technical appendix 8.1 phase i target notes wind farm development...

TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8.1 PHASE I TARGET NOTES – WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT

AREA

A report to

E.ON Climate and Renewables

Atmos Report Ref: 4045/R1/Rev1 Issued: 29th June 2009

Ochiltree Wind Farm / Phase 1 Survey Notes]

Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Atmos Consulting Ltd with all reasonable skill and care within the terms of the agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to any parties in respect of matters outside this scope. Information supplied by the client or any other parties and used in this report is assumed to be correct and Atmos Consulting Ltd accepts no responsibility for inaccuracies in the data supplied. Atmos Consulting Ltd accepts no responsibility to third parties who duplicate, use, or disclose this report in whole or in part. Such third parties rely upon this report at their own risk.

Issue Log 4045/R1/Rev1 Document Issued 29th June 2009

Document prepared for EON. Climate & Renewables

Document prepared by

Name Matthew Hopkins Title Senior Consultant Atmos Consulting Ltd Tower Mains Studios 18g Liberton Brae Edinburgh EH16 6AE

Atmos Consulting Ltd In-Business Centre Stadium Business Park 24 Longman Drive Inverness IV1 1SU

Atmos Consulting Ltd Regus House Herald Way Pegasus Business Park Castle Donington DE74 2TX

Atmos Consulting Ltd The Granary Waen Farm Nercwys Road Mold, Flintshire CH7 4EW

Tel: 0131 672 1888 Fax: 0131 672 1999

Tel: 01463 259209 Fax: 01463 259240

Tel: 01332 638014 Tel: 01352 744512 Fax: 01352 700291

www.atmosconsulting.com


Table 1: Botanical Species Lists

Vascular plants – Scientific Names

Velvet bent Agrostis canina Common bent Agrostis capillaris Creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera Bog Rosemary Andromeda polifolia Wood rush Anemone nemorosa Wild Angelica Angelica sylvestris Sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum odoratum Daisy Bellis perennis Silver birch Betula pendula Birch Betula pubescens Hard Fern Blechnum spicant Common Water-Starwort Callitriche stagnalis Ling-Heath Calluna vulgaris Kingcup – Marsh Marigold -May Blobs

Caltha palustris

Bellflower Campanula rotundifolia Wood Bitter-cress Cardamine flexuosa Cuckoo flower – Lady's-Smock Cardamine pratensis Ribbed Sedge Carex binervis Spring Sedge Carex caryophyllea Tawny Sedge Carex hostiana Common Sedge Carex nigra Carnation – Grass Carex panicea Pill-Headed Sedge Carex pilulifera Flea Sedge Carex pulicaris Beaked Sedge Bottle Sedge Carex rostrata Common Yellow Sedge Carex viridula oedocarpa Lesser Knapweed Centaurea nigra Common Mouse Ear Cerastium fontanum Purple Saxifrage Chrysosplenium oppositifolium Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense Marsh Thistle Cirsium palustre Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare Pignut- Earthnut Conopodium majus Hazel - Cob-Nut Corylus avellana Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Crested Dogs Tail Cynosurus cristatus Cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata Tufted Hair grass Deschampsia cespitosa Wavy hair Grass Deschampsia flexuosa Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Sundew Drosera rotundifolia Narrow Buckler – Fern Dryopteris carthusiana Broad Buckler -Fern Dryopteris dilatata Common Male –Fern Dryopteris filix-mas Marsh Willow Herb Epilobium palustre


Bell Heather Erica cinerea Crossed Leaved Heath Erica tetralix Sheep’s Fescue Festuca ovina Red Fescue Festuca rubra Meadow Sweet Filipendula ulmaria Ash Fraxinus excelsior Marsh Bedstraw Galium palustre Heath Bedstraw Galium saxatile Ivy Hedera helix Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus Bluebell Hyancinthoides non-scripta Marsh Pennywort Hydrocotyle vulgaris St Johns Wort Hypericum pulchrum Cats Ear Hypochaeris radicata Lake Quillwort Isoetes lacustris Sharp Flower Rush Juncus acutiflorus Jointed Rush Juncus articulatus Bulbous Rush Juncus bulbosus Soft Rush Juncus effusus Heath Rush Juncus squarrosus Shore weed Littorella uniflora Water Lobelia Lobelia dortmanna Perennial Ryegrass Lolium perenne Common Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum Birdsfoot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus Greater Birds Foot trefoil Lotus uliginosus Field Wood Rush Luzula campestris Great Wood-Rush Luzula sylvatica Water Mint Mentha aquatica Purple Moor Grass Molinia caerulea Water-Blinks -Annual Water Miners Lettuce

Montia fontana

Bog Myrtle – Sweet Gale Myrica gale Matt Grass Nardusw stricta Bog Asphodel Narthecium ossifragum Mountain Fern Oreopteris limbosperma Wood Sorrel Oxalis acetosella Loosewort Pedicularis sylvatica Reed Phragmites australis Mouse- Eared Hawk Weed Pilosella officinarum Common Butter-Wort Pinguicula vulgaris Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris Ribwort -Plantain Plantago lanceolata Meadow Grass Poa pratensis Common Milkwort Polygala serpyllifolia Bog Pondweed Potamogeton polygonifolius Common Tormentil Potentilla erecta Marsh cinquefoil Potentilla palustris Primrose Primula vulgaris Self-heal Prunella vulgaris


Gean – Wild Cherry Prunus avium Bracken Pteridium aquilinum Darmask Oak – Sessile Oak Quercus petraea Meadow Buttercup Ranunculus acris Lesser Celandine - Pilewort Ranunculus ficaria Lesser Spearwort Ranunculus flammula Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens Blackberry Rubus fruticosus Raspberry Rubus idaeus Sorrel Rumex acetosa Sheeps Sorrel Rumex acetosella Eared Sallow Salix aurita Great Sallow – Goat Willow Salix caprea Common Sallow Salix cinerea Creeping Willow Salix repens Lesser Clubmoss Selaginella selaginoides Rowan – Mountain Ash Sorbus aucuparia Chickweed Stellaria media Bog Stitchwort Stellaria uliginosum Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Wood Sage Teucrium scorodonia Deer-grass Trichophorum cespitosum White Clover – Dutch Clover Trifolium repens Gorse Ulex europaeus Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica Bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus Cranberry Vaccinium oxycoccos Valerian Valeriana officinalis Brooklime Veronica beccabunga Heath Violet Viola canina Marsh Violet Viola palustris


Bryophytes

Aneura pinguis Aulacomium palustre Breutelia chrysocoma Calliergonella cuspidata Campylium stellatum Campylopus atrovirens Campylopus introflexus Cladonia portentosa Climacium dendroides Dicranum scoparium Diplophyllum albicans Hylocomium splendens Hypnum jutlandicum Leucobryum glaucum Mylia taylori Odontoschisma sphagni Philonotis fontana Pleurozium schreberi Rhytidiadelphus loreus Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus Scorpidium revolvens Scorpidium scorpioides Sphagnum capillifolium Sphagnum denticulatum Sphagnum fallax Sphagnum inundatum Sphagnum magellanicum Sphagnum palustre Sphagnum papillosum Sphagnum subnitens Thuidium tamariscinum Warnstofia fluitans

Ochiltree Wind Farm /Extended Phase I Habitat & Species Target Notes

Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxi

Table 2: Target Notes Habitats – May 2008

Target Notes Grid Reference Feature

1 232830 575430 upper part of blanket bog polygon is flattish M17 with Myrica, Erica tetralix, S. capillifolium, Eriophorum vaginatum, Narthecium, Eriophorum angustifolium, Trichophorum; slopes between here &

flatter areas nearer road often Sphagnum-poor, tussocky M25

2 232688 575360 species-poor M6b flush (AF) with Carex nigra, C. panicea, Ranunculus flammula, S. denticulatum

3 232575 575350 Wet heath here at edge & further S on small flattened knolls is Calluna 15-40, Erica tetralix 0-10, Trichophorum 20-60, Pleurozium schreberi 25-50, Molinia 5-30, S. capillifolium 0-15

4 232578 575280 Vaccinium oxycoccos occasional-frequent in this very old peat cutting - relatively Sphagnum-rich blanket bog

5 232575 575233 Sphagnum magellanicum in often heavily trampled blanket bog on flat rise - original surface. S. tenellum, S. capillifolium & S. capillifolium also present

6 232564 575227 Vaccinium oxycoccos on mixed S. cuspidatum-S. capillifolium cushion; Mylia taylori locally abundant nearby, forming low hummocks

7 232549 575194 more Sphagnum magellanicum; Sphagnum cover still averaging 30% (10-60)

8 232486 574992 Acid flush with Carex rostrata

9 232469 575032 Complex mosaic – blanket bog c. 65; marshy grassland-M35, small amounts of wet heath, acid flush & acid grassland; much is c. 50 cm peat, with sometimes more Sphagnum in areas with < 50 cm;

some of complex topography undoubtedly due to very old peat cuttings

10 232444 575146 more Vaccinium oxycoccos on S. capillifolium-S. cuspidatum carpet - locally abundant immediately to N

11 232407 575459 Vaccinium oxycoccos on big S. capillifolium hummock; much, though not all, bog here is Sphagnum-poor tussocky Molinia with E. vaginatum & Myrica

12 232229 575264 Sphagnum magellanicum in waterlogged track

13 232218 575262 conspicuous how much Calluna in forest-bog, with good Sphagnum cover & Vaccinium oxycoccos frequent-abundant

14 232167 575163 shoreline - 5 m wide zone dominated by Juncus effusus, Carex nigra, Hydrocotyle, Ranunculus flammula, Viola palustris, Warnstorfia fluitans, Juncus bulbosus etc; Littorella, Lobelia dortmanna &

Isoetes lacustris all on strandline

15 232235 575049 swamp with Potentilla palustris, Veronica beccabunga, S. denticulatum, Carex nigra, Galium palustre, Ranunculus flammula, Cardamine pratensis, Juncus acutiflorus, Filipendula ulmaria (at N end); emergent in mini-bay - C. rostrata, Phragmites

16 232283 575069 clump of Salix aurita with Potentilla palustris, S. squarrosum, Juncus effusus; 2 Crataegus monogyna on S side

17 232133 574519 Polygon with scrub - Salix aurita with a few Salix cinerea, Crataegus monogyna at edge; Juncus, Potentilla palustris, Cirsium palustre understory

18 232154 574523 SB 70, AG20, MG 10, SS< 1; occasional blanket bog patches in hollows; Viola canina near grid reference

19 232179 574083 Polygon with very complex topography: MG 40-50, SB 25, AG 20-30 with some WH & BB; Anemone nemorosa locally abundant in W

20 231962 573786 small patch of Salix aurita beside wall

21 232205 573914 Vaccinium oxycoccos in BB-M (M25) on deep peat

22 232459 573799 blanket bog with good Sphagnum (Sphagnum magellanicum at grid reference) , Erica tetralix; Vaccinium oxycoccos to W

23 232512 573830 borrow pits' steep sides here have ADH with Polygala serpyllifolia, Viola canina, Campanula rotundifolia; with AG; AF right by road

24 232691 573822 wet heath patch just W of grid reference with very unhealthy Calluna

25 232768 573860 Complicated mosaic - MG 50, WH 30, BB 10 with SB, AF, ADH; MG & AF in depressions, drainage lines, WH on sides tops of knolls, BB in occasional wider basins, mini-valleys

26 232804 574232 PGN - AG 40, WH 30-40, MG 20-30; WH on flatter areas on knolls, MG in between knolls & AG on thinner soils

27 232912 574178 small (40 x 30) basin bog; Molinia-dominated, S. capillifolium main Sphagnum; Vaccinium oxycoccos near grid reference

28 233145 574314 25 m N of here is beginning of lower ground with Molinia dominance & ~ no WH

29 233148 574383 slightly basic flush with Carex viridula oedocarpa, C. panicea, Carex rostrata, Succisa; in matrix of AF with M25 BB-M

30 233041 574595 PGN - BB 60-70 (but mostly BB-M - quite sp.-poor M25), MG 30-40, AF locally prominent

31 232846 574444 BF - M10 – Scorpidium (ex-Drepanocladus) revolvens, Scorpidium scorpidium, Pinguicula vulgaris, Carex viridula oedocarpa, Campylium stellatum; trampled habitat

32 232680 574110 Top of Ochiltree Hill with MG dominant with some patches of AG near summit

33 232468 574245 Basic flush - sp.-poor M10 with Campylium stellatum, Breutelia chrysocoma, C. panicea, Aneura pinguis

34 232488 574384 scattered M10-ish flushes (BF) with Carex viridula oedocarpa, C. panicea in MG here (close to WH, but dwarf-shrubs grazed out)

35 232492 574448 more grassy M10 - BF - Carex viridula oedocarpa, C. panicea, Campylium stellatum, Campylopus atrovirens, Pinguicula vulgaris, Scorpidium revolvens, Selaginella selaginella

36 232577 574635 Area with- MG 70-85, AG 5-10, BF 1-5, SB, ADH; distinguished from MG-dominated polygon to E by BFs; much MG is close to flushed WH; U5c type vegetation frequent

37 232390 574360 Hyacinthoides non-scriptus & Anemone nemorosa (Viola canina slightly less frequent) common on AG-SB slopes opposite Ochiltree cottage (& c. 300 m in both directions)

38 233298 575064 BB-M (Molinia-dominated (70-90%) M25a with scattered Myrica, occasional Sphagnum, Erica tetralix) with MG at fringes, some AF (M6c); N 1/3 has better Sphagnum (S. capillifolium, S. subnitens) & Erica tetralix

39 233131 574940 Polygon - BB 70 (less Molinia-dominated than most in this area, but M-H grazed), MG 20, AF 5-10; Drosera rotundifolia present

40 233141 575168 where MG pgns almost meet, but grid reference is actually MG10 NG around sheilings rubble

41 232723 575031 first of 3 small knolls in polygon which is MG 30-SB 30-AG 20-BB 20, with tops of knolls AG-SB mosaic, sides & some of troughs MG & BB on some flatter valleysides/terraces/mini-basins

42 232951 575265 tiny knoll with some dry heath


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxii

43 233019 575302 Scattered scrubby Betula pubescens, Sorbus aucuparia

44 232750 574910 Area along road, 80-200 m wide; MG 50 with AG 25, SB 15, also AF, BB, ADH; consists of series of knolls, dissected by flushes, small channels, punctuated by occasional rock outcrops; some flushes almost

basic

45 232546 574610 flushed AG (U4c/CG10b) with Carex pulicaris, C. caryophyllea, C. panicea, C. pilulifera, Plantago lanceolata, Anemone nemorosa, Anthoxanthum, Viola canina; similar areas scattered all along this slope from here S towards Ochiltree cottage; Campylium sp.

46 232537 574523 Carex viridula oedocarpa-C. panicea-Breutelia chrysocoma flushes into AG frequent in this area (extending 70-80 m to S), e.g., at grid ref; U5c-ish; Pedicularis sylvatica rare in this kind of vegetation

47 232511 574466 Carex caryophyllea also here

48 233064 575492 Carex rostrata M4 (AF) in corner by forestry

49 233158 575628 Area - BB 70-75 with frequent AFs, some AG flats, MG; BB often with decent dwarf shrub cover, Sphagnum, but also often trampled, M-H grazed; M6d often in old peat cuttings

50 233337 575788 Area - MG 55, BB 30, AG 15; MG often Sphagnum & Trichophorum-rich; BB badly trampled

51 233240 575975 quite soft BB with Sphagnum papillosum, Trichophorum, Eriophorum vaginatum, E. angustifolium, Erica tetralix, S. capillifolium

52 233131 575988 M4 with Carex rostrata

53 233046 576039 two tiny patches of lichen-rich dry acid heath (grid reference is for E one)

54 232940 576145 very species-poor M25 (BB-M) at NW end before fence

55 232905 576161 Vaccinium oxycoccos in dryish BB

56 232861 576181 Sphagnum magellanicum in good Trichophorum-E. vaginatum-S. capillifolium-S. papillosum-Erica tetralix-Narthecium-Molinia M17 with some Cladonia portentosa & Myrica (Odontoschisma sphagni & Calluna rare);

some hummock-hollow microtopography beginning jus

57 232776 576165 Aulacomnium palustre-S. capillifolium-Vaccinium oxycocos hummock; S. magellanicum nearby

58 232727 576186 patch of Andromeda polifolia on W slope of 'dome'

59 232694 576180 from grid reference W & NW BB becomes more broken, fragmented - 2 small low 'domes' to W & WNW; generally more Molinia water tracks & Molinia encroachment of BB

60 232695 576313 classic M25A BB-M - just Molinia (with some Myrica); much better - with Trichophorum, Erica tetralix, E. vaginatum, S. capillifolium etc - between Barlamachan & Barbegs

61 232596 576378 Vaccinium oxycoccos; BB here more trampled, drier than big good bog to SE, though floristics & Sphagnum good & some (albeit drying) hummock-hollow microtopography;

drain through bog near grid reference

62 232575 576395 Sphagnum magellanicum with Vaccinium oxycoccos at grid reference (more to NW); moor grips at c. 30 m intervals - look to be 10-20 years old; S. cuspidatum 'flats' common in this area

63 232456 576426 more Andromeda - probably more widespread

64 232266 576277 Conopodium majus & Viola canina, Anemone nemorosa in U20a (CB)

65 232175 576467 Vaccinium oxycoccos in small patch of wet heath-like BB

66 232189 576527 PGN - BB-M mainly (c. 66%), some Sphagnum-rich BB with Erica tetralix; accompanied by MG, AG, SB, ADH; topography complex - scattered drainage lines, knolls with rocky outcrops, etc

67 232344 576685 rock outcrops & knolls by river, e.g., at grid reference, with AG, CB, trees (e.g., Fraxinus, Crataegus monogyna, Sorbus aucuparia); CB has Anemone nemorosa, Oxalis acetosella, Digitalis, Conopodium majus' so is AG dominating

68 232479 576696 Centaurea nigra with Luzula sylvatica, Conopodium majus, Oreopteris limbosperma, Blechnum; Carex binervis nearby

69 232521 576697 Filipendula ulmaria with Chrysosplenium oppositifolium, Montia fontana, Epilobium palustre, Valeriana officinalis, Stellaria uliginosum

70 232661 576686 Mentha aquatica with Chrysosplenium oppositifolium, Juncus acutiflorus, Valeriana officinalis, Hydrocotyle

71 232779 576760 Carex caryophyllea in U4b - AG

72 232821 576772 spring with Philonotis fontana, Calliergonella cuspidata, Climacium dendroides

73 232955 576528 BB around grid reference - Erica tetralix, E. vaginatum-rich, but quite dry - Sphagnum at significantly lower cover than bogs to N

74 233169 576819 BB here quite good - Trichophorum-Eriophorum vaginatum-S. capillifolium-S.papillosum-Erica tetralix-Narthecium; Molinia only 5-15% cover; however, no hummock-hollow patterning

75 233306 576499 NW corner of polygon with undulating topography, including several rock outcrops - MG 40, WH 25 with ADH, BB, AG, AF

76 233520 575913 Carex caryophyllea in slightly species-rich AG on grassy hummock overlooking track

77 232978 575018 Patchy wet heath within marshy grassland on slope above rocks. Curlew and drumming snipe.

78 232862 574839 Drain with Achillea ptarmica, Hypericum pulchrum and Blechnum spicant.

79 232807 574818 Stream channel, with Viola palustris, Ranunculus acris, Potamogeton polygonifolius and Rumex acetosa.

80 232808 574861 Ridge along stream with grassy dry acid heath, with locally abundant, heavily-grazed Calluna vulgaris.

81 232784 574918 Rock outcrop with dry acid heath, with heavily-grazed Calluna vulgaris, Cladonia portentosa, Leucobryum glaucum and Carex binervis. Scrub and rocks here with Whitethroat, Wheatear and Stonechat.

82 233204 575266 Molinia-dominated bog with abundant soft, wet Sphagnum papillosum, S. capillifolium and S. subnitens.

83 233223 575262 Eared willow by M23 flush crossing wall

84 233242 575135 Edge of semi-improved grassland field with old ruined boundary wall.

85 233334 574960 Anemone nemorosa abundant in marshy grassland dominated by Molinia caerulea with Myrica gale, such habitat frequent across whole site.

86 233383 574842 Small areas of species-poor acid flush within marshy grassland and bog areas, usually associated with old drains.

87 233504 574980 Basic flush with Carex panicea, Carex viridula oedicarpa, Carex hostiana and Scorpidium scorpioides.


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxiii

88 233543 574990 Wide flushed area with Caltha palustris, Ranunculus ficaria, Anemone nemorosa, Viola palustris, Juncus articulatus and Carex panicea.

89 233569 575011 Flushed area

90 233581 575020 Small stream with trampled margins, with Juncus articulatus, Ranunculus acris, Carex panicea, Carex viridula oedicarpa.

91 233720 575078 Acid grassland here with frequent Carex caryophyllea and Luzula campestris.

92 233750 575091 Acid flush with Molinia caerulea, Carex panicea, C. viridula oedicarpa, C. nigra and Sphagnum denticulatum.

93 234079 575342 Fieldcorner with ash, downy birch, Juncus effusus, Holcus lanatus, Agrostis stolonifera and Ranunculus repens.

94 234111 575383 Small patch of woodland in hollow surrounded by old ruined boundary wall with downy birch, ash, wild cherry and hawthorn.

95 233999 575371 Edge of woodland with old sallow, downy birch, ash, wild cherry, hawthorn and a wet, flushed field layer with Ranunculus ficaria, Deschampsia cespitosa, Viola canina, Filipendula ulmaria, Cirsium palustre and scattered Primula vulgaris.

96 233925 575389 Wet woodland close to fence dominated by downy birch and eared willow, field layer locally with Molinia caerulea.

97 233956 575425 Old hazel coppice with mature ash close to old, ruined boundary wall. Field layer with Digitalis purpurea, Oxalis acetosella, Urtica dioica and Viola canina.

98 233936 575467 Open woodland on old grassy bank with frequent bluebells Hyacinthoides non-scripta, frequent dead wood.

99 233921 575494 Woodland margin here with sallow and marginal strip of marshy grassland.

100 233867 575534 Marshy grassland around drain with Angelica sylvestris, Dryopteris carthusiana, Valeriana officinalis and Filipendula ulmaria.

101 233836 575549 Marshy grassland with abundant birch seedlings and saplings, all heavily browsed.

102 233717 575570 Main woodland cattle-grazed and trampled, downy birch, ash and hawthorn over a grassy field layer.

103 233590 575543 Grazed woodland fieldlayer with scattered bluebell leaves, no flowerheads.

104 233520 575272 Flushes on woodland margin with eared willow, sallow, Filipendula ulmaria and Anemone nemorosa.

105 233406 575284 Functioning drain with Potamogeton polygonifolius, Juncus effusus, J. articulatus and Sphagnum denticulatum.

106 233340 575359 scattered knolls and raised ground with locally abundant Calluna vulgaris, frequent Juncus squarrosus and Leucobryum glaucum. Brown hare in area.

107 233559 575781 Wet woodland along drain with sallow, downy birch, hawthorn and raspberry.

108 233577 575775 Flushed area alongside stream between woodland and scrub along fenceline.

109 234200 576044 Main drain collecting water from all the drains on the woodland slope, 50cm wide, running water 10cm deep, with Callitriche stagnalis, Potamogeton polygonifolius, Cardamine flexuosa and Juncus effusus. Banks built up with stones and patches of acid grassland

110 234288 576058 Terrain close to drains hummocky, with small knolls with acid grassland and, locally, with acid dry heath. Calluna vulgaris locally dominant, heavily grazed, also with some Carex binervis and Potentilla erecta.

111 234370 576108 Blanket bog dissected by small old drains, mostly not maintained, some flushing and drainage around margins, bog often Molinia caerulea - dominated.

112 234420 576136 Patch of good blanket bog on soft peat with Sphagnum magellanicum and Drosera rotundifolia.

113 234424 576007 Edge of better blanket bog with a low peat cliff, 50cm high, often hagged. Below (to north) is Molinia-dominated bog with patchy Sphagnum. The blanket bog is sheep-grazed and trampled,

with Calluna vulgaris, Erica tetralix, and Eriophorum vaginatum,

114 234451 575833 Base of bank with ditches and acid flushes.

115 233526 576041 Curlew in dry Molinia-dominated bog.

116 233614 576173 Small circular bog at base of curved grassy escarpment, with Calluna vulgaris, Sphagnum capillifolium, S subnitens, Eriophorum vaginatum, Drosera rotundifolia and Narthecium ossifragum.

117 233721 576197 Large complicated area with ridges and hummocks within marshy grassland and blanket bog. Bog is often Molinia-dominated but does contain some more species-rich patches on soft peat. Ridges and hummocks with acid grassland, scattered bracken.

118 233807 576216 Patch of better bog on soft peat with Calluna vulgaris, Erica tetralix, Eriophorum vaginatum, Sphagnum papillosum, Narthecium ossifragum, Drosera rotundifolia

119 234079 576252 A few knolls with heavily-grazed Calluna vulgaris within blanket bog. Scattered to frequent knolls north and east of here, often associated with drains.

120 234246 576369 Overgrown drain with acid flush vegetation.

121 234368 576510 Rocky ridge with scattered bracken and acid grassland containing some Carex caryophyllea, Pilosella officinarum, Succisa pratensis and Campanula rotundifolia, surrounding bog hollow.

122 234390 576506 Small patch of wet heath at base of ridge, 10x10m.

123 234506 576469 Grassy knolls with scattered bracken, two brown hares.

124 234525 576308 20m wide flush with Molinia caerulea, Myrica gale and Sphagnum along wall.

125 234536 576577 Wooded stream with sallow, eared willow, downy birch, rowan and honeysuckle.

126 234502 576620 River Cree. Gorge with trees including some Scot's pine, sessile oak, downy birch, hawthorn, willows, gorse and rowan with a heath field layer containing Calluna vulgaris and Vaccinium myrtillus.

127 234435 576704 Flushed river bank with Ranunculus ficaria, Hyacinthoides non-scripta, Anemone nemorosa and Luzula sylvatica.

128 234388 576711 River bank less wooded with patches of gorse, dry acid heath and bracken, river fast-flowing in rocky stream bed, bank gradient more shallow, start of gorge to east.

129 234346 576610 Circular bog with curved ridge, Molinia-dominated but with abundant Sphagnum papillosum, S. capillifolium, S. fallax and S. denticulatum. Topography more like a valley mire, but clearly a bog. Patch of eared willow at southern edge and along outflow drain

130 234106 576920 Stream banks with dense Myrica gale

131 233921 576684 Series of ridges and outcrops around stream valleys, with scattered bracken, acid grassland and patches of dry acid heath

132 234041 576702 50 metre strip of scrub along stream, mostly willows (sallow and eared willow) but also some rowan and downy birch.


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxiv

133 234014 576733 Stream, 2m wide, water 20cm deep, with stones, banks 30-60cm high, low-lying flushed areas with Caltha palustris and Juncus effusus.

134 233868 576735 Central area between ridges with marshy grassland dominated by Molinia with locally abundant Juncus effusus and Anemone nemorosa.

135 233843 576913 Wall with patch willow scrub, new fence from end of wall to river.

136 233770 576914 Drain bisecting bog, north of drain bog is dominated by Molinia.

137 233773 576946 Acid flush with Juncus articulatus, Sphagnum fallax, Carex nigra and Molinia caerulea, continues east through marshy grassland and to large area of bog.

138 233919 576966 Knoll with dry heath on edge of bog and marshy grassland.

139 234103 576944 Slopes of Barnaer with patchy bracken within acid grassland.

140 234158 576930 Bog with locally abundant Vaccinium oxycoccos. Quite dry, with Sphagnum capillifolium and S subnitens, graminoid-dominated with Molinia caerulea and Eriophorum vaginatum.

141 234185 577121 Area to east of wall with locally dense gorse, bracken and scattered hawthorn in acid grassland. Lower river banks often wooded.

142 234112 577228 Acid flush within marshy grassland, draining into river.

143 233990 577255 Acid grassland with locally frequent Lotus corniculatus.

144 233905 577259 Riverside grassland with Luzula campestris, Carex caryophyllea, Galium saxatile, Potentilla erecta and Hylocomium splendens.

145 233875 577257 River Cree. Marginal vegetation includes small stands of Phalaris arundinacea, Luzula sylvatica, Caltha palustris, Valeriana officinalis and Juncus effusus.

146 233837 577171 Knoll with dry heath containing heavily-grazed Calluna vulgaris, Hypocaheris radicata, Polygala serpyllifolia, Carex binervis and Pedicularis sylvatica.

