
No invasive species were identified within the survey area.
6
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Figures
Figure 11.1.1 – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results
March 2013
7
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
305000
Phase 1
306000
D D DDD 10 D D D D DD D D D D DD D DD D D D DD D SI
.
SI
SI
SI
.
! ! ! Coniferous parkland / scattered trees
! !
! ! ! !
F F F F 13F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F
.
!
!
!
35
1
E
.
.
.
.
.
F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F
A A A
F F F F F
.
A A A
F F F F F
A A A
E
SI
SI
SI
SI SI SI
SI
SI SI
SI
21
.
20
.
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
.SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
37
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
D
D
D D
D
D D
D
D
D D
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
D
.
SI
SI
D
23
D
.
SI
SI
D
F F 22F F F F F F F F F F
D
658000
F F F F F F
SI
SI
SI
SI
Marsh / marshy grassland Poor semi-improved grassland Wet dwarf shrub heath
Flush and spring - acid / neutral flush Standing water
A A A Cultivated / disturbed land - amenity A! A ! A
grassland
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
Bare ground
! !
! !
Other habitat Road
±
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Project name: Camilty Wind Farm
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Title : Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results
||
.
SI
SI
Dry modified bog
SI
.
SI
F
SI
.
18
SI
Wet modified bog
SI
.
SI
SI
F
SI
.
SI
SINeutral grassland - semi-improved
Blanket sphagnum bog
SI
25
SI
F
F
Coniferous woodland - recently felled
SI
F
SI
.
F F F F F F
F
SI ! DD ! D!!D SI 34 ! D D !D! 19SI D! !D ! SI SI SI SI SI
33
24
.
F SI
D
.
SI
F
SI
!
D D
26
SI
|| ||
659000
A A A27
|| |
A A A
F
!
F F F F F F F15 F F F F F F F SI SI F F F F F F F F F F F F DFD D DF FSI F F F F F F F F F F F F SI D D F F F F F F F F F F F F F DF D F F F F EF F F F F F DF F F F D F F F F F F F F F D DF F F 17F F D16 F F F F F F F F DF F F F F F D F F F F F F FD DF F F F F F F F F F F F FD DF F F F F F F F D SI SI SI F F F F F F F FDF F F F F F D F F EF F F F FD D F F F F F F F SI SI SI D F F F F F FD F F F F F F SI SI SI D F F F F FD D F F F F F F F SI SI SI SI SI D FDD D D F F FD F F F F F F F F 36 D D SI SI SI FSI !F SIFD F F F F F F F F F DD ! D F F F F F F F F F F F F ! SI SI SI SI SI F F F F F F F F SI SI SI SI SI F F F F F F F F
EF
F F F
Mixed woodland - plantation
F F F SI SI SIAcid grassland - semi-improved F F F
F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F
E
D
Coniferous woodland - plantation
.SI
!
.
| || || || | Fence
.
!
!
28
Broadleaved woodland - plantation
! 8 ! ! ! !
!
Coniferous woodland - plantation
Running water 14
SI
!
Phase 1
660000
SI
Proposed turbine location Phase 1 survey area (0.5 km buffer)
659000
SI
SI
E
658000
SI S7I D SI SI SI DDSI S!I ! 4 D SI SI D D SI SI S!I ! D DD 5D D ! D
SI
. SI
!
!
DD
SI
SI
Site boundary
Target note
! ! ! Broadleaved parkland / scattered trees
| |||
660000
SI
SI
Legend
D D D Scrub - scatted
. 3 2. .
!
!
. Location: W:\7154SAE - PfR, Camilty Wind Farm, EIA\Technical\Graphics\GIS\mxd files\ES figures 2012\Ecology\7154_EC_013a_Figure_1_Phase_1_Habitat_Survey_Results.mxd
SI
SI
Mixed woodland - plantation
.
|| | || |
!
!
29
SI
9SI
!
|
!
. .. 31
SI
.
!
!
32
SI
Mixed woodland - semi-natural
|||
.!
!
!
30
SI
!
| ||
!
6
SI
..
12
Coniferous woodland - plantation
| ||
SI
11
307000
D
| || ||
304000
Date: 06/03/2013 Scale @ A3 1:12,500 0 0.05 0.1 0.2
Ver : (1.0) 304000 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. Date: 2013 Licence number 0100031673
305000
306000
307000
Created by : OR 0.3
0.4
A3
Checked : KK
0.5 Kilometres
Figure : 11.1.1
Camilty Wind Farm
Annex 11.1.1: Target Notes Record
Target Note Number 1
Grid Reference
Target Note
NT 047595
2
NT 047596
3
NT 048597
4
NT 049599
5
NT 048598
6
NT 045599
7
NT 051600
8
NT 051600
9
NT 050602
10
NT 053605
11
NT 056606
12
NT 057605
13
NT 061597
14
NT 059601
15
NT 063596
An area containing allotments, kennels, machinery, and bare ground. Area is mapped as introduced shrubs. An area of marshy grassland which appears to have been previously planted with a forestry crop which has subsequently failed to reach maturity. A line of mature broadleaved trees including sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), and oak species (Quercus spp.). No suitable crevices or holes were seen to indicate bat roosts might be present. Areas of open water free of aquatic vegetation surrounded by soft rush (Juncus effusus). No signs of protected species were seen surrounding the pools and the area is thought to offer low potential for water vole due to the lack of suitable banking for nesting sites. The pools are used by otter as an area of forage as a spraint was found at this location. Areas of marshy grassland dominated by soft rush and tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa) with frequent rosebay willowherb (Epilobium angustifolium), scattered Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), and willow scrub (Salix spp.) present throughout. A line of mature sycamore and oak running along the edge of the plantation coniferous woodland adjoining an area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland on the northern boundary of the survey area. Holes and crevices were present in a number of the trees which have the potential to provide roosting opportunities for bats. A small man-made unmarked pool approximately 15 m by 10 m in size. The pool contains high (2-3 m) mineral banks and the water appears extremely turbid. Little emergent vegetation is present and the pool is thought to contain negligible potential to be used by protected species. No signs were found during the survey. An area of bare ground recolonising with marshy grassland species such as soft rush and tufted hair grass. A small burn approximately 0.5 m in width running west to east across the site through predominately neutral grassland banks. No signs of protected species were found along its length during the survey; however the burn is likely to be used by otters foraging throughout the area and the neutral grassland would provide suitable forage for water voles. A series of open water pools surrounded by marshy grassland with the banks of the pools dominated by soft rush. There is abundant willow scrub surrounding the pools and it is thought the pools offer potential foraging and resting sites for otter, and potential nesting areas for water vole. During the survey no signs of protected species were found although this could be due to the abnormally high water levels with in the pool due to the recent inclement weather. Two deep drains approximately 1.5 m wide and 1.5 m deep running through bare mineral soil banks. There is frequent soft rush within the base of the drain with 0.1 m of flowing water. The drains could be used by otter for foraging however no signs of protected species were seen at the time of the survey. These drains offer negligible potential as water vole habitat due to the soil filled mineral soil banking precluding against burrow construction. An area of marshy grassland which has recently been restocked with a Sitka spruce crop. The crop has not yet grown above the level of the grassland vegetation. A large burn running through the site approximately 10 m wide and 0.4 m deep, running over a stony substrate base. The water at the time of survey water very turbid due to the surface run off from the surrounding area. The burn would provide suitable habitat for both otter and water vole although at the time of survey no protected species signs were seen. The rides within this section of the forest are of wet modified bog nature, dominated by purple moor grass (Molinea caerulea) with a peat depth greater than 0.5 m. A large area of recently felled forestry which is now rapidly recolonising with soft rush, rosebay willowherb, and tufted hair grass. The area is currently classified as felled ground, however the successional process of recolonisation has been on going for a number of years and will soon be better represented by the marshy grassland category within the Phase 1 nomenclature.
March 2013
8
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Target Note Number 16
Grid Reference
Target Note
NT 064592
17
NT 066592
18
NT 063583
19
NT 054583
20
NT 047578
21
NT 045577
22
NT 045579
23
NT 046578
24
NT 043580
25
NT 042583
26
NT 040586
27
NT 041589
28
NT 039595
29
NT 042596
30
NT 042598
31
NT 043598
32
NT 043598
33
NT 052585
34
NT 054583
The A70 running through the site has a buffer of marshy grassland either side of it before the plantation forestry begins. There are scattered mature silver birch (Betula pendula) and immature Sitka spruce trees along the north edge of the road. Kelly Syke burn is approximately 0.5 m wide and contains 0.2 m of flowing water running through acid grassland banks. The burn would provide suitable foraging habitat for otter although no signs were found during the survey, although low potential in terms of suitable water vole habitat due to the substrate within the banking precluding burrow construction. Shear Burn runs through plantation forestry and into marshy grassland. Within the marshy grassland area the burn is choked by soft rush and there were possible signs of water vole activity in this area. The burn offers suitable habitat for both otter and water vole. Crosswood burn – at this point the burn is approximately 5 m in width running through 0.5 m high gley soil banks and surrounded by a mixture of marshy and acid grassland areas. No signs of protected species were found along the burn at this point, however the burn does offer suitable habitat for both otter and water vole. An area of wet modified bog dominated by purple moor grass with a peat depth of greater than 1 m. Powfastle Burn – a burn approximately 1.2 m in width running through mire and acidic flush areas dominated by soft rush, purple moor grass, and bottle sedge (Carex rostrata). The burn would be suitable habitat for otter and water vole however no signs were found at the time of the survey. An area of blanket mire dominated by hare’s-tail cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum) and heather with a peat depth greater than 1 m. An acidic flush area surrounding the mapped burn dominated by bottle sedge, and soft rush, with occasional purple moor grass present. This area offers potentially suitable habitat for water vole and otter. Otter burn - A narrow burn approximately 0.4 m wide surrounded by purple moor grass with 0.3 m high peat banks. The burn is very small at this point appears to offer low potential for protected species in terms of forage for otter and burrowing opportunities for water voles. The ride system running through the forestry in the west of the site is dry modified bog, dominated by heather and hare’s-tail cotton-grass with an understorey of pleurocarpous mosses and a peat depth of greater than 0.5 m. The area mapped as Shake Holes contains dry modified bog with a similar species composition to that of the surrounding forestry rides. An area of amenity grassland where a clay pigeon shooting range is present. There are numerous prefabricated huts present in the area. During the roost assessment and activity surveys a bat roost was confirmed in one of the buildings. A small pond approximately 15 m by 15 m with emergent vegetation of soft rush present. The banks are covered with heather over a peat substrate and the water appears turbid and is likely to be highly acidic / dystrophic in nature due to the surround mire. No signs of protected species were found in the surrounding area and the pond is thought to offer negligible potential due to its isolated location. An area of mature Scot’s pine (Pinus sylvestris) plantation which contains holes and crevices which might offer suitable roosting sites for bats. An area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland dominated by beech (Fagus sylvatica) which contains holes, cracks, and crevices which might offer potential roosting sites for bats. An area of mixed plantation woodland containing Sitka spruce, rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), sycamore, and silver birch. The trees are of a narrow diameter and offer little potential for bats roosts. Mature beech trees line the road at this point. No suitable cracks, holes, or crevices were seen for potential bat roosts within them. The burn at this point crosses underneath the B7008 and is approximately 1 m wide, running through marshy grassland rides. No signs of protected species were found along the burn at this point although the habitat suggests there is moderate potential for protected species to be present both for foraging, resting, and burrow construction. Scattered birch, rowan, and sycamore line the northern edge of the A70 with a 20 m buffer of marshy grassland present before the forestry crop begins.
