technical appendix 5: ecology

Hopsrig Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Hopsrig Wind Farm Limited

Volume 4: Technical Appendices TA 5: Ecology Ramboll Environ

Technical Appendix 5: Ecology TA 5.1 National Vegetation Classification & Habitats Survey Report

TA 5.2 Protected Species Survey Report

TA 5.3 Badger Survey Report – CONFIDENTIAL

TA 5.4 Bat Survey Report

TA 5.5 Fisheries Habitat and Electrofishing Survey Report

TA 5.6 Species Protection Plan

TA 5.7 Outline Habitat Management Plan




Technical Appendix 5.1: National Vegetation Classification & Habitats Survey Report

HOPSRIG WIND FARM

National Vegetation Classification & Habitats Survey

Technical Appendix 5.1

Prepared by: Jason Mackay Reviewed by: Brian Henry, MCIEEM Date: 05/10/2016 Tel: 0141 342 5404 Email: [email protected] Web: www.macarthurgreen.com Address: 95 South Woodside Road | Glasgow | G20 6NT

Document Quality Record

Version Status Person Responsible Date 1 Draft Jason Mackay 15/03/2016

2 Reviewed Brian Henry 22/03/2016

3 Updated Jason Mackay / Brian Henry 22/06/2016

4 Internal Approval Brian Henry 05/10/2016

5 Final Client Approval

Hopsrig: NVC Survey Report

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1

2. THE SITE & NVC STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. 1

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. 1

4. SURVEY CONSTRAINTS ....................................................................................................................................... 2

5. NVC SURVEY RESULTS AND VEGETATION DESCRIPTIONS.................................................................................. 2

5.1 Summary of NVC Communities .................................................................................................................. 2

5.2 Mires and Flushes ...................................................................................................................................... 2

5.3 Wet Heaths................................................................................................................................................. 4

5.4 Dry Heaths .................................................................................................................................................. 5

5.5 Calcifugous Grasslands and bracken-dominated vegetation ..................................................................... 5

5.6 Mesotrophic Grasslands ............................................................................................................................. 7

5.7 Woodland and Scrub .................................................................................................................................. 7

5.8 Swamps and Tall-Herb Fens ....................................................................................................................... 8

5.9 Vegetation of Open Habitats ..................................................................................................................... 8

5.10 Non-NVC Communities & Categories ......................................................................................................... 8

6. CORRESPONDANCE WITH PHASE 1 HABITATS ................................................................................................... 9

7. EVALUATION OF BOTANICAL INTEREST ............................................................................................................. 9

7.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 9

7.2 Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) ...................................................................... 9

7.3 Annex I Habitats ....................................................................................................................................... 10

7.4 Scottish Biodiversity List Priority Habitats ............................................................................................... 11

7.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 11

7. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................................. 12

ANNEX A – NVC TARGET NOTES ............................................................................................................................... 14

ANNEX B – TARGET NOTE PHOTOGRAPHS .............................................................................................................. 14

LIST OF FIGURES (SEE VOLUME 3 OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT)

FIGURE 5.2: NVC SURVEY RESULTS

FIGURE 5.3: PHASE 1 HABITAT RESULTS

FIGURE 5.4: GWDTE RESULTS

FIGURE 5.5: ANNEX I HABITATS


1 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MacArthur Green was commissioned by the Applicant to conduct and report on National Vegetation Classification (NVC) surveys at the proposed Hopsrig Wind Farm site, near Langholm, Dumfries & Galloway (hereafter referred to as ‘the proposed development’).

The aim of the NVC survey is to identify and map the vegetation communities present within the NVC study area in order to identify those areas of greatest ecological interest (i.e. Annex I habitats1; potential Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE)2, and Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL) priority habitats). This information is used to inform the wind farm design process and the ecological assessment for the Hopsrig Environmental Statement.

Surveys were conducted on 4th to 6th August 2015 by MacArthur Green. In total 31 NVC communities were recorded at the proposed development along with various associated sub-communities. A number of non NVC vegetation types were also recorded.

The study area is dominated by commercial conifer plantation. Outwith the plantation, and within the forestry openings and rides, the vegetation is made up of a relatively small number of community types. The most common community type within these areas, particularly the rides, is M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire. Other common habitats within the unplanted forestry areas include M19 Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire and M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush-pasture. Areas of dry heath and calcifugous grassland are also widely scattered and fragmentary through the forest rides and along existing track edges. The adjacent open sections of the study area are made up of a mix of similar communities, particularly grasslands and rush-pastures.

The NVC surveys have also revealed the presence of a number of potential GWDTE habitats, as well as Annex I and Scottish Biodiversity List Priority Habitats.

1 As defined by the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – the ‘Habitats Directive’. 2 As defined within SEPA (2014). Guidance Note 31: Guidance on Assessing the Impacts of Windfarm Development Proposals on Groundwater Abstractions and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems. Available for download from http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/143868/lupsgu31_planning_guidance_on_groundwater_abstractions.pdf.

1. INTRODUCTION MacArthur Green was commissioned by the Applicant to carry out a National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey at the Hopsrig Wind Farm site, approximately 7 km northwest of Langholm, Dumfries & Galloway, (hereafter referred to as ‘the proposed development’).

The aim of the NVC survey is to identify and map the vegetation communities present within the NVC study area in order to identify those areas of greatest ecological interest (i.e. Annex I habitats3; potential Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE)4; and Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL) priority habitats).

This report details the findings of the NVC surveys together with an evaluation of those communities described.

2. THE SITE & NVC STUDY AREA The site extends across an area dominated by coniferous plantation with some adjacent open hillside containing grazed grassland/pasture. The site reaches a maximum elevation of 446 m a.s.l. in the south by Ewe Hill. The northern slopes of Ewe Hill are part of the site along with the nearby Threep Hill and The Shin which reach elevations of 336 m a.s.l. and 342 m a.s.l. respectively. The NVC survey, focussed on mapping the habitats within the main infrastructure areas of the site and appropriate buffer areas where direct land access was possible, the area covered by NVC surveys is hereinafter referred to as the ‘study area’ (see Figure 5.2). Large sections of the study area are covered in mature and semi-mature Picea sitchensis commercial forestry. The remainder of the study area is dominated by forest rides containing bog and acid grassland and an area of upland acid grassland, within the north east of the study area, which is grazed by livestock. The Boyken burn is the main watercourse that runs west to east through the centre of the study area, with a number of associated tributaries that drain the study area. Existing forestry and farm tracks provide vehicular access through the study area. Much of the study area has been impacted anthropogenically over time in a number of ways, mainly through forestry, grazing and drainage, which has greatly influenced plant communities in areas.

3. METHODOLOGY The vegetation was surveyed by a team of suitably qualified and experienced botanical surveyors using the NVC scheme (Rodwell, 1991-2000; 5 volumes) and in accordance with NVC survey guidelines (Rodwell, 2006). The NVC scheme provides a standardised system for classifying and mapping semi-natural habitats, and ensures that surveys are carried out to a consistent level of detail and accuracy.

Homogenous stands and mosaics of vegetation were identified and mapped by eye, and drawn as polygons on high resolution aerial imagery field maps. These polygons were surveyed qualitatively to record dominant and constant species, sub-dominant species and other notable species present. The surveyors worked progressively across the study area to ensure that no areas were missed and that mapping was accurate. NVC communities were attributed to the mapped polygons using surveyor experience and matching field data against published floristic tables (Rodwell, 1991-2000). Stands were classified to sub-community level where possible, although in many cases the vegetation was mapped to community level only because the vegetation was too species-poor or patches

3 As defined by the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – the ‘Habitats Directive’ 4 As defined within SEPA (2014). Guidance Note 31: Guidance on Assessing the Impacts of Windfarm Development Proposals on Groundwater Abstractions and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems. Available for download from http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/143868/lupsgu31_planning_guidance_on_groundwater_abstractions.pdf.


2 | P a g e

were too small to allow meaningful sub-community determination; or because some areas exhibited features or fine-scale patterns of two or more sub-communities.

Quadrat sampling was not used in this survey because experienced NVC surveyors do not necessarily need to record quadrats in order to reliably identify NVC communities and sub-communities (Rodwell, 2006). Notes were made about the structure and flora of larger areas of vegetation in many places (such as the abundance and frequency of species, and in some cases condition and evident anthropogenic impacts). It can be better to record several larger scale qualitative samples than one or two smaller quantitative samples; furthermore, qualitative information from several sample locations can be vital for understanding the dynamics and trends in local (study area) vegetation patterns (Rodwell, 2006).

Due to small scale vegetation and habitat variability and numerous zones of habitat transitional between similar NVC communities, many polygons represent complex mosaics of two or more NVC communities. Where polygons have been mapped as mosaics an approximate percentage cover of each NVC community within the polygon is given so that the dominant community and character of the vegetation could still be ascertained.

Botanical nomenclature in this report follows that of Stace (2010) for vascular plants and Atherton et al (2010) for bryophytes.

4. SURVEY CONSTRAINTS The NVC survey of the study area was carried out from 4 August 2015 to 6 August 2015 inclusive, during the optimal season for habitat surveys. Surveys were carried out by two experienced surveyors. The weather conditions were amenable to survey; bright, with broken cloud and relatively light to moderate winds, and with some light showers. All parts of the study area were accessible.

The NVC system does not cover all possible semi-natural vegetation or habitat types that may be found. Since the NVC was adopted for use in Britain in the 1980s further survey work and an increased knowledge of vegetation communities has led to additional communities being described that do not fall within the NVC system. Where such communities are found and recorded they are given a non-NVC community code and are described.

It should be noted that the results from this survey, and the matches made in describing communities, represent a current community evaluation at the time of survey (as opposed to one seeking to describe what the community was before any human interference, or what it might become in the future). In light of this, a clear constraint of the vegetation survey and evaluation process as used in this and other surveys is that it offers only a snapshot of the vegetation communities present and should not be interpreted as a static long term reference.

5. NVC SURVEY RESULTS AND VEGETATION DESCRIPTIONS

5.1 Summary of NVC Communities

The categories of vegetation within the study area include the following 31 NVC communities recorded during the survey:

Mires and flushes: M2, M3, M6, M17, M19, M20, M23, M25 and M27;

Wet heaths: M15;

Dry heaths: H12, H18 and H21;

Grasslands and bracken: U2, U4, U5, U6, U16, U19, U20, MG1, MG5, MG9 and MG10;

Woodland and scrub: W11;

Swamp and tall-herb fens: S9, S10, S14 and S19;

Vegetation of open habitats: OV25 and OV27.

The following sections describe the flora, structure and habitats of these communities and any associated observed sub-communities, as found within the study area. For each NVC community description, the first paragraph refers to the community in Britain or Scotland as a whole, before moving on to the other paragraphs which describe the vegetation as it was found to occur within this study area. The NVC communities within each broad habitat type (e.g. mires) are described in order of community number within the study area.

The survey results are displayed in Figure 5.2. A number of target notes were also made during surveys, often to pinpoint areas or species of special interest. These target notes are also shown in Figure 5.2 and detailed within Annex A, target note photographs are included within Annex B.

5.2 Mires and Flushes

5.2.1 M2 Sphagnum cuspidatum/fallax bog pool community

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M2 This community is typically found in pools and lawns on the surface of very wet and base-poor peats on ombrogenous and topogenous mires in the less oceanic parts of Britain (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001; Averis et al 2004). M2 is typically dominated by soft wet carpets of Sphagnum cuspidatum or S. fallax, or both. This community has been reduced by widespread drainage and cutting of mires, so that often just small and modified fragments remain within predominantly agricultural landscapes. However, this community also readily colonises shallow flooded workings (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). A small M2 bog pool is situated by the northern boundary of the study area, to the north west of The Shin, along the margins of the conifer plantation (see TN1 & TN6 and Photos B-1 & B-6). A mix of Eriophorum angustifolium and Eriophorum vaginatum comprise the vascular species present. The bryophyte cover is dominated by Sphagnum fallax and Sphagnum cuspidatum with occasional patches of Polytrichum commune.

5.2.2 M3 Eriophorum angustifolium bog pool community

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M3 The M3 community is typically found as small stands on barer exposures of acid peat in depressions, erosion channels or shallow peat cuttings on a wide range of mire types but especially among the M19 Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum and M20 Eriophorum vaginatum mires (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). It can occur in permanently flooded pools and natural hollows on surfaces of more or less intact mires, and on dried-up hollows and among erosion features where the peat has been worn down in gullies or redistributed (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001; Averis et al 2004). The typical species, Eriophorum angustifolium, can occur as dense


3 | P a g e

and often tall swards, but equally commonly it occurs as sparser shoots scattered over expanses of bare peat (Averis et al 2004).

This community is present within a mosaic of heath and mire communities, dominated by M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire, within the south west corner of the study area. The areas recorded were very small within each mosaic. The community is species-poor with a complete dominance of E. angustifolium on acid peat.

5.2.3 M6 Carex echinata - Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M6, M6b and M6c This mire is the major soligenous community of peats and peaty gleys irrigated by base poor waters in the sub-montane zone of northern and western Britain. It typically occurs as small stands among other mire communities, grasslands and heaths, and is sometimes found with swamp and spring vegetation. It is commonly found in tracts of unenclosed pasture on upland fringes, particularly between 200 m and 400 m (although it may also be found much higher) and is ubiquitous in the upland fringes of Britain (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). The M6 community has a distinct general character but includes a wide variation in species composition, expressed as four sub-communities (two of which are visually similar to the M23 community). It is essentially a poor-fen with small sedges or rushes dominating over a carpet of oligotrophic and base-intolerant Sphagna (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001).

This community is found within isolated areas around the northern half of the study area, often within proximity to the mire communities M23 and M25. Juncus effusus and Juncus acutiflorus dominate this community with the herbs Viola palustris, Ranunculus repens, Rumex acetosa, Galium palustre and Lathyrus pratensis. Bryophytes include Sphagnum fallax, Pleurozium schreberi, and Polytrichum commune. Carex nigra dominates the sward within the M6b sub-community, which forms a mosaic with M25 and M20 blanket mires; although in each case the stands were found to be species poor (see TN2 & TN4 and Photos B-2 & B-4). The M6c sub-community is species poor and dominated by Juncus effusus with a thick carpet of the moss Sphagnum fallax.

5.2.4 M17 Trichophorum germanicum – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M17a and M17c M17 Trichophorum germanicum – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire is the characteristic blanket bog vegetation of the more oceanic parts of Britain. It is typically found on deposits that are maintained in a permanently waterlogged state by a high and generally stagnant water-table (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). It usually occurs on deeper peats, i.e. greater than 2 m in depth over flat or gently sloping ground (Rodwell et al 1991). However, it can also occur extensively on shallower peat. The peats show varying degrees of humification but are typically highly acidic, with a surface pH usually not much above 4 (Rodwell et al 1991).

This community is dominated by mixtures of monocotyledons, ericoid sub-shrubs and Sphagnum spp. It can occur as extensive, relatively uniform tracts, or as hummock and hollow complexes, with this community giving way to bog pool vegetation in the hollows (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). Among the bulkier vascular species, the most common are Trichophorum germanicum, Eriophorum vaginatum, E. angustifolium, Molinia caerulea, Calluna vulgaris and Erica tetralix. Sphagnum spp. are an important component of the ground layer and can form extensive lawns. Burning, marginal peat-cutting, and drainage have often resulted in surface drying of the peat and hence a modification of the vegetation.

The M17 Trichophorum germanicum - Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire is found in two areas within the north east of the study area. The M17a Drosera rotundifolia - Sphagnum spp. sub-community characterises both areas. The M17c Juncus squarrosus - Rhytidiadelphus loreus sub-community is also found within a mosaic dominated by M20 blanket mire within the same north east corner of the study area. The M17 community contains a variety of species in the study area, predominantly consisting of Trichophorum germanicum and Eriophorum vaginatum, with Vaccinium myrtillus, Deschampsia flexuosa and Molinia caerulea scattered throughout. Sphagna, including Sphagnum cuspidatum, also feature in the basal layer, with occasional Empetrum nigrum and Vaccinium oxycoccos.

The M17 within the study area is subject to heavy grazing, predominately by sheep, which has greatly reduced the sward height in areas, and in places has resulted in the degradation of the mire and poaching of the surface.

5.2.5 M19 Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M19 and M19a This is the typical blanket bog vegetation of high-altitude ombrogenous peats in the wet and cold climate of the uplands of northern Britain. In particular, it occurs on high-level plateaux and broad watersheds, usually above 300 m, and is confined to deeper peats on flat or gently-sloping ground (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). It is generally dominated by mixtures of Eriophorum vaginatum and ericoid sub-shrubs (especially Calluna vulgaris). Sphagnum spp. can be prominent over wetter ground but are not as luxuriant or rich as in M17 mire (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001).

M19 is present in the south east and north west areas of the study area over both open hill ground and forest rides. The community is predominately found in mosaics with M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire. The M19 vegetation includes short grazed C. vulgaris, abundant E. vaginatum and Vaccinium myrtillus together with Sphagnum palustre and S. capillifolium. The vegetation most often resembles the M19a Erica tetralix sub-community. Outwith the forestry areas, the community is also heavily grazed by sheep.

5.2.6 M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M20 M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire is a community characteristic of ombrogenous peats on bogs where certain treatments have greatly affected the vegetation; grazing and burning have been of greatest significance, but drainage has also played a part in the development of M20 (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). It is commonest on blanket mires where these factors have contributed both to floristic impoverishment and to erosion of the peats. The peats are generally drier than in M17 and most M19 bogs, often showing surface oxidation (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001).

M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire is present in a number of areas around the study area, often found in mosaics with M25 mire and M19 blanket mire. E. vaginatum dominates with frequent E. angustifolium, Juncus squarrosus, and Deschampsia flexuosa. Potentilla erecta and Vaccinium myrtillus are also present. Sphagnum species are also abundant with Sphagnum capillifolium, S. cuspidatum and S. papillosum.


4 | P a g e

5.2.7 M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush-pasture

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M23, M23a and M23b This rush-pasture is a community of gently-sloping ground in and around the margins of soligenous flushes, as a zone around topogenous mires and wet heaths, and in poorly drained, comparatively unimproved or reverted pasture. It can be found on a variety of moderately acid to neutral soils that are kept moist to wet for most of the year (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). As a result this community can be, at least partially, potentially dependent on groundwater; however, it is also commonly associated with surface water flows and surface water collection. This vegetation is characterised by the abundance of either Juncus effusus or J. acutiflorus (sometimes both), with a ground layer of mesophytic herbs common in moist or permanently wet grasslands; associates are quite diverse. Acidophilous Sphagna and Polytrichum commune are rare in the M23 community (Averis et al 2004).

The M23 community is common throughout the study area, being found both in mosaics with other communities and as pure stands of M23. Within the study area the community often appears in close proximity to watercourses or poorly drained areas, often as a result of the surrounding topography. J. effusus and/or J. acutiflorus dominate the sward in most cases although within one area of M23 Carex nigra was found to co-dominate the vegetation.

Other species frequently found within this community include Molinia caerulea, Poa sp., Agrostis stolonifera, Holcus lanatus, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Deschampsia cespitosa and Carex panicea. Other species more occasional in the sward include Potentilla erecta, Galium saxatile, Cirsium palustre, Ranunculus acris, Viola palustris, Luzula multiflora, Pedicularis palustris, Briza media and Danthonia decumbens.

Both sub-communities are present and appear in a number of mosaics across the study area. M23a is the richer more diverse sub-community dominated by J. acutiflorus (see TN5 and Photo B-5), with M23b being more species poor with fewer forbs.

5.2.8 M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M25, M25a, and M25b M25 mire is a community of moist, but usually well aerated, acid to neutral peats and peaty soils (Rodwell et al 1991). It generally occurs over gently-sloping ground, marking out seepage zones and flushed margins of topogenous mires, but also extends onto the fringes of ombrogenous mires (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001; Averis et al 2004). Molinia caerulea is the most abundant species found in this community. The associated flora is usually species-poor, and consists largely of Juncus spp. and a few dicotyledons. Occasionally sub-shrubs can be quite common, particularly Calluna vulgaris and Erica tetralix. Myrica gale is local but can be quite extensive and dense in co-dominance with M. caerulea. Treatments such as burning, grazing and drainage are likely to be largely responsible for the development of this community over ground that would naturally host some other kind of mire or wet heath vegetation (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001).

The M25 community is one of the most abundant communities on the study area, most often found along the forest rides. It appears in various mosaics, with other mire communities M6, M20, M23, heath communities H12, occasionally H18 and H21, and grassland communities U4 and U5.

M. caerulea dominates the vegetation strongly, often limiting the variety of species present. Holcus lanatus and Agrostis spp. are frequently present within the grassier M25b Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community. The more mire like M25a Erica tetralix sub-community contains Calluna vulgaris, E. tetralix and Vaccinium myrtillus. Galium

saxatile is also abundant within these areas along with the mosses Pleurozium schreberi and Polytrichum commune.

The M25 community also forms the field layer for a number of areas scattered with broadleaved trees including Sorbus aucuparia, Betula pubescens, Betula pendula and Quercus petraea.

5.2.9 M27 Filipendula ulmaria – Angelica sylvestris mire

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M27 and M27a This community is typically found where moist, reasonably rich, circumneutral soils occur in situations protected from grazing. It can be found in both topogenous and soligenous mires and is especially typical of silted margins of slow-moving streams and soakways, the edges of flushes and damp hollows, and also of artificial habitats such as along dykes and roadside ditches and around ponds (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). The community cannot tolerate any other than very light or sporadic grazing and so stands often only persist outside enclosures, and around un-reclaimed mires and flushes (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). Filipendula ulmaria forms the overwhelming dominant and the only constant. Bryophytes are few in number and of low cover (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001).

The M27 community is dominated with the tall herb Filipendula ulmaria, reducing the ability for other species to compete within the same areas. This is the case where the community is found as species poor swards along the banks of the Boyken Burn, east of Boykenhopehead. Occasional patches of Urtica dioica and Cirsium arvense also appear within the sward. Where M27 appears within a mosaic of communities, this is most commonly with other mires and calcifugous grasslands. The vegetation was usually recorded to community level; however some stands were mapped as the M27a Valeriana officinalis - Rumex acetosa sub-community.

5.3 Wet Heaths

5.3.1 M15 Trichophorum germanicum – Erica tetralix wet heath

Communities/sub-communities recorded: M15 and M15b This wet heath community is characteristic of moist and generally acid and oligotrophic peats and peaty mineral soils in the wetter western and northern parts of Britain. It is also associated with thinner or better drained areas of ombrogenous peat (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). It is a vegetation type with few constant species and wide variation in its flora and dominant species. Calluna vulgaris, Molinia caerulea, Trichophorum germanicum and Erica tetralix are usually all of high frequency, and it is mixtures of these species that give the vegetation its general character. However sometimes one or two of them may be missing and their relative proportions can be very diverse (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). M15 is an extremely variable community in terms of dominants, constants and co-dominants, which can vary markedly over short distances. Grazing and burning have important effects on the floristics and structure of this community, and draining and peat-cutting have extended its coverage to formerly deeper and wetter peats in which blanket mire communities (i.e. M17-M19) were initially present (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001).

M15 Trichophorum germanicum - Erica tetralix wet heath is infrequently present within the north east of the study area. Two of these areas are part of a mosaic, each with other mire and grassland communities; M25 and/or U5. In both of these areas of M15, Trichophorum germanicum dominates small patches within areas of equally abundant Molinia caerulea and Nardus stricta. Eriophorum vaginatum is occasional along with Erica tetralix. A


5 | P a g e

single area of the M15b Typical sub-community is present along the north east boundary of the study area. This stand is dominated by Trichophorum germanicum with Erica tetralix, Calluna vulgaris and Molinia caerulea. These areas have been grazed by cattle and deer limiting the number of dwarf shrubs found within this community.

5.4 Dry Heaths

5.4.1 H12 Calluna vulgaris – Vaccinium myrtillus heath

Communities/sub-communities recorded: H12 and H12a H12 Calluna vulgaris – Vaccinium myrtillus heath is a typical sub-shrub community of acidic to circumneutral, free-draining mineral soils throughout the cold and wet sub-montane zone, generally between 200 m and 600 m. H12 is generally dominated by Calluna vulgaris although the cover of this species can be open and degenerate. Vaccinium myrtillus is constant, though it is usually subordinate to C. vulgaris. The ground layer is generally characterised by bulky mosses (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). H12 heaths are rather uniform and they cover extensive areas throughout large parts of Scotland.

The H12 community is found predominantly within the southern half of the study area along the track verges and the open slopes around the conifer plantation. It is commonly found in mosaics with the mires and grasslands present. Calluna vulgaris dominates with its canopy limiting the growth of other species. Occasional Deschampsia flexuosa and Vaccinium myrtillus are found within the community, otherwise the species diversity is low. The moss layer is dominated by pleurocarpous mosses such as Hylocomium splendens, Pleurozium schreberi and Hypnum spp. Along the road verges, amongst the C. vulgaris there are often patches of Lycopodium clavatum. The vegetation within the study area is generally referable to the H12a Calluna vulgaris sub-community, this being species poor with few associates present within the sward.

5.4.2 H18 Vaccinium myrtillus – Deschampsia flexuosa heath

Communities/sub-communities recorded: H18 and H18a H18 Vaccinium myrtillus – Deschampsia flexuosa heath is typical of moist but free draining acid to neutral mineral soils, humic rankers and dry peats over steeper slopes at moderate to high altitudes (Rodwell et al 1991; Averis et al 2004). H18 includes a variety of moss-rich and grassy sub-shrub vegetation in which V. myrtillus is the most frequent and generally the most abundant ericoid (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). H18 can be a near-natural heath, or one clearly anthropogenic, it is common at lower altitudes as a derivative of H12 Calluna vulgaris – Vaccinium myrtillus heath where the H12 heaths are burned and then grazed too hard to allow Calluna vulgaris to re-establish (Rodwell et al 1991; Averis et al 2004).

The H18 community appears as small patches within the very south of the study area along the forest rides and conifer woodland margins. This community is present only as part of mosaics with other mire communities M19, M20, and M23, the heath community H21, and grassland communities U2 and U5. The H18 community is species poor with short grazed C. vulgaris with abundant D. flexuosa and V. myrtillus. Sphagnum moss can be abundant in small wetter patches, particularly Sphagnum palustre and S. capillifolium. Pleurocarpous mosses include an abundance of Pleurozium schreberi and Hylocomium splendens.

The H18a Hylocomium splendens – Rhytidiadelphus loreus sub-community is the most common form of this community within the study area. The small areas of this community show features of a transitional community

with close associations to the hummocky M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire community and, at times, U2 Deschampsia flexuosa grassland.

5.4.3 H21 - Calluna vulgaris – Vaccinium myrtillus – Sphagnum capillifolium heath

Communities/sub-communities recorded: H21 and H21a The H21 community generally has a mixed canopy of sub-shrubs, usually 30-50 cm high, with a damp layer of luxuriant bryophytes. Calluna vulgaris is usually the dominant ericoid, although Vaccinium myrtillus is constant. Bryophytes form an extensive and lush carpet; particularly distinctive is the high frequency and local abundance of Sphagnum capillifolium (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001). This heath is highly characteristic of fragmentary humic soils in situations with a cool but equable climate and a consistently shady and humid atmosphere. It is widespread at low to moderate altitudes in upland Britain. It is found mainly on steep, shaded slopes of north-west to easterly aspect, often with rock outcrops (Rodwell et al 1991; Elkington et al 2001).

This community is present as a number of small patches, concentrated in the southern part of the study area, along forest rides and woodland edges. The vegetation is primarily of the H21a Calluna vulgaris – Pteridium aquilinum sub-community. The H21 within the study area is characterised by a dense canopy of C. vulgaris over a layer of abundant Sphagnum capillifolium and occasional Pteridium aquilinum. These areas are species poor and are a common feature on wetter ground often on north facing slopes.

5.5 Calcifugous Grasslands and bracken-dominated vegetation

5.5.1 U2 Deschampsia flexuosa grassland

Communities/sub-communities recorded: U2, U2a and U2b This grassland is characteristic of base poor soils that are free draining but not parched and are sometimes quite moist. It occurs through the upland fringes and in moderately oceanic parts of the lowlands. The community is often seen in close association with some heaths and mires and can grade into them. Deschampsia flexuosa grassland comprises swards in which often tussocky D. flexuosa is the obvious dominant with a number of sparse associates (Rodwell et al 1992). Many stands of U2 grassland have evidently been derived from some sort of disturbance in previous heath, mire or woodland, and the community often appears to be transitional post-disturbance vegetation (Averis et al 2004).

The U2 community is present within some vegetation mosaics, predominantly within close proximity to the boundary of the study area. D. flexuosa dominates small patches within the mosaics, often species poor, which characterises the presence of U2. This community appears alongside a range of mires (M6, M19, M20, M23, M25), heaths (H12 and H18), and grasslands (U4 and U16) in the study area.

Both sub-communities appear within the study area. The grassy U2a Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris sub-community along the southern edge of the study area, and a single area of the heathier U2b Vaccinium myrtillus sub-community, within the central study area.

In addition to D. flexuosa, other vascular species includes Potentilla erecta, Galium saxatile, occasional Juncus effusus, Calluna vulgaris, Pteridium aquilinum and Agrostis spp.


6 | P a g e

5.5.2 U4 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Galium saxatile grassland

Communities/sub-communities recorded: U4, U4a and U4b The U4 Festuca ovina - Agrostis capillaris - Galium saxatile grassland is a form of predominately upland grassland of well-drained, acidic and base-poor mineral soils throughout the wet and cool regions of north-west Britain where it dominates extensive areas of pastureland (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper 1997). Throughout this geographic range the community can often be found forming a distinctive component of larger mosaics of other grasslands, heaths, and mires.

U4 grassland communities are generally identified on the presence of an often close-cropped, grass-rich sward dominated by various combinations of A. capillaris, F. ovina and Anthoxanthum odoratum, with G. saxatile and Potentilla erecta consistent associates. A well-developed moss layer is also characteristic, but in the U4b sub-community it may be limited by the dense, relatively productive sward of grasses (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper 1997).

This community is found within the central and north eastern study area, particularly on better drained slopes with mineral soils. U4 appears in a number of mosaics with mire, grassland and heath communities. Agrostis spp. are abundant with other grass species frequent including Molinia caerulea, Holcus lanatus and Deschampsia cespitosa. Herbs present in the sward included Ranunculus repens, R. acris, G. saxatile, Potentilla erecta, Veronica chamaedrys, Viola palustris and Rumex acetosa. Calluna vulgaris and Vaccinium myrtillus also feature occasionally. Mosses present include Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus and Pleurozium schreberi.

Two U4 sub-communities, U4a Typical sub-community and U4b Holcus lanatus - Trifolium repens sub-community, were recorded within the study area, mainly around the open semi-improved grassland within the north east of the study area. The U4b sub-community is distinguished by the abundance of H. lanatus within the sward.

The community is intensively grazed by livestock, which helps to maintain its close cropped sward.

5.5.3 U5 Nardus stricta – Galium saxatile grassland

Communities/sub-communities recorded: U5 and U5b U5 grassland tends to be found on damp mineral soils which have peaty upper horizons. It typically occupies slopes where the depth and wetness of the soil are intermediate between the drier podsols under U4 grasslands and wet shallow peats found under U6 grassland. The underlying rock can be anything from acid to basic, but the soils are generally acidic (Rodwell et al 1992; Averis et al 2004). U5 is common over the higher hill slopes of the cool, wet north and west of Britain (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997).

The majority of the U5 community is found within the north east of the study area across the open semi-improved grassland. The community is found within a number of mainly grassland mosaics, but some also including mire and heath communities.

Typically Nardus stricta dominates within the areas of U5, along with other frequent grassland associates of Agrostis sp., Galium saxatile and Potentilla erecta. The mosses Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus and Hylocomium splendens are also frequently present.

The vegetation was generally mapped to the community level, however a stand of the U5b Agrostis canina – Polytrichum commune sub-community was recorded in a mosaic with M25b and U6 within an area of damper ground along the north east boundary of the study area.

5.5.4 U6 Juncus squarrosus – Festuca ovina grassland

Communities/sub-communities recorded: U6 U6 Juncus squarrosus - Festuca ovina grassland is characteristic of moist peats and peaty mineral soils, almost always base-poor and infertile, over gentle slopes and plateaus at higher altitudes (400 m to 800 m) in the cool and wet north and west of Britain (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997). U6 is often a secondary vegetation type, strongly encouraged by particular kinds of grazing and burning treatments in damper upland pastures and on the drying fringes of blanket mires. The spread of J. squarrosus in upland pastures tends to be encouraged where uncontrolled heavy and selective grazing has been applied over rather ill-drained ground (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997).

The U6 community is found as part of mire and grassland mosaics within the north east of the study area. Juncus squarrosus dominates but is found alongside a number of frequent to occasional associates including Anthoxanthum odoratum, Nardus stricta, Eriophorum vaginatum, E. angustifolium, Deschampsia flexuosa and occasional Juncus effusus. Vaccinium myrtillus is also present along with the Sphagnum species Sphagnum cuspidatum and S. papillosum in wetter patches.

