Krnovo Wind Farm - birdwatchingmn.org chrysaetos Least Concern ... window (50-150m) are considered to be at risk of colliding with a wind turbine. The minimum and maximum

Krnovo Wind Farm

Bird Survey Report (November 2015 - February 2016)

March 2016

Akuo Energy

353617 EVT EMP 004 A

-

2 March 2016

Krnovo Wind Farm


Krnovo Wind Farm


March 2016

Akuo Energy

140, Av. des Champs Elysées, 75008, Paris

Mott MacDonald, 22 Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JD, United Kingdom

T +44 (0)1223 463500 F +44 (0)1223 461007 W www.mottmac.com

353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

Krnovo Wind Farm Bird Survey Report (November 2015 - February 2016)

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 2 March 2016 Tristan Folland

Iain Bray

Nik Stone

First Issue

Issue and revision record

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -


Chapter Title Page

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Project description __________________________________________________________________ 1 1.3 Scope of this report _________________________________________________________________ 1

2 Survey Methodology 2

2.1 Vantage Point Surveys _______________________________________________________________ 2

3 Results 5

3.1 Target Species _____________________________________________________________________ 5 3.2 Vantage Point Surveys _______________________________________________________________ 5

4 Annual Collision Risk Assessment 9

5 Discussion 11

5.1 Winter bird surveys _________________________________________________________________ 11 5.2 Collision Risk Assessment ___________________________________________________________ 11

6 References 12

Appendices 13

Appendix A. Flight Lines _______________________________________________________________________ 14

Contents


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

1

1.1 Introduction

Mott MacDonald was commissioned by Akuo Energy to undertake ornithological monitoring in relation to

the Krnovo wind farm, Montenegro (‘the Project’) in April 2015.

1.2 Project description

The Project is located within the central area of Montenegro on the border of three municipalities; Nikšić,

Šavnik and Plužine. It comprises the installation of 26, 2/3MW wind turbine generators (WTG) as well as

the construction of a new substation at Krnovo connected by a 20km double circuit 110kV transmission

line. In addition to this infrastructure, the Project will reconstruct 3.8km of existing paved roads and create

13km of new roads (mostly upgrading of existing gravel roads).

1.3 Scope of this report

The aim of this report is to provide an overview of the ornithological monitoring results from the vantage

point surveys conducted in November and December 2015; and January and February 2016. It specifically

targets the occurrence and use of the wind farm area of species which have the potential to collide with the

operational WTGs.

1 Introduction


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

2

2.1 Vantage Point Surveys

The VP survey methodology below is in accordance with national guidance Prakljačić et al. (2011) and

international good practice (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014). The survey was performed by two surveyors

experienced in the identification of species within Montenegro. Winter surveys were undertaken on the

following dates including:

13-15 November 2015;

11-13 December 2015;

3-6 January 2016; and

5-7 February 2016.

In order to ensure that bird activity was monitored across the whole wind farm area a total of five vantage

point survey locations were used covering the Project site (VP1 to VP5) and two vantage points (VP6 and

VP7) covering a control area. At least 20 hours of survey were carried out at each vantage point. Survey

duration lasted between two and three hours.

2 Survey Methodology


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

3

Figure 2.1: Vantage Point locations

The surveys were carried out during suitable weather conditions (i.e. not during periods of high winds and

heavy rain). The start/finish times were between dawn and dusk; varied to account for any diurnal

differences in species flight activities.

During the VP surveys, details of all target species were recorded when observed within the 2km study

area of the VP location. This included all species of conservation value at risk of collision with the

operational WTGs such as raptors and waterbirds. Species of conservation concern include all those

species listed as near-threatened or threatened on the European Red List of Birds (BirdLife International,

2015). Information was recorded onto a proforma and included: species, sex (where possible), number and

duration of flight height in 15 second intervals. Five different height categories (<50m, 50m-100m, 100m-

150m, 150m-200m, >200m) were used. In addition, the location and flight direction of target species were

recorded onto a field map of the study area (one map per vantage point per survey).


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

4

In addition to target species, information on secondary species was also recorded. This included species

at less risk of collision with the operational WTGs such as herons and/or raptors and waterbirds not

considered to be of conservation value.

For these secondary species, the number of individuals, flight direction and general flight height were

recorded during the VP surveys. Recording of secondary species was subsidiary to recording of target

species.


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

5

3.1 Target Species

One target and six secondary target species were recorded during the vantage point surveys. These are

summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Target and secondary target species

Species European Red List Target Secondary Target Resident/Migratory

Accipiter gentilis Least Concern Resident

Accipiter nisus Least Concern Resident

Aquila chrysaetos Least Concern Resident

Buteo buteo Least Concern Resident

Buteo lagopus Least Concern Migratory

Circus cyaneus Near Threatened Migratory

Falco tinnunculus Least Concern Resident

3.2 Vantage Point Surveys

The environmental conditions encountered on site were typical of winter. Of the seven species recorded

(Table 3.2), all were raptors; one species (Circus cyaneus) is considered to be near-threatened in Europe.