March 2013
9
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Target Note Number 35
Grid Reference
Target Note
NT 052595
36
NT 067587
37
NT 069585
The area has been fell and restocked with Sitka spruce which is approximately 1.5 m in height. An area of wet heath bordering the coniferous forestry, dominated by ericoid species such as heather and cross-leaved heath, with abundant purple moor grass present throughout the sward. An area of semi-improved acid grassland dominated by sweet vernal grass and sheep’s fescue, with abundant common bent (Agrostis capillaris), and frequent heath bedstraw (Galium saxatile) present within the sward. The area appears to have been used for grazing sheep and the additional nutrients have allowed species such as creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and occasional creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) to be present within the area.
March 2013
10
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Annex 11.1.2: Notable Plant Species Potentially On Site
Source: National Biodiversity Network, grid squares NT05 and NT06, covering the application site and the surrounding landscape Common Name
Latin Name
a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen a lichen
Arctomia delicatula Bryoria chalybeiformis Lecanora persimilis Lecidea plana Micarea lithinella Bacidia saxenii Bryophagus gloeocapsa Lepraria umbricola Micarea coppinsii Micarea incrassata Strangospora pinicola Verrucaria murina Cladonia polydactyla var. umbricola Micarea ternaria Scoliciosporum sarothamni Philonotis arnellii
a lichen a lichen Arnell's Applemoss Bird's-nest Orchid Black-bindweed Black-grass Bluebell Blunt Pincerwort Box Brown Shield-moss Chain Pincerwort Charlock Chicory Chives Corn Chamomile Corn Mint Corn Spurrey Cornflower Dwarf Bladdermoss Flexuous Bogmoss Fly Honeysuckle Good-King-Henry Greater Broomrape Greater Butterflyorchid Hairy Buttercup Hairy Stonecrop Harebell Heath Cudweed Heath Dog-violet Heather Hooker's Flapwort Jacob's-ladder March 2013
Neottia nidus-avis Fallopia convolvulus Alopecurus myosuroides Hyacinthoides non-scripta Cephalozia pleniceps Buxus sempervirens Buxbaumia aphylla Cephalozia catenulata Sinapis arvensis Cichorium intybus Allium schoenoprasum Anthemis arvensis Mentha arvensis Spergula arvensis Centaurea cyanus Physcomitrium sphaericum Sphagnum flexuosum
UK BAP1
SBL2
IUCN End3
IUCN Vul4
x
IUCN NT5 x
Rare6
Scarce7
x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x x
Lonicera xylosteum Chenopodium bonushenricus Orobanche rapumgenistae Platanthera chlorantha
x x
Ranunculus sardous Sedum villosum Campanula rotundifolia Gnaphalium sylvaticum Viola canina Calluna vulgaris Haplomitrium hookeri Polemonium caeruleum
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x
x
x x
x x x 11
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Common Name
Latin Name
UK BAP1
SBL2
IUCN End3
IUCN Vul4 x
IUCN NT5
Rare6
Scarce7
x Large-flowered Galeopsis speciosa Hemp-nettle x Large-leaved Lime Tilia platyphyllos x x x Lesser ButterflyPlatanthera bifolia orchid x Lesser Riccardia incurvata Germanderwort x Lesser TussockCarex diandra sedge x x Maiden Pink Dianthus deltoides x x x x Marsh Saxifrage Saxifraga hirculus x Mountain Currant Ribes alpinum x x Mountain Scurvy Cochlearia micacea grass x Narrow-lipped Epipactis leptochila Helleborine x Nit-grass Gastridium ventricosum x Petty Whin Genista anglica x Round Silk-moss Plagiothecium cavifolium x x Shepherds needle Scandix pecten-veneris x Shetland MousePilosella flagellaris ear-hawkweed x x Short-beaked Aloe- Aloina brevirostris moss x x Shrubby Cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa x Slender Smoothcap Atrichum tenellum x Small Cranberry Vaccinium microcarpum x Spreading EarthAphanorhegma patens moss x Sun Spurge Euphorbia helioscopia x Tufted Loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora x Wall Whitlowgrass Draba muralis x Weedy Frillwort Fossombronia incurva x Welsh Poppy Meconopsis cambrica x White Mustard Sinapis alba x White RampingFumaria capreolata fumitory x x Wild Pansy Viola tricolor x x x Wood Bitter-vetch Vicia orobus x Woolly FeatherTomentypnum nitens moss x Yellow Bartsia Parentucellia viscosa x Yellow Glasswort Salicornia fragilis x Yellow-tuber Bryum tenuisetum Thread-moss 1 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) Priority Species 2 Scottish Biodiversity Priority List (SBL) Species 3 Red listing based on 2001 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN guidelines) – Endangered 4 Red listing based on 2001 IUCN guidelines – Vulnerable 5 Red listing based on 2001 IUCN guidelines – Near Threatened 6 Nationally Rare 7 Nationally Scarce
March 2013
12
Appendix 11.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey Report
March 2013 Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
List of Appendices
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey Introduction Background 11.2.1 RPS were commissioned by Partnerships for Renewables (PfR) to undertake a National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey for a proposed wind farm development at Forestry Commission Scotland’s Camilty Plantation site in West Lothian (central Ordnance Survey grid reference NT 0561 5932). 11.2.2 A previously conducted Extended Phase 1 habitat survey1 highlighted habitats of potentially high conservation value within the site boundary and a surrounding 500 m buffer (Figure 11.4, Chapter 11). The key objectives of the NVC survey were to classify these habitats into detailed vegetation communities. Where this was not possible, detailed notes were made on the species assemblages present, and comparisons made to known NVC communities. 11.2.3 The survey results will be used to highlight any habitats of designated conservation value and/or concern, in turn providing a basis for the ongoing layout design of the proposed wind farm. Definition of Terms 11.2.4 The following definitions are used in this report:
Survey area: the selected area surveyed following an assessment of the development area through Phase 1 methodology (i.e. the proposed development site and a 500 m buffer).
Proposed wind farm, site or site boundary: the planning application boundary.
NVC Polygon: An area of habitat mapped on the ground deemed to contain a specified ratio of particular NVC communities (e.g. 80 % M19 Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire : 20 % M17 Trichophorum cespitosum – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire).
Methodology Desk Study and Consultation 11.2.5 No formal desk studies or consultations were conducted prior to the site visit however Ordnance Survey maps and internet-based aerial photography, along with the previous vegetation surveys from the development’s Phase 1 habitat survey were used to guide an initial assessment. This initial assessment highlighted the likely major communities within the development, taking into account all habitats previously identified as of conservation importance as listed within both UK and European legislative lists and frameworks, thus guiding areas requiring further more detailed appraisal. Habitats included fall under the following legislation:
1
RPS (2011) - Proposed Camilty Wind Farm Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Assessment Report
March 2013
1
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Annex 1 Biotope types listed under the EC Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations 1994 (as amended).
UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats.
Habitats listed on the Scottish Biodiversity List as of conservation importance for Scotland.
Habitats listed as potential Ground Water Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) guidelines2.
NVC Field Survey 11.2.6 The site was surveyed on 14 June 2012 by an RPS Ecologist with experience of NVC surveys in upland areas and forestry plantations. The vegetation was classified and mapped using the NVC3,4 survey methodology to community level, and wherever possible sub-community level. The areas surveyed had previously been highlighted during an Extended Phase 1 survey as potentially containing habitat of high conservation value as listed above. 11.2.7 Each ‘stand’ (apparent community) was sampled while walking, by recording the vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens present as well as their relative dominance. As such, qualitative rather than quantitative data was recorded on community composition; Domin scale quadrat data were not collected. It is considered that this approach is of sufficient detail for the purpose of informing wind farm layout design iterations. Aggregate species were treated as such, e.g. Euphrasia agg., Taraxacum officinale agg. 11.2.8 There were a number of areas in which several different vegetation communities were present, effectively forming a complex mosaic, and thus not of a size or shape to be mapped individually. In such occasions the community compositions were recorded, including percentage cover values and the dominant community identified. If areas within the survey boundary did not fit into the current NVC nomenclature the area was either given a habitat code using the JNCC Phase 1 survey methodology nomenclature5, or a prefix for the community and the assemblage of species noted. 11.2.9 As shown in Figure 11.4 (Chapter 11), the polygons were largely placed outside the site boundary (reflecting the predominance of coniferous plantation within the site), though within the survey boundary. 11.2.10 Botanical nomenclature in this report follows that of Stace (2010)6 for vascular plants, Atherton et al. (2010)7 for bryophytes and Purvis et al. (1992)8 for lichens.
2 SEPA (2012) – Land Use Planning System SEPA Guidance Note 4; Planning Guidance on Wind Farms. 3
Rodwell, J.S. (Ed.) (1991 et seq.). British Plant Communities. 5 volumes: Vol. 1 (1991) - Woodlands and Scrub; Vol. 2 (1991) Mires and Heaths; Vol. 3 (1992) - Grasslands and montane communities; Vol. 4 (1995) - Aquatic communities, swamps and tallherb fens; Vol. 5 (2000) - Maritime Cliffs, Sand Dunes, Saltmarshes and Other Vegetation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4
Rodwell, J.S. (2006) NVC - Users’ Handbook. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
5
Joint Nature Conservancy Council (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit. JNCC.
6
Stace, C.A. (2010). New Flora of the British Isles. 3rd Edition. Cambridge University Press.
7
Atherton, I., Bosanquet, S. & Lawley, M. (2010). Mosses and Liverworts of Britain and Ireland: a field guide. British Bryological Society. 8
Purvis, O.W., Coppins, B.J., Hawksworth, D.L., James, P.W. & Moore, D.M. (1992). The Lichen Flora of Great Britain and Ireland. The British Museum (Natural History).
March 2013
2
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Survey Limitations 11.2.11 The survey was conducted at the optimum time of year for vegetation surveys in good weather conditions. Consequently, it is considered there were no limitations as to the effectiveness of the survey.