147 233805 577090 Acid flush between rock outcrops to river alongside drain with scattered willows. Drain channel with Potamogeton polygonifolius, Viola palustris and Juncus effusus.

148 233788 577085 Knoll with dry heath, steep river bank with gorse, willows, hawthorn, rowan, ivy, honeysuckle, Calluna vulgaris and Vaccinium myrtillus.

149 233673 577064 Acid flush to river.

150 233648 577110 Area north of stone wall with bracken and gorse. No stock access, ungrazed.

151 233437 576958 Scattered knolls with wet heath.

152 233399 577019 Small area of Molinia-dominated bog.

153 233358 577021 Ridges and knolls alongside river with acid grassland, scattered bracken and a few patches of acid dry heath.

154 233203 576977 Acid flush within marshy grassland and a few patches of wet heath.

155 233264 576970 Lower slopes and margin of ridges with wet heath leading to Molinia-dominated marshy grassland and bog to the south.

156 233487 576779 Wet heath with Juncus squarrosus within marshy grassland mosaic.

157 233531 576777 Stream, 2m wide, water 20cm deep, banks 50cm high, patches of acid grassland on banks.

158 233642 576733 Acid flush with Juncus acutiflorus, Juncus effusus, Myrica gale, Sphagnum fallax and Molinia caerulea

159 233735 576683 Steep-sided V-shaped valley, 5m deep, acid flush at base, sides dry.

160 233573 576542 Trampled flushes on edge of stone wall with Lotus uliginosus, Cardamine pratensis and Hydrocotyle vulgaris.

TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8.3 NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION SURVEY –

OCHILTREE WINDFARM

A report to

E.ON Climate and Renewables

Atmos Report Ref: 4045/R2/Rev1 Issued: 29th June 2009

Ochiltree Wind Farm /NVC Survey Species List & Target Notes

Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables i


Issue Log 4045/R2/Rev1 Document Issued 29th June 2009

Document prepared for EON. Climate & Renewables


Name Matthew Hopkins Title Principal Ecologist Atmos Consulting Ltd Tower Mains Studios 18g Liberton Brae Edinburgh EH16 6AE




Tel: 0131 672 1888 Fax: 0131 672 1999

Tel: 01463 259209 Fax: 01463 259240

Tel: 01332 638014 Tel: 01352 744512 Fax: 01352 700291



Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables ii

Table 1: Botanical Species Lists

Common Names Scientific Name

Higher Plants Velvet Bent Grass Agrostis canina

Common Bent Grass Agrostis capillaris

Creeping Bent Agrostis stolonifera

Bog Rosemary Andromeda polifolia

Wood Anemone Anemone nemorosa

Wild Angelica Angelica sylvestris

Sweet Vernal – Grass Anthoxanthum odoratum

Daisy Bellis perennis

Silver Birch Betula pendula

Birch Betula pubescens

Hard Fern Blechnum spicant

Common water-starwort Callitriche stagnalis

Heath Calluna vulgaris

Kingcup Marsh Marigold Caltha palustris

Bellflower Campanula rotundifolia

Wood Bitter-cress Cardamine flexuosa

Cuckoo Flower Lady’s Smock Cardamine pratensis

Ribbed Sedge Carex binervis

Spring Sedge Carex caryophyllea

Tawny Sedge Carex hostiana

Common Sedge Carex nigra

Carnation Grass Carex panicea

Pill Headed Sedge Carex pilulifera

Flea sedge Carex pulicaris

Beaked Sedge – Bottle Sedge Carex rostrata

Common Yellow Sedge Carex viridula oedocarpa

Lesser Knapweed- Hard Heads Centaurea nigra

Mouse Eared Chickweed Cerastium fontanum

Purple Saxifrage Chrysosplenium oppositifolium

Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense

Marsh Thistle Cirsium palustre

Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare

Pig-Nut – Earth Nut Conopodium majus

Hazel- Cobnut* Corylus avellana

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Crested Dogs tail Cynosurus cristatus

Cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata

Tufted Hair Grass Deschampsia cespitosa

Wavy Hair Grass Deschampsia flexuosa

Foxglove Digitalis purpurea

Sundew Drosera rotundifolia

Narrow Buckler – Fern Dryopteris carthusiana

Broad Buckler – Fern Dryopteris dilatata

Common Male Fern Dryopteris filix-mas

Marsh Willow herb Epilobium palustre

Bell Heather Erica cinerea

Cross Leaved Heath – Bog Heather Erica tetralix

Sheep's Fescue Festuca ovina

Red Fescue Festuca rubra

Meadow Sweet Filipendula ulmaria

Ash Fraxinus excelsior

Marsh Bedstraw Galium palustre

Heath Bedstraw Galium saxatile


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables iii

Ivy Hedera helix

Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus

Bluebell Hyancinthoides non-scripta

Marsh Pennywort Hydrocotyle vulgaris

St Johns Wort Hypericum pulchrum

Cats Ear – False Dandelion Hypochaeris radicata

Lake Quill Wort Isoetes lacustris

Sharp Flowered Juncus acutiflorus

Jointed Rush Juncus articulatus

Bulbous Rush Juncus bulbosus

Soft Rush Juncus effusus

Heath Rush Juncus squarrosus

Shore Weed Littorella uniflora

Water Lobelia Lobelia dortmanna

Perennial Ryegrass Lolium perenne

Common Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum

Birdsfoot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus

Greater Birds-Foot Trefoil Lotus pedunculatus

Field woodrush Luzula campestris

Great woodrush Luzula sylvatica

Water Mint Mentha aquatica

Purple Moor grass Molinia caerulea

Blinks Montia fontana

Bog Myrtle Sweet Gale. Myrica gale

Matt Grass Nardusw stricta

Bog Asphodel Narthecium ossifragum

Mountain Fern Oreopteris limbosperma

Wood-Sorrel Oxalis acetosella

Loose Wort Pedicularis sylvatica

Reed Phragmites australis

Mouse-eared Hawkweed Pilosella officinarum

Common Butterwort Pinguicula vulgaris

Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris

Ribwort Plantago lanceolata

Meadow Grass Poa pratensis

Common Milkwort Polygala serpyllifolia

Bog Pondweed Potamogeton polygonifolius

Common Tormentil Potentilla erecta

Marsh Cinquefoil Potentilla palustris

Primrose Primula vulgaris

Self-heal Prunella vulgaris

Wild Cherry – Gean Prunus avium

Bracken Pteridium aquilinum

Sessile Oak – Damask Oak Quercus petraea

Meadow Buttercup Ranunculus acris

Lesser Caladine Ranunculus ficaria

Lesser Spearwort Ranunculus flammula

Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens

Blackberry Rubus fruticosus

Raspberry Rubus idaeus

Sorrel Rumex acetosa

Sheeps Sorrel Rumex acetosella

Eared Willow Salix aurita

Goat Willow. Great Willow Salix caprea

Common Sallow Salix cinerea

Creeping Willow Salix repens

Lesser Clubmoss Selaginella selaginoides

Rowan – Mountain Ash Sorbus aucuparia


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables iv

Chickweed Stellaria media

Bog Stichwort Stellaria uliginosa

Devil’s Bit-Scabious Succisa pratensis

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale

Wood Sedge Teucrium scorodonia

Deer Grass Trichophorum cespitosum

White Clover Trifolium repens

Gorse Ulex europaeus

Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica

Bilberry, Blaeberry, Whorleberry Vaccinium myrtillus

Cranberry Vaccinium oxycoccos

Valerian Valeriana officinalis

Brooklime Veronica beccabunga

Heath Violet Viola canina

Marsh Violet Viola palustris

Lower plants Aneura pinguis

Aulacomnium palustre

Breutelia chrysocoma

Calliergonella cuspidata

Campylium stellatum

Campylopus atrovirens

Campylopus introflexus

Cladonia portentosa

Climacium dendroides

Dicranum scoparium

Diplophyllum albicans

Hylocomium splendens

Hypnum jutlandicum

Leucobryum glaucum

Lophocolea bidentata

Mylia taylori

Odontoschisma sphagni

Philonotis fontana

Pleurozium schreberi

Rhytidiadelphus loreus

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus

Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus

Scleropodium purum

Scorpidium revolvens

Scorpidium scorpioides

Sphagnum capillifolium

Sphagnum cuspidatum

Sphagnum denticulatum

Sphagnum fallax

Sphagnum inundatum

Sphagnum magellanicum

Sphagnum palustre

Sphagnum papillosum

Sphagnum squarrosum

Sphagnum subnitens

Sphagnum tenellum

Thuidium tamariscinum

Warnstorfia fluitans


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables i

Table 2: Target Notes Habitats for Figure 8.4 – November 2008

Target Note Number

Grid Reference

Notes

1 233018 575361 Access route to Turbine 1 - narrow M25 band (along burn), M17(/a) all around; Molinia-rich blanket bog stops more or less at first tramline drain

2 232934 575394 Molinia-rich M17 (quadratted) 3 232670 575453 Vaccinium oxycoccos 4 232583 575424 Edge

5 232522 575298 corner here - firm 20-40 cm peat, dry M17 with M15, M25a

6 232495 575097 mixture of M25 and Molinia-rich M17

7 232503 574961 Track to junction between TBs 3 & 4 - M25 mostly, with M6c in vicinity, also some M15 & M17

8 232904 575418 SE corner of Trichophorum-rich M17, becoming M18 to W

9 232793 575459 E. angustifolium-rich area in Trichophorum/E. angustifolium bog (M18) 10 232790 575445 More Andromeda; Calluna-rich patches occasional - M18a

11 232784 575425 NW-SE edge through here

12 232964 575305 M6-M23 swathe along Garchew Burn

13 232989 575257 Slope by road

14 233022 575263 Roadside

15 232878 575088 U20a

16 232859 575096 Sliver of M25a

17 232847 575096 More U20a

18 232824 575099 Sliver of M25a-M6c by burnlet

19 232818 575097 beginning of knoll

20 232813 575142 N tip of knoll

21 232766 575109 W edge through here

22 232752 575110 approximate middle of polygon

23 232741 575114 next knoll - gradual transition to M25-M17

24 232743 575177 Edge through here


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables ii

Target Note Number

Grid Reference

Notes

25 232688 575082 S transitional edge through here

26 232675 574997 M25a completely dominant around here

27 232652 574981 M17 patches around this area

28 232576 574905 S of track

29 232450 574998 junction between 3 & 4 is dryish M17/M15b (E. vaginatum too prominent for M25) on 30 cm peat

30 232431 574967 N swathe along wall in field

31 232409 574910 Edge with P17

32 232359 574836 Edge

33 232352 574772 Edge

34 232455 574736 Mostly U4 (by gate)

35 232478 574670 Slope with M25a, much less U20, some U4b & M23b, impoverished M10a flush & lichen-rich H10 heath

36 232198 574433 MG6/U4b - no photographs - nothing to show

37 232460 574481 More species-rich M25a(-M15a-b) fading by grid reference

38 232544 574484 tussocky Molinia 39 232583 574504 mix of M25, U4, M15a, M6a, M15d plus small amounts of M10

40 232675 574531 Steeper slope with U4-U20a

41 232640 574512 W edge of break in slope

42 232669 574444 tiny U4 patch

43 232905 574373 wetter M25 w Myrica-rich M15a

44 232636 574543 M15d with M25a

45 232696 574387 Long gash with M25 just dominant partner in mosaic with M23b, U20 and U4

46 232739 574344 Middle of polygon

47 232926 574374 starts here (or c. 20 m W); more M15d on N-facing slopes

48 233022 574434 N edge through here

49 232981 574387 M15b with M6d, M25a - M15d nearby

50 233091 574470 around & E of grid reference

51 233081 574600 dense Molinia with M17a occasional; Carex rostrata occasional-rare

52 233113 574612 marsh - impoverished M10 flushes nearby


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables iii

Target Note Number

Grid Reference

Notes

53 232949 574839 M15d patches around here

54 232889 574862 M15a-d with M25a, M6d nearby

55 232869 574730 N end of Ochiltree Hill has large amounts of U20 with U4 grassland patches

56 232942 574883 low knoll with rock outcrops - M25a dominant, accompanied by U4, bare rock

57 232863 574935 U4 patch with H10 heath

58 232853 574957 edge of M6d(-M25) area

59 232758 574942 M25a probably most extensive vegetation type, with M15d prominent, rather less U20, and with scattered amounts of H10cand U4; M6d just to NE

60 233295 575305 corner of U20

61 233266 575352 edge with drier vegetation to E


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables iv

Table 3: NVC Quadrat Data

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13

NVC type M17a M17 M18 (transition to M17)

M15b M17b Molinia-rich M17

M25a M6a M15d Tricho-phorum-rich M18

M23b M15a Species Poor M10a

Date 08.11.08 08.11.08 08.11.08 08.11.0

8

08.11.08 08.11.08 09.11.08 09.11.08 09.11.08 09.11.08 09.11.08 09.11.08 09.11.08

Easting 232934 232583 232557 232571 232528 232495 233105 233128 233205 232904 232952 232409 232481

Northing 575394 575424 575395 575341 575229 575097 575469 575506 575505 575418 575289 575496 575477

Notes TB1 TB2 TB3

peat depth (if noted) > 80 cm 25-30

cm

Molinia caerulea 9 8 5 5 4 6 9 6 7 3 3 7 5

Erica tetralix 3 5 6 4 4 5 2 3 4 7 4 4

Sphagnum capillifolium 6 6 4 4 4 5 3 4 5

Trichophorum cespitosum 3 6 6 6 6 5 5 3

Myrica gale 5 5 4 5 4 4 4

Eriophorum vaginatum 3 4 7 5 4 2 5

Calluna vulgaris 4 6 4 4 4 3

Sphagnum palustre 5 4 5 4 5

Narthecium ossifragum 3 3 4 3 3 3 3

Hypnum jutlandicum 3 4 4 3 6

Carex echinata 3 6 4 3 3


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables v

Sphagnum tenellum 4 2 4 4 4

Eriophorum angustifolium 3 1 3 4 4 2

Potentilla erecta 3 2 1 3 3 2 3

Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus

5 7 4

Pleurozium schreberi 4 6 5

Juncus effusus 4 8

Carex panicea 3 4 4

Carex viridula oedocarpa 3 7

Sphagnum subnitens 4 5

Sphagnum fallax 4 4

Sphagnum denticulatum 4 4

Sphagnum papillosum 3 5

Juncus squarrosus 4 4

Holcus lanatus 5 3

Dicranum scoparium 1 2 4

Cirsium palustre 3 3

Calliergonella cuspidata 6

Juncus acutiflorus 5

Lophocolea bidentata 3 2

Campylium stellatum 5

Festuca ovina 4

Agrostis canina 4

Scleropodium purum 4

Succisa pratensis 1 3

Hylocomium splendens 4

Cladonia portentosa 3

Cladonia uncialis 3


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables vi

Carex rostrata 3

Andromeda polifolia 3

Vaccinium oxycoccos 3

Ranunculus acris 3

Stellaria uliginosa 3

Galium plaustre 3

Euphrasia officinalis agg. 3

Vaccinium myrtillus 2

Nardus stricta 2

Cardamine pratensis 2

Polygala serpyllifolia 1

Plagiothecium undulatum 1

Thuidium tamarascinum 1


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxi

Photograph 1: Turbine 1: M17 Blanket Bog and M18 Trichophorum or Eriophorum angustifolium dominated M18


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxii

Photograph 2: Turbine 2 - Molinia dominated M17 blanket bog/M25a Molinia grassland


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxiii

Photograph 3: Turbine 3 - M17 Blanket Bog – former peat cuttings


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxiv

Photograph 4: Turbine 4 – boundary between M25a Molinia grassland/M23b Juncus effusus rush pasture.


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxv

No photograph for the location of Turbine 5 is presented due to the lack of botanical conservation issues; however it is located on improved grassland

Similarly, there is no photograph for the location of Turbine 6 as there are no botanical issues within its location.


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxvi

Photograph 5: Mixed area with Turbine 7 located in close proximity to habitat which is dominated by drier forms of wet heath (M15d).


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxvii

Photograph 6: Turbine 8 is located at the edge of a grassy lozenge in Molinia and Juncus dominated vegetation.


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxviii

Photograph 7: Turbine 9 is located in acid grassland which extended northwards to the Hill of Ochiltree


Atmos Consulting Ltd EON Climate & Renewables xxix

Photograph 8: Turbine 10: Molinia dominated, species poor M15 wet heath with M25 dominant in the vicinity

OCHILTREE WIND FARM ORNITHOLOGICAL STUDY TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8.5

A report to

E.ON Climate & Renewables

Ochiltree Wind Farm Ornithological Studies Technical Appendix 2009

Atmos Consulting Ltd i


Issue Log

Document prepared for E.ON Climate and Renewables


Name John G Inglis Title Senior Ecologist

Atmos Consulting Ltd Tower Mains Studios 18g Liberton Brae Edinburgh EH16 6AE




Tel: 0131 672 1888 Fax: 0131 672 1999

Tel: 01463 259209 Fax: 01463 259240

Tel: 01332 638014 Tel: 01352 744512 Fax: 01352 700291



Atmos Consulting Ltd ii

Table of Contents

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.2 METHODS 1

1.3 RESULTS 6

1.4 COLLISION RISK MODELLING 12

1.5 SUMMARY 16

1.6 REFERENCES 17

APPENDIX 1: DETAILS OF THE VANTAGE POINT WATCHES 18

APPENDIX 2: COMPLETE SPECIES LIST 21

APPENDIX 3: DETAILS OF SURVEYS 23

APPENDIX 4: COLLISION RISK MODELLING 25


Atmos Consulting Ltd E.ON Climate & Renewables 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.1.1 Atmos Consulting were commissioned by E.ON Climate and Renewables to

undertake an ornithological study at Hill of Ochiltree, South West Scotland for a proposed wind farm. This report presents the results of the ornithological study completed at Hill of Ochiltree from October 2007 to June 2009.

1.1.2 This document provides details of the methods used and results collected. Key species are considered to be those:

Included in Annex 1 of the EC Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC);

Listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) species;

The Dumfries and Galloway Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP); and

Those identified as potentially at risk from impacts of onshore wind farms (SNH, 2006).

1.1.3 All figure references refer to figures in ES Volume 3. This technical appendix includes the following information:

Baseline survey methodology;

Baseline methods;

Baseline results;

Collision risk modelling; and

Summary. 1.2 METHODS

Baseline Data and Surveys 1.2.1 The following surveys were completed at the site of Hill of Ochiltree

proposed wind farm development , a full description of the methodologies follows.

Vantage point watches (non-breeding and breeding seasons);

Winter Walkover Survey;

Black Grouse Survey;

Upland Breeding Bird Survey;

Woodland Point Counts Survey;

Breeding Raptor Survey;

Breeding Diver Survey; and

Nightjar Survey.

1.2.2 Field surveys were undertaken by the following experienced ornithological

surveyors:



Tim Drew (TD),Atmos Consulting Ltd (Schedule 1 licence holder);

Alan Rothery (AR) (Freelance ornithologist);

Eddie McGuire (EM) Atmos Consulting Ltd); and

John Inglis (JI) Atmos Consulting Ltd).

Diurnal Vantage Point Watches

1.2.3 The vantage point (VP) watches have been undertaken using the methods

recommended by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH 2005). Each VP watch was undertaken by a single observer in conditions of good visibility. Surveyors positioned themselves as inconspicuously as possible to minimise their effects on the birds‟ natural behaviour.

1.2.4 During each watch, the landscape was scanned continuously until a target bird species1 was detected. Once detected, the bird was observed until it landed or flew out of sight. The exact time that a bird spent in each height band was recorded for each period that the bird was in view, in one of three height bands: <20m, 20-125m and >125m.

1.2.5 VPs were carried out from two VPs in the month of October 2007 (VPs 1 and 2) and from November 2007 to September 2008 inclusive from three VPs (VPs 1, 2 and 3). The VP locations were selected to give coverage of the proposed wind farm area and an area to the north, of the turbine locations VP locations were agreed with SNH. The viewshed areas are based on a viewing arc of a maximum of 1800 observing in a predetermined view bearing. While vantage points have been selected to ensure that the viewsheds cover the required study area using a 2km threshold, as per the SNH guidance, the observations from VPs have not been constrained to a 2km radius. Viewsheds are based on visibility over bare ground at an imaginary layer 20m above the ground. Individual viewshed areas are detailed in Table 1.1 the combined viewshed area for the 3 VPs is 1175 hectares and for the combined viewshed area for VPs 1 and 3 is 623.6 hectares, these totals allow for the overlap between VP viewshed. Table 1.1: presents the details of the VP locations. Figure 8.8 illustrates the location of the VPs and their respective viewshed areas.

Table 1.1: Vantage Point Locations

VP Number Northing View Bearing Viewshed Area

VP1 NX 33406 76017 3300 618.6 Hectares

VP2 NX 32570 74619 1050 420.5 Hectares

VP3 NX 33269 74132 3100 427.8 Hectares

Winter Walkover Survey

1.2.6 The winter walkovers were carried out in accordance with SNH Guidance

(SNH 2005). The winter survey method involved following a route on the

1 Target species included divers, grebes, swans, geese, Annex 1 (European Birds Directive) raptors, Black Grouse, Annex 1 waders, Barn Owl

and Short-eared Owl.



survey site between VPs (not specifically those for diurnal VP watches) and ensuring that each part of the site was viewed. The route was walked slowly and the area was scanned periodically by stopping at suitable VPs (stopping for periods up to an hour if appropriate). These shortened VPs aimed to target areas in the landscape where potential ornithological important features such as ponds, streams, rocky out crops etc. may attract bird activity that may not be observed from the formal diurnal VP surveys. Three surveys were completed over the winter period during the months December to February. The start point was randomly selected each month. These surveys were carried out over the proposed wind farm development site. The surveys were carried out in suitable weather conditions, avoiding conditions such as high winds, poor visibility and rain.

Black Grouse Survey

1.2.7 The study area holds suitable habitat for black grouse and they are known to be present in the region. The black grouse survey (Gilbert et al., 1998) involved visiting the study area between the end of March and early May, surveys were undertaken on three occasions. Preparatory visits to identify any lek sites prior to specific surveys were conducted. The preparatory visits were undertaken up to two hours after dawn or in the evening before dusk to avoid any unintentional disturbance of birds, the aim was to cover all areas in the survey area to within 500 meters.

1.2.8 Once potential lek sites are identified a visit to count any displaying males and any grey hens will be made within three days of identifying the potential lek sites. Timing of these surveys was from one hour before sunrise to one hour after. Discreet observations of the lek‟s were made so as not to disturb birds displaying.

Upland Breeding Bird Survey

1.2.9 An upland breeding bird survey was carried out using the Brown and Shepherd breeding bird survey method (Gilbert et al., 1998). The Brown and Shepherd bird survey is used to census breeding waders such as golden plover, dunlin, curlew and others on open moor. A minimum of two visits are recommended between early April to July (SNH 2005) avoiding high winds and other poor weather conditions. The method is based on constant search effort, allowing 20 to 25 minutes per 500 x 500m quadrant of open land. A predetermined route through each square has to be followed so that all parts of each quadrant are approached to within at least 100m. For this assessment, the method was modified in that, the location and behaviour of all species (not just waders) encountered during the survey visits were recorded, this was considered satisfactory as there were low numbers of waders present.

1.2.10 The behaviour and location of all wader species were recorded on 1:10,000 scale maps, using standard BTO codes. Birds were assumed to be breeding or holding territory at the recorded location if one or more of the following was observed:

Courtship, displaying or singing;



Presence of a nest, eggs or young (including newly fledged);

Agitated behaviour, including alarm calls or distraction display; and or

Territorial disputes.

1.2.11 In the absence of any of these indicative behaviour traits, a pair observed together in suitable habitat was considered to represent a breeding pair. Other records were considered to be of non-breeding birds.

1.2.12 Within visits, duplicate records of birds separated by less than a threshold distance of 500m were arbitrarily considered to correspond to birds of the same pair, while those separated by more than these threshold distances were considered to be from different pairs. Exceptions to this are where surveyors recorded that birds seen within this threshold distance of each other represented different pairs and vice versa. Appropriate annotations were made on the field maps to indicate where this was the case. The area covered by the upland breeding bird surveys is illustrated on Figure 8.7.

Woodland Point Counts

1.2.13 Woodland Point Counts (WPC) were carried out in spring 2008 to provide a

bird species inventory of the conifer plantation area to the north west of the site and an area of semi-natural birch woodland. Three visits were carried out between mid April and June within the first six hours of sunrise. During May and June 2009 WPCs were completed along the proposed access route through Pnninghame Forest. Visits were carried out in favourable weather conditions (no wet weather or strong winds) (SNH 2005, Bibby et al. 1992). Table 7.2 provides grid references for the 40 locations that were surveyed in 2008 and Table 7.3 provides grid references for the 35 locations that were surveyed in 2009; Figure 8.10 illustrates the location of each WPC completed in 2008, WPCs completed in 2009 are not illustrated.

Table 7.2: Woodland Point Count Locations

WPC Number

Grid reference WPC

Number Grid reference

WPC Number

Grid reference

1 NX 33559 75711 15 NX 32259 75791 29 NX 33082 76002

2 NX 33574 75547 16 NX 31985 75829 30 NX 33116 75890

3 NX 33585 75404 17 NX 32059 75961 31 NX 33092 75668

4 NX 33607 75277 18 NX 31977 75624 32 NX 32859 75495

5 NX 33739 75317 19 NX 31999 75505 33 NX 32700 75510

6 NX 33894 75373 20 NX 32043 75360 34 NX 32531 75528

7 NX 33925 75589 21 NX 32145 75376 35 NX 32334 75457

8 NX 33802 75573 22 NX 32200 75487 36 NX 34923 76512

9 NX 33019 75474 23 NX 32269 75614 37 NX 35056 76198

10 NX 32930 75593 24 NX 32437 75924 38 NX 34943 76431

11 NX 32816 75707 25 NX 32542 76137 39 NX 34967 76630

12 NX 32783 75762 26 NX 32355 76135 40 NX 34968 76769

13 NX 32635 75802 27 NX 32695 76145

14 NX 32379 75799 28 NX 32895 76112

Table 7.3: Woodland Point Count Locations (Access Route 2009)

WPC Number

Grid Reference WPC

Number Grid Reference

WPC Number

Grid Reference

1 NX 32770 73118 13 NX 34210 71498 25 NX 35950 70302



WPC Number

Grid Reference WPC

Number Grid Reference

WPC Number

Grid Reference

2 NX 32789 72885 14 NX 34499 71405 26 NX 36201 70457

3 NX 32790 72660 15 NX 34573 71162 27 NX 36475 70518

4 NX 32701 72487 16 NX 34540 70836 28 NX 36697 70610

5 NX 32808 72227 17 NX 34573 70572 29 NX 37060 70603

6 NX 32898 72062 18 NX 34772 70320 30 NX 37392 70378

7 NX 32899 71873 19 NX 34869 70080 31 NX 37521 70181

8 NX 32980 71708 20 NX 35017 69872 32 NX 37741 69963

9 NX 33135 71485 21 NX 35215 69841 33 NX 37849 69861

10 NX 33348 71378 22 NX 35494 69981 34 NX 38052 69703

11 NX 33666 71406 23 NX 35681 70413 35 NX 38066 69588

12 NX 33922 71528 24 NX 35711 70161

Breeding Diver and Raptor Surveys

1.2.14 Surveys for breeding raptors and divers were carried out between April and June 2008.

1.2.15 For divers, the survey methods described in Gilbert et al., 1998 were followed which recommends two visits between the end of May and July. Diver surveys can be carried out at any time of the day avoiding days with poor visibility, persistent rain or high winds. All small pools and lochans in the study area were visited at least twice and observed from a distance to check for the presence of divers on the water. If no diver or other species of concern was seen, the lochs were approached and the shoreline walked and searched for any signs of breeding divers such as empty nest scrapes, incubating birds, broken eggshells or dead chicks.

1.2.16 The habitat at the Ochiltree wind farm could be suitable for a variety of raptors such as peregrine, merlin, hen harrier and short-eared owl. For all these species, surveys were carried out as described by Hardey et al. 2006.

1.2.17 The surveys were carried out using a combination of foot searches through suitable breeding habitats within the study area and shortened VP watches (Hardey 1998) (the VP locations were not necessarily those used for the Diurnal VP watches). Surveyors recorded the presence and behaviour of all raptor species encountered and also searched for signs of presence such as pellets, regularly used plucking sites, feathers and others.