There was no significant difference in the abundance of birds between the project site (VP1-5) and the

control site (VP6-7) (t=0.83, df=22, p= 0.414).

Within the project area the most observations were made from VP4 and the fewest at VP3. The difference

in the number of observations between VP4 and 3 was however only seven observations. Vantage point

data were subjected to Principal Component Analysis (PCA) using the FactoMiner plugin in R-3.1.2 for

Windows (R Development Core Team, 2014). For clarity, data relating to common resident species (Buteo

buteo and Falco tinnunculus) and control VP6 and VP7 were excluded from the analysis. Birds only

occurred as singletons and therefore there was a linear (1:1) relationship between observation frequency

(total number of observations) and abundance (total number of birds recorded). For this reason vantage

points can be divided into two groups (Figure 3.1) based on the number of observations made at each

vantage point. The difference in the number of observations of Aquila chrysaetos and Circus cyaneus

separated the two groups of turbines, one group in the north (VP4, VP5) and one group in the south (VP1,

VP2 and VP3). The majority of Aquila chrysaetos observations were from VP4 and VP5 and the majority of

the observations of Circus cyaneus were from VP1, VP2 and VP3

Table 3.2: Species observation frequency and cumulative abundance per VP

Species VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5 VP 6 VP 7

Accipiter gentilis 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 0,0 1,1

Accipiter nisus 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0 1,1 2,2

Aquila chrysaetos 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,3 1,1 0,0 0,0

Buteo buteo 10,10 12,12 7,7 10,10 12,12 6,6 3,3

3 Results


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

6

Species VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5 VP 6 VP 7

Buteo lagopus 0,0 0,0 1,1 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0

Circus cyaneus 2,2 2,2 1,1 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0

Falco tinnunculus 1,1 2,2 1,1 0,0 0,0 1,1 0,0

* Target species in bold type.

Figure 3.1: PCA of vantage point observation frequency and abundance


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

7

Flight paths recorded for primary and secondary target species are presented in Appendix A of this report.

Dominant flight directions observed during the vantage point surveys highlight predominance for a general

north-south movement of birds across the northern turbine alignment (Figure 3.2). Movements of birds in a

general east-west direction were predominant across the southern turbine alignment (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.2: Flight Direction (northern turbine alignment)

VP1 VP4

VP5

00.5

11.5

22.5

3N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSES

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

0

1

2

3

4N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSES

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

0

0.5

1

1.5

2N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSES

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

8

Figure 3.3: Flight Direction (southern turbine alignment)

VP2 VP 3

01234567

NNNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSES

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

0

1

2

3

4N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSES

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

9

The data collected from the vantage point surveys (April 2015-February 2016) were put into a Collision

Risk Model (CRM) (Band et al, 2007) to estimate the annual collision risk for the northern turbine array

(Table 4.1) and southern turbine array (Table 4.2). The CRM was based on a 32 turbine layout in order to

provide a ‘worst-case scenario’ estimate. Only those species recorded flying through the collision risk

window (50-150m) are considered to be at risk of colliding with a wind turbine. The minimum and maximum

heights of the turbine blades are considered to be 33.5 and 136.5m respectively. The following species

were not recorded within the collision risk window:

Accipiter gentilis;

Accipiter nisus;

Buteo rufinus;

Circus cyaneus;

Circus macrourus; and

Grus grus.

The 0.99 (99%) avoidance rate is recommended by SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2010) for most

species except for example Falco tinnunculus where a 0.95 (95%) avoidance rate is recommended.

The CRM shows a higher collision risk in the northern turbine array compared to the southern turbine

array. This may be as a result of birds using the increasing elevation north of the northern turbine array to

gain altitude having been hunting or passing low over the plateau between the turbine arrays.

For all species the collision risk appears to be low with, for example, one collision estimated every 5.8

years for Buteo buteo (=1/(0.09+0.08) and one every five years for Falco tinnunculus (=1/(0.18+.02) across

both the northern and southern arrays combined. For migratory species the estimated annual mortality is

considered to be very small with, for example, one collision every 333 years for Circus aeruginosus across

both the northern and southern arrays combined.

Table 4.1: Estimated Collision Risk (northern turbine array)

Species Avoiding action

None 0.9 0.95 0.99

Buteo buteo 8.65 0.87 0.43 0.09

Falco tinnunculus 3.63 0.36 0.18 0.04

Corvus cornax 2.05 0.21 0.10 0.02

Aquila chrysaetos 0.46 0.05 0.02 0.005

Circus aeruginosus 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.002

Falco vespertinus 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.002

Circus pygargus 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.002

Buteo lagopus 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.001

Pernis apivorus 0.05 0.005 0.002 0.0005

Circaetus gallicus 0.02 0.002 0.001 0.0002

4 Annual Collision Risk Assessment


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

10

Table 4.2: Estimated Collision Risk (southern turbine array)

Species Avoiding action

None 0.9 0.95 0.99

Buteo buteo 0.41 0.39 0.08 0.08

Falco tinnunculus 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02

Circus aeruginosus 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.001

Circus pygargus 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.001

Buteo lagopus 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001

Falco subbuteo 0.002 0.002 0.0005 0.0005


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

11

5.1 Winter bird surveys

Weather conditions were not typical for winter in Montenegro, being mild with little snow cover. The mild

conditions may have led to an increase in bird activity compared to typical winter conditions with deep

snow cover on the ground. The vantage point survey results are therefore likely to be an over estimate of

bird activity for the area during winter. There was no significant difference in bird abundance between the

site and the control site.