Results 11.2.12 Table 1 below summarises the results of the NVC survey, listing the communities and subcommunities found within the survey area, their total abundance within the survey boundary, and the relevant legalisation they are listed under. Figure 11.4 (Chapter 11) illustrates the locations of these communities within the wider context of the proposed site boundary. A break down of the composition of each polygon within the survey area can be found within Annex 1. Table 1 Showing the NVC Communities present within the Survey Area, the Total Area Occupied by each, and a Summary of their Conservation Status NVC Code
NVC Community
Area (ha)
U4b
Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris-Galium saxatile grassland, Holcus lanatus-Trifolium repens sub-community Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire Calluna vulgarisEriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, Erica tetralix sub-community Festuca ovina-Galium saxatile grassland, Juncus effusus non-NVC sub-community Molinia caeruleaPotentilla erecta mire, Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community Juncus effusus/acutiflorus-Galium palustre rush-pasture, Juncus effusus subcommunity Molinia caeruleaPotentilla erecta mire, Erica tetralix subcommunity Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris-Galium saxatile grassland, typical subcommunity Felled Coniferous Plantation Carex echinataSphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire, Juncus effusus subcommunity
M20 M19a
U4JE
M25b
M23b
M25a
U4a
Felled M6c
March 2013
Annex 1 Biotope
20.01
Annex 1 Biotope Code -
-
UK BAP Priority Habitat -
Scottish Biodiver sity List -
15.69
H7130
15.67
H7130
13.85
Blanket bogs Blanket bogs
Blanket bog Blanket bog
H1, H3, SO1 H1, H3, SO1
N
-
-
-
-
N
9.37
H7130
Blanket bogs
Blanket bog
-
N
5.78
-
-
-
H1, SO1
Y
4.8
H7130
Blanket bogs
Blanket bog
-
N
4.34
-
-
-
-
N
2.98
-
-
-
-
N
2.03
-
-
Upland flush, fen & swamp
H3, SO1
N
3
SEPA GWDTE’s N
N
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
NVC Code
NVC Community
M19b
Calluna vulgarisEriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, Empetrum nigrum ssp. nigrum subcommunity M23a Juncus effusus/acutiflorus-Galium palustre rush-pasture, Juncus acutiflorus subcommunity MG9a Holcus lanatusDeschampsia cespitosa grassland, Poa trivialis sub-community S9 Carex rostrata swamp Dist Disturbed grassland Grass surrounding track areas Tracks Track MG1a Arrhenatherum elatius grassland, Festuca rubra sub-community SW Standing Water H18a Vaccinium myrtillusDeschampsia flexuosa heath, Hylocomium splendensRhytidiadelphus loreus sub-community M17a Trichophorum germanicum – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, Drosera rotundifolia-Sphagnum spp. sub-community Total Area Surveyed (ha)
Area (ha)
Annex 1 Biotope
1.71
Annex 1 Biotope Code H7130
Scottish Biodiver sity List H1, H3, SO1
SEPA GWDTE’s
Blanket bogs
UK BAP Priority Habitat Blanket bog
1.44
-
-
-
H1, SO1
Y
1.26
-
-
-
-
N
1.04 0.37
-
-
Fens -
-
Y N
0.32 0.16
-
-
-
-
N N
0.1 0.07
H4030
Europea n dry heaths
Upland heathlan d
H1, SO1
Y N
0.03
H7130
Blanket bogs
Blanket bog
H1, H3, SO1
N
N
102
11.2.13 In total 15 different communities are found within the selected survey areas. These can be further separated into 20 sub-communities. The communities range from typical acid upland communities including mire, dry heath, and acid grasslands, to flush communities surrounding watercourses. The section below details the communities found during the survey, their species compositions, and anyway in which they vary from the typical communities listed within relevant literature. Acid Grassland 11.2.14 Areas of acid grassland occupy approximately 38 ha of the selected survey areas, predominately south of the site boundary within polygons 21 and 22 on the gently sloping hillside. Throughout the survey areas only the U4 Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris-Galium saxatile grassland community is found, however three sub-communities are present. U4 grassland is characterised the present of grasses such as sheep’s fescue (Festuca ovina), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), common bent (Agrostis capillaris), with herbs such as tormentil (Potentilla erecta) and heath bedstraw (Galium saxatile) present beneath the grass sward. Pleurocarpous mosses such as Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus are also abundant throughout this community. U4a is the typical sub-community containing these species and occupies approximately 4.3 ha of the survey area.
March 2013
4
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.2.15 U4b, the Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) dominated sub-community, is the most abundant of the grass communities present occupying approximately 20 ha of the selected survey area. The abundance of this sub-community within an acidic grassland habitat, coupled with the present of a number of mesotrophic forbes within the area is indicative of a high grazing pressures from livestock and an increased nutrient content caused through these activities. Atypical species found within this community include a higher than expected abundance of creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), meadow foxtail (Alopercurus pratensis), and spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare). 11.2.16 U4JE as listed in Table 1 above is not found within the NVC nomenclature but is recognised as an additional acid grassland community. The sub-community contains the characteristic species of the Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris-Galium saxatile grassland, however there is a higher abundance of soft rush (Juncus effusus) than document with the current literature. This sub-community was abundant within the survey area south of the proposed development occupying approximately 13.9 ha. Mire 11.2.17 Due to the upland nature of the proposed site and the selected survey areas, a large proportion of the survey area includes areas of peat of a depth greater 0.5 m (an indicative depth which is used to help differentiate between mire and other organic soil habitats). As much of the survey area has historically, and still is used for forestry and grazing of livestock, these activities have affected the nature of the mire habitats and communities currently present. 11.2.18 Polygons 10, 12, 13 and 14 in the west of the survey area fall within the Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI which is designated for the blanket bog habitat found within. The site is currently deemed to be in an unfavourable condition when last surveyed in 2004 due to the grazing regime in place9. This unfavourable condition can be seen within the NVC survey results where approximately 7.5 ha of the 17.4 ha surveyed within this area is dominated by the M25a Molinia caerulea-Potentilla erecta mire, Erica tetralix sub-community. This community is common of wet modified bog areas often associated with high grazing pressures and is characterised by the dense sward of purple moor grass (Molinea caerulea) interlaced with strands of crossed-leaved heath (Erica tetralix) with frequent patches of ling heather (Calluna vulgaris) and a carpet of Sphagnum mosses often dominated by S. fallax beneath. The M25b sub-community is similarly present within the survey areas, also within areas impacted by grazing in the south of the survey area in polygon 18. This sub-community shows a greater abundance of grass species such as sweet vernal grass, sheep’s fescue, and Yorkshire fog within the species assemblage, however, the community is still dominated by purple moor grass. 11.2.19 Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI, and other areas which have been unaffected by afforestation and grazing, such as polygons 15 and 16 in the north west of the survey area and 1 and 4 in the central survey area, exhibit communities indicative of more pristine blanket mire. These include M19 Calluna vulgaris-Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire communities dominated by ling heather and hare’s tail cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum) with a ground flora dominated by Sphagnum capillofolium and Pleurozium schreberi mosses. The ‘a’ sub-
9
SNH (2008) – Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI Site Management Statement
March 2013
5
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
community contains a high abundance of cross-leaved heath, and within the ‘b’ subcommunity a higher abundance of crowberry (Empetrum nigrum). 11.2.20 The M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire is abundant in the section of the survey area to the south of the site boundary within polygons 23, 26 and 27. The community is dominated by a dense sward of hare’s tail cotton-grass above a carpet of Sphagna. The community is often indicative of large herbivore browsing pressures, with mammals having removed much of the ericaceous shrubs which would have been present in the M19 mire communities. The community is still capable of activity forming peat; hence the loss of the shrubs is merely an indicative characteristic which could signify detrimental influences such as long term grazing. 11.2.21 The M17a Trichophorum germanicum – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, Drosera rotundifolia-Sphagnum spp. sub-community was found in polygon 28, but only occupies approximately 0.03 ha of the area surveyed. This mire community contains a mixed hare’s tail cotton-grass and deer grass (Trichophorum germanicum) sward above a carpet of Sphagnum mosses. Heath 11.2.22 Within the survey area there was only a small (0.07 ha) amount of heath found. Only the H18a Vaccinium myrtillus-Deschampsia flexuosa heath, Hylocomium splendensRhytidiadelphus loreus sub-community was present, found within polygon 7 with the central section of the survey area. This dry heath community is dominated by blaeberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) with wavy-hair grass (Deschampsia flexuosa) present within the ericaceous sward. A carpet of pleurocarpous mosses including Hylocomium splendens, Rhytidiadelphus loreus, Pleurozium schreberi, Dicranum scoparium and Hypnum jutlandicum are present along with abundant heath bedstraw. No wet heath communities were found during the survey. Rush Pasture and Flush 11.2.23 Rush pasture and flush habitats were found surrounding water courses and within depressions capable of collecting water with limiting drainage, thus creating areas of higher than average water table levels. 11.2.24 The dominant rush pasture community was the M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus-Galium palustre rush-pasture of which both sub-communities are present (in the polygons recorded below). The community is characterised by the dominance of either a sharp-flowered rush (Juncus acutiflorus) (sub-community ‘a’) or soft rush (sub-community ‘b’) sward above a limited mesotrophic influenced flora including marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre), marsh bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus uliginous), meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris), lesser spearwort (Filipendula ulmaria), and marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre). 11.2.25 Within the survey area both sub-communities were found, predominately south of the proposed development’s boundary, associated with water courses or the base of the hillside where water table heights are consistently greatest. Sub-community ‘b’ was present in the greatest abundance occupying approximately 5.8 ha of the total survey area, (in polygons 12, 19, 25, 26, 27 and 29) with sub-community ‘a’ occupying approximately 1.4 ha (in polygon 24). 11.2.26 Flush areas are similar present across the survey area, generally found surrounding water courses, often in association with areas of rush pasture, but occupying areas of oligotrophic March 2013
6
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
rather than mesotrophic influence. Within the survey area the only flush community present is the M6c Carex echinata-Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire, Juncus effusus subcommunity. The community is easily identified by the constant presence of star sedge (Carex echinata) pricking through a dense Sphagnum fallax carpet overtopped by a soft rush sward. The community is easily distinguished from its associated rush pasture counterpart by the lack of mesotrophic forbes beneath the rush sward. Within the survey area the community occupies approximately 2 ha and is found scattered throughout the survey area within polygons 6, 9, 16, 23, and 26. Neutral Grassland 11.2.27 Two neutral grassland communities are present within the survey area; the MG1a Arrhenatherum elatius grassland, Festuca rubra sub-community (0.16 ha) and the MG9a Holcus lanatus-Deschampsia cespitosa grassland, Poa trivialis sub-community (1.26 ha). The relatively small amounts of both communities reflect the acidic upland nature of the site. 11.2.28 The MG1a community is dominated by the course false-oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) above a mesotrophic sward contain species such as cock’s foot (Dactylis glomerata), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Yorkshire fog, and within this ‘a’ sub-community red fescue (Festuca rubra). 11.2.29 The MG9a community is easily distinguished by the dominance of a tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa) sward interlaced with the smaller but abundant Yorkshire fog. Within these two grass dominated swards are a diverse mixture of other mesotrophic herbs and grasses which are never found in an abundance greater than ‘frequent’. 11.2.30 Within the survey area these grasslands are found in polygons 17 and 5 respectively with the MG1a community associated with the track areas used to access the forestry and the spoil associated with the creation of these, and the MG9a found within an area which appears to have been influenced by forestry activities. Swamp 11.2.31 Only the S9 Carex rostrata swamp community is present within the survey area (polygon 11) occupying approximately 1 ha of the total survey area and associated with the Powfastle Burn running through Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI. The community is easily recognised by the dominant sward of bottle sedge (Carex rostrata) within a water table consistently above ground level. Other species present include water horse-tail (Equisetum fluviatile), bog bean (Menyanthes trifoliate), and spiked rush (Eleocharis palustre), however these are all found in relatively low abundance in comparison to the bottle sedge. Ground Water Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE’s) 11.2.32 As can be seen from Table 1, a number of the communities identified during the NVC survey have the potential to be classified as GWDTE’s; these are the M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus-Galium palustre rush-pasture communities and the S9 Carex rostrata swamp community. These communities tend to be sensitive to alterations to the hydrology and ground water flow of an area, which may in turn lead to loss or damage to these communities and the species assemblages found therein.