1.2.18 An incidental observation of hen harrier was received early in 2009, as a precaution additional surveys over the Ochiltree development site were carried out. Surveys were carried out in the months of March and April using the methodology described above.

Nightjar Survey

1.2.19 Nightjars have been recorded to the south of Ochiltree wind farm area, a nightjar survey was therefore required. The methods adopted are as described in Gilbert et al (1998) and involved walking the survey area in order to detect any churring males in the area.



1.3 RESULTS 1.3.1 Results of the ornithological surveys carried out on the Ochiltree study area

are presented in the following paragraphs.

Diurnal Vantage Point Watches

1.3.2 A total of 229 hours of VP watches were completed between October 2007 and September 2008. No watches were completed at VP 3 in October 2007 as access to the location of VP 3 was not available. Table 1.4 summarises the completed VP effort. Details of VP survey dates, time, duration, surveyor and weather conditions can be found in Appendix 1.

1.3.3 The minimum effort required for raptors as recommended by SNH is 36 hours per season. The minimum requirements between October 2007 and March 2008 inclusive have been obtained for VPs 1 and 2, VP 3 due to the late start only obtained 30 hours of effort. During the summer season VPs 1, 2 and 3 exceeded the minimum 36 hours required.

Table 1.4: Vantage Point Effort (hours)

Date VP1 VP2 VP3 Total / Month

Oct-07 06:00 06:00 12:00

Nov-07 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Dec-07 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Jan-08 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Feb-08 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Mar-08 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Seasonal Total / VP 36:00 36:00 30:00

Apr-08 09:00 09:00 09:00 27:00

May-08 09:00 12:00 07:00 28:00

Jun-08 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Jul-08 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Aug-08 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Sep-08 06:00 06:00 06:00 18:00

Seasonal Total / VP 42:00 45:00 40:00

1.3.4 During VP watches between October 2007 and September 2008, seven

target species were recorded. Two raptor species: barn owl (1 flight), and short-eared owl (1 flight), three wader species; golden plover (2 flights), curlew (3 flights) and oystercatcher (1 flight), two species of waterfowl; greylag goose (13 flights) and Canada goose (1 flight). Raven flights were also recorded on 10 occasions. Table 1.5 summarises the species flight data and Table 1.6 details individual flights. Figure 8.9 illustrates the flight lines of all target species recorded from VPs.

Table 1.5: Summary Target Species Flight Line Data

Species Total Flight Time (secs) Total Flight Time at Risk (secs) Total Number of Birds

Barn Owl 265 0 1

Canada goose 20 0 2

Curlew 46 0 3



Species Total Flight Time (secs) Total Flight Time at Risk (secs) Total Number of Birds

Golden Plover 430 365 43

Greylag Goose 370 219 105

Oystercatcher 140 0 2

Short-eared Owl 48 0 1

Table 1.6: Target Species Flight Line Data

Species Visit Date Time First

Observed

VP Number

Number of Birds

Average Flight Height

Total Flight Time (secs)

Total Flight

Time at Risk (secs)

Golden Plover 25-Oct-07 13.47 VP2 6 30 130 130

Greylag Goose 31-Oct-07 14.10 VP2 2 100 70 70

Greylag Goose 27-Nov-07 13.19 VP1 11 45 45

Greylag Goose 27-Jan-08 8.12 VP3 8 15 15



Greylag Goose 10-Feb-08 8.02 VP3 23 15 40 0

Greylag Goose 10-Feb-08 8.30 VP3 7 5 10 0

Greylag Goose 16-Mar-08 7.15 VP2 16 8 30 0

Golden Plover 15-Apr-08 14.09 VP3 37 300 235

Curlew 15-Apr-08 14.23 VP3 1 10 22 0

Greylag Goose 15-Apr-08 15.04 VP2 14 10 10 0

Curlew 27-Apr-08 10.03 VP2 1 10 12 0

Greylag Goose 27-Apr-08 10.20 VP2 2 15 15 15

Greylag Goose 09-May-08 14.03 VP2 2 30 36 36

Curlew 09-May-08 17.10 VP2 1 10 12 0

Oystercatcher 19-May-08 18.07 VP2 2 15 140 0

Greylag Goose 09-Jun-08 17.34 VP3 2 30 38 38

Greylag Goose 21-Jun-08 21.48 VP2 2 10 14 0

Barn Owl 21-Jun-08 22.05 VP2 1 5 265 0

Short-eared Owl 25-Aug-08 20.45 VP3 1 2 48 0

Canada goose 07-Sep-08 07.20 VP2 2 5 20 0

1.3.5 A total of sixty three secondary species were observed during the VP

watches, of this assemblage twenty two species are considered to be of conservation concern. Two Annex 1 species were recorded; golden plover and short-eared owl, four Schedule 1 species; barn owl, fieldfare, redwing (the Schedule 1 designation applies only to fieldfare and redwing if they are found to be breeding) and common crossbill, eleven UKBAP species; curlew, herring gull, cuckoo, skylark, song thrush, grasshopper warbler, starling, linnet, lesser redpoll, bullfinch and reed bunting, sixteen Scottish Priority species; kestrel, golden plover, curlew, black-headed gull, herring gull, barn owl, short-eared owl, skylark, robin, song thrush, redwing, siskin, linnet, bullfinch and reed bunting, nine LBAP species; cormorant, golden plover, snipe, curlew, barn owl, skylark, swallow, linnet and reed bunting.

1.3.6 Other secondary species of note observed from VP watches were one sighting of a long-eared owl perched on a tree at NX 331 759 on the 25/10/2007. Cormorants were observed on several occasions on Loch Ochiltree and two goldeneye were observed on Loch Ochiltree on one occasion.

1.3.7 Appendix 2 lists all species observed during VP watches for the 12 months of surveys, also listed are any designation awarded to each species.



Winter Walkover Survey

1.3.8 During the three winter walkover surveys completed during November 2007, January and February 2008, twenty three species of bird were recorded of which eight species are relevant in the context of this report. These included: one Annex 1 species (a female peregrine, observed on the 18/02/2008 over Loch Ochiltree); two Schedule 1 species (peregrine and fieldfare); three LBAP species (cormorant, peregrine and snipe) and; four Scottish Priority species (kestrel, peregrine, wren and robin).

Black Grouse Survey

1.3.9 Preparatory surveys were completed in March 2008, further visits were carried out in April and May between the hours of 04:40 and 08:00. During the three completed surveys no black grouse were encountered.

Upland Breeding Bird Survey

1.3.10 Three visits were carried out in 2008 during the months of April, May and June. Recorded during the three visit survey were 56 species of bird. Nineteen of which are birds of conservation concern and graylag which is at risk from onshore wind farm developments. Three target species; greylag, golden plover (which is an Annex 1 listed species) and curlew. One Schedule 1 species, common crossbill and eleven UKBAP species; curlew, cuckoo, skylark, tree pipit, song thrush, grasshopper warbler, starling, house sparrow, linnet, lesser redpoll and reed bunting were recorded. A total of ten Scottish Priority species; kestrel, golden plover, curlew, skylark, robin, song thrush, siskin, linnet, and reed bunting and nine LBAP species; goosander, cormorant, golden plover, snipe, curlew, skylark, swallow, linnet and reed bunting were recorded during the Upland Breeding Bird survey .

1.3.11 Table 1.7 lists all species identified during the upland breeding bird survey, number of registrations per visit the considered abundance and breeding status. Estimates of the number of pairs or territories for each species recorded were derived by comparing the three visit maps for 2008. The registrations of breeding birds from each visit are illustrated on Figure 8.7.

Table 1.7: Upland Breeding Bird Survey

Species BTO Breeding

Status

Number of Registrations per Visit

Comment Visit

1 Visit

2 Visit

3

Blackbird B. Yes 3 1 1 Breeds in wooded areas

Blackcap BC Probable 1 Probable breeder in wooded areas

Blue tit BT Probable 7 1 Restricted to wooded areas or over flying

Buzzard BZ Probable 4 2 2 Potential breeding on or close to site

Canada goose CG Probable 2 Potentially breeding of site around Loch

Ochiltree

Carrion crow C. Yes 1 18 20 Common resident

Chaffinch CH Probable 3 2 Common breeder in wooded areas




Status


Comment Visit

1 Visit

2 Visit

3

Chiffchaff CC Potential 1 Common breeder in wooded areas

Coal tit CT Probable 2 1 2 Restricted to wooded areas or over flying

Common crossbill CR No 1 Restricted to forestry plantations or over

flying

Common gull CM No 5 Potentially breeding on small islands in

Loch Ochiltree

Common sandpiper CS Yes 1 1 Potentially 1 pair on eastern edge of Loch Ochiltree and another on the River Cree

Cormorant CA No 2 1 Restricted to Loch Ochiltree

Cuckoo CK Probable 2 Heard calling only

Curlew CU Yes 6 3 3 Potentially 2-3 pairs, no evidence of

successful breeding

Dipper DI No 1 2 Potentially 1-2 pairs on River Cree

Goldcrest GC No 3 Restricted to forestry plantations or over

flying

Golden plover GP No 37 One flock of 37 birds observed on one

occasion during first survey

Goldfinch GO Potential 2 Potential breeding resident

Goosander GD No 2 1 1 Potentially breeding of site near River

Cree

Grasshopper warbler

GH Potential 2 Birds heard reeling on site in suitable

breeding habitat

Great crested grebe GG No Restricted to Loch Ochiltree or over flying

Grey heron H. No 1 1 Recorded on Loch Ochiltree or over flying

Grey wagtail GL No 1 2 Potentially 1-2 pairs next to River Cree

Greylag goose GJ Potential 17 Potentially breeding of site around Loch

Ochiltree

House sparrow HS Potential 1 5 No breeding habitat within the

development site, restricted to farm buildings

Kestrel K. Probable 1 2 Potentially breeding on or close to site

Lesser redpoll LR Potential 1 Potential breeder in wooded areas

Linnet LI Potential 2 Potential breeder

Mallard MA No 7 5 4 Potentially breeding off site

Meadow pipit MP Yes 105 150 212 Distributed throughout site

Mistle thrush M. Yes 4 2 Not identified as breeding on site

Oystercatcher OC yes 7 4 2 Potentially breeding of site around Loch

Ochiltree

Pheasant PH Probable 7 3 3 Distributed throughout site

Pied wagtail PW Yes 9 4 13 Distributed throughout site

Raven RN Potential 4 8 Observed over flying during survey

Reed bunting RB Yes 13 8 Distributed throughout site, potentially 8-

10 pairs

Robin R. Yes 2 1 Common breeder in wooded areas

Sand martin SM Potential 6 7 3 Possibly breeds on River Cree riverbank

outside the site boundary

Siskin SK Potential 1 Potential breeder in wooded areas

Skylark S. Yes 33 32 39 Distributed throughout site

Snipe SN Yes 5 5 3 Rare (but probably under recorded)

Song Thrush ST Yes 1 3 1 Distributed throughout site, potentially

<2-3 pairs

Sparrowhawk SH Probable 1 Possible breeder, no evidence found

Starling SG Potential 1 2 7 Common resident

Stonechat SC Yes 13 20 Distributed throughout site, potentially

<20 pairs

Swallow SL 8 5 17 Seen over flying during survey

Teal T. Potential 1 Potentially breeding of site around Loch

Ochiltree




Status


Comment Visit

1 Visit

2 Visit

3

Tree pipit TP Potential 1 Potentially breeding of site

Treecreeper TC Potential 1 Restricted to wooded areas or over flying

Wheatear W. Yes 2 16 7 Distributed throughout site, potentially >8

pairs

Whinchat WC Yes 6 4 Distributed throughout site, >2 pairs

Whitethroat WH Potential 1 Potential breeder

Willow warbler WW Probable 3 12 2 Restricted to wooded areas

Woodpigeon WP Yes 2 2 6 Restricted to wooded areas

Wren WR Yes 9 9 8 Distributed throughout site

Woodland Point Counts (WPCs)

1.3.12 WPC surveys were completed during the months of April, May and June 2008. During the three WPCs surveys, thirty five species were recorded, eight of which were of conservation concern. One Schedule 1 species; common crossbill, four UKBAP species; dunnock, song thrush, lesser redpoll and bullfinch, six Scottish Priority species; kestrel, robin, song thrush, siskin, and bullfinch were all recorded during woodland point counts.

1.3.13 WPCs surveys completed in 2009 during May and June covering the proposed access route through Penninghame Forest, recorded thirty three species, ten species were of conservation concern. Two Schedule 1 species; goshawk and common crossbill were recorded, seven UKBAP species; cuckoo, skylark, tree pipit, dunnock, song thrush, grass hopper warbler and lesser redpoll were recorded. Five species are listed as Scottish Priority species; skylark, wren robin, song thrush and siskin were all recorded during these WPCs. Skylark although recorded was not breeding within the forestry, being recorded at points close to the woodland edge.

1.3.14 Table 1.8 lists all species identified during the WPCs survey (2008), the considered abundance and breeding status. Table 1.9 lists all species identified during the WPCs survey, their considered abundance and breeding status completed in 2009 . The (Sum) column for each visit shows the total number of individuals counted for a species per visit. The (Count) column shows the number of woodland point count locations at which the species were recorded. The (%) column shows the frequency with which each species was recorded over the total WPC locations.

Table: 1.8: Woodland Point Counts Survey Results (2008)

Species Status during Survey

Breeding Status

April Visit May Visit June Visit

sum count % sum count % sum count %

Blackbird occasional yes 2 2 5.0 2 2 5.0 2 1 2.5

Bullfinch rare yes 0.0 0.0 1 1 2.5

Blue Tit occasional yes 4 3 7.5 6 3 7.5 7 4 10.0

Buzzard rare yes 1 1 2.5 2 2 5.0 1 1 2.5

Carrion Crow occasional yes 5 4 10.0 7 5 12.5 6 5 12.5

Chiffchaff rare yes 2 2 5.0 0.0 1 1 2.5

Chaffinch frequent yes 45 25 62.5 31 21 52.5 20 14 35.0

Common Crossbill occasional yes 7 4 10.0 6 2 5.0 3 2 5.0

Coal Tit frequent yes 32 21 52.5 15 13 32.5 16 11 27.5




Breeding Status

April Visit May Visit June Visit


Dunnock rare yes 0.0 2 2 5.0 1 1 2.5

Green Woodpecker rare potential 0.0 0.0 3 1 2.5

Goldcrest frequent yes 14 11 27.5 10 8 20.0 9 6 15.0

Grey Wagtail rare no 1 1 2.5 0.0 0.0

Goldfinch occasional probable 0.0 4 1 2.5 10 2 5.0

Great Spotted Woodpecker rare yes 4 3 7.5 1 1 2.5 1 1 2.5

Great Tit occasional yes 7 7 17.5 6 5 12.5 6 4 10.0

Garden Warbler rare potential 0.0 1 1 2.5 0.0

Jackdaw rare probable 0.0 2 1 2.5 2 1 2.5

Kestrel rare probable 0.0 1 1 2.5 2 1 2.5

Long-eared Owl rare probable 1 1 2.5 1 1 2.5 0.0

Lesser Redpoll occasional potential 4 3 7.5 5 3 7.5 5 3 7.5

Long-tailed Tit rare yes 0.0 2 1 2.5 2 1 2.5

Mistle Thrush rare yes 8 8 20.0 3 3 7.5 1 1 2.5

Pheasant rare yes 6 5 12.5 2 2 5.0 0.0

Pied Wagtail rare yes 1 1 2.5 1 1 2.5 2 2 5.0

Robin frequent yes 35 25 62.5 30 26 65.0 21 19 47.5

Raven rare potential 3 2 5.0 0.0 0.0

Stonechat rare no 1 1 2.5 0.0 0.0

Sparrowhawk rare probable 1 1 2.5 0.0 0.0

Siskin frequent yes 8 7 17.5 5 4 10.0 17 7 17.5

Song Thrush occasional yes 7 6 15.0 8 8 20.0 7 7 17.5

Treecreeper rare probable 3 2 5.0 0.0 4 3 7.5

Tawny Owl rare probable 0.0 1 1 2.5 0.0

Whitethroat rare probable 0.0 0.0 1 1 2.5

Woodpigeon occasional yes 4 2 5.0 11 9 22.5 8 5 12.5

Wren frequent yes 12 10 25.0 10 9 22.5 5 4 10.0

Willow Warbler frequent yes 8 8 20.0 29 20 50.0 15 11 27.5

Grand Total 226 204 179

Table 1.9: Woodland Point Counts Survey Results (Access Route 2009)


Breeding Status

1st Visit 2nd Visit 3rd Visit


Blackbird frequent yes 20 16 45.7 11 10 28.6 7 6 17.1

Blackcap occasional yes 2 1 2.9 2 2 5.7 3 3 8.6

Blue Tit rare probable 0.0 0.0 2 1 2.9

Buzzard rare probable 2 2 5.7 1 1 2.9 2 2 5.7

Carrion Crow rare probable 3 2 5.7 0.0 6 4 11.4

Chaffinch frequent yes 38 23 65.7 46 25 71.4 67 31 88.6

Chiffchaff occasional yes 7 6 17.1 6 4 11.4 8 6 17.1

Coal Tit occasional yes 21 11 31.4 12 8 22.9 15 9 25.7

Crossbill frequent probable 4 2 5.7 21 8 22.9 5 4 11.4

Cuckoo rare probable 1 1 2.9 3 3 8.6 1 1 2.9

Dunnock rare probable 0.0 0.0 2 1 2.9

Goldcrest occasional yes 11 5 14.3 19 7 20.0 16 9 25.7

Goshawk rare potential 0.0 1 1 2.9 0.0

Grasshopper Warbler rare yes 0.0 0.0 2 1 2.9

Great Spotted Woodpecker rare yes 0.0 3 2 5.7 2 2 5.7

Great Tit occasional yes 1 1 2.9 6 2 5.7 11 6 17.1

Grey Heron rare potential 2 1 2.9 0.0 0.0

Grey Wagtail rare yes 2 1 2.9 0.0 4 3 8.6

Lesser Redpoll rare potential 3 2 5.7 2 1 2.9 2 1 2.9




Breeding Status

1st Visit 2nd Visit 3rd Visit


Long-tailed Tit rare probable 0.0 0.0 8 1 2.9

Mallard rare potential 1 1 2.9 0.0 0.0

Mistle Thrush rare potential 0.0 2 2 5.7 1 1 2.9

Raven rare potential 0.0 0.0 3 2 5.7

Robin frequent yes 44 30 85.7 44 25 71.4 23 17 48.6

Siskin frequent yes 16 8 22.9 41 12 34.3 42 16 45.7

Skylark rare potential 0.0 1 1 2.9 2 2 5.7

Song Thrush frequent yes 9 9 25.7 16 14 40.0 20 18 51.4

Swallow rare no 0.0 1 1 2.9 1 1 2.9

Tree Pipit occasional yes 4 3 8.6 7 4 11.4 4 3 8.6

Whitethroat frequent yes 6 4 11.4 6 3 8.6 14 5 14.3

Willow Warbler frequent yes 38 20 57.1 51 26 74.3 31 18 51.4

Wood Pigeon occasional yes 3 3 8.6 5 4 11.4 8 6 17.1

Wren frequent yes 19 16 45.7 28 19 54.3 58 30 85.7

Grand Total 257 335 370

Breeding Diver and Raptor Surveys 1.3.15 Surveys were carried out during the months of April, May and June 2008, a

fourth visit was not completed as recommended by Hardey et al., 2006 as no raptors of conservation concern were identified breeding on site. The additional hen harrier surveys were carried out in March April 2009.

1.3.16 No target raptor or diver species were identified as breeding within the survey area in either 2008 or 2009.

Nightjar Survey

1.3.17 Surveys were completed on two occasions during June and July 2008 between the hours of 02:00 and 04:30. No nightjars were identified within the survey area during surveys.

Appendix 2 lists all species observed during ornithological studies, also listed are any designation awarded to each species.

Appendix 3. Details survey dates, time, duration, surveyor and weather conditions during the winter walkover, upland breeding bird, woodland point counts, breeding diver / raptor surveys and nightjar surveys.

1.4 Collision Risk Modelling 1.4.1 A collision risk model (CRM) was carried out for the following species:

golden plover and greylag goose. For golden plovers and geese, the collision risk is usually calculated using the linear model as their flight movements during the breeding season for golden plover and during autumn and spring migration for geese are often predictable and follow a predictable pattern. However after assessing the flight line data that was gathered during the VP watches it was concluded that the movements for these species did not



follow predictable patterns but occurred rather randomly over the site. Golden plover were not breeding on Ochiltree but birds were only present briefly whilst on route to and from breeding grounds and the two flights of multiple birds were not linear. The greylag geese present were not migratory birds and were considered as part of a resident feral population, with an unpredictable flight pattern. Examples of the workings of the CRM used can be found in Appendix 4.

1.4.2 Therefore for the two species analysed a random model has been used to assess the theoretical collision impact on golden plover and greylag goose.

1.4.3 The general methodology used to predict collision risk is provided by SNH (SNH, 2000b). In summary, the following steps were followed in this assessment:

Review the flight line data, which in this instance indicated that a random collision analysis should be conducted for each species;

Digitise all flight lines and record relevant characteristics (including species, number of birds, start time of flight and height at 15 second intervals or exact time at each height) in linked database;

Identify all flights for each species which are at any point within the „at risk‟ height band and sum the total „at risk‟ flight duration for each vantage point, multiplying any flight at risk time by the number of birds observed, where more than one bird is recorded per flight line;

Calculate an „occupancy rate‟ for each vantage point, defined as the observed „at risk‟ activity levels divided by total observation time and area observed, giving an occupancy per unit time and unit area for each vantage point;

Average the occupancy rate across the vantage points using an un-weighted mean approach;

Apply the average occupancy rate to the wind development site, based on a site area, risk volume and total turbine rotor volume, applying a factor to estimate the total time that the birds could theoretically be active during the period of interest, to determine the total predicted time spent by the individual species within air space which could be swept by turbine blades;

Run the collision model with relevant turbine and ornithological parameters to calculate the theoretical proportion of transits resulting in a collision assuming no avoiding action; and

Calculate the number of transits based on occupancy time and flight speed; multiply the number of transits by the collision rate, avoidance factor and operating parameters of the project to estimate the theoretical number of collisions per year.

1.4.4 The predicted mortality through collision is dependent on a number of variables, including flight activity within the turbine envelope, the species‟ physiology, nocturnal flight behaviour and flight velocity, weather



conditions, the predicted avoidance rate, the number, rotational speed and dimensions of the turbines and the proportion of the time that the turbines are operational throughout the year.

1.4.5 For a given analysis, all of these variables may be defined with an acceptable degree of accuracy, other than the avoidance rate. A precautionary figure of 95% avoidance for waders and raptors has been assumed for collision modelling purposes in the past, but a review of post-construction monitoring studies which combined flight observations with corpse surveys, controlling for search effectiveness, indicates that a much higher avoidance rate of 99.82% is likely to be more accurate (Fernley et al., 2006). This is consistent with Percival (2004), in which an avoidance rate of 99.62% for waterfowl was calculated.

1.4.6 Studies of raptor avoidance behaviour have indicated 98% + avoidance rate would be a more accurate assumption (Whitfield & Madders, 2006). Whitfield & Madders (2006) state that „in the absence of any means to use any empirically derived avoidance rate, two options are available in practice; use a generic 95% „precautionary‟ rate or use a rate based on empirically derived measures in other birds of prey‟ They then state „most estimates of avoidance rates in bird of prey lie between 98% and 100%. At least at some sites avoidance rates are not 100% in red kites and so an initial assumption was made that red kites would show an avoidance rate of above or equal to 98% but below 100%‟ Their study did not contradict this initial assumption (Whitfield & Madders, 2006a). This study presents a collision model using a precautionary 95% avoidance rate for golden plover and a 99% for greylag goose.

1.4.7 All flights at risk height were included into the collision risk random model with the following data. Table 1.10 details the seconds entered into collision risk model per species.

Table 1.10: Total Flight Seconds entered in the Collision Risk Model

Species VP

Number Seconds at Risk

Height Number of Birds

Number of Flights

Golden plover

VP2 780 6 1

VP3 8695 37 1

Greylag goose

VP1 495 11 1

VP2 242 6 3

VP3 196 10 2

1.4.8 The proposed ten turbines at Ochiltree, dimensions are approximately a maximum tip height 115 metres, the tower height to centre of hub is 75 metres with a 40 metre blades and the estimated operation rate is 85%.

1.4.9 The following assumptions were made for the various species:

A daylight calculator was used to produce figures for the total daylight period at Ochiltree for 2008.

Biometric data (bird length and wingspan) for the various species were obtained from the BTO webpage.

Golden plover are assumed to be potentially present all year round although no birds were identified breeding or over wintering.

Feral Greylag geese are assumed to be present all year round.



1.4.10 The following Table 1.11 summarises the assumptions for the random

model.

Table 1.11: Biometric Data and Assumptions used for the Collision Risk Modelling

Species Bird

Length (m)

Wingspan (m)

Bird speed (m/s)

Avoidance rate

Months Active

Daylight Hours

Activity Flapping

or Gliding

Golden plover

0.29 0.76 10 0.95 year 4500 daylight hours only

Flapping

Greylag goose

0.82 1.64 13 0.99 year 4500

daylight hours plus 25% night

Flapping

1.4.11 The results for the collision risk model for the golden plover and greylag

geese are summarised in Table 1.12. Detailed calculated models follow for each species calculated at 95% avoidance as examples of the workings of the model.

Table 1.12: Collision Risk Model Results per Species at Three Avoidance Rates

Species Avoidance

Rate Predicted Annual

Collision Risk Number of Years

per Collision

Number of Birds Collisions over 25

years

Golden plover

95% 0.73 1.38 18.18

97% 0.44 2.29 10.91

99% 0.15 6.88 3.64

Greylag goose

95% 0.12 8.37 2.99

97% 0.02 41.87 0.60

99% 0.02 41.87 0.60



1.5 Summary 1.5.1 The results from the surveys carried out at the Ochiltree development site

between October 2007 and June 2009 provide the baseline ornithological assemblage. Three Annex 1 species were recorded; peregrine, golden plover and short-eared owl. Both peregrine and short-eared owl were recorded on only one occasion, neither were found to breed within the development site boundary. Golden plover was recorded on both the VP survey and the Upland Breeding Bird (UBB) survey, however was not identified as breeding.

1.5.2 Five Schedule 1 species were recorded, which were peregrine and as mentioned above was recorded on only one occasion, goshawk recorded once during WPCs in 2009 and barn owl also recorded once during VP watches. Common crossbill recorded during VPs, UBB and WPCs surveys, fieldfare and redwing recorded during VP watches and WW surveys.

1.5.3 A total of fourteen UKBAP species were recorded during the survey period, there were also seventeen species which are listed as Scottish Priority species recorded. From the Dumfries and Galloway Biodiversity Action Plan, there were a total of eleven LBAP species recorded.

1.5.4 Six species identified at risk from wind development (SNH 2006) were recorded during the ornithological surveys at Ochiltree. Goshawk was recorded during WPCs in 2009 on the access route through Penninghame Forest. The other species; greylag geese, peregrine, golden plover, curlew and short-eared owl, were all potentially at risk of collision with turbines. Flight activity data gathered during VPs surreys showed that only two species were recorded flying at collision risk height; these were greylag geese and golden plover. Both species were analysed by collision risk modelling.



1.6 References

Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, S. 2000. Bird Census Techniques. 2nd Edition. Academic Press, London.

Fernley J., Lowther S. and Whitefield P. 2006 A review of goose collisions at operating wind farms and estimation of the goose avoidance rate. Natural Research/ West Coast Energy / Hyder

Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. & Evans, J. (1998) Bird Monitoring Methods: a manual of techniques for key UK species. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire

Hardey, J. Humphrey, C., Riley, H., Wernham, C. Etheridge, B & Thompson, D. 2006: Raptors a field guide to survey and monitoring. TSO, Edinburgh

Scottish Natural Heritage 2005. Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore wind farms on bird communities. SNH Guidance. SNH, Battleby.

Scottish Natural Heritage 2000. Wind farms and birds: calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no avoidance action. SNH Guidance Note Series. SNH, Battleby.

Whitfield, D.P. & Madders, M. 2006. A review of the impacts of wind farms on hen harriers Circus cyaneus and an estimation of collision avoidance rates. Natural Research Information Note 1 (revised). Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK.

Whitfield, D.P. & Madders, M. 2006a. Deriving collision avoidance rates for red kites Milvus milvus. Natural Research Information Note 3. Natural Research Ltd, Banchory, UK.

