TECHNICAL NOTE Title Assessment of shadow flicker from the ... · Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd St...

Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd

St Vincent’s Works, Silverthorne Lane, Bristol BS2 0QD, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 972 9900, Registered in England 1878456

TECHNICAL NOTE

Title Assessment of shadow flicker from the proposed LHEG wind turbines

Client Arup Ireland Ltd Contact John O’Mahony Document No. 104570/BT/11 Issue F Classification Client’s discretion Author Andrew Hay

Checked Thomas Grey

Approved Robert Hodgetts

History

Issue: Date: Summary A 13/12/10 Draft issue B 14/12/10 Draft issue, updated to include individual receptors C 16/12/10 Final issue D 17/01/11 Updated issue to include E101 and additional receptors E 24/01/11 Updated issue with minor typographical corrections to figures F 10/02/11 Updated issue with revised receptors

Important Notice and Disclaimer

1. This technical note (“Technical Note”) is prepared and issued by Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd (“GH” or “Garrad Hassan”) for the sole use of the client named on its title page (the “Client”) on whose instructions it has been prepared, and who has entered into a written agreement directly with Garrad Hassan. Garrad Hassan’s liability to the Client is set out in that agreement. Garrad Hassan shall have no liability to third parties (being persons other than the Client) in connection with this Report or for any use whatsoever by third parties of this Report unless the subject of a written agreement between Garrad Hassan and such third party. The Technical Note may only be reproduced and circulated in accordance with the Document Classification and associated conditions stipulated or referred to in this Technical Note and/or in Garrad Hassan’s written agreement with the Client. No part of this Technical Note may be disclosed in any public offering memorandum, prospectus or stock exchange listing, circular or announcement without the express written consent of Garrad Hassan. A Document Classification permitting the Client to redistribute this Technical Note shall not thereby imply that Garrad Hassan has any liability to any recipient other than the Client.

2. This Technical Note has been produced from information relating to dates and periods referred to in this report. The Technical Note does not imply that any information is not subject to change.

Key to Document Classification Strictly Confidential: For disclosure only to named individuals within the Client’s organisation. Private and Confidential: For disclosure only to individuals directly concerned with the subject matter

of the Technical Note within the Client’s organisation. Commercial in Confidence: Not to be disclosed outside the Client’s organisation GH only : Not to be disclosed to non GH staff Client’s Discretion Distribution for information only at the discretion of the Client (subject to

the above Important Notice and Disclaimer). Published: Available for information only to the general public (subject to the above

Important Notice and Disclaimer).

© 2011 Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

Document No.: 104570/BT/11 LHEG – Shadow Flicker Issue: F Final

Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd 2

1 INTRODUCTION

This technical note summarises the preliminary findings of an assessment of the shadow flicker from the proposed LHEG wind turbines. This work has been prepared pursuant to the GH proposal 104570/BP/01 Issue A dated 1 July 2010, and is subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. At this stage, GH has produced a map showing the overall levels of shadow flicker in the vicinity of the proposed wind turbines. The shadow flicker at four individual receptors has also been assessed in greater detail. 2 SHADOW FLICKER ASSESSMENT

Shadow flicker may occur under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, when the sun passes behind the blades of a wind turbine and casts a shadow over the neighbouring properties. As the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off and an effect known as shadow flicker occurs. The effect occurs inside buildings, where the flicker generally appears through a narrow window opening. The likelihood and duration of the effect depends upon a number of variable factors as follows:

Direction of the property relative to the turbine. In the UK & Ireland, only properties within ~130° either side of north, relative to the turbine, can be affected as turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side;

Distance from turbine. The further the observer is from the turbine, the less pronounced the effect would be;

Wind speed and direction. The wind speed at the turbine will need to be greater than 3 m/s in order for the blades to rotate. Further, the shape of the shadow will be determined by the position of the sun relative to the blades (which will be rotated to face the wind);

Turbine height and rotor diameter; Time of year and day (the height of the sun in the sky); Weather conditions (cloud cover reduces the risk of shadow flicker).

