Krnovo Wind Farm - birdwatchingmn.org Krnovo wind farm, Montenegro ... (numbers triangle) and indicative turbine locations ... Aquila chrysaetos Least Concern Resident

Krnovo Wind Farm

Bird Survey Report (July-October 2015)

November 2015

Akuo Energy

353617 EVT EMP 003 A

-

23 November 2015

Krnovo Wind Farm


Krnovo Wind Farm


November 2015

Akuo Energy

140, Av. des Champs Elysées, 75008, Paris

Mott MacDonald, Demeter House, Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2RS, United Kingdom

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

353617/EVT/EMP/003/A 23 November 2015 -

Krnovo Wind Farm Bird Survey Report (July-October 2015)

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A 23 November 2015 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.



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 2.2 Owl Surveys _______________________________________________________________________ 3 2.3 Breeding Bird Surveys _______________________________________________________________ 4

3 Results 7

3.1 Vantage Point Surveys _______________________________________________________________ 7 3.1.1 Collision Risk Model ________________________________________________________________ 13 3.2 Owl Surveys ______________________________________________________________________ 14 3.3 Breeding Bird Surveys ______________________________________________________________ 15

4 Discussion 17

4.1 Vantage Point Surveys ______________________________________________________________ 17 4.2 Owl Surveys ______________________________________________________________________ 17 4.3 Breeding Bird Surveys ______________________________________________________________ 17

5 References 19

Appendices 20

Appendix A. Flight Lines _______________________________________________________________________ 21

Contents



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 surveys

undertaken between July and October 2015. This includes:

Vantage point (VP) surveys conducted in July, August, September and October 2015. These

specifically target the occurrence and use of the wind farm area of species which have the potential to

collide with the operational WTGs; and,

The occurrence and distribution of breeding birds (May-June 2015) quail (Coturnix coturnix)) (June

2015) and owl species (October-November 2015) are also reported.

1 Introduction



2

The survey methodologies described here are based on national guidance Prakljačić et al. (2011) and

international best practice (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014).

2.1 Vantage Point Surveys

The VP surveys were conducted by two surveyors experienced in the identification of species within

Montenegro. Autumn migration surveys were undertaken on the following dates and cover the key periods

of autumn migration:

1-5 July 2015;

15-21 August 2015;

12-16 September 2015; and

9-12 and 23-25 October 2015.

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

point surveys were undertaken at the Project site (VP1 to VP5) and two vantage points (VP6 and VP7)

were undertaken in a control area. A total of 48 hours of survey were carried out at each vantage point

comprising of 12 hours per vantage point per month. The survey duration was between two and three

hours.

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 species vulnerable to collision with WTGs were recorded when

observed within the 2km study area of the VP location. This included target species, i.e. of conservation

value at risk of collision with the operational WTGs such as raptors and waterbirds. Species of

conservation value include all those listed as near-threatened or threatened in 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).

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.

2 Survey Methodology



3

Principle Component Analysis (PCA) was used to identify similarities and differences in the species

composition and abundance of birds between vantage points. Bird collisions are typically associated with a

small number of turbines within any one group, this cluster analysis provides a visual means of identifying

where there may be concentrations of bird numbers or where the activity of a specific species may be

concentrated.

Figure 2.1: Vantage Point locations and study area.

2.2 Owl Surveys

Nocturnal playback surveys for owls were undertaken at 11 locations (Figure 2.2) across the project area

on 10 October 2015 and 14 November 2015.

Target species, those considered to be potentially present in the project area include:

Eurasian eagle owl Bubo bubo;

Little owl Athene noctua;

Tawny owl Strix aluco;

Ural owl Strix uralensis; and

Long-eared owl Asio otus.



4

Figure 2.2: Owl survey playback locations (numbers triangle) and indicative turbine locations (circles).

2.3 Breeding Bird Surveys

Transect surveys were undertaken in order to establish baseline knowledge of the breeding bird

community within the project area. Surveys were undertaken on three transects (Figure 2.3) in May and

June 2015 (Table 2.1).