5.5.5 U16 Luzula sylvatica – Vaccinium myrtillus tall-herb community

Communities/sub-communities recorded: U16 and U16c U16 is a widespread but local community, generally confined to inaccessible slopes and ledges in the colder and wet uplands of north-west Britain, where there has been some protection from grazing and burning, but no succession to scrub or woodland. It occurs on a variety of rocky habitats and more isolated slopes over base-poor humic soils. This community is dominated by Luzula sylvatica, often overwhelmingly so, commonly with a few sparse associates. Vaccinium myrtillus is the one associate that occurs with consistent frequency; it can form vigorous bushes or an irregular second tier to the vegetation, it can be co-dominant (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997).

Patches of this tall herb community are found in a number of heath dominated mosaics focussed around the eastern study area. The U16 community appears as areas dominated by Luzula sylvatica along with occasional V. myrtillus. Pure swards of L. sylvatica form the U16c Species-poor sub-community recorded in a number of areas.

5.5.6 U19 Oreopteris limbosperma – Blechnum spicant community

Communities/sub-communities recorded: U19 This community is found on moist, base-poor peaty soils on steep, sheltered banks at low to moderate altitudes throughout the wetter western and northern uplands of Britain. Typical situations for this community are on banks above gullies and streams which are cutting back into hills, and just below the brows of valley sides (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997). U19 comprises often dense stands of Oreopteris limbosperma, together with a variety of herbaceous sub-shrub associates and a patchy cover of bryophytes. Blechnum spicant is the other constant fern of the community, generally not as abundant as O. limbosperma but it can be locally prominent (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997).

A single small stand of U19 was found within the south eastern study area, the community is part of a larger mosaic dominated by the U20 Pteridium aquilinum – Galium saxatile community. U19 is dominated by the fern Oreopteris limbosperma with its canopy limiting the ability for other species to compete within the same area.


7 | P a g e

5.5.7 U20 Pteridium aquilinum – Galium saxatile community

Communities/sub-communities recorded: U20 and U20a The U20 Pteridium aquilinum – Galium saxatile community occurs on well aerated and often moist soils which are base-poor to circumneutral (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997). Pteridium aquilinum is the sole dominant and is overwhelmingly abundant in some stands. This is a community of little ecological value.

This community occurs frequently as patches within the study area, often as a component of larger complex mosaics. It is most commonly present within the eastern and north eastern study area, often patchily found amongst areas of heath, mire and grassland. Within the areas of U20, species diversity is very limited due to the dense canopy created by P. aquilinum. However, the U20a Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community was also recorded in a few stands where the presence of typically calcifuge grasses was also noted amongst the fronds of P. aquilinum.

5.6 Mesotrophic Grasslands

5.6.1 MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland

Communities/sub-communities recorded: MG1 MG1 is essentially ungrazed grassland in which coarse-leaved tussock grasses are dominant in the sward. It is found on circumneutral and free draining soils throughout the British lowlands. Key to its development is the irregularity or absence of grazing (Rodwell et al 1992).

MG1 is limited to small areas of the eastern and north eastern parts of the study area and often appears in mosaics with other grasslands. Arrhenatherum elatius is the most abundant species within this community along with Holcus lanatus, Dactylis glomerata, Festuca rubra and Deschampsia flexuosa. Herbs include Ranunculus repens and R. acris. Filipendula ulmaria, Conopodium majus, Agrostis spp., Alopecurus pratensis, Urtica dioica and Ajuga reptans are also occasionally present. This community is also occasionally found under scattered trees of Sorbus aucuparia, Alnus glutinosa and Salix caprea.

5.6.2 MG5 Cynosurus cristatus – Centaurea nigra grassland

Communities/sub-communities recorded: MG5 MG5 is generally dicotyledon-rich grassland of variable appearance; it may have a tight, low growing sward or comprise a quite lush growth up to 60 cm tall according to grazing intensity. It is the typical grassland of grazed hay-meadows on circumneutral brown soils of loamy to clayey texture throughout the lowlands of Britain (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997).

A single mosaic area, within the semi-improved open grassland of the north eastern study area, fits closest to the MG5 community. The community here contains an abundance of Cynosurus cristatus with Holcus lanatus, Agrostis spp., Juncus effusus and Poa spp. Cirsium palustre, occasional Pteridium aquilinum and Ranunculus repens; Rumex acetosa and Stellaria graminea were also recorded. The area was quite species poor for MG5, lacking abundant and diverse wild flowers, the community classification assigned largely on the abundance of Cynosurus cristatus.

5.6.3 MG9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa grassland

Communities/sub-communities recorded: MG9 MG9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa grassland is highly characteristic of permanently moist, gleyed and periodically inundated circumneutral soils across large areas of the British lowlands. It can exist on level to moderately sloping ground in areas of pasture or meadow, but can also be found along woodland rides and fen/wetland margins. MG9 usually contains a coarse and tussocky sward dominated by D. cespitosa (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997).

The MG9 community is found in the more permanently moist areas within the north west and south west of the study area. Usually found within marshy areas, the characteristic species H. lanatus and D. cespitosa were co-dominant. In many areas Juncus acutiflorus was also found in abundance. These areas were found to be species poor, often in close proximity to watercourses.

5.6.4 MG10 Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush-pasture

Communities/sub-communities recorded: MG10 MG10 is a form of rush-pasture characteristic of areas with strongly impeded drainage over a wide range of usually acid to neutral mineral soils on level to gently sloping ground (Rodwell et al 1992; Cooper, 1997). This community requires consistently high soil moisture (Rodwell et al 1992). It occurs across most of the British lowlands, with the typical sub-community being particularly prominent towards the north and west. Although found on various soil types including brown earth and calcareous earth throughout its range, this habitat can also have close associations with various types of mire vegetation and can form significant parts of rush-dominated mire mosaics in areas of suitably moist soils.

The majority of the MG10 community present is found in mosaics with mire and other mesotrophic grassland communities. The MG10 community is present throughout the study area and features most abundantly within the north east of the study area, along the slopes of the open semi-improved grassland, north of the Boyken Burn, and in the south west around Ward Hill.

The species composition of this community is poor with a dominance of Juncus effusus, occasional J. acutiflorus, Holcus lanatus and occasional Deschampsia cespitosa.

5.7 Woodland and Scrub

5.7.1 W11 Quercus petraea – Betula pubescens – Oxalis acetosella woodland

Communities/sub-communities recorded: W11 W11 is a community of moist, free-draining base-poor brown earth soils in the cooler, wetter north west of Britain. It is characteristic of substrates that are neither markedly calcareous nor strongly acidic. The character of the community is heavily influenced by grazing (Rodwell et al 1991; Hall et al 2004). These woodlands usually have a canopy of Betula spp. and/or Quercus spp. and a field layer dominated mainly by grasses.

This woodland community is found within as a single isolated stand in the eastern study area along the slopes of The Shin. Uncharacteristically, Corylus avellana and Salix caprea form the tree canopy, with a species poor understorey of Pteridium aquilinum, Agrostis sp., and the mosses Hypnum sp., and Rhytidiadelphus loreus.


8 | P a g e

5.8 Swamps and Tall-Herb Fens

5.8.1 S9 Carex rostrata swamp

Communities/sub-communities recorded: S9 S9 swamp is generally a community of the north and west of Britain. The vegetation is typically a swamp of shallow to moderately deep, mesotrophic to oligotrophic standing waters with organic substrates. It also occurs more fragmentarily in peat cuttings (Rodwell et al 1995). The S9 community is readily recognised by the tall, dense growth of Carex rostrata rooted in shallow water. Separation from other communities in which C. rostrata is present is based on its almost exclusive dominance in this community and the low cover and richness of associates.

This community appears at three locations within the study area, one location east of The Shin and the other two locations being north of Threep Hill, along the edges of the small loch by Yadlairs Sike, all within the northern half of the study area. Species diversity is low with a dominance of C. rostrata, and occasional Equisetum fluviatile.

5.8.2 S10 Equisetum fluviatile swamp

Communities/sub-communities recorded: S10, S10b S10 occurs in similar situations to S9 above, being found in shallow to moderately deep, eutrophic to oligotrophic, standing waters in both lowland and upland lakes and pools. This community is comprised of open or closed vegetation up to around 50 cm high in which Equisetum fluviatile is the most abundant species. No other species is frequent throughout, although in each sub-community some of the associates may be locally abundant (Rodwell et al 1995).

Small patches of the S10 community, and the S10b Carex rostrata sub-community are found east of The Shin, south of the S9 community referred to above (see TN3 and Photo B-3). This community is also species poor with an abundance of Equisetum fluviatile and occasional C. rostrata.

5.8.3 S14 Sparganium erectum swamp

Communities/sub-communities recorded: S14 S14 is a community of shallow, mesotrophic to eutrophic waters with mineral substrates (fine grained silts and clays, and only occasionally peat). It occurs widely in the standing waters of small pools, agricultural ponds, diches and canals. Its tolerance of moderate currents means it is also a common vegetation type in the margins of lowland streams and rivers (Rodwell et al 1995). This swamp vegetation is dominated by Sparganium erectum, which forms an open or closed cover of shoots up to 1 m tall. Although pure and dense stands occur, there are usually some associates, some of which can be locally prominent (Rodwell et al 1995).

This community is found as a single stand within the north east of the small pond by Yadlairs Sike. The community here is dominated by Sparganium erectum.

5.8.4 S19 Eleocharis palustris swamp

Communities/sub-communities recorded: S19 S19 is a swamp of standing or running waters up to 50 cm deep, occurring around large lakes and small ponds and along stream margins (Rodwell et al 1995). S19 is easily identified by the dominance of Eleocharis palustris rooted in shallow water.

A stand of the S19 community is located within the north east corner of the small loch by Yadlairs Sike. The vegetation is purely dominated by Eleocharis palustris.

5.9 Vegetation of Open Habitats

5.9.1 OV25 Urtica dioica – Cirsium arvense community

Communities/sub-communities recorded: OV25a OV25 is a tall-herb weed community. This community is found throughout lowland Britain, on disturbed, nutrient-rich soils, usually where there are patches of bare or lightly covered ground, in which Cirsium spp. can establish themselves. It is typically found in poorly managed meadows, on abandoned arable land or waste land, on disturbed verges and tracks, and in cleared woodland or young plantations (Rodwell et al 2000).

A small area within the north east of the study area, within the open semi-improved hillside, includes the OV25a Holcus lanatus – Poa annua sub-community within a mosaic of acid grassland and mire. Species diversity is low, with a dominance of Urtica dioica and Cirsium arvense in isolated patches within the mosaic.

5.9.2 OV27 Chamerion angustifolium community

Communities/sub-communities recorded: OV27 OV27 Chamerion angustifolium tall-herb vegetation is a community that generally occurs on damp, fertile disturbed soils in woodlands, on heaths and along road verges and railway embankments (Rodwell et al 2000). It is also commonplace in regenerating conifer plantation clear-fell areas. The OV27 community is marked by the dominant tall growth of C. angustifolium.

A number of mosaics within the central study area include patches of the OV27 community. Due to its tall sward height Chamerion angustifolium completely dominates these areas with few associates present.

5.10 Non-NVC Communities & Categories

A number of non-NVC vegetation types or features were mapped during the survey. These were classified as follows. Codes used in the results Figures are given in parentheses:

Conifer plantation (CP) Clear fell (CF) Broadleaved plantation (BP) Bare ground (BG) Juncus acutiflorus acid grassland community (JA) Standing water (SW) and running water (RW)

The mature plantation areas are unremarkable in terms of their flora and species composition, with the tree species being a combination of Picea sitchensis and Larix sp. In more mature plantations, coniferous ones in particular; there is often no ground flora except some scattered mosses, the ground instead being blanketed in woody debris and conifer needles. These woodland plantation areas, along with areas of clear fell and bare ground, are floristically impoverished and of negligible botanical importance.

All of these non-NVC types recorded in the study area are of minor botanical importance and are therefore not discussed further within this report.


9 | P a g e

The other bulleted non-NVC vegetation type recorded above, i.e. JA, is described below.

5.10.1 Juncus acutiflorus (JA) acid grassland community

The JA acid grassland community is present here as patches of a Juncus acutiflorus dominated calcifuge grassland. This is vegetation in which dominant and tall swards of J. acutiflorus grow abundantly among a few shorter ‘acid grassland’ swards including frequent to occasional Agrostis capillaris, Nardus stricta, Holcus lanatus, Rumex acetosa, Potentilla erecta and Galium saxatile. This vegetation does not fit into any NVC community as it lacks the wetland element of M6 and M23 Juncus spp. mires and has a more acidophilous flora than MG10 Juncus effusus rush-pasture; it is therefore classed separately.

This vegetation is of limited botanical interest, but in light of the SEPA classification of potential GWDTEs the non NVC type JA should also qualify for potential GWDTE status. The classification of moderate sensitivity is in line with other similar Juncus spp. dominated grassland communities (e.g. MG10).

6. CORRESPONDANCE WITH PHASE 1 HABITATS For each of the above-described vegetation and habitats types found in this survey, Table 6-1 shows the equivalent habitats according to the Phase One habitat classification (JNCC, 2010) for this study area, taking into account the species composition and habitat quality; for instance, typical blanket bog communities such as M17 and M19 have been classed as wet modified bog due to the evident impacts from forestry, drainage and grazing upon the mire present. The Phase 1 results are also shown on Figure 5.3 and have been interpreted from the NVC polygon data using Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Phase One habitat type equivalents of NVC communities and other habitats recorded in this survey

NVC & Habitats Recorded Phase 1 Equivalents

M2, M3, M17, M19, M20, M25 E1.7 Bog: wet modified

M6 E2.1 Flush and spring: acid/neutral

M15 D2 Wet dwarf shrub heath

M23, M27, MG9, MG10, JA B5 Marsh/marshy grassland

H12, H18, H21 D1.1 Dry dwarf shrub heath: acid

U2, U4, U5, U6 B1.1 Acid grassland: unimproved

U4 B1.2 Acid grassland: semi-improved

U16 C3.2 Other tall herb & fern: non-ruderal

U19, U20 C1.1/C1.2 Bracken: continuus/scattered

MG1 B2.1 Neutral grassland: unimproved

MG5 B2.2 Neutral grassland: semi-improved

W11 A1.1.1 Woodland: broadleaved, semi-natural

S9, S10, S14, S19 F1 Swamp

OV25, OV27 C3.1 Other tall herb & fern: tall ruderal

CP A1.2.2 Woodland: coniferous, plantation

BP A1.1.2 Woodland: broadleaved woodland, plantation

CF A4.2 Woodland: coniferous, recently-felled

NVC & Habitats Recorded Phase 1 Equivalents

SW G1 Standing water

RW G2 Running water

BG J4 Bare ground

7. EVALUATION OF BOTANICAL INTEREST

7.1 Overview

NVC communities can be compared with a number of habitat classifications in order to help in the assessment of the sensitivity and conservation interest of certain areas. The following sections compare the survey results and the NVC communities identified against three classifications:

SEPA guidance on GWDTE Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Annex I habitats Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL) priority habitats

7.2 Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE)

SEPA has classified a number of NVC communities as potentially dependent on groundwater (SEPA, 2014). Wetlands or habitats containing these particular NVC communities are to be considered GWDTE unless further information can be provided to demonstrate this is not the case. Many of the NVC communities on the list are very common habitat types across Scotland, and some are otherwise generally of low ecological value. Furthermore, some of the NVC communities may be considered GWDTE only in certain hydrogeological settings. Using SEPA’s (2014) guidance, Table 7-1 shows which communities recorded within the study area may be considered GWDTE. Those communities which may have limited (moderate) dependency on groundwater in certain settings are marked in yellow and NVC communities recorded that are likely to be considered high, or sensitive GWDTE in certain hydrogeological settings are highlighted in red.

Table 7-1: Communities within the study area which, depending on hydrogeological setting, may potentially be classified as GWDTE (yellow = moderately groundwater dependent and red = highly groundwater dependent).

NVC Code NVC Community Name

M15 Trichophorum germanicum – Erica tetralix wet heath

M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire

M27 Filipendula ulmaria – Angelica sylvestris mire

MG9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa grassland

MG10 Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush pasture

U6 Juncus squarrosus – Festuca ovina grassland

M6 Carex echinata – Sphagnum fallax/denticulatum mire

M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture

U16 Luzula sylvatica – Vaccinium myrtillus tall-herb community


10 | P a g e

The location and extent of all identified potential GWDTE are provided on an appropriate NVC map; see Figure 5.4.

Within Figure 5.4 the potential GWDTE sensitivity of each polygon containing a potential GWDTE is classified on a four-tier approach as follows:

‘Highly – dominant’ where potential high GWDTE(s) dominate the polygon ‘Highly - sub-dominant’ where potential high GWDTE(s) make up a sub-dominant percentage cover of the

polygon ‘Moderately – dominant’ where potential moderate GWDTE(s) dominate the polygon and no potential

high GWDTEs are present ‘Moderately - sub-dominant’ where potential moderate GWDTE(s) make up a sub-dominant percentage

cover of the polygon and no potential high GWDTEs are present.

Where a potential high GWDTE exists in a polygon it outranks any potential moderate GWDTE communities within that same polygon.

GWDTE sensitivity has been assigned solely on the SEPA listings (SEPA, 2014). However, depending on a number of factors such as geology, superficial geology, presence of peat and topography, many of the potential GWDTE communities recorded may in fact be only partially groundwater fed or not dependant on groundwater. Determining the actual groundwater dependency of particular areas or habitat will require further assessment.

7.3 Annex I Habitats

7.3.1 Overview

A number of NVC communities can also correlate to various Annex I habitat types. However, the fact that an NVC community can be attributed to an Annex I type does not necessarily mean all instances of that NVC community constitute Annex I habitat. Its Annex I status can depend on various factors such as quality, extent, species assemblages, geographical setting, substrates and so on.

Using Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Annex I habitat listings and descriptions5, which have then been compared with survey results and field observations, the following NVC communities within the study area which may constitute Annex I habitat are shown in Table 7-2. The locations of these Annex I habitat types are also shown within Figure 5.5. Within Figure 5.5, all polygons which contain an Annex I habitat type are shaded, irrespective of the percentage cover of Annex I habitat within that polygon. Each polygon is shaded according to the dominant Annex I type within the polygon; however, many polygons contain multiple Annex I habitat types, therefore the communities listed should be cross-referenced to Table 7-2.

Further details on the inclusion or omission of certain NVC communities/sub-communities and/or Annex I types are also provided below.

Table 7-2: NVC communities recorded within the study area and corresponding Annex I habitat types.

NVC Code NVC Community Name Annex I Code Annex I Title

M2 Sphagnum cuspidatum/fallax bog pool community

7130 Blanket bog

5 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1523

NVC Code NVC Community Name Annex I Code Annex I Title

M3 Eriophorum angustifolium bog pool community 7130 Blanket bog

M15, M15b Trichophorum germanicum – Erica tetralix wet heath

4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix

M17a, M17c Trichophorum germanicum – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire

7130 Blanket bog

M19, M19a Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire

7130 Blanket bog

M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire 7130 Blanket bog

M25, M25a, M25b

Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire 7130 Blanket bog, where peat depth is greater than 0.5 m

H12, H12a Calluna vulgaris – Vaccinium myrtillus heath 4030 European dry heaths

H18a Vaccinium myrtillus – Deschampsia flexuosa heath

4030 European dry heaths

H21, H21a Calluna vulgaris -Vaccinium myrtillus – Sphagnum capillifolium heath

4030 European dry heaths

7.3.2 7130 Blanket bog

Annex I type 7130 blanket bog correlates directly with a number of NVC communities within the study area such as the M17, M19 and M20 mires. However, 7130 blanket bog can also include the bog pool communities where these are located within the wider blanket mires. As such the M2 and M3 communities within the study area have also been assigned to the blanket bog Annex I type, as the instances of these communities within the study area are often associated with areas of M19 and M20 mire.

M25 mire can also fall within the 7130 blanket bog Annex I type where the underlying peat depth is greater than 0.5 m. These areas have also been classified as potential Annex I blanket bog, to represent a worst case scenario.

The vascular species diversity within these communities is limited with a high degree of habitat degradation due to the impacts of past and present tree planting and grazing.

7.3.3 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix

Wet heath usually occurs on acidic, nutrient-poor substrates, such as shallow peats or sandy soils with impeded drainage. The vegetation is typically dominated by mixtures Erica tetralix, Calluna vulgaris, grasses, sedges and Sphagnum bog-mosses. All examples of M15 wet heath were included within the 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths category.

7.3.4 4030 European dry heaths

European dry heaths typically occur on freely-draining, acidic to circumneutral soils with generally low nutrient content. Ericaceous dwarf-shrubs dominate the vegetation. The most common is Calluna vulgaris.

The three dry heath communities recorded: H12, H18 and H21, fall within this Annex I type. These NVC types can also be included within the Annex I type H4060 Alpine and Boreal heaths, but only where they are at higher


11 | P a g e

altitudes and include arctic-alpine floristic elements. These communities within the study area are lower altitudinal examples so they all fall under the 4030 European dry heaths Annex I type.

The areas of dry heath found within the study area are of low quality, as noted in sections 5.4.1 to 5.4.3. They are commonly found along forest rides and track verges, forming part of a mosaic of communities or consisting of highly dominant C. vulgaris over a lawn of pleurocarpous mosses.

7.4 Scottish Biodiversity List Priority Habitats

The SBL is a list of animals, plants and habitats that Scottish Ministers consider to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland. The SBL was published in 2005 to satisfy the requirement under Section 2(4) of The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

The SBL identifies habitats which are the highest priority for biodiversity conservation in Scotland: these are termed ‘priority habitats’. Some of these priority habitats are quite broad and can correlate to a large number of NVC types.

The relevant SBL priority habitat types (full descriptions of which can be found on the Biodiversity Scotland website6), and associated NVC types recorded within the study area are as follows:

Blanket bog: M17, M19, M20, M2 and M3 (M2/M3 where associated with M17-M20), and M25 where peat depth is greater than 0.5 m

Upland flushes, fens and swamps: S9, S10, S19, M6, M23a, and M27 Upland heathland: M15, H12, H18 and H21

These SBL priority habitats correspond with UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitats7.

7.5 Summary

Table 7-3 provides a summary of all the NVC communities recorded within the study area, and any associated habitat sensitivities as described in the sections above.

Table 7-3: Summary of study area NVC communities and sensitivities

NVC Codes Recorded

Potential GWDTE Status Annex I Type Code SBL Priority Habitat Type

Mires & Wet Heath

M2 7130 Blanket bogs (examples associated with M17-M20)

Blanket bog

M3 7130 Blanket bogs (examples associated with M17-M20)

Blanket bog

M6, M6b, M6c High Upland flushes, fens and swamps

M15, M15b Moderate 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix

Upland heathland

M17a, M17c 7130 Blanket bogs Blanket bog

M19, M19a 7130 Blanket bogs Blanket bog

M20 7130 Blanket bogs Blanket bog

6 http://www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk/advice-and-resources/habitat-definitions/priority/

NVC Codes Recorded

Potential GWDTE Status Annex I Type Code SBL Priority Habitat Type

M23, M23a, M23b High Upland flushes, fens and swamps (applies to M23a only)

M25, M25a, M25b Moderate 7130 Blanket bogs (where peat depth >0.5 m)

Blanket bogs (where peat depth >0.5 m)

M27, M27a Moderate Upland flushes, fens and swamps

Dry Heaths

H12, H12a, 4030 European dry heaths Upland heathland

H18, H18a 4030 European dry heaths Upland heathland

H21a 4030 European dry heaths Upland heathland

Calcifugous Grasslands

U2, U2a, U2b

U4, U4a, U4b

U5, U5b

U6 Moderate

U16, U16c High

U19

U20, U20a

Mesotrophic Grasslands

MG1

MG5

MG9 Moderate

MG10 Moderate

Woodland & Scrub

W11

Swamps & Tall-Herb Fens

S9 Upland flushes, fens and swamps

S10, S10b Upland flushes, fens and swamps



Vegetation of Open Habitats

OV25a

OV27

7. SUMMARY MacArthur Green carried out NVC surveys within the NVC study area from 4th to 6th August 2015. The aim of the NVC surveys was to identify and map the vegetation communities present in order to identify those areas of greatest ecological interest: i.e. potential GWDTE, Annex I habitats and SBL priority habitats.

7 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5718


12 | P a g e

The surveys revealed the presence of a range of mainly upland habitat types, culminating in 31 recognised NVC community types being recorded within the study area, along with a range of further sub-communities. Several non-NVC types were also recorded.

The study area is dominated by commercial conifer plantation. Outwith the plantation, and within the forestry openings and rides, the vegetation is made up of a relatively small number of community types. The most common community type within these areas, particularly the rides, is M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire. Other common habitats within the unplanted forestry areas include M19 Calluna vulgaris – Eriophorum vaginatum blanket mire and M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush-pasture. Areas of dry heath and calcifugous grassland are also widely scattered and fragmentary through the forest rides and along existing track edges. The adjacent open sections of the study area are made up of a mix of similar communities, particularly grasslands and rush-pastures.

This report has described in more detail these vegetation communities as found in the study area. The survey results have also been compared to a number of sensitivity classifications, indicating the presence of Annex I, SBL and potential GWDTE habitats, as summarised in Table 7-3 above.

GLOSSARY acidophilous: plants/bryophytes that prefer to grow in an acidic environment. base-poor: environments which have few chemical bases, they are dominated by environmental acids (usually organic acids) and so are acidic.

base-rich: environments which are neutral or alkaline.

calcifugous: growing or living in acid soil.

circumneutral soil: nearly neutral, having a pH between 6.5 and 7.5.

dicotyledon: a plant that produces flowers and has two cotyledons (i.e. embryonic leaves).

forb: a herbaceous flowering plant that is not a graminoid (grasses, sedges and rushes).

graminoid: grasses; monocotyledonous, usually herbaceous plants with narrow leaves growing from the base. They include the true grasses, of the family Poaceae (also called Gramineae), as well as the sedges (Cyperaceae) and the rushes (Juncaceae).

humic rankers: shallow soils with an organic-rich (humose) surface layer overlying a weakly developed, thin subsoil on to rock.

mesophytic: a land plant that grows in an environment having a moderate amount of moisture, neither a particularly dry nor particularly wet environment.

mesotrophic grassland: neutral grassland, characterised by vegetation dominated by grasses and herbs on a range of circumneutral soils.

lagg: zone where water draining a bog meets that from adjoining mineral soils. A characteristic of the lagg zone is that normally it has more available plant nutrients, is more alkaline and hence shows greater species diversity.

monocotyledons: flowering plants group which have just one cotyledon.

mosaic: a pattern of two or more vegetation types disposed in intimate relationships to one another.

oligotrophic: lacking in plant nutrients.

ombrogenous: dependant on rain for its formation. Ombrogenous bog is a peat-forming vegetation community lying above groundwater level: it is separated from the mineral soil, and is thus dependent on rain water for mineral nutrients. The resulting lack of dissolved bases gives strongly acidic conditions. Two types of ombrogenous bogs are commonly distinguished: raised bogs and blanket bogs.

pleurocarpous: A type of moss in which the female sex organs and capsules are borne on short, lateral branches, and not at the tips of branches. Pleurocarpous mosses tend to form spreading carpets rather than erect tufts.

podsol: a soil that develops in temperate to cold moist climates under coniferous or heath vegetation; an organic mat over a grey leached layer.

soligenous: where water movements are predominantly lateral. Produced by inflow of surface water or rise of groundwater and not completely by locally precipitated water.


13 | P a g e

topogenous mire: a type of mire that forms under climatic conditions of reduced rainfall, with consequent lower humidity and summer drought, which restrict the growth of wetland vegetation to areas where precipitation is concentrated (e.g. valley bottoms).

REFERENCES

Atherton, I., Bosanquet, S. & Lawley, M. (2010). Mosses and Liverworts of Britain and Ireland: a field guide. British Bryological Society. Averis, A., Averis, B., Birks, J., Horsfield, D., Thompson, D., & Yeo, M. (2004). An Illustrated Guide to British Upland Vegetation. JNCC, Peterborough. ISBN 1 86107 553 7. Cooper, E.A. (1997). Summary Descriptions of National Vegetation Classification grassland and montane communities. ISBN 1 86107 433 3. Elkington, T., Dayton, N., Jackson, D.L., & Strachan, I.M. (2001). National Vegetation Classification: Field guide to mires and heaths. ISBN 1 86107 526 X. Hall, J.E., Kirby, K.J., & Whitbread, A.M. (2004). National Vegetation Classification: Field guide to woodland. ISBN 1 86107 554 5. Joint Nature Conservancy Council. (2010). Handbook for phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough. Rodwell, J.S. (Ed), et al. (1991 – 2000). British Plant Communities (5 volumes). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Rodwell, J.S. (2006). NVC Users' Handbook. ISBN 978 1 86107 574 1. SEPA. (2014). Land Use Planning System SEPA Guidance Note 31: Guidance on Assessing the Impacts of Windfarm Development Proposals on Groundwater Abstractions and Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems. Version 2. Issue date: 27/10/2014. Stace, C.A. (2010). New Flora of the British Isles. 3rd Edition. Cambridge University Press.


14 | P a g e

ANNEX A – NVC TARGET NOTES A number of target notes were also made during surveys, often to pinpoint springs/flushes, or an area or species of interest, these target notes are shown on Figure 5.2 and detailed within Table A-1 below. A representative sample of corresponding target note photographs is provided in Annex B.

Table A-1: Study area target notes.

Target Note ID

Easting Northing NVC Community

Description Photo reference

TN1 28495 89300 M2 Small bog pool with Eriophorum angustifolium, Eriophorum vaginatum, Sphagnum fallax and S. cuspidatum, with some Polytrichum commune.

B-1

TN2 29431 89742 M6c Flush with Juncus effusus, occasional Eriophorum angustifolium, Sphagnum fallax and S. cuspidatum, and P. commune.

B-2

TN3 28353 89116 S10 Pond with Equisetum fluviatile (dominant) and occasional Carex rostrata.

B-3

TN4 27554 89041 M6c Juncus effusus soligenous flush running into standing water area, draining through drainage channel from forestry ride.

B-4

TN5 27419 89232 M23a Flushed forestry ride B-5

TN6 29181 87888 M6/M2 Drain of Carex echinata and Carex nigra with Sphagnum cuspidatum draining from forestry ride onto open hillside.

B-6

ANNEX B – TARGET NOTE PHOTOGRAPHS The following photographs correlate to the target notes described within Annex A, Table A-1. Photographs are not provided here for all target notes, due to the similarity in many photographs; instead a number of photographs are provided in order to give a general characterisation of certain types of community present, and to also show local variation between communities of the same NVC class.

Photograph B-1: Target note 1

.

Photograph B-2: Target note 2

Photograph B-3 – Target note 3


15 | P a g e







Technical Appendix 5.2: Protected Species Survey Report

Hopsrig Wind Farm

Protected Species Survey Report


Prepared by: Ashleigh Wylie Reviewed by: Rachael Iveson, Brian Henry MCIEEM Date: 24th March 2016 Tel: 0141 342 5404 Email: [email protected] Web: www.macarthurgreen.com Address: 95 South Woodside Road | Glasgow | G20 6NT

Document Quality Record

Version Status Person Responsible Date 1 Draft Ashleigh Wylie 18/01/2016

2 Reviewed Rachael Iveson 19/01/2016

3 Updated Ashleigh Wylie 20/01/2016

4 Internal Approval Rachael Iveson / Brian Henry 24/03/2016


i | P a g e

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. i

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1

2. THE SITE & STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................................................... 1

3. LEGAL PROTECTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

4. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

4.1 Otter ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

4.2 Water Vole ................................................................................................................................................. 1

4.3 Badger ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

4.4 Pine Marten ................................................................................................................................................ 1

4.5 Red Squirrel ................................................................................................................................................ 2

4.6 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

4.7 Great Crested Newt – Habitat Suitability Index Assessment ..................................................................... 2

5. RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

6. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

6.1 Otter ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

6.2 Water Vole ................................................................................................................................................. 3

6.3 Badger ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

6.4 Pine Marten ................................................................................................................................................ 3

6.5 Red Squirrel ................................................................................................................................................ 3

6.6 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

6.7 Great Crested Newt – HSI Assessment ...................................................................................................... 3

6.8 Other Species ............................................................................................................................................. 3

7. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 3

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 4

ANNEX 1 LEGAL PROTECTION .................................................................................................................................... 4

ANNEX 2 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 6

ANNEX 3 PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................................................... 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MacArthur Green was commissioned by the Applicant to carry out protected species surveys for the proposed Hopsrig Wind Farm (referred to as ‘the proposed development’).

The surveys were undertaken to inform the ecological assessment for the Hopsrig Wind Farm Environmental Statement.

Dedicated protected species surveys were conducted on the 8th, 9th and 15th October 2015 by MacArthur Green. The surveys found evidence of squirrel (potentially red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris) and badger (Meles meles). Features with the potential for use by reptiles for basking or hibernacula were also recorded. There was no evidence of otter (Lutra lutra), pine marten (Martes martes) or water vole (Arvicola amphibius) using the study area during these surveys.

Incidental sightings of protected species recorded during other ecological surveys conducted on-site included evidence of squirrel, badger and otter. Two sightings of common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) were recorded. A palmate newt (Lissotriton helveticus) was also observed. Results of the badger survey are provided within Technical Appendix 5.3 - Confidential.