March 2013
7
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Figures
Figure 11.4 – NVC Survey Polygons (see Chapter 11)
March 2013
8
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
304000
305000
306000
307000
Legend Site boundary NVC survey area (0.5 km buffer)
660000
660000
NVC survey polygon
16 15
5 23
6 4 7
1 18 659000
26
659000
Location: W:\7154SAE - PfR, Camilty Wind Farm, EIA\Technical\Graphics\GIS\mxd files\ES figures 2012\Ecology\7154_EC_004a_Figure_11.4_NVC_Survey_Polygons.mxd
17 28
19 8 27 20 32 26 31 29
±
21 25 24
Project name: Camilty Wind Farm 22
Title : NVC Survey Polygons
658000
30
658000
23
14 13 12
11
Date: 19/02/2013
10
Scale @ A3 1:12,500 0 0.05 0.1 0.2
Created by : OR 0.3
0.4
9
Ver : (1.0) 304000 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 0100031673
305000
306000
307000
A3
Checked : KK
0.5 Kilometres
Figure : 11.4
Camilty Wind Farm
Annex 11.2.1: NVC Survey Polygon Composition Table Table A1 Composition of NVC Communities Mapped within each Polygon within Figure 11.4 Polygon Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
March 2013
NVC communities present and percentage cover ratio M19a: 100 M6c: 100 U4b: 70; U4JE: 30 M19a: 100 MG9a: 100 M6c: 100 U4b: 55; U4JE: 30; H18a: 15 M25b: 100 M6c: 100 M25a: 60; M19a: 20; M20: 20 S9: 100 M23b: 100 M25a: 100 M19a: 80; M19b: 20 M19a: 85; M20: 15 M19a: 80; M20: 15; M6c: 5 MG1a: 70; Track: 30 M25b: 90; U4JE: 10 M23b: 50; U4b: 50 Dist Grass: 60; Track: 40 U4b: 70; U4JE: 30 U4JE: 70; M20: 10; M25b: 10; U4b: 10 M20: 60; U4a: 30; M6c: 10 M23a: 100 M23b: 70; S9: 30 M20: 90; M23b: 5; M6c: 5 M20: 90; M23b: 5; M6c: 5 M23b: 70; U4b: 25; M6c: 5 SW: 60; M17a: 20; M19a: 20 M23b: 100 Felled: 100 Felled: 100 Felled: 100
9
Area of polygon (ha) 1.56 0.09 0.44 0.66 1.26 0.03 0.44 0.87 0.11 7.09 0.64 0.54 0.55 8.53 5.41 0.70 0.23 8.51 4.07 0.62 23.02 8.33 14.45 1.44 1.32 4.28 1.93 0.17 0.72 1.69 0.69 0.30 1.56
Appendix 11.2 National Vegetation Classification (NVC) Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.3 Bat Survey Technical Report
March 2013 Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
List of Appendices
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey Introduction Background 11.3.1 RPS Group plc was commissioned by Partnerships for Renewables to carry out a bat assessment of the proposed Camilty Wind Farm, West Lothian. This report presents the results of the bat surveys and desk studies undertaken in 2012 and supports Chapter 11 – Ecology of the Environmental Statement.
Methodology Field Surveys 11.3.2 The aims of the field surveys undertaken from May to October 2012 were as follows:
identify the bat species present on site;
assess their activity level;
locate roosts at significant risk of disturbance; and
Investigate the potential risk level of each species.
11.3.3 Bat surveys at the proposed wind farm consisted of the following items as described below:
consultation and desk study;
initial scoping daytime walkover survey including search for potential roost sites;
external visual inspection of potential roost buildings on and near site;
dusk commuting watches from vantage point locations;
dawn re-entry surveys for roosting bats near site;
walked transect surveys;
driven transect surveys; and
automated Anabat recording surveys.
11.3.4 Surveys were carried out by experienced surveyors. Surveyors included Thomas Goater, Sarah Arthur, Nick Wright, Sean Jacques, Joris Driessen and Victoria Bate. The survey design was developed by Keith Cohen and Joris Driessen based on 6 years experience of bat surveys for proposed wind farms across the UK. SNH was consulted on the survey design and agreed that it should provide sufficient data for a robust and complete assessment of the potential for significant impacts. All survey work was designed with regard to:
March 2013
The Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, Second Edition (BCT 2011)1;
English Nature’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines (Mitchell-Jones, 2004) 2;
The Eurobats Guidelines (Rodrigues et al., 2008) 3; and
Natural England (2012) Guidance on Bats and onshore wind turbines, TIN051, second edition (Natural England 2012) 4. 1
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.3.5 The Eurobats and Natural England guidance recommend study and assessment of bat activity within the Development and also the surrounding landscape. Consultation and Desk Study 11.3.6 A desk study aimed to identify the bat species present in the area, and to highlight those likely to be using the site for roosting, foraging or commuting. The desk study gathered information on the potential value of the habitats and topography of the site and wider area for bats. Consultation was made with SNH and Lothian Bat group to seek existing records of bats, and data were collated from the National Biodiversity Network, and published distribution data: the Bat Atlas (Richardson, 2000) 5, Scottish Bats (Haddow & Herman, 2000) 6, and JNCC Article 17 Species Status Assessments (JNCC, 2007) 7. 11.3.7 OS maps and aerial photographs (Google, Bing) were used to determine topographic and landscape features which might affect bats’ use of the site and surrounding area. Initial Site Survey 11.3.8 A daytime site walkover was undertaken on 02 July 2012 to check and assess the potential value of habitats, features and structures present for roosting, foraging and commuting. Habitats within the site boundary plus 500m buffer (survey area) that have potential to be utilised by bats include:
woods, particularly sheltered edges and areas on wet soils where insect productivity can be high and edges provide shelter from wind exposure;
hedgerows and small gullies provide habitat connectivity and foraging opportunities;
buildings with potentially suitable roost cavities, especially near woods or water;
trees with potentially suitable roost cavities;
underground structures; and
wetland habitats: rivers, streams, ponds offering foraging opportunities.
Data Analysis (all detector surveys) 11.3.9 Surveys were undertaken by experienced surveyors using Batbox Duet detectors with mp3/wav recording devices (Zen, Tascam). All recordings were analysed with specialised software (BatSound, Wavesurfer, AnaLook) to confirm bat species present. 11.3.10 During analysis, calls were assigned to species according to their key parameters; refer to Table 1 (BCT 2007; Russ 19998).
Table 1: Bat Species and their Call Frequency Parameters Species Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus species Common pipistrelle Nathusius’ pipistrelle March 2013
Call Frequency Calls above 52kHz Calls between 48-52kHz (crossover range between p.pygmaeus/ p.pipistrellus) Calls between 40kHz and 48kHz Calls below 40kHz 2
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Species Natterer’s bat Daubenton’s bat Plecotus or Myotis Noctule Leisler’s bat Nyctalus species
Call Frequency FM calls starting above 75kHz FM calls with sinusoidal shape Other FM calls >30kHz qCF calls below 23kHz qCF calls 23-28kHz Low (28 km/hr. Between 04 June and 07 June temperatures dropped below the minimal considered tolerance limit (28 km/hr and temperature never dropped below 28 km/hr. On one occasion (31/08/2012) temperature dropped to 5oC, how this did not appear to have a notable effect of bat activity. 11.3.83 Chart 16 (below) showed that peaks in activity were not strongly correlated to any particular period throughout the night. The plot showed that bat activity continued throughout the night, dropping slightly toward the middle. A peak in activity was recorded within 30 minutes of sunset. There does appear to be an early rise in activity and this may suggest a roost close to the Anabat location.
March 2013
24
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Anabat 1: Deployment 3 (13 August - 03 September) 10 9
Activity (total Anabat files/night)
8 7 6 5 4 3 Sunset
2
Sunrise
1 0 -1
18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 Time
CHART 16: ANABAT 1, DEPLOYMENT 3: ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO SUNSET AND SUNRISE
Anabat 1: Deployment 4 (26/09/2012-10/10/2012) 11.3.84 Anabat 1 was deployed for a fourth time for a total of 15 nights towards the end of the bat mating season, and within the bat dispersal period. No bats were recorded over the entire deployment period. Anabat 2 (West): 11.3.85 Throughout the four deployment periods, a total of 756 files with bat passes were recorded over a total of 65 survey nights between May – October 2012. The only species recorded during these surveys were common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle. Bats were recorded during all four deployment periods, with the significantly greatest number recorded between 10/07-20/07/2012 with a total of 636 bat passes. The total proportion of each species recorded by Anabat 2 surveys is shown in Chart 17. 11.3.86 Common pipistrelle calls accounted for 55% of the recorded bat passes at Anabat 2. Soprano pipistrelle was slightly less numerous, making up 32% of bat calls. The remaining calls (13%) were categorised as pipistrelle species.
March 2013
25
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Anabat 2: Proportion of Species Recorded Soprano pipistrelle
13%
Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus sp.