Each transect was walked and birds were recorded within 100m from the observer. The surveys

commenced within no sooner than 30 minutes after sunrise and lasted for up to approximately 3 hours.

Surveys were undertaken during suitable weather conditions (i.e. not during periods of high winds and

heavy rain).



5

Table 2.1: Breeding bird transect survey details

Transect Date Start time End time Total time Length (km)

1 27 May 2015 06:15 07:48 1.6 2.28

2 27 May 2015 08:10 10:37 2.5 4.50

3 28 May 2015 05:48 08:32 2.7 5.50

3 06 June 2015 05:35 08:43 3.1 5.50

1 28 June 2015 07:21 08:55 1.6 2.28

2 30 June 2015 05:49 08:21 2.5 4.50

The total number of birds for each species was calculated for each transect within the distance band 0-

100m. From the count totals for each species a measure of relative density adjusted for survey effort

(birds/km2/hour of survey) was calculated for each transect. The average relative density and standard

deviation for each species is reported.

Additional nocturnal surveys of quail (Coturnix coturnix) were also undertaken on two calm and clear nights

in June 2015 (i.e. 28/29 and 29/30). The project area was divided into eight one kilometre squares.

Playback surveys were conducted at 50m intervals along transects within eight randomly selected 0.25km

x 0.25km sampling units, i.e. one 0.0625km2 sampling unit per one kilometre square. The total sampling

area was 0.5km2 (0.0625km

2 x 8 = 0.5km

2). The relative density of singing males was calculated by

dividing the total number of males responding to playback calls by the total sampling area. The results are

reported in the following Chapter.



6

Figure 2.3: Breeding bird survey transect locations and indicative turbine locations (circles).



7

Data collected using the survey methodologies described above for the period July to November 2015

inclusive is reported below.


One target and 10 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

Circus aeruginosus Least Concern Migratory

Circus cyaneus Near-threatened Migratory

Circus pygargus Least Concern Migratory

Corvus corax Least Concern Resident

Falco subbuteo Least Concern Migratory

Falco tinnunculus Least Concern Resident

Pernis apivorus Least Concern Migratory

The environmental conditions encountered on site were typical of late summer and autumn. Of the 11

target species recorded (Table 3.2), 10 were raptors; one species (Circus cyaneus) is considered to be

near-threatened in Europe.

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

and the control site (VP6-7) (t-test: t=0.79, df=75, p=0.431). This indicates that bird abundance recorded

from the vantage points is likely to be indicative of bird abundance in the wider area.

Within the project area the most observations were made from VP1 and the fewest at VP3. The range

between VP1, 2, 4 and 5 was 14 observations. Vantage point data was subjected to Principal Component

Analysis (PCA) using the FactoMiner plugin in R-3.1.2 for Windows (R Development Core Team, 2014) to

visually identify locations where the species composition and/or abundance is similar but more importantly

where this may differ for specific ecological reasons. Due to their relative ubiquity data relating to common

resident species (Buteo buteo, Corvus corax and Falco tinnunculus) were excluded from the analysis. Data

from the control VP6 and VP7 were also excluded from the analysis because they do not form part of the

Collision Risk Model (CRM).

Birds generally occurred in low numbers and therefore there was a strong relationship between

observation frequency and abundance which describes the majority of the variation in the dataset (i.e. the

3 Results



8

first principle component). Vantage points can be divided into two groups (Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2)

based on the number of observations and abundance made at each vantage point.

The difference in the number of observations of Aquila chrysaetos and Circus aeruginosus 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 aeruginosus were from VP1, VP2 and VP3 (Figure 3.1).The abundance of Aquila

chrysaetosis the primary reason for the difference between the turbine group VP1, VP2, VP3 and turbine

group VP4, VP5 (Figure 3.2).