1 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION MacArthur Green was commissioned by the Applicant to undertake protected species surveys at the proposed Hopsrig Wind Farm (hereafter referred to as ‘the proposed development’). The site is approximately 1.2km south of the village of Bentpath in Dumfries and Galloway.

These surveys focussed on otter (Lutra lutra), water vole (Arvicola amphibius), badger (Meles meles), red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) and pine marten (Martes martes). A watching brief was also kept and signs recorded for other protected species potentially inhabiting the site, i.e. native reptiles: the adder (Vipera berus); common or viviparous lizard (Zootoca vivipara); and slow worm (Anguis fragilis).

The surveys were undertaken to inform the ecological assessment for the Hopsrig Wind Farm Environmental Statement.

2. THE SITE & STUDY AREA The areas of the site, and surrounding land, surveyed for protected species is termed the ‘study area’ – the extent of the study area covered is shown in Figure 5.6. The majority of the study area is dominated by commercial coniferous forestry, with the plantation rides supporting mainly mire habitat. There is an area of mixed woodland present within the eastern section of the study area and an area of open moorland that is grazed by livestock between this and the forestry plantation. There are a number of watercourses present in the study area, namely the Boyken Burn which runs through the centre from west to east. The Calkin Sike is present to the south east of the study area, and is also fed by the Black Grain tributary. There are numerous other smaller watercourses present in the study area including the Auchendona Sike and Birkie Sike present in the northern section, flowing south. There are four ponds present in the north western section of the study area. A number of derelict buildings are also present, including the Calkin building to the east, and Boykenhopehead located in the centre of the study area. There is extensive rearing of pheasant and partridge across the study area.

3. LEGAL PROTECTION The details of the legal protection of the species surveyed for are given in Annex 1.

4. METHODS Surveys to record the presence or likely absence of otter, water vole, badger, red squirrel and pine marten specifically were carried out in the study area between the 8th, 9th and 15th October 2015. All habitats suitable for these species were surveyed (see Figure 5.6).

The signs found indicate type and intensity of activity and consequently help in the assessment of the importance of a particular area for the protected species. The survey methods used are described below.

4.1 Otter All accessible watercourses within the study area were surveyed for otter field signs. Otter field signs and survey methods are described in Bang & Dahlstrøm (2001), Sargent & Morris (2003) and Chanin (2003), and include:

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 by otters to rest up during the day, and are the usual location of natal or breeding sites. Otters may use holts permanently or temporarily;

Couches: These are above ground resting-up sites. They may be partially sheltered, or fully exposed. Couches may be regularly used, especially in reed beds and on in-stream islands. They have been known

to be used as natal and breeding sites. Couches can be very difficult to identify, and may consist of an area of flattened grass or earth. 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;

Spraints: Otter faeces may 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, often found between holts or couches and watercourses. Play 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.

Any of the above signs (apart from paths) are diagnostic of the presence of otter. However, it is often not possible to identify couches with confidence unless other field signs are also present. Spraints are the most reliably identifiable evidence of the presence of this species.

4.2 Water Vole All watercourses within the study area were surveyed for water vole field signs following the methodology prescribed in Strachan, Moorhouse and Gelling (2011). This involved searching for the following:

Faeces: Recognisable by their size, shape, and content. If not too dried-out these are also distinguishable from rat droppings by their smell;

Latrines: Faeces, often deposited at discrete locations;

Feeding stations: Food items are often brought to feeding stations along pathways and hauled onto platforms. Recognisable as neat piles of chewed vegetation up to 10 cm long;

Burrows: Appear as a series of holes along the water’s edge distinguishable from rat burrows by size and position;

Lawns: May appear as grazed areas around land holes;

Nests: Where the water table is high above ground woven nests may be found;

Footprints: Tracks may occur at the water’s edge and lead into bank side vegetation. May be distinguishable from rat footprints by size; and

Runways in vegetation: Low tunnels pushed through vegetation near the water’s edge; these are less obvious than rat runs.

4.3 Badger The survey method is provided in Technical Appendix 5.3 - Confidential.

4.4 Pine Marten Signs of pine marten were searched for within the study area following guidance from O’Mahony et al. (2006). Survey methods included:

2 | P a g e

Scats: searches for pine marten scats along linear features such as fence lines or stone walls. Also searches for scats on prominent features such as tree stumps, dead logs or stones, and around rock piles and dense scrub where the species could establish a den; and

Dens: identification of features which could be used as a den; dens can include the utilisation of upturned trees, tree cavities, rocks or manmade structures such as log piles or large bird boxes.

4.5 Red Squirrel Areas of woodland that have the potential to support red squirrel were surveyed, following guidance from Gurnell et al. (2009). Survey methods included searches for:

Red squirrels: visual sightings of red squirrel;

Dreys: usually built close to the main stem of a tree, over 3 m from ground level and over 50 x 30 cm in size (Gurnell et al. 2009); and

Feeding signs: predated cones searches in areas of woodland.

4.6 Reptiles It was not considered necessary to undertake targeted reptile surveys; however, incidental records of reptile sightings, or signs such as shed skins, and features of particular importance (i.e. potential hibernacula) were recorded.

4.7 Great Crested Newt – Habitat Suitability Index Assessment

A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment following standard guidance (Oldham et al. 2000) was conducted on all four ponds found within the study area. The HSI allows for an evaluation to be made of the potential for water bodies to support great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) (GCN). It takes into account the following ten habitat criteria, which influence the likely presence or likely absence of GCN, and scores them according to their suitability:

Geographic location;

Pond size / area;

Pond permanence;

Water quality;

Pond shading;

Presence of fish;

Presence of waterfowl;

Presence of other ponds within a 500m radius;

Availability of suitable terrestrial habitat; and,

Availability of suitable aquatic vegetation on which newts can lay their eggs.

HSI scores are calculated as the geometric mean of the ten individual habitat suitability scores. HSI scores, which range between 0 and 1, can provide an indication of the likelihood of their potential to support GCN. Ponds with high scores are more likely to support GCN than those with low scores. Table 1 details the HSI score bands that have been developed to provide a rough guide as to likelihood of ponds supporting GCN based on their HSI scores (Oldham et al. 2000).

Table 1. GCN Habitat Suitability Index Scoring

HSI Score Pond Suitability

<0.5 Poor

0.5 – 0.59 Below average

0.6 – 0.69 Average

0.7 – 0.79 Good

>0.8 Excellent

5. RESULTS The dedicated protected species surveys in October 2015 recorded evidence of squirrel and badger within the study area. There was no evidence of otter, water vole or pine marten found to be using the study area during these particular surveys.

Incidental records of badger and squirrel were also recorded during an ornithology survey undertaken on-site on the 5th June 2015. An incidental record of a palmate newt was also recorded during a bat survey on the 25th May 2015. Sightings of reptiles were recorded during ornithology surveys undertaken in June 2015. An incidental record of an otter sighting outwith the site was also made during an ornithology survey undertaken on the 4th May 2016.

All results are provided within Annex 2 and Figure 5.6. The results of the badger survey are provided within the Confidential Report (Technical Appendix 5.3).

The weather conditions were dry for the duration of the survey period. Weather conditions preceding the protected species surveys were dry and water flows were considered to be average (i.e. the watercourses were not in spate nor were they very low flows). Weather conditions were not considered to have affected the integrity of the survey.

6. DISCUSSION

6.1 Otter No evidence of otter was recorded during the protected species surveys. An incidental sighting of an otter hunting in and out of rabbit burrows along the Boyken Crags outwith the site boundary was recorded on the 4th May 2016 during an ornithology survey. This sighting provides confirmation that this species utilises the local area, at least periodically (Figure 5.6).

The watercourses present in the study area show potential for supporting otter. The larger watercourses are considered to be suitable habitat for a key prey species of otter: i.e. fish. The deeper pools have potential to support larger fish, whilst the runs, glides and gravel patches show suitability for fish at other life stages. The Boyken Burn is large enough to support the species and small fish were observed in a tributary to this watercourse. Otters are a species capable of exploiting a range of habitats (Strachan et al. 2004). It is known that bankside tree cover can positively influence where otters hunt, by increasing the number of invertebrates available for fish populations (Strachan et al. 2004). Many of the banks to the watercourses are steep, with areas of trees, scrub and bracken which provide bankside cover. The habitats surrounding the watercourses would provide opportunities for holt creation, and the proximity of the study area to the larger River Esk increase the

3 | P a g e

chances of otter using and/or moving through the area. The home ranges of otters vary between males and females, with records indicating mean length used by males as 38.8 ± 23.4 km and 18.7 ± 3.5 km by females (Kruuk, 2006). Within this home range, there is likely to be a core area where an otter spends at least 50% of its time (Kruuk, 2006). It is possible that the watercourses present within the study area are part of an otter’s home range as they are known to be present along the River Esk.

6.2 Water Vole

There was no evidence of water vole recorded during the surveys.

Some of the habitats present within the study area showed suitability for utilisation by water vole. A number of the tributaries present within the study area (both in forestry and the open moorland in the northern section) were bordered by soft grass/rush banks which provide good foraging and habitat for burrow creation; however, no evidence of the presence of water vole was recorded.

6.3 Badger

The results of the badger survey are provided within Technical Appendix 5.3 - Confidential.

6.4 Pine Marten

No evidence of pine marten was recorded during the surveys.

The commercial coniferous forestry has the potential to support pine marten. The forestry is mature, and there is currently only a limited area of clear-fell present to the south, outwith the study area. Pine marten are known to exploit old coniferous plantation to create dens, access prey and gain protection from predators (Caryl, 2008). Pine marten are likely to avoid clear-fell areas, taking preference to forested areas (Halliwell, 1997).

It is known that the pine marten range is expanding in Scotland (Croose et al. 2013). The study undertaken by Croose et al. (2014) recognised the presence of pine marten in the Upper Tweed Valley, within the Annandale and Eskdalemuir forest. Two of the positively identified records were located to the east of Moffat, approximately 22.8 km north west of the study area, and near Annan, approximately 21 km south-west of the study area. Sightings of pine marten have also been recorded near to Hawick, located approximately 33 km to the north east of the study area. The home ranges of pine marten are variable in Scotland, by both location and sex, with previous studies recording home ranges of males in Galloway as up to 33 km2 (Bright and Smithson, 1997) and home ranges of females in Morangie as less than 1 km2 (Caryl, 2008). Although fragmented, there are a large number of forestry blocks present around the study area and wider area, with many extending to the north west towards Moffat. If pine marten has been recorded around Moffat, there is potential for them to move south towards the study area.

6.5 Red Squirrel

Evidence of squirrel was recorded during the surveys in the form of predated cones. No dreys were recorded during the surveys.

Predated cones were recorded at three locations within the study area. Two of the records were in the eastern study area; one record in the area of Scot’s pine along the banks of Boyken Burn and the second record in the area of woodland to the north of the Scot’s pine. A further record of a predated cone was recorded during an ornithology survey undertaken on-site in June 2015. It was recorded in a large forestry ride in the north of the site in the commercial forestry.

Some of the predated cones were noted as having been eaten by rodents. However, some of the cones had been eaten by squirrels. It is not possible to determine species of squirrel, red or grey, from this field sign alone. Guidance produced by the Forestry Commission states that forestry with dominant Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) has a low potential carrying capacity with an estimated 0.00 to 0.11 squirrels per hectare (Gurnell et al. 2009).

Broadleaved woodland has a high potential carrying capacity of 0.90 squirrels per hectare where oak and hazel species dominate. In 2009, the forestry present approximately 2 km to the north-west of the study area was proposed to be managed as a red squirrel stronghold area (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2010). The site is also located within the area that has been prioritised for grey squirrel control. Given the evidence of squirrel feeding signs found, and the close proximity of the study area to the proposed red squirrel stronghold, it is possible that red squirrels are present and using parts of the study area for foraging and commuting.

6.6 Reptiles

Sightings of common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) were recorded during ornithological surveys undertaken in June 2015 in two different locations within the study area.

No additional sightings of reptiles were recorded during the protected species surveys. Reptiles in Scotland are active for a shorter period of time (March-October) than in southern England (Edgar et al. 2010) and so it is possible that the timings of the survey corresponded with the end of their active period.

Features with the potential for utilisation by reptiles for either basking or hibernacula were recorded within the study area, including stone ruins and walls.

6.7 Great Crested Newt – HSI Assessment

The full results of the HSI assessment are provided within Annex 2. The geographic location of the study area categorises it as being in ‘Zone C’ as per Oldham et al. (2000) meaning that the study area is outwith the usual recorded range of the species, thus reducing the probability of GCN occurring within this area.

All of the four ponds present within the study area showed poor suitability for GCN (pond 1 HSI: 0.34; pond 2 HSI: 0.35; pond 3 HSI: 0.38; pond 4 HSI: 0.33). The water quality for all of the ponds was considered to be moderate, and the terrestrial habitat around the ponds considered poor. Fish were present in pond four, and were noted as being ‘possible’ in ponds one, two and three, reducing the likelihood of eggs, efts and often adult newts persisting in the pond.

Given the poor suitability of all of the ponds present within the study area, further surveys were not considered necessary.

6.8 Other Species

A palmate newt (Lissotriton helveticus) was recorded on an existing forestry track during a bat survey that was undertaken in June 2015.

The presence of fox was recorded in numerous locations across the study area. There were large numbers of pheasants and partridges also present.

7. CONCLUSIONS The protected species surveys found evidence of badger and squirrel to be using the study area. No protected features for either species were recorded.

Incidental records of otter, palmate newt and common lizard were made during other ecological and ornithological surveys undertaken at the site, thereby confirming their presence/usage of the study area and local area. Several features with the potential for use by basking or hibernating reptiles were recorded.

No evidence of water vole or pine marten was recorded during the surveys, but habitat showing suitability to support these species exists within the study area.

The ponds present within the study area showed low suitability for supporting GCN.

4 | P a g e

REFERENCES Bang, P., and Dahlstrøm, P. (2001) Animal Tracks and Signs. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bright, P.W., and Smithson, T.J. (1997). Species Recovery Programme for the pine marten in England: 1995-1996. English Nature Research Report Number 240.

Caryl, F.M. (2008). Pine marten diet and habitat use within a managed forest environment. PhD Thesis, University of Stirling, Stirling.

Chanin, P. (2003) Monitoring the Otter (Lutra lutra). Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No.10 English Nature, Peterborough.

Croose, E., Birks, J.D.S. & Schofield, H.W. (2013). Expansion zone survey of pine marten (Martes martes) distribution in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 520.

Croose, E., Birks, J.D.S., Schofield, H.W., and O’Reilly, C. (2014). Distribution of the pine marten (Martes martes) in Southern Scotland in 2013. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 740.

Edger, P., Foster, J., and Baker, J. (2010). Reptile Habitat Management Handbook. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Bournemouth.

Forestry Commission Scotland (2010). Strategic priorities for red squirrel conservation in Scotland.

Gurnell, J., Lurz, P. McDonald, R. & Pepper, H. (2009). Practical Techniques for Surveying and Monitoring Squirrels. Forestry Commission Practice Note, October 2009.

Halliwell, E.C. (1997). The ecology of red squirrels in Scotland in relation to pine marten predation. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.

Kruuk, H. (2006). Otters: Ecology, Behaviour and Conservation. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

Neal, E., and Cheeseman, C.L. (1996). Badgers. Poyser Natural History, London.

Oldham, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. J. S., and Joffcote, M. (2000). Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for Great Crested Newts (Triturus Cristataus). Herpetological Journal. 10, pp. 143-155.

O’Mahony D., O’Reilly, C. & Turner, P. (2006). National Pine Marten Survey of Ireland 2005.

Sargent, G., and Morris, P. (2003). How to Find and Identify Mammals. The Mammal Society, London.

Scottish Natural Heritage. (2001). Scotland’s Wildlife: Badgers and Development. SNH, Battleby, Perthshire.

Strachan, R., Liles, G., and Fairfield, T. (2004). Chapter 6 – Managing woodlands in the presence of otters. In: Quine, C.P., Shore, R.F., and Trout, R.C. (2004). Managing woodlands and their mammals. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T. and Gelling, M. (2011) The Water Vole Conservation Handbook. Third Edition, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.

ANNEX 1 LEGAL PROTECTION Otters and great crested newts receive protection under the Conservation Regulations (1994) (as amended) only1.

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) Under Regulation 39 (1) it is an offence to:

(a) deliberately or recklessly to capture, injure or kill a wild animal of a European protected species; (b) deliberately or recklessly:

(i) to harass a wild animal or group of wild animals of a European protected species; (ii) to disturb such an animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or

protection; (iii) to disturb such an animal while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young; (iv) to obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, or otherwise to deny the

animal use of the breeding site or resting place; (v) to disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to significantly

affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which it belongs; or (vi) to disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to impair its

ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young; (c) deliberately or recklessly to take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; or (d) to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

Regulation 44 (2e) allows a licence to be granted for the activities noted in Regulation 39 such that: Preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

1 The Conservation Amendment (Scotland) Regulations (2007) removed EPS from Schedule 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

5 | P a g e

Water vole is not protected by Section 9, subsection 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act but is covered by Section 9, subsection 4 and Section 102. Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004

Under Section 9, Subsection 4, Paragraphs (a) and (b)4, it is an offence to: Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which any

wild animal included in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection. Intentionally or recklessly disturb any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses

for that purpose. Under Section 10, Subsection 3, Paragraph (c)4, any person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of: Any act made unlawful by that section if he shows:

(a) That each of the conditions specified in subsection (3A) was satisfied in relation to the carrying out of the unlawful act; or

(b) That the unlawful act was carried out in relation to an animal bred and, at the time the act was carried out, lawfully held in captivity.

Section 3A states those conditions referred to in Subsection 3c are:

(a) That the unlawful act was the incidental result of a lawful operation or other activity; (b) That the person who carried out the lawful operation or other activity:

(i) took reasonable precautions for the purpose of avoiding carrying out the unlawful act; or (ii) did not foresee, and could not reasonably have foreseen, that the unlawful act would be an

incidental result of the carrying out of the lawful operation or other activity; and

(c) That the person who carried out the unlawful act took, immediately upon the consequence of that act becoming apparent to the person, such steps as were reasonably practicable in the circumstances to minimise the damage or disturbance to the wild animal, or the damage or obstruction to the structure or place, in relation to which the unlawful act was carried out.

2 as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004

Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended)). The following applies under this legislation: Part 1.–

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, a badger.

(2) If, in any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above consisting of attempting to kill, injure or take a badger, there is evidence from which it could reasonably be concluded that at the material time the accused was attempting to kill, injure or take a badger, he shall be presumed to have been attempting to kill, injure or take a badger unless the contrary is shown.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he has in his possession or under his control any dead badger or any part of, or anything derived from, a dead badger.

Part 3. –

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he interferes with a badger sett by doing any of the following things– (a) damaging a badger sett or any part of it; (b) destroying a badger sett; (c) obstructing access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett; (d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett; or (e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett, (f) intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions would have any of

those consequences.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he knowingly causes or permits to be done an act which is made unlawful by subsection (1) above.

Note: A badger sett is defined in law as any structure or place which displays signs of current use by a badger.

6 | P a g e

Red squirrels and pine martens are protected by the following legislation: Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 Under Section 9, Subsection 1, it is an offence to: Intentionally or recklessly:

Kill, injure or take any wild animal listed on Schedule 5; Damages or destroys or obstructs access to, any structure or place that any animal listed on Schedule 5

uses for shelter or protection; Disturbs any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which is uses for that purpose Sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead wild animal

included in Schedule 5, or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal. Publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or

sells, or intends to buy or sell, any of those things. Adder, slow worm and viviparous lizard are protected by the following legislation: These three species of reptile are noted within Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). However, Schedule 5 of the 1981 act notes that these species are protected ‘in respect of section 9(5) only’. Section 9(5) states: (5) Subject to the provisions of this part, if any person-

(a) Sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale, any live or dead wild animal included in Schedule 5, or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal; or (b) Publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, any of those things. he shall be guilty of an offence

An amendment was made to Schedule 5 on 18 March 1988 relating to slow worm and viviparous lizard to give them protection under Section 9(1). A further amendment was made to Schedule 5 on 27 March 1991 relating to adders which afford them protection under Section 9(1). Section 9(1) (as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004) states: ‘Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally or recklessly kills, injures or takes any wild animal included in schedule 5, he shall be guilty of an offence.’

ANNEX 2 SURVEY RESULTS Species Sign Grid ref. Notes Photo

Palmate newt Sighting NY 28418 87857 Male palmate newt on track, noted during a bat survey undertaken on 25/05/2015.

Squirrel Stripped cones NY 28148 89563 Cones found during bird survey on 05/06/2015. Not possible to confirm species.

Squirrel Stripped cones NY 30359 88689 Stripped cones under several Scot's pine trees, along banks of Boyken Burn and nearby trees on over banks of woodland to north of burn. Not possible to confirm species.

1

Squirrel Stripped cones NY 30347 88790 Stripped cones (both from squirrels and vole/mice), outside of pheasant pen, under numerous trees. Not possible to confirm species.

Squirrel Stripped cones NY 28895 89040 Stripped cones (also some cones eaten by vole/mice). Not possible to confirm species.

Reptile Sighting NY 28460 87707 Common lizard sighting - during bird survey on 04/06/2015.

Reptile Sighting NY 29158 87775 Common lizard sighting - during bird survey on 05/06/2015.

Reptile Suitable Habitat Features

NY29472 88835 Potential hibernacula/basking area - ruins of stone wall / semi-circle remaining.

2


NY 29434 88906 Potential hibernacula/basking - Pile of stones, overgrown vegetation around, on banks of burn (frog seen here).

3

7 | P a g e

Species Sign Grid ref. Notes Photo


NY 27480 87916 Potential hibernacula/basking. Old stone walled pen. Lots of old mossy stones. Gaps in between stones as built like a drystone dyke. Some areas fallen away with rocks and stones on floor. Vegetation coverage in areas.

Fish Sighting NY 27911 89158 Observed in burn, shallow area of peat erosion - falling into burn.

Otter Sighting NY 31300 89500 Otter hunting for rabbits in and out of burrows around the Boyken Crags at 0945am on 04/05/2016. Recorded as an incidental record during an ornithology survey.

N/A Pond 1 NY 28341 89116 In clearing of forestry. Approx. 90% coverage water horsetail. Ducks present. pH6. Poor terrestrial habitat, moorland surrounded by commercial forestry. Macrophyte cover based on 'egg laying' vegetation present (not water horsetail).

4

N/A Pond 2 NY 28364 89019 Half of original size - overgrown vegetation/transition. Downslope of Pond 1 on edge of forestry.

5

N/A Pond 3 NY 28348 88983 Downslope of ponds 1&2, above track, appears to be cut- perfect rectangle. Overgrown with water horsetail.

6

N/A Pond 4 NY 27635 89111

Quite large pond located next to road. Cannot see bottom. Invertebrates seen on surface, lots of submerged plants around the edges. A few trees (x6) located next to pond. Heard and observed fish jumping in pond. Four shooting huts/hides located around the pond. Located in ride with plantation running to the north and south of the pond.

7

HSI ASSESSMENT RESULTS TABLE

Pond Number 1 2 3 4 Grid Reference NY 28341 89116 NY 28364 89019 NY 28348 88983 NY 27635 89111 Location (Zone) C C C C SI1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Pond Shape Ellipse Circle Irregular Irregular Long Axis Diameter 10 10 Short Axis Diameter 15 20 Irregular Pond Area 420 2917 SI2 0.24 0.16 0.84 0.55 Pond drying ≥ 3 years in 10 ≥ 3 years in 10 ≥ 3 years in 10 Never dries SI3 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.90 Water quality Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate SI4 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Shade (%) 2 5 0 5 SI5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fowl Minor Minor Minor Minor SI6 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Fish Possible Possible Possible Minor SI7 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 No. ponds in 500m 2 2 2 0 SI8 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.10 Terrestrial habitat Poor Poor Poor Poor Barriers None None Minor Minor SI9 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.26 Macrophytes (%) 2 30 2 50 SI10 0.32 0.60 0.32 0.80 HSI 0.34 0.35 0.38 0.33

8 | P a g e

ANNEX 3 PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1: Stripped cones found under Scot’s pine trees along the banks of the Boyken Burn.

Photo 2: Potential hibernacula/basking feature. Ruins of a stone wall/semi-circle remaining.

Photo 3: Potential hibernacula/basking feature. Pile of stones present with overgrown vegetation.

Photo 4: Pond 1

9 | P a g e

Photo 5: Pond 2

Photo 6: Pond 3

Photo 7: Pond 4




Technical Appendix 5.3: Badger Survey Report – CONFIDENTIAL Contained within Confidential Volume available on request




Technical Appendix 5.4: Bat Survey Report

Hopsrig Wind Farm

Bat Survey Report


Prepared by: Leanne Cooke, Ashleigh Wylie Reviewed by: Brian Henry MCIEEM, Claudia Gebhardt MCIEEM Date: 13/10/2016 Tel: 0141 342 5404 Email: [email protected] Web: www.macarthurgreen.com Address: 95 South Woodside Road | Glasgow | G20 6NT

Document Quality Record Version Status Person Responsible Date 1 Draft Leanne Cooke / Ashleigh Wylie 21/12/2015 2 Reviewed Brian Henry 19/01/2016 3 Updated Ashleigh Wylie 26/02/2016 4 Internal Approval Brian Henry / Claudia Gebhardt 13/10/2016 5 Final Client Approval

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1

2. THE SITE & STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................................................... 1

3. BATS AND WINDFARMS ..................................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Policy and Guidance ................................................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Potential Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 2

3.3 Study Area Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 2

4. SURVEY METHODS ............................................................................................................................................. 3

4.1 Desk-based Study ....................................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Daytime Inspection and Roost Assessment ............................................................................................... 3

4.3 Spatial Surveys - Point Counts .................................................................................................................... 3

4.4 Temporal Surveys – Static Detectors ......................................................................................................... 3

4.5 At Height Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 4

4.6 Method of Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 4

5. BAT SURVEY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 4

6. SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 5

6.1 Desk-based Study ....................................................................................................................................... 5

6.2 Daytime Inspection and Roost Assessment ............................................................................................... 6

6.3 Spatial Surveys – Point Counts ................................................................................................................... 6

6.4 Temporal Surveys – Static Detectors ......................................................................................................... 8

6.5 Collision Risk ............................................................................................................................................. 10

7. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

7.1 Survey Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 10

7.2 High Collision Risk Species ....................................................................................................................... 10

7.3 Medium Collision Risk Species ................................................................................................................. 11

7.4 Low Collision Risk Species ........................................................................................................................ 11

7.5 Summary of Bat Activity ........................................................................................................................... 11

8. MITIGATION PROPOSALS ................................................................................................................................. 11

8.1 Potential Bat Roosts ................................................................................................................................. 11

8.2 Buffers from Turbines .............................................................................................................................. 11

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

ANNEX 1 – Protected Species Legal Status .............................................................................................................. 13

ANNEX 2 – Determining Survey Effort. .................................................................................................................... 15

ANNEX 3 – Risk Level and Minimum Survey Requirements .................................................................................... 15

ANNEX 4 – Tree Survey Protocol for Visual Inspection ............................................................................................ 16

ANNEX 5 – Target Notes .......................................................................................................................................... 16

ANNEX 6 – Illustration to Show 50m Buffer Zone .................................................................................................... 17

ANNEX 7 – Spatial Raw Data .................................................................................................................................... 18

ANNEX 8 – Weather Data (Spatial Surveys) ............................................................................................................. 31

ANNEX 9 – Temporal Raw Data ............................................................................................................................... 33

LIST OF FIGURES (SEE VOLUME 3 OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT) FIGURE 5.8 – BAT SURVEY LOCATIONS FIGURE 5.9 – BAT SURVEY TARGET NOTE LOCATIONS FIGURE 5.10 – BAT SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL RESULTS FIGURE 5.11 – BAT BUFFER ZONES

1 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MacArthur Green was commissioned by the Applicant to complete bat surveys for the proposed Hopsrig Wind Farm (referred to as ‘the proposed development’).

These surveys were undertaken to inform the ecological assessment for the Hopsrig Wind Farm Environmental Statement.

This report presents the results of the bat survey work undertaken between 26th May and 16th October 2015 (inclusive) within the bat study area for the proposed development.

Five bat species were recorded during the temporal and spatial surveys: common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Nyctalus sp., Pipistrelle sp.1, Myotis sp., and brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus).

The habitat type that recorded the most bat activity per hour was felled plantation, planation edge and planation ride habitat located in the north eastern corner of the study area around Auchendona Hill, Mid Knock Hill and at Eild Beck burn.

The overall activity levels, represented as a Bat Activity Index (BAI) for the study area is considered to be low.

The old properties and buildings at Calkin and Boykenhopehead house within the study area were noted to have moderate bat roost potential.

1 It should be noted that ‘Pipistrelle sp.’ is a bat call that overlaps between a soprano pipistrelle and common pipistrelle call which can only be classified to genus level. For the purposes of this report it is not included in the overall number of species recorded for the study area.

1. INTRODUCTION MacArthur Green was commissioned by the Applicant to undertake bat surveys at the proposed Hopsrig Wind Farm site (hereafter referred to as ‘the proposed development’). The proposed development is approximately 1.2 km south of the village of Bentpath, and 7 km from Langholm, in Dumfries and Galloway.

The extent of the proposed development and site extent is shown Figure 5.8.

A survey plan for bats was conducted during the period of 26th May to the 16th October 2015. The survey plan included;

A daytime inspection and roost assessment; Temporal (static) and spatial (point count) surveys; and At height surveys.

The aim of the surveys was to quantify, roosting potential, site usage, variation of activity levels and activity rates at height (60 m) within and outside the site as required. Surveys were carried out during the main bat activity period and in optimum weather conditions in order to maximise the likelihood of recording bats (see Annex 9).

2. THE SITE & STUDY AREA

The study area in which bat surveys were carried out encompassed the developing site boundary, with a focus towards the proposed turbine locations; as the site boundary and number of proposed turbines has reduced during design evolution since the surveys were undertaken the study area in which bat surveys were undertaken is larger than the current site layout (Figure 5.8).

Habitat types are defined as edge, open and closed habitats according to their exposed or sheltered nature. The majority of the study area supports commercial forestry plantation, with mire habitat present within the forestry rides. There is an area of open grassland in the north east and mixed woodland adjacent to Calkin in the eastern section of the study area.

There are a number of watercourses present within the study area, namely the Boyken Burn which runs through the centre of the study area from west to east. The Calkin Sike is present to the south east of the study area, and is also fed by the Black Grain tributary. There are numerous other smaller watercourses present within the study area including the Auchendona Sike, Eild Beck and Birkie Sike present in the northern section of the study area, flowing south. There are four ponds present in the north western section of the study area.

A number of derelict buildings are present within the study area, including Calkin house to the east, and Boykenhopehead house located in the centre of the study area. These buildings were located more than 200 m from any proposed turbine.

The study area is encompassed by a number of hills with Shaw Hill (372 m), Ewe Hill (446 m) and Ward Hill (387 m) located along the southern boundary, Threep Hill (336 m) located to the west and Enzieholm Height (342 m), Auchendona Hill (260 m) and Mid Knock Hill (356 m) running to the north of the study area.

The habitats surrounding the study area are similar to those found within the study area.

2 | P a g e

3. BATS AND WINDFARMS

3.1 Policy and Guidance All bats species are protected under the following legislation shown below. Under the terms of Regulation 39(1), with certain exceptions, a person commits an offence if he/she: deliberately or recklessly captures, injures or kills a bat. It is also an offence to disturb, damage or destroy a place of shelter i.e. a roost. Details pertaining to the legal status of bats are included within Annex 1.

The Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and respective domestic legislation. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended).

In the UK, guidelines have been produced with regards to assessing the ecological impact upon bats from wind farm developments. These guidelines aid in producing mitigation and compensation strategies to minimise any negative impact upon local bat populations. The following guidance documents have been considered in the preparation of this report;

Natural England (2014) Bats and onshore wind turbines: interim guidance. TIN051. Third Edition. Hundt L (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition, Bat Conservation Trust. Rodrigues L., et al. (2014) Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects, revision 2014.

EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6.

A third edition to Hundt (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines was published post surveys (i.e. Collins, 2016).

3.2 Potential Impacts It is now understood that, in some circumstances, bats may be at a greater risk of death from wind turbines than birds because they are affected by barotrauma as well as direct collision from blades (Baerwald et al. 2008) with a wind turbine in Europe or North America killing on average 2.3 birds and 2.9 bats per year (Rydell et al. 2012). These are median values with the variation large (0-60 birds and 0-70 bats) with some wind turbines killing no bats and some killing many.

In the UK three taxa groups have been identified as high risk collision species, with 98% of bat mortality predominantly among taxa adapted to open-air foraging such as: Nyctalus, Pipistrellus and Eptesicus (Rydell et al. 2010).

Natural England interim guidance (2014) includes a collision risk assessment for British bat species. This is divided into two parts: (i) bat species likely to be threatened due to impacts from wind turbines and (ii) bat populations likely to be threatened due to impacts from wind turbines (shown in Tables 1 and 2). Different bat species are considered to be at different levels of risk depending on their habitat preferences, flight behaviour and population status. Surveys have therefore been carried out for all bat species.