32%
55% CHART 17: PROPORTION OF SPECIES RECORDED OVER TOTAL 65 NIGHT SURVEY PERIOD FOR ANABAT 2
Anabat 2: Deployment 1 (25/05/2012 – 12/06/2012) 11.3.87 Anabat 2 was deployed for a total of 19 nights towards the beginning of the bat maternity period, with bats being recorded on a total of 6 nights (table 16). The number of files recorded containing bat calls varied between 2 - 17 per night, with a total of 49 files recorded over the entire deployment period. For this deployment ABAI = 2.6 bppn. 11.3.88 Activity patterns and weather data over the deployment period are shown below in Chart 18. The weather data shows that conditions were overall fairly stable throughout the deployment period and rarely became unsuitable for bats. Precipitation was nil throughout the entire period, wind speed never exceeded the accepted tolerance limit of >28 km/hr. Between 04 June and 07 June temperatures dropped below the minimal considered tolerance limit (28 km/hr and temperature never dropped below 28 km/hr. On one occasion (31/08/2012) temperature dropped to 5oC, how this did not appear to have a notable effect of bat activity. 11.3.95 Chart 23 (below) showed that peaks in activity were not strongly correlated to any particular period throughout the night. The plot showed that bat activity continued throughout the night, dropping slightly toward the middle. A peak in activity was recorded within 30 minutes of sunset. Anabat 2: Deployment 3 (13/08/2012 – 03/09/2012) 14
Activity (total Anabat files/night)
12 10 8 6 4 Sunset
Sunrise
2 0 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 -2
Time
CHART 23: ANABAT 2, DEPLOYMENT 3: ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO SUNSET AND SUNRISE
Anabat 2: Deployment 4 (26/09/2012-10/10/2012) 11.3.96 Anabat 2 was deployed for a fourth time for a total of 15 nights towards the end of the bat mating season, within the bat dispersal period. Bats were recorded on a total of 3 nights, all towards the beginning of the deployment period, with a total of 10 files with bat passes being recorded. No bats were recorded at all after 01/10/2012. ABAI = 2.9 bppn. 11.3.97 Weather variables were not as stable as other periods over this deployment period. Wind speed increased to between 22-25mph for several nights, however the highest levels of bats were recorded over this period. After 01/10/2012 temperature dropped below the minimum threshold, eventually going to below 0 °C (chart 24).
March 2013
30
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
30
8
Anabat 2: Deployment 4 (26/09/2012-10/10/2012)
7
25
6
weather variable
5 15 4 10 3
number of Anabat files
20
5 2 0
26 /0 9/ 20 12 27 /0 9/ 20 12 28 /0 9/ 20 12 29 /0 9/ 20 12 30 /0 9/ 20 12 01 /1 0/ 20 12 02 /1 0/ 20 12 03 /1 0/ 20 12 04 /1 0/ 20 12 05 /1 0/ 20 12 06 /1 0/ 20 12 07 /1 0/ 20 12 08 /1 0/ 20 12 09 /1 0/ 20 12 10 /1 0/ 20 12
1
-5
0
date (m aternity period) Temp (min) oC
Dew point (Min) oC
Wind speed (Ave) km/h
Precipitation (mm)
Anabat files
CHART 24: ANABAT 2: DEPLOYMENT 4 WEATHER V. SURVEY RESULTS
11.3.98 Chart 25 (below) shows peaks in activity occurring within 30 minutes of sunset and at approximately 2am. Although the plot shows clear peaks, the greatest peak represents only 3 files. Little significance can be really established from such low levels of activity. Anabat 2: Deployment 4 (26/09/2012-10/10/2012) 3.5
Activity (total Anabat files/night)
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Sunset
Sunrise
0.5 0 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 -0.5
Time
CHART 25: ANABAT 2, DEPLOYMENT 4: ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO SUNSET AND SUNRISE
March 2013
31
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Met-mast Anabat: (25/05/2012 – 04/102012) 11.3.99 The Met-mast Anabat was deployed continuously for a total of 85 nights from 25/05/201204/10/2012 throughout all periods within the bat activity season. Bats were recorded on a total of 11 nights (table 16) representing only 12% of the entire survey period. The total number of files containing bat calls recorded on any one night varied between 1 – 14 bppn. A total of 28 files recorded over the entire deployment period. For this deployment ABAI = 0.32 bppn. 11.3.100 Two species were recorded, soprano pipistrelle and common pipistrelle. Soprano pipistrelle calls accounted for 32% of the recorded bat passes. Common pipistrelle was slightly less numerous, making up 29% of bat calls. The remaining calls (39%) were categorised as pipistrelle species (chart 26).
Met-mast Anabat: (25/05/2012 – 04/10/2012) soprano pipistrelle common pipistrelle Pipistrellus spp
39%
32%
29% CHART 26: PROPORTION OF SPECIES RECORDED OVER TOTAL 85 NIGHT SURVEY PERIOD AT MET-MAST
11.3.101 Bats were not recorded for 94% of the deployment period, when they were recorded they were present in low numbers at three distinct time periods; 20th July; 04th – 20th August and; 21st – 26th September (chart 27). The first activity period only lasted one night with one bat being recorded. The second activity period recorded bats over 13 nights, and fell between the end of the maternity season and beginning of the mating season. Bats were not recorded every night of the activity period and were at low densities (between 1-2 file per night). The third period of activity was towards the end of the mating period. Bats were recorded on two nights, with a peak of 14 files created by at least two bats on the 21st September.
March 2013
32
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Anabat: Metmast Data Approximate Maternity Period
Mating Period
16 14 12 10 Anabat files
8 6 4 2
20 /0 6/ 20 12 27 /0 6/ 20 12 04 /0 7/ 20 12 11 /0 7/ 20 12 18 /0 7/ 20 12 25 /0 7/ 20 12 01 /0 8/ 20 12 08 /0 8/ 20 12 15 /0 8/ 20 12 22 /0 8/ 20 12 29 /0 8/ 20 12 05 /0 9/ 20 12 12 /0 9/ 20 12 19 /0 9/ 20 12 26 /0 9/ 20 12
0
CHART 27: MET-MAST ANABAT RESULTS IN RELATION TO KNOWN (APPROXIMATE) BAT ACTIVITY PERIODS
11.3.102 The third activity period (21st – 26th September) occurs at the beginning of the dispersal period, when bats that have finished mating, or are non-mating, begin to move to swarming site in close proximity to hibernaculum. This short peak in activity may simply be bats foraging as they pass through the area during dispersal to another site.
Interpretation of Results Landscape & Habitat 11.3.103 The Camilty site is predominantly upland coniferous plantation woodland lying at between 241 m and 289 m above sea level. The forestry has small pockets of common semi-natural habitats, set amid a mosaic landscape of upland farmland, mire, marshy grassland and riparian features. Although bat species (particularly pipistrelles) are associated with forest edge habitat, coniferous plantation woodland is considered a habitat of poor suitability to bats. Bats generally favour mature broadleaved woodland as these are the optimal habitats for their insect prey. Additionally, tree species found within coniferous plantation generally provide significantly less roosting opportunities within them. Additionally dense tree standings make it more difficult for bat species such as pipistrelle and Nyctalus species to navigate. Bats will, however, use plantation woodland, taking advantage of insect abundance and sheltered foraging and commuting opportunities often found along forest rides. 11.3.104 Many bats species are strongly associated with riparian features and waterbodies as they offer abundant insect prey. Bats can also use linear features such as rivers and burns to navigate. A number of burns flow through the site including Crosswood Burn, Shear Burn, Otter Burn and Powfastle Burn. In addition to these water courses there are a number of water bodies within the survey boundary; most notable are those in the north of the site at Camp Wood and close to the northern boundary of the survey area. The riparian features on site are generally moderate to small in size with and run through plantation, marshy grassland and mire areas. These features are considered to offer good bat foraging habitat, which is further bolstered by the shelter provided by the woodland rides.
March 2013
33
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.3.105 The forestry at the site is predominantly densely stocked Sitka spruce. This species of tree is not a type of tree which typically develops gaps or cavities in its trunk or bark, features that would be used by roosting bats. There are however, a number of areas of semi-natural broadleaved woodland and mature Scot’s pine forestry within the survey area. Some of these trees could have the potential to support bat roosts due to the presence of cracks, holes, and crevices within their trunks and canopies, however none were found during roost potential checks. 11.3.106 A wide range of bat mortality rates have been recorded in Europe. A study by Rydell et al (2010)13 relating the potential for collision to habitat features stated: “The estimated number of bats killed per turbine annually was relatively low (0–3) on flat, open farmland away from the coast, higher (2–5) in more complex agricultural landscapes, and highest (5–20) at the coast and on forested hills and ridges. The species killed almost exclusively (98%) belonged to a group (Nyctalus, Pipistrellus, Vespertilio and Eptesicus spp.) adapted for open-air foraging.” 13 11.3.107 The reason why the forested hills of Europe have high mortality rates is believed to be the aerial foraging and mass migration activity of these high flying species. This is not believed to be the case in the UK, and these species do not occur at Camilty, therefore we do not consider the site falls into the category “forested hill habitat” Based on this assessment, and considering the habitat features mentioned above the site is likely to fall between the medium and low risk categories. 11.3.108 RPS considers that the potential for bat mortality at this site is likely to fall in the low to medium risk category (0-3 bats) described by Rydell et al (2010) 13. The lowest reported mortality rate is 0.1 bats per turbine per year (Jones et al 2009) 14. Thus, based on a six turbine development it could be anticipated that between 0 and 18 bats may be killed per annum based on Rydell et al (2010). However, given the low levels of bat activity recorded within the study area, RPS considers the likely number to be nearer the lower range of that estimate. In that context it is considered that the annual mortality rate of 0.1 bats / turbine reported by Jones et al (2009) reflects that lower estimate. At that mortality rate 0-6 bats a year (assuming every 0.1 bat equals an effect on one bat) could potentially be affected by the development. It is expected that any mortality is most likely to involve soprano pipistrelle, the most abundant species within the study area. Species Present 11.3.109 The desk study and field surveys did not identify any unexpected species at the site, nor did it confirm the presence of the rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle at the site. This probably reflects both the species scarceness, and preference for large mesotrophic water-bodies. 11.3.110 Field surveys demonstrated that bat activity on site is dominated by soprano pipistrelles (47% of records), which are the most abundant species in this part of the UK. They are also the species most strongly associated with the watercourses, water-bodies, woodland and forest edge habitat15 found at Camilty. 11.3.111 Common pipistrelle (37% of records) is a common and abundant species that use woodlands15, and are also commonly associated with grassland habitats which would account for the good levels recorded. 11.3.112 Natural England reviewed available data on UK bat behaviour and allocated each species to a risk level, as shown in Table 17 (data from Natural England, 2012). March 2013
34
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Table 17: Bats Likely to be at Risk from Wind Turbines Low Risk Myotis species long-eared bats horseshoe bats Barbastelle
Medium Risk common pipistrelle serotine soprano pipistrelle
High Risk noctule Leisler’s bat Nathusius’ pipistrelle
11.3.113 Approximately 1% of bats recorded were Daubenton’s bat, a species which are usually recorded foraging over water bodies. As there are no major water bodies within the survey area, any bats recorded would likely be only using the site as a commuting route to and from suitable foraging habitat elsewhere. Another possibility is that they may be males or non breeding bats forced to use marginal, sub-optimal habitats. The species recorded in each season are shown in Table 18. Table 18: Bat Species Present by Season
Bat species present
Maternity Season (June – July 2012) Soprano pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Unidentified pipistrelle species Daubenton’s bat
Mating/ Dispersal/ Migration Season (September-October 2012) Soprano pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Unidentified pipistrelle
11.3.114 European studies have shown the highest number of deaths in species recorded at (or in proximity to) Camilty: common pipistrelle and Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Continental populations of these species appear to be long-distance migrants and thus large numbers will use distinct corridors to reach winter sites. This makes them especially prone to inappropriate siting of wind turbines15. A similar picture affects long-distance migrant species in the Americas16 In the UK, there is no evidence of these narrow-front mass migrations, but there is growing evidence of short distance migrations for some UK species, even up to 100 km (between summer sites, autumn swarming or mating sites, and winter sites)17. Around a quarter of bat deaths in Europe and North America are of resident species that are at most local migrants15,16. Therefore, assessment of potential impacts on bats must take regard of the potential similarities with foreign observations, and must be understood to be approximations with due caution. 11.3.115 UK populations of common pipistrelle and Nathusius’ pipistrelle are not known to be longdistance migrants and so may be at lower risk. However, resident populations of common pipistrelles both appear to be at risk by foraging and or commuting high14. Soprano pipistrelles are not abundant on the continent, but may utilise a comparable range of foraging and commuting heights to common pipistrelle and thus be at risk. The very few UK records of bat deaths that have been collated show mortality of common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle 14. As these records are mostly incidental observations during other studies it is not possible to make any estimation of real mortality risk at turbines in the UK, but rather we must extrapolate from studies of comparable species in comparable landscapes, such as Europe and temperate North America. 11.3.116 Mortality rates have been calculated for many sites now, though there is no such data for the UK, and not all estimates address survey bias (such as scavenging of corpses, or searcher efficiency) so data must be viewed cautiously. Yet this data does allow a reasonable and precautionary approach to derive provisional estimates of bat mortality rates.