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 3,3 0,0 3,3 2,2

Accipiter nisus 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,10 1,5 0,0

Aquila chrysaetos 0,0 1,1 0,0 1,1 0,0 1,1 2,2

Buteo buteo 42,57 38,51 27,33 35,46 42,53 27,31 21,21

Circus aeruginosus 17,17 15,15 7,7 8,8 3,3 7,7 4,4

Circus cyaneus 1,1 2,3 1,1 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0

Circus pygargus 6,6 9,9 5,5 6,6 3,3 2,2 0,0

Corvus cornix 0,0 2,2 1,1 5,5 7,7 2,2 0,0

Falco subbuteo 1,1 0,0 1,1 1,1 0,0 0,0 0,0

Falco tinnunculus 51,71 43,50 34,41 50,66 45,56 40,45 28,35

Pernis apivorus 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,1 4,4 10,12

* Target species in bold type.



9

Figure 3.1: Principle Component Analysis (PCA) of vantage point observation frequency (excluding Corvus corax

observations)



10

Figure 3.2: PCA of vantage point species abundance (excluding Corvus corax observations)

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



11

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

flight paths across both the northern and southern turbine alignments (Figure 3.3). Westerly flight paths

were notable at VP4 and easterly flight paths at VP1 and VP5 (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.3: Flight Direction (northern turbine alignment – all species combined)

VP1

VP4



12

VP5

Figure 3.4: Flight Direction (southern turbine alignment - all species combined)

VP2



13

VP3

3.1.1 Collision Risk Model

The CRM for both northern and southern turbine arrays demonstrates a relatively low annual collision rate

when adjusted for avoidance (Table 3.3 and Table 3.4). The highest collision rates can be found amongst

the two most frequently encountered species Buteo buteo and Falco tinnunculus. Assuming an avoidance

rate of 98% for Buteo buteo and 95% for Falco tinnunculus (SNH, 2010) the cumulative collision rate for

the both arrays is three (on average) respectively every year.

Table 3.3: Estimated annual collision risk (northern turbine array).

Species Avoiding action

None 90% 95% 98% 99%

Buteo buteo 90.70 9.07 4.53 1.81 0.91

Falco tinnunculus 39.70 3.97 1.98 0.79 0.40

Circus aeruginosus 4.40 0.44 0.22 0.09 0.04

Circus pygargus 2.14 0.21 0.11 0.04 0.02

Aquila chrysaetos 7.48 0.75 0.37 0.15 0.07

Corvus corax 27.17 2.72 1.36 0.54 0.27

Pernis apivorus 0.62 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01

Falco vespertinus 2.35 0.24 0.12 0.05 0.02

Circaetus gallicus 0.31 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00



14

Table 3.4: Estimated annual collision risk (southern turbine array).

Species Avoiding action

None 90% 95% 98% 99%

Buteo buteo 63.21 6.32 3.16 1.26 0.63

Falco tinnunculus 13.63 1.36 0.68 0.27 0.14

Falco subbuteo 0.36 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00

Circus pygargus 0.40 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00

Circus aeruginosus 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

The following species were not recorded within the collision risk window of 50-150m:Accipiter gentilis;

Accipiter nisus;

Buteo rufinus;

Circus cyaneus;

Circus macrourus; and

Grus grus.

3.2 Owl Surveys

One species of owl, tawny owl (Strix aluco), was confirmed as being present on site and a second species,

Eurasian eagle-owl (Bubo bubo), is probably present although evidence to confirm its presence was not

obtained.The project area lies within the known range for Eurasian eagle-owl.

Although not of conservation concern at the European level, both species of owl have relatively small

national breeding populations and therefore small numbers of breeding pairs could constitute a significant

proportion of the national population. A threshold of 1% of a population is widely accepted internationally

as a guide to identifying sites of importance to species that concentrate into a small number of sites

(Drewitt, 2015). This approach also provides for protection for rare species (Drewitt, 2015).

In October individual male tawny owls, located in woodland, were recorded at playback points 2, 4, 5 and

9. A possible Eurasian eagle-owl was heard briefly and distantly from playback point 10.

A single tawny owl was seen from playback point 2 on 14 November 2015.