Natural England (2014) has identified the species of bats considered to be at low, medium and high risk (refer to Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1. Bats likely to be at risk from wind turbines (taken from Natural England, 2014)

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Myotis species Common pipistrelle Noctule

Long-eared bats Serotine Leisler’s

Horseshoe bats Soprano pipistrelle Nathusius’ pipistrelle

Barbastelle

Table 2. Populations likely to be threatened due to impacts from wind turbines (taken from Natural England, 2014)

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

Myotis species Serotine Noctule

Long-eared bats Barbastelle Leisler’s

Horseshoe bats Nathusius’ pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Common pipistrelle

Bats travel between hibernacula sites to summer roosts in spring and autumn and therefore could be impacted negatively if wind farms were positioned between these two areas.

A synthesis of European and American data by the Swedish Vindval research programme concluded the following habitats to be high risk locations for wind farms; coasts, wetlands, hills and ridges. Turbines sited along linear landscapes such as lake shores, rivers, treelines, hedgerows, etc., are also considered to increase the likelihood of collision (Rydell et al., 2012).

3.3 Study Area Assessment The appropriate level of effort for a bat survey at a proposed wind farm development depends on the scale of its likely impact, which in turn depends on the size of the site and the quality of the habitat. Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidance (Hundt, 2012) provides recommendations of minimum standards of survey effort in instances where sampling is required. To determine the survey effort the site must be assigned as a high, medium or low value risk site. Annex 2 contains the BCT assessment table “Factors to consider when determining the survey effort and site risk”, which was used to determine the survey effort for this site.

The predominantly closed nature of the study area is considered suboptimal for bats with the main interest comprising the following habitats; plantation edge, plantation rides, burns, ponds and clear fell. These areas provide higher value foraging opportunities. Habitats within the study area are considered to correspond with a medium risk site (Hundt, 2012).

High risk species are known to occur within Dumfries and Galloway with Leisler’s (Nyctalus leisleri) recorded at Wood of Cree and noctule (Nyctalus noctula) recorded in the lower Cree Valley (Haddow, 2012). A search of the Scottish Leisler’s project’ records also located Nyctalus species within the study area. Based on the geographical location of the study area to high risk species, it is considered to most closely fit the description of a medium risk site (Hundt, 2012).

The Calkin and Boykenhopehead buildings within the study area offer roosting potential for bats. The main tree component of the study area is made up of planted conifer trees which offer very little roosting potential. There is an area of mixed broadleaved trees adjacent to Calkin in the eastern section of the study area which may

3 | P a g e

support potential bat roost trees. Considering the roosting potential of the study area, it is still considered to correspond with a medium risk site (Hundt, 2012).

Overall, the study area is assessed as medium risk site in accordance with ‘Factors to consider when determining survey effort and site risk’ (Hundt, 2012).

For a medium value site BCT guidelines recommend a minimum survey effort of at least one visit per transect per month between April and October for spatial surveys. For temporal surveys the guidelines recommend five consecutive nights for each pair of locations within the study area, per month (see Annex 3 for BCT bat survey minimum standards).

Due to the potential presence of high risk species such as Nyctalus species within study area as identified from Haddow’s 2012 distribution map of Leisler’s in Scotland (Haddow, 2012), at height surveys were recommend for the study area.

4. SURVEY METHODS

4.1 Desk-based Study A desk-based study was undertaken in order to inform subsequent field surveys and assessment with regards the presence of designated sites/species of interest within the study area and immediate surrounding area. The ‘Scottish Leisler’s project’ Nyctalus species records were also searched. These records were supplied to MacArthur Green by John Haddow in May 2015. This data set contains southern Scotland records from long-term monitoring at proposed wind farms, other developments and on-going research work being carried out by the ‘Scottish Leisler’s Bat Project’ from 2010 to the end of the bat season in 2014.

4.2 Daytime Inspection and Roost Assessment Protected species surveys of the study area were carried out on the 8, 9 & 15/10/2015. These surveys recorded any potential roost features such as trees and buildings within the study area. Tree surveys followed the assessment methodology as set out in Hundt (2012) whereby a tree is assigned a category value between 1* to 3 which determine the likelihood of bats being present (refer to Annex 4 of this report).

The suitability of buildings as a potential roost was determined during an external daytime survey which looked for potential roost features and access points. Buildings were assessed to be of low, medium or high roost potential according to BCT guidelines (Hundt, 2012).

4.3 Spatial Surveys - Point Counts Spatial point count surveys were carried out over the main period of bat activity with surveys starting in May and finishing in September 2015; totalling five surveys (five surveys over six separate visits). The study area was divided into two transects and 342 point counts (Figure 5.8). For the dusk surveys each surveyor started their survey 30 minutes before sunset with each transect taking between 2 hours and 27 minutes and 3 hours 48 minutes to complete. The start and finish points were rotated in every survey. Each surveyor carried calibrated bat detectors of the same type and model (Anabat SD 2 and Bat Box). Spatial survey effort is summarised in Table 3.

2 There were 37 point counts surveyed during the first visit in May. However, access around the derelict Boykenhopehead house was restricted in subsequent visits to minimise disturbance to potential breeding birds, and as a result three point counts were removed from the survey.

Table 3. Summary of Spatial Survey Effort.

Survey Date Transect No. Surveyor Survey Type Total Survey Time (hrs:mins)

May

26/05/2015

1 JM Dusk 03:13

2 EM Dusk 02:40

June

24/06/2015

1 EM Dusk 02:40

2 LC Dusk 02:31

August

04/08/2015

1 - - Not surveyed*

2 SS & RD Dusk 02:39

August

20/08/2015

1 MH Dusk 02:49

2 SS Dusk 02:27

September

17/09/2015

1 LF & AW Dusk 03:48

2 LC & GC Dusk 02:47

Total Survey

(nights)

9 Total Survey

(hrs:mins)

25:34

* Transect 1 was not surveyed during the August visit due to equipment failure.

4.4 Temporal Surveys – Static Detectors Temporal surveys involved leaving static Anabat SD2 detectors within the study area in order to record activity overnight and over prolonged periods of time. Five Anabat detectors were placed at five different locations.

The locations of the static detectors (refer to Figure 5.8) were selected based on the following criteria:

to allow comparison of temporal variation between open, edge and stream habitats within the study area;

to detect high flying bat species; to identify the fidelity of bats to particular foraging areas and commuting routes; and to identify migratory patterns across the study area.

Calibrated detectors were left out at these locations once a month for a minimum of five nights. The surveys were undertaken every month from May to September inclusive and therefore covered spring, summer and autumn seasons. Each detector recorded bats from dusk to dawn with detectors starting 30 minutes before dusk and finishing 30 minutes after dawn. Table 4 shows a summary breakdown of the temporal survey effort.

The placement of the static detectors covered a variety of habitats across the study area as shown in Figure 5.8. Total automated survey effort is considered sufficient to provide a representative sample of bat activity within the study area (Table 4).

4 | P a g e

Table 4. Summary of Temporal Surveys. Survey Date Time Parameter Locations Total Survey (hrs:mins:s) Total No. of Complete Nights

May - June

26/05-02/06/2015 21:02 – 05:17

1 57:44:53 7

2 57:44:53 7

3 54:14:39 6

4 54:16:25 6

5 49:29:48 6

Total 273:30:38 32

June

24-29/06/2015 21:27 – 05:03

1 37:59:55 5

2 37:59:55 5

3 37:59:55 5

4 37:59:55 5

5 37:59:55 5

Total 189:59:35 25

July

24-29/07/2015 21:01 – 05:36

1 24:40:23 2

2 42:55:00 5

3 42:55:00 5

4 42:54:55 5

5 42:54:55 5

Total 196:20:13 22

August

20-25/08/2015 20:05 – 06:26

1 62:05:54 6

2 50:17:00 4

3 52:36:06 5

4 62:05:54 6

5 59:39:38 5

Total 286:44:32 26

September

17-21/09/2015 18:55 – 07:17

1 32:58:44 2

2 60:45:00 4

3 56:07:10 4

4 49:06:43 3

5 61:49:55 5

Total 260:47:32 18

Total Survey (hrs:mins:secs) 1207:22:30 Total Survey (nights) 123

4.5 At Height Survey A 13-foot blimp was used to float a calibrated Anabat SD 2 at an elevation of 60 m. The blimp is flown to 60 m but due to environmental conditions such as wind and dew point the blimp height generally varies from between 40 m and 60 m. The blimp was secured to a ground screw, initially at location 6 (see Figure 5.8) with the Anabat placed in a dry bag and secured to an attachment point under the belly of the blimp. The blimp was flown for one night per survey visit and was in place 30 minutes before dusk and 30 minutes after dawn. After the first visit, and for every subsequent visit, the blimp was moved to location 7 (see Figure 5.8) due to access restrictions. Table 5 provides a summary of the operating times.

Table 5. Summary of at Height Anabat Time.

Time Parameter Location Total Survey (hrs:min:sec) Completed Recording Nights

26-27/05/2015

21:02-05:17 6 08:14:58 1

24-25/06/2015

21:27-05:03 7 07:35:58 1

24-25/07/2015

21:01-05:36 7 08:34:59 1

17-18/09/2015

18:55-07:17 7 12:21:59 1

15-16/10/2015

17:44-08:11 7 14:26:58 1

Total Survey (hrs:mins: sec) 51:14:52 Total Survey (nights) 5

4.6 Method of Analysis A bat pass is a sequence of bat pulses which is captured on a 15 second Anabat sound file. One sound file is counted as one bat pass. Different species within the same 15 second sound file are counted as different bat passes.

An individual bat can pass a particular feature on several occasions while foraging. It is therefore not possible to estimate the number of individual bats. In accordance with BCT guidance (Hundt, 2012) an activity index is used to calculate bat passes per hour which allows analysis of bat activity to estimate abundance and/or activity.

BAI (per hour) = Total number of bat ‘passes’ / number of hours of recording

5. BAT SURVEY LIMITATIONS

The survey design and effort was created in accordance with Hundt (2012) guidelines as shown in Annexes 2 and 3. The survey design was continually assessed with point count data analysed post survey visit to determine if the design was appropriate to the number and species of bats encountered within the study area. The surveys carried out are considered to be sufficient to meet the guideline standards.

The main bat activity season is from April through to October, with breeding usually taking place in June and July. BCT guidance (Hundt, 2012) for proposed wind farm sites indicates that the survey period is from April and October. However, in Scotland bat activity can commence later and be limited at the end of the survey period

5 | P a g e

due to the colder weather. Scotland experienced a colder and wetter than average spring3 which is likely to have delayed the emergence and activity levels of bats in the region. Therefore, surveys started in May and were carried out until October which covered the spring, summer and autumn bat activity periods (i.e. the main breeding and juvenile dispersal periods).

The point count surveys were carried out in optimal survey conditions (refer to Annex 9).

Transect 1 was not undertaken during the early August visit due to equipment failure (malfunctioning GPS device). As a result, this transect was not completed during this month. No bats were recorded on transect 2 during this visit, however, it is possible that bats could have been recorded along transect 1. This loss of data has been considered and factored into the overall assessment of the study area.

The spatial surveys that were due to be undertaken in July were postponed due to a health and safety concern and access restrictions. The survey was instead undertaken at the start of August, meaning two surveys were completed during this month. As the spring, summer and autumn seasons were covered, and the July survey was covered early in August, the completion of two surveys in August is not considered to have affected the integrity of the survey results.

There is some overlap between the frequency calls of the common and soprano pipistrelle’s which echolocate at a peak frequency of approximately 45 kHz and 55 kHz respectively. In instances where pipistrelle calls overlapped between 50kHz and 50.9kHz, they were recorded as pipistrelle species.

Myotis species calls often overlap depending on their surrounding environs i.e. cluttered or open space. This often makes it difficult to identify Myotis bats to species level. If Myotis calls could not be identified to species level they were recorded as Myotis species.

Nyctalus species calls (noctule and Leisler’s bats) can be difficult to identify to species level as their calls overlap. Given that both these species have been assigned a high risk level for both collision and population risk, and given that they can be difficult to identify to species level, they were classified only to genus level.

Unknown calls were recorded during the spatial and temporal surveys. For spatial surveys this was due to very faint calls which were heard on the BatBox but not recorded on the Anabat SD2 (directional microphone). Therefore, desk analysis of the call could not be carried out using Analook software to determine the species. Some temporal calls were assigned an unknown value, due to a very faint call that could not be identified to species level on the spectogram.

Anabat detectors are the preferred bat detector for acoustic monitoring at wind farm sites (Kunz et al. 2007); however, Anabat detectors have limitations and will only monitor bat activity within a limited area, usually around 30 metres4. Furthermore the detection rate of bat calls varies with a bias towards loud bat calls with quieter calls, namely brown long-eared bats, potentially being under recorded. As a result of equipment limitations only relative rather than direct statistical comparisons of bat activity can be made between species and only a set area within the study area can be sampled.

The analysis of bat data is subject to experience, therefore the Anabat data was analysed by ecologists experienced with bat call analysis using AnalookW 4.3.19 software.

The automated static detectors are powered by 12 volt batteries and on some occasions the battery charge was not sufficient to complete a full survey period, or the equipment malfunctioned. The small loss of data is not considered to be significant in the context of the amount of data collected (see Table 4 above). 3 Met Office weather summaries, accessed via: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/2015/spring 4 Detection distances vary with frequency and loudness (amplitude) of the bat calls and atmospheric attenuation. Many bats are detected over 30m under typical conditions, while some species such as Nyctalus sp. which call at low frequencies May be detectable from as far as 100 m. However, some species such as brown long-eared bats are hard to detect from shorter distances. This is why only relative rather than direct statistical comparisons of bat activity are made between species.

It was not possible to conduct a survey at height using the blimp during the August visit due to high wind speeds. The blimp can only be flown up to a wind speed of 25mph. As a result, an additional survey was conducted in October to ensure a full season of surveys was undertaken. As all seasons were covered, this change is not considered to have affected the integrity of the survey results.

Nyctalus species are relatively more active at a height of 30 m than those species with high frequency echolocation calls such as Myotis (Collins and Jones, 2009). A study on the difference of bat activity in relation to bat detector height found the difference between Nyctalus passes at the upper and lower detectors not to be statistically significant, despite proportionally more passes being recorded at height (Collins and Jones, 2009). Not all sites in the study recorded more Nyctalus passes at height, with two sites recording more passes at the lower detectors, suggesting that open habitats can record more passes than at height detectors with habitat type influencing the activity height of Nyctalus species.

The study suggests that surveying from ground level can provide an accurate account of high flying species such as Nyctalus sp. with the possible exception of closed canopy woodland situations.

As the study area is mainly composed of closed plantation habitat, at height surveys were determined to be appropriate in this instance. Therefore, there is no limitation to the collection of high risk species data within the study area.

The information currently available on bat behaviour in the UK is not sufficient to assess the threat that wind turbines may pose to populations. Anecdotal records of individual collisions exist but no quantified data at the colony or population level are available (Natural England, 2014).

In the absence of any recognised criteria to define levels of bat activity (e.g. what quantifies low, medium or high activity), professional judgement has been used, taking into consideration geographical location and knowledge and experience gained through conducting similar surveys at other sites in the region and throughout Scotland.

A third edition to Hundt (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines was published post surveys (Collins, 2016). This updated guidance does not contain updates to the chapter on ‘surveying proposed onshore wind turbine developments’. Therefore, the surveys carried out are still considered to be sufficient to meet the guideline standards.

6. SURVEY RESULTS

6.1 Desk-based Study A search was carried out on records from the ‘Scottish Leisler’s Bat Project’ supplied to MacArthur Green by John Haddow in May 2015.

Table 6 shows the number of Ncytalus records within 20 km of the study area. Three Nyctalus records are within 13 km and five records are within 20 km of the study area. Records supplied only locate records to a 1 km grid location and therefore this 1 km range is shown in Table 6.

6 | P a g e

Table 6. ‘Scottish Leisler’s Bat Project’ Records within 20km of the Study Area.

Species Location GPS Distance from the study area Year Record type

Noctule Near Langholm NY2888 Within the study area 2011 Anabat

Noctule Near Langholm NY2878 7.5 to 8.5km

2011 Anabat


2011 Anabat


2011 Anabat


2011 Anabat

6.2 Daytime Inspection and Roost Assessment The daytime inspection recorded the Calkin building (TN1) to the east of the study area, and Boykenhopehead house (TN2) located in the centre of the study area, to be potential roost/s due to the presence of suitable roosting features (target notes shown in Annex 5 and illustrated in Figure 5.9). Both Calkin and Boykenhopehead were assessed to be of moderate roost potential in accordance with assessment criteria as set out in Hundt (2012). As these buildings are located more than 200 m from any proposed turbine, no further survey work to determine if bats are present was carried out.

In accordance within BCT Guidelines (Hundt, 2012) tree/s within 200 m of a turbine or adjacent to the proposed access track were surveyed for potential roost feature/s. There is an area of mixed woodland present in the eastern section of the study area (TN3); however, it is more than 200 m from a proposed turbine and not adjacent any new access track and therefore was not surveyed (target notes shown in Annex 5 and illustrated in Figure 5.9).

Habitats within the study area noted to be potentially good foraging and commuting habitat include: forest rides, track, ponds and numerous burns notably the Boyken Burn, Calkin Sike, Black Grain, Auchendona Sike, Eild Beck and Birkie Sike.

6.3 Spatial Surveys – Point Counts In total, three bat species were recorded during the spatial surveys: soprano pipistrelle (s.pip); common pipistrelle (c.pip); pipistrelle sp.5 (pip sp.); and Myotis sp. (My). It was only possible to record Myotis species to genus level.

Table 7 shows the number of bat passes within the study area. Bat activity within the study area was observed along the routes of transect 1 and transect 2. Transect 1 recorded more bat activity than transect 2, with 217 bat passes and 13 bat passes recorded, respectively. The greatest bat activity for transect was 1 recorded around clear fell and planation edge, located in the north eastern corner of the study area at Auchendona Hill and Mid Knock Hill with point counts one to three recording 87 bat passes. Point counts six to eight located along forestry ride adjacent to Mid Knock Hill and Eild Beck to the north of the study area 56 bat passes (illustrated in Figure 5.10). Activity along transect 2 was scattered along the transect length recorded along forest rides and

5 It should be noted that Pipistrelle sp. is a bat call that overlaps between a soprano pipistrelle and common pipistrelle call which can only be classified to genus level. For the purposes of this report it is not included in the overall number of species recorded for the study area.

track. The greatest number of bat passes was at point counts 28 to 29 with three passes recorded (illustrated in Figure 5.10).

The habitat type that recorded the most bat activity per hour was felled plantation, planation edge and planation ride located in the north eastern corner of the study area at Auchendona Hill, Mid Knock Hill and at Eild Beck burn.

Table 7. Summary of Spatial Point Count Data (34 point counts were surveyed but only point counts with recorded bat passes are shown below).

Points Total Visit 1 26-May Visit 2 24-June Visit 3 4-Aug. Visit 4 20-Aug. Visit 5 17-Sept.

Passes Passes Passes Passes Passes Passes

1 2 0 1 0 1

Between 1 and 2 17 0 0 0 17

2 34 0 15 0 19

Between 2 and 3 25 0 6 0 19

3 9 0 9 0 0

Between 3 and 4 2 0 2 0 0

4 4 0 4 0 0



6 1 0 1 0 0

Between 6 and 7 13 0 2 0 11

7 19 0 1 0 18

Between 7 and 8 24 0 0 0 24

8 3 0 0 0 3

Between 8 and 9 15 0 8 0 7

9 1 0 0 0 1

Between 9 and 10 4 0 0 0 4

10 13 0 0 0 13

Between 10 and 11 16 0 0 0 16

11 2 0 0 0 2

Between 11 and 12 0 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0

Between 12 and 13 3 0 0 0 3

13 2 0 0 0 2

14 1 0 0 0 1

22 2 0 2 0 0 0

Between 22 and 23 1 0 1 0 0 0

Between 24 and 25 2 0 2 0 0 0

Between 28 and 29 3 0 0 0 0 3

29 1 0 0 0 0 1

7 | P a g e

Points Total Visit 1 26-May Visit 2 24-June Visit 3 4-Aug. Visit 4 20-Aug. Visit 5 17-Sept.

Passes Passes Passes Passes Passes Passes

30 1 0 0 0 0 1

32 2 0 0 0 0 2

37 1 0 0 0 0 1

Note: Transect 1 was not surveyed during visit 3 and therefore no data is available for this transect.

The total Bat Activity Index per hour (BAI/hr) recorded for each species is shown in Table 8. A total of 230 passes equating to 9 BAI/hr was recorded for the study area. The most commonly recorded species by BAI/hr was common pipistrelle (6.30) followed by soprano pipistrelle (2.50), pipistrelle sp. (0.16), and Myotis sp. (0.04) (as illustrated in Graph 1 below).

Tables 9 to 13 show the total spatial survey results per survey visit. These results are also illustrated in Graph 2. No bats were recorded during visit 1, 3 and 4 (May and August). BAI/hr in June was 11.77, peaking in September at 25.67.

The weather for September was ideal for detecting bats and could be the reason bats peaked at this time. This increase in bat numbers could also be attributed to the natural increase in bat number at this time of year with juvenile bats leaving maternity roost. This increase and the dispersal of maternity roosts results in bats utilising more habitats for foraging (dispersal to avoid competition). Therefore, habitats that record little or no bat activity in the spring and summer months may become more important foraging resources in the autumn.

Table 8. Summary of spatial surveys results. Total Activity

Rec. time (hrs:min:sec) s. pip. c. pip. pip sp. My

25:34:00 64 161 4 1

BAI/hr 2.50 6.30 0.16 0.04

Total Passes 230.00 Total BAI/hr 9.00 (Abbreviations: s.pip – soprano pipistrelle; c.pip - common pipistrelle; pip. sp. pipistrelle species; My – Myotis sp.)

Table 9. Spatial surveys results May 26/05/2015.

Activity total 1 - May 26/05/2015 Rec. time

(hrs:min:sec) s. pip. c. pip. pip. sp. My

5:53:00 0.00 0 0 0

BAI/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Passes 0.0 Total BAI/hr 0 (Abbreviations: s.pip – soprano pipistrelle; c.pip - common pipistrelle; pip. sp. pipistrelle species; My – Myotis sp.)

Table 10. Spatial surveys results June 24/06/2015. Activity total 2 - June 24/06/2015


5:11:00 27 31 2 1

BAI/hr 5.21 5.98 0.39 0.19

Total Passes 61 Total BAI/hr 11.77 (Abbreviations: s.pip – soprano pipistrelle; c.pip - common pipistrelle; pip. sp. pipistrelle species; My – Myotis sp.)

Table 11. Spatial surveys results August 04/08/2015.

Activity total 3 - August 04/08/2015 Rec. time

(hrs:min:sec) s. pip. c. pip. pip sp. My

2:39:00 0 0 0 0

BAI/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Passes 0 Total BAI/hr 0.00 (Abbreviations: s.pip – soprano pipistrelle; c.pip - common pipistrelle; pip. sp. pipistrelle species; My – Myotis sp.)

Table 12. Spatial surveys results August 20/08/2015.

Activity total 4 - August 20/08/2015 Rec. time

(hrs:min:sec) s. pip. c. pip. pip sp. My

5:16:00 0.0 0 0 0

BAI/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Table 13. Spatial surveys results September 17/09/2015.

Activity total 5 - September 17/09/2015


6:35:00 37.0 130 2 0

BAI/hr 5.62 19.75 0.30 0.00


8 | P a g e

Graph 1. Spatial Survey Results: Species Composition in study area (BAI per hour).

Graph 2. Spatial Survey Results: Activity over time in study area (BAI per hour).

6.4 Temporal Surveys – Static Detectors Static detectors were deployed at five locations within the study area for at least five nights per survey month during the survey period (Table 4; Figure 5.8). The blimp was also deployed for one night per survey month to record ‘at height’ activity. The total bat passes and BAI/hr recorded for each species is shown in Table 14 and illustrated on Graph 3. In total six bat species were recorded during the survey period. Species recorded were common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, pipistrelle species, Myotis sp.6, brown-long eared and Nyctalus sp. with a total BAI/hr of 2.04 recorded for the study area. The most commonly recorded species by BAI/hr was common pipistrelle (1.51), followed by soprano pipistrelle (0.44), pipistrelle species (0.07), Myotis sp. (0.02), Nyctalus sp. (0.003) and brown-long eared (0.002). The habitat type that recorded the highest BAI/hr was edge/burn at

6 Some records identified as daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii)

location 3 (5.84) along the Eild Beck followed by edge at location 5 (2.30), edge at location 2 (1.18), open at location 1 (0.85), edge at location 4 (0.36), at height at location 7 (0.07) and finally at height at location 6 (0.00) (see Figure 5.10).

Table 14. Summary of temporal surveys results (BAI/hr for location does not correspond to species BAI/hr as the species BAI/hr is calculated to total survey effort).

Location Habitat type Rec. time

(hrs:min:sec) c. pip. s. pip. pip. sp. My BLE Nyc Total

passes Total

BAI/hr

1 Open field 215:29:49 149 23 10 1 0 0 183 0.85

2 Edge forestry ride 249:41:48 195 94 1 3 2 0 295 1.18

3 Edge forestry/stream 243:52:50 992 357 63 9 0 3 1424 5.84



6 Blimp (Location 1) 8:14:58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

7 Blimp (Location 2) 43:58:55 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.07

Total 1259:36:23 1900 560 87 20 3 4 2574

Total BAI/hr 1.51 0.44 0.07 0.02 0.002 0.003 2.04 (Abbreviations: s.pip – soprano pipistrelle; c.pip - common pipistrelle; pip. sp. pipistrelle species; My – Myotis sp.; BLE – brown long-eared bat; Nyc - Nyctalus sp.)

Analysis of the temporal data is shown in Tables 15 to 20. BAI/hr in May was 0.09 which increased to 3.18 in June. BAI/hr dropped to 0.98 in July before increasing to 1.45 in August. BAI/hr continued to increase until peaking at 4.76 BAI/hr in September. No bats were recorded on the at height static detector in the October survey visit (N.B. at height surveys were the only surveys carried out in October).

The temporal data corresponds with the spatial data which also recorded a peak of activity in September.

Nyctalus sp. were recorded during two visits: August and September. Single bat passes from Nyctalus sp. were recorded in August at two separate locations, one at location three and one at location five (0.01 BAI/hr). Two bat passes were recorded during the September visit at location three, with BAI/hr at 0.01. All records of Nyctalus species were recorded at locations described as ‘edge’ habitat. The data suggests that Nyctalus sp. were not more active at height than at ground level with the blimp not recording any Nyctalus species, although the blimp was used in different locations to where these Nyctalus sp. were recorded.

s. pip.

c. pip.

pip. sp.

My

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

26/05 24/06 04/08 20/08 17/09

Bat A

ctiv

ity In

dex

Per

Hou

r

s.pip

c.pip

pip. sp.

My

9 | P a g e

Table 15. Summary of activity totals May to June – 26/05-02/06/2015 (BAI/hr for location does not correspond to species BAI/hr as the species BAI/hr is calculated to total survey effort).

Activity total 1 (May - June)


(hrs:min:sec) c. pip. s. pip. pip. sp. My BLE Nyc Total

passes Total

BAI/hr

1 Open field 57:44:53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00





6 Blimp (Location 1) 8:14:58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

Total passes 16 6 0 3 0 0 25

Total BAI/hr 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Total Bat Passes 25 Total BAI/hr 0.09 (Abbreviations: s.pip – soprano pipistrelle; c.pip - common pipistrelle; pip. sp. pipistrelle species; My – Myotis sp.; BLE – brown long-eared bat; Nyc - Nyctalus sp.)

Table 16. Summary of activity totals June 24-29/06/2015 (BAI/hr for location does not correspond to species BAI/hr as the species BAI/hr is calculated to total survey effort).

Activity total 2 (June)


(hrs:min:sec) c.

pip. s.

pip. pip. sp. My BLE Nyc

Total passes

Total BAI/hr

1 Open field 37:59:55 90 1 3 0 0 0 94 2.47





7 Blimp (Location 2) 8:34:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

Total passes 544 72 14 0 2 0 632

Total BAI/hr 2.74 0.36 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00


Table 17. Summary of activity totals July 24-28/07/2015 (BAI/hr for location does not correspond to species BAI/hr as the species BAI/hr is calculated to total survey effort).

Activity total 3 (July)


(hrs:min:sec) c.

pip. s.

pip. pip. sp. My BLE Nyc Total

passes Total

BAI/hr

1 Open field 24:40:23 17 7 2 1 0 0 27 1.09





7 Blimp (Location 2) 8:34:59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total passes 148 43 4 5 0 0 200

Activity total 3 (July)


(hrs:min:sec) c.

pip. s.


passes Total

BAI/hr

Total BAI/hr 0.72 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00


Table 18. Summary of activity totals August 20-26/08/2015 (BAI/hr for location does not correspond to species BAI/hr as the species BAI/hr is calculated to total survey effort).

Activity total 4 (August)


(hrs:min:sec) c.

pip. s.


passes Total BAI/hr

1 Open field 62:05:54 23 6 1 0 0 0 30 0.48





7 Blimp (Location 2)* 0:00:00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0.00

Total passes 317 62 30 6 0 2 417

Total BAI/hr 1.11 0.22 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.01

Total Bat Passes 417 Total BAI/hr 1.45 *The static detector at height was not used during the August visit. This was due to high wind speeds making it impossible to fly the blimp. (Abbreviations: s.pip – soprano pipistrelle; c.pip - common pipistrelle; pip. sp. pipistrelle species; My – Myotis sp.; BLE – brown long-eared bat; Nyc - Nyctalus sp.)

Table 19. Summary of activity totals September 17-21/09/2015 (BAI/hr for location does not correspond to species BAI/hr as the species BAI/hr is calculated to total survey effort).

Activity total 5 (September)


(hrs:min:sec) c.

pip. s.

pip. pip. sp. My BLE Nyc

Total passes

Total BAI/hr

1 Open field 32:58:44 19 9 4 0 0 0 32 0.97





7 Blimp (Location 2) 12:21:59 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.24

Total passes 875 377 39 6 1 2 1300

Total BAI/hr 3.20 1.38 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.01


10 | P a g e

Table 20. Summary of activity totals October 15-16/10/2015 (BAI/hr for location does not correspond to species BAI/hr as the species BAI/hr is calculated to total survey effort).

Activity total 6 (October)


(hrs:min:sec) c.

pip. s.


passes Total

BAI/hr

7 Blimp (Location 2) 14:26:58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

Total passes 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total BAI/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Bat Passes 0 Total BAI/hr 0 (Abbreviations: s.pip – soprano pipistrelle; c.pip - common pipistrelle; pip. sp. pipistrelle species; My – Myotis sp.; BLE – brown long-eared bat; Nyc - Nyctalus sp.)

Graph 3. Temporal Survey Results: Species Composition of Study Area (BAI per hour).

Graph 4. Temporal Activity of Study Area (BAI per hour).

6.5 Collision Risk Table 21 represents the total BAI per hour for high, medium and low risk species. The BAI figure for individual bat species has been achieved by combining the temporal and static survey results; the BAI for which is then calculated to total survey time (spatial and temporal).

Table 21. Overall BAI/hr for Species at Risk of Collision. Species High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk

s. pipistrelle 0.56 c. pipistrelle 1.53

Pipistrelle sp. 0.07 Myotis sp. 0.02

Brown long-eared 0.002 Nyctalus sp. 0.003

Total BAI per hour 0.003 2.16 0.019

7. DISCUSSION

7.1 Survey Overview Much of the variation in activity can be accounted for by changes in weather but also by the fidelity of bats to particular foraging areas and commuting routes. The results of the spatial and temporal surveys show the highest concentration of fidelity (BAI) to be present along felled plantation, planation edge and planation ride habitat located in the north eastern corner of the study area at Auchendona Hill, Mid Knock Hill and at Eild Beck burn as shown in Figure 5.10.

Five bat species were recorded within the study area during the temporal and spatial surveys (not including unknown bat records). The most commonly recorded bat species when combining the spatial and temporal data was common pipistrelle followed by soprano pipistrelle, pipistrelle sp., Myotis species., Nyctalus sp. and then brown long-eared bat.

Five of the confirmed species within the study area are on the Scottish Biodiversity List (Daubenton's (Myotis daubentonii), noctule (Ncytalus sp.), all pipistrelles, and brown long-eared bat). Three are UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) species; noctule (Nyctalus sp.), brown long-eared bat, and soprano pipistrelle. Leisler’s and pipistrelle bats have Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) Species Action Plans7.

No bat roosts were located within 200 m of a proposed turbine. However, two buildings, at Calkin (TN1) and Boykenhopehead house (TN2) were noted to have moderate bat roost potential within the study area (Figure 5.9). At height surveys were undertaken by Boykenhopehead house (TN2) using the blimp on 26th-27th May 2015 and no bats were recorded, which may indicate a low likelihood of a (maternity) roost being present here.

7.2 High Collision Risk Species Nyctalus sp. are classed as being at high risk of collision and at high risk at their population level (Natural England, 2014).