2.1 Assessment methodology

The shadow flicker calculations have been undertaken using the GH WindFarmer model. The model makes the following simplifications:

There are clear skies every day of the year; The turbines are always rotating; The sun can be represented as a single point; There are no obstacles other than terrain; The blades of the turbines are always perpendicular to the direction of the line of sight from

the specified location to the sun. Full details of the calculation are available within the GH WindFarmer technical manuals [1,2]. Shadow flicker has been calculated at a height of 2 m to represent ground floor windows. The shadow flicker receptor locations have been selected by Arup [3, 4] and are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The receptors are simulated as mounted horizontal plates representing the worst case scenario (glass-house) while real windows would be facing towards a particular, selective direction. The

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26



simulations have been carried out with a resolution of 1 minute; if shadow flicker occurs in any 1 minute period, the model records this as 1 minute of shadow flicker. The Enercon E82 2.3 MW turbine with a hub height of 98 m and Enercon E101 3.0 MW turbine with a hub height of 99 m have been considered in this analysis. The turbine locations have been supplied by Arup [5] and are shown in Table 1. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and local Government, Wind Energy Planning Guidelines [6] states:

At distances greater than 10 rotor diameters from a turbine, the potential for shadow flicker is very low. Where shadow flicker could be a problem, developers should provide calculations to quantify the effect and where appropriate take measures to prevent or ameliorate the potential effect, such as by turning off a particular turbine at certain times.

Taking the above into consideration, GH has limited the calculation of shadow flicker effects for the areas which are within 10 rotor diameters (820 m or 1010 m) of each turbine. 2.2 Shadow flicker results

The predicted shadow flicker maps are shown in Figures 1 to 4. These maps show, for the proposed site and surrounding area, the total number of hours per annum for which shadow flicker from the proposed LHEG wind turbines could be experienced. The results of the assessment of shadow flicker at the 4 receptors are summarised in Tables 2 and 3. The tables show the total time that shadow flicker could occur in one year, the maximum daily shadow flicker and the number of days per year when shadow flicker occurs for longer than thirty minutes. Figures 5 to 12 show graphically the times of the year and period throughout the day when shadow flicker could occur at the receptors given the proposed E82 and E101 turbine options. As discussed in Section 2.1, these results are based on the absolute worst case scenario. In many of the predicted cases of shadow flicker, the weather conditions may well not match the assumptions made by the GH WindFarmer model as described in Section 2.1. Measures can be undertaken to resolve the issue of shadow flicker. These are likely to involve pre-programming the turbine with dates and times when shadow flicker would cause a nuisance. A photo sensor cell would be used to monitor sunlight. The turbine would then be shut down, when the strength of the sun, wind speed and the angle and position of the sun combines to cause a flicker nuisance. Such a shutdown strategy would result in a slight drop in the annual energy output of the wind turbine. Another mitigation measure which could be effective is the planting of vegetation close to the location of any potential receptors in order to shield them from the shadow flicker. However, depending on the height, density and location of the vegetation it could cause a reduction in annual energy output of the wind farm.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26



3 REFERENCES

1. “GH WindFarmer, Theory Manual”, Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd, February 2010.

2. “GH WindFarmer, User Manual”, Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd, August 2009.

3. Email from Daniel Garvey, Arup to Andrew Hay, GH, 14 December 2010.

4. Email from Daniel Garvey, Arup to Andrew Hay, GH, 13 January 2011.

5. Email from John O’Mahony, Arup to Andrew Hay, GH, 27 January 2011.

6. http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1633,en.pdf, viewed 25 March 2010.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26



Site Turbine Easting1

[m] Northing1

[m]

Centocor CEN1 176490 64220 DePuy DEP1 179230 63850

DEP2 178830 63790 GlaxoSmithKline GSK1 178401 62608

Novartis NOV1 176681 63480 NOV2 176790 63800

Notes: 1. Co-ordinate system is Irish Grid, 1965 datum.

Table 1 Turbine layout

Receptor Easting1

[m] Northing1

[m]

Annual shadow flicker

[hours:minutes]

Maximum Daily Shadow Flicker [mins]

No. of days per year for which 30 minute limit

is exceeded 1 175915 63995 38:45 32 32 2 176150 63520 53:36 35 21 3 176175 63300 47:55 37 53 4 177760 62260 28:19 29 0

Notes: 1. Co-ordinate system is Irish Grid, 1965 datum. 2. These figures are based on a calculation distance of 820 m from each turbine location.

Table 2 Summary of shadow flicker effects at each receptor using Enercon E82 turbines

with 98 m hub height

Receptor Easting1

[m] Northing1

[m]

Annual shadow flicker

[hours:minutes]

Maximum Daily Shadow Flicker [mins]

No. of days per year for which 30 minute limit

is exceeded 1 175915 63995 51:33 41 76 2 176150 63520 76:06 43 100 3 176175 63300 65:59 45 91 4 177760 62260 37:27 35 54

Notes: 1. Co-ordinate system is Irish Grid, 1965 datum. 2. These figures are based on a calculation distance of 1010 m from each turbine location.