SNH 2006: Guidance: Assessing significance of impacts from onshore wind farms on birds outwith designated areas



Appendix 1: Details of the Vantage Point Watches Details are; VP number, date, surveyor, start time, stop time, duration, comments (NTSR indicates that no target species were recorded) and weather details.

VP Number

Visit Date

Observer Start End Duration Comments Wind

Direction

Wind Strength (force)

Cloud Cover

(Eighths)

Precipitation Type

Precipitation Frequency

Visibility

VP1 25-Oct-07 AR 13:10 16:10 03:00 Long-eared

Owl observed perched.

SW 2 8 None N/A >3km

VP2 25-Oct-07 TD 13:20 16:20 03:00 SW 2 8 None N/A >3km

VP1 31-Oct-07 AR 07:55 10:55 03:00 NTRS SW 2 8 None N/A 1-3km

VP2 31-Oct-07 AR 12:00 15:00 03:00 SW 2 8 None N/A 1-3km

VP1 24-Nov-07 AR 08:35 11:35 03:00 NTRS - 0 0 None N/A >3km

VP2 24-Nov-07 AR 12:50 15:50 03:00 NTRS S 1 1 None N/A >3km

VP2 27-Nov-07 AR 08:10 11:10 03:00 NTRS SW 1 8 None N/A 1-3km

VP1 27-Nov-07 AR 12:05 15:05 03:00 - 0 8 None N/A >3km

VP1 22-Jan-08 AR 08:35 11:35 03:00 NTRS SW 4 8 None N/A >3km

VP2 22-Jan-08 AR 12:18 15:18 03:00 NTRS SW 4 8 None N/A >3km

VP2 25-Jan-08 AR 08:30 11:30 03:00 NTRS W 3 7 None N/A >3km

VP1 25-Jan-08 AR 12:45 15:45 03:00 NTRS W 4 7 None N/A 1-3km

VP3 27-Jan-08 AR 07:55 10:55 03:00 S 2 5 None N/A >3km

VP3 27-Jan-08 AR 11:55 14:55 03:00 S 2 5 None N/A >3km



VP1 12-Dec-07 AR 08:05 11:05 03:00 NTRS SW 3 7 None N/A >3km

VP1 12-Dec-07 AR 12:05 15:05 03:00 NTRS SW 3 7 None N/A >3km

VP2 13-Dec-07 AR 07:55 10:55 03:00 NTRS W 2 8 None N/A

VP2 13-Dec-07 AR 11:55 14:55 03:00 NTRS W 2 8 None N/A

VP3 14-Dec-07 AR 08:35 11:35 03:00 NTRS, Mist. NW 2 8 None N/A <1km

VP3 14-Dec-07 AR 12:35 15:35 03:00 NTRS NW 3 8 None N/A <1km

VP1 06-Feb-08 AR 08:10 11:10 03:00 NTRS W 1 5 None N/A >3km

VP2 06-Feb-08 AR 12:25 15:25 03:00 NTRS W 2 6 None N/A >3km

VP2 07-Feb-08 AR 07:45 10:45 03:00 NTRS SSW 2 7 None N/A >3km

VP1 07-Feb-08 AR 11:45 14:45 03:00 NTRS SSW 3 7 None N/A >3km

VP3 10-Feb-08 AR 07:50 10:50 03:00 SW 1 0 None N/A >3km



VP Number

Visit Date


Direction


Cloud Cover

(Eighths)

Precipitation Type


Visibility

VP3 10-Feb-08 AR 11:50 14:50 03:00 NTRS SW 1 2 None N/A >3km

VP1 15-Mar-08 AR 11:25 14:25 03:00 NTRS NW 4 8 None N/A >3km

VP3 15-Mar-08 AR 07:10 10:10 03:00 NTSR NW 4 8 None N/A >3km

VP2 16-Mar-08 AR 07:15 10:15 03:00 NW 3 8 None N/A >3km


VP1 17-Mar-08 Ar 06:55 09:55 03:00 NTRS NW 0 0 None N/A >3km


VP3 15-Apr-08 TD 13:50 16:50 03:00 NW 2 3 None N/A >3km

VP2 15-Apr-08 AR 14:00 17:00 03:00 NW 1 3 None N/A >3km

VP1 19-Apr-08 AR 06:25 09:25 03:00 NTSR E 4 8 None N/A >3km

VP3 19-Apr-08 AR 14:00 17:00 03:00 NTSR E 4 8 None N/A >3km

VP2 20-Apr-08 AR 08:05 11:05 03:00 NTSR NE 4 8 None N/A 1-3km

VP1 20-Apr-08 AR 13:00 16:00 03:00 NTSR NE 4 8 None N/A >3km

VP3 26-Apr-08 AR 05:45 08:45 03:00 SW 1 8 None N/A >3km

VP1 26-Apr-08 AR 09:50 12:50 03:00 NTSR SW 2 5 None N/A >3km

VP2 27-Apr-08 AR 08:50 11:50 03:00 SW 2 8 None N/A >3km

VP1 19-May-08 AR 17:55 20:55 03:00 SE 3 4 None N/A >3km

VP2 19-May-08 TD 18:05 21:05 03:00 SE 2 3 None N/A >3km

VP1 15-May-08 AR 07:55 10:55 03:00 NTSR E 2 4 None N/A >3km

VP1 12-May-08 AR 17:45 20:45 03:00 NTSR NE 1 0 None N/A >3km


VP2 09-May-08 AR 13:15 16:15 03:00 E 2 3 None N/A >3km

VP2 09-May-08 AR 17:15 20:15 03:00 E 2 5 None N/A >3km


VP1 09-Jun-08 TD 15:55 18:55 03:00 NTSR SW 2 3 None N/A >3km

VP3 09-Jun-08 AR 16:10 19:10 03:00 SW 4 3 None N/A >3km

VP2 21-Jun-08 AR 15:20 18:20 03:00 NTSR SW 1 3 None N/A >3km

VP2 21-Jun-08 AR 19:20 22:20 03:00 SW 1 3 None N/A >3km



VP2 27-Jul-08 AR 14:00 17:00 03:00 NTSR SW 1 5 None N/A >3km



VP Number

Visit Date


Direction


Cloud Cover

(Eighths)

Precipitation Type


Visibility

VP1 27-Jul-08 AR 18:05 21:05 03:00 2 Tawny Owl heard calling.


VP1 28-Jul-08 AR 07:40 10:40 03:00 NTSR S 2 5 None N/A >3km

VP3 28-Jul-08 AR 12:10 15:10 03:00 NTSR S 2 8 None N/A >3km

VP3 29-Jul-08 AR 06:45 09:45 03:00 SW 3 2 None N/A >3km

VP2 29-Jul-08 AR 10:45 13:45 03:00 Greylag Goose heard calling.


VP2 23-Aug-08 AR 05:40 08:40 03:00 NTSR SW 4 7 None N/A >3km

VP1 23-Aug-08 AR 09:30 12:30 03:00 NTSR SW 4 8 None N/A 1-3km



VP3 25-Aug-08 AR 15:30 18:30 03:00 NTSR S 2 3 None N/A >3km

VP3 25-Aug-08 AR 19:30 22:30 03:00 SW 2 3 None N/A >3km

VP3 05-Sep-08 AR 11:30 14:30 03:00 NTSR E 3 8 None N/A >3km

VP1 05-Sep-08 AR 15:30 18:30 03:00 NTSR SE 3 8 None N/A >3km

VP2 07-Sep-08 AR 05:55 08:55 03:00 E 3 1 None N/A >3km

VP1 07-Sep-08 AR 10:05 13:05 03:00 NTSR NE 3 3 None N/A >3km



(The surveyors were Tim Drew (TD) and Alan Rothery (AR)



APPENDIX 2: COMPLETE SPECIES LIST (list of Species Recorded per Survey Type: “VP” Vantage Point, “UBB” Upland Breeding Bird, “WW” Winter Walkover and “WPC” Woodland Point Counts).

British (English) Scientific name Survey Type Annex

1 Schedule

1 UK BAP

L BAP

Scottish Priority

Red and Amber Listed

Sensitive to Wind Farms VP UBB WW WPC WPC 09

Greylag Goose Anser anser A

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Teal Anas crecca A

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula A

Goosander Mergus merganser

Pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo A

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea

Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus

Buzzard Buteo buteo

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus A

Peregrine Falco peregrinus A

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus A

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria

Snipe Gallinago gallinago A

Curlew Numenius arquata A

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos

Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus A

Common Gull Larus canus A

Herring Gull Larus argentatus A

Stock Dove Columba oenas A

Woodpigeon Columba palumbus

Cuckoo Cuculus canorus A

Barn Owl Tyto alba A

Tawny Owl Strix aluco

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus A

Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major

Skylark Alauda arvensis R

Sand Martin Riparia riparia A

Swallow Hirundo rustica A

House Martin Delichon urbicum A

Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis R

Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis A

Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea A

Pied Wagtail Motacilla alba



British (English) Scientific name Survey Type Annex

1 Schedule

1 UK BAP

L BAP

Scottish Priority

Red and Amber Listed

Sensitive to Wind Farms VP UBB WW WPC WPC 09

Dipper Cinclus cinclus

Wren Troglodytes troglodytes

Dunnock Prunella modularis A

Robin Erithacus rubecula

Whinchat Saxicola rubetra

Stonechat Saxicola torquatus A

Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe

Blackbird Turdus merula

Fieldfare Turdus pilaris A

Song Thrush Turdus philomelos R

Redwing Turdus iliacus A

Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus A

Grasshopper Warbler Locustella naevia R

Sedge Warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla

Garden Warbler Sylvia borin

Whitethroat Sylvia communis

Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita

Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus A

Goldcrest Regulus regulus A

Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus

Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus

Great Tit Parus major

Coal Tit Periparus ater

Treecreeper Certhia familiaris

Magpie Pica pica

Jackdaw Corvus monedula

Carrion Crow Corvus corone

Raven Corvus corax

Starling Sturnus vulgaris R

House Sparrow Passer domesticus R

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs

Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis

Siskin Carduelis spinus

Linnet Carduelis cannabina R

Lesser Redpoll Carduelis cabaret A

Common Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula R

Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus R



APPENDIX 3: DETAILS OF SURVEYS Details are; survey, visit, date, start and stop time, duration, surveyor (The surveyors were Tim Drew (TD) Alan Rothery (AR) John Inglis (JI) and Eddie McGuire (EM)), NTSR indicates that no target species were recorded, comments and weather details.

Survey Visit

Number Visit Date Observer Start End Duration Temp 0C

Wind Direction


Cloud Cover

(Eighths)

Precipitation Type


Visibility

Winter Walkover

1 18/11/2007 AR 08:00 15:25 07:25 N/A W 1 0 None >3

2 24/01/2008 AR 08:05 17:20 09:15 N/A SW-W 3-4 5 None >3

3 18/02/2008 AR 07:50 17:15 09:25 N/A SW 1 0 None >3

Black Grouse

1 24/03/2008 AR 05:20 08:00 02:40 N/A NNW 1-2 5 None >3

2 27/04/2008 AR 04:40 07:40 03:00 4 SW 2 8 None >3

3 15/05/2008 AR 04:50 07:50 03:00 7 E 2 4 None >3

Upland Breeding

Bird Survey

1

15/04/2008 TD 09:00 11:25 02:25 N/A NW 2 5 None >3

16/04/2008

TD 08:55 11:20 02:25 4 SW 2-3 3 None >3

12:30 16:40 04:10 N/A SW 2 3 None >3

AR AR

09:10 11:45 02:35 4 SW 3 3 None >3

12:30 16:20 03:50 N/A SW 2 3 None >3

2

20/05/2008 TD 07:45 14:20 06:35 N/A SE 2 3 None >3km

AR 07:50 14:30 06:40 N/A SE 2 3 None >3km

21/05/2008

TD 10:10 13:08 02:58 N/A SE 2 8 None >3

AR 10:30 14:05 03:35 N/A SE 2 7 None >3

TD 13:40 14:10 00:30 N/A SE 2 8 None >3

3

10/06/2008 TD 09:35 16:00 06:25 N/A SW 2-4 3 None >3km

AR 09:35 16:00 06:25 N/A SW 2-4 3 None >3km

11/06/2008 TD 07:30 09:40 02:10 N/A W 3 N/A None >3km

AR 11:40 13:07 01:27 N/A W 2-3 7/8 None >3km

Breeding Raptor &

Diver

1 21/04/2008 AR 05:35 08:35 03:00 N/A E 3-4 6-7 None >3

30/04/2008 TD/AR 09:25 12:35 03:00 N/A NW 2-3 8 Rain Light intermittent >2-3

2 12/05/2008 AR 13:00 16:00 03:00 N/A NE 1 1 None >3

25/05/2008 TD/AR 07:20 10:20 03:00 N/A NE 2 5 None >3

3 27/06/2008 TD/AR 05:10 08:10 03:00 N/A E 2 5 None >3

29/06/2008 TD/AR 06:50 09:50 03:00 N/A S 1 7 None >3

Woodland Point

Counts 2008

1 15/04/2008 AR 06:05 10:45 04:40 N/A NW 2 3 None >3

1 15/04/2008 TD 06:10 07:55 01:45 N/A NW 2 3 None >3

1 16/04/2008 TD 07:30 08:30 01:00 4 SW 2-3 3 None >3

2 21/05/2008 AR 05:45 08:01 02:16 N/A SE 2 8 None >3

2 21/05/2008 TD 06:00 08:44 02:44 N/A SE 2 8 None >3



Survey Visit

Number Visit Date Observer Start End Duration Temp 0C

Wind Direction


Cloud Cover

(Eighths)

Precipitation Type


Visibility

2 21/05/2008 AR 08:28 10:03 01:35 N/A SE 2 8 None >3

2 25/05/2008 AR 05:45 06:50 01:0 N/A NE 2 4 None >3

3 11/06/2008 AR 05:05 11:35 06:30 N/A W 2-3 7 None >3

3 11/06/2008 TD 05:00 06:50 01:50 N/A W 3 6 None

3 11/06/2008 TD 10:10 11:40 01:30 N/A W 2 7 None

3 27/06/2008 AR 08:30 09:30 01:00 N/A E 2 3 None >3

Nightjar Survey

1 11/06/2008 TD/AR 02:00 04:00 02:00 N/A W 3 8 None

2 11/07/2008 TD/AR 02:00 04:00 02:00 N/A S 1 8 None

Woodland Point

Counts 2009

1 13/05/2009 JI 05:40 11:02 05:22 8 SW 1 0 None >3

1 14/05/2009 JI 05:10 10:36 05:26 8 E 2 7 None >3

2 04/06/2009 JI 04:40 11:00 06:20 10 ? 0 4 None >3

2 05/06/2009 JI 05:00 09:30 04:30 8 NNE 1 7 None >3

3 22/06/2009 JI 05:00 11:00 06:00 14 ? 0 8 Rain Light intermittent 1-2

3 23/06/2009 JI 04:50 10:00 05:10 11 ? 1 2 None >2

Additional Raptor Survey

1 26/03/2009 EM 11:30 20:20 07:45 7 SW 4 4-7 Rain Blustery Showers 1-3

2 27/03/209 EM 05:30 14:00 07:00 N/A SW 1.2 3 None >3

3 16/04/2009 AR 08:05 15:55 15 E 3-4 1 None >3



APPENDIX 4: COLLISION RISK MODELLING Collision Risk Model Calculations for Golden Plover for Ochiltree at 95% Avoidance. Stage 1: Number of birds flying through the rotors per year

1.1

VP Area

(Ha)

Time

(hours)

1 618.6 78

2 420.5 81

3 427.8 70

Total 1467 229

1.2 8.7E-05

Mean bird activity =Total bird activity/number of VPs

Mean bird activity = 8.70156670188152E-052.90052223396051E-05 s/ha/3 = s/ha

Overall area covered by VPs (excluding overlap) = 1175 ha

% of time birds active in the area = Overall area (excluding overlaps) in ha x mean bird activity (s/ha)

% of time birds active in area = 1175 x 2.90052223396051E-05 =

1.3

Corrected bird activity=Proportion of actual height band x % birds active in the area

Hub height = 75 m Observed height band max = 125 m

Rotor radius = 40 m Observed height band min = 20 m

Rotor max height= hub height + rotor radius

Rotor min height= hub height - rotor radius

Rotor max height = 115 m

Rotor min height = 35 m

Proportion of actual height band = (115 - 35)/(125 - 20)

Proportion of actual height band = 0.762

Corrected bird activity =

1.4

Hours potentially active = 4500.93911163438

No. of hours of bird occupancy in the airspace per year =hours potentially active x bird activity

No. of hours of bird occupancy in the airspace per year = 4500.93911163438 x 0.0259665799992655

No. of hours of bird occupancy = 116.874

1.5 Calculate the flight risk volume

Flight risk volume (Vw) = Overall area (ha) x 10000 x rotor radius (m) x 2

Vw = 1175 x 10000 x 40 x 2

Vw = 940000000 m3 940000000

Calculate the time the site was observed for and how long birds (as a % area-time activity) were

seen in the observation area during this time and bird activity for each vantage point

Proportion of actual height band = (Rotor max height – rotor min height)/(observed height band

max – observed height band min)

Hours potentially active are taken as daylight hours only for the year and then calculated, where the

day length is a function of latitude and day of the year[1]

Calculate the number of hours per day the birds are potentially active over a year and

the number of hours of bird occupancy in the airspace per year

Correct for differences between the recording height band and the actual

height band swept by the rotors

Calculate the average bird observation activity in all areas and the percentage of time birds active

within the overall observed area

Ha hours

48250.80

335920.10

29946.00

34060.50

94751209312360

Ha seconds

(hours x 3600)

173702880

122617800

107805600

Flight time

observed in risk

window (s)

0780

8695

Bird Activity

0.0000E+00

6.3612E-06

8.0654E-05

3.4081E-02

2.597E-02

2.901E-05

8.7016E-05



1.6 Calculate the combined rotor swept volume

Number of turbines = 10

Maximum chord = 3.25 m

Bird length = 0.29 m

Vr = 10 x Pi x 40 x 40 x (3.25 + 0.29)

Vr = 177939.808 m3 177939.81

1.7 Calculate the bird occupancy in the rotor swept volume

Bird occupancy in rotor swept volume = 116.873995514077 x 3600 x 177939.81/940000000

Bird occupancy in rotor swept volume = 79.64631

1.8 Calculate the bird transit time through the rotors and the potential number of transits per year

Bird speed = 10 m/s

Bird transit time through the rotors = (maximum chord + bird length) /bird speed

No. of transits = bird occupancy in the rotor swept volume/bird transit time

No. of transits = 79.64631/0.354

No. of transits = 224.989577 224.98958

Stage 2: Collision risk for bird passing through rotor area (assuming no avoidance)

2.1 Convert pitch of chord into radians

K:1D or 3D (0 or 1) 1

No. of blades 3

Maximum chord 3.25 m

Pitch (degrees) 15 0.262

Rotor radius 40 m

Rotation Period 4 s

Pitch in radians = pitch (degrees) x Pi/180

Pitch in radians = 15 x Pi/180

Pitch in radians = 0.2618 0.262

2.2 Calculate the bird aspect ratio

Bird length 0.29 m

Wingspan 0.76 m

Bird speed 10 m/s

F:Flapping 1

Bird aspect ratio (b) = bird length/wingspan

Bird aspect ratio (b) = 0.29/0.76

Bird aspect ratio (b) = 0.3816 0.381578947

Bird transit time through the rotors = (3.25 + 0.29)/10

No. of hours of bird occupancy (converted to seconds) x Combined rotor swept volume/Flight risk

volume = n x (Vr/Vw)

Combined rotor swept volume (Vr) = number of turbines (N) x Pi x r2 x (maximum chord + bird

length)

Bird transit time through the rotors = 0.354 s



2.3 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius

0.025 0.575 6.366198 16.81 1 0.00125 15.8461 1 0.00125 0.00125

0.075 0.575 2.122066 5.927 0.4445193 0.003333895 4.95959 0.3719691 0.002789768 0.0075

0.125 0.7015 1.27324 4.362 0.327124 0.004089049 3.1815 0.2386127 0.002982659 0.0125

0.175 0.8601 0.909457 3.87 0.2902705 0.005079734 2.42331 0.181748 0.00318059 0.0175

0.225 0.99435 0.707355 3.582 0.2686518 0.006044666 1.90921 0.1431904 0.003221785 0.0225

0.275 0.94665 0.578745 2.956 0.2217027 0.006096823 1.36346 0.1022598 0.002812144 0.0275

0.325 0.89895 0.489708 2.51 0.1882735 0.006118888 0.99799 0.0748491 0.002432595 0.0325

0.375 0.85125 0.424413 2.173 0.1629562 0.006110859 0.74067 0.0555504 0.00208314 0.0375

0.425 0.80355 0.374482 1.911 0.1432925 0.00608993 0.55874 0.0419051 0.001780968 0.0425

0.475 0.75585 0.335063 1.721 0.1290625 0.006130467 0.44925 0.0336936 0.001600447 0.0475

0.525 0.70815 0.303152 1.56 0.1169697 0.006140911 0.36826 0.0276194 0.001450019 0.0525

0.575 0.66045 0.276791 1.419 0.1064567 0.006121262 0.30833 0.0231249 0.001329683 0.0575

0.625 0.61275 0.254648 1.295 0.0971443 0.006071521 0.31559 0.023669 0.00147931 0.0625

0.675 0.56505 0.235785 1.184 0.0887657 0.005991687 0.34705 0.026029 0.00175696 0.0675

0.725 0.51735 0.219524 1.082 0.0811277 0.005881761 0.36865 0.0276485 0.002004518 0.0725

0.775 0.46965 0.205361 0.988 0.074087 0.005741742 0.38228 0.0286708 0.002221984 0.0775

0.825 0.42195 0.192915 0.9 0.0675349 0.005571631 0.38939 0.0292043 0.002409357 0.0825

0.875 0.37425 0.181891 0.819 0.0613877 0.005371427 0.39111 0.029333 0.002566637 0.0875

0.925 0.32655 0.172059 0.741 0.0555798 0.00514113 0.3883 0.0291224 0.002693824 0.0925

0.975 0.27885 0.163236 0.667 0.0500589 0.004880741 0.38166 0.0286248 0.00279092 0.0975

0.1072581 0.0448373 0.9988

Average probability of collision = (upwind collision total + downwind collision total)/2

Average probability of collision = (0.107258124606542 + 0.044837307946593)/2

Average probability of collision = 0.076048

Stage 3: Mitigation Effects

3.1 Annual collision risk for Golden plover assuming no avoidance

Annual collision risk = no. of transits per year through the rotors x the average probability of collision

Annual collision risk = 224.989576873953 x 0.076048

Annual collision risk = 17.109944 birds 17.1099

3.2 Corrected annual collision risk assuming avoidance

Golden plover avoidance rate = 0.95

Annual collision risk, with avoidance = annual collision risk x (1 - avoidance rate)

Annual collision risk, with avoidance = 17.1099435072953 x (1 - 0.95)

Annual collision risk, with avoidance = 0.855497175364768 birds

3.3 Corrected for assumed operational downtime of the rotors

Proportion of time wind turbines operational = 0.85

Corrected annual risk = annual risk, with avoidance x proportion of time wind turbines operational

Corrected annual risk = 0.727173 birds 0.72717

3.4 Calculate number of years per collision

Number of years per collision for Golden plover = 1/corrected annual risk

Number of years per collision for Golden plover = 1/0.727172599060053

Number of years per collision for Golden plover = 1.3752

check

area

total

Overall p(collision) Upwind

contribution

from radius r

r/R

radius

c/C chord a alpha

collide

length

Downwind

Upwind: Downwind:

collide

length

p(collision)contribution

from radius r

p(collision)



Collision Risk Model Calculations for Greylag Goose for Ochiltree at 95% Avoidance. Stage 1: Number of birds flying through the rotors per year

1.1

VP Area

(Ha)

Time

(hours)

1 618.6 78

2 420.5 81

3 427.8 70

Total 1467 229

1.2 6.6E-06

Mean bird activity =Total bird activity/number of VPs

Mean bird activity = 6.64139336995583E-062.21379778998528E-06 s/ha/3 = s/ha

Overall area covered by VPs (excluding overlap) = 1175 ha

% of time birds active in the area = Overall area (excluding overlaps) in ha x mean bird activity (s/ha)

% of time birds active in area = 1175 x 2.21379778998528E-06 =

1.3

Corrected bird activity=Proportion of actual height band x % birds active in the area

Hub height = 75 m Observed height band max = 125 m

Rotor radius = 40 m Observed height band min = 20 m

Rotor max height= hub height + rotor radius

Rotor min height= hub height - rotor radius

Rotor max height = 115 m

Rotor min height = 35 m

Proportion of actual height band = (115 - 35)/(125 - 20)

Proportion of actual height band = 0.762

Corrected bird activity =

1.4

Hours potentially active = 5571.70433372579

No. of hours of bird occupancy in the airspace per year =hours potentially active x bird activity

No. of hours of bird occupancy in the airspace per year = 5571.70433372579 x 0.00198187611674872

No. of hours of bird occupancy = 11.04243

1.5 Calculate the flight risk volume

Flight risk volume (Vw) = Overall area (ha) x 10000 x rotor radius (m) x 2

Vw = 1175 x 10000 x 40 x 2

Vw = 940000000 m3 940000000

2.6012E-03

1.982E-03

2.214E-06

6.6414E-06

Bird Activity

2.8497E-06

1.9736E-06

1.8181E-06

Flight time

observed in risk

window (s)

495242

196

Ha seconds

(hours x 3600)

173702880

122617800

1078056009331209312360

48250.80

335920.10

29946.00

34060.50

Calculate the time the site was observed for and how long birds (as a % area-time activity) were

seen in the observation area during this time and bird activity for each vantage point

Proportion of actual height band = (Rotor max height – rotor min height)/(observed height band

max – observed height band min)

Hours potentially active are taken as daylight hours plus 25% night time hours for the year and then

calculated, where the day length is a function of latitude and day of the year[1]

Calculate the number of hours per day the birds are potentially active over a year and

the number of hours of bird occupancy in the airspace per year

Correct for differences between the recording height band and the actual

height band swept by the rotors

Calculate the average bird observation activity in all areas and the percentage of time birds active

within the overall observed area

Ha hours



1.6 Calculate the combined rotor swept volume

Number of turbines = 10

Maximum chord = 3.25 m

Bird length = 0.82 m

Vr = 10 x Pi x 40 x 40 x (3.25 + 0.82)

Vr = 204580.514 m3 204580.51

1.7 Calculate the bird occupancy in the rotor swept volume

Bird occupancy in rotor swept volume = 11.0424277485965 x 3600 x 204580.51/940000000

Bird occupancy in rotor swept volume = 8.6517402

1.8 Calculate the bird transit time through the rotors and the potential number of transits per year

Bird speed = 13 m/s

Bird transit time through the rotors = (maximum chord + bird length) /bird speed

No. of transits = bird occupancy in the rotor swept volume/bird transit time

No. of transits = 8.65174/0.313076923076923

No. of transits = 27.634551 27.634551

Stage 2: Collision risk for bird passing through rotor area (assuming no avoidance)

2.1 Convert pitch of chord into radians

K:1D or 3D (0 or 1) 1

No. of blades 3

Maximum chord 3.25 m

Pitch (degrees) 15 0.262

Rotor radius 40 m

Rotation Period 4 s

Pitch in radians = pitch (degrees) x Pi/180

Pitch in radians = 15 x Pi/180

Pitch in radians = 0.2618 0.262

2.2 Calculate the bird aspect ratio

Bird length 0.82 m

Wingspan 1.64 m

Bird speed 13 m/s

F:Flapping 1

Bird aspect ratio (b) = bird length/wingspan

Bird aspect ratio (b) = 0.82/1.64

Bird aspect ratio (b) = 0.5 0.5

Bird transit time through the rotors = 0.313076923076923 s

No. of hours of bird occupancy (converted to seconds) x Combined rotor swept volume/Flight risk

volume = n x (Vr/Vw)

Combined rotor swept volume (Vr) = number of turbines (N) x Pi x r2 x (maximum chord + bird

length)

Bird transit time through the rotors = (3.25 + 0.82)/13



2.3 Calculation of alpha and p(collision) as a function of radius

0.025 0.575 8.276057 29 1 0.00125 28.028 1 0.00125 0.00125

0.075 0.575 2.758686 9.988 0.5762045 0.004321534 9.02021 0.5203966 0.003902975 0.0075