Studies in southern Britain have shown Leisler’s to fly up to 4.2 km from their roosts (Waters et al. 1999), while studies in Ireland have shown Leisler’s to commute directly to foraging sites up to 13.4 km away at speeds often exceeding 40 km/h (Shiel et al., 1999). 7 Actioned under the Dumfries and Galloway LBAP 1999. There are no new detailed Species Action Plans in the 2009 edition, as the majority of species actions are best achieved through habitat actions. However, the published Species Action Plans from the first edition are still available and will continue to be relevant for much of the lifetime of 2009 edition.

c. pip.

s. pip.

pip. sp.

My

BLE

Nyc

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Loc. 1 Loc. 2 Loc. 3 Loc. 4 Loc. 5 Loc. 6 Loc. 7

Bat A

ctiv

ity In

dex

Per H

our

Location

c. pip.

s. pip.

pip. sp.

My

BLE

Nyc

11 | P a g e

Noctule foraging is up to 10 km from their roost, though Mackie and Racey (2007) found a mean maximum foraging range of about 4 km where noctules were feeding over deciduous woodland and pasture in Britain.

Leisler and noctule bats predominantly feed in open woodland, parkland, pasture, woodland edge and above water (Waters, 1999; Mackie and Racey, 2007).

Nyctalus sp. were recorded during the temporal surveys. No Nyctalus sp. were recorded during the spatial surveys. The temporal surveys recorded only four bat passes in total, split between the August and September surveys at locations 3 and 5. The overall BAI for Nyctalus species as seen in Table 21 is low at 0.003. This would suggest that Nyctalus species are only present within the study area infrequently and are perhaps commuting across the study area.

Dumfries and Galloway defined Leisler’s bat as a Local Priority Species and have established an Action Plan to maintain the distribution of this species, monitor its presence, and protect and improve key sites and habitat for the species in Dumfries and Galloway.

7.3 Medium Collision Risk Species The greatest activity (BAI) seen throughout the spatial and temporal survey was due to medium risk species such as common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle. These bat species are classed as being at medium risk of collision but are at low risk at the population level due to their distribution and abundance within the UK. Population estimates for common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats in the UK in 2005 were 2,430,000 and 1,300,000 respectively (JNCC, 2007).

Bat activity for these species was mainly recorded around edge habitat such as burns and plantation edges. Higher bat activity was recorded on transect one to the north of the study area than on transect two. The greatest activity was recorded between points one and three which bordered the forest edge to the north of the study area (87 bat passes recorded) and was also recorded around point counts six and eight, also located along forestry edge to the north of the study area (56 bat passes recorded). The location with the greatest temporal activity was located in the north of the study area at Location 3 (BAI 5.84) with the majority of these recordings pipistrelle species.

The overall BAI for pipistrelle species as seen in Table 21 is seen as low at a value of 2.16. However, the spatial and temporal surveys recorded the area to the north of the study area to be repeatedly used foraging and commuting habitats by pipistrelle species.

7.4 Low Collision Risk Species Myotis species and brown long-eared are low risk for collision and also low risk at the population level (Natural England, 2014).

Only low numbers of Myotis sp. and brown long-eared were recorded in the study area, with the overall BAI at 0.019. Calls were recorded during every temporal visit, except for visit 2, undertaken in June. Only one Myotis sp. bat pass was recorded during the spatial surveys (0.04bpph). This was recorded in June, between point counts 22 and 23.

7.5 Summary of Bat Activity The surveys confirmed low levels of activity for high (BAI 0.003) medium (BAI 2.16) and low risk species (BAI 0.019) as shown in Table 21.

The spatial surveys and temporal surveys identified the forest edge to the north of the study area around point count one and three, point count six and eight and at Anabat location 3 to be repeatedly used foraging and commuting habitats by pipistrelle species.

8. MITIGATION PROPOSALS

8.1 Potential Bat Roosts The proposed turbines are not within 200 m of the Calkin building (TN1) and Boykenhopehead house (TN2) which have been identified as potential bat roosts. If this changes or if work is proposed to the buildings, then dusk and dawn surveys will need to be carried out to determine if a roost/s is present. Similarly, an area of mixed woodland exists near Calkin (TN3), there may be trees present here with the potential to support features of use to roosting bats. No surveys were carried out in this woodland as no works are proposed to these trees, they are over 200 m from any proposed turbine, and the access track in this location is already existing, and may only require a minor upgrade. If works to these trees are proposed, then further surveys would be required. The locations of the potential bat roosts are shown in Figure 5.9 with Figure 5.11 illustrating the 200 m potential bat roost turbine buffer area.

To mitigate any potential disturbance during construction, no works should take place during the hours of dusk (30 minutes before sunset) and dawn (30 minutes after sunrise) from April to the end of October in the areas around the buildings. Lighting must not be placed close to or directed on the buildings, as this could delay emergence if bats are present. If a roost is discovered, then a 30 m protection zone buffer should be demarcated around the roost and procedures outlined in the site Species Protection Plan followed.

8.2 Buffers from Turbines Following Natural England guidance (2014), it is recommended that a 50 m buffer from turbine blade tip to habitat feature is adhered to in areas with edge habitat such as burns, lochs, stone walls, hedgerows, treelines, and plantation edge.

Furthermore, surveys recorded the highest BAI (fidelity) at felled plantation, planation edge and planation ride habitat located in the north eastern corner of the study area at Auchendona Hill, Mid Knock Hill and at Eild Beck burn. To protect the value of these habitats as a feeding and commuting resource for bats and to reduce any possible collision with turbines these areas should have a bat buffer zone of 50 m from turbine blade tip. As good practice, a 50 m buffer should be maintained from all turbines to existing or newly created habitat edge features. The calculation to determine the distance between the turbine and the habitat feature in order to maintain this buffer is shown below and is illustrated in Annex 6 and in Figure 5.11.

The edge of the rotor-swept area needs to be at least 50 m from the nearest part, usually the highest point, of the habitat/edge feature. Guidelines suggest a calculation, as shown below (buffer (b), blade length (bl), the hub height (hh) and feature height (fh));

b = √ (50m + bl)2 – (hh – fh)2 On-going research work at Stirling University is finding that bat activity increases in felled plantation habitat (Lucinda Kirkpatrick, BCT Conference 2013, pers. comms.). However, key-holing also increases bat activity, therefore it is seen to be important to allow a 50 m buffer from turbine blade tip to edge habitat which is in accordance to best practice guidelines as discussed above (Natural England, 2014).

12 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Baerwald, E., D'Amours, G., Klug, B. and Barclay, R. (2008). Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18 (16): 695-696.

Collins, J. and Jones, G (2009). Differences in bat activity in relation to bat detector height: implications for bat surveys at proposed windfarm sites. Acta Chiropterologica 11(2): 343-350. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3161/150811009X485576

Haddow, J.F. (2012). Looking for Leisler’s – in Scotland. Central Scotland Bat Group/Auritus Wildlife Consultancy. http://www.bats.org.uk/data/files/Scottish_BW_Conference_2012/Leislers_poster_Nov_2012.pdf

Hundt, L. (2012). Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition. Bat Conservation Trust ISBN-13: 9781872745985

JNCC (2007). Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats Directive from January 2001 to December 2006. Peterborough: JNCC. Available from: www.jncc.gov.uk/article17

Kunz, T., Arnett, E.B., Erickson, W.P., Hoar, A.R., Johnson, G.D., Larkin, R.P., Strickland, M.D., Thresher, R.D. and Tuttle, M.D. (2007). Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315–324

Natural England. (2014). Bats and onshore wind turbines: interim guidance. Third Edition TIN051. English Nature.

Mackie, L.J. and Racey, P.A. (2007). Habitat use varies with reproductive state in noctule bats (Nyctalus noctula): Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 140: 70-77.

Rodrigues L., et al. (2014). Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects, revision 2014. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6.

Rydell, J., Bach, L., Dubourg-Savage, M-J., Green, M., Rodrigues, L. and Hedenström, A. (2010). Bat mortality at wind turbines in northwestern Europe. Acta Chiropterologica Volume 12(2): 261-274.

Rydell, J., Engstrom, H., Hedenström, A., Larsen, J-K., Pettersson, J. and Green, M. (2012). The effects of wind power on birds and bats: A synthesis. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 6511, August 2012.

Shiel, C.B. and Fairley, J.S. (1999). Evening emergence of two nursery colonies of Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri) in Ireland. Journal of Zoology 247: 439-447.

Waters, D., Jones, G. and Furlong, M. (1999). Foraging ecology of Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri) at two sites in southern Britain. Journal of Zoology 249: 173-180.

Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E. & Mitchell-Jones, T. (2010). Valuing bats in ecological impact assessment. In Practice, No. 70, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Cited in Hundt, 2012.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altringham, J. D. (2003). British Bats. Collins, New Naturalist Series. ISBN 000220147X.

Bat Conservation Trust. (2009). Determining the impact of wind turbines on bat populations in Great Britain: Phase 1 Report. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Bat Conservation Trust. (2008). Encouraging Bats. A Guide for Bat-friendly Gardening and Living. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Entwistle, A. C., Harris, S., Hutson, A. M., Racey, P. A., Walsh, A., Gibson, S. D., Hepburn, I. and Johnston, J. (2001). Habitat management for bats – A guide for land managers, land owners and their advisors. JNCC, Peterborough.

Haddow, J. F. & Herman, J. S. (2000). Scottish Bats, Volume 5. ISBN 0952018241.

Harris, S., Morris P., Wray, S. and Yalden, D. (1995). A review of British mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. JNCC, Peterborough.

Johnson, G. D. (2005). A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46: 45–49.

Kunz, T., Arnett, E.B., Erickson, W.P., Hoar, A.R., Johnson, G.D., Larkin, R.P., Strickland, M.D., Thresher, R.D. and Tuttle, M.D. (2007). Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315–324.

Mitchell-Jones, A. J. and McLeish, A. P. (2004). Bat Workers Manual 3rd Edition. JNCC, Peterborough

Osborn, B., Wallace, J. and McGuire, R. (2011). Bat Survey Report Loch Hill Proposed Windfarm. Direct Ecology.

Shiel, C. B., Shiel R.E., Fairley, J.S. (1999). Seasonal Changes in the Foraging Behaviour of Leisler's bats (Nyctalus leisleri) in Ireland as revealed by radio-telemetry. Journal of Zoology 249(3): 347-358.

Richardson, P. (2000). Distribution Atlas of Bats in Britain and Ireland 1980-1999. The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Russ, J. (1999). The Bats of Britain & Ireland, Echolocation Calls, Sound Analysis and Species Identification. Alana Books, ISBN 095360490X.

Rydell, J., Bach, L., Dubourg-Savage, M-J., Green, M., Rodrigues, L. and Hedenström, A. (2010). Mortality of bats links to nocturnal insect migration. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56(6): 823-827. DOI 10.1007/s10344-010-0444-3.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2007). Natural Heritage and the Law: Bats and People. Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby.

13 | P a g e

ANNEX 1 – Protected Species Legal Status

All bat species receive protection under the Conservation Regulations (1994) (as amended) only8. Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) Under Regulation 39 (1) it is an offence to:

(a) deliberately or recklessly to capture, injure or kill a wild animal of a European protected species;

(b) deliberately or recklessly:

(i) to harass a wild animal or group of wild animals of a European protected species;

(ii) to disturb such an animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection;

(iii) to disturb such an animal while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young;

(iv) to obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, or otherwise to deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place (i.e. roost sites);

(v) to disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which it belongs; or

(vi) to disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young;

(c) deliberately or recklessly to take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; or (d) to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

Regulation 44 (2e) allows a licence to be granted for the activities noted in Regulation 39 such that: Preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.


14 | P a g e

Legal and Conservation Status of UK Bat Species taken from Bat Conservation Trust (http://www.bats.org.uk)

15 | P a g e

ANNEX 2 – Determining Survey Effort.

Factors to consider when determining the survey effort of a site (taken from Hundt, 2012)

Quality of habitat and number of habitat features likely to affect bat mortality rates

if altered by development*

Species likely to use the site*

Importance of roosts, of species likely to use site, which may be affected by development*

Potential risk level of development

No potential habitat for roosting, foraging or commuting bats

None Local Lowest

Small number of potential roost features, of low quality. Low quality foraging habitat

that could be used by small numbers of foraging bats

Isolated site not connected to the wider landscape by prominent linear features.

Low number, single low risk species

High number, several low risk species

Parish Low

Buildings, trees or other structures with moderate high potential as roost sites on

or near the site. Habitat could be used extensively by foraging bats. Site is

connected to the wider landscape by linear features such as scrub, tree lines and

streams.

Low number, medium risk species

High number, medium

risk species

District County

Medium

Numerous suitable buildings, trees (particularly mature ancient woodland) or

other structures with moderate-high potential as roost sites on or near the site, and/or confirmed roosts present close to

or on the site. Extensive and diverse habitat mosaic of

high quality for foraging bats. Site is connected to the wider landscape by a

network of strong linear features such as rivers, blocks of woodland and mature

hedgerows.

High number, single high risk species

High number, several high risk species

High number, all high risk species

National International

High

*As outlined in current scientific research, SNCO guidance and illustrated in (Wray S, Wells D, Long E and Mitchell-Jones T (2010).

ANNEX 3 – Risk Level and Minimum Survey Requirements Site risk level (taken from Hundt, 2012)

Low risk Medium risk High risk

Roost survey

Selection of roosts requiring further

survey

If evidence of roosting by medium or high-risk species and/or roosts of district importance and above is found, further survey should follow

SNCO guidance and Hundt (2012) guidelines.

Survey period Surveys should provide data for one season as a minimum.

Survey area

Up to 200m + rotor radius from turbine

locations or potential turbine

locations



locations



locations

Ground level transect surveys

One visit per transect each season (spring,

summer and autumn)

One visit per transect each month (April-Oct)

Up to two visits per transect each month

may be required (April-Oct)

Automated surveys at ground level

5 consecutive nights for each single or pair

of locations within the survey

area, per season

5 consecutive nights for each single or pair of locations within the

survey area, per month

Up to 2 sets of 5 consecutive

nights for each single or pair of locations

within the survey area, per

month

Automated surveys at height

For situations where at-height survey may be appropriate. For surveys undertaken from masts (met mast or other) survey effort is as outlined

above for surveys at ground level.

16 | P a g e

ANNEX 4 – Tree Survey Protocol for Visual Inspection (Taken from Hundt, 2012)

Tree category and description

Stage 1 Initial survey requirements

Stage 2 Further measures to inform

proposed mitigation

Stage 3 Likely mitigation

Known or confirmed roost

Follow SNCO guidance and these guidelines wherever possible, to establish the extent to which bats use the site. This is particularly important for roosts of high risk species and/or roosts of district or higher importance and above

The tree can be felled only under EPS licence following the installation of equivalent habitats as a replacement.

Category 1* Trees with multiple, highly suitable features capable of supporting larger roosts

Tree identified on a map and on the ground. Further assessment to provide a best expert judgement on the likely use of the roost, numbers and species of bat, by analysis of droppings or other field evidence. A consultant ecologist is required

Avoid disturbance to trees, where possible. Further dusk and pre-dawn survey to establish more accurately the presence, species, numbers of bats present and the type of roost, and to inform the requirements for mitigation if felling is required.

Felling would be undertaken taking reasonable avoidance measures3 such as ‘soft felling’ to minimise the risk of harm to individual bats.

Category 1 Trees with definite bat potential, supporting fewer suitable features that category 1* trees or with potential for use by single bats

Tree identified on a map and on the ground. Further assessed to provide a best expert judgement on the potential use of suitable cavities, based on the habitat preferences of bats. A consultant ecologist required

Avoid disturbance to trees, where possible. More detailed, off the ground visual assessment. Further dusk and pre-dawn survey to establish the presence of bats, and if present, the species and numbers of bats and type of roost, to inform the requirements for mitigation if felling is required.

Trees with confirmed roosts following further survey are upgraded to Category 1* and felled under licence as above. Trees with no confirmed roosts may be downgraded to Category 2 dependent on survey findings

Category 2 Trees with no obvious potential, although the tree is of a size and age that elevated surveys may result in cracks or crevices being found; or the tree supports some features which may have limited potential to support bats.

None. A consultant ecologist is unlikely to be required

Avoid disturbance to trees, where possible. No further surveys.

Trees may be felled taking reasonable avoidance measures. Stop works and seek advice in the event bats are found, in order to comply with relevant legislation.

Category 3 Trees with no potential to support bats

None. A consultant ecologist is not required unless new evidence is found

None. No mitigation for bats required.

ANNEX 5 – Target Notes TN Feature X Y Dusk and

dawn Notes Recommendations

1 Building 30211 88618 Not conducted

Calkin building. Derelict stone house with roof. Access points into building. This building was assessed to have a moderate roost potential.

Dusk and/or dawn surveys to be carried out if turbine is within 200 m and/or if direct disturbance to building is proposed.

2 Buildings 27881 88442 Not conducted

Boykenhopehead house. Derelict stone house with roof. Access points into building. This building was assessed to have a moderate roost potential.

Dusk and/or dawn surveys to be carried out if turbine is within 200 m and/or if direct disturbance to building is proposed.

3 Mixed woodland

30169 88433 Not conducted

Woodland may contain potential bat trees.

Tree surveys to be carried out if turbine is within 200 m and/or if direct disturbance to tree/s is proposed.

17 | P a g e

ANNEX 6 – Illustration to Show 50m Buffer Zone Taken from Natural England, 2014.

18 | P a g e

ANNEX 7 – Spatial Raw Data Site name: Hopsrig Date:

26/05/2015

Transect 1 (JM)

Transect 2 (EM)

Entered by

Euan Murray 17/06/2015

Recorder(s):

Euan Murray and Jason MacKay

Sunset:

21:32 Sunrise

Start time 21:05 21:02 QA

Ashleigh Wylie 16/11/2015

Survey Type: Dusk

SS parame

ter

21:02 SR parameter 00:30

Finish time 00:18 23:42

Final Anabat QA

Point count

Start

time

Finish time

Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph

nathusius bpph leisleri

bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus bpph

myotis sp bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus bpph

brandti

i bpph

mys/brandt bpph

Plecotus bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph Total

Total bpph

pass pass pass pass pass pas

s pass pass pass pas

s pass pas

s pass pass pas

s pass

1 21:0

5 21:10 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 1 and 2

21:10

21:20 00:10 0.17

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 21:2

0 21:25 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 2 and 3

21:25

21:29 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 21:2

9 21:34 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 3 and 4

21:34

21:39 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 21:3

9 21:44 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 4 and 5

21:44

21:48 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 21:4

8 21:53 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 5 and 6

21:53

21:58 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 21:5

8 22:03 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 6 and 7

22:03

22:08 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 22:0

8 22:13 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 7 and 8

22:13

22:19 00:06 0.10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 22:1

9 22:24 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 8 and 9

22:24

22:30 00:06 0.10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 22:3

0 22:35 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 9 and 10

22:35

22:40 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 22:4

0 22:45 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 10 and 11

22:45

22:49 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 22:4

9 22:54 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 11 and 12

22:54

22:58 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 22:5

8 23:03 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 12 and 13

23:03

23:07 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 23:0

7 23:12 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 13 and 14

23:12

23:18 00:06 0.10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 23:1

8 23:23 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 14 and 15

23:23

23:28 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 23:2

8 23:33 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 15 and 16

23:33

23:39 00:06 0.10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 23:3 23: 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 | P a g e

Site name: Hopsrig Date:

26/05/2015

Transect 1 (JM)

Transect 2 (EM)

Entered by


Recorder(s):


Sunset:

21:32 Sunrise



Survey Type: Dusk

SS parame

ter



Final Anabat QA

Point count

Start

time

Finish time

Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph


bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus bpph

myotis sp bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus bpph

brandti

i bpph

mys/brandt bpph

Plecotus bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph Total

Total bpph



s pass pas

s pass pass pas

s pass 9 44

Between 16 and 17

23:44

23:48 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 23:4

8 23:53 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 17 and 18

23:53

00:01 00:08 0.13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 00:0

1 00:06 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 18 and 19

00:06

00:13 00:07 0.12

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 00:1

3 00:18 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 21:0

2 21:07 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 20 and 21

21:07

21:10 00:03 0.05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 21:1

0 21:15 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 21 and 22

21:15

21:18 00:03 0.05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 21:1

8 21:23 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 22 and 23

21:23

21:27 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 21:2

7 21:32 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 23 and 24

21:32

21:36 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 21:3

6 21:41 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 24 and 25

21:41

21:46 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 21:4

6 21:51 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 25 and 26

21:51

21:55 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 21:5

5 22:00 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 26 and 27

22:00

22:05 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 22:0

5 22:10 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 27 and 28

22:10

22:15 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 22:1

5 22:20 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 28 and 29

22:20

22:25 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 22:2

5 22:30 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 29 and 30

22:30

22:34 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 22:3

4 22:39 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 30 and 31

22:39

22:43 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 22:4

3 22:48 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 31 and 32

22:48

22:52 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 22:5

2 22:57 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 32 and 33

22:57

23:01 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 | P a g e


26/05/2015

Transect 1 (JM)

Transect 2 (EM)

Entered by


Recorder(s):


Sunset:

21:32 Sunrise



Survey Type: Dusk

SS parame

ter



Final Anabat QA

Point count

Start

time

Finish time

Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph


bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus bpph

myotis sp bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus bpph

brandti

i bpph

mys/brandt bpph

Plecotus bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph Total

Total bpph



s pass pas

s pass pass pas

s pass

33 23:0

1 23:06 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 33 and 34

23:06

23:10 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 23:1

0 23:15 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 34 and 35

23:15

23:18 00:03 0.05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 23:1

8 23:23 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 35 and 36

23:23

23:28 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

36 23:2

8 23:33 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 36 and 37

23:33

23:37 00:04 0.07

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 23:3

7 23:42 00:05 0.08

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

decimal time

total hrs/mi

n

pipistrelle sp

Total bpph

pipistrellus

Total bpph

pygmgeus

Total bpph

nathusius

Total bpph leisleri

Total bpph

noctula

Total bpph

nyctalus

Total bpph

myotis sp

Total bpph

daubentonii

Total bpph

nattereri

Total bpph

mystacinus

Total bpph

brandti

i

Total bpph

mys/brandt

Total bpph

Plecotus

Total bpph

Unknow bat sp

Total bpph

Total bats

Total bpph

5.88 05:53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


24-25/06/2015

Transect

1 (EM)

Transect

2 (LC)

Entered by

Leanne Cooke 13/11/15

Recorder(s): EM & LC

Sunset: 21:57 Sunrise Start time 21:27 21:27 QA


Survey Type: Dusk

SS param

eter 21:27

SR parameter 00:30

Finish time 00:07 23:58 Final QA

Point count

Start ti

me

Finish time

Total

time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp bpph

pipistrellus bpph

pygmgeus bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pas

s pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass

1 00:02

00:07 00:05 0.08 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

Between 1 and 2

23:59

00:02 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 23:54

23:59 00:05 0.08 1 12 9 108 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 180

Between 2 and 3

23:51

23:54 00:03 0.05 0 1 20 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 120

3 23:46

23:51 00:05 0.08 0 6 72 3 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 108

Between 3 and 4

23:43

23:46 00:03 0.05 0 1 20 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 40

4 23:38

23:43 00:05 0.08 1 12 1 12 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 48

Between 4 and 5

23:34

23:38 00:04 0.07 0 3 45 2 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 75

5 23:29

23:34 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 5 and 6

23:25

23:29 00:04 0.07 0 0 2 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 30

6 23:20

23:25 00:05 0.08 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

Between 6 and 7

23:16

23:20 00:04 0.07 0 2 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 30

21 | P a g e


24-25/06/2015

Transect

1 (EM)

Transect

2 (LC)

Entered by





Survey Type: Dusk

SS param

eter 21:27

SR parameter 00:30


Point count

Start ti

me

Finish time

Total

time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp bpph

pipistrellus bpph

pygmgeus bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pas


7 23:11

23:16 00:05 0.08 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

Between 7 and 8

23:06

23:11 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 23:01

23:06 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 8 and 9

22:56

23:01 00:05 0.08 0 2 24 6 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 96

9 22:51

22:56 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 9 and 10

22:48

22:51 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 22:43

22:48 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 10 and

11 22:40

22:43 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 22:35

22:40 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 11 and

12 22:32

22:35 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 22:27

22:32 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 12 and

13 22:23

22:27 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 22:18

22:23 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 13 and

14 22:14

22:18 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 22:09

22:14 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 14 and

15 22:05

22:09 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 22:00

22:05 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 15 and

16 21:50

22:00 00:10 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 21:45

21:50 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 16 and

17 21:42

21:45 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 21:37

21:42 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 17 and

18 21:32

21:37 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 21:27

21:32 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 23:53

23:58 00:05 0.08 0 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24

Between 22 and

23 23:47

23:53 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10

23 23:42

23:47 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 23 and

24 23:37

23:42 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 | P a g e


24-25/06/2015

Transect

1 (EM)

Transect

2 (LC)

Entered by





Survey Type: Dusk

SS param

eter 21:27

SR parameter 00:30


Point count

Start ti

me

Finish time

Total

time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp bpph

pipistrellus bpph

pygmgeus bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pas


24 23:32

23:37 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 24 and

25 23:25

23:32 00:07 0.12 0 1

8.57142857 1

8.57142857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

17.14285714

25 23:20

23:25 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 25 and

26 23:15

23:20 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 23:10

23:15 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 26 and

27 23:05

23:10 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 23:00

23:05 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 27 and

28 22:53

23:00 00:07 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 22:48

22:53 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 28 and

29 22:42

22:48 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 22:37

22:42 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 29 and

30 22:32

22:37 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 22:27

22:32 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 30 and

31 22:24

22:27 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 22:19

22:24 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 31 and

32 22:15

22:19 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 22:10

22:15 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 32 and

33 22:06

22:10 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 22:01

22:06 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 33 and

34 21:58

22:01 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 21:53

21:58 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 34 and

35 21:49

21:53 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 21:44

21:49 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 35 and

36 21:40

21:44 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

36 21:35

21:40 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 36 and

37 21:32

21:35 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 | P a g e


24-25/06/2015

Transect

1 (EM)

Transect

2 (LC)

Entered by





Survey Type: Dusk

SS param

eter 21:27

SR parameter 00:30


Point count

Start ti

me

Finish time

Total

time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp bpph

pipistrellus bpph

pygmgeus bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pas


37 21:27

21:32 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

decimal time

total hrs/m

in

pipistrelle sp

Total bpph

pipistrellus

Total bpph

pygmgeus

Total bpph

nathusius

Total bpph

leisleri

Total bpph

noctula

Total bpph

nyctalus

Total

bpph

myotis sp

Total bpph

daubentonii

Total bpph

nattereri

Total bpph

mystacinus

Total bpph

brandtii

Total bpph

mys/brandt

Total bpph

Plecotus

Total bpph

Unknow bat sp

Total bpph

Total bats

Total bpph

5.18 05:11 2 0.38585209 31

5.9807074 27

5.20900322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0.19292605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61

11.76848875


04/08/2015

Transect 1

Transect 2

Entered by


Recorder(s): SS & RD Sunset: 21:10 Sunrise

Start time N/A 20:45

QA


Survey Type: Dusk

SS parameter 20:40 SR

parameter

Finish time N/A 23:24

Final QA

Point count

Start

time

Finish

time Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri

bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph

pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pas

s

1 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 1

and 2 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 2

and 3 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 3

and 4 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 4

and 5 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 5

and 6 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 6

and 7 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 7

and 8 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 8

and 9 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 9

and 10 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 10 and 11 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 | P a g e


04/08/2015

Transect 1

Transect 2

Entered by




QA


Survey Type: Dusk


parameter


Final QA

Point count

Start

time

Finish

time Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri

bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s Between 11 and 12 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 12 and 13 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 13 and 14 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 14 and 15 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 15 and 16 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 16 and 17 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Between 17 and 18 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 00:00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 20:45

20:50 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 22 and 23

20:50

20:55 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 20:55

21:00 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 23 and 24

21:00

21:06 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 21:06

21:11 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 24 and 25

21:11

21:17 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 21:17

21:22 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 25 and 26

21:22

21:28 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 21:28

21:33 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 26 and 27

21:33

21:38 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 21:38

21:43 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 27 and 28

21:43

21:49 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 21:49

21:54 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 28 and 29

21:54

22:00 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 22:00

22:05 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 29 and 30

22:05

22:11 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 22:11

22:16 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 30 and 31

22:16

22:23 00:07 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 22:23

22:28 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 31 and 32

22:28

22:34 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 | P a g e


04/08/2015

Transect 1

Transect 2

Entered by




QA


Survey Type: Dusk


parameter


Final QA

Point count

Start

time

Finish

time Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri

bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s

32 22:34

22:39 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 32 and 33

22:39

22:43 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 22:43

22:48 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 33 and 34

22:48

22:52 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 22:52

22:57 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 34 and 35

22:57

23:01 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 23:01

23:06 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 35 and 36

23:06

23:10 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

36 23:10

23:15 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 36 and 37

23:15

23:19 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 23:19

23:24 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

decimal time

total hrs/m

in pipistrelle sp

Total bpph

pipistrellus

Total bpph

pygmgeus

Total bpph

nathusius

Total bpph

leisleri

Total bpph

noctula

Total bpph

nyctalus

Total bpph

myotis sp

Total bpph

daubentonii

Total bpph

nattereri

Total bpph

mystacinus

Total bpph

brandtii

Total bpph

mys/brandt

Total bpph

Plecotus

Total bpph

Unknow bat sp

Total bpph

Total

bats

Total bpph

2.65 02:39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


20/08/2015

Transect

1 (MH)

Transect

2 (SS)

Entered by

Leanne Cooke

13/11/2015

Recorder(s): MH & SS

Sunset:

20:35 Sunrise


Ashleigh Wylie

16/11/2015

Survey Type: Dusk

SS param

eter

20:05

SR parameter


Final QA

Point count

Recorder Date

Start ti

me

Finish time

Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph

pass pass pass pass pas

s pass pass pas


1 MH 20/08/2015

20:05

20:10 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 1 and 2 MH

20/08/2015

20:10

20:15 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 MH 20/08/2015

20:15

20:20 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 2 and 3 MH

20/08/2015

20:20

20:24 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 MH 20/08/2015

20:24

20:29 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 3 and 4 MH

20/08/2015

20:29

20:33 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 MH 20/08/2015

20:33

20:38 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 4 and 5 MH

20/08/2015

20:38

20:41 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 MH 20/08/2015

20:41

20:46 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 5 and 6 MH

20/08/2015

20:46

20:50 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 | P a g e


20/08/2015

Transect

1 (MH)

Transect

2 (SS)

Entered by

Leanne Cooke

13/11/2015


Sunset:

20:35 Sunrise


Ashleigh Wylie

16/11/2015

Survey Type: Dusk

SS param

eter

20:05

SR parameter


Final QA

Point count

Recorder Date

Start ti

me

Finish time

Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pass pas


6 MH 20/08/2015

20:50

20:55 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 6 and 7 MH

20/08/2015

20:55

21:00 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 MH 20/08/2015

21:00

21:05 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 7 and 8 MH

20/08/2015

21:05

21:10 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 MH 20/08/2015

21:10

21:15 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 8 and 9 MH

20/08/2015

21:15

21:21 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 MH 20/08/2015

21:21

21:26 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 9 and 10 MH

20/08/2015

21:26

21:29 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 MH 20/08/2015

21:29

21:34 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 10 and

11 MH 20/08/2015

21:34

21:38 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 MH 20/08/2015

21:38

21:43 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 11 and

12 MH 20/08/2015

21:43

21:46 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 MH 20/08/2015

21:46

21:51 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 12 and

13 MH 20/08/2015

21:51

21:56 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 MH 20/08/2015

21:56

22:01 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 13 and

14 MH 20/08/2015

22:01

22:06 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 MH 20/08/2015

22:06

22:11 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 14 and

15 MH 20/08/2015

22:11

22:17 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 MH 20/08/2015

22:17

22:22 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 15 and

16 MH 20/08/2015

22:22

22:29 00:07 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 MH 20/08/2015

22:29

22:34 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 16 and

17 MH 20/08/2015

22:34

22:38 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 MH 20/08/2015

22:38

22:43 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 17 and

18 MH 20/08/2015

22:43

22:49 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 MH 20/08/2015

22:49

22:54 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 SS 20/08/2015

22:27

22:32 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 22 and

23 SS 20/08/2015

22:22

22:27 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 | P a g e


20/08/2015

Transect

1 (MH)

Transect

2 (SS)

Entered by

Leanne Cooke

13/11/2015


Sunset:

20:35 Sunrise


Ashleigh Wylie

16/11/2015

Survey Type: Dusk

SS param

eter

20:05

SR parameter


Final QA

Point count

Recorder Date

Start ti

me

Finish time

Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pass pas


23 SS 20/08/2015

22:17

22:22 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 23 and

24 SS 20/08/2015

22:09

22:17 00:08 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 SS 20/08/2015

22:04

22:09 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 24 and

25 SS 20/08/2015

21:58

22:04 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 SS 20/08/2015

21:53

21:58 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 25 and

26 SS 20/08/2015

21:48

21:53 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 SS 20/08/2015

21:43

21:48 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 26 and

27 SS 20/08/2015

21:37

21:43 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 SS 20/08/2015

21:32

21:37 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 27 and

28 SS 20/08/2015

21:25

21:32 00:07 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 SS 20/08/2015

21:20

21:25 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 28 and

29 SS 20/08/2015

21:15

21:20 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 SS 20/08/2015

21:10

21:15 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 29 and

30 SS 20/08/2015

21:05

21:10 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 SS 20/08/2015

21:00

21:05 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 30 and

31 SS 20/08/2015

20:58

21:00 00:02 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 SS 20/08/2015

20:53

20:58 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 31 and

32 SS 20/08/2015

20:50

20:53 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 SS 20/08/2015

20:45

20:50 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 32 and

33 SS 20/08/2015

20:42

20:45 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 SS 20/08/2015

20:37

20:42 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 33 and

34 SS 20/08/2015

20:34

20:37 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 SS 20/08/2015

20:29

20:34 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 34 and

35 SS 20/08/2015

20:26

20:29 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 SS 20/08/2015

20:21

20:26 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 35 and SS

20/08/2015

20:18

20:21 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 | P a g e


20/08/2015

Transect

1 (MH)

Transect

2 (SS)

Entered by

Leanne Cooke

13/11/2015


Sunset:

20:35 Sunrise


Ashleigh Wylie

16/11/2015

Survey Type: Dusk

SS param

eter

20:05

SR parameter


Final QA

Point count

Recorder Date

Start ti

me

Finish time

Total time

Total decimal time

pipistrelle sp

bpph

pipistrellus

bpph

pygmgeus

bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pass pas


36

36 SS 20/08/2015

20:13

20:18 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 36 and

37 SS 20/08/2015

20:10

20:13 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 SS 20/08/2015

20:05

20:10 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

decimal time

total hrs/m

in

pipistrelle sp

Total bpph

pipistrellus

Total bpph

pygmgeus

Total bpph

nathusius

Total bpph

leisleri

Total bpph

noctula

Total bpph

nyctalus

Total bpp

h

myotis sp

Total bpph

daubentonii

Total bpph

nattereri

Total bpph

mystacinus

Total bpph

brandtii

Total bpph

mys/brandt

Total bpph

Plecotus

Total bpph

Unknow bat sp

Total bpph

Total bats

Total bpph

5.27 05:16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site name:

Hopsrig Date: 17/09/2015

Transect 1 (LF & AW)

Transect 2 (LC & GC)

Entered by


Recorder(s):

LNF & AW; LC & GC

Sunset: 19:25 Sunrise

Start time 18:59

18:55 QA


Survey Type:

Dusk

SS param

eter 18:55

SR parameter Finish time

22:47 21:42

Final

QA

Point count

Start time

Finish time

Total time

Total decim

al time

pipistrelle sp bpph

pipistrellus bpph

pygmgeus bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri

bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pass pas


1 22:42

22:47 00:05 0.08 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

Between 1 and 2

22:35

22:42 00:07 0.12 0 15

128.571429 2

17.1428571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

145.7142857

2 22:30

22:35 00:05 0.08 0 19 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 228

Between 2 and 3

22:24

22:30 00:06 0.10 0 14 140 5 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 190

3 22:19

22:24 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 3 and 4

22:13

22:19 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 22:08

22:13 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 4 and 5

22:00

22:08 00:08 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 21:55

22:00 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 5 and 6

21:47

21:55 00:08 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 21:42

21:47 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 6 and 7

21:29

21:42 00:13 0.22 0 11

50.7692308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

50.76923077

7 21:24

21:29 00:05 0.08 0 18 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 216

Between 7 and 8

21:12

21:24 00:12 0.20 0 15 75 9 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 120

8 21:07

21:12 00:05 0.08 0 2 24 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 36

Between 8 and 9

20:56

21:07 00:11 0.18 0 5

27.2727273 2

10.9090909 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

38.18181818

29 | P a g e

Site name:




Entered by


Recorder(s):

LNF & AW; LC & GC


Start time 18:59

18:55 QA


Survey Type:

Dusk

SS param

eter 18:55


22:47 21:42

Final

QA

Point count

Start time

Finish time

Total time

Total decim

al time

pipistrelle sp bpph

pipistrellus bpph

pygmgeus bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri

bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pass pas


9 20:51

20:56 00:05 0.08 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

Between 9 and 10

20:45

20:51 00:06 0.10 0 3 30 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 40

10 20:40

20:45 00:05 0.08 0 12 144 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 156

Between 10 and

11 20:34

20:40 00:06 0.10 2 20 7 70 7 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 160

11 20:29

20:34 00:05 0.08 0 1 12 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24

Between 11 and

12 20:23

20:29 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 20:18

20:23 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 12 and

13 20:06

20:18 00:12 0.20 0 2 10 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15

13 20:01

20:06 00:05 0.08 0 0 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24

Between 13 and

14 19:53

20:01 00:08 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 19:48

19:53 00:05 0.08 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

Between 14 and

15 19:41

19:48 00:07 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 19:36

19:41 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 15 and

16 19:27

19:36 00:09 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 19:22

19:27 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 16 and

17 19:16

19:22 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 19:11

19:16 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 17 and

18 19:04

19:11 00:07 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 18:59

19:04 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 18:55

19:00 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 22 and

23 19:00

19:08 00:08 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 19:08

19:13 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 23 and

24 19:13

19:21 00:08 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 19:21

19:26 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 24 and

25 19:26

19:33 00:07 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 19:33

19:38 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 25 and

26 19:38

19:44 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 | P a g e

Site name:




Entered by


Recorder(s):

LNF & AW; LC & GC


Start time 18:59

18:55 QA


Survey Type:

Dusk

SS param

eter 18:55


22:47 21:42

Final

QA

Point count

Start time

Finish time

Total time

Total decim

al time

pipistrelle sp bpph

pipistrellus bpph

pygmgeus bpph

nathusius

bpph

leisleri

bpph

noctula

bpph

nyctalus

bpph

myotis sp

bpph

daubentonii

bpph

nattereri

bpph

mystacinus

bpph

brandtii

bpph

mys/brandt

bpph

Plecotus

bpph

Unknow bat sp

bpph

Total

Total bpph


s pass pass pas


26 19:44

19:49 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 26 and

27 19:49

19:55 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 19:55

20:00 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 27 and

28 20:00

20:07 00:07 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 20:07

20:12 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 28 and

29 20:12

20:22 00:10 0.17 0 1 6 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 18

29 20:22

20:27 00:05 0.08 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

Between 29 and

30 20:27

20:33 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 20:33

20:38 00:05 0.08 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

Between 30 and

31 20:38

20:42 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 20:42

20:47 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 31 and

32 20:47

20:53 00:06 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 20:53

20:58 00:05 0.08 0 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24

Between 32 and

33 20:58

21:02 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 21:02

21:07 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 33 and

34 21:07

21:10 00:03 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 21:10

21:15 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 34 and

35 21:15

21:19 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 21:19

21:24 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 35 and

36 21:24

21:28 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

36 21:28

21:33 00:05 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Between 36 and

37 21:33

21:37 00:04 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 21:37

21:42 00:05 0.08 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

decimal time

total hrs/m

in pipistrelle sp

Total bpph

pipistrellus

Total bpph

pygmgeus

Total bpph

nathusius

Total bpph

leisleri

Total bpph

noctula

Total bpph

nyctalus

Total bpph

myotis sp

Total bpph

daubentonii

Total bpph

nattereri

Total bpph

mystacinus

Total bpph

brandtii

Total bpph

mys/brandt

Total bpph

Plecotus

Total bpph

Unknow bat sp

Total bpph

Total

bats

Total bpph

6.58 06:35 2 0.30379747 130

19.7468354 37

5.62025316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

169

25.67088608

31 | P a g e

ANNEX 8 – Weather Data (Spatial Surveys) Key to meteorological conditions recorded during surveys

Wind Speed Wind Direction (using 16-point compass) Rain Cloud Cover (in eighths) Cloud Height (m) Moon Phase

Calm 0 Moderate gale 7 N None 0 No clouds 0/8 <150m 0 New Moon 0

Light air 1 Fresh gale 8 NNE Drizzle/Mist 1 Half Sky 4/8 150-500m 1 Waning Crescent 1

Light breeze 2 Strong gale 9 NNW Light showers 2 Full Sky 8/8 >500m 2 Last Quarter 2

Gentle breeze 3 Whole gale 10 NE Heavy showers 3 Etc. Waning Gibbous 3

Moderate breeze 4 Storm 11 NW Heavy rain 4 Full Moon 4

Fresh breeze 5 Hurricane 12 Etc. Waxing Gibbous 5

Strong breeze 6 First Quarter 6

Waxing Crescent 7

32 | P a g e

Date Transect Surveyor Start Time

Finish Time

Hour Temperature°C

Relative Humidity

Wind Speed (Beaufort Scale)

Wind Direction

Moon phase Rain Cloud Cover

Cloud Height Notes Entered by QA by

26/05/2015 1 JM 21:05 00:18 1 11.6 63.5 3 gentle breeze W first quarter 0 none 7/8 2 >500m Temperature and weather data copied from EM's weather sheet EM 17/06/2015 AW 16/11/2015

26/05/2015 1 JM 21:05 00:18 2 6.6 79.3 3 gentle breeze NW first quarter 0 none 7/8 2 >500m Temperature and weather data copied from EM's weather sheet EM 17/06/2015 AW 16/11/2015

26/05/2015 1 JM 21:05 00:18 3 5.8 81.3 1 light air N first quarter 0 none 5/8 2 >500m Temperature and weather data copied from EM's weather sheet EM 17/06/2015 AW 16/11/2015

26/05/2015 1 JM 21:05 00:18 4 - - 0 calm n/a first quarter 0 none 7/8 2 >500m Temperature and weather data not recorded EM 17/06/2015 AW 16/11/2015

26/05/2015 2 EM 21:02 23:42 1 11.6 63.5 3 gentle breeze NW first quarter 0 none 7/8 2 >500m Gusts of 4 EM 17/06/2015 AW 16/11/2015

26/05/2015 2 EM 21:02 23:42 2 6.6 79.3 3 gentle breeze W first quarter 0 none 6/8 2 >500m EM 17/06/2015 AW 16/11/2015

26/05/2015 2 EM 21:02 23:42 3 5.8 81.3 2 light breeze N first quarter 0 none 5/8 2 >500m Very light rain 10 minutes before finish EM 17/06/2015 AW 16/11/2015

24-25/06/15 1 EM 21:27 00:07 1 13.5 85.5 0 calm n/a first quarter 0 none 7/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

24-25/06/15 1 EM 21:27 00:07 2 12 91.7 0 calm n/a first quarter 0 none 8/8 1 150-500m sheltered in ride. Occasional drop of rain LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

24-25/06/15 1 EM 21:27 00:07 3 12.4 93.8 1 light air SW first quarter 0 none 8/8 1 150-500m very gentle breeze/light air LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

24-25/06/15 2 LC 21:27 23:58 1 13.1 83.9 3 gentle breeze SSW first quarter 0 none 7/8 2 >500m lots of midges LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

24-25/06/15 2 LC 21:27 23:58 2 11.9 92.1 1 light air n/a first quarter 0 none 8/8 0 <150m cloud low, above tree top. Midges lots LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

24-25/06/15 2 LC 21:27 23:58 3 13.6 91.8 0 calm n/a first quarter 0 none 8/8 0 <150m cloud low, above tree top. Midges lots LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

04/08/2015 2 SS & RD 20:45 23:24 1 14.9 83.1 4 moderate breeze SSE waning gibbous 0 none 8/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

04/08/2015 2 SS & RD 20:45 23:24 2 12.8 88 3 gentle breeze SSE waning gibbous 0 none 8/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

04/08/2015 2 SS & RD 20:45 23:24 3 12.8 87.1 3 gentle breeze SSE waning gibbous 0 none 8/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

04/08/2015 2 SS & RD 20:45 23:24 4 12.4 90.5 4 moderate breeze SSE waning gibbous 0 none 8/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

20/08/2015 1 MH 20:05 22:54 1 16.6 81.4 1 light air S waxing crescent 0 none 7/8 2 >500m drizzle for approx. 20 mins LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

20/08/2015 1 MH 20:05 22:54 2 15.3 93.8 2 light breeze S waxing crescent 1 drizzle/mist 8/8 2 >500m light rain/showers approx. 20 mins. Wind increasing LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

20/08/2015 1 MH 20:05 22:54 3 15.8 98.5 4 moderate breeze S waxing crescent 2 light showers 8/8 2 >500m sub optimal conditions LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

20/08/2015 2 SS 20:05 22:32 1 17.3 85.8 1 light air NE waxing crescent 1 drizzle/mist 7/8 2 >500m very light rain LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

20/08/2015 2 SS 20:05 22:32 2 16.3 92.8 1 light air NE waxing crescent 1 drizzle/mist 8/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

20/08/2015 2 SS 20:05 22:32 3 15.8 97.6 3 gentle breeze NE waxing crescent 1 drizzle/mist 8/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

17/09/2015 1 LF & AW 18:59 22:47 1 12.3 86.8 0 calm n/a waxing crescent 0 none 7/8 2 >500m Very calm LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

17/09/2015 2 LF & AW 18:59 22:47 2 11.2 88.3 2 light breeze S waxing crescent 0 none 8/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

17/09/2015 1 LC & GC 18:55 21:42 1 13.3 78.7 1 light air n/a waxing crescent 0 none 7/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

17/09/2015 2 LC & GC 18:55 21:42 2 11.1 87.3 0 calm n/a waxing crescent 0 none 7/8 2 >500m LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

17/09/2015 3 LC & GC 18:55 21:42 3 10.4 93.8 2 light breeze S waxing crescent 0 none 8/8 2 >500m breeze on track 2 to 3 (gentle breeze) LC 13/11/2015 AW 16/11/2015

33 | P a g e

ANNEX 9 – Temporal Raw Data Due to the amount of data that was collected during the temporal surveys (2,574 bat passes in total) the temporal raw data has not been displayed here. This data can be provided electronically upon request.




Technical Appendix 5.5: Fisheries Habitat and Electrofishing Survey Report

FISHERIES HABITAT AND ELECTROFISHING

SURVEY

FOR THE PROPOSED HOPSRIG WIND FARM

For

MacArthur Green


A Scottish Registered Charity No. SC 020751

October 2016

SUMMARY • A walkover habitat survey and an electrofishing survey were undertaken on watercourses within the

proposed Hopsrig Wind Farm site in September 2016.

• Good quality instream habitats were found throughout the habitat survey and on the whole this was reflected in the densities of fish recorded in the electrofishing survey.

• In general, most habitats encountered over the walkover survey were classed as good quality, primarily natural juvenile salmonid habitat, except the Yadlairs Sike which appears to have been cut along a contour line in order to allow the level of a small loch to be raised.

• In terms of obstacles to migration, a combination of two waterfalls is present on the Boyken Burn and a sequence of waterfalls is present on the Clackanna Sike. Both sets of obstacles are deemed impassable to migratory salmonids however are likely to be passable to eels. Indeed, eels were recorded upstream of the two falls on the Boyken Burn during the electrofishing survey.

• Upstream of the waterfalls on the Boyken Burn healthy densities of resident brown trout were recorded during the electrofishing survey which indicates good water quality and good quality spawning and juvenile habitat is available.

• Downstream of the waterfalls on the Boyken Burn very high densities of juvenile trout were recorded during the electrofishing survey, reflecting the good water quality and good quality instream habitats. As this area is accessible to migratory salmonids, it is likely that sea trout are contributing to the overall trout populations here.

• Minor watercourses (which were not surveyed) within the site are less likely to hold important habitat for fish populations however they still constitute a route for pollution to affect fish populations further downstream.

• There was an obvious lack of juvenile salmon in the accessible reaches of the Boyken Burn. Previous surveys by GFT and the Environment Agency on the lower and mid Boyken Burn have found good densities of salmon to be present. It is currently unknown why no salmon were recorded during this study however it should be assumed that under normal situations salmon should be present in the accessible reaches of the Boyken Burn.

• Eels were recorded at three sites throughout the survey but only in low numbers.

• GFT recommends that if the development is given approval then fish monitoring is included in the Ecological Monitoring Plan. Because of the presence of healthy populations of trout and good quality habitats in the Boyken Burn, lower 2/3 or Elid Beck, and the Trough Burn, these watercourse must be protected from pollution and particularly elevated levels of suspended silt, which could potentially reach these watercourses from further upstream during the construction phase of the development. Silt can cause fish eggs to be smothered in redds as well as clogging up spawning gravels.

1 | P a g e

1 INTRODUCTION

The Galloway Fisheries Trust (GFT) was commissioned by MacArthur Green to carry out a targeted walkover fisheries habitat survey and electrofishing survey for the proposed Hopsrig Wind Farm (‘the proposed development’), in Dumfries and Galloway.

The site contains several watercourses of the Border Esk river system that could potentially be affected by the proposed development. It was arranged to carry out a walkover habitat survey to assess the current fish habitat status of the watercourses pertaining to the site, as well as carrying out electrofishing surveys to establish baseline fish population data.

There is a variety of legislation, regulations and guidance in place relating to fish species that are present in the Border Esk river catchment. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is an internationally important fish population which is listed under Annex II and V of the European Habitats Directive (1992) (only in freshwater), Appendix III of the Bern Convention (1979) (only in freshwater) and are a local priority species in the Dumfries and Galloway Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Atlantic salmon is also a species of Conservation Concern on a UK level. Brown trout/sea trout (Salmo trutta) is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan species.

There have been and continue to be concerns across Europe over low eel stocks. It is currently unknown why there has been such a rapid decline but it is thought to be linked to over-exploitation, inland habitat loss, climate and ocean current changes, disease and pollution. The European Eel Regulations (EC) No 1100/2007 aim to establish measures to recover eel stocks. One such measure was the production of Eel Management Plans for the Scotland River Basin1 and the Solway Tweed River Basin2 Districts (within which the Border Esk is located), in 2008 and 2010 respectively. Fishing or taking eels is illegal (unless licensed) under The Freshwater Fish Conservation (Prohibition on Fishing for Eels) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. The European eel is also a UKBAP priority species.

Both River and Brook lampreys are protected under Annex IIa and III of the EC Habitats and Species Directive 1992, with River lamprey also being protected under Appendix III the Bern Convention 1979. Both Atlantic salmon and River lamprey are species of Conservation Concern on a UK level. Sea lamprey is listed in annexes IIa and Va of the Habitats Directive, Appendix III of the Bern Convention and as a long list Species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

The possible impacts that any land based wind farm development and its associated infrastructure could have on surrounding fish populations are well documented. The potential for fish species and their habitats to be affected by the development mainly occurs during the construction and decommissioning phases of the development. During the construction phase potential impacts include siltation from ground disturbance, accelerated or exacerbated erosion, hydrological changes, pollution, and the blocking or hindering of the upstream/downstream migration of fish. During the operational phase, concerns include the effects of poor road drainage, accelerated levels of erosion, fish access, and the maintenance of silt traps and road crossings. Potential risks during the decommissioning phase are broadly similar to those in the construction phase. These potential effects could all impact on the surrounding fish populations by causing direct mortality of juveniles and adults, changes in food availability, avoidance behaviour resulting in unused habitat, blocking of migration routes to spawning beds or the damage of instream and riparian habitats.

1 Scottish Government (2008), Scotland River Basin Eel Management Plan http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1063/0076523.pdf

2 AIMS The aims of this study were as follows:

2.1 To carry out targeted fish habitat surveys on watercourses that could potentially be impacted by the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development.

2.2 To carry out an electrofishing survey across and in the vicinity of the site. 2.3 To analyse and present results from the surveys, describing any particular sensitivities of

habitats/species found.

2 Defra (2010), Eel Management Plans for the United Kingdom, Solway Tweed River Basin District http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402151656/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries/emp/solway.pdf

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1063/0076523.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402151656/http:/archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries/emp/solway.pdf

2 | P a g e

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Data recording The GFT is a partner in the Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre (SFCC), an initiative involving Scottish Fishery Trusts and others, including the Marine Scotland Science (Scottish Government), The Tweed Foundation, the Spey Research Trust, the Tay Foundation and the Cromarty Firth Fisheries Trust.

This group has, in partnership, developed a set of agreed survey and data collection methodologies for electrofishing surveys and an associated database in which to record information gathered from such surveys.

The electrofishing surveys undertaken by GFT for this study have been completed to the high standards that are required by the SFCC and recorded using the agreed formats. GFT is also experienced in the Hendry and Cragg-Hine3 walkover fisheries habitat survey methodology.

3.2 Habitat survey The fisheries-specific walk over habitat surveys aimed to give general information on the current status of the instream and bankside habitats present within the watercourses within the site, specifically those which may be affected by the construction and/or upgrading of watercourse crossings, was completed. A walkover survey, modified from Hendry and Cragg-Hine (1997)1, was developed and undertaken (see Table 1).

This method of habitat surveying allows for much ground to be covered, giving the maximum amount of information to be gained in the minimum of time. Walkover habitat surveys aim to provide an insight into the status and locations of sensitive spawning gravels and juvenile habitat areas within watercourses.

During surveys, information on substrate type, bank structure and obstructions to fish passage and migration are also recorded. General comments on individual stretches of river are recorded to assist in the rapid overview of the survey area as a whole. A photographic record of the watercourses is collected during the surveys. A set of target notes are produced from the survey data (see Appendix 1).

3.2.1 Habitat survey method

The watercourses are surveyed by two experienced GFT surveyors. The predominant habitat types are recorded within specific stretches, or at specific grid referenced points, and defined as described in Table 1. The habitats described are not disparate but regarded as definable parts of a spectrum of habitats found in a watercourse. Where spawning gravels are present and accessible, an assessment of their quality in terms of stability, compaction and siltation is made. In addition, the bankside structure and surrounding land use is also described where appropriate.

3 Hendry and Cragg-Hine (1997), Restoration of Riverine Salmon Habitats: A Guidance Manual. Environment Agency Fisheries Technical Manual 4, R&D Technical Report W44 http://www.apemltd.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Restoration-of-Riverine-Salmon-Habitats-A-Guidance-Manual.pdf

Table 1: Hendry and Cragg-Hine habitat classification for walk-over survey method Habitat Type Classification Spawning gravel Stable gravel up to 30 cm deep that is not compacted or contains

excessive silt. Substrate size with a diameter of 0.8 to 10.2 cm Silted spawning habitat Stable gravel up to 30 cm deep that is compacted or contains excessive

silt. Substrate size with a diameter of 0.8 to 10.2 cm Fry habitat Shallow (<0.2 m) and fast flowing water indicative of riffles and runs with

a substrate dominated by gravel (16 – 64 mm) and cobbles (64 – 256 mm)

Parr habitat Riffle – run habitat that is generally faster and deeper than fry habitat (0.2 – 0.4 m). Substrate consists of gravels (16 – 64 mm), cobbles (64 – 256 mm) and boulder (> 256 mm)

Glides Smooth laminar flow with little surface turbulence and generally greater than 0.3 m deep

Pools No perceptible flow and usually greater than 1 m deep Flow constriction Where physical features provide a narrowing of the channel resulting in

increased velocity and depth (often combined with a localised increase in gradient and bedrock substrates)

Obstacles/Obstruction to migration

A structure or item identified as a potential obstruction to fish passage at certain water heights(e.g. impassable falls, weirs, bridge aprons, shallow braided river sections preventing upstream migration during low flows)

Additional Habitat Type Classification Mixed juvenile habitat * A mix of fry and parr habitat, suited to both age classes in combination

– the deeper, faster, larger substrate areas used by parr, and the shallower, slower, smaller substrate areas used by fry

* In addition to the Hendry and Cragg-Hine ‘fry habitat’ and ‘parr habitat’ types described above, if significant amounts of fry and parr habitat are found to co-exist and be somewhat amalgamated in the same section, these habitat classifications are combined and classified as ‘mixed juvenile habitat’. Within this report where parr habitat is mentioned this will refer to habitat that has principally been identified as habitat more suited to parr than fry however will habitually contain a lower quantity of fry habitat and habitat which is suited to both fry and parr. The opposite is true for fry habitat.

Problematic bank structures such as areas of severe erosion are recorded, if present. If the reason for the problem is evident then this is highlighted, e.g. over-grazing by cattle causing trampling, erosion and a collapsing bank.

Obstructions are assessed for complete impassability at any flow or for being passable under certain flow conditions. Additional comments are also made as to the nature and permanency of the obstruction, if applicable. Photographs are taken throughout the survey and of all major obstructions.

Although not part of the Hendry and Cragg-Hine methodology, but instead part of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology4 (published by the Nature Conservancy Council, later editions by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)), habitat characteristics recorded during the survey are presented in Appendix 1 as a list of ‘target notes’ (e.g. TN25 – Target Note number 25: 20 m of parr habitat) and is referenced in Section 4.

3.3 Electrofishing surveys To assess the fish population present within a section of river various techniques have been developed in the recent decades. The main method of determining the status of a fish population is through employing the use of electrofishing equipment.

4 JNCC (2010), Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A Technique for Environmental Audit http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/pub10_handbookforphase1habitatsurvey.pdf

http://www.apemltd.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Restoration-of-Riverine-Salmon-Habitats-A-Guidance-Manual.pdf

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/pub10_handbookforphase1habitatsurvey.pdf

3 | P a g e

This technique of electrofishing involves the ‘stunning’ of fish using an electric current which enables the operator to remove the fish from the water. Once captured, the fish recover in a holding container. They are then anaesthetised using a specific fish anaesthetic, identified to species, measured and recorded, and once recovered, returned unharmed to the area from which they were captured.

The method of fishing involves the anode operator drawing stunned fish downstream to a net held against the current by an assistant. Captured fish are then transferred to a water-filled recovery container. The fishing team works its way across the survey section and upstream, thereby fishing thoroughly all the water in the chosen survey area.

To obtain fully quantitative information on the fish, primarily juvenile salmonid, populations within an area of interest, each survey site is fished through up to four times consecutively to allow the calculation of a more accurate estimate of the fish population present. A Zippin estimation5 of a fish population is a common calculation carried out using data derived from the depletion method of fishing (multiple run fishing). The result provides an estimate of the fish population density per 100 m2 of water, including the 95 % confidence limits (this information is presented in Table 4). When the calculation of a Zippin estimate of the population is not possible, a minimum estimate of the fish population is calculated for that section of river.

After the electrofishing exercise has been completed, a targeted and detailed SFCC habitat survey is completed of the actual fishing site. Details are provided in Section 5.1.3.

For this study, electrofishing was undertaken by a two SFCC accredited GFT staff at all survey sites.

It is GFT policy to disinfect all relevant equipment both prior to and following work in each river catchment, to ensure that there is no transfer of disease organisms.

3.3.1 Limitations of electrofishing surveys

The SFCC method of electrofishing was primarily developed to survey juvenile salmonids in relatively shallow running water. Non-salmonid fish species may be present and caught during these surveys but their populations may not be properly determined using this method of electrofishing. Any non-salmonid fish species are therefore counted and measured but no population estimate is made (see Table 4).

Electrofishing will never capture all the fish in a survey site so densities presented in this report are an estimate (either a minimum estimate, or where possible the calculation of a Zippin estimate, has been presented, see Section 5.1.2 and Table 4) of the juvenile salmonid population residing within the site. The absence of fish cannot be ascertained with certainty using electrofishing techniques so a density of zero does not always guarantee these fish are altogether absent from this section of watercourse.

A low density of fish can be assessed with electrofishing techniques however it is harder to fully assess the actual population density of the watercourse or the representative site. If there is a low and patchy distribution of fish it may be harder to draw conclusions from the data.

3.3.2 Electrofishing equipment

The location of the electrofishing survey sites selected for this study required the use of a mobile backpack electrofishing kit. The battery powered E-fish backpack electrofishing kit consists of an electronic controller unit with a linked cathode of braided copper (placed instream) and a linked, mobile, single anode, consisting of a pole-mounted stainless steel ring and trigger switch which is used instream to capture the fish.

Smooth direct current was used in all survey sites.

3.3.3 Age determination

5 Zippin, C. (1958), The Removal Method of Population Estimation Journal of Wildlife Management, 22. Pp 82-90

For this study the electrofishing survey concentrated on assessing the status of juvenile salmonid species, namely salmon (Salmo salar) and trout (Salmo trutta). In the majority of cases age determination can be made by assessment of the length of fish present. However, with older fish it is more difficult to clarify age classes. In these cases a small number of scale samples can be taken from fish, in addition to taking length assessments, to verify the ages of fish whose age cannot be determined with certainty from the length.

In this survey juvenile salmonids are differentiated into fry (age 0+) and parr (age 1++) age groups.

3.3.4 Non-salmonid fish species

At each survey site the presence of non-salmonid fish species is noted. Population densities for these species are not calculated (see Section 3.3.1).

3.3.5 Site measurement

At each survey site a total site length was recorded and average wet and dry widths calculated.

The average wet width is calculated from five or more individual widths recorded at equidistant intervals from the bottom of the site (0 m) to the top. At each site a final width is noted at the absolute upper limit of the surveyed water. From these site measurements the total area fished can be calculated.

3.3.6 Bankside/instream electrofishing site habitat assessment

At each electrofishing site a detailed habitat assessment using SFCC protocol (see Appendix 3) is made of the instream habitat available for older (parr (1++) aged) fish. This assessment grades the cover available to salmonids instream as none, poor, moderate, good or excellent. This grading provides an index of instream cover where diverse substrate compositions will score more favorably than areas of uniform substrate providing lower levels of cover.

In accordance with SFCC protocols, percentage estimates of depths, substrate type and flow type are made at each electrofishing site. Additionally, percentage estimates of the quantity of the bankside features undercut banks, draped vegetation, bare banks and marginal vegetation are made. For more detailed SFCC habitat survey methodology, see Appendix 3.

When reference to left or right bank is made, it is always left and right bank when facing downstream.

3.4 Survey areas and site selection

3.4.1 Habitat survey and electrofishing survey

The specific watercourses and areas to be surveyed within the site were agreed with MacArthur Green.

Approximately 5.5 km of watercourses on the site were covered in the targeted walkover habitat survey. This included sections of the Boyken Burn, Clackanna Sike, Trough Burn, Elid Beck and Yadlairs Sike.

Survey work was carried out between the 12th and 15th of September 2016 which is within the optimal time for surveying juvenile salmonid habitat.

4 | P a g e

Instream characteristics are described as one would carry out a survey (moving in an upstream direction). Banksides are always referenced in terms of right or left bank and identified as if one was looking in a downstream direction.

4 HABITAT SURVEY The habitat survey concentrated on the upper Boyken Burn catchment and major tributaries. The survey commenced on the Boyken Burn at grid reference 329418 588768 and was carried out in an upstream direction. All photographs are taken facing an upstream direction.

Habitat characteristics were collected during the walk over survey and are presented as a set of target notes. At each habitat characteristic or point of note a GPS reading was taken, a short description of the habitat was noted and a photograph taken of the location.

Appendix 1 presents the habitat characteristics as a set of target notes.

4.1 Survey limitations

The modified Hendry and Cragg-Hine habitat survey undertaken was a rapid assessment walkover survey in order to provide an overview of the fisheries habitat present and the quality in the watercourses within the site. The survey did not collect absolute measurements or detailed data such as individual flow combinations, flow juxtaposition with substrates, substrate mixes and depth ranges therefore this may make comparison with any future detailed surveys of the same stretches of watercourse more difficult.

4.2 Surveyed watercourses

4.2.1 Boyken Burn overview

The Boyken Burn held very high quality juvenile salmonid habitat. This watercourse is accessible to migratory fish from the main river and remains so, holding high quality mixed juvenile habitat throughout, up to a combination of two waterfalls at grid reference 328316 588286. These two waterfalls together totaled approximately 5 m in height and were almost vertical and they are classed as being inaccessible to migratory salmonids. Upstream of the waterfalls the instream habitats remained high quality albeit slightly narrower than those further downstream.

Throughout the surveyed area of the Boyken Burn, no large areas of spawning material were identified as a specific ‘spawning bed’. Pockets of good quality spawning material were noted when seen (see Appendix 1) however spawning is likely to take place throughout the surveyed area due to the vast majority of the watercourse holding suitable material for spawning. Pool and riffle sequences were observed throughout, but because the watercourse is on a smaller scale than these similar habitats in a larger watercourse or main river, the sequences were usually seen as glide and riffle.

Bankside habitats were generally high quality throughout and only one area of higher active erosion was noted (grid reference 329387 588779) and this appears to be natural and caused by the natural meander of the watercourse. The erosion was not actively inputting sediment to the watercourse at the time of survey as is likely only to do so on a small scale and in times of high water.

4.2.2 Elid Beck overview

Elid Beck joins the Trough Burn to form the Boyken Burn. Elid Beck is a narrow watercourse but, unusually for being located adjacent to a settlement, appears to have been left in its natural state (i.e. appears not to have been dredged, moved or straightened) and is therefore in good condition and contains good quality instream and bankside habitats. In general, the lower 2/3 of Elid Beck holds smaller sized substrates ideally suited to resident brown trout spawning and/or fry habitat. The upper Elid Beck appears to be suffering from high water events. These have caused the channel to become un-naturally deepened and much bankside erosion is evident. Layers of peat overlying a clay base have been eroded and chunks are visible as flood debris on banks further downstream. Instream habitats in this section however are still classed as being of moderate quality. Further upstream it was found that the main channel and outflow from the small loch to the north west of the site runs along a contour line to outflow into the Elid Beck at grid reference 327934 589189. It appears as though this outflow and the higher amount of water than would naturally be draining from the headwaters of Elid Beck, combined with the increasing gradient, may have caused this severe erosion.