Table 2 Summary of shadow flicker effects at each receptor using Enercon E101 turbines

with 99 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26



Figure 1 Predicted shadow flicker map using Enercon E82 turbines with 98 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26



Figure 2 Predicted shadow flicker map and background map using Enercon E82 turbines with 98 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26



Figure 3 Predicted shadow flicker map using Enercon E101 turbines with 99 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26



Figure 4 Predicted shadow flicker map and background map using Enercon E101 turbines with 99 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26



Figure 5 Predicted annual shadow flicker at receptor 1 using Enercon E82 turbines with

98 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26




98 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26




98 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26




98 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26




99 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26




99 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26




99 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26




99 m hub height

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

Appendix 7.1

Peak Counts of Non-Breeding Water Birds

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

SmithKline Beecham (Cork) Limited (GlaxoSmithKline) Wind Energy Project

Environmental Impact Statement

EIS | Issue 1 | 29 April 2011 | Arup

J:\C2400-C2499\C2465\3_DOCUMENTS\40\REPORTS\EIS\EIS ISSUE\GSK EIS_C2465.40_ISSUE 1.DOCX

Appendix 7.1 Page 1

Peak Counts of Non-Breeding Water Birds

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

Appendix 7.1

Page 1 of 4

APPENDIX 7.1: Table A7.1 Peak counts of non-breeding water birds in Lough Beg (November 2009 to October 2010)

Date 10/11/2009 13/11/2009 07/12/2009 28/12/2009 06/01/2010 28/01/2010 17/02/2010 24/02/2010 04/03/2010 11/03/2010 20/09/2010 13/10/2010 Mean of

peak

counts

No. of counts 6 7 7 6 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Observers* CC/CCu CC/CCu CC/JW CC/JW CC/PW CC/PW CH/CC CH/CC CH/RN CH/MF CH/RN CH/RN

Red-throated Diver 1

Little Grebe 5 6 5 2 6 2 9 7 7 15 15 7

Great Crested

Grebe 12 4 1 11 1 8 36 1 5 7

Cormorant 6 8 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 20 21 6

Little Egret 10 10 5 1 4 2 1 1 1 9 8 4

Grey Heron 10 15 6 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 4 7 5

Mute Swan 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Brent Goose 27 23 65 43 53 48 42 54 18 42 35

Shelduck 76 86 96 80 72 64 56 64 45 58 3 58

Wigeon 29 30 55 44 34 99 75 34 30 29 23 40

Teal 65 54 65 61 92 112 78 26 44 41 41 42 60

Mallard 34 54 38 34 31 8 16 12 15 52 23 26

Shoveler 4 1 4 3 4 4 2

Red-breasted

Merganser 6 4 2 30 3 1 3 1 2 4

Oystercatcher 101 66 98 72 104 91 67 62 53 58 106 173 88

Ringed Plover 71 120 125 29 39 35 49 11 1 2 38 20 45

Golden Plover 1 3

Grey Plover 10 7 28 14 19 48 43 6 15

Lapwing 36 40 23 15 19 106 156 2 33

Knot 36 8 10 3 7 15 1 7

Dunlin 284 343 491 220 525 256 224 178 80 180 62 85 244

Snipe 5 44 4 5 3 5

Black-tailed

Godwit 113 104 27 103 60 114 47 106 156 122 146 142 103

Bar-tailed Godwit 3 1 5 3 28 6 18 21 12 16 1 10

Curlew 66 32 85 20 51 40 86 83 75 40 197 196 81

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

Appendix 7.1

Page 2 of 4

Date 10/11/2009 13/11/2009 07/12/2009 28/12/2009 06/01/2010 28/01/2010 17/02/2010 24/02/2010 04/03/2010 11/03/2010 20/09/2010 13/10/2010 Mean of

peak

counts

No. of counts 6 7 7 6 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Observers* CC/CCu CC/CCu CC/JW CC/JW CC/PW CC/PW CH/CC CH/CC CH/RN CH/MF CH/RN CH/RN