0.125 0.7015 1.655211 6.95 0.4009449 0.005011812 5.76956 0.3328593 0.004160742 0.0125

0.175 0.8601 1.182294 5.855 0.3377728 0.005911025 4.40776 0.254294 0.004450145 0.0175

0.225 0.99435 0.919562 5.215 0.300861 0.006769372 3.5421 0.2043522 0.004597925 0.0225

0.275 0.94665 0.752369 4.266 0.246118 0.006768244 2.67347 0.1542388 0.004241568 0.0275

0.325 0.89895 0.63662 3.597 0.2075067 0.006743969 2.08446 0.1202572 0.003908359 0.0325

0.375 0.85125 0.551737 3.095 0.1785745 0.006696545 1.66321 0.0959546 0.003598299 0.0375

0.425 0.80355 0.486827 2.724 0.1571516 0.006678944 1.37213 0.0791614 0.003364358 0.0425

0.475 0.75585 0.435582 2.489 0.1436161 0.006821763 1.21776 0.0702554 0.003337132 0.0475

0.525 0.70815 0.394098 2.292 0.1322178 0.006941433 1.10044 0.0634868 0.003333055 0.0525

0.575 0.66045 0.359829 2.122 0.1223992 0.007037955 1.0105 0.0582978 0.003352125 0.0575

0.625 0.61275 0.331042 1.972 0.1137813 0.007111329 0.94136 0.0543095 0.003394344 0.0625

0.675 0.56505 0.306521 1.839 0.1060971 0.007161555 0.88842 0.051255 0.003459711 0.0675

0.725 0.51735 0.285381 1.719 0.0991536 0.007188633 0.84831 0.048941 0.003548225 0.0725

0.775 0.46965 0.26697 1.609 0.0928073 0.007192562 0.82144 0.047391 0.003672804 0.0775

0.825 0.42195 0.25079 1.507 0.0869496 0.007173344 0.84273 0.048619 0.00401107 0.0825

0.875 0.37425 0.236459 1.413 0.0814969 0.007130977 0.857 0.0494421 0.004326187 0.0875

0.925 0.32655 0.223677 1.324 0.0763834 0.007065462 0.86538 0.049926 0.004618157 0.0925

0.975 0.27885 0.212207 1.24 0.0715569 0.006976799 0.8688 0.0501229 0.004886978 0.0975

0.1279533 0.0754142 0.9988

Average probability of collision = (upwind collision total + downwind collision total)/2

Average probability of collision = (0.127953255753433 + 0.0754141568974884)/2

Average probability of collision = 0.101684

Stage 3: Mitigation Effects

3.1 Annual collision risk for Greylag goose assuming no avoidance

Annual collision risk = no. of transits per year through the rotors x the average probability of collision

Annual collision risk = 27.6345510536029 x 0.101684

Annual collision risk = 2.809984 birds 2.80998

3.2 Corrected annual collision risk assuming avoidance

Greylag goose avoidance rate = 0.95

Annual collision risk, with avoidance = annual collision risk x (1 - avoidance rate)

Annual collision risk, with avoidance = 2.80998357377051 x (1 - 0.95)

Annual collision risk, with avoidance = 0.140499178688526 birds

3.3 Corrected for assumed operational downtime of the rotors

Proportion of time wind turbines operational = 0.85

Corrected annual risk = annual risk, with avoidance x proportion of time wind turbines operational

Corrected annual risk = 0.119424 birds 0.11942

3.4 Calculate number of years per collision

Number of years per collision for Greylag goose = 1/corrected annual risk

Number of years per collision for Greylag goose = 1/0.119424301885247

Number of years per collision for Greylag goose = 8.3735

Downwind

Upwind: Downwind:

collide

length

p(collision)contribution

from radius r

p(collision)

check

area

total

Overall p(collision) Upwind

contribution

from radius r

r/R

radius

c/C chord a alpha

collide

length

CB CONSULTING REPORT NO: 172A

OCHILTREE WIND FARM:

PEAT STABILITY ASSESSMENT

ISSUE DATE: JUNE 2009

CLIENT: ATMOS CONSULTING LTD

AUTHOR: CHRISTOPHER BAKER CENV MIEEM

E-MAIL: [email protected]

REVIEWER: MANUELA TOTH CENG MCIWEM

REPORT STATUS: FINAL

JOB NO: 0172A

COPY NO: 01

REV. NO: 03

Ochiltree Wind FarmPeat Stability Assessment June 2009

i

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. The Site 2

3. Desk Study 3

4. Ground Investigation 5

5. Ground Conditions 6

6. Peat Conditions 7

7. Risk Assessment 11

8. General Construction Recommendations 15

9. Conclusions 17

10. References 18

11. Appendix A: Peat Probe Results 19

12. Appendix B: Plates 28

13. Appendix C: Von Post Scale 32


1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

1.1 CB Consulting were commissioned by Atmos Consulting Ltd, in 2009, to preparea Peat Stability Assessment, carried out in support of the application toDumfries and Galloway Council for the Ochiltree Wind Farm development. Thescheme comprises ten turbines and associated on-site access roads.

1.2 To facilitate the preparation of the Assessment, a site walkover was undertakenby a CB Consulting during March 2009. This included peat probing todetermine the depth of the peat deposits and an assessment of slope angles.

1.3 The investigative works and this report have been undertaken in accordancewith the Scottish Executive document ‘Peat Landslide Hazard and RiskAssessments – Best Practice Guide for Proposed Electricity GenerationDevelopments1.’

1.2 LIMITATIONS

1.4 The interpretation of the ground conditions is based on the informationobtained from the intrusive works. All reasonable skill, care and diligence hasbeen exercised in carrying out this report, within the timescales available.Notwithstanding the efforts made in carrying out this report, within thetimescales available, it is possible that other soil and groundwater conditions, asyet undetected, may exist, and this must be taken into account in any relianceon the findings of this report.

1.5 This report is prepared for Atmos Consulting Ltd in relation to the OchiltreeWind Farm, and takes into account the client’s particular instructions andrequirements. It is provided to the client subject to the terms of ourappointment. Save to the extent we expressly agree in writing, it is notintended to be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility isundertaken to any third party.

1.6 This report does not cover assessment of the new access track from the southconnecting the A714 at Penninghame to the U59W at Glenruther.


2

2. THE SITE

2.1 LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY

2.1 The proposed Ochiltree Wind Farm is situated 8 miles northeast of NewtonStewart in Dumfries and Galloway. The proposed site is centred on NationalGrid Reference NX327 748, and covers an approximate area of 150ha.

2.2 Ground levels within the site in the vicinity of the proposed access tracks andturbine locations vary from around 100m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) to190m AOD.

2.3 The landscape is characterised by a ridge of low lying hills running east tosouth, with north-west facing slopes sweeping gently down to the shores ofLoch Ochiltree and Calnavie Moss.

2.2 PROPOSED WORKS

2.4 It is proposed to construct a ten turbine wind farm. Access tracks to theseturbines will be required, with these joining the existing minor road the U59W.

2.5 The layout of the proposed wind farm is shown on Figure 1.2 Site Layoutprovided by Atmos Consulting.

2.6 Appendix A includes details of the National Grid References of the proposedturbine locations:


3

3. DESK STUDY

3.1 GEOLOGY

3.1 British Geological Survey (BGS) drift maps1 (paper and digital) indicate that thedrift deposits overlying the site consist of three distinct areas of peataccumulation (of >0.5m) (including Calnavie Moss, an area north of Top of TheFell, and a small area within the upper reaches of the Garchew Burn) andglacial deposits (in the form of drumlins), (see Figure 9.4 Drift Geology). Theunderlying solid geology at the site, shown on the BGS maps2 is thin tomedium, vertically or near vertically, bedded greywacke sedimentary rocks ofthe Kirkcolm Formation of the Barrhill Group of the Ordovician period, (seeFigure 9.3 Bedrock Geology).

3.2 HYDROGEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY

3.2 The 1:625,000 Hydrogeological Map of Scotland (BGS, 1988) shows that theregion is underlain by Ordovician impermeable rocks, generally withoutgroundwater except at shallow depth. Largely greywackes with groundwaterconfined to near surface cracks and joints. Rare springs and boreholes produceweakly mineralised water except where contact is made with sulphide-rich blackshales.

3.3 The Groundwater Vulnerability Map of Scotland (BGS, 1995) describes thebedrock in the area as weakly permeable, not widely containing groundwater inexploitable quantities.

3.4 The Vulnerability of Groundwater in the Uppermost Aquifer Map (SEPA, 2004)shows that groundwater flow within the bedrock is by fracture flow only. Thesuperficial glacial and peat deposits will however provide some protection, dueto their low permeabilities, by slowing or preventing the flow of surface waterinto bedrock fractures.

3.5 The Superficial Aquifers Map (SEPA, 2004) shows that the site may supportsmall superficial aquifers of low productivity intergranular flow, most likelywithin alluvial deposits.

3.6 The Garchew Burn drains the majority of the site to the River Cree. The rest ofthe site drains to Loch Ochiltree which drains via the Beoch Burn into the RiverBladnoch. There are also a number of artificial drains across the site.

3.3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH INTERPRETATION

3.7 An aerial photograph, shown on Figure 1.3 Aerial Photograph, of the siteidentified the peatland habitat across the site to broadly speaking comprisethree categories:

Smooth surface on gently sloping areas often drained by ditches (grips).Interpreted as relatively deep peat;

Mottled occasionally hummocky surface on moderate slopes. Interpreted asrelatively thin; and

1 BGS. Carrick 8 (W) drift edition 1:50,000 series.2 BGS. Carrick 8W solid edition 1:50,000 series.


4

Grainy appearance often incised by shallow rills or deeper gullies. Interpretedas patchy, i.e. thin to absent.

3.8 The three peat accumulation areas all show evidence of artificial drainage.Calnavie Moss has a regular parallel drainage channels, draining fromsouthwest to northeast across the remainder of the unplanted Moss.

3.9 The small peat accumulation within the upper reaches of the Garchew Burn alsoshows evidence of artificial drainage, draining from southeast to northwestdown to the Garchew Burn.

3.10 The area of peat accumulation north of Top of The Fell shows evidence of aless dense irregular pattern of artificial drainage.

3.11 No areas of peat instability were identified from the aerial photograph.

3.4 DIGITAL TERRAIN MODEL

3.12 A Digital Terrain Model (DTM) was prepared for the Peat Stability Assessment,which has then been used by Atmos Consulting to produce a peat depth andslope figure, see Figure 9.2 Peat Depth Survey.

3.13 The Peat Depth Survey figure shows that in the area of the proposed windfarm, slope angles typically vary between <2o and 8°.

3.14 As can be seen from the field results in Appendix A, the slope angles generatedby the DTM are generally in agreement with the site based observations at theproposed turbine bases using a clinometer. This corroboration of data providesadditional confidence in using the above slope angle data in the Peat StabilityAssessment.


5

4. GROUND INVESTIGATION

4.1 GENERAL

4.1 A site walkover and ground investigation was carried out in March 2009 by CBConsulting.

4.2 SCOPE OF WORKS

4.2 The site work comprised a targeted assessment (of the three areas of identifiedpeat accumulation) of peat depth by probing.

4.3 In total, the following works were carried out at the site:

147 No. Peat Probes

4.4 Slope angle measurements were taken using a hand held clinometer at theproposed turbine locations.

4.5 The results of the probing are contained in Appendix A.

4.3 PEAT PROBES

4.6 The probe consisted of a 3.5m long segmental fibreglass rod with an enlargedmetal tip. This was pushed into the peat to record the thickness of the deposit.It also enabled an approximate identification of the underlying stratum to bemade. For example, an impenetrable material and a ‘ringing’ sound wasconsidered to indicate rock or a boulder, whilst a significant increase in theforce required to further advance the probe suggested the presence ofweathered glacial material.

4.7 A targeted peat depth survey, of the areas of identified peat accumulation, wascarried out at the locations of the relevant turbines, and at points 25m upslopeand 25m downslope of the turbines.

4.8 Peat depths were recorded along the proposed access track alignments acrossthe identified areas of peat accumulation. Probing was undertaken in two lineseither side of, and parallel to, the proposed track route centre. The probing wasundertaken along these two lines at 25m intervals. The locations at whichprobing was undertaken are shown on Figure 9.2 Peat Depth Survey.

4.9 These investigations enabled an evaluation of peat depths across the site to bemade.

4.4 SLOPE ANGLE MEASUREMENT

4.10 Slope angles were measured at each of the proposed turbine locations using aclinometer. Reference was also made to the slope angles provided on theDigital Terrain Model (DTM) shown on Figure 9.2.


6

5. GROUND CONDITIONS

5.1 GENERAL

5.1 The probing encountered peat at all locations across the site except forTurbines 4, 5 and 6 and their associated access tracks, which confirmed thedesk study findings. The peat was variously underlain by clays, granular glacialdeposits, and bedrock.

5.2 The results of the probing are contained within Appendix A.

5.2 PEAT

Description

5.3 The peat layer at the site varied in thickness from 0.1m to in excess of 3.3m,with an average thickness of less than 1.0m. In general, the thickestaccumulations were encountered in the headwaters of the Garchew Burn, in thenorth area around the proposed tracks and turbines bases associated withturbines 1, 2 and 3 (across Calnavie Moss), and in the south east along theproposed access track to the east of turbine 10 (the edge of a blanket bogextending down from below Top of the Fell.

5.4 The thinnest peat accumulations were typically identified in association withturbine 7 and its access track in the middle of the site. Turbines 8, 10 and theassociated access tracks were characterised by thin peat deposits typically lessthan 0.5m deep.

5.5 The surface vegetation typically varied from heather, to moss, grasses andrushes. Rushes were typically present on the wetter ground.

5.6 Through onsite peat coring, using a Russian Auger, a fibrous root network witha thickness varying between 0.2m to 0.4m was generally encountered beneaththe surface vegetation during probing (see Plates 1 and 2 in Appendix B). Inthe locations, where the deeper peat deposits were encountered, the peatdeeper than 0.5m typically comprised a highly decomposed amorphousmaterial.

5.7 Towards the base of the peat deposits, increasing resistance to probepenetration was frequently noted. This is considered indicative of an increasein strength within the interface zone between the peat and the underlyingstrata.

5.8 Plate 3 (in Appendix B) shows an exposed bank face within a stream bed, thefibrous peat and underlying glacial till are clearly visible, with the transition zonebetween also evident.

Underlying Strata

5.9 The peat was typically considered to be underlain by sedimentary bedrock(Greywackes). An exception to this was Turbine 9 and Turbine 10 and theassociated access track where the peat layer was typically less than 0.5m thick,and was considered to be underlain by thin glacial clays over bedrock.


7

6. PEAT CONDITIONS

6.1 MORPHOLOGY

6.1 There are two distinct layers within a peat bog2, the upper acrotelm and thelower catotelm. The acrotelm is the fibrous surface to the peat bog, typically0.2m to 0.5m thick; which exists between the growing bog surface and thelowest position of the water table in dry summers. Below this are various stagesof decomposition of the vegetation as it slowly becomes assimilated into thebody of the peat.

6.2 For geotechnical purposes the degree of decomposition (humification) can beestimated in the field by applying the ‘squeezing test’ proposed by von Post andGrunland3 (1926). The humification value ranges from H1 (no decomposition)to H10 (highly decomposed). The extended system set out by Hobbs4 providesa means of correlating the types of peat with their physical, chemical andstructural properties (See Appendix C).

6.3 The relative position of the water table within the peat controls the balancebetween accumulation and decomposition and therefore its stability, henceartificial adjustment of the water table by drainage requires carefulconsideration.

6.4 The ground investigation identified the presence of peat over three areas of thesite. The average thickness of this stratum was less than 1m. Peat in excess3.3m was encountered in three locations (zones of accumulation), generally theflatter areas.

6.5 Typically the peat on the site comprises three layers:

The upper vegetation layer consisting of grasses and moss - this also includedthe root layer of undecomposed sphagnum mosses (H1-H3), permeability ishigh;

The fibrous peat - this was encountered below around 0.2m down to 0.5m,permeability is moderate. The fibrous nature of this material is attributable tothe presence of decomposing vegetation, and this layer is typically above theaverage groundwater level (H4-H6); and

Amorphous peat - this was identified beneath the fibrous layer, jelly like. Thismaterial is located beneath the water table and is typically of relatively lowpermeability (H6-H10).

6.2 HYDROLOGY

6.6 The primary watercourse in the site is the Garchew Burn, flowing in a northerlydirection through the site. This is fed by secondary streams flowingapproximately north-westwards from the slopes of the Hill of Ochiltree, Top ofthe Fell and Butter Cairn. There are four small unnamed burns draining the sitewestwards into Loch Ochiltree.

6.7 In addition to the watercourses, areas of marshy ground and bogs were alsoencountered across the site. The largest of these is Calnavie Moss in the northof the site. This Moss has been gripped (artificially drained) and over plantedwith non-native conifers adjacent to the site.


8

6.3 STABILITY

6.8 Commonly observed failures in peat strata include:

Bog flows (typically localised and of a small volume);

Bog bursts (large catastrophic failures); and

Translational slides (lateral movement along a defined failure plane).

6.9 The roof collapse of peat pipes can also be considered as a small, localisedfailure.

6.10 With the exception of peat pipe and underground stream collapses, for theabove failure mechanisms to occur, an inclined peat surface must be present.It is considered that slopes with angles in excess of 6° are at particular risk,although mass movements have been observed on shallower slopes althoughfailures of slopes less than 4° are rare.

6.11 Many peat failures, at least in part, are attributable to the presence of excessivevolumes of water, and high excess pore water pressures. Poorly drained areasof peat moorland are therefore at an increased risk from such failures.

6.12 Translational slides in peat are often triggered or accentuated by the lubricatingeffect of water along the failure plane. The presence of desiccation cracking, orsubterranean pipes, has the ability to allow the rapid transfer of water from thesurface to the failure plane, and hence can increase the potential for slides tooccur. The failure plane for such slides may be the interface between the peatand the underlying strata, or may occur within the peat, typically between thefibrous and the amorphous layers. Translational failures may also occur alongpre-existing relict slip surfaces.

6.13 Peat slides can occur for the following reasons:

High rainfall which results in the peat becoming much wetter, and the increasedload causes the peat layers to shear

As the bottom layer of the peat becomes wetter after periods of rainfall, the toplighter layer can again shear off

Flash flooding after a prolonged dry period, because the roots of the top layerof the bog have died back, lowering the stability of the upper layer of peat

Existing weak areas caused by previous peat slippage

Peat pipes which are suddenly inundated with water.

6.14 The thickness of the peat can also be a controlling factor. Where thin peat ispresent (less than 1.0m), the significance of a slide is likely to be low.

6.15 Human activity can also trigger a peat slide, when the peat is in a susceptiblecondition. The types of activity during the construction and operation of a windfarm that may have the potential to cause peat slides include:

Poorly constructed or maintained drainage channels, where the peat becomeswaterlogged;

Poorly located buffer strips and attenuation ponds;

Dewatering from excavations being spread across peat areas, increasing thewater loading;


9

Severing of peat pipes;

Loading onto the peat, from vehicle movements, equipment or spoil material;

Severing of the peat surface along floating roads; and

Poorly designed management of drainage in clear-felled areas, where surfacewater run-off is accelerated.

6.16 The triggers of peat slides are summarised in the Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Causes of Peat Slides

Factor Causing Failures Natural Cause Anthropogenic Cause

1. Presence of excessivevolumes of water

Extreme rainfall event Alteration of drainage regime by constructionworks + access tracks may provide preferentialpathway for elevated surface water flow (resultingin soil erosion & increased pore water pressures)

2. Weak bonding between,(a) layers in the peat, (b)peat and underlying strata

Naturally occurringphenomena

Alteration of groundwater level by constructionworks

3. Networks ofsubterranean peat pipes

Naturally occurringphenomena

Alteration of drainage regime by constructionworks creating conditions favourable for peat pipeformation

4. Presence of desiccationcracks

Periods of drought Excessive dewatering during construction works

5. Removal of supportfrom the base of slopes

Undercutting of slopeby rivers/streams

Creating cuttings for road formation

6. Excessive loading ofslopes

Accumulated debrisfrom mass movementson higher slopes

Road formation/Presence of turbine foundations

7. Steep slope angles(over 6°)

Underlying geology Earthworks for road formation

8. Movement on previousfailure surface

High rainfall intensities Construction work and road formation on slopes

6.4 POTENTIAL CONSEQUENTIAL IMPACTS

Health and Safety

6.17 Once a peat slide occurs, the speed at which the flow moves depends onseveral factors such as the gradient of the slope, the wetness of the peat andthe volume of material involved. The flow can pick up more material as ittravels down the slope.

6.18 In a peat slide, contractor’s equipment may be knocked over, cranes can beover toppled, and roads blocked, all of which are safety hazards.

Hydrology

6.19 The peat slide can be triggered in valleys that lead towards streams and burns.The resultant material entering the watercourses can affect the water quality;both in terms of chemistry and sediment load, and have potential effects onwater extractions and fishing, as well as the local ecology (see below).


10

Ecology

6.20 As noted above, water pollution resulting from a peat slide can have an adverseeffect on watercourse ecology, including fish and mammal kills.

6.21 The slide itself can remove sensitive habitats which would be difficult to restore.


11

7. RISK ASSESSMENT

7.1 GENERAL

7.1 A risk assessment has been carried out to evaluate the risk of peat stabilityissues occurring associated with the construction of the proposed OchiltreeWind Farm. This was undertaken in general accordance with the ScottishExecutive document ‘Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments – BestPractice Guide for Proposed Electricity Generation Developments1.’

7.2 The principal engineering factors considered to control stability of the peatmass are the ground surface profile as well as the depth and condition of thepeat layer at each turbine location. Therefore, the ground conditions and theslope angle have been identified, with a ground conditions coefficient, and aslope angle coefficient being applied. A similar approach has been taken to thegeneral routes of the proposed access tracks. From this, a slope stability riskrating is derived and used to define the potential significance.

7.3 The natural moisture content and undrained shear strength of the peat are alsoconsidered to be important engineering factors in determining the stability of aparticular peat slope. However, in such an analysis, it would be prudent toassume that the peat is saturated and of low strength, and therefore thesefactors would tend to be constants.

7.4 Although no shear vane testing on the peat stratum has been undertaken aconservative approach has been taken whereby a low shear strength value hasbeen assumed for the peat on the site.

Ground Conditions

7.5 Ground conditions were assessed by the peat depths recorded during theprobing. Thin peat accumulations were classed as being 1.0m and below indepth, with accumulations in excess of this being classed as thick peat.

7.6 Table 7.1 below gives the coefficients applied to the various ground conditions:

Table 7.1: Ground Conditions Coefficients

Ground Conditions Ground Conditions Coefficient

Bedrock / Glacial Till 0

Thin Peat 2

Thick Peat 4

Slips / Collapses / Creep / Flows 8

Slope Angles

7.7 The slope angle was assessed by the clinometer readings taken during the siteinspection, and by reference to the digital terrain model. Table 7.2 below givesthe slope angle coefficients:


12

Table 7.2: Slope Angle Conditions Coefficients

Slope Angle (°) Slope Angle Coefficient

<4 0

4 to 8 2

9 to 15 4

>15 8

Risk Rating

7.8 The Risk Rating Coefficient was derived by multiplying the Slope AngleCoefficient, and the Ground Conditions Coefficient. By multiplying the twocoefficients, any area of possible concern is clearly highlighted. For the PeatStability Assessment, the Potential Stability Risk classes, depicted in Table 7.3below were applied:

Table 7.3: Potential Stability Risk Classes

Risk Rating Coefficient Potential Stability Risk (Pre-Mitigation)

<5 Negligible

6 – 15 Low

16 – 31 Medium

>31 High

7.2 RESULTS

7.9 The risk assessment results are tabulated below in Table 7.4. These set out thecoefficients obtained for each turbine location as well as the tracks runningbetween.

Tables of Results

Turbine Locations

7.10 Table 7.4 below shows that the following Potential Stability Risks exist atturbine locations:

‘Negligible’ risk at all turbine locations; and

No ‘Low, Medium’ or ‘High’ risk locations were identified.


13

Table 7.4: Turbine Location Results

LocationSlopeAngle

(°)

SlopeAngle Co-Efficient

GroundConditions

GroundConditionsCo-Efficient

Risk RatingCo-Efficient

PotentialStability

Risk (Pre-Mitigation)

Turbine 1 <4 0 Thick Peat 4 0 Negligible



Turbine 4 4 to 8 2 Rock / Glacial Till 0 0 Negligible



Turbine 7 4 to 8 2 Thin Peat 2 4 Negligible




Access Tracks

7.11 Table 7.5 below shows where significantly different slope angles and groundconditions have been identified.

7.12 Table 7.5 shows that the following Potential Stability Risks exist at access tracklocations:

‘Negligible’ risk at all access track lengths; and

No ‘Low, Medium’ or ‘High’ risk locations were identified.

Table 7.5: Access Track Results

LocationSlopeAngle

(°)

SlopeAngle Co-Efficient

GroundConditions

GroundConditionsCo-Efficient

RiskRating Co-Efficient

PotentialStability

Risk (Pre-Mitigation)

Track to T1 <4 0 Thick Peat 4 0 Negligible

Track to T2and T3

<4 0 Thick Peat 4 0 Negligible

Track to T7 2 to 8 2 Thin Peat 2 4 Negligible

Track to T4 0 to 8 2 Rock / Glacial Till 0 0 Negligible



T6 to T8 2 to 8 2 Thin Peat 2 4 Negligible



7.3 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

7.13 Where the risk assessment identifies a ‘Negligible’ or ‘Low’ risk of peat stabilityissues, no mitigation measures would be considered necessary. It is thereforeapparent that as the proposed Ochiltree Wind Farm incurs no risks greater than‘Negligible’ in magnitude, no specific mitigation measures need be specified.However, carefully managed construction practices should nevertheless be


14

employed to minimise disturbance to the peat layer. The minorrecommendations noted below in relation to specific locations should befollowed.

Specific Locations

7.14 Although the risk assessment identified all turbine locations and trackalignments to have a ‘Negligible’ risk of peat stability issues, during the sitewalkover, a number of observations were made which may necessitate micro-siting of turbines and tracks. These are discussed below, and it considered thatthese should be accommodated during the detailed design stage.

7.15 As stated in Section 7.3 above, all construction works should minimise thedisturbance to the peat layer by adopting the measures described in Section 8below.

Turbine 3 and associated track

7.16 During the walkover a wet flush was encountered at the proposed site ofTurbine 3. This wet flush is draining east- west down toward Loch Ochiltree. Itis recommended that the Turbine is micro-sited 25m either to the east or south.

7.17 It was considered that by micro-siting the turbine base around 25m from theexisting alignment, the wet flush would be avoided. The newly proposedposition is of the same slope angle (<4°) and also has thick peat. This resultsin no change of the ‘Negligible’ risk of peat stability issues identified in theRisk Assessment.

Turbine 7 and associated track

7.18 During the walkover a wet flush was encountered at the proposed site ofTurbine 7. This wet flush is draining north-west down to the Garchew Burn. Itis recommended that the Turbine is micro-sited 60m to the east on to higherground.

7.19 It was considered that by micro-siting the turbine base around 60m east of theexisting alignment, the wet flush would be avoided. The newly proposedposition is of the same slope angle (4-8°) and also has thin peat. This results inno change of the ‘Negligible’ risk of peat stability issues identified in the RiskAssessment.


15

8. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 GENERAL

8.1 The Peat Stability Assessment concluded that as all turbine locations and trackalignments had a ‘Negligible’ risk of peat stability issues, no specific mitigationmeasures were necessary (with the exception of the minor recommendationsnoted in Section 7.3 in relation to localised issues). However, it isrecommended that careful construction practices should be adopted, and theseshould include, but should not be limited to those detailed in the followingsections.

8.2 GENERAL MEASURES

Turbine Bases

8.2 During the formation of foundations, the following construction practices arerecommended:

Care must be taken during peat excavation to avoid undercutting, and removingsupport from the base of slopes. Any excavation should be sloped to as shallowan angle as possible;

Excavated material should not be placed on marginally stable ground above theexcavation;

Water pumped from foundation excavations must be carefully managed toavoid water logging a localised area;

Dewatering of foundation excavations should be carefully managed to preventexcessive drainage leading to the formation of desiccation cracks; and

The dewatering scheme should minimise the introduction of sediment intonatural watercourses.