The national population estimate of 200-300 tawny owl pairs is considered to be of medium quality

(BirdLife International, 2015) and may be an underestimate of the true population. Applying the 1% criteria

to the number of territorial male tawny owl recorded (n=4) suggests that, if these males are paired that the

project site may support approximately 1% of the national population, which would be considered important

forthe national population.

The population estimate of Eurasian eagle-owl for Montenegro is considered to be of poor quality (BirdLife

International, 2015) at 100-200 pairs. Habitat within the project site and the surrounding landscape is

considered suitable breeding habitat for this species and therefore there is a potential for a breeding



15

population to occur within the project area, which could be considered important for the national

population.


A total of 26 potential breeding species were recorded on transect surveys (Table 3.5). Alpine chough

(Pyrrhocorax graculus) were recorded during the surveys but were not considered likely to be breeding

within the project area due to the absence of suitable breeding habitat at such a low elevation. No species

threatened in Europe were recorded.

A total of 46 male quail were recorded during playback surveys within the survey area of 0.5km2 (i.e. 8 x

0.25km2 units). On this basis the relative density of males was calculated to be 0.92 males per hectare (92

males per km2).

Table 3.5: Relative density of breeding birds recorded in the project area

Species European Red List Average Relative Density (birds/km2/hour)

Standard deviation given in parentheses

Alauda arvensis Least Concern 9.9 (3.55)

Carduelis cannabina Least Concern 2.1 (0.65)

Saxicola rubetra Least Concern 1.8 (1.07)

Oenanthe oenanthe Least Concern 1.7 (0.62)

Anthus spinoletta Least Concern 1.6 (0.03)

Corvus corone cornix Least Concern 1.6 (0.83)

Sturnus vulgaris Least Concern 1.4 (0.66)

Fringilla coelebs Least Concern 1.2 (0.87)

Lanius collurio Least Concern 1.1 (0.41)

Parus major Least Concern 1.1 (0.81)

Columba palumbus Least Concern 1.1 (0.54)

Anthus trivialis Least Concern 0.8 (0.39)

Garrulus glandarius Least Concern 0.8 (0.66)

Coturnix coturnix Least Concern 0.8 (0.16)

Corvus corax Least Concern 0.7 (0.39)

Sitta europaea Least Concern 0.7 (0.37)

Turdus viscivorus Least Concern 0.7 (0.41)

Turdus merula Least Concern 0.7 (0.22)

Emberiza citrinella Least Concern 0.7 (0.22)

Lullula arborea Least Concern 0.6 (0.3)

Phoenicurus ochruros Least Concern 0.5 (0.22)

Sylvia communis Least Concern 0.5 (0.06)

Anthus campestris Least Concern 0.4 (0.24)

Hirundo rustica Least Concern 0.4 (0)



16

Species European Red List Average Relative Density (birds/km2/hour)

Standard deviation given in parentheses

Monticola saxatillis Least Concern 0.3 (0.13)

Motacilla alba Least Concern 0.3 (0.15)

No nesting raptors were recorded during the surveys however based on the data collected during the

vantage point surveys (April-June) seven species are considered to be holding territory within and

surrounding the project site (Table 3.6).

Table 3.6: Estimated numbers of breeding raptors

Species European Red

List National Population Estimate (pairs)

[1% threshold]* Estimated number of

breeding pairs

Accipiter gentilis Least Concern 100-200 [1-2] 1-2

Accipiter nisus Least Concern 200-300 [2-3] 1-2

Aquila chrysaetos Least Concern 30-50 [1] 1 (in the wider Krnovo area)

Buteo buteo Least Concern 400-600 [4-6] 4-6

Circaetus gallicus Least Concern 40-60 [1] 1 (in the wider Krnovo area)

Falco tinnunculus Least Concern 400-600 [4-6] 4-6

Pernis apivorus Least Concern 150-200 [2] 1-2

* From BirdLife International, 2015



17

The implication of the survey results on the project are discussed below and recommendations are

provided but are subject to the findings after the completion of the surveys in early 2016.


Weather conditions were not atypical for late summer/autumn in Montenegro and there was no significant

difference in bird abundance between the site and the control site. The vantage point survey for migrating

bird results can therefore be considered to be representative of the area.