March 2013
35
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.3.117 Over the survey period the vast majority of bats recorded at Camilty were pipistrelle species (soprano and common pipistrelle). Natural England (as accepted by SNH), consider both of these more commonly occurring pipistrelle species to be of medium risk of collision with wind turbines4. Although high risk species such as the far rarer Nathusius’ pipistrelle were not recorded during survey in 2012, there are recent records of the species in the local area. As bats will commute over many kilometres at height12, there is still a risk that collision may occur in this species, albeit with less probability than more abundant or common species. Activity: Foraging & Commuting 11.3.118 Overall bat activity on site varied from very low to moderate depending on the season and habitat. However in certain locations moderate to high levels of activity were recorded, particularly during the walked transect, during time periods relating to the maternity season (Figure 11.3.2). This was likely due to suitable foraging habitat within the forests rides and riparian features as well as good commuting corridors and shelter provided by trees. Forest rides are like to have provided sheltered commuting corridors linking the open area in the south to the likely excellent foraging conditions found at large number of waterbodies north of the site boundary. 11.3.119 The results of the Anabat surveys support the species found and activity levels recorded during walked and driven transect surveys with similarly higher level of activity occurring during periods relating to the maternity season. 11.3.120 Bat activity recorded during the first Anabat deployments at both locations shows a moderate level of bat activity up until 05/06/2012, just over half way thought the deployment period (table 14). After this date bats are no longer recorded. 11.3.121 A possible explanation is that the beginning of June is typically when young are born. Prior to birthing, in order to get to birthing weight, female bats take advantage of as much foraging opportunities as possible, so are likely to forage for longer and further afield than other periods15. However, during the birthing period period, bat foraging is likely to become more localised and concentrated in areas close by the maternity roost15. 11.3.122 With no known maternity roost nearby, a drop in activity at the deployment location would likely occur at this time. Low-nil activity recorded within 30 minutes of sunrise and sunset throughout this period and through the maternity period confirms that bats do not appear to roosting near either Anabat location (table 15). Low levels of bat activity recorded during the maternity season at Anabat 1 suggest that the area is most likely used as a minor foraging area during this period. 11.3.123 The bat activity recorded at Anabat 2 during deployment 2 had significantly higher levels than any other period in any other areas. Although with an ABAI of 63.6 bppn, this cannot be considered a high level of bat activity, as evident from cumulative activity data presented in table 19. The relative increase in bat activity suggests that there was a significant increase in bat foraging over this period. 11.3.124 A likely explanation for this is that the deployment period coincided with the known seasonal peak activity period for bats15. This is the time where new-born young become independent and begin to feed for themselves, essentially doubling the number of feeding bats at maternity colonies and in dramatically increasing the local foraging population15.
March 2013
36
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.3.125 This increase in the foraging population increases the demand for foraging habitats and creates competition within foraging habitats, forcing bats to move to move further afield and to forage within less commonly used areas15. It is not clear why such an increase is not recorded at Anabat 1 at this period; however this could be due to the habitat. The habitat at Anabat 2 is more open and suitable for foraging bats than the area at Anabat 1, which is within plantation forestry. 11.3.126 A relative increase in activity is recorded towards the end of August/beginning of September, a period that correlates to the seasonal transition into the bat mating period. During this time bats disperse, often to different areas, moving into mating territories/roosts. This could explain the sudden activity seen after 25/08/2012 and evident lack bats in the area prior to it. 11.3.127 Bat activity was recorded during this period at both Anabat sites within 30 minutes of sunset. As pipistrelle (species recorded) typically emerge 20-30 minutes after sunset, this activity could suggest that bats may have been roosting relatively nearby. A similar peak close to sunrise however was not seen. Bats can take up a number of mating roosts and females are known to move between mates and roosts throughout this period15. This could go some way in explaining why data could suggest roosting nearby. 11.3.128 The area around Anabat 1 was not used by bats in late September/early October, and used by a very small number of bats at the Anabat 2 location for only 3 nights until 01/10/12. The significant drop in temperature could be a possible explanation in the stop in activity. This could have forced bats to become inactive by going into torpor, or to disperse to a hibernaculm in preparation for winter hibernation, most likely leaving the site. 11.3.129 Very low levels of bat activity were recorded at the met-mast, with the vast majority of files recorded significantly out with 30 minutes of sunrise or sunset suggesting that the area was not in close proximity to a roost at any time in the season. This area was used very occasionally during the typical period of highest seasonal activity or dispersal. This is most likely due to the exposed nature of the area around the met-mast. Table 19: Comparison with Anabat Static Survey Results at Other Proposed Development Sites Site
Dominant Habitats
Survey Results
Clyde coastal upland sitea
Exposed upland coastal heath
Devilla
Plantation woodland Open water
Camilty
Plantation woodland, riparian features
155 files with bat calls recorded over survey period. ABAI ranging between 0.9-4.6 bppn, with an average of 2.8 bppn 2601 files with bat activity recorded over 56 nights. ABAI ranging between 9-140 bppn, with an average of 46.4 bppn. 869 files with bat activity recorded over 263 nights. ABAI ranging between 0-63.6 bppn, with an average of 3.4 bppn.
Overall assessed bat activity levels Low
Moderate
Low
Notes a Unpublished bat survey report, RPS 2012
Activity: Roosting 11.3.130 As the site is mostly plantation woodland, there was very little roost potential within the forestry and up to within 250 m of the site boundary, other that a number of built structures. Only one bat roost was found (Scout Lodge: 304245, 658809) within the survey boundary (outwith the site). Nightly activity recorded by Anabats suggested that there was some March 2013
37
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
potential for the presence of a small number of other minor roosts. However, with the known roost less that 700 m from Anabat 2, and survey periods of roost activity and Anabat surveys coinciding, the activity recorded may have been from the small number of bats using this small roost. It is not believe than any significant roost, such as a maternity roost exists with 250 m of the site boundary. Activity: Swarming & Hibernation 11.3.131 Data searches and consultation have not found records of any known or potential hibernation sites within 10 km of the site boundary. No evidence of hibernation sites or potential swarming activity was recorded during any surveys.
March 2013
38
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Figures
Figure 11.3.1 – Bat Survey Methodology Figure 11.3.2 – Transect Survey Results Figure 11.3.3 – Listening Station Survey Results
March 2013
39
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
304000
305000
306000
307000
308000
Legend
Site boundary 661000
661000
E
Proposed turbine location Bat survey area (0.5 km buffer) 5 minute listening station Driven transect Walked transect
660000
4
Confirmed roost Potential roost No potential for roost
Anabat 1
Met-mast anabat
E
5
E
7
9
3
E E
2 659000
Dusk commuting vantage point
659000
Location: W:\7154SAE - PfR, Camilty Wind Farm, EIA\Technical\Graphics\GIS\mxd files\ES figures 2012\Ecology\7154_EC_010a_Figure_11.3.1_Bat_Survey_Methodology.mxd
660000
Bat roost potential survey results
E
10
1
E
Anabat 2
± 658000
658000
8
Project name: Camilty Wind Farm Title : Bat Survey Methodology
Date: 06/03/2013 Scale @ A3 1:16,500 0 0.0750.15 0.3
Ver: (1.0) 304000
305000
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 0100031673
306000
307000
308000
Created by : OR 0.45
A3
0.6
Checked : NW
0.75 Kilometres
Figure : 11.3.1
304000
305000
306000
307000
308000
Legend
661000
661000
Site boundary
E
Proposed turbine location Driven transect Walked transect
Species recorded
( !
Soprano pipistrelle
( !
Common pipistrelle
( !
Daubenton's bat
( !
Pipistrellus species
660000
E
E
E
E 659000
Roost Location
659000
Location: W:\7154SAE - PfR, Camilty Wind Farm, EIA\Technical\Graphics\GIS\mxd files\ES figures 2012\Ecology\7154_EC_011a_Figure_11.3.2_Transect_Survey_Results.mxd
660000
Bat passes
E
(
1
(
2-5
(
6 - 10
(
11 - 20
(
21 - 35
(
36 - 50
(
51 - 70
E
658000
658000
± Project name: Camilty Wind Farm Title : Transect Survey Results
Date: 06/03/2013 Scale @ A3 1:16,500 0 0.0750.15 0.3
Ver : (1.0) 304000 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 0100031673
305000
306000
307000
308000
Created by : OR 0.45
A3
0.6
Checked : NW
0.75 Kilometres
Figure : 11.3.2
304000
305000
306000
307000
308000
Legend
661000
661000
Site boundary
E
Proposed turbine location 5 minute listening station Walked transect
Species recorded
( !
Soprano pipistrelle
( !
Common pipistrelle
( !
Daubenton's bat
( !
Pipistrellus species
660000
4
6
3
E
E 7
9
E
2
10
E
659000
5
659000
Location: W:\7154SAE - PfR, Camilty Wind Farm, EIA\Technical\Graphics\GIS\mxd files\ES figures 2012\Ecology\7154_EC_012a_Figure_11.3.3_Listening_Station_Survey_Results.mxd
660000
Bat passes
E
(
1
(
2-3
(
4-5
(
6-7
(
8 - 12
1
E
±
8
658000
658000
Project name: Camilty Wind Farm Title : Listening Station Survey Results
Date: 06/03/2013 Scale @ A3 1:16,500 0 0.0750.15 0.3
Ver : (1.0) 304000 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 0100031673
305000
306000
307000
308000
Created by : OR 0.45
A3
0.6
Checked : NW
0.75 Kilometres
Figure : 11.3.3
Camilty Wind Farm
Annex 11.3.1: Site Photographs
PHOTOGRAPH 1: ROOST ENTRANCE LOCATION 1 - SOUTHEAST FACING WALL OF SCOUT LODGE, ENTRANCE POINT LOCATED TO RIGHT OF SATELLITE DISH
PHOTOGRAPH 2: ROOST ENTRANCE LOCATION 2 - LOCATED UNDER ROOF SEALING MATERIAL OVERHANG AT NORTHERN CORNER OF BUILDING March 2013
40
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
PHOTOGRAPH 3: ROOST ENTRANCE LOCATION 3 - LOCATED AT GAP UNDERNEATH OVERHANG OF ROOF SEALING MATERIAL, DIRECTLY ABOVE SECURITY LIGHT AT NORTHWEST FACING SIDE OF BUILDING
March 2013
41
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Annex 11.3.2: References
1 Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London.