Access Tracks

8.3 During the construction of access tracks, the following practices arerecommended:

Where possible, road alignments should avoid slopes of over 6°. Slopes morethan 4° should be assessed on a site-by-site basis;

Road cuttings should be sloped to as shallow an angle as possible to preventthe undercutting of slopes in accordance with the above criteria;

Excavated material from cuttings should not be placed on the ground above thecutting;

Road drainage should avoid creating areas of concentrated flow; and

Drainage schemes should minimise the introduction of sediment into naturalwatercourses.

Borrow Pits

8.4 The following measures are recommended for the borrow pits:

Excavations in peat should be sloped to as shallow an angle as possible;


16

Excavated material should not be placed on marginally stable ground aroundthe excavation;

The drainage scheme should be designed to minimise the impact on the localhydrology; and

Every attempt should be made to reduce vibrations during the quarryingoperations.


17

9. CONCLUSIONS

9.1 This peat stability assessment for the Ochiltree Wind Farm has indentified thatpeat accumulations are present throughout most of the site, and are onaverage less than 1.0m in thickness.

9.2 The current risk assessment has identified no significant issues regarding peatstability with ‘Negligible’ risks being determined for all turbine locations andaccess track alignments. Consequently, no specific peat stability mitigationmeasures are considered necessary.

9.3 Several minor recommendations were made regarding turbine and trackalignment, and it is considered that these can be accommodated during thedetailed design stage.

9.4 Although no specific mitigation measures are necessary, it is considered thatcareful construction procedures should be adopted to minimise disturbance tothe peat.


18

10. REFERENCES

[1] Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments – Best Practice Guide for ProposedElectricity Generation Developments, Scottish Executive, December 2006.

[2] Ingram, H.A.P., (1978), ‘Soil layers in mires: function and terminology’. Journalof Soil Science, 29, 224-227.

[3] Von Post, L. and Grunland, E., (1926), ‘Sodra Sveriges torvillganger 1’ SvergesGeol. Unders. Avh., C335, 1-127.

[4] Hobbs, N.B., (1986), ‘Mire morphology and the properties and behaviour ofsome British and foreign peats.’ Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, London, 19,7-80.


19

11. APPENDIX A: PEAT PROBE RESULTS


20

Appendix A: Peat Probe Results

Turbine Results

Turbine Grid Reference Peat Slope

T1 NX32907 75389 >3.3m 2 to 4

T2 NX32492 75439 1.8m 2 to 4

T3 NX32545 75114 1.8-2.7m 2 to 4

T4 NX32308 74795 0m n/a

T5 NX32207 74432 0m n/a

T6 NX33146 75178 0m n/a

T7 NX32886 74874 0.5m 4 to 8

T8 NX33214 74694 0.3m 4 to 8

T9 NX32677 74520 0.3m 4 to 8

T10 NX32980 74374 0.4m 4 to 8


21

Access Track Results

Point PositionPeat

DepthPeat core details(see Appendix C) Bedrock

BoulderClay

Silt/Sand/Gravel

1NX 32680

74505 0.3 Y Y

2NX 32677

74524 0.3 Y

3NX 32708

74522 0.2 Y

4NX 32726

74523 0.2 Y

5NX 32754

74514 0.2 Y

6NX 32783

74501 0.4 Y

7NX 32800

74478 0.5 Y

8NX 32815

74462 0.4 Y Y

9NX 32838

74433 0.7 Y

10NX 32894

74395 0.4 Y

11NX 32906

74394 0.3 Y

12NX 32919

74387 0.3 Y

13NX 32950

74390 0.3 Y Y

14NX 32964

74374 0.4 Y Y

15NX 33000

74363 0.3 Y

16NX 32980

74373 0.4Fibrous mod wet

B3/H4-6 Y

17NX 33019

74363 0.3 Y

18NX 33041

74356 0.4Fibrous high wet

B4/H4-6 Y

19NX 33091


B4/H4-6 Y

20NX 33095

74347 1.5 Y

21NX 33132

74359 2.5 Y

22NX 33130

74346 >3.3


22

Point PositionPeat

Depth Peat core details BedrockBoulder

ClaySilt/Sand/Gravel

23NX 33128

74382 0.5 Y

24NX 33141


B3/H4-6 Y

25NX 33157

74409 0.8Fibrous low wet

B2/H4-6 Y

26NX 33144


B2/H4-6 Y

27NX 33156

74455 1.5Fibrous/wood high

wet B4/H4-6 Y

28NX 33152

74497 0.5 Y

29NX 33152

74534 0.5 Y

30NX 33181

74547 0.1 Y

NX 3314874527 0.5 Y

31NX 33185

74570 0.4 Y

32NX 33197

74598 0 Y

33NX 33202

74616 0.1 Y

34NX 33211

74646 0.4 Y

35NX 33217

74664 0.4 Y

36NX 33213

74697 0.3 Y

37NX 33172

74717 0.3 Y

38NX 33176


B3/H4-6 Y

39NX 33154

74679 0.5 Y

40NX 33156

74646 0.2 Y

41NX 33160

74646 0.1 Y

42NX 33135

74588 0.4Fibrous v high wet

B5/H4-6 Y

43NX 33133

74592 0.5 Y

44NX 33133

74538 0.3 Y


23

Point PositionPeat



45NX 33131


B2/H4-6 Y

46NX 33121


B3/H4-6 Y

47NX 33111


B5/H4-6 Y Y

48NX 33116


B3/H4-6 Y

49NX 33107


B3/H4-6 Y

50NX 33112


B3/H4-6 Y

51NX 33094

74387 1.1 Y

52NX 33067


B5/H4-6 Y Y

53NX 32968

74403 0.2 Y

54 0.4 Y


B2/H4-6 Y


B3/H4-6 Y Y

57NX 32961

74402 0.1 Y

58NX 32940

74420 0.1 Y

59NX 32917

74428 0.3 Y

60NX 32894

74442 0.5Amorphous mod

wet B3/H6-10 Y

61NX 32878

74465 0.4 Y Y

62NX 32848

74472 0.5 Y Y

63NX 32829

74482 0.5 Y

64NX 32803

74500 0.4 Y

65NX 32784

74516 0.2 Y

66NX 32764

74534 0.1 Y

67NX 32724

74548 0.2 Y


24

Point PositionPeat



68NX 32693


B2/H4-6 Y

69NX 32666

74570 0.3 Y

70NX 32596

74927 2.2 Y

71NX 32552

74933 1.9 Y

72NX 32521

74959 0.9 Y

73NX 32512

74971 2 Y

74NX 32514


B4/H4-6 Y

75NX 32516

75030 0.7 Y

76NX 32518


B3/H4-6 Y

77NX 32503


B3/H4-6 Y

78NX 32486

75122 0.5 Y

79NX 32478

75153 2 Y

80NX 32451

75167 1.6 Y

81NX 32444

75182 1.3 Y

82NX 32441

75206 1.3 Y

83NX 32447

75240 0.5 Y Y

84NX 32461

75265 0.5 Y

85NX 32465


B3/H4-6 Y

86NX 32475

75305 0.5 Y

87NX 32479

75329 0.3 Y

88NX 32478

75358 0.6 Y

89NX 32478

75385 0.4 Y

90NX 32484

75403 0.7 Y


25

Point PositionPeat



91NX 32481

75427 1.1 Y

92NX 32490


B5/H4-6 Y

93NX 32500

75441 2.6 Y

94NX 32500

75417 1.3 Y

95NX 32501

75384 1.9 Y

96NX 32495

75360 1.7 Y

97NX 32493

75302 1.4 Y

98NX 32490

75278 1 Y

99NX 32493

75267 1.9 Y

100NX 32490

75219 >3.3

101NX 32487

75209 >3.3

102NX 32476

75183 >3.3

103NX 32472

75144 1.9 Y

104NX 32484

75128 0.6 Y

105NX 32504

75103 0.4 Y

106NX 32523

75087 1.4 Y

107NX 32540

75106 1.5 Y

108NX 32543

75116 1.8 Y

109NX 32557

75123 2.7Fibrous dry B1/H4-

6 Y

110NX 32563

75120 0.4 Y

111NX 32547

75066 1 Y

112NX 32547

75070 1 Y

113NX 32541

75013 0.2 Y


26

Point PositionPeat



114NX 32539

74986 0.5 Y

115NX 32568

74953 0.5 Y

116NX 32886

74873 1.8 Y

117NX 32886

74873 0.5Amorphous wet

B3/H4-6 Y

118NX 32890

74893 0.6Amorphous dry

B1/H4-6 Y

119NX 32884

74872 0.5 Y

120NX 32902

74840 0.3 Y

121NX 32884

74820 0.3 Y

122NX 32850

74822 0.4 Y

123NX 32848

74848 0.3 Y

124NX 32840

74847 0.1 Y

125NX 32825

74843 0.1 Y

126NX 32816

74817 0.3 Y

127NX 32791

74826 0.3 Y

128NX 32805

74853 0.3 Y

129NX 32795

74873 0.1 Y

130NX 32772

74861 0.2 Y

131NX 32763

74885 0.3 Y

132NX 32751

74887 0.5 Y

133NX 32740

74897 0 Y

134NX 32729

74882 0 Y

135NX 32728

74880 0 Y

136NX 32717

74920 0 Y


27

Point PositionPeat



137NX 33019

75460 >3.3Amorphous dry

B1/H6-10

138NX 33019

75461 >3.3Amorphous mod

wet B3/ H6-10

139NX 32982


wet B3/ H6-10

140NX 32910


wet B3/ H6-10

141NX 32918


wet B3/ H6-10

142NX 32912


wet B3/ H6-10

143NX 32919


wet B3/ H6-10

144NX 32936


wet B3/ H6-10

145NX 32962


wet B3/ H6-10

146NX 32974


wet B3/ H6-10

147NX 32998


wet B3/ H6-10


28

12. APPENDIX B: PLATES


29

Plate 1: Peat dome, peat exposure at a sheep rub, along the proposed access tracksbetween Turbine 2 and Turbine 3.

Plate 2: Core showing, thin fibrous, peat (H4-6) overlying glacial clays. Typical of theaccess track between Turbine 9 and Turbine 10.


30

Plate 3: Core showing fibrous peat (H4-6 typical of deposits around Turbine 7)

Plate 4: Core showing amorphous peat (H6-10) deposits on areas of deeper peat(typical of Calnavie Moss - Turbine 1)


31

Plate 5: Exposed burn bank section, between turbine 9 and turbine 10, showingglacial clay deposits (and boulders) underlying fibrous peat (H4-6).


32

13. APPENDIX C: VON POST SCALE


33

Appendix C: Von Post Scale of Humification

The Von Post Scale of Humification (source Ekono 1981)

Symbol Description

H1 Completely undecomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases almost clear water. Plantremains easily identifiable. No amorphous material present.

H2 Almost entirely undecomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases clear or yellowish water.Plant remains still easily identifiable. No amorphous material present.

H3 Very slightly decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases muddy brown water, but fromwhich no peat passes between the fingers. Plant remains still identifiable, and no amorphousmaterial present.

H4 Slightly decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases very muddy dark water. No peat ispassed between the fingers but the plant remains are slightly pasty and have lost some of theiridentifiable features.

H5 Moderately decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases very “muddy” water with a verysmall amount of amorphous granular peat escaping between the fingers. The structure of theplant remains is quite indistinct although it is still possible to recognize certain features. Theresidue is very pasty.

H6 Moderately highly decomposed peat with a very indistict plant structure. When squeezed, aboutone-third of the peat escapes between the fingers. The residue is very pasty but shows the plantstructure more distinctly than before squeezing.

H7 Highly decomposed peat. Contains a lot of amorphous material with very faintly recognizableplant structure. When squeezed, about one-half of the peat escapes between the fingers. Thewater, if any is released, is very dark and almost pasty.

H8 Very highly decomposed peat with a large quantity of amorphous material and very indistinctplant structure. When squeezed, about two-thirds of the peat escapes between the fingers. Asmall quantity of pasty water may be released. The plant material remaining in the hand consistsof residues such as roots and fibres that resist decomposition.

H9 Practically fully decomposed peat in which there is hardly any recognizable plant structure. Whensqueezed it is a fairly uniform paste.

H10 Completely decomposed peat with no discernible plant structure. When squeezed, all the wetpeat escapes between the fingers.

B1 Dry peat

B2 Low moisture content

B3 Moderate moisture content

B4 High moisture content

B5 Very high moisture content

Note: The moisture regime of each peat sample is estimated using the above scale of 1-5 andsymbol “B” (derived from Swedish blöthet = wetness).

HAYES MCKENZIE PARTNERSHIP LTD

Prepared for:

Atmos Consulting Ltd.

The Granary

Waen Farm

Nercwys Road

CH7 4EW

Hill of Ochiltree Wind Farm

Construction Noise Assessment

HM: 1927/R2

24th

August 2009

16a, The Courtyard, Dean Hill Park, West Dean, Salisbury SP5 1EY, UK

Tel. +44 (0)1794 342343, Fax +44 (0)1794 342344, [email protected]

Offices in Salisbury & Machynlleth

Hill of Ochiltree Wind Farm: Construction Noise Assessment

HM: 1927/R2 – DRAFT Version 1.0 – 24/08/09

Client: Page 2 of 11 Issued by: Atmos Consulting Ltd Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd

HILL OF OCHILTREE WIND FARM

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ASSESSMENT

Report 1927/R1

DRAFT Version 1.0, 24th

August 2009

1 Introduction

1.1 An indicative assessment of noise from the construction and decommissioning of the Hill of

Ochiltree Wind Farm development has been carried out.

1.2 Noise during the construction period will arise from the construction of the turbine foundations,

the erection of the turbines, the excavation of trenches for cables, and the construction of

associated hard standings, access tracks, construction compound and substation. Noise from

vehicles on local roads and access tracks will also arise resulting from the delivery of the turbine

components and construction materials, notably aggregates, concrete and steel reinforcement.

1.3 Noise will also arise during decommissioning from the removal of the turbines and breaking of

the exposed part of the concrete bases.

2 Noise Planning Guidance

On Site Construction Noise

2.1 Guidance on construction noise in PPG24, Planning and Noise, [1] refers to British Standard

BS 5228: 1997 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open

Sites which has been re-issued as BS 5228: 2009 [2]. This provides example criteria for the

assessment of the significance of construction noise effects and a method for prediction of noise

levels from construction activities. Two example methods are provided for assessing

significance.

2.2 The first is based on the use of criteria defined in Department of the Environment Advisory

Leaflet (AL) 72, Noise Control On Building Sites [3] which sets a fixed limit of 70 dB(A) in

rural suburban and urban areas away from main roads and traffic. Noise levels are generally




taken as façade LAeq values with free-field levels taken to be 3dB lower giving an equivalent

noise criterion of 67 dB LAeq.

2.3 The second is based on noise change but applies minimum criteria of 45, 55 and 65 dB LAeq for

night-time (2300-0700), evening and weekends, and daytime (0700-1900) including Saturdays

(0700-1300) respectively, applicable when existing noise levels are low, which they would be at

this site, and subject to a duration of one month or more.

Construction Traffic

2.4 The effect of construction traffic can be assessed in terms of changes in overall traffic noise or

in terms of the absolute noise levels generated by construction traffic movements. At locations

which are not subject to significant levels of traffic flow in the absence of any construction

activity it is necessary to follow the latter approach.

2.5 Planning Advice Note PAN56, Planning and Noise states that “For noise of a similar

character, a change of 3 dB(A) is the minimum perceptible under normal conditions, and a

change of 10 dB(A) corresponds roughly to halving and doubling the loudness of a sound”. It

is therefore considered that where the increase in noise level is shown to be less than 3 dB(A) it

can be considered that noise from construction traffic is insignificant.

2.6 Where there is no significant existing traffic noise, construction traffic noise is assessed using

the criteria of 65 dB LAeq for on site daytime construction activity discussed in section 3.

3 Assessment of Noise from Construction Plant and Activities

3.1 Predictions have been made of noise levels at six residential properties representative of the

nearest noise sensitive receptors to the development using the methods prescribed in BS 5228:

2009. It is assumed that all construction works will occur during daytime hours (0800-1800)

including Saturdays (0800-1300).

The nearest residential properties affected by construction and decommissioning noise are:




Penninghame;

Glenhapple;

Glassoch;

Beoch:

Glenruther;

Garchew; and,

Glenvernoch Farm.

3.2 In carrying out the predictions it has been assumed that all plant involved with track and

compound construction are located at the nearest possible point to each property. It should be

noted that this is unlikely to occur in practice, but gives very much worst case noise levels. The

plant assumed for each activity is shown in Table 1 with assumed octave band sound power

levels for each item provided in Appendix A of this report. For the calculations, 50% soft

ground attenuation has been used throughout with no topographical barrier attenuation. In

practice it is likely that at least some of the plant will be screened from view, but the calculation

represents a realistic worst case.

Table 1: Assumed Plant Location and Number

Location / Activity Plant List No. of

Items

Deforestation

Tracked Excavator 1

Petrol hand-held circular saw 2

Tractor (towing trailer) 1

Borrow Pits

Tracked mobile Drilling Rig 1

Tracked semi-mobile Crusher 1

Tracked hydraulic Excavator 4

Dump Truck 4

Wheeled Backhoe Loader 1

Compound

Construction

Dozer 1

Articulated dump truck 2

Concrete Pump + cement mixer truck (discharging) 1

Concrete Mixer Truck 2





Items

Access Routes

Dozer 1


Dump Truck 2

Tracked Excavator 2

Concrete Batching

Wheeled Excavator 1

Wheeled Loader 1


Fuel Tanker Lorry/Water Bowser 2

Water Pump 1

Road Lorry (full) 3

Concrete Batching Plant 1

Excavation for

Turbine Base

Tracked Excavator 4

Dump Truck 4


Build of

Turbine Base

Concrete Pump + Cement Mixer Truck 1


Water pump (diesel) 1

Crane in Turbines

Tracked Mobile Crane 1


Road Lorry (full) 2

Construction

Substation


Concrete Pump + cement mixer truck (discharging) 1







Items

Decommissioning

Compound

Dozer 1


Breaker mounted on wheeled backhoe 1

Tracked Crusher 2

Decommissioning

Turbines

Tracked Excavator 4

Dump Truck 4

Backhoe mounted hydraulic breaker 1



Decommissioning Substation

Tracked Excavator 2

Dump Truck 4

Backhoe mounted hydraulic breaker 1

3.3 The results of worst-case noise predictions at each of the seven receptor locations are shown in

Table 2. Predicted free field noise levels have been calculated for each of the construction

activity. It should be noted that average noise levels over the construction period will be lower,

particularly where high levels are predicted for work on the access tracks at close proximity to

housing.

3.4 It can be seen that predicted noise levels are below the 65 dB LAeq daytime criterion for all

considered construction and decommissioning activities except for deforestation and building of

the access track in the vicinity of Penninghame.

3.5 High noise levels at Penninghame will only occur for a short period of time as a result of its

proximity to the building of an access track and the deforestation in that area. Once the part of

the track closest to the property is completed, noise levels will be significantly lower.




Table 2: Results of Construction and Decommissioning Noise Predictions

Predicted Sound Pressure Level (dB Leq) at Receptor

Contributing Construction Activities

Penninghame Glenhapple Glassoch Beoch Glenruther Garchew Glenvernoch

Farm

69.1 49.0 35.5 47.5 59.4 29.1 29.5 Deforestation

50.6 58.6 53.6 44.2 40.4 33.5 35.1 Borrow Pits

29.3 31.6 35.1 25.2 22.6 18.6 20.0 Site Compound Construction

84.0 53.4 46.1 52.1 62.7 48.9 44.5 Access Tracks

32.2 34.1 37.3 28.6 26.6 23.3 24.4 Concrete Batching

15.4 19.5 21.4 31.1 43.2 46.0 41.4 Turbine Base Excavation

8.8 11.2 12.7 21.3 32.8 35.6 31.2 Build of Turbine Base

13.7 16.8 18.2 25.9 36.3 38.7 34.7 Build of Wind Turbines

15.5 18.1 20.8 29.6 40.2 31.7 30.3 Construction Substation

13.7 16.8 18.2 25.9 36.3 38.7 34.7 Turbine Dismantling

15.5 19.9 21.9 31.9 44.0 46.9 42.3 Breakup of Foundation Bases

13.7 17.2 20.6 31.6 44.6 34.2 32.5 Decommissioning of Substation




4 Assessment of Noise from Construction Traffic Movements

4.1 Paragraph 11.6.7 and 11.6.8 from Chapter 11 of the ES state that the most significant vehicular

movements in any one day will occur when the concrete of the wind turbine foundations is

being poured. It is stated that the concrete is supplied in 100 movements per day.

4.2 Current traffic count data for the access route from the A75 is available in Chapter 11 of the ES.

Predictions have been carried out to assess the likely increase in noise levels produced at

Knockbrex by Newton Stewart at which this traffic count data is available using Calculation of

Road Traffic Noise by the Department of Transport, 1988 (CRTN). The traffic count data is

shown in Table 11.8 in Chapter 11 of the ES.

4.3 Table 3 shows the predicted increase of traffic noise at Knockbrex (for both directions) and an

assumed increase of HGV traffic of 30% on the A714 as no traffic count data is available.

Table 3: Predicted increase of traffic noise

Location

Existing

Traffic (Non-

HGV)

Additional

Traffic (HGV)

Increase of

HGV Traffic

Predicted

Increase

(dB(A))

A75 Knockbrex 2742 100 14 % 0.4

4.4 Table 3 shows that the increase in noise level at both locations can be considered insignificant

according to the 3 dB(A) criteria.

4.5 For locations on the roads in the vicinity of the site where existing noise level can be expected

to be low, an absolute predicted façade noise level of 60.6 dBLAeq has been calculated using

equation F.6 from BS 5228: 2009, Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on

Construction and Open Sites [2]. The above worst case figure of 100 movements per day has

been equated to an hourly figure of 9 movements over a 12 hour working day (0700-1900) and a

separation distance of 5 m assumed to represent a worst case façade noise level for any property

along the routes to and from site. The noise calculation has been based on the use of concrete

mixer trucks (assumed equivalent to BS 5228: 2009, C.2 34) to deliver the concrete to site (see

Paragraph 11.6.9).




4.6 The worst case predicted façade noise level of 60.6 dBLAeq is below the 65 dB LAeq daytime

criterion for all considered construction and decommissioning activities.

5 Mitigation Proposals

5.1 Although noise levels from on site activity will be below the 65 dB LAeq daytime significance

criterion for most properties most of the time, there will be periods when noise generated by

track works, or other construction activities, will be clearly audible at properties close to the

associated construction activity. For all activities, everything possible will be done to reduce

noise levels albeit with due regard to practicality and cost as per the concept of ‘best practicable

means’ as defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

5.2 BS 5228 states that the ‘attitude of the contractor’ is important in minimising the likelihood of

complaints and therefore consultation with the local authority will be required along with letter

drops to inform residents of intended activity. Non-acoustic factors, which influence the overall

level of complaints such as mud on roads and dust generation, will also be controlled.

5.3 Site operations would be limited to a period of 0700 to 1900 weekdays and 0700 to 1200 on

Saturday. No operations would take place outside those hours except in exceptional

circumstances, or in the interests of safety. In the event that construction and decommissioning

activities are necessary outside these times, agreement would be sought with the Councils, as

appropriate, prior to work commencing.




6 Conclusions

6.1 An indicative assessment of noise from the construction and decommissioning of Hill of

Ochiltree Wind Farm has been carried out.

6.2 Predicted noise levels from all on site construction and decommissioning activities are below

the adopted daytime criterion of 65 dB LAeq at the nearest residential properties to the site and

properties close to the access route except for Penninghame where there is a limited period of

high noise levels during deforestation and building of the closest part of the access track.

6.3 On roads where existing traffic flows are relatively high, predicted increases in noise due to

construction traffic are not significant.

6.4 On roads where existing traffic levels are low, noise from construction traffic is predicted to be

below the 65 dB LAeq daytime criterion.




References

[1] Department of the Environment. Planning Policy Guidance PPG24, Planning and Noise, 1994.

[2] BSI. British Standard BS 5228:2009, Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on

Construction and Open Sites, 2009.

[3] DoE. Department of the Environment Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72, Noise Control on Building

Sites, 1969.

APPENDIX A

ASSUMED PLANT OCTAVE BAND

SOUND POWER LEVELS

Location /

ActivityTable Ref Ref No. Equipment

Power

Rating, kW

Equipment Size, weight

(mass), capacity63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k

A-weighted sound

pressure level, Laeq,

dB at 10m

Number

of Plant

C.2 3 Tracked Excavator 102 kW 22 t 80 83 76 73 72 70 69 66 78 1

C.4 70 Petrol hand-held circular saw 3 kW 9 kg / 300 mm diameter 72 89 81 80 80 82 86 85 91 2

C.4 75 Tractor (towing trailer) 71 kW 3.5 t 93 86 76 76 73 72 64 59 79 1

C.9 2 Tracked mobile drilling rig 270 kW 23t/110 mm dia. 94 95 90 91 87 85 80 73 92 1

C.9 15 Tracked semi-mobile crusher 250 kW 38 t 98 98 97 94 91 88 82 72 96 1

C.9 6 Tracked hydraulic Excavator 235 kW 47 t 95 93 89 89 86 82 76 74 91 4

C.9 16 Dump Truck 699 kW 90 t 86 89 88 88 86 83 76 70 91 4

C.2 8 Wheeled Backhoe Loader 62 kW 8 t 74 66 64 64 63 60 59 50 68 1

C.5 12 Dozer 104 kW 14 t 80 78 71 70 74 68 65 61 77 1

C.5 16 Articulated dump truck 194 kW 25 t 88 90 80 79 76 71 65 61 81 2

C.4 24 Concrete Pump + cement mixer truck (discharging) 223 kW 8 t / 350 bar 69 64 64 66 63 59 53 47 67 1

C.4 27 Concrete Mixer Truck - - 84 74 74 73 73 75 65 59 79 2

C.5 12 Dozer 104 kW 14 t 80 78 71 70 74 68 65 61 77 1


C.9 16 Dump Truck 699 kW 90 t 86 89 88 88 86 83 76 70 91 2

C.5 35 Tracked Excavator 27 kW - 82 72 71 69 69 70 61 54 74 2

C.4 12 Wheeled Excavator 63 kW 14 t 84 82 77 75 72 68 60 52 77 1

C.4 13 Wheeled Loader 75 kW 37 t 83 72 70 69 65 64 57 49 71 1

C.4 20 Concrete Mixer Truck 83 74 66 69 70 78 60 55 80 1

C.4 15 Fuel tanker lorry/Water bowser 11 t 79 73 71 75 72 67 59 50 76 2

C.2 45 Water pump 20 kW 6 in 73 68 62 62 61 56 53 41 65 1

C.9 16 Road lorry (full) 270 kW 39 t 96 82 74 73 77 72 71 64 80 3

D.6 11 Concrete Batching Plant 360m3/day 80 1


C.2 31 Dump Truck (Empty) 306 kW 29 t 86 79 79 79 79 84 69 60 87 4



C.4 27 Concrete Mixer Truck - - 84 74 74 73 73 75 65 59 79 2

C.4 88 Water pump (diesel) 10 kW 100 kg 70 65 66 64 64 63 56 46 68 1

C.4 50 Tracked Mobile Crane 390 kW 600 t / 125 m 68 71 68 62 66 66 55 46 71 1

C.4 52 Tracked Mobile Crane 240 kW 105 t 73 71 66 67 74 66 58 49 75 1

C.6 21 Road Lorry (full) 270 kW 39 t 96 82 74 73 77 72 71 64 80 2

C.5 16 Articulated dump truck 194 kW 25 t 88 90 80 79 76 71 65 61 81 2


C.4 27 Concrete Mixer Truck 84 74 74 73 73 75 65 59 79 2




C.5 1 Backhoe mounted hydraulic breaker 67 kW - 86 80 78 77 81 83 82 81 88 1

C.4 50 Tracked Mobile Crane 390 kW 600 t / 125 m 68 71 68 62 66 66 55 46 71 1

C.4 52 Tracked Mobile Crane 240 kW 105 t 73 71 66 67 74 66 58 49 75 1



C.5 1 Backhoe mounted hydraulic breaker 67 kW - 86 80 78 77 81 83 82 81 88 1

Borrow Pits

Compound

Construction

Access Routes

Decommissioning

Turbines

Deforestation

Decommissioning

Substation

Excavation for

Turbine Base

Build of

Turbine Base

Crane in Turbines

Construction

Substation

Concrete

Batching Plant

Eon Climate and Renewables

Hill of Ochiltree Wind Farm

Delivery Route Assessment

Report

April 2009

* Photograph used under permission of R. Collett & Sons (Transport) Ltd.