Circus cyaneus was recorded at low frequency and in small numbers and was the only primary target

species. Secondary target species were also recorded at low frequency and in small numbers and there is

no evidence to indicate that there is a significant risk of collision with respect to winter birds.

In relative terms, the species richness in the northern extent of the Project area was greater when

compared to the southern extent of the Project area.

5.2 Collision Risk Assessment

It is currently considered that, taking into account monthly data collection between April 2015 and February

2016 (Mott MacDonald, 2015a; 2015b), the impact of collision is not significant and that mitigation will not

be required. Post construction monitoring should be undertaken in accordance with Scottish Natural

Heritage guidance (2009) in Years 1, 2, 3 and 5, 10 and 15 of operation. This will allow confirmation of the

predicted impact against any realised impact..

Operational monitoring should include systematic carcass searches in accordance with Scottish Natural

Heritage guidance (2009) and Atienza et al (2009) and should account for search, observer and scavenger

bias.

A post construction environmental management plan should be prepared and include a fully detailed

methodology for carcass searches and breeding raptor surveys; the numbers of several breeding raptors

being of bwere of national significance in terms of making up at least 1% of the national population

estimate (Mott MacDonald, 2015).

5 Discussion


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

12

Atienza, J.C., Martín Fierro, I., Infante, O., Valls, J. & Domínguez, J., 2011.Guidelines for assessing the

Impact of Wind Farms on Birds and Bats (Version 4). SEO/BirdLife, Madrid.

Band, W., Madders, M., & Whitfield, D.P. 2007. Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian

collision risk at wind farms. In: de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E.& Ferrer, M. (eds.) Birds and Wind Farms: Risk

Assessment and Mitigation, pp. 259-275. Quercus, Madrid.

Mott MacDonald, 2015a. Krnovo Wind Farm. Bird Survey Report (April-June 2015). Mott MacDonald,

Cambridge.

Mott MacDonald, 2015b. Krnovo Wind Farm. Bird Survey Report (July-October 2015). Mott MacDonald,

Cambridge.

Prakljačić, B., Saveljić, D., Vujović, A., Jovićević, M., 2011. W indmills and birds: recommendations for

making environmental impact assessment.

R Development Core Team, 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R

Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Scottish Natural Heritage, 2009. Guidance note. Guidance on Methods for Monitoring Bird Populations at

Onshore Wind Farms. January, 2009. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C205417.pdf>

[Accessed on 1 March 2016].

Scottish Natural Heritage, 2010. SNH Avoidance Rate Information & Guidance Note. September, 2010.

[pdf] Available at: <http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B721137.pdf> [Accessed on 1 March 2016].

Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014. Guidance. Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact

assessment of onshore wind farms. May 2014. [pdf] Available at:

<http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C278917.pdf> [Accessed on 1 March 2016].

6 References


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

13

Appendices

Appendix A. Flight Lines _______________________________________________________________________ 14


353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -

14

Appendix A. Flight Lines

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

#*#*

#*

#*

#*VP1

VP2

VP3

VP4VP5

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri(Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

[

Sources: Esri, HERE,DeLorme, USGS, Intermap,increment P Corp., NRCAN,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),

A

APR

A For issue

Krnovo Wind Farm

[

App'd

Flight lines (November 2015 - February 2016)

353617Krnovo Winter Birds.mxd

IBTF

Environment Division22 Station Road, CambridgeCB1 2JD, United KingdomT +44 (0)1223 463 500F +44 (0)1223 461 007W www.mottmac.com

Rev

Status

Drawing No.

Drawing Title

Ch'k'dDescription DrawnDateRev

Project Title

MM Project No.

GIS File

01/03/2016

Scale1:25000 @ A3

Legend

NS

Location Map

This document should not be relied on or used in circumstances other than those for which it was originally prepared and for which Mott MacDonald Ltd. was commissioned. Mott MacDonald Ltd. accepts no responsibility for this document to any other than the person by whom it was commissioned. MMD-353617-Env-GIS-00-XX-W001

ClientAkuo Energy140, Av. des Champs Elysées75008, Paris

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015

SPECIESAccipiter gentilisAccipiter nisusAquila chrysaetosButeo lagopusCircus cyaneusFalco tinnunculusButeo buteo

#* Vantage point!( Turbine base (indicative)

16 353617/EVT/EMP/004/A 2 March 2016 -


Documents

Krnovo Wind Farm - birdwatchingmn.org chrysaetos Least Concern ... window (50-150m) are considered to be at risk of colliding with a wind turbine. The minimum and maximum