4.2.3 Yadlairs Sike overview

The Yadlairs Sike joins the Elid Beck down a steep clay face. The channel of this watercourse appears to have been dug along the contour line and water from the small loch diverted away from the natural outflow, possibly in order to raise the level of the loch. The watercourse after it enters a thick forestry plantation holds no suitable fish habitat. It has a largely clay and/or peat base with only very few small substrates (gravel) present in places. The water level is uniformly low indicating that the channel has been dug artificially wider than the natural channel would be. Flows are generally shallow glide or shallow pool throughout. Once the burn exits the forest it runs under the track through a culvert to join the small loch. This watercourse is considered to have very poor habitat for fish and it is considered unlikely to support many.

4.2.4 Trough Burn overview

The Trough Burn joins the Elid Beck to form the Boyken Burn. The Trough Burn, like the lower 2/3 of the Elid Beck, appears to have been left in its natural state (i.e. has not been dredged, moved or straightened) with high quality instream habitats for fish, particularly fry and spawning resident brown trout. Although narrow the watercourse offers some small sections of deeper water up to 50 cm deep capable of holding some larger adult resident brown trout. Good quality mixed juvenile habitat is present until the watercourse flows through a hanging culvert under the track which is set on a slight slope making fish access through this difficult and potentially not possible. However upstream of the track the habitat is poorer quality, principally because the watercourse becomes increasingly narrower. Approximately 130 m of suitable fry habitat was evident upstream of the track.

4.2.5 Clackanna Sike overview

The Clackanna Sike is a narrow, steep tributary of the Boyken Burn. Almost immediately as Clackanna Sike enters the Boyken Burn at grid reference 328427 588293 there is a waterfall onto a bedrock slope (for photo see TN24, Appendix 1) that is considered to be impassable to migratory salmonids. Further upstream the burn enters a small narrow gorge and two further waterfalls are present. The burn continues up to the track and under a well-constructed bridge after which it holds some moderate quality instream habitats. In general the watercourse is very narrow and steep and does not provide an easy place for fish, other than perhaps eels, to live.

5 | P a g e

5 ELECTROFISHING SURVEY

5.1 Figures presented The results of the electrofishing survey are outlined in this section and presented in detail in Table 4, which provides information on the population densities of juvenile salmonids at each survey site. Ages of fish were determined from length frequency distributions. Site code, watercourse, site location, O.S. Grid reference, survey date, non-salmonid species and area fished (m2) are also shown in Table 4.

With regard to the juvenile salmonid age classes, these are separated into four categories, which are defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Salmonid age classifications referred to in this report

Salmon Fry (0+): refers to young fish less than one year old resulting from spawning at the end of 2015

Trout Fry (0+): refers to young fish less than one year old resulting from spawning at the end of 2015

Salmon Parr (1+ and older (1++)):

refers to young fish of greater than one year and greater than two years old (where present) from spawning in 2014 or previously

Trout Parr (1+ and older, (1++)):

refers to young fish of greater than one year and greater than two years old (where present) from spawning in 2014 or previously. Trout of up to three or four years old are also included in this category

Along with classifying salmonids into age brackets within the electrofishing results, juvenile salmonid numbers recorded have also been classified into several ‘density’ categories. A classification scheme for densities of salmonids was previously generated by the SFCC using data collected from 1,638 Scottish electrofishing survey sites covering the period 1997 to 2002 (Godfrey, 20056). From this, regional figures were created to allow more accurate local ‘density ranges’. The categories referred to in this report are based on quintile ranges for one-run electrofishing events in the Solway region (Solway Salmon Fishery Statistical Region) allowing densities of salmonids observed to be put into regional contexts.

Although the Border Esk does not lie within the Solway Salmon Fishery Statistical Region (the Esk is a cross-border catchment where no catch statistics are officially recorded by the Scottish Government), comparison to regional data helps give a local assessment and therefore a relative picture of the status of the fish populations found throughout the survey. 5.1.1 Survey limitations

The juvenile salmonid density classification scheme (Godfrey, 20056) is based solely on data from surveyed sites containing fish in 1997 to 2002 and refers to regional conditions at that time; it must only be used as a very relative guide and not be used to draw conclusions. Moreover, the figures for juvenile trout are less reliable for various reasons (e.g. some surveyed populations of trout are isolated; sea trout contributing to stock in some areas etc.) and so can only be used as a relative indication of numbers. Table 3 shows these quintile ranges for the Solway region.

6 Godfrey, J. D. (2005), Site Condition Monitoring of Atlantic Salmon SACs: Report by the SFCC to Scottish Natural Heritage, Contract F02AC608 http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/295194/0096508.pdf

Table 3: Quintile ranges for juvenile salmonids (per 100 m2 of water) based on one-run electrofishing events, calculated on densities >0 over 291 sites in the Solway Statistical Region

Salmon 0+ Salmon 1++ Trout 0+ Trout 1++ Minimum (Very Low) 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.35 20th Percentile (Low) 5.21 2.86 4.14 2.27 40th Percentile (Moderate) 12.68 5.87 12.09 4.71 60th Percentile (High) 25.28 9.12 26.63 8.25 80th Percentile (Very High) 46.53 15.03 56.49 16.28

Electrofishing and habitat information for all electrofishing survey sites surveyed is discussed in Section 5.1.3.

5.1.2 Electrofishing results (see Table 4 for tabulated results)

• Site EBB1 (Boyken Burn): Grid reference: 330218 588632 Salmon fry and parr were absent at this site. Trout fry were present in a very high density (89.4 ± 8.3 per 100 m2 of water and trout parr, in a very high density (>16.3 per 100 m2 of water). Two eels were also recorded.

• Site EBB2 (Boyken Burn): Grid reference: 329206 588552 Salmon fry and parr were absent at Site EBB2. Trout fry were present in a very high density (158.6 ± 21.2 per 100 m2 of water) alongside a very high density (17.9 ± 2.4 per 100 m2 of water) of trout parr. No non-salmonid fish species were recorded.

• Site EBB3 (Clackanna Sike): Grid reference: 328407 588242 Salmon fry and parr were absent at this site. Trout fry and parr were also absent. No non-salmonid fish species were recorded.

• Site EBB4 (Elid Beck): Grid reference: 327911 588401 Salmon fry and parr were absent at this site. Trout fry were recorded in a high density (27.6 ± 4 per 100 m2 of water), whereas trout parr were found to be absent. No non-salmonid species were recorded.

• Site 5 (Trough Burn): Grid reference: 327882 588291 Salmon fry and parr were absent at this site. Trout fry were present at a very low density (>2.8 per 100 m2 of water) and trout parr were recorded in a moderate density (>5.6 per 100 m2 of water). One eel was also recorded.

• Site 6 (Elid Beck): Grid reference: 327852 588970 Salmon fry and parr were absent at this site. Trout fry were found at a high density (50.1 ± 3.7 per 100 m2 of water) and trout parr were present in a low density (>4.6 per 100 m2 of water). Two eels were also recorded.

http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/295194/0096508.pdf

6 | P a g e

5.1.3 Electrofishing results discussion

• Site EBB1 Boyken Burn

Site EBB1 was situated on the Boyken Burn, adjacent to a derelict twin cottage.

Wetted width averaged 3.2 m in width with an area of 49.0 m2 being covered during the survey. Water depths were recorded up to 50 cm deep, with most water (80 %) being under 30 cm deep. Water flows were characterised by a mix of shallow glide, run and riffle (together 95 %), with a little deep glide also recorded. The majority of substrates were recorded as pebble and cobble (85 %), with some sand, gravel and boulders also present within the site creating a good mix of substrate sizes. Instream cover was recorded as a good standard. No instream vegetation was present to provide additional cover for fish however moderate levels of cover existed on both banksides in the form of undercut banks and draped bankside vegetation. No canopy cover existed at this site although some shade was present upstream from alder trees in the immediate riparian zone.

Figure 1: Site EBB1, looking upstream

Salmon fry and parr were absent in this site. Salmon are historically known to be present in the Boyken Burn however none were found at this site. Trout fry were present in a very high density (89.4 ± 8.3 fry per 100 m2

of water) and trout parr were also found in very high density (>16.3 per 100 m2 of water) indicating a very healthy stretch of water for trout. It is likely that sea trout contribute to the juvenile trout population at this site. Figure 2 shows two of the larger trout parr found captured from within the site. Two eels were also recorded within the site, one at 180 mm and one of 270 mm.

Figure 2: Two larger trout parr from site EBB1

• Site EBB2 Boyken Burn

Site EBB2 was located upstream of a pheasant feeding area where the burn lies close to the lower track to Boykenhopehead.

The channel of width averaged 2.6 m and an area of 45.6 m2 was surveyed. Flows within the site were characterised by a mix of shallow glide, run and riffle (together 75 %) with some deep glide and shallow marginal water also present. Depths ranged between 5 and 50 cm deep with most water lying between 20 and 40 cm deep (70 %). It was noted there was some steady gradient within the site which has created good quality juvenile salmonid habitat. A good range of substrate sizes were present within the site, with pebbles and cobbles comprising the majority (75 %). Boulders, gravel and a low percentage of sand were also recorded. Instream cover was recorded to be at as good standard and a low percentage of bankside cover was available for fish in the form of draped bankside vegetation and undercut banksides on both banks. No canopy cover shaded the site.


7 | P a g e

Juvenile salmon were absent from this site. Historically salmon have been found in the Boyken Burn. Trout fry were present in a very high density (158.6 ± 21.2 fry per 100 m2 of water) and trout parr were found at a very high density (>17.9 parr per 100 m2 of water). It was noted that at the time of survey that the instream habitat at this site provided very high quality nursery habitats for trout and this was reflected in the numbers of fish encountered. It is likely that sea trout contribute to the juvenile trout population at this site. No non-salmonid fish species were recorded.

Figure 4: Some of the trout recorded within site EBB2

• Site EBB3 Clackanna Sike

Site EBB3 was located on Clackanna Sike, upstream of the track to Boykenhopehead. Two waterfalls were present between the track and the Boyken Burn.

Wet width within the site averaged 0.7 m and the survey covered an area of 27.5 m2 of water. Flows within the site were dominated by run and riffle (75 %) with some shallow glide and torrential water also recorded. Depths lay between 20 and 40 cm deep. Cobbles and pebbles (85 %) dominated instream substrates and a lower percentage of boulders and gravel were also present. It was noted that there was high gradient throughout the site. Instream cover was recorded as a good standard and a moderate level of bankside cover was present in the form of draped vegetation and undercut banksides, particularly evident on the right bank. No canopy cover shaded the site.


Juvenile salmon and trout were absent from this site and no non-salmonids were recorded. Downstream of the track it was noted that two waterfalls were present: one at approximately 1 m in height; the other approximately 1.5 m in height. Both were deemed to be impassable to migratory salmonids but potentially passable to eels.

• Site EBB4 Elid Beck

Site EBB4 was located on Elid Beck, adjacent to the derelict house at Boykenhopehead.

Wetted width averaged 1.2 m and an area of 48.8 m2 was surveyed. Depths were recorded up to 40 cm deep with most water (80 %) lying between 20 and 40 cm deep. Flows with the site were characterised by a mix of run, riffle and shallow glide (together 90 %), with some deep glide also present. Pebbles dominated substrates (65 %) with some cobbles (10 %), gravel and sand also recorded. Instream cover was recorded as being of a moderate standard due to the general lack of larger substrates, however this created good quality brown trout spawning and nursery habitat. The level of bankside cover was very high along both banks, with 100 % of each bank providing draped bankside vegetation and a high percentage of undercut banksides. No canopy cover shaded the site.

8 | P a g e


Salmon were absent at this site. Two waterfalls in combination are present on the Boyken Burn downstream of Boykenhopehead (see TN28, Appendix 1) that are considered impassable to migratory salmonids. Trout fry were recorded in a high density (27.6 ± 4.0 per 100 m2 of water) and trout parr were absent. The trout here are resident brown trout, i.e. are not progeny from migratory sea trout. No non-salmonid fish species were recorded.

• Site EBB5 Trough Burn

Site EBB5 was located on Trough Burn upstream of Boykenhopehead. Wetted width averaged 0.9 m and an area of 35.9 m2 was surveyed. Depths were recorded up to 40 cm deep with 95 % of water between 20 and 40 cm deep. Flows within the site were characterised by smooth laminar flow, with deep glide, shallow glide (together 60 %) and run (30 %) dominating. Only 10 % of water was recorded as riffle. Substrates were predominantly small in size with only 20 % cobbles recorded and the reminder of substrates composed of pebbles and 5 % gravels. Instream cover was recorded as being of a good standard. Both banksides held 100 % fish cover in the form of draped bankside vegetation and a very high percentage of undercut banksides. A section of corrugated iron was observed on the left bank near the dry stone boundary wall for Boykenhopehead. No canopy cover shaded the site.


Similar to site EBB4, juvenile salmon were absent in this site. A waterfall combination is present on the Boyken Burn downstream of Boykenhopehead that is considered impassable to migratory salmonids (see TN28, Appendix 1). Trout fry were found in a very low density (>2.8 fry per 100 m2 of water) and trout parr were recorded in a moderate density (>5.6 parr per 100 m2 of water). These trout are resident brown trout and are not progeny of sea trout. One eel at 330 mm in length was also recorded which indicates the waterfall combination further downstream is passable to eels.

Figure 8: Trout fry and parr from site EBB5

9 | P a g e

Figure 9: The eel caught in site EBB5

• Site EBB6 Elid Beck

Site EBB6 was located on Elid Beck downstream of the track and downstream of the confluence of a tributary draining the north of the site.

Wetted width averaged 0.7 m and an area of 22.2 m2 was surveyed. Water depths were recorded up to 30 cm deep with most water lying between 0 and 20 cm deep (90 %). Flows were characterised by stretches of run and riffle (together 80 %) throughout and one section of glide was recorded mid-site. Substrates were predominantly pebbles (70 %) with some gravel (20 %) and cobbles also present. Instream habitat was of a moderate standard and offered good quality fry habitat. Bankside cover was very high and available in the form of draped bankside vegetation and undercut banks. No canopy cover shaded the site.


No juvenile salmon were recorded within site EBB6. Similar to sites EBB4 and EBB5, the waterfall combination present on the Boyken Burn downstream of Boykenhopehead is considered impassable to migratory salmonids

(see TN28, Appendix 1). Trout fry were recorded in a high density (50.1 ± 3.7 per 100 m2 of water) alongside a low density of trout parr (>4.5 per 100 m2 of water). The trout found here are resident brown trout and not progeny of sea trout. Two eels, both of 220 mm in length were also recorded reinforcing that eels are able to migrate upstream of the waterfalls.

Figure 11: Trout fry from site EBB6

19 | P a g e

Table 4: Results from baseline electrofishing survey for the proposed development, 2016

Site Code

Watercourse Site Location Grid Ref

Survey Date

Presence Of Other Species

Area Fished

(m²)

Density per 100 m² *

Salmon Fry (0+)

Salmon Parr

(1+ and older)

Trout Fry (0+)

Trout Parr

(1+ and older)

EBB1 Border Esk, Boyken Burn

Adjacent to old cottage, down track near washed away bridge

330218 588632

12/09/2016 Eel x 2 49.0 0 0 89.4 ± 8.3

>16.3

EBB2 Border Esk, Boyken Burn

Upstream of pheasant feeding area, where burn is close to track

329206 588552

12/09/2016 None 45.6 0 0 158.6 ± 21.2

17.9 ± 2.4

EBB3 Border Esk, Boyken Burn, Clackanna Sike

Upstream lower road bridge and upstream two waterfalls

328407 588242

13/09/2016 None 27.5 0 0 0 0

EBB4 Border Esk, Boyken Burn, Elid Beck

Adjacent to old house at Boykenhopehead

327911 588401

13/09/2016 None 48.8 0 0 27.6 ± 4.0

0

EBB5 Border Esk, Boyken Burn, Trough Burn

Upstream of ford near Boykenhopehead

327882 588291

15/09/2016 Eel x 1 35.9 0 0 >2.8 >5.6

EBB6 Border Esk, Boyken Burn, Elid Beck

Downstream of track and confluence

327852 588970

15/09/2016 Eel x 2 22.2 0 0 50.1 ± 3.7

>4.5

* Where a Zippin (1958) calculation could be carried out, 95% confidence limits are shown. Where only the number appears, a Zippin estimation could not be carried out. In these cases the number represents a minimum estimate of fish density per 100 m2.

18 | P a g e

Appendix 1 – Habitat survey target notes (TN) TN no.

Watercourse, habitat characteristic, comments Photograph

TN1 (NY) 329418 588768 - Boyken Burn – watergate, no debris present, passable

TN2 (NY) 329411 588774 – Boyken Burn – 10 m of parr

habitat, 2 to 3 m wide

TN3 (NY) 329387 588779 – Boyken Burn – Erosion scar on

left bank. Active but not inputting sediment to watercourse at time of survey

TN4 (NY) 329375 588755 – Boyken Burn – Fry habitat

extending into mixed juvenile habitat

TN5 (NY) 329359 588735 – Boyken Burn – Mixed juvenile

habitat adjacent to small inflowing tributary on the left bank

TN6 (NY) 329308 588661 – Boyken Burn – 50 m stretch of 3 m wide parr habitat

TN7 (NY) 329214 588602 – Boyken Burn – Small stepped

4 m long parr habitat and cascade with slight flow constriction. Passable

TN8 (NY) 329183 588544 – Boyken Burn – Braided

channel, small island approximately 15 m long. Juvenile habitat present in both channels

TN9 (NY) 329157 588530 – Boyken Burn – 20 m stretch of

4 to 5 m wide fry habitat

TN10 (NY) 329149 588507 – Boyken Burn – 5 m long

braided channel with a 1 m long area of flow constriction. Passable

TN11 (NY) 329117 588491 – Boyken Burn – Small

waterfall/cascade and flow constriction (passable) extending into 20 m of stepped parr habitat

19 | P a g e

TN12 (NY) 329042 588462 – Boyken Burn – Small tributary enters watercourse

TN13 (NY) 328942 588434 – Boyken Burn – Small 4 m long

cascade (passable) moving into an 8 m long section which would form a braided channel in high water. Spawning noted throughout this area in small pockets

TN14 (NY) 328884 588439 – Boyken Burn – small area of

flow constriction with stepped gradient. Passable

TN15 (NY) 328796 588419 – Boyken Burn – 20 m of 3 m

wide stepped parr habitat

TN16 (NY) 328731 588433 – Boyken Burn – 60 cm high

obstruction and 1 m deep pool. 15 m upstream of this is a further small obstruction approximately 0.5 m high with a 70 cm deep pool. Passable

TN17 (NY) 328706 588432 – Boyken Burn – Auchenbeg Sike enters the Boyken Burn on the left bank. Accessible to fish in its lower reaches (Auchenbeg Sike was not surveyed)

TN18 (NY) 328666 588417 – Boyken Burn – Adult holding

water present - 5 m long shallow glide/pool, 50 cm deep


stretch of 3 m wide stepped parr habitat

TN20 (NY) 328531 588363 – Boyken Burn - 5 m long flow

constriction with 40 cm deep pool below. Passable

TN21 (NY) 328486 588353 – Boyken Burn – 6 m2 of

potential spawning gravels

20 | P a g e

TN22 (NY) 328466 588331 – 5 m2 of spawning gravels at the tail of a small pool

TN23 (NY) 328451 588303 – Two small waterfalls together

approximately 1 m high. Deemed passable under surveyed flows. Potentially a problem under higher flows because of flow constriction through narrow bedrock gap

TN24 (NY) 328427 588293 – Boyken Burn – Clackanna Sike

enters the Boyken Burn from the right bank


stretch of stepped parr habitat


3 to 4 m wide stepped parr habitat

TN27 (NY) 328332 588283 – Boyken Burn – Two small obstructions, one 80 cm high, one 70 cm high, leading up to waterfall. Passable

TN28 (NY) 328316 588286 – Boyken Burn – Sequence of

two waterfalls causing obstructions to migratory salmonid migration. Lower waterfall approximately 2.5 m high, upper waterfall approximately 3.5 m high. Both vertical. Impassable to upstream migrating salmonids

TN29 (NY) 328294 588310 – Boyken Burn – Parr habitat.

Flood marks evident in bankside vegetation

TN30 (NY) 328255 588317 – Boyken Burn – Long stretch of

glide and riffle sequences, approximately 1.5 m wide

TN31 (NY) 328204 588331 – Boyken Burn – 80 cm deep

pool. Parr seen. Adult holding water although little cover present

21 | P a g e

TN32 (NY) 328089 588369 – Boyken Burn – 20 m stretch of glide habitat

TN33 (NY) 328066 588372 – Boyken Burn – 8 m2 of

spawning habitat present


3.5 m wide fry habitat, with 10 m2 spawning material present

TN35 (NY) 327943 588339 – Elid Beck – 1 m wide mixed

juvenile habitat at start of survey where it joins with Trough Burn to form the Boyken Burn (see TN56)

TN36 (NY) 327923 588350 – Elid Beck – Small 40 cm pool

on corner with eroding bank. Culvert (visible in photo) present under road transporting very little flow to Elid Beck

TN37 (NY) 327911 588391 – Elid Beck – Small obstruction in the form of a block of turf. Passable underneath

TN38 (NY) 327910 588396 – Elid Beck – 4 m2 of spawning

material present

TN39 (NY) 379909 588417 – Elid Beck – Broken, grassed-

over crate instream causing partial obstruction to fish passage. Passable underneath and around in higher flows


material present in tail of glide

41TN (NY) 327906 588456 – Elid Beck – Ford across Elid

Beck. Good quality juvenile habitats in this stretch along with glides and pockets of spawning material

22 | P a g e

TN42 (NY) 327878 588551 – Elid Beck – riffle and glide sequences, mixed juvenile habitat, high levels of bankside cover for parr. Pockets of spawning material throughout


material punctuated by a small 30 cm deep pool

TN44 (NY) 327855 588802 – Elid Beck – Sequence of three

0.4 m high stepped obstructions. Passable. Upstream of here the watercourse narrows to between 0.3 and 0.5 m wide


at tails of two glides. Mixed juvenile habitat throughout

TN46 (NY) 327858 589039 – Elid Beck – Small peat falls throughout this stretch of glide and mixed juvenile habitat. Peat has been transported here from erosion further upstream. Clumps of peat evident on banks on flood plain

TN47 (NY) 327882 589101 – Elid Beck – Mixed juvenile

habitat for 100 m stretch up to 327909 589155

TN48 (NY) 327895 589126 – Elid Beck – Eroding face and

deeply cut channel

TN49 (NY) 327913 589167 – Elid Beck – Eroding clay and

peat. Peat approximately 1 m deep. Large blocks of peat in the watercourse. Channel approximately 4 m wide

TN50 (NY) 327932 589187 – Elid Beck – Juvenile habitat

present with collapsed peat and turf in the watercourse

23 | P a g e

TN51 (NY) 327938 589212 – Elid Beck – Splits into two channels and takes a 90 ˚ turn to the west, over a clay/bedrock face and at (NY) 327934 589189 becomes Yadlairs Sike

TN52 (NY) 327931 589218 – Yadlairs Sike – channel 0.6 to

1 m wide with clay base. Glide habitat present

TN53 (NY) 327922 589216 – Yadlairs Sike – channel 1 to

1.5 m wide, clay base with some gravel on top in places, shallow glide habitat. Watercourse heads into mature forestry plantation

TN54 (NY) 327847 589188 – Yadlairs Sike – channel 1 m

wide, almost full clay base. Very poor instream habitat quality

TN55 (NY) 327660 589137- Yadlairs Sike – Concrete blocks

present instream providing some variation in instream habitats. Culvert under track that leads to small loch on the upstream side of the track

TN56 (NY) 327935 58833 – Trough Burn – Trough Burn joins with Elid Beck to form the Boyken Burn. Mixed juvenile habitat present in Trough Burn

TN57 (NY) 327910 588315 – Trough Burn – a few wooden

mossy planks buried into the bed of the burn, possibly present to try and prevent erosion and keep the bed stable

TN58 (NY) 327861 588295 – Trough Burn – Short piece of

corrugated iron likely installed in order to protect dry stone dyke from erosion/collapse. Mixed juvenile habitat and pockets of spawning material present

TN59 (NY) 327845 588283 – Trough Burn – Narrow tributary

enters from the left bank. Accessible to fish in the lower reaches. Mixed juvenile habitat in Trough Burn

TN60 (NY) 327840 588279 – Trough Burn – 1 m2 of

spawning material present at tail of short glide

24 | P a g e

TN61 (NY) 327794 588247 – Trough Burn – Glide and riffle habitat. Some glides up to 50 cm deep providing adult habitat

TN62 (NY) 327649588144 – Trough Burn – watercourse

narrows to between 0.3 and 0.5 m wide and becomes more meandering. Some area of clay base visible

TN63 (NY) 327606 588119 – Trough Burn – Mixed juvenile

habitat punctuated with glide habitat of between 0.5 and 0.7 m wide

TN64 (NY) 327564 588038 – Trough Burn – Combinations

of glide and fry habitat approximately 0.3 to 0.5 m wide

TN65 (NY) 327532 587971 – Trough Burn – 10 m stretch of stepped parr habitat, 0.3 m wide

TN66 (NY) 327474 587851 – Trough Burn – 20 m stretch of

narrow fry habitat

TN67 (NY) 327465 587832 – Trough Burn – Hanging culvert

present under track which is set on a slope. Not easy for fish passage

19 | P a g e

Appendix 2: SFCC Electrofishing methodology

• Personnel

As a standard, the SFCC protocol states that a minimum of three people are required for generator powered electrofishing operations for Health and Safety reasons.

• Semi and Fully-Quantitative surveys

Semi-quantitative electrofishing surveys allow population estimates with a low precision to be made. The simplest form of a semi-quantitative survey is a single run electrofishing survey, where the numbers of fish caught give a minimum estimate of the fish population density within the site, presented as fish per 100 m2. This method is used to evaluate broad differences in fish populations where exact numbers are not required.

If a more accurate estimate of fish population density is to be made then fully-quantitative electrofishing surveys must be undertaken by depletion sampling. Here, an estimate of fish population is made by collecting fish from a series of electrofishing runs performed at the same site. The number of runs undertaken depends on the proportion of fish caught during each run (to limit runs to two; there must be a good depletion in fish caught between run one and run two). Under the SFCC protocol, surveyors have the opportunity to perform up to four electrofishing runs per site and an accurate population estimate will require that at least 30% of the fish within the site are caught during each run. Confidence limits for a given population estimate can be derived from this method.

• Methodology

Site selection is carried out prior to undertaking the electrofishing survey. The specific location of the survey site is assessed by surveyors whilst on site as there may be features within the river environment that naturally delineate the specific area to be surveyed. In cases where stop nets are not in use; a site is selected where a natural barrier forms the upstream end of the site (this is usually a set of falls or area where fish are likely to be deterred from easily passing upstream of).

Once the site has been selected, the electrofishing team will set up the equipment and begin fishing. As fish are attracted to the anode, they are swiftly removed from the vicinity of the electrofishing ring by the hand net operator and placed in a bucket of water. As the team moves through the site, in an upstream direction, any fish captured are placed in the bucket. When the upstream end is reached, the fishing run ends and the fish are kept in a clearly marked bucket for further processing. The water in the bucket is replenished to reduce stress due to de-oxygenation of the water. The bucket is placed in a shaded area to prevent temperature stress.

Before processing of the fish can begin, they are transferred into a bucket of anaesthetic, where they remain until no longer exhibiting signs of movement. They are then placed upon a wet measuring board and measured. Fork length measurements (the distance from the snout of the fish to the fork in its tail) are used as a standard way of measuring the fish. Scale samples may also be taken at this time, by using either a pair of tweezers or a sharp knife to remove scales from a specific area on the fish. This is generally only suitable for large fry or parr. Using fish measurement alone, it is usually possible to clearly identify fry (0+) aged fish from parr (1+) aged fish due to a distinctive gap in fish found between the two age classes. Where this gap is not distinctive, it may be necessary to take a scale sample to determine with use of a microscope, the age class of the fish. Reading of scale samples is also useful if parr are to be individually aged (1+, 2+, 3+ etc.). Once the fish have been processed, they are placed in a bucket of fresh water to recover. Once processing has been fully completed, the fish are released back into the river.

A habitat survey for the electrofishing site is also recorded using SFCC protocol. Photographs of the site may be taken to allow the exact area of river to be identified in future surveys.

• Introduction

The Scottish Fisheries Co-ordination Centre (SFCC) developed a general habitat survey method that addresses the needs of fisheries managers and researchers. It was specially developed to assess habitat for juvenile salmon and trout and not used to evaluate habitat for other fish species.

Although a full SFCC habitat survey (which involves surveying the whole river and its tributaries) was not undertaken, smaller but detailed general habitat surveys were undertaken at each electrofishing site.

The survey methodology takes into account many recording requirements and information gathered about river stretches using SFCC fish habitat survey protocol can be used by trained interpreters and within reason to:

Evaluate quality of habitat for juvenile salmonids Identify the potential location of salmonid spawning gravels Identify stream stretches that would benefit from habitat improvements Target areas for stocking Identify and classify point pollution sources Identify and grade obstacles to fish migration Identify location and type of past channel/bank modifications

Juvenile salmonids have specific habitat requirements. For example, water quality, shelter, feeding territory and availability of food. Table 3.1 describes some basic habitat requirements for different life stages of salmon and trout. The precise habitat requirements for each species and life stage are extremely complex, and have therefore been simplified here.

Table A: Age class habitat requirements of salmonids

Life stage Salmon Trout Eggs/alevins Golf ball to tennis ball

sized substrate Dependent on fish size: Golf ball to tennis ball sized substrate for large brown trout and sea trout, pea to golf ball sized material for smaller trout

Fry Golf ball to tennis ball sized substrate, fast flowing, shallow broken water

Golf ball to tennis ball sized substrate, slow to medium flowing shallow water, often concentrated at stream margins

Parr Tennis ball to football sized substrate, fast flowing broken water, often slightly deeper than fry

Variety of substrate, undercut banks, tree roots, big rocks, deeper slower water

Smolts Unknown Unknown. Adults Deep pools Deeper areas, sustained flow but not

too fast, undercut banks, tree roots, good instream vegetation and large rocks

20 | P a g e

• Data recording

During the electrofishing survey, habitat survey data is collected on the following to obtain a full review of the suitability of fish habitat along a river system:

Water depth Water flow type Instream characteristics Bankside characteristics Riparian vegetation Surrounding land use

Information may also be collected on potential causes of unsuitable habitat, particularly with a view to taking action against further degradation. Characteristics are collected such as:

Bankside fencing and grazing Bankside erosion and collapse Pollution sources

Appendix 3 - SFCC General Habitat Survey

• Method

The habitat survey is undertaken after electrofishing the site has been completed.

• General definitions

o Instream cover

At each site a subjective assessment was made of the instream habitat available for older (parr-aged) fish. This assessment graded instream cover present as none, poor, moderate, good or excellent.

None - No cover; stream bed composed entirely of fine uniform particles (e.g. silt, sand, gravel, pebbles) or continuous hard surfaces (bedrock, concrete).

Poor - Little cover; stream bed composed predominantly of fine to medium particles (e.g. gravel, pebbles and cobbles), little or no cover from aquatic vegetation.

Moderate – Moderate cover; stream bed composed of a mix of substrate sizes (e.g. gravel to boulders) and/or with some areas of Good cover (e.g. pebbles, cobbles, boulders), which may or may not have some aquatic vegetation cover.

Good – Good cover; stream bed composed predominantly of medium to large size substrate (e.g. pebbles, cobbles, boulders) and/or with some aquatic vegetation cover.

Excellent - Excellent cover; stream bed composed predominantly of large size substrate (e.g. cobbles and boulders) and/or with extensive aquatic vegetation cover.

o Site area

The site length is taken along with wetted width, bed width and bank width at a representative number of points within the site. This gives a value for the area fished in order to calculate the Zippin (1958) estimate (number of fish per 100 m2).

o Water depths

The survey stretch wetted area is recorded as percentage depths in six categories:

<10 cm 11-20 cm 21-30 cm 31-40 cm 41-50 cm >50 cm

21 | P a g e

o Substrates

In each survey stretch the percentages of each substrate type is recorded. Substrate is always recorded from the point of view of fish cover.

High organic - Very fine organic matter Silt - Fine, sticky, mostly inorganic material Sand - Fine, inorganic particles, <=2 mm diameter Gravel - Inorganic particles 2-16 mm diameter Pebble - Inorganic particles 16-64 mm diameter Cobble - Inorganic particles 64-256 mm diameter Boulder - Inorganic particles > 256 mm diameter Bedrock - Continuous rock surface Obscured - Something obscuring substrates that cannot physically be moved

o Flows

Flow percentages of the survey stretch wetted are recorded.