2
Mitchell-Jones, A. J. (January 2004, First edition) Bat Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature.
3 Rodrigues, L., Bach, L., Dubourg-Savage, M.-J., Goodwin, J., Harbusch, C. (2008) Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 3 (English version). UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.
Natural England (2012) Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim guidance, Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051, Second edition, 29 Feb 2012
4
5 ‘Richardson, P. (2000) Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland 1980-1999. Bat Conservation Trust
Haddow, JF and Herman, J.S. (2000). Recorded distribution of bats in Scotland. Scottish Bats, vol.5, ISBN 0952018241
6
7
JNCC (2007). Article 17: Species Status Assessments. JNCC
Russ, J. (1999) The Bats of Britain and Ireland. Echolocation Calls, Sound Analysis and Species Identification. Alana Books, Bishop’s Castle.
8
Hayes, J. P. (1997) Temporal variation in activity of bats and the design of echolocation- monitoring studies. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 514–524
9
10Thomas, D. W. (1988) The distribution of bats in different ages of Douglas-fir forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 619–626.
Seidman, B.M., and C.J. Zabel. (2001) Bat activity along intermittent streams in north-western California. Journal of Mammalogy 82: 738-747.
11
12Cook, J., McCarthy, A., Holloway, S., Oliver, G. (2008) Survey Guidance for Assessing Bat Activity at Proposed On-Shore Wind Farms. In Practice 62:24-27. IEEM
Rydell, J., Bach, L., Dubourg-Savage, M., Green, M., Rodrigues, L., & Hedenström, A. (2010). Bat Mortality at Wind Turbines in Northwestern Europe. Acta Chiropterologica, 12(2), 261-274.
13
14 Jones, G., Cooper-Bohannon, R., Barlow, K. & Parsons K. (2009). Determining the impact of wind turbines on bat populations in Great Britain Phase 1 Report, Bat Conservation Trust / Bristol University.
15
Altringham, J. D. (1996) Bats biology and behavior Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford. 262. pp.
Kunz, T., Arnett, E., Erickson, W., Hoar, A., Johnson, G., Larkin, R., Strickland, M., et al. (2007). Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(6), 315-324. Eco Soc America.
16
17 Glover, A.M.; Altringham, J.D. (2008) Cave selection and use by swarming bat species, Biological Conservation, 141: 1493-1504
18 Baerwald, E.F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R.M.R. Barclay. (2009) a large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 10771081. Increased cut-in speeds, or feathering of blades during low winds Reduced mortality by 60%
March 2013
42
Appendix 11.3 2012 Bat Survey
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey Report (excluding bats)
March 2013 Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
List of Appendices
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey Introduction Background 11.4.1
RPS was commissioned by Partnerships for Renewables to undertake a range of ecological terrestrial surveys in relation to a proposed wind farm at the Camilty Plantation in West Lothian.
11.4.2
The requirement for these surveys was informed by an Ecological Site Sensitivity Appraisal1 which was conducted in February 2011 and subsequent consultation with SNH (as discussed in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology). While this appraisal covered a larger area than which is under investigation in this report, it broadly concluded that the coniferous plantation woodland and associated habitats present were of low to moderate conservation value. In terms of legally protected species, based on historical records and the suitability of the habitats within and surrounding the site it was considered to be of low to moderate potential for water vole, great crested newt and badger, whilst offering moderate to high potential for otter to be present within the survey boundary. In addition the appraisal concluded that the woodland offered negligible roost potential for bats, but that the presence of a number of farm buildings in the surrounding area which do have the potential to support roosting bats, there is a strong likelihood that one or more bat species utilise the site for foraging and commuting purposes.
11.4.3
The appraisal and consultation outcome established the need for dedicated surveys for the following suite of terrestrial species (groups):
11.4.4
Otter;
Water vole;
Badger;
Bats; and,
Confirmation of likely habitat suitability for red squirrel, pine marten and reptiles through an Extend Phase 1 Habitat survey.
The need for great crested newt surveys was scoped out following consultation with SNH (as discussed in Chapter 11: Terrestrial Ecology). Phase 1 Habitat and NVC survey results (habitat categories and vegetation communities respectively) as well as bat survey methodology and results are described in separate Technical Appendices.
Definition of Terms 11.4.5
1
The following definitions are used in this report:
Survey area: an area encompassing the site boundary and a 250m buffer (unless specified otherwise);
Proposed wind farm, site or site boundary: the planning application boundary.
Camilty Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal (RPS, 2011).
March 2013
1
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Methodology Desk Study and Consultation 11.4.6
A desk-based study gathered information on the potential value of the site and wider area for protected species through use of, the National Biodiversity Network, data requests to consultees and published distribution data. Consultees included West Lothian Council, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the Wildlife and Information Centre for the Lothian and Borders (WIC); the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Badgers and the Lothian Amphibian and Reptile Group (LARG).
Organisation West Lothian Council
Response Advised that the post of Biodiversity Officer no longer exists in West Lothian but that all available wildlife and site records would be held by WIC. Also advised that the site may overlap with a proposed Local Biodiversity Sites at Crossford Burn/Camilty Water. He also advised that Cobbinshaw Moss SSSI was located in close proximity to the SW of the site boundary and that SNH should be contacted. Provided information on historical badger setts in the area
Scottish Natural Heritage WIC
Information provided on protected mammal species – both otter and badger
Scottish Wildlife Trust Scottish Badgers LARG
No response Provided information of badger road deaths in the area Not aware of any surveys having been undertaken by LARG in the Camilty area and that LARG do not generally provide records for commercial purposes but advised that any records would be available through WIC.
Otter Survey 11.4.7
2 3
All waterbodies, watercourses and minor ditches within the survey area were surveyed for signs of otter presence. Otter field signs are described in Bang & Dahlstrøm (2001)2 and SNH (2008)3 and include resting sites (e.g. holts and couches), spraints, prints and feeding remains. Descriptions of these and other field evidence terms are provided below:
Holts - underground features where otters live. They can be tunnels within bank sides, underneath root plates or boulder piles, and even man-made structures such as disused drains. Holts are used as resting and breeding sites. Otters may use holts permanently or temporarily;
Couches - above ground resting sites. They may be partially sheltered, or fully exposed. Couches may be regularly used, especially in reedbeds and on in-stream islands. They have been known to be used as natal and breeding sites. Couches can be very difficult to identify, sometimes consisting of no more than an area of flattened grass or earth, and are best identified by the presence of other field signs (e.g. spraints). Where rocks or rock armour are used as couches, these can be almost impossible to identify without observing the otter in-situ;
Prints - otters have characteristic footprints that can be found in soft ground and muddy areas;
Bang, P & Dahlstrøm, P (2001). Animal Tracks and Signs. Oxford University Press, Oxford. SNH (2008). Otters and Development. Scottish Wildlife Series.
March 2013
2
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Spraints - otter faeces can be used to mark territories, often on in-stream boulders. They can be present within or outside the entrances of holts and couches. Spraints have a characteristic smell and often contain fish remains;
Feeding signs - the remains of prey items may be found at preferred feeding stations. Remains of fish, crabs or skinned amphibians can indicate the presence of otter;
Paths - these are terrestrial routes that otters take when moving between resting-up sites and watercourses, or at high flow conditions when they will travel along bank sides in preference to swimming; and,
Slides and play areas - slides are typically worn areas on steep slopes where otters slide on their bellies, regularly found between holts/couches and watercourses. Such areas are used by juvenile otters in play, and are often evident by trampled vegetation and the presence of slides. These are often positioned in sheltered areas adjacent to the natal holt.
11.4.8
Any of these field signs are diagnostic of the presence of otters although spraints and prints are the most reliably identifiable evidence of the species’ presence.
11.4.9
Suitable otter habitats are varied; however they require an abundance of prey including fish, reptile, amphibian, and invertebrate species. Refugia such as reedbeds and areas of high grass are similarly important throughout an area. The level of connectivity between watercourses and waterbodies is an important factor in assessing the suitability of a site for otter potential. The species is a wide ranging forager and will often travel throughout a large territory in search of food.
Badger Survey 11.4.10
11.4.11
4
Areas of suitable badger habitat such as broadleaved woodland, copses, and scrub, particularly those surrounding cultivated areas were identified within the survey area as these tend to be favoured by the species. During the survey these were searched for signs of badger and any indicative evidence noted. Badger field signs are described in Neal & Cheeseman4, Bang & Dahlstrøm4, and in SNH (2001)5 and include:
setts (including main, subsidiary and outlier setts);
latrines (dung pits used as territorial markers);
prints;
foraging signs (snuffle holes); and
guard hairs snagged on wire fencing.
Any of the above signs (with the exception of snuffle holes) can be taken as diagnostic evidence of the presence of badger.
Neal, E. & Cheeseman, C. (1996). Badgers. Poyser Natural History, London.
5
SNH (2001). Scotland’s Wildlife: Badgers and Development (http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/online/wildlife/badgersanddevelopment/default.asp). March 2013
3
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Water Vole Survey 11.4.12
11.4.13
11.4.14
All watercourses, minor ditches and small waterbodies within the survey area were assessed for their potential to support water voles. Habitat suitability criteria were based on information given in Strachan and Moorhouse (2010)6 and included the species’ known preference for:
slow flowing water;
low water level fluctuation;
banks suitable for burrowing;
lush bankside vegetation to provide food and shelter; and,
an absence of American mink (Neovison vison), a predator of water vole.
Within areas identified as suitable sites for water vole presence field signs were searched for. These include evidence of:
feeding signs including grass and reed clippings;
lawns and runways throughout the area showing a regular passage of the species along certain routes;
burrows in banks along watercourses, and where no banking is available, signs of nests in the surrounding grasses or reeds; and,
latrines and piles of droppings.
Note that field signs can only be considered diagnostic when a combination of evidence categories is recorded. Each of these signs individually does not amount to evidence of water vole presence.
Other Species 11.4.15
The ecological sensitivity appraisal concluded that the habitat within the Camilty survey area was unlikely to support important populations of red squirrel, pine marten or common reptiles. However, to avoid prematurely scoping out potentially sensitive receptors based on a high level appraisal alone, habitat suitability for these species was assessed during an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey. The following presents a brief overview of the habitat suitability criteria and diagnostic field signs which were recorded for these species during the survey.