Hill of Ochiltree Wind Farm – Delivery Route Assessment

April 2009

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's

appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed

to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson

accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the

purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may

copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior

written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Scotland Ltd. Any advice,

opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only

in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide

legal or tax advice or opinion.

© Scott Wilson Scotland Ltd 2008

Scott Wilson

Citypoint 2

25 Tyndrum Street

Glasgow

G4 0JY

Scotland

Tel 0141 354 5600

Fax 0141 354 5601

www.scottwilson.com

Revision Schedule

Delivery Route Assessment

April 2009

S105996-DR-01

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

01 8/4/09 Issue for

Comment

Cody Wardensky

Assistant Engineer

Simon Shillington

Associate

Simon Shillington

Associate

02 09/4/09 Final Cody Wardensky

Assistant Engineer

Simon Shillington

Associate

Simon Shillington

Associate



April 2009

Contents

1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................1

1.1 Background.....................................................................................................1

1.2 Assessment Scope .........................................................................................1

2.0 Delivery route..................................................................................................2

3.0 Design transport vehicles................................................................................3

4.0 Consultee responses ......................................................................................4

5.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................6

5.1 Summary of consultations...............................................................................6

5.2 Further works..................................................................................................6

6.0 Appendix 1 Highways Agency BE16 (09/07) Forms ......................................7

7.0 Appendix 2 Additional Transport Scotland Information Forms ........................8

8.0 Appendix 3 Delivery Vehicle Specifications ....................................................9

9.0 Appendix 4 Consultee Responses................................................................10

10.0 Appendix 5 Drawing S105996/I/021 – Delivery Route ..................................11



09 April 2009 Page No 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

This report has been prepared by Scott Wilson Ltd as engineering consultants to

Atmos Consulting who in turn are agents to Eon Climate and Renewables.

This report summarises the assessment process to determine the suitability for

travel over public roads by the design turbine component delivery vehicles

(abnormal loads) from the sea port at Cairnryan to U59W site access road for the

Hill of Ochiltree Wind Farm.

The assessment of the delivery route was undertaken through consultation with the

national transport agency for Scotland, Transport Scotland, who coordinate the

movements of all abnormal loads throughout the Scottish road network.

Turbine component delivery vehicles are review based on their length, width,

height, and weight to permit an impact assessment on the existing road network,

and specifically under and over bridge structures to be undertaken.

This report will therefore summarise the responses received from Transport

Scotland and their consultees against these criteria.

1.2 Assessment Scope

Scott Wilson’s brief in preparing this report was to :-

• Research likely turbine transport vehicle types (weights and dimensions)

• Submit abnormal indivisible load applications to Transport Scotland, Amey

(South West Scotland’s Trunk Road Operator), Dumfries and Galloway Police,

and Dumfries and Galloway Council for comment/approval.

• Prepare report detailing and explaining findings




2.0 Delivery route

One main delivery route was assessed from the sea port at Cairnryan to the U59W

site access road with a further alternative route option to bypass the town of

Newton Stewart as shown in drawing “S105996/I/021 Delivery Route” appended to

this report.

The access route follows: -

• the A77 south from the sea port at Cairnryan;

• the A751 south;

• the A75 east;

• the A714 north at Newton Stewart; and

• to, but not including, the U59W.

The Newton Stewart bypass alternative route option uses the U52W Barnkirk Road.




3.0 Design transport vehicles

Four design transport vehicles were submitted comprising: -

• A 40 metre blade trailer

• A turbine nacelle trailer

• A turbine base tower section trailer

• A turbine top tower section.

The submission forms are appended with this report defining the characteristics of

each vehicle and the number of movements anticipated.

It should be noted that the assessment was undertaken using component parts

based on a Siemens SWT-2.3-82 wind turbine. The specifications for design

vehicles carrying components for this type of turbine have been used for this

assessment and vehicle loading illustrations append this report. Should a different

supplier be proposed, unless a material change in dimensions or weight results, it is

anticipated that this will have no impact on the assessment undertaken.




4.0 Consultee responses

4.1.1 Dumfries and Galloway Council

Dumfries and Galloway Council Architecture and Engineering Design Services have

confirmed that the route proposed is acceptable.

They note that they have no record of any structures under the U59W.

4.1.2 Amey

Amey have responded to the consultation as route managers of the south west

Trunk Road Network.

They have confirmed that a height restriction occurs on the railway bridge at

Dunragit which will impact on movements of the tower base section as well as any

other element of height greater than 4.3 metres.

Amey have confirmed that a diversion route does exist via the B7084 at Dunragit.

Amey highlight the following areas of potential concern: -

• An assessment should be undertaken of the B7084 diversion to ensure vehicles

proposed can negotiate route.

4.1.3 Dumfries and Galloway Police

Dumfries and Galloway Police with the exception of the section of the route though

Newton Stewart perceive no issues with the proposed approach to the windfarm.

They would strongly appose any route through Newton Stewart due to potential

constraints from car parking and the fact that there is limited off street parking in the

town and therefore any temporary restriction would have a significant impact.

In favour they would anticipate that bypassing the town via the U52W Barnkirk

Road, which is a two lane carriageway, would be acceptable.

Dumfries and Galloway Council highlight one areas of potential concern: -

• The left turn from Barnkirk road onto the A714 northbound.

4.1.4 Jacobs Babtie

Jacobs Babtie have responded to Transport Scotland in their capacity as disused

railway bridge assessment engineers for Network Rail.




They have confirmed that the route should avoid the unclassified road from the A75

at East Knockbrex as there is a bridge over the disused rail line that is unsuitable

for the loads proposed.

It is noted that this route is not to be used as part of the preferred or alternative

options and Jacobs Babtie have no other comments.

4.1.5 Transport Scotland

As defined in the previous sections of this report, all consultees have responded to

the application for approval to convey abnormal loads via the route defined in this

report, and specifically adopting the bypass option at Newton Stewart.

On this basis, Transport Scotland have confirmed that they agree in principle to the

proposed movements, subject to a trial run being carried out prior to component

delivery.




5.0 Conclusions

5.1 Summary of consultations

Based on the summary provided in this report:-

• It has been confirmed that the main route is generally acceptable to conslutees

for the turbine delivery vehicles proposed.

• A diversion for some or all vehicles may be required at Dunragit to avoid a

limited height bridge (4.3 metres) under the existing rail line. A diversion exists

via the B7084 at this location.

• The alternative route via the U52W Barnkirk Road is preferred to avoid the

centre of Newton Stewart.

• Dumfries and Galloway Council have advised that they do not have any record

of any structures that may be impacted by the proposed vehicles.

5.2 Further works

Based on the consultation responses, the following detailed works should be

undertaken: -

• Vehicle tracking of the diversion route at Dunragit via the B7084 to confirm

acceptability for proposed vehicles.

• Vehicle tracking of the junction from the U52W onto the A714 to confirm

acceptability for proposed vehicles.

• A trial run by hauliers to highlight any unforeseen issues.




6.0 Appendix 1

Highways Agency BE16 (09/07) Forms

Highways Agency BE16 (09/07)

VEHICLE DETAILS for abnormal load movements authorised by Special Order

You must send this form in at least 8 weeks before the date of your proposed first movement. (Photocopies of this

form are acceptable)

Part A – General

1. Name, address & postcode of haulier: _TBC__________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Phone: Fax: Operator's Licence No:________________________

Email address: ____________________________________________________

2. Name, address & postcode at which movement will start: _DG9 8RA (OS 26672, 568355)

______________________________________________________________________________

3. Name, address & postcode at which movement will end: __OS 235351, 575460

__________________________________________________________________________________

4. Description of piece(s): Turbine Top Tower Section 5. No. of movements: 10

6. No. of pieces to be carried at a time: 1 7. Date of 1st movement: ____TBC_____

8. Overall dimensions of piece(s) - metric units

Height: ____ Width: ____ Length: 39.300m Weight: 68.0 te

9. Name (block capitals): CODY WARDENSKY Date: _____04/03/09_____________

Does overall width exceed 6.100m? Yes No X

Is rigid length over 30.00m? Yes X No __

(If yes to either of the above, please complete Part B below and overleaf).

Does gross weight exceed 150,000kgs? Yes No X

If yes, please complete Part C overleaf.

Is suggested route attached? Yes X No __

PART B - Width over 6.100m and/or rigid length over 30.000m?

1. (a) Description of vehicles on which the load is to be carried: (please tick)

Drawbar trailer ___ Bogie(s) X Semi-trailer ___ Artic tractor X

Other (please state): _________________________________________

(b) Weight of load plus load carrying vehicles: 68.0 te

Note: Do not include the weight of separate (drawbar) tractor(s).

2. For separate (drawbar) tractor(s), please state (in metric units):

Weight of tractor: No. of axles: ___________ No. of wheels per axle: ____________

Axle weights: ______________________________

Axle spacing: (including axle spacing between tractor and trailer): ____________________________________

Height: _______________________ Width: _______________

3. Is rear bogie steerable?: Yes X No __

4. Overhang of load behind rear of trailer (in metric units): 3.954m

5. Overall (metric) dimensions of the train: Max Height Tractor (Semi-trailer only): ___ Max Height Trailer: ____________ Reducible to:

Width: Overall Length: 39.300m Rigid Length: 33.430m

6. Details of vehicles described in 1 (a) overleaf:

Axles 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th

No. of wheels per axle: 2 4 4 8 8 8 8

Lateral spacing between

tyre centres:

Weight per axle: (Kg) 8000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Spacing between axles: (mm) 3200 1370 24028 1310 1810 1310

Size of tyres (width x wheel diameter): Outside Track:

PART C - Weight over 150,000kgs

Trailer

No.

No. of

Axles

Travelling

Height

(ground

clearance

in brackets)

Reduced

Height

(ground

clearance

in brackets)

Width Length

of train

Length

of trailer

without

drawbar

Gross

weight

(kgs)

Axle

load

(kgs)

Axle Spacing Wheel

base

Tyre

sizes

Tyre

centres

Outside

track

No of tractors

(pulling) or

(pushing).

Also fill in

Q2 of Part B

Send completed form to: For movements starting in England or Wales - For movements starting in Scotland -

Highways Agency Transport Scotland

Abnormal Loads Trunk Roads - Network Management Division – Admin Team

C6, 5 Broadway, Broad Street, Buchanan House, 8th Floor

BIRMINGHAM B15 1BL 58 Port Dundas Road, GLASGOW G4 0HF

Tel: 0121 678 8068 Tel: 0141 272 7334

Fax: 0121 678 8569 Fax: 0141 272 7373





Part A – General


____________________________________________________________________________________


Email address: ____________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________

4. Description of piece(s): Turbine Base Tower Section 5. No. of movements: 10




9. Name (block capitals): CODY WARDENSKY Date: _______04/03/09___________









Drawbar trailer ___ Bogie(s) _X Semi-trailer ___ Artic tractor _X






Axle weights: ______________________________


Height: _______________________ Width: _______________


4. Overhang of load behind rear of trailer (in metric units): __________





No. of wheels per axle: 2 2 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8


tyre centres:

Weight per axle: (Kg) 9000 9000 8000 10000 10000 13000 13000 13000 13000 13000

Spacing between axles: (mm) 1500 2000 1350 1350 2691 22758 1500 1500 1500



Trailer

No.

No. of

Axles

Travelling

Height

(ground

clearance

in brackets)

Reduced

Height

(ground

clearance

in brackets)

Width Length

of train

Length

of trailer

without

drawbar

Gross

weight

(kgs)

Axle

load

(kgs)

Axle Spacing Wheel

base

Tyre

sizes

Tyre

centres

Outside

track

No of tractors

(pulling) or

(pushing).

Also fill in

Q2 of Part B






Tel: 0121 678 8068 Tel: 0141 272 7334

Fax: 0121 678 8569 Fax: 0141 272 7373





Part A – General


____________________________________________________________________________________


Email address: ____________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________

4. Description of piece(s): Turbine Nacelle 5. No. of movements: 10



Height: ____ Width: ____ Length: _______ Weight: 82.0 te

9. Name (block capitals): CODY WARDENSKY Date: ___04/03/09________________


Is rigid length over 30.00m? Yes No X


Does gross weight exceed 150,000kgs? Yes X No __





Drawbar trailer ___ Bogie(s) ___ Semi-trailer ___ Artic tractor ___


(b) Weight of load plus load carrying vehicles: _______________________




Axle weights: ______________________________


Height: _______________________ Width: _______________

3. Is rear bogie steerable?: Yes No __

4. Overhang of load behind rear of trailer (in metric units): ________________


Width: Overall Length: _____ Rigid Length: ________



No. of wheels per axle:


tyre centres:

Weight per axle:

Spacing between axles:



Trailer

No.

No. of

Axles

Travelling

Height

(ground

clearance

in brackets)

Reduced

Height

(ground

clearance

in brackets)

Width Length

of train

Length

of trailer

without

drawbar

Gross

weight

(kgs)

Axle

load

(kgs)

Axle Spacing Wheel

base

Tyre

sizes

Tyre

centres

Outside

track

No of tractors

(pulling) or

(pushing).

Also fill in

Q2 of Part B

1 10 34.575m 25.310m 159.0 te 11.6 te 1.500m 2.75m






Tel: 0121 678 8068 Tel: 0141 272 7334

Fax: 0121 678 8569 Fax: 0141 272 7373





Part A – General


____________________________________________________________________________________


Email address: ____________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________

4. Description of piece(s): 40m Turbine Blade 5. No. of movements: 30




9. Name (block capitals): CODY WARDENSKY Date: ______04/03/09_______________









Drawbar trailer ___ Bogie(s) _X Semi-trailer ___ Artic tractor __






Axle weights: ______________________________


Height: _______________________ Width: _______________


4. Overhang of load behind rear of trailer (in metric units): 6.925m





No. of wheels per axle: 2 4 4 2 2 2


tyre centres:

Weight per axle:(Kg) 7000 8000 8000 4000 4000 4000

Spacing between axles:(mm) 3200 1370 24921 1850 1850



Trailer

No.

No. of

Axles

Travelling

Height

(ground

clearance

in brackets)

Reduced

Height

(ground

clearance

in brackets)

Width Length

of train

Length

of trailer

without

drawbar

Gross

weight

(kgs)

Axle

load

(kgs)

Axle Spacing Wheel

base

Tyre

sizes

Tyre

centres

Outside

track

No of tractors

(pulling) or

(pushing).

Also fill in

Q2 of Part B






Tel: 0121 678 8068 Tel: 0141 272 7334

Fax: 0121 678 8569 Fax: 0141 272 7373




7.0 Appendix 2

Additional Transport Scotland Information Forms

DIMENSIONS OF PIECE

Height =

Width =

Length =

Weight =

LADEN DIMENSIONS

Length (Rigid) = 33.430m

Length (Overall) = 39.300m

Weight = 68 Te

No. Axles = 7

No. Wheels/Axle = 1No. @ 2, 2No. @ 4, 4No @ 8

Axle Weights = . 1No. @ 8Te, 6No. @ 10Te,

Axle Spacings = 3.2m, 1.37m, 24.028m, 1.31m, 1.81m, 1.31m

Rear Overhang = 3.954m

SUGGESTED ROUTE

1. Cairnryan port – South on the A77

2. South on the A751

3. East on the A75

4. North on A714 through Newton Stewart

** Alternative Option @ 4. North on minor by-pass road to west of Newton Stewart **

5. North on A714

Approximate mileage = 35 Miles

DIMENSIONS OF PIECE

Height =

Width =

Length =

Weight =

LADEN DIMENSIONS

Height =

Height (Reducible) =

Width = m



Weight = 159 Te

No. Axles = 15


Axle Weights = . 2No. @ 8Te, 1No. @ 7Te, 2No. @ 10Te, 10No. @ 11.6Te

Axle Spacings = 1.5m, 2.0m, 1.35m, 1.35m, 2.605m, 1.5m, 1.5m, 1.5m, 11.410m, 1.5m, 1.5m,

1.5m, 1.5m, 1.5m

Rear Overhang = 0m

SUGGESTED ROUTE



3. East on the A75



5. North on A714


DIMENSIONS OF PIECE

Height =

Width =

Length =

Weight =

LADEN DIMENSIONS

Height = 5.0m


Width = 4.82m



Weight = 111 Te

No. Axles = 10


Axle Weights = . 2No. @ 9Te, 1No. @ 8Te, 2No. @ 10Te, 5No. @ 13.0Te

Axle Spacings = 1.5m, 2.0m, 1.35m, 1.35m, 2.691m, 22.758m, 1.5m, 1.5m, 1.5m,

Rear Overhang = 0m

SUGGESTED ROUTE



3. East on the A75



5. North on A714


DIMENSIONS OF PIECE

Height =

Width =

Length =

Weight =

LADEN DIMENSIONS

Height = 4.0m


Width = m



Weight = 359 Te

No. Axles = 6

No. Wheels/Axle = 4No. @ 2, 2No. @ 4,

Axle Weights = . 1No. @ 7Te, 2No. @ 8Te, 3No. @ 4Te

Axle Spacings = 3.2m, 1.37m, 24.921m, 1.85m, 1.85m, 1.75m

Rear Overhang = 6.925m

SUGGESTED ROUTE



3. East on the A75



5. North on A714





8.0 Appendix 3 Delivery Vehicle Specifications

Delivery Vehicle Specifications

4




9.0 Appendix 4 Consultee Responses

Cody Wardensky

From: [email protected]

Sent: 27 March 2009 09:37

To: Cody Wardensky

Subject: FW: 1146 - Abnormal Load Route Assessment

Page 1 of 5

09/04/2009

Morning Cody

Please see police response below. They have advised that the loads should not be allowed to travel

through Newton Stewarts Town Centre and that your alternative route should be used.

Taking all of the responses into consideration an agreement in principal is given for these proposed

movements.

Kind regards

Eric Ewing

Bridges & Operations Adminstrator

Transport Scotland

From: Howat Susan [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 27 March 2009 08:37 To: Ewing E (Eric)

Subject: RE: 1146 - Abnormal Load Route Assessment

Eric

This is the reply that I received from my Sergeant in Stranraer:

As discussed the proposed route I have no real problems with, however I am strongly against the load going

through Newton Stewart town centre as should anyone be double parked, when the load approaches, it will

be nothing less than grid lock. No parking cones are not an option either as there is limited parking for Newton

Stewart as it is.

With regards to the route, the A77, A751 and A75 roads should be no problem at all. Likewise the left turn

from the A75 onto the Barnkirk Road should be negotiatable as well, however the wide load will need to

encroach onto opposing carriageway in order to make the right turn. The Barnkirk Road is the U52w which

they class as a minor road but is actually a two way undivided carriageway.

The Barnkirk road should be passable without too much trouble as will the A714, however I have identified 3

areas of concern: These areas are as follows:

1) the left hand turn from the Barnkirk Road onto the A714.

2) a bridge on the A714 at a part thereof near to the middle bridge of Cree, Bargrennan, Newton Stewart

3) a bridge on the A714 at a part thereof near to the Wheeb brige, Arnimean, Newton Stewart (close to our

border)

Point 1) concerns me as the junction is not the widest and the convoy may take some negotiating in order to

get round. Points 2) and 3) both refer to the narrow bridge crossings. As with most narrow bridges they are

preceded by sharp bends at either end and the bridge may be difficult to negotiate given the length of the

load. I appreciate that hauliers can lift the height of the load but road alterations may still be necessary (in

particularly at point 3 above), as it would allow a wider turn onto the bridge.

I would strongly recommend that a route run through be done using an unladen vehicle, the trailer of which

was set at the length of the longest road to ensure that the run is possible.

I hope that this helps.

Cheers.

S.

Susan Howat

Warrants Officer/Abnormal Loads Officer

Force Communications Centre

Police HQ

Cornwall Mount

DUMFRIES

DG1 1PZ

Tel No: 0845 600 5701

Direct dial: 01387 242214

CISCO: 401031

[email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected]

-----Original Message-----

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 March 2009 15:43

To: Howat Susan; Abnormal Loads; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: FW: 1146 - Abnormal Load Route Assessment

Further to my email below I would appreciate your comments on the proposed movements

from Cairnryan to Newton Stewart.

I would be grateful for a response by 27th

March 2009.

Many thanks

Eric Ewing

Bridges & Operations Administrator

Transport Scotland

From: Ewing E (Eric)

Sent: 06 March 2009 11:32

To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';

'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'McGinlay Suzanne' Subject: FW: 1146 - Abnormal Load Route Assessment

We have received the attached enquiry from Scott Wilson Ltd for proposed movements from

Cairnryan to Newton Stewart

Could I please have your written comments on the proposed movements using the vehicles

and suggested route by 20th

March 2009.

Many thanks

Eric

From: Cody Wardensky [mailto:[email protected]]

Page 2 of 5

09/04/2009

1

Cody Wardensky


Sent: 26 March 2009 09:10

To: Cody Wardensky

Subject: Movement from Cairnryan to Newton Stewart

Attachments: map.pdf

map.pdf

Morning Cody

Jacobs Babtie have advised that the movements must not use the unclassified road that

runs north west of the A75 from East Knockbrex as the bridge over the disused railway

line on this road is totally unsuited to the loads you have detailed.

The location of the bridge is circled on the attached map.

Otherwise Jacobs have no objections.

Regards

Eric Ewing

Network Administrator

Transport Scotland

TRNMD

Direct Line: 0141 272 7337

********************************************************

This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended

solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage,

copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not

the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system

and inform the sender immediately by return.

Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to

secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views

or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the

Scottish Government.

********************************************************

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet

virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.

(CCTM Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified

virus free.

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for

legal purposes.

________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by

MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the

clock, around the globe, visit:

http://www.star.net.uk

________________________________________________________________________

Cody Wardensky


Sent: 06 March 2009 15:09

To: [email protected]

Subject: 1146 - Scott Wilson - Cairnryan to Newton Stewart - Amey - OK - 6 March 2009

Page 1 of 3

09/04/2009

Eric,

Regarding the attached enquiry for the proposed movement of wind turbine components from Cairnryan to

Newton Stewart, I wish to advise you as follows :

On form BE16 (09/07) the weight of the pieces given, is the same as the laden dimensions for the 35, 68 &

111Ton loads

1) The 35Ton Turbine blades showing a laden height of 4m is o.k

2) The 68Ton Turbine Top Tower Section does not show a laden height

3) The 111Ton Turbine Base Tower Section shows a laden height of 5m

4) The 159 Ton Turbine Nacelle does not show a laden height

It should be noted that The Challoch Rail Bridge at Dunragit has a signed height of 4.3m. The Dunragit

bypass onto the B7084

and return onto the A75 would require to be used by No.3 above,and No.2 & 4 if the laden height exceeded

4.3m

The South West Unit would have no objections to the movements (other than above comments ) provided that

the haulier is satisfied that the drivers of the vehicles can negotiate the route safely prior to departure.

Regards

Ian Lyall

Abnormal Loads ( Amey)

South West Trunk Roads

Tel;0141 781 6576

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 March 2009 11:26

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Lyall, Iain;

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: 1146 - Abnormal Load Route Assessment

We have received the attached enquiry from Scott Wilson Ltd for proposed movements from

Cairnryan to Newton Stewart

Could I please have your written comments on the proposed movements using the vehicles and

suggested route by 20th

March 2009.

Many thanks

Eric

From: Cody Wardensky [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 05 March 2009 15:11 To: Ewing E (Eric)

Subject: Abnormal Load Route Assessment




10.0 Appendix 5

Drawing S105996/I/021 – Delivery Route

Consultation response from JRC

Dear Sam

On behalf of the UK Fuel & Power Industry, JRC analyses proposals for

wind farms in order to assess their potential to cause interference to

radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their

regulatory operational requirements.

In the case of this proposed wind development, details as stated in the

title of this e.mail, the JRC does not foresee any potential problems

based on known interference scenarios and the data you have provided.

If any details of the wind farm change, in particular the disposition

or scale of any of the turbines, it will be necessary to re-validate

the proposal.

In making this judgement, JRC has used its best endeavours with the

available data, although we recognise that there may be effects which

are as yet unknown or inadequately predicted. JRC cannot therefore be

held liable if subsequently problems arise that we have not predicted.

It should be noted that this clearance pertains only to the date of its

issue. As the use of the spectrum is dynamic, the use of the band is

changing on an ongoing basis and consequently, you are advised to seek

re-coordination prior to submitting a planning application, as this

will negate the possibility of an objection being raised at that time

as a consequence of any links assigned between your enquiry and the

finalisation of your project.

JRC offers a range of radio planning and analysis services. If you

require any assistance, please get in touch by phone or email.

Regards

Chas Griffin

Wind Farm Team

The Joint Radio Company Limited

Dean Bradley House,

52 Horseferry Road,

LONDON SW1P 2AF

United Kingdom

TEL: +44 20 7706 5190

SWITCHBOARD: +44 20 7706 5199

Skype: chas_jrc

<[email protected]>

The information supplied herein is strictly confidential and is

intended for the use of the addressee only. It shall not be disclosed

to any third party without permission of the JRC.

JRC Ltd. is a Joint Venture between the Energy Networks Association (on

behalf of the UK Energy Industries) and National Grid.

Registered in England & Wales: 2990041

<http://www.jrc.co.uk/about>

Dear Sirs,

I am responding to an e-mail of 20th February 2009, regarding this proposed development.

The above application has now been examined in relation to UHF Radio Scanning Telemetry

communications used by our Client in that region. I am pleased to inform you that there is NO

OBJECTION to the proposed Wind Farm / Turbine at:

Site Centre NGR NX 32638 74547

This no objection is based on a 1.5km radius from the site centre given above.

Please note that this No Objection is not in relation to any Microwave Links

operated by Scottish Water.

Should any alteration be made at the above turbine locations regarding your proposals could I

kindly ask you to inform CSS Spectrum Management Services Ltd via the following email

address: [email protected]

If you wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Thank you for consulting

us on this occasion and we would be pleased if you would do the same if you are involved with

similar developments in the UK.

Regards

Jenny Blythman Windfarm Co-ordinator CSS Spectrum Management Services Limited

Tel: 01458 273789

Fax: 01458 273883

This e-mail and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. The content may also

contain legal, professional or other privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, could you please notify the

sender immediately and then delete the e-mail and any attachments, you should not disclose, copy or take any action in

reliance of this transmission. CSS Spectrum Management Services can be contacted on 01458 273789.

You should not copy; forward or otherwise disclose the contents of this e-mail or any of its attachments without express

consent. Please ensure you have adequate virus protection before you open or detach any documents from this

transmission. CSS Spectrum Management Services does not accept any liability for viruses.

Name & Trading Office:

CSS Spectrum Management Services Limited

Unit10 Canvin Court

Bancombe Business Park

Somerton

Somerset

TA11 6SB

Tel: 01458 273789

Fax: 01458 273883

Commercial in Confidence


Hill of Ochiltree Windfarm: Aviation Impact Assessment Activities

This document is of UK origin and has been prepared by Osprey Consulting Services

Limited (Osprey) and, subject to any existing rights of third parties; Osprey is the owner

of the copyright therein. The document is furnished in confidence under existing laws,

regulations and agreements covering the release of data. This document contains

proprietary information of Osprey and the contents or any part thereof shall not be

copied or disclosed to any third party without Osprey‟s prior written consent.

© Osprey Consulting Services Limited 2009

Ref: Wind/EON/7049/06 Issue 2

Date: 16th February 2009





Control Page

Document Details

Document Title Hill of Ochiltree Windfarm: Aviation Impact Assessment Activities

Issue Issue 2

Date 16th February 2009

Author Lindsay Perks

Approved by Jon Arden

Distribution Sam Hesling, Atmos Consulting; Hayley Meadley, E.ON Climate & Renewables.

Amendment Record

Issue Amendment Date

Draft A Document created 9th January 2009

Issue 1 Document first released 3rd February 2009

Issue 2 Revised following client comments and design freeze consultation with MOD

16th February 2009

Approvals

Approval Level Authority Name Signature

Author Osprey CSL Lindsay Perks

Internal Approval Osprey CSL Jon Arden

Client 1 Approval Atmos Consulting Sam Hesling

Client 2 Approval E.ON Climate &

Renewables

Hayley Meadley

Regulator





Summary

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

E.ON Climate & Renewables are proposing the development of a wind energy site known as Hill of Ochiltree, southwest of Bargrennan in Dumfries and Galloway,

Scotland. There are ten turbines proposed for the site.