Table B: Flow percentages and descriptions

Flow type Description Still marginal <10 cm deep, still or eddying Deep pool >=30 cm deep, water slow flowing, smooth surface appearance Shallow pool <30 cm deep, water slow flowing, smooth surface appearance Deep glide >=30 cm deep, water flow moderate/fast smooth surface appearance Shallow glide <30 cm deep, water flow moderate/fast, smooth surface appearance Run Water flow fast, unbroken standing waves at surface, water flow

silent Riffle Water flow fast, broken standing waves at surface, water flow

audible Torrent White water, chaotic and turbulent flow, noisy and difficult to

distinguish substrates

o Bankside cover

For each bank the percentage of bank length creating physical cover for fish in the site is recorded under the following categories:

Undercut – Fish cover provided by undercut banks

Draped – Fish cover provided by vegetation rooted on the river bank and draping on to the water surface

Bare – No cover for fish, or fish cannot get to the cover due to lack of water

Marginal – Fish cover provided by plants rooted in the stream bed (includes tree roots). Fully aquatic vegetation is excluded from this category

o Bank face vegetation

For each bank the predominant vegetation structure on each bank face. Vegetation must be rooted on the bank face and/or overhanging the bank face. Information is characterised in the following categories:

Bare – Predominantly bare ground (or buildings/concrete), <50% vegetation cover

Uniform – Predominantly one vegetation type, but lacking scrub or trees

Simple – predominantly 2-3 vegetation types, with or without scrub or trees, but including tall and short herbs (e.g. nettles and grasses)

Complex – Four or more vegetation types which must include scrub or trees.

Vegetation type does not refer to which species of plant are present. Reference is made primarily to structural complexity (e.g. short grasses versus long grasses/nettles versus taller trees).

o Overhanging boughs

For each bank the percentage of bank length is recorded where there are branches from trees and shrubs rooted in the riparian zone overhanging the site.

o Canopy cover

The percentage of the site (wetted area) which is covered by overhanging branches is estimated.




Technical Appendix 5.6: Species Protection Plan

Hopsrig Wind Farm: Species Protection Plan

Hopsrig Wind Farm

Species Protection Plan


Prepared by: Ashleigh Wylie Authorised by: Brian Henry, MCIEEM Date: 17th October 2016 Tel: 0141 342 5404 Email: [email protected] Web: www.macarthurgreen.com Address: 95 South Woodside Road | Glasgow | G20 6NT

Document Quality Record. Version Status Person Responsible Date 1 Draft Ashleigh Wylie 10/10/2016

2 Reviewed Brian Henry 17/10/2016

3 Updated Ashleigh Wylie 17/10/2016




1 | P a g e

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Background Information ............................................................................................................................ 1

3 Aims & Objectives of the Species Protection Plan ..................................................................................... 2

4 Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................................... 2

4.1 Role of the Ecological Clerks of Works ............................................................................................... 2

5 The Potential Impacts of the Proposed Development ............................................................................... 2

6 Procedures for Protecting Protected Species ............................................................................................ 3

6.1 Objective A – Monitoring and Protection Plan .................................................................................. 3

6.1.1 Monitoring Plan .......................................................................................................................... 3

6.1.2 Protection Plan ........................................................................................................................... 3

6.2 Objective B – Procedure if Active Feature is Found ........................................................................... 4

6.2.1 Procedure if previously unrecorded active feature or protected species found in advance of construction activity .............................................................................................................................. 4

6.2.2 Procedure if previously unrecorded protected feature or species found during construction ............................................................................................................................................... 4

6.3 Objective C – Education and Awareness ............................................................................................ 5

References, Relevant Legislation and Guidance ................................................................................................ 5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1: SPP Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................... 2 Table 6-1: Level of Protection and Recommended Disturbance Free Zones ..................................................... 3

1 INTRODUCTION MacArthur Green has prepared this Species Protection Plan (SPP) on behalf of the Applicant to ensure all reasonable protection measures are undertaken with regard to protected species on the proposed Hopsrig Wind Farm (referred to as ‘the proposed development’). The SPP is to be implemented during the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed development.

In summary, the SPP has been produced to ensure the adequate preservation of protected species interests into all construction and decommissioning activities within the site to safeguard the resident populations and ensure compliance with the relevant nature conservation legislation (see Annex 1).

The SPP will be a live document subject to review and updating, and will assist staff in the protection of species during construction and decommission, under the guidance of the Ecological Clerks of Works (ECoW).

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Baseline protected species surveys as part of the EIA process were undertaken in October 2015 (refer to Environmental Statement, Technical Appendix 5.2). The SPP is designed to reflect the results of the surveys and the distinct ecology and distributions of protected species within the site.

Surveys confirmed the presence of badger (Meles meles), otter (Lutra lutra) and squirrel in the site. There was no evidence of water vole (Arvicola amphibius) or pine marten (Martes martes) recorded during the surveys.

Five bat species, namely common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Nyctalus species, Myotis species, and brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus) were recorded within the site (refer to Environmental Statement, Technical Appendix 5.4). The forest edge to the north of the site was identified as being repeatedly used by pipistrelle species for foraging and commuting. The surveys confirmed low levels of activity for high, medium and low risk species.

Two buildings, Calkin and Boykenhopehead house, are present within the site. Both buildings were assessed to be of moderate roost potential, in line with the assessment criteria outlined in Hundt (2012). As both buildings were located more than 200 m from the nearest proposed turbine location further surveys to determine the presence of bats were not required.

No signs of otter were recorded within the site during the protected species surveys. An incidental record of an otter hunting in and out of rabbit burrows along the Boyken Crags outwith the site boundary was recorded on the 4th May 2016 during an ornithology survey. The watercourses present within the site offer suitable habitat for supporting otter. The Boyken Burn offers suitable foraging habitat with suitability for supporting fish. Suitable sheltering opportunities exist along many of the watercourses in the form of bankside trees, scrub and bracken stands. It is likely that otter will use the watercourses for commuting given the close proximity of the larger River Esk which is known to support the species. No confirmed holts or couches were recorded during the surveys.

Evidence of squirrel was recorded within blocks of woodland to the east of the site in the form of stripped cones. An incidental record of a stripped cone was also recorded in a forestry ride to the north of the site during an ornithology survey undertaken in June 2015. It is not possible to determine species of squirrel, red or grey, from this field sign alone. In 2009, the forestry present 2 km north of the site was proposed to be managed as a red


2 | P a g e

squirrel stronghold (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2010). The site is also located within an area that has been prioritised for grey squirrel control. No dreys were recorded during the surveys.

Evidence of badger was recorded within the site, although no confirmed setts were located. A full outline of the badger activity recorded within the site can be seen in the Confidential Badger Report, Technical Appendix 5.3. The site offers suitable habitat for badger, with the predominant commercial forestry cover offering good commuting habitat and opportunities for sett building. There are also areas of moorland present, with areas of bracken coverage which would offer good opportunities for building a sett. There are a number of habitats within the wider vicinity of the site which offer good habitat for supporting badger, including the broadleaved woodland and farmland to the east.

There was no evidence of water vole recorded during the surveys. Some suitable habitat exists within the site, with a number of the minor watercourses being bordered by suitable food source vegetation and having suitable banks for burrowing.

No evidence of pine marten was recorded within the site. The mature commercial forestry has the potential to support pine marten as they are known to exploit old coniferous plantation to create dens, access prey and gain protection from predators (Caryl, 2008). Although fragmented, there are a large number of forestry blocks present around the site and wider area, with many extending to the north east where historic records of pine marten exist (see Environmental Statement, Technical Appendix 5.2).

Sightings of common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) were recorded during ornithological surveys undertaken in June 2015 in two different locations within the site. Features with the potential for utilisation for either basking or hibernacula were recorded, including stone ruins and walls.

3 AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF THE SPECIES PROTECTION PLAN The Aim of the SPP is to ensure all reasonable precautions are taken by the Applicant and their contractors to safeguard protected species from disturbance, injury and death and to protect any structure or place, which any such protected species uses for growth, breeding, resting, shelter or protection during the construction and decommissioning of the proposed development.

The Aim of the SPP will be fulfilled by the Applicant adopting the following objectives throughout the construction and decommissioning of the proposed development:

a) Objective A - Implement a monitoring and protection plan for protected species;

b) Objective B – Follow an approved procedure if an active protected species feature is found; and

c) Objective C – Ensure adequate education and awareness of site personnel.

Objective A addresses the monitoring procedure to be followed to ensure that the Aim of this SPP is achieved. Objective B covers the detailed procedure in the event of a protected species feature being discovered. Objective C addresses the educational needs of appropriate personnel on the site to further reduce the risk of an offence being committed. The procedures to be adopted that will fulfil these objectives are detailed in Section 6.

4 RESPONSIBILITIES The overall responsibility for ensuring that the planning conditions and the conditions of any licence granted are adhered to, in particular those conditions relating to protected species, will lie with the Applicant. The personnel responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the SPP are detailed in Table 4-1 below.

4.1 Role of the Ecological Clerks of Works The ECoW will have the specific remit of monitoring compliance with the SPP during the construction and decommissioning phases and reporting any breaches to the Applicant’s Construction Project Management Team. The ECoW’s role shall involve direct monitoring of all activities in the site to the extent the ECoW considers this to be required, and/or training of nominated personnel to carry these out in a manner likely to minimise the potential for impact on the protected species. The ECoW will also agree changes to construction operations to prevent breaches of the SPP.

Table 4-1: SPP Responsibilities

Task Responsibility

Implementation of the SPP The Applicant’s Construction Project Management Team

Monitoring and review of the SPP Ecological Clerks of Works Regular site monitoring for protected species and associated protected features for: otter, bats, pine marten, reptiles, badger, water vole and red squirrel

Ecological Clerks of Works or a suitably qualified ecological surveyor

On-going watching brief for the above All site personnel

5 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Impacts on protected species can result from the physical effects of construction such as soil stripping, road laying, turbine foundation construction and noise disturbance. These operations can negatively affect protected species in a number of ways including:

i. Abandonment of a holt/burrow/roost/den/sett/pond etc. due to disturbance;

ii. Abandonment of dependant young due to disturbance;

iii. Damage to or destruction of a protected feature or species;

iv. Damage to navigation/commuting routes (i.e. ditches, burns, fence lines etc.);

v. Fragmentation of territories;

vi. Damage to foraging areas (e.g. areas containing amphibians or fish in the case of otter);

vii. Contamination of water;

viii. Disturbance to a protected species that results in behaviour that negatively impacts their life stage; and

ix. Accidental injury or death to species by machinery, tools or vehicles.


3 | P a g e

6 PROCEDURES FOR PROTECTING PROTECTED SPECIES This section details the procedures to be followed to ensure all reasonable precautions have been adopted to protect species from disturbance, injury and death and to protect any structure or place that any such species uses for growth, breeding, resting, shelter or protection.

The level of disturbance free zones for each species is shown on Table 6-1 below. If other protected species are identified suitable buffer zones will be advised by the ECoW and agreed in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).

Table 6-1: Level of Protection and Recommended Disturbance Free Zones

Species Feature Level of Protection Disturbance Free Zone Otter (holts, etc.) European 30/200 metres1 Bat (roost) European 30/200 metres2 Badger (sett) National 30/100 metres3 Water vole (burrow) National 5-10 metres4 Red squirrel (drey) National 50 metres Pine marten (den) National 30 metres Reptiles (hibernacula) National n/a5

6.1 Objective A – Monitoring and Protection Plan

6.1.1 Monitoring Plan It will be the duty of the ECoW to check the status of the protected species and associated protected features immediately prior to construction activity progressing across the site and to continue spot checks during construction for any new protected species features in the vicinity of the construction works.

Arrangements for pre-construction ecological monitoring will be conducted within 6 months of construction commencement.

Guidelines detailing the monitoring of protected species and associated protected features by the ECoW or suitably qualified ecological surveyor are described below:

Potential Features

a) European Protected Species – fauna (otters and bats):

1 The disturbance zone will be 30 metres unless a breeding/natal holt is identified, in such an instance the disturbance zone will be increased to 200 metres. 2 The disturbance zone will be 30 metres, however turbines must be positioned 200 metres from potential roost habitats (Natural England, 2014). 3 Disturbance is defined by Scottish Natural Heritage as any new procedure that approaches within a minimum of 30 metres of a sett margin. For piling or blasting activities, this buffer zone is extended to 100 metres. 4 Dependant on burrow location and bank profile. 5 Due to the more limited nature of their protection and their ability to avoid machinery etc. during their active phase, no specified disturbance zone for reptiles is given; however, if hibernacula is discovered, an appropriate disturbance exclusion zone will be demarcated.

Further checks of the potential features will be completed during construction and all potential protection features will be clearly demarcated.

i. If the potential protection feature remains unoccupied, construction may occur in the area, but not damaging the potential feature under close supervision by the ECoW; or

ii. If the status of the feature changes to occupied then the under-noted procedure for occupied sites will be followed. The ECoW will be responsible for this survey work as required.

b) Nationally Protected Species (badger, water vole, red squirrel, pine marten, and reptiles)

Surveys of the potential features will be completed during construction and all sites will be clearly demarcated:

i. If the status remains as unoccupied, construction may occur in the area, but not damaging the existing feature, under close supervision by the ECoW; or

ii. If the status of the feature changes to occupied then the under-noted procedure for occupied features will be followed.

Occupied Features and Habitats of Importance

a) European Protected Species - fauna (otters and bats)

Where an occupied feature exists within the site disturbance free zone, and the infrastructure cannot be microsited away:

i. A licence to disturb will be applied for to Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH); or

ii. A licence to damage or destroy will be applied for to SNH if there are no reasonable alternatives.

b) National Protected Species (badger, water vole, red squirrel, pine marten, and reptiles)

i. Where an active badger sett exists within the site or disturbance zone, and the infrastructure cannot be microsited away, it may be necessary to undertake a relocation exercise. This is a licensed activity which will require prior authorisation from SNH. Guidance for this process has been produced by SNH, who should be consulted throughout.

ii. Where a water vole burrow, red squirrel drey or pine marten den exists within the site or disturbance zone, and the infrastructure cannot be microsited away, the Applicant will discuss any licensing requirements and appropriate mitigation with SNH.

iii. Where reptiles are found to be occupying any infrastructure during their hibernacula period and the infrastructure cannot be microsited away, the Applicant will discuss appropriate mitigation with SNH. Reptiles are capable of actively avoiding disturbances during their active phase.

6.1.2 Protection Plan All Mammals

In addition to the mitigation measures detailed above, further steps should be implemented to reduce general disturbance from the proposed development:


4 | P a g e

i. Covering/securing all excavators and piping. If this is not possible then a means of escape must be provided for any animal that could fall in e.g. a ramp with a gradient of 45° or shallower;

ii. Any temporarily exposed open pipe system should be capped in such a way as to prevent mammals gaining access, as may happen when contractors are off-site. If such pipes are left from an extended time, periodic checks will be carried out to ensure that the pipe is inaccessible to animals;

iii. All excavations will be checked at the start of works and prior to the commencement of any works activities to ensure otters, badgers and pine marten are not present or have become trapped overnight. A responsible individual will be tasked with carrying out these checks. Documentary evidence will be completed for each check;

iv. Night time working will be minimised to reduce disturbance to nocturnal and crepuscular fauna. Where this is not possible, security lighting used in the proposed development compound and those areas where lighting is absolutely necessary to ensure safe working conditions will be angled downward to reduce light spill into adjacent areas. Lighting outwith the proposed development compound will be switched off when no works are being undertaken. Other required lighting will be directed to where it is needed and away from features (including setts, tree lines, watercourses/riparian habitats, mammal paths, etc.) to minimise light disturbance;

v. Works in the vicinity of watercourses (within 50 m) will commence one hour after sunrise and will cease no later than one hour before sunset;

vi. Instream works to relevant watercourses will not be conducted during fish spawning/incubation period from October to May, inclusive;

vii. A speed limit of 15 mph for all vehicles on the site;

viii. Watercourse crossings will be designed to allow the passage of small mammals on the site;

ix. Vegetation within 50 m of all watercourses should be left undisturbed except in areas of construction of watercourse crossings and access roads leading to crossings;

x. Chemicals should not be stored within 100 m of a sett, holt or couch, or within 10 m of hibernacula, or other protected feature, or along mammal paths. All paints, chemicals and sealants used during the construction process will be removed from the working area at the end of each working day. Open tins or other containers will not be left at the works areas but will be stored in a suitable container at the proposed development compound; and

xi. Any areas for location of wind turbines and infrastructure suitable for reptiles will be subject to inspection by an experienced ecologist prior to any works on-site. The proposed development works will avoid the destruction or incidental creation of reptile refuges, e.g. piles of cut vegetation. All arisings will be removed from the site.

6.2 Objective B – Procedure if Active Feature is Found

6.2.1 Procedure if previously unrecorded active feature or protected species found in advance of construction activity

If an active feature or protected species is found by the ECoW’s monitoring in advance of construction activity progressing across the site, the following text outlines the procedure to be followed.

If Obstruction, Damage or Destruction (ODD) to a protected species is likely, a location specific ODD risk assessment will be completed. This will consider all potential mitigation measures to avoid ODD. This may include micrositing of infrastructure away from the location and out-with the disturbance zone and the demarcation of the protected site.

If disturbance is likely, a location specific Disturbance Risk Assessment will be completed. This should firstly consider revision to the disturbance zone as a result of the site-specific topography and habitat quality (e.g. if a ridge lies between activity and a holt then the disturbance zone may be reduced). Also, other measures which could reduce disturbance to an acceptable level should be considered (including micrositing and the demarcation of the protected site).

The Disturbance or ODD risk assessments will be submitted to SNH for consideration.

If it is not possible to microsite and, in consideration of the risk assessment, SNH determines that ODD and/or significant levels of disturbance is likely to occur, the procedures described in Objective A will be adopted for unoccupied and occupied features. If there is uncertainty over whether the feature is occupied a precautionary approach will be adopted and occupancy will be assumed.

6.2.2 Procedure if previously unrecorded protected feature or species found during construction

In the event of any site personnel discovering an unrecorded protected feature or protected species, the following procedure must be followed:

i. Work should stop immediately within the specified disturbance zone;

ii. The ECoW should be contacted;

iii. The location should be checked by the ECoW to determine the nature of the new find; and

iv. If the protected species or feature is confirmed, then the procedure detailed in Objective A above should be followed.


5 | P a g e

6.3 Objective C – Education and Awareness The Applicant will provide the necessary education and awareness as part of a site induction to all site personnel with regard to the protection of protected species that are or could be present on the site, in particular the actions that should be taken if protected species are seen on the site. All site personnel (including contractors and sub-contractors) will be informed of the objectives of the SPP to ensure they are aware of any species present in the site.

This information will include as a minimum:

i. The requirements and use of the SPP;

ii. Identification of protected species and features;

iii. Key risk activities and sensitive areas; and

iv. Site personnel responsible for dealing with protected species.

The Applicant will undertake that any person found on the site by them to be inadequately trained, or to be disregarding the terms of the SPP is immediately expelled from the site until such time that it is appropriate for them to be allowed to return. In general, such persons will need to undertake retraining in the use and application of the SPP to ensure the impact on protected species is minimised.

REFERENCES, RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE Capreolus Wildlife Consultancy. (2005). The ecology and conservation of water voles in upland habitats. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 099 (ROAME No. F99AC320).

Caryl, F.M. (2008). Pine marten diet and habitat use within a managed forest environment. PhD Thesis, University of Stirling, Stirling.

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn.) The Bat Conservation Trust, London. ISBN-13 978-1-872745-96-1

Dean, M., Strachan, R., Gow, D. and Andrews, R. (2016). The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series). Eds Fiona Mathews and Paul Chanin. The Mammal Society, London.

European Commission. (1979). Directive 79/409/EEC: Conservation of Wild Birds. HMSO, London.

European Commission. (1992). Directive 92/43/EEC: Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna. HMSO, London.

Forestry Commission. (2006). Forest operations and red squirrels in Scotland’s forests – the law and good practice. FCS Guidance Note 33.

Forestry Commission Scotland (2010). Strategic priorities for red squirrel conservation in Scotland.

Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (1998). Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. JNCC, Peterborough.

HMSO. (1994). Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan. HMSO, London.

HMSO. (1981). Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. HMSO, London.

HMSO. (1994). The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. HMSO, London.

HMSO. (1992). Protection of Badgers Act 1992. HMSO, London.

Hundt, L. (2012). Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition. Bat Conservation Trust ISBN-13: 9781872745985

Mitchell-Jones, A. J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.

Mitchell-Jones, A. J. & McLeish, A. P. (2004). Bat Workers Manual – 3rd Edition. JNCC, Peterborough.

Morris, P.A., Morris, M.J., MacPhearson, D., Jefferies, D.J., Strachan, R & Woodroffe, G.L. (1998). Estimating numbers of the water vole Arvicola terrestris: a correction to the published method. Journal of Zoology 246: 61 – 62.

Natural England (2014). Bats and onshore wind turbines: interim guidance. TIN051. Third Edition.

Scottish Natural Heritage. (2001). Scotland’s Wildlife: Badgers and Development. SNH, Battleby.

Scottish Natural Heritage. (1997). Scotland’s Wildlife: Otters and Development. SNH, Battleby.


6 | P a g e

Annex 1. Legal Protection

Bats and Otters receive protection under the Conservation Regulations (1994) (as amended) only6.

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)

Under Regulation 39 (1) it is an offence to:

i. deliberately or recklessly to capture, injure or kill a wild animal of a European protected species;

ii. deliberately or recklessly:

iii. to harass a wild animal or group of wild animals of a European protected species;

iv. to disturb such an animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection;

v. to disturb such an animal while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young;

vi. to obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, or otherwise to deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place including bat roost sites;

vii. to disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which it belongs; or

viii. to disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young;

ix. deliberately or recklessly to take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; or

x. to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

Regulation 44 (2e) allows a licence to be granted for the activities noted in Regulation 39 such that:

Preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.


Water Vole is not protected by Section 9, subsection 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act but is covered by Section 9, subsection 4 and Section 107.

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)

Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004

Under Section 9 Subsection 18 it is an offence to:

i. Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild animal included in Schedule 5.

Under Section 9, Subsection 4, Paragraphs (a) and (b)4, it is an offence to:

i. Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which any wild animal included in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection.

ii. Intentionally or recklessly disturb any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose.

Under Section 10, Subsection 3, Paragraph (c)4, any person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of:

i. Any act made unlawful by that section if he shows:

a) That each of the conditions specified in subsection (3A) was satisfied in relation to the carrying out of the unlawful act; or

b) That the unlawful act was carried out in relation to an animal bred and, at the time the act was carried out, lawfully held in captivity.

ii. Section 3A states those conditions referred to in Subsection 3c are:

a) That the unlawful act was the incidental result of a lawful operation or other activity;

b) That the person who carried out the lawful operation or other activity:

i. took reasonable precautions for the purpose of avoiding carrying out the unlawful act; or

ii. did not foresee, and could not reasonably have foreseen, that the unlawful act would be an incidental result of the carrying out of the lawful operation or other activity; and

That the person who carried out the unlawful act took, immediately upon the consequence of that act becoming apparent to the person, such steps as were reasonably practicable in the circumstances to minimise the damage or disturbance to the wild animal, or the damage or obstruction to the structure or place, in relation to which the unlawful act was carried out.

7 as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 8 as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004


7 | P a g e

Red Squirrels and Pine Martens are protected by the following legislation:



Under Section 9, Subsection 1, it is an offence to:

Intentionally or recklessly:

i. Kill, injure or take any wild animal listed on Schedule 5;

ii. Damages or destroys or obstructs access to, any structure or place that any animal listed on Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection;

iii. Disturbs any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which is uses for that purpose

iv. Sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead wild animal included in Schedule 5, or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal.

v. Publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, any of those things.

Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended)).

The following applies under this legislation:

Part 1.–

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, a badger.

(2) If, in any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above consisting of attempting to kill, injure or take a badger, there is evidence from which it could reasonably be concluded that at the material time the accused was attempting to kill, injure or take a badger, he shall be presumed to have been attempting to kill, injure or take a badger unless the contrary is shown.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he has in his possession or under his control any dead badger or any part of, or anything derived from, a dead badger.

Part 3. –

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he interferes with a badger sett by doing any of the following things–

a) damaging a badger sett or any part of it;

b) destroying a badger sett;

c) obstructing access to, or any entrance of, a badger sett;

d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett; or

e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett,

intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions would have any of those consequences.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he knowingly causes or permits to be done an act which is made unlawful by subsection (1) above.


8 | P a g e

Reptiles

The three native species of reptile to Scotland, adder, slow worm and viviparous lizard, are protected by the following legislation:



Under Section 9 Subsection 19 it is an offence to:

i. Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild animal included in Schedule 5.

Under Section 9, Subsection 5, Paragraphs (a) and (b)10, it is an offence to:

i. Sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead wild animal included in Schedule 5, or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal.

ii. Publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, any of those things.

Under Section 10, Subsection 3, Paragraph (c)10, any person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of:

i. Any act made unlawful by that section if he shows:

a) That each of the conditions specified in subsection (3A) was satisfied in relation to the carrying out of the unlawful act; or

b) That the unlawful act was carried out in relation to an animal bred and, at the time the act was carried out, lawfully held in captivity.

ii. Section 3A states those conditions referred to in Subsection 3c are:

a) That the unlawful act was the incidental result of a lawful operation or other activity;

b) That the person who carried out the lawful operation or other activity:

i. took reasonable precautions for the purpose of avoiding carrying out the unlawful act; or;

ii. did not foresee, and could not reasonably have foreseen, that the unlawful act would be an incidental result of the carrying out of the lawful operation or other activity; and

That the person who carried out the unlawful act took, immediately upon the consequence of that act becoming apparent to the person, such steps as were reasonably practicable in the circumstances to minimise the damage or disturbance to the wild animal, or the damage or obstruction to the structure or place, in relation to which the unlawful act was carried out.

9 as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004




Technical Appendix 5.7: Outline Habitat Management Plan

Hopsrig Wind Farm

Outline Habitat Management Plan


Prepared by: Brian Henry, MCIEEM Authorised by: Rafe Dewar, MCIEEM Date: 07th November 2016 Tel: 0141 342 5404 Email: [email protected] Web: www.macarthurgreen.com Address: 95 South Woodside Road | Glasgow | G20 6NT

Document Quality Record.

Version Status Person Responsible Date 1 Draft Brian Henry 31/10/2016

2 Reviewed Rafe Dewar 04/11/2016

3 Updated Brian Henry 07/11/2016



1 | P a g e

CONTENTS

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Habitat Management Area ............................................................................................................. 1

3 Aims, Objectives and Management Prescriptions .......................................................................... 2

4 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Annex 1. Management and Monitoring Timetable ........................................................................ 4

1 INTRODUCTION This Outline Habitat Management Plan (OHMP) describes the proposed habitat management for the proposed development.

This OHMP is set out in the following sections:

Management area;

Aims, objectives and management prescriptions;

Monitoring programme; and

Management and monitoring timetable.

The key habitats addressed are wet modified bog, heath and marshy grassland. The management recommended within this OHMP is based on the findings of the ecology assessment within Hopsrig Wind Farm Environmental Statement (the ‘ES’). Chapter 5: Ecology concludes no significant effects on important ecological features; however, measures to restore and enhance a mosaic of bog, heath and marshy grassland habitats are proposed to increase their extent locally. This would have subsequent secondary benefits for local fauna, such as the sites upland bird assemblage, due to a change in land cover type from dense commercial conifer plantation to these mosaic habitats.

A final HMP, which will include the confirmed Habitat Management Area (HMA) and separate Management Units therein, where the Aims will apply, will be agreed with Dumfries & Galloway Council in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) prior to final commissioning of the proposed development.

2 HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA The aim of the HMP will be to restore a bog, heath and marshy grassland habitat mosaic in the currently conifer forested northern and western parts of the site, which would be clear-felled for the proposed development (see Figure 2.2: Forestry Removal of Technical Appendix 2.3: Forestry). The indicative HMA is shown in Figure 5.13.

The specific HMA would be agreed and presented in the final HMP but is likely to closely mirror the extent of the felling area in Figure 2.2 and the indicative HMA shown in Figure 5.13. Within the HMA it is envisaged there would be several Management Units, each with the aim of restoring and enhancing certain habitat types.

The site is dominated by commercial conifer plantation, with open areas mainly restricted to forest rides; these open areas contain a mix of various mire, heath and grassland habitat types. Information on habitat extents, composition and quality is provided in the ES and Technical Appendix 5.1 (see also ES Figures 5.2 and 5.3). In general, these unplanted habitats have been degraded due to the impacts of forestry, particularly the effects of drying due to forestry drainage and shading from canopy closure.

The size and location of Management Units, and their specific habitat aims, will be determined by a combination of habitat data and peat depth information (see also Figure 2.7.5 of Technical Appendix 2.7 Peat Slide Risk Assessment). In general, the aim would be to restore and enhance the following habitats in the following peat depth categories within the HMA:

2 | P a g e

Peat depth greater than 1 m – restore to blanket bog;

Peat depth 0.5 to 1 m – restore to a blanket bog and wet heath mosaic; and

Peat depth 0 to 0.5 m (i.e. also including organo-mineral soils) – restore to wet/dry heath and marshy grassland mosaic.

3 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS The Aims define the general OHMP goals, and the related Objectives further define the Aims into quantifiable targets. The Prescriptions detail the indicative management works to be implemented to achieve these Aims and Objectives. Annex 1 provides an indicative timetable for the implementation of the various Prescriptions.

Aim 1: Restore and enhance the blanket bog habitats across relevant Management Units

Objective 1.1) Increase the abundance and distribution of major peat forming species, particularly Eriophorum spp. and Sphagna (especially broad-branched species such as S. papillosum).

Objective 1.2) Increase the abundance of dwarf shrubs such as Calluna vulgaris and Erica tetralix in line with local reference blanket bog.

Objective 1.3) Limit regenerating conifers, and no conifers more than 0.5 m in height after 5 years.

Prescription 1.1) Remove the stump/ridge furrow legacy of the conifer plantation in line with emerging best practice methods for peatland restoration (e.g. see Short and Robson, 20161).

Prescription 1.2) Dam active drains and gullies in order that the water level is raised sufficiently to create conditions suitable for species mentioned within Objective 1.1.

Prescription 1.3) Manage deer grazing numbers within the HMA if required to achieve Objective 1.2.

Prescription 1.4) Remove regenerating conifers from the HMA annually, by hand, until a time that monitoring shows that conifer regeneration is no longer an issue or frequency of intervention can be reduced.

Prescription 1.5) The following activities will be prohibited within the HMA:

o clearing out of existing ditches;

o application of any insecticides, fungicides or molluscicides;

o application of lime or any other substance to alter the soil acidity;

o cutting or topping of vegetation except to control injurious weed species;

o burning of vegetation or other materials;

1 Short, R. and Robson, P. (2016). An Innovative Approach to Landscape-Scale Peatland Restoration. CIEEM In-Practice, Issue 93, September 2016.

o use of roll or chain-harrow;

o planting trees;

o carrying out any earth moving activities;

o use for off-road vehicle activities;

o construction of tracks, roads, yards, hardstandings or any new structures (not associated with the proposed development); and

o storage of materials or machinery.

Aim 2: Restore and enhance wet and dry heath habitats across relevant Management Units

Objective 2.1) Increase the abundance of dwarf shrubs such as Calluna vulgaris, Erica tetralix, Empetrum nigrum and Vaccinium myrtillus in line with local reference wet and dry heath.

Objective 2.2) Increase the abundance and distribution of Sphagnum mosses common in wet heaths, particularly species such as Sphagnum capillifolium.


Prescriptions) As per Aim 1 above.

Aim 3: Restore and enhance marshy grassland habitats across the relevant Management Units

Objective 3.1) Increase the abundance of marshy grassland species in line with local reference wetland communities from the site (as detailed in Technical Appendix 5.1, e.g. M23, M27, MG9 and MG10 communities).


Prescriptions) As per Aim 1 above.

4 MONITORING Habitat monitoring should evaluate the restoration and enhancement of these habitat types by recording changes to the structure of the vegetation and species abundance, evenness and diversity.

A representative sample of fixed vegetation quadrats would be established within each Management Unit within the HMA to gather sufficient data on progress and to inform future management. The survey would be carried out during the flowering season and repeat surveys would be carried out in the same month in each monitoring year to gather comparable data. Photographs would also be taken of each sample quadrat, as well as overview

3 | P a g e

photographs of the Management Unit. A measure of conifer regeneration would also form part of the monitoring proposal. The final detailed methods should be agreed with SNH.

Habitat monitoring would commence during year 1 of operation of the proposed development to establish the baseline and then will be repeated in years 2, 3, 5, 10 and 15 of the operational life of the wind farm. The frequency of monitoring thereafter will be agreed in consultation with SNH.

Reports would be submitted to Dumfries & Galloway Council and SNH in years 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 15. The report would detail management works completed to date and works proposed over the next reporting period. The habitat monitoring report would be appended.

Where monitoring indicates any management objectives are not met, further management prescriptions or interventions would be determined.

4 | P a g e

Annex 1. Management and Monitoring Timetable Table A-1 Management and Monitoring Timetable

Activity 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15…

Remove stump/ridge furrow legacy of the conifer plantation

Drain blocking

Fencing (if required for implementation of management)

Regenerating conifer removal (by hand)

Deer grazing management (if required) Throughout lifetime of HMP

Excluded activities Apply from the commencement of construction

Habitat monitoring

Reporting D&G Council and SNH

* First year after final commissioning of the proposed development.

technical appendix 5: ecology

Documents