Redshank 154 180 196 98 60 157 106 97 92 88 349 311 157

Greenshank 10 9 11 4 9 5 9 17 3 3 13 6 8

Turnstone 36 9 24 23 9 5 17 30 10 45 70 23

Black-headed Gull 281 25 77 10 39 124 19 25 45 84 63 57 71

Common Gull 59 11 82 93 53 29 77 14 100 13 30 11 48

Lesser Black-

backed Gull 3 6 1 1 3 12 6 1 19 7 5

Herring Gull 5 3 20 6 4 12 12 8 2 31 22 10

Great Black-

backed Gull 5 8 5 2 1 7 4 17 4

Kingfisher 1 1 2

Mediterranean Gull 1

Ring-billed Gull

Shag 1

Sandwich Tern 125

Common Tern 3

Whimbrel 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 2

Moorhen 5 2 3 14 3 1 4 3

Coot 3 3 6 4 6 3 2 2

Gadwall 16 4 10 2 6 3

Spotted Redshank 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

Water Rail 2 2 3 1

Black Brant 1

* Observers: CC = C. Cronin; CCu = C. Cullen; CH = C. Hamilton; RN = R. Nairn; MF = M. Flynn; JW = J. Wilson; PW = P. Wilson

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

Appendix 7.2: Janssen Appropriate Assessment Natura

Page 3 of 4

APPENDIX 7.1: Table A7.2 Peak counts of non-breeding water birds in Monkstown Creek (November 2009 to October 2010)

Date 08/11/2009 15/11/2009 13/12/2009 22/12/2009 20/01/2010 29/01/2010 16/02/2010 25/02/2010 03/03/2010 10/03/2010 21/09/2010 14/10/2010 Mean of

No. of counts 6 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 peak

Observers* CC/CCu CC/CCu CC/JW CC/JW CC/PW CC/PW CC CC CH CH RN RN counts

Little Grebe 1

Great Crested

Grebe 2 3 1

Cormorant 45 162 66 15 53 135 42 82 83 38 30 60 68

Little Egret 1 2 3 1

Grey Heron 14 32 17 11 15 6 7 15 12 9 29 9 15

Mute Swan 1 4 5

Brent Goose 5

Shelduck 24 33 105 126 104 94 108 79 98 59 2 69

Wigeon

Teal 41 39 73 73 66 94 57 83 55 63 15 55

Mallard 13 18 15 30 10 18 10 6 4 2 18 20 14

Red-breasted

Merganser 1

Oystercatcher 27 97 61 41 24 34 39 16 29 13 81 64 44

Ringed Plover

Golden Plover

Grey Plover

Lapwing 20 33 320 33 15 35

Knot 2

Dunlin 4 1

Snipe 7 1 8 5 2 2

Black-tailed

Godwit 30 28 39 44 43 60 66 8 26 74 27 28 39

Bar-tailed Godwit 2 3

Curlew 47 44 42 47 28 36 60 50 34 30 85 66 47

Redshank 74 40 65 80 44 46 84 26 40 37 84 65 57

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:26

Appendix 7.2: Janssen Appropriate Assessment Natura

Page 4 of 4

Date 08/11/2009 15/11/2009 13/12/2009 22/12/2009 20/01/2010 29/01/2010 16/02/2010 25/02/2010 03/03/2010 10/03/2010 21/09/2010 14/10/2010 Mean of

No. of counts 6 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 peak

Observers* CC/CCu CC/CCu CC/JW CC/JW CC/PW CC/PW CC CC CH CH RN RN counts

Greenshank 4 5 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 2

Turnstone 22 23 15 21 16 26 43 32 32 25 2 14 23

Black-headed Gull 73 57 120 246 323 250 109 22 197 104 84 72 138

Common Gull 3 6 2 9 38 7 2 2 6

Lesser Black-

backed Gull 16 9 8 5 4 4 5 2 5 2 7 6

Herring Gull 2 4 2 4 4 11 9 9 17 5

Great Black-

backed Gull 2 11 3 3 2 1 6 1 8 23 3 5

Mediterranean Gull 2 1

Ring-billed Gull 1

Shag 1 5 4

* Observers: CCr= C. Cronin; CCu = C. Cullen; CH = C. Hamilton; RN = R. Nairn; MF = M. Flynn; JW = J. Wilson; PW = P. Wilson

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

Appendix 7.2

Appropriate Assessment Screening Report and NIS

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27





Appendix 7.2 Page 1

Appropriate Assessment Screening Report and NIS

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

1

CORK LOWER HARBOUR ENERGY GROUP

WIND TURBINE DEVELOPMENT

AT GLAXO SMITH KLINE

(IRELAND)

CURRABINNY, CO CORK

SCREENING REPORT AND

NATURA IMPACT STATEMENT

IN COMPLIANCE WITH

EU HABITATS DIRECTIVE

ARTICLES 6(3) AND 6(4)

April 2011

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

Appendix 7.2 GSK Appropriate Assessment

1

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 2. REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 2 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 3 4. STAGE 1 – SCREENING REPORT ....................................................................................... 5 5. STAGE 2 – NATURA IMPACT STATEMENT .................................................................... 8 9. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 14

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

Appendix 7.2: GSK Appropriate Assessment Natura

2

1. INTRODUCTION

Natura Environmental Consultants were commissioned by Arup Consulting Engineers to carry out

an „Appropriate Assessment‟ for the proposed wind energy project at the site of the

GlaxoSmithKline (Ireland) (hereafter called GSK) facility at Ringaskiddy, County Cork.

The purpose of this report is to determine the effects, if any, the proposed development will have on

Cork Harbour SPA (site code 004030) and to further assess if any of the predicted impacts have the

potential to have significant negative impacts on the qualifying interests or on the conservation

objectives of this Natura 2000 site.

2. REGULATORY CONTEXT

The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of

Wild Fauna and Flora) formed a basis for the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

Similarly, Special Protection Areas are legislated for under the Birds Directive (Council Directive

79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds). Collectively, SACs and SPAs are referred to as

Natura 2000 sites. In general terms, they are considered to be of exceptional importance in terms of

rare, endangered or vulnerable habitats and species within the European Community. Under Article

6(3) of the Habitats Directive an Appropriate Assessment must be undertaken for any plan or project

that is likely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of a Natura 2000 site. An

Appropriate Assessment is an evaluation of the potential impacts of a plan or project on the

conservation objectives of a Natura 2000 site. Where necessary, mitigation or avoidance measures

should be proposed to preclude negative effects.

Article 6, paragraphs 3 of the Habitats Directive state that:

“ Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely

to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects,

shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's

conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site

and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan

or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site

concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public”.

The statutory agency responsible for Natura 2000 sites is the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The European Court of Justice ruling C 418/04 against Ireland found that Ireland had failed in its

statutory duty to confer adequate protection on designated areas. Following on from this the Circular

Letter 1/08 & NPWS 1/08 on Appropriate Assessment of Land Use Plans (from the Department of the

Environment, Heritage and Local Government) states that all plans and projects will be subject to

critical assessment to ensure that they comply with all relevant legislation.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


3

The Stages in an Appropriate Assessment

There are 4 stages in an Appropriate Assessment as outlined in the European Commission Guidance

document (2001). The following is a brief summary of these steps.

Stage 1 - Screening: This stage examines the likely effects of a project either alone or in combination

with other projects upon a Natura 2000 Site and considers whether it can be objectively concluded that

these effects will not be significant

Stage 2 - Appropriate Assessment: In this stage, the impact of the project on the integrity of the Natura

2000 site is considered with respect to the conservation objectives of the site and to its structure and

function. The report of this stage is known as a Natura Impact Statement (NIS).

Stage 3 - Assessment of Alternative Solutions: Should the Appropriate Assessment determine that

adverse impacts are likely upon a Natura 2000 site, this stage examines alternative ways of

implementing the project that, where possible, avoid these adverse impacts.

Stage 4 - Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain: Where

imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) exist, an assessment to consider whether

compensatory measures will or will not effectively offset the damage to the Natura site will be

necessary.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Desk study and consultations

A desk study was carried out to collate the available information on the ecological environment. The

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) database was consulted concerning designated

conservation areas and their qualifying interests in the vicinity of the proposed development. The

NPWS, Divisional Ecologist and Head of Birds Unit, were also consulted with regard to the proposed

site and works. This assessment was carried out with reference to the relevant guidance, in particular:

Assessment of Plans and Projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 Sites: Methodological

guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC,

European Commission (2001);

Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the „Habitats Directive‟ 92/43/EEC,

European Commission (2000);

EU Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EEC (2007);

Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland: Guidance for Planning Authorities.

National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government. Dublin (2009, revised February 2010).

3.2 Review of other plans and projects

In order to identify potential „In Combination Effects‟, other key non-domestic plans and projects were

identified for the study area. The following have been considered:

Indaver Waste-to-energy facility, Ringaskiddy. Arup Consulting Engineers Nov 2008. Chapter

13 Ecology

Adopted Amendment to the Carrigaline Electoral Area LAP 2005: Ringaskiddy

Planning Application Ref. 1052019 (Cobh Town Council) - Harbour Flights Ireland Ltd.

Planning Application Ref. 1052015 (Cobh Town Council) - Cove Sailing Club.

Planning Application Ref.114171 (Cork County Council)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


4

Planning Application Ref. 9317/ABP Ref. PL04.236980 – Monkstown Bay Marina Company

Co. Ltd.

Planning Application Ref. No.105684 – GlaxoSmithKline