Red Squirrel 11.4.16
The survey area was assessed for its ability to support red squirrel populations. Preferential habitats include:
areas of mature coniferous or broadleaved woodland that are capable of producing an annual seed crop; and
an absence of grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) in the surrounding area.
6
Strachan, R and Moorhouse, T. (2010). Water Vole Conservation Handbook, Third Edition. The Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, 2006. March 2013
4
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
11.4.17
11.4.18
Squirrel field signs were also searched for. These include:
dreys (tree-top resting sites); and
feeding remains (chewed pine cones, particularly at traditional feeding stations such as on top of tree stumps).
It should be noted however, that it is not possible to determine red squirrel dreys and feeding remains from those of grey squirrels, with the most reliable method of confirming the species presence (within the context of a walkover survey) being the sighting of an actual animal. Therefore, given the relatively low likelihood of seeing a red squirrel during the survey the main aim of the survey was simply to identify whether squirrels (regardless of species) were likely to be present within the site.
Pine Marten 11.4.19
Pine martens are notoriously difficult to survey as their scats (the most obvious field signs), are similar to those of fox and stoat when seen in the field. As such the survey focussed on assessing the habitat suitability for this species. This typically includes mature woodland, including coniferous plantations, although the species will forage in open habitats as well7. In particular, the survey searched for areas which might hold potential for denning sites including hollow trees, root plates, boulder piles or rocky outcrops.
Reptiles 11.4.20
The habitat requirements of common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) and slow worm (Anguis fragilis) - the species most likely to occur in this part of Scotland - are relatively broad, but in general these species require areas of dense vegetation such as grassland, heath, scrub and woodland edge habitat for foraging and shelter as well as more open, preferably south facing areas in which to bask. Both species also require suitable refugia habitat such as wood and rock piles in which to shelter and more importantly to hibernate during the winter. Examples of such habitat and their potential to support reptiles were noted where present.
Results Otter Desk Study Results 11.4.21
The NBN gateway held records of otter in the vicinity of the Camilty site where the A70 spans the upper reaches of the Crosswood Burn (2002), and an older record from 1991 for the Linhouse Water, of which the Crosswood Burn is a tributary, to the northeast of the Camilty site. No records were provided by consultees.
Field Survey Results 11.4.22
7
Crosswood Burn is considered to be of sufficient size and quality to support fish such as brown trout (Salmo trutta), and use of the Crosswood Burn by otter was confirmed by the detection of a fresh otter spraint (dropping) underneath the A70 road bridge during the Ecological Sensitivity Appraisal site visit in February 2011. During this visit an otter
Scottish Natural Heritage Species Information Sheet (http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A253114.pdf).
March 2013
5
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
spraint was also detected at the margins of the small forest pools located in the wider Camilty Plantation (NT 049 599), an area outside the site boundary. 11.4.23
During the dedicated otter surveys on 23 April 2012 fresh spraints were found along Crosswood Burn, Otter Burn and Shear Burn. No holts or couches were recorded.
11.4.24
During a raptor survey in March 2012 spraints were detected incidentally at several locations along the Crosswood Burn.
11.4.25
All observations are presented in Figure 11.4.1.
Badger Desk Study Results 11.4.26
Historical badger records were present on the NBN Gateway database for the general area only. The Scottish Badgers group provided records of badger road deaths at three points along the A70 between 2004 and 2008. They held no records of setts in the area.
11.4.27
Information on badger setts was received from SNH and WIC, indicating the presence of two historical setts (latest information 2002 and 2006 respectively) in the area. Details are provided in the Protected Species Confidential Appendix 11.6.
Field Survey Results 11.4.28
During the survey conducted on 4 May 2012, three active setts were found within the survey boundary, all outside the site boundary.
11.4.29
Sett A is an active annex sett, with four active entrances and 3 destroyed entrances. Two of the active entrances were large and well worn with moderate sized spoil heaps, fresh bedding and a latrine was found next to them. There were quite obvious paths between the four active entrances leading to a main sett (sett C) approximately 50 m away. The three destroyed entrances had been dug up from above and soil dumped on top of the entrance. There was no evidence of recent illegal activity.
11.4.30
Sett B is a large active main sett. There are 13 entrances in total. Eleven are well used entrances, with large spoil heaps covered in old bedding material. Worn paths connect the entrances and lead away from sett in four directions, including towards annex sett. One entrance is part used and one entrance is disused due to being filled in with log and large stones some time ago. There was a strong badger smell coming from number of larger holes, but no latrine found. Snuffle holes wee found over the hill sett is located on.
11.4.31
Sett C has four part-used sett entrances. One is very large with a large spoil heap in a large crater in the ground. All four entrances are partly worn but there are no signs of recent use. Wind fall covered most of the area making access to and around the entrances difficult, it is possible that there may be other entrances under the windfall. All holes are connected by lightly worn paths.
11.4.32
Details on locations are provided in the Confidential Annex.
Water Vole Desk Study Results 11.4.33
March 2013
Species records on the NBN Gateway database show that water voles have only been recorded historically in the general area (from 1969). No consultees held any records of water vole for the search area. 6
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Field Survey Results 11.4.34
During the Phase 1 Habitat survey possible water vole signs (runs and clippings) were found along the Shear Burn (TN18). They were not recent and no burrows or latrines were found. On their own these observations are not considered diagnostic – i.e. they do not prove the presence of water voles. No diagnostic signs of the species were found during the dedicated water vole surveys. The majority of drainage ditches and watercourses within the survey area are considered to be of negligible habitat suitability for water voles. The drainage ditches along the edges of the forest tracks are exposed and devoid of suitable shelter and forage vegetation, whilst those running through plantation areas do not provide adequate banks into which water voles could establish burrows.
Other Species Red Squirrel Desk Study Results 11.4.35
There are records from 2005 and 2006 within the NBN Gateway database of red squirrel presence at Polbeth; approximately 5 km to the north of the site, and East Calder; approximately 9 km to the north of the site.
Field Survey Results 11.4.36
Within the site boundary the dense Sitka spruce dominated woodland is considered to be at best suboptimal for this species, although the scattered areas of mature Scot’s pine plantation and semi-natural broadleaved woodland do offer pockets of more suitable habitat. No signs of red squirrels presence were recorded during the survey.
Pine Marten Desk Study Results 11.4.37
There were no available records of pine marten in the Camilty area from the desk study or the consultation process.
Field Survey Results 11.4.38
No signs of pine marten were found during the survey. The dense Sitka spruce dominated woodland is considered to be suboptimal for this species as it offers limited opportunities for foraging or den sites. In addition to this, pine martens have not been recorded in this part of Scotland and the site falls out with the recognised distribution for the species8, thus further reducing the likelihood of the species occurring at Camilty.
Reptiles Desk Study Results 11.4.39
8
Desk study and consultation found no recent records of any reptile species in the Camilty area although historical records of common lizard, slow worm and adder (Vipera berus) are present on the NBN Gateway database.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2007. Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats
Directive from January 2001 to December 2006. Peterborough: JNCC. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Article17/FCS2007-S1357Final.pdf March 2013
7
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Field Survey Results 11.4.40
March 2013
No reptiles or evidence of their presence (e.g. sloughed skin) was seen during the survey. It is considered that the majority of the survey area offers little potential habitat for reptiles as it largely consists of active commercial forestry.
8
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Figures
Figure 11.4.1 – Otter Survey Results
March 2013
9
Appendix 11.4 Terrestrial Ecology Survey (excluding bats)
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
304000
305000
306000
307000
308000
661000
661000
Legend Site boundary
E
Otter spraint (6)
660000
E
E
E
659000
E
659000
Location: W:\7154SAE - PfR, Camilty Wind Farm, EIA\Technical\Graphics\GIS\mxd files\ES figures 2012\Ecology\7154_EC_008a_Figure_11.4.1_Otter_Survey_Results.mxd
660000
Proposed turbine location
E
E
± Project name: Camilty Wind Farm 658000
658000
Title : Otter Survey Results
Date: 06/03/2013 Scale @ A3 1:15,000 0 0.075 0.15 0.3
Ver : (1.0) 304000 Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Licence number 0100031673
305000
306000
307000
308000
Created by : OR 0.45
A3
0.6
Checked : KK 0.75 Kilometres
Figure : 11.4.1
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.5 Calculation of Minimum Bat Turbine Buffer Distances
March 2013 Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
List of Appendices
Camilty Wind Farm
Appendix 11.5 Calculation of Minimum Bat Turbine Buffer Distances Introduction 11.5.1
Natural England (2012)1 guidance, as adopted by SNH, provides a methodology for determining the minimum buffer distance required between a feature of potential value for bats (e.g. the edge of a tree or shrub canopy) and a wind turbine. This appendix outlines the methodology used to calculate this distance based on the turbine specification proposed for Camilty Wind Farm.
Methodology 11.5.2
Figure 1, and the formula below, shows the methodology given by Natural England (2012) to find b which is the buffer distance required to ensure a 50 m stand off from the rotor swept area of the turbine. The value of b depends upon the height of the feature (tree, or other feature), and the hub height and blade length of the turbine under focus.
Figure 1: Approach to calculate appropriate buffer distances, b, from Natural England (2012)
1
Natural England’s Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines Interim Guidance – 2 February 2012)
March 2013
1
nd
Edition. Technical Information Note TIN051 (29
Appendix 11.5 Calculation of Minimum Bat Turbines Buffer Distances
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
where:
b = the distance on the ground between the edge of the canopy and the turbine (m) bl = blade length (m) hh = hub height (m) fh = feature height (m) For the example in Figure 1, b = 69.3 m as shown below:
Results 11.5.3
The dimensions of the candidate turbines for Camilty Wind Farm, have an 80 m hub height and a 52 m blade length. As the forestry around the Camilty was predominantly coniferous plantation, an augmented feature height of 25 m (average stand height) was used in the calculation instead of the standard 15 m. Table 1 (below) presents the measurements and results, showing that a buffer distance of 85.9 m around turbines is required. The buffer distance is the tree clearance / keyhole area around the proposed turbines.
Table 1 - Calculation of Minimum Buffer Distances for the Camilty Wind Turbines Parameters bl = blade length (m) h = hub height (m) fh = feature height (m) (50+bl)2 (m) (hh-fh)2 (m) √(50+bl)2 -(hh-fh)2 (m) Minimum distance between turbine blade tip and tree canopy required under NE guidance b= (minimum separation distance required between turbine centre and edge of tree canopy to achieve 50m separation between blade tip and upper height of tree canopy)
11.5.4
March 2013
Values (m) 52 80 25 10,404 3,025 7,379 50 85.9
For ease of understanding Figure 2 (below) shows the measured and calculated distances between the turbines and canopy of the woodland edge.
2
Appendix 11.5 Calculation of Minimum Bat Turbines Buffer Distances
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
Camilty Wind Farm
Figure 2: Actual distances achieved for Camilty Wind Farm turbines
March 2013
3
Appendix 11.5 Calculation of Minimum Bat Turbines Buffer Distances
Copyright Partnerships for Renewables Development Co. Ltd 2013 ©