There is indication of a light autumn passage of species vulnerable to collision with wind turbines, in

particular raptors. Circus cyaneus was recorded at low frequency and in small numbers and was the only

primary target species considered to be a passage migrant. Secondary target species recorded at low

frequency and in small numbers included Circus aeruginosus, Circus pygargus, Falco Subbuteo and

Pernis apivorus. There is no evidence to indicate that there is a significant risk of collision with respect to

migratory birds in autumn.

In relative terms, the northern extent of the Project area the species richness and abundance is greater

compared to the southern extent. The collision risk model indicates a relatively low annual collision risk for

all species recorded during the surveys. In respect of migratory species no mitigation or further monitoring

is currently considered necessary.

4.2 Owl Surveys

Given the presence of tawny owl and potential presence of Eurasian eagle-owl and the fact that nocturnal

activity may pose greater hazards for birds (SNH, 2015), monitoring for owl species is recommended as

part of the operational monitoring of the project. Monitoring will identify the need for operational mitigation

measures if required.


The breeding bird community of the site is typical of the farmed habitats present with no species of

European conservation concern being present. The numbers of quail breeding in Europe is known to

fluctuate dramatically from year to year however studies of breeding quail density are not well published.

Comparison with other areas has not been possible at this time.

Breeding raptors are present within the project area and the wider Krnovo area. Although none of these

species are considered to be of European conservation concern all species occur in numbers at or close

the 1% threshold for national significance. Whilst the collision risk model indicates a relatively low annual

collision risk for resident breeding raptor species, it is considered appropriate in the light of the potential

significance of the populations to undertake operational monitoring. This monitoring should take the form of

breeding raptor surveys to quantify the number of breeding pairs within the project area as well as carcass

4 Discussion



18

searches for collision victims in accordance with SNH guidance (SNH, 2009). Monitoring should take place

in years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 of operation in accordance with SNH guidance (SNH, 2014). If the annual

rate of collision is higher than predicted, mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the collision

risk at problematic turbines should these occur.



19

Alerstam T., Rosén M., Bäckman J., Ericson P.G.P. & Hellgren, O., 2007. Flight Speeds among Bird

Species: Allometric and Phylogenetic Effects. PLoS Biol 5(8): e197. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050197.

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.

BirdLife International, 2015. European Red List of Birds. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities.

Bruderer, B., & Boldt, A., 2001. Flight characteristics of birds: I. Radar measurements of speeds. Ibis 143:

178-204.

Drewitt, A.L., Whitehead, S. & Cohen, S., 2015. Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Part 2:

Detailed Guidelines for Habitats and Species Groups. Chapter 17 Birds. Joint Nature Conservation

Committee, Peterborough.

Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D. W. and Evans, J., 1998. Bird Monitoring Methods. The Royal Society for the

Protection of Birds, Sandy.

Jenkins, A.R., van Rooyen, C.S., Smallie, J.J., Harrison, J.A., Diamond, M., Smit-Robinson, H.A., &

Ralston, S., 2015. Best-practice guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind-energy

facilities on birds in southern Africa. [pdf] Available at: <

http://www.birdlife.org.za/component/docman/doc_download/450-birds-and-wind-best-practice-guidelines-

2015?Itemid=533> [Accessed on 19 November 2015].

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

making environmental impact assessment. Center for Protection and Research of birds of Montenegro

(CZIP), Podgorica.

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 19 November 2015].

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 14 May19 November 2015].

Scottish Natural Heritage, 2010. Use of Avoidance Rates in the SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model.

September 2010. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B721137.pdf> [Accessed on 19

November 2015].

5 References



20

Appendices

Appendix A. Flight Lines _______________________________________________________________________ 21



21

Appendix A. Flight Lines

Documents

Krnovo Wind Farm - birdwatchingmn.org Krnovo wind farm, Montenegro ... (numbers triangle) and indicative turbine locations ... Aquila chrysaetos Least Concern Resident