This report describes the activities carried out by Osprey Consulting Services Ltd during assessment and resolution of the aviation impact of the proposed Hill of

Ochiltree scheme. All of the activities were carried out on behalf of E.ON Climate & Renewables however this report is delivered to Atmos Consulting Ltd who are

responsible for putting together the Environmental Statement for E.ON Climate & Renewables; this report will be referenced in the Infrastructure, Safety and Aviation Chapter.

Overview

All aviation issues relating to the Hill of Ochiltree site have been explored and

addressed through the activities described in this report. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) have no objection to the site; the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

has no observations; Glasgow and Prestwick airports were consulted for completeness and had no objections. E.ON Climate & Renewables and Osprey worked hard to address the Ministry of Defence (MOD) objection which was

successfully resolved in November 2008.

Since Issue 1 of this report, the site reached the „design freeze‟ stage and minor

refinement of the layout means that the turbines have moved slightly (by less than 50m). These final coordinates were communicated by Osprey to Defence Estates who responded by email on behalf of MOD indicating their continued support of the

scheme [„...providing the grid co-ordinates remain as stated in your letter and within the original boundaries discussed at your meeting with Sqn Ldr Hale...‟].

Osprey understand that it is standard practice within wind energy planning applications to include a micro-siting allowance of up to 50m from the final coordinates to allow for minor variations in the location of the turbines for

construction purposes. Osprey has communicated this to Defence Estates.

Recommendations

Osprey recommend that E.ON Climate & Renewables continue discussions with MOD regarding their request for 25 candela lights to be fitted to the corner most

turbines and one central turbine. MOD have said that if the suggested 25 candela lighting has too great an impact on the local landscape they would like to discuss other options which may include 18 candela lights (invisible to naked eye but bright

to Night Vision Goggle technology) or other Infra-Red solutions.

If planning permission is granted for the Hill of Ochiltree scheme E.ON Climate &

Renewables must advise the MOD of the following in order to ensure continued safe flight operations in the area:

Date of construction start and completion;





Summary

Maximum altitude/height of construction equipment (e.g. cranes for lifting the structures into place;

Precise latitude and longitude of the final position of every turbine;

Details of any applicable lighting.





Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 3

1.1. General ............................................................................................. 3

1.2. Background to the Impact of Turbines on Aviation Stakeholders .............. 3

1.3. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................. 4

1.4. Exclusions ......................................................................................... 4

1.5. Document Structure ........................................................................... 4

2. HILL OF OCHILTREE WINDFARM ............................................................. 5

2.1. Overview .......................................................................................... 5

2.2. Final Optimum Layout ......................................................................... 5

2.3. Map of Location ................................................................................. 6

2.4. Wind Farm Site Footprint .................................................................... 6

3. INITIAL AVIATION STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .................................... 7

3.1. Overview .......................................................................................... 7

3.2. NATS Consultation.............................................................................. 7

3.3. CAA Consultation ............................................................................... 7

3.4. MOD Consultation .............................................................................. 7

4. MOD OBJECTION AND RESOLUTION ........................................................ 8

4.1. Overview .......................................................................................... 8

4.2. UK Military Low Flying System ............................................................. 8

4.3. Addressing the Objection .................................................................... 8

4.4. Meeting with MOD at Defence Estates ................................................... 9

4.5. Removal of MOD Objection .................................................................. 9

5. FURTHER AVIATION CONSULTATION ..................................................... 10

5.1. Overview ........................................................................................ 10

5.2. Prestwick Airport .............................................................................. 10

5.3. Correspondence with Prestwick .......................................................... 10

5.4. Glasgow Airport ............................................................................... 10

5.5. Correspondence with Glasgow ........................................................... 11

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 12

6.1. Overview ........................................................................................ 12





Contents

6.2. Recommendations ............................................................................ 12

ANNEX A SUPPORTING CORRESPONDENCE ..................................................... 13

Appendix 1: NATS Technical Assessment ......................................................... 13

Appendix 2: CAA Observations ....................................................................... 14

Appendix 3: DE Objection Email ..................................................................... 15

Appendix 4: Osprey Letter to Defence Estates ................................................. 16

Appendix 5: MOD Objection July 2008 ............................................................ 17

Appendix 6: MOD Formal Retraction of Objection ............................................. 19

Appendix 7: Correspondence with Prestwick Airport .......................................... 21

Appendix 8: Correspondence with Glasgow Airport ........................................... 24

This document includes maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2008. All rights reserved. License number AL100048146. Mapping is included solely as a backdrop to information presented in this document, to give spatial significance to that information and shall not be otherwise reproduced.




COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. General

E.ON Climate & Renewables are proposing the development of a wind energy site

known as the Hill of Ochiltree, southwest of Bargrennan in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland. The final layout plan for the site proposes a total of ten turbines.

This report describes the activities carried out by Osprey Consulting Services Ltd

during assessment and resolution of the aviation impact attributable to the Hill of Ochiltree proposal. All of the activities were carried out on behalf of E.ON Climate &

Renewables however this report is to be delivered to Atmos Consulting Ltd who are responsible for putting together the Environmental Statement where it will be

referenced in the Infrastructure, Safety and Aviation Chapter.

1.2. Background to the Impact of Turbines on Aviation Stakeholders

Wind energy developments can pose two separate threats to the safety of air traffic

operating in the vicinity:

Impact on Air Traffic Control/ Radar services provided by an aerodrome or en-

route operator;

Physical obstruction to safe operations at a given airfield or within an operationally significant area.

In terms of the radar impact, wind turbines are a significant cause of false returns processed by Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) because the rotating blades impart a

„Doppler Shift‟1 onto the returned PSR signal which is most pronounced when the rotor is side on to the radar. When the rotor is facing directly towards or away from the radar then a more complex effect manifests within the Moving Target Indication (MTI)

processor. In both cases these false returns are output to the radar display and can be interpreted by the controller as real aircraft or they can be so significant as to

create a patch of on-screen clutter capable of „hiding‟ real targets.

There can also be an effect on Radar sensitivity in the immediate vicinity of the turbines; sensitivity is reduced due to Radar returns from the substantial Radar Cross

Sectional Area of the turbine blades, tower and nacelle, which may even exceed that of a large aircraft by four or more orders of magnitude, effectively blinding the radar

to wanted targets in the vicinity.

The above effects singly or in combination can reduce the effectiveness of Radar to an unacceptable level and hence compromise the continued safe operation of a given

Radar Service. It is for these reasons that radar operators generally object to turbine developments.

In terms of creating a physical obstruction a turbine (or number of turbines) can impact on aviation in two ways:

1 A change (in frequency and wavelength) to the signal that indicates to the radar signal

processor that an object is moving towards/away from the radar.





4

1. The turbine(s) may breach the obstacle limitation surfaces at a given airfield. The effective utilisation of an aerodrome may be considerably influenced by

natural features and man-made constructions inside and outside of its boundary. The existence of such obstacles may affect the distances available

for take-off and landing at the airfield as well as imposing meteorological restrictions on when aircraft can take-off and land. For these reasons, certain

areas of the local airspace must be regarded as integral parts of the aerodrome environment and in fact the licensing of an aerodrome depends on the degree to which these areas are free from existing or new obstacles (Reference 1, CAP

168); where a wind turbine breaches any of the safeguarded or obstacle limitation surfaces at a given aerodrome, that aerodrome has no choice but to

object to the development until safety can be assured;

2. Turbines can present a physical obstruction to aircraft flying at low-level across the UK; the UK Military Low Flying System covers the open airspace of the

whole of the UK up to 2,000ft above the ground or mean sea level. Despite their significant size, wind turbines can be difficult to see in certain

meteorological conditions and therefore where a scheme falls within a preferred training area for the MOD consideration must be given to the impact on aircraft operating in that area. As well as presenting a hazard to safety the turbines

may place unacceptable manoeuvring restrictions on crucial military training operations.

1.3. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present an account of the aviation impact activities that were carried out by Osprey on behalf of E.ON Climate & Renewables and to

present evidence that there are no unresolved aviation issues applicable to the Hill of Ochiltree Scheme.

1.4. Exclusions

This report considers only the impact of the turbines once they are fully installed and although some relevant recommendations will be made the report does not fully

address the safety issues relating to construction, installation or through life support of the turbines on the site.

1.5. Document Structure

Section 1 is the Introduction; Section 2 describes the Hill of Ochiltree Scheme. Section 3 describes the initial aviation stakeholder consultation that took place prior to

Osprey being consulted on the scheme. Section 4 explores the MOD objection and describes how the issues were addressed. Section 5 presents the additional aviation

consultations carried out by Osprey (Glasgow and Prestwick) and Section 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations. There is one Annex to the report and eight appendices containing the main correspondence items applicable to this report.





5

2. HILL OF OCHILTREE WINDFARM

2.1. Overview

As with all wind development schemes, the Hill of Ochiltree site has been through

several revisions with respect to number of turbines and layout patterns.

The original proposal was for sixteen turbines on the site but during the course of the aviation impact assessment activities, the site reduced to a thirteen turbine layout and

finally to the optimum ten turbine layout.

2.2. Final Optimum Layout

Table 1 shows the coordinates for each individual turbine in the final optimum ten turbine layout.

Turbine No Easting Northing Lat(N) Long(W)

1 232907 575389 55°02‟41.41” 04°37‟00.41”

2 232490 575447 55°02‟42.78” 04°37‟24”

3 232545 575114 55°02‟32.08” 04°37‟20.20”

4 232308 574795 55°02‟21.5” 04°37‟32.86”

5 232207 574432 55°02‟09.63” 04°37‟37.78”

6 233146 575178 55°02‟34.88” 04°37‟46.5”

7 232886 574874 55°02‟24.74” 04°37‟00.51”

8 233214 574694 55°02‟19.32” 04 36 41.67”

9 232677 574520 55°02‟13.05” 04°37‟11.52”

10 232980 574374 55°02‟08.69” 04°36‟54.16”

Table 1. Turbine Grid Coordinates





6

2.3. Map of Location

Figure 1 shows a map of the location of the proposed turbines.

Figure 1. Map of Hill of Ochiltree Wind Turbines

2.4. Wind Farm Site Footprint

In terms of impact on radar that has line of sight of the site, the „clutter footprint‟ of the site is likely to measure approximately 1.5km by 1.5km (0.8nm), allowing for the nominal 100m either side of a turbine as per CAA CAP 764.





7

3. INITIAL AVIATION STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

3.1. Overview

When Osprey were first consulted in March 2008 the scheme consisted of sixteen

turbines and had the following observations from Aviation Stakeholders:

NATS – NATS offered no objection to the site;

CAA – The CAA had no observations on the site;

MOD – Defence Estates objected to the site on behalf of MOD.

3.2. NATS Consultation

E.ON Climate & Renewables applied to NATS for a technical assessment of the Hill of Ochiltree site to determine whether the turbines would conflict with the radar services

provided by NATS. The application was submitted under the former name for the site: Glenvernoch Fell and was based on a larger sixteen turbine layout.

The results of the NATS technical assessment showed that although the site is within

operational range of several NATS radar systems, the turbines themselves would have a negligible impact on radar services. It is Ospreys informed opinion that this

translates into the Hill of Ochiltree turbines being screened from the radars in question.

The response from NATS is included at Annex A, Appendix 1 to this report.

3.3. CAA Consultation

E.ON Climate & Renewables submitted the Hill of Ochiltree proposal to the CAA

Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP) and the response declared that the Directorate had no observations; the site is not within the statutory notification zone of any civilian aerodrome.

The response from the CAA DAP is included at Annex A, Appendix 2 to this report.

3.4. MOD Consultation

Defence Estates is an organisation of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) whose main responsibility is the strategic management of all land and estate assets belonging to the MOD. This responsibility includes the safeguarding of estate and training assets

on behalf of the MOD and it is through Defence Estates that MOD will raise an objection (or otherwise) to a given wind farm proposal.

Defence Estates objected to the Hill of Ochiltree scheme on behalf of the MOD stating that the turbines will be “inside Low Flying Area 20T and will unacceptably affect military activities [in the area]”.

The MOD objection and the work carried out to resolve the issue is discussed in detail in Section 4.





8

4. MOD OBJECTION AND RESOLUTION

4.1. Overview

The MOD objection centres on the proposed site being within Low Flying Tactical

Training Area 20T. Low Flying remains a crucial skill for military aircrew; UK armed forces are often deployed abroad at extremely short notice and with no time for „work up‟ training. They must be able to fulfil the tasks expected of them immediately and

as effectively as possible.

UK military aircrew undertake a variety of roles including reconnaissance, fast

jet/combat operations, helicopter search and rescue/combat/troop deployment operations, transportation of battle field equipment and delivery of humanitarian aid.

They are only able to fulfil their missions through specialist training utilising the UK Military Low Flying System.

4.2. UK Military Low Flying System

The UK Military Low Flying system covers the open airspace of the whole of the UK and surrounding coastal areas from the surface up to 2000ft above ground or mean

sea level. There are however areas within the UK that are more formally adopted by the MOD for tactical training due to specific characteristics of the environment and terrain; area 20T is one such area.

Inside 20T, training takes place down to 100ft above ground level (or to within 100ft of ground based obstacles). The combination of high ground, long valleys and low

population density makes this an extremely valuable training area.

4.3. Addressing the Objection

The original objection to the sixteen turbine scheme was raised via email

correspondence between Chris Evans of Defence Estates and Hayley Meadley (nee Jackson) at E.ON Climate & Renewables (see Annex A, appendix 3) on 31st May 2005.

The MOD were concerned that the site would restrict their use of the River Cree Valley and push military traffic towards settlements along the A714 (refer to map in Figure 1, Section 2). Defence Estates recommended that the relocation of five turbines on

the north east of the site might help address the concerns.

E.ON Climate & Renewables subsequently rearranged the layout of the site and

identified a thirteen turbine scheme that reduced the north east extent of the site. Osprey consulted Defence Estates on EON‟s behalf and submitted the new thirteen turbine scheme for consideration by MOD on 16th April 2008. Osprey‟s letter to

Defence Estates (Appendix A, Annex 4) explained that the gap between the A714 and the turbines had been widened by 1km.

The response from Defence Estates on 28th July 2008 (Appendix A, Annex 5) made no mention of E.ON Climate & Renewables‟ attempts to move the turbines away from the valley and instead simply stated that their main concern is that the Hill of Ochiltree

turbines “[are] not only a safety hazard but also severely impacts on utilisation of the area...”.





9

A further revision of the Hill of Ochiltree scheme reduced the number of turbines to ten and although this was submitted to Defence Estates for consideration, it was felt

that no further progress could be made without a meeting between E.ON Climate & Renewables and the MOD.

4.4. Meeting with MOD at Defence Estates

Osprey arranged a meeting with E.ON Climate & Renewables and Defence Estates

which was held on 6th November 2008. Squadron Leader Mike Hale of the Low Flying Ops Squadron attended on behalf of MOD.

The meeting was a success with MOD recognising the effort that E.ON Climate &

Renewables had put in to reducing the size and moving the turbines towards the southwest and hence away from the all important Cree Valley area. Sqn Ldr Mike

Hale explained the importance of the lower terrain and described how operationally, the higher ground on the Hill of Ochiltree was of less importance and that moving the site southwest pushed the turbines towards this higher ground.

E.ON Climate and Renewables and MOD engaged in discussions regarding the flight safety lighting of tall structures such as wind turbines. From E.ON Climate &

Renewables point of view, augmenting the turbines with the standard 200 candela aviation obstruction lighting increases the visual impact of the turbines on the landscape and hence increases the risk for local environmental objection. MOD stated

that lighting would enable aircrew to operate safely in the vicinity of the turbines at night but that they would be happy with 25 candela lighting which is compatible with

Night Vision Goggle (NVG) technology to 5nm.

E.ON Climate & Renewables were of the opinion that 25 candela lighting might still present an unacceptable visual impact but agreed to continue to work with MOD

towards a lighting solution. The recommended first steps were that E.ON investigate the actual visual impact of lighting some of the turbines on the site with 25 candela

lighting whilst MOD continue to investigate 18 candela and Infra-Red options that are invisible to naked eye but bright to NVG.

4.5. Removal of MOD Objection

The meeting was followed up with a formal retraction of the MOD objection in a letter to EON dated 21st November 2008. The letter included the recommendation that the

corner most turbines and on central turbine be augmented with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting in the interest of ensuring safe operations during the hours of darkness. The letter is included at Annex A, Appendix 6 to this report.





10

5. FURTHER AVIATION CONSULTATION

5.1. Overview

Despite the CAA having no observations with respect to aerodromes near the site,

E.ON Climate & Renewables requested that Osprey carry out a brief assessment of the visibility of the turbines to the radars located at Prestwick and Glasgow airports for completeness.

Ospreys assessment showed that the turbines would be completely screened from both radars however for completeness, both airports were asked for formal comments

on the site.

5.2. Prestwick Airport

Figure 2 shows the line of sight terrain elevation between the Prestwick radar and the site centre at Hill of Ochiltree. The blue line is the direct line of sight and it is clear that there is significant terrain to screen the site from the radar.

Figure 2. Line of Sight Prestwick Radar and Hill of Ochiltree site centre

5.3. Correspondence with Prestwick

Osprey wrote to Anne Mackenzie at Prestwick Airport describing the scheme and asking for her formal comments. Her response confirmed that the airport would have no objection to the site; the Osprey letter and reply from Prestwick are included at

Annex A, Appendix 7 to this report.

5.4. Glasgow Airport

Figure 3 shows the line of sight elevation profile between the radar at Glasgow airport and the site centre at Hill of Ochiltree. The blue line is the direct line of sight and it is clear that there is significant terrain to screen the site from the radar.





11

Figure 3. LOS Glasgow radar to Hill of Ochiltree centre

5.5. Correspondence with Glasgow

Osprey wrote to Colin Cragg at British Airport Authority (BAA) who are responsible for

planning and safeguarding of Glasgow airport. The response confirmed that the airport would have no objection to the site; the Osprey letter and reply from Glasgow

are included at Annex A, Appendix 8 to this report.





12

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. Overview

All aviation issues relating to the Hill of Ochiltree site have been explored and addressed. NATS have no objection to the site; the CAA has no observations;

Glasgow and Prestwick airport were consulted for completeness and E.ON Climate & Renewables and Osprey worked hard to address the MOD objection which was successfully resolved in November 2008.

Since Issue 1 of this report, the site reached the „design freeze‟ stage and minor

refinement of the layout means that the turbines have moved slightly (by less than 50m). These final coordinates were communicated by Osprey to Defence Estates who responded by email on behalf of MOD indicating their continued support of the

scheme [„...providing the grid co-ordinates remain as stated in your letter and within the original boundaries discussed at your meeting with Sqn Ldr Hale...‟].

Osprey understand that it is standard practice within wind energy planning applications to include a micro-siting allowance of up to 50m from the final

coordinates – this will allow for any minor variations in the location of the turbines during the construction phase. Osprey have communicated this to Defence Estates.

6.2. Recommendations

Osprey recommend that E.ON Climate & Renewables continue discussions with MOD regarding their request for 25 candela lights to be fitted to the corner most

turbines and one central turbine. MOD have said that if the suggested 25 candela lighting has too great an impact on the local landscape they would like to discuss other options which may include 18 candela lights (invisible to naked eye but bright

to NVG) or other Infra-Red solutions.

If planning permission is granted EON must advise MOD of:

Date of construction start and completion;

Maximum altitude/height of construction equipment (e.g. cranes for lifting the structures into place;

Precise latitude and longitude of the final position of every turbine.

The aim is to ensure continued safe flight operations in the area.





13

ANNEX A SUPPORTING CORRESPONDENCE

Appendix 1: NATS Technical Assessment

Previous name for the Hill of Ochiltree site





14

Appendix 2: CAA Observations





15

Appendix 3: DE Objection Email





16

Appendix 4: Osprey Letter to Defence Estates

Date: 16th April 2008

Ref: Wind/EON/7049/02

Dear Chris Evans,

Ochiltree Windfarm – Previously Glenvernoch Fell DE Ref: 4694

Enclosed is a copy of the MOD windfarm developers pro-forma; this letter aims to

provide some background information on the Ochiltree Site as it has previously been considered by Defence Estates (DE) under the name of Glenvernoch Fell.

Osprey Consulting Services Ltd is acting in the role of independent aviation consultant for the developers, E.ON UK Renewables.

The scheme falls in a preferred area for operational low flying, close to Bargrennan, Dumfries and Galloway. The last correspondence from DE (email to Hayley

Meadley nee Jackson at E.ON dated 31st May 2005) raised concerns that with the 16 turbine layout, fast jet traffic would be pushed towards settlements along the A714. The indication was that if E.ON were able to remove the 5 most north-

easterly turbines then it may help remove low flying concerns.

In order to help ensure the development remains viable for E.ON, they would like DE to consider a new layout of 13 turbines on the site (3 turbines have been removed from the NE of the site and the others slightly shuffled) in the hope that

the new layout allows sufficient gap between Bargrennan and the wind turbines. Note that removing the 3 turbines widens the gap by approximately 1km (including

the required 500ft obstacle separation).

Yours Sincerely,

Lindsay Perks

Senior Consultant

Osprey Consulting Services Ltd





17

Appendix 5: MOD Objection July 2008

DE Operations North Safeguarding Wind Energy Kingston Road, Sutton Coldfield, B75 7RL

Chris Evans: 0121 311 2025

Claire Duddy: 0121 311 3714

Facsimile: 0121 311 2218

Mobile: 07901 751770

E-mail: [email protected]


Internet Site: www.defence-estates.mod.uk


Ms Lindsay Perks

Osprey Consulting Services Ltd

The Grove

Sylvan Avenue

Woodhall Spa

Lincolnshire

LN10 6SL

Your Reference:

Our Reference:

DE/C/SUT/43/10/1/4694

Date:

28 July 2008

Dear Ms Perks

DE Ref Number: 4694

Site Name: Glenvernoch

Following your request for a further review, I am writing to confirm that we have the following concerns with your proposal. This has been assessed on the grid references below (as submitted in your pro-forma) for 13 turbine(s) of 125 metres to blade tip height.

Turbine 100km Square letter Easting Northing

1 NX 32965 75434

2 NX 33187 75146

3 NX 33349 74821

4 NX 33029 74299

5 NX 32692 75094

6 NX 32879 74786

7 NX 32653 74423

8 NX 32656 74045

9 NX 32454 75484

10 NX 32270 75098

11 NX 32199 74638

12 NX 32202 74259

mailto:[email protected]






18

13 NX 31826 73974

We will look at suggested mitigations that you may wish to propose. However, the MOD will object if you apply for planning permission without addressing these concerns to our satisfaction.

Low Flying

The turbine(s) will be within Low Flying Area 20T and will unacceptably affect military activities. These are areas made available for Military Operational Low Flying Training. Within Tactical Training Areas, military fast jets and Hercules aircraft may operate down to a height of 100ft separation distance from the ground and other obstacles. The proliferation of obstacles within this area, therefore, is not only a safety hazard but also severely impacts on the utilisation of the area for this essential Low Flying Training.

Yours sincerely

Chris Evans

Assistant Safeguarding Officer – Wind Energy Defence Estates

SAFEGUARDING SOLUTIONS TO DEFENCE NEEDS





19

Appendix 6: MOD Formal Retraction of Objection

DE Operations North

Safeguarding Wind Energy

Kingston Road, Sutton Coldfield, B75 7RL

Claire Duddy: 0121 311 3714

Facsimile: 0121 311 2218

Mobile: 07901 751770



Ms Hayley Meadley

E.ON UK Renewables

c/o Winnington CHP

Winnington Lan, Winnington

Northwich

Cheshire

CW8 4GX

Your Reference:

Our Reference:

DE/C/SUT/43/10/1/4694

Date:

21 November 2008

Dear Ms Meadley

DE Ref Number: 4694

Site Name: GLENVERNOCH FELL / OCHILTREE

I am writing to tell you that the following a detailed assessment of the revised application, the MOD no longer has concerns with the proposal as set out in your email dated 07 November 2008.

The application is for 10 turbine(s) at 115 metres to blade tip. This has been assessed using the grid reference/s below as submitted in your email.

Turbine 100km Square Letter

Easting Northing

1 NX 32930 75388

2 NX 32581 75422

3 NX 32496 75096

4 NX 32355 74775

5 NX 32204 74437

6 NX 33200 75106






20

7 NX 32890 74862

8 NX 33195 74712

9 NX 32638 74547

10 NX 32984 74389

In the interest of air safety, the Ministry of Defence recommends that the corner most turbines and one in the middle are fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting at the highest practicable point.

If the application is altered in any way we must be consulted again as even the slightest change could unacceptably affect us.

If you apply for planning permission you must ensure that the relevant planning authority consults this office to ensure that no concerns have arisen since the date of this letter.

If planning permission is granted you must tell us;

the date construction starts and ends; the maximum height of construction equipment; the latitude and longitude of every turbine.

This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this area.

Yours sincerely

Claire Duddy

Safeguarding Officer – Wind Energy

Defence Estates





21

Appendix 7: Correspondence with Prestwick Airport

Date: 24th October 2008


Dear Anne Mackenzie,

Re: Ochiltree Windfarm, Dumfries and Galloway

Osprey Consulting Services Ltd have been providing independent advice on aviation

issues to E.On Renewables UK regarding a proposed wind farm south of Bargrennan in Dumfries and Galloway. The wind farm is known as Ochiltree.

Whilst the proposed site lies well without the normal safeguarded areas for Glasgow Prestwick Airport, E.On have asked us to write to you giving the location of the proposed site in accordance with advice they have received from their

environmental consultants.

The site lies approximately 50km to the south of the airport with the nearest

turbine located at approximate grid square reference: NX3293075388 (232930,575388). Our investigations show that the entire site is screened from the

radar at Prestwick and the line of sight profile for the nearest turbine is shown below:

E.On are aiming to get permission for ten turbines on the site and the proposed

height is 116metres to blade tip; the approximate coordinates of the individual turbines are:





22

Turbine Number

Easting Northing

1 232930 575388

2 232581 575422

3 232496 575096

4 232355 574775

5 232204 574437

6 233200 575106

7 232890 574862

8 233195 574712

9 232638 574547

10 232984 574389

We appreciate that Glasgow Prestwick Airport may rely on NATS radar data (either currently or in the future) however NATS have declared that they have NO OBJECTION to the proposal as it does not have an impact on any of their radars.

Although you may wish to carry out your own investigations, we are confident that the proposed Ochiltree Windfarm shall have no impact on operations at Glasgow

Prestwick Airport.

Would you kindly confirm in writing to Osprey that the proposed site shall not impact upon operations or radar services provided by Glasgow Prestwick Airport;

this final piece of information will allow E.On to proceed through to the planning process.

Yours sincerely,

Lindsay Perks

Senior Consultant

(CC Hayley Meadley, E.On and Anne Mackenzie via email 24/10/08)





23





24

Appendix 8: Correspondence with Glasgow Airport

Date: 24th October 2008


Dear Colin Cragg,

Re: Glasgow Airport and Ochiltree Windfarm (Dumfries and Galloway)

Osprey Consulting Services Ltd have been providing independent advice on aviation

issues to E.On Renewables UK regarding a proposed wind farm south of Bargrennan in Dumfries and Galloway. The wind farm is known as Ochiltree.

At ~93km from Glasgow Airport, the proposed site is well without the normal notification range however E.On are acting upon advice received from their environmental consultants and have asked us to write to you giving the location of

the turbines. Our line of sight investigation shows that the site is fully screened from the Glasgow PSR and the profile for the turbine 1 is shown below: Grid

Reference NX3293075388 (232930, 575388).

E.On are aiming to get permission for ten turbines on the site and the proposed

height is 116metres to blade tip; the approximate coordinates of the individual turbines are:

Turbine

Number

Easting Northing

1 232930 575388





25

2 232581 575422

3 232496 575096

4 232355 574775

5 232204 574437

6 233200 575106

7 232890 574862

8 233195 574712

9 232638 574547

10 232984 574389

NATS have not objected to the site and have informed E.On that the turbines shall

have NO IMPACT on their radar systems. Although you may wish to carry out your own investigations, we are confident that the proposed Ochiltree Windfarm shall

have no impact on operations and radar services provided by Glasgow Airport.

Would you kindly confirm in writing to Osprey that the proposed site shall not impact upon operations at Glasgow Airport; this final piece of information will allow

E.On to proceed through to the planning process.

Yours sincerely

Lindsay Perks

Senior Consultant

(CC Hayley Meadley, E.On and Colin Cragg via email 24/10/08)





26

technical appendix 8.1 phase i target notes wind farm development...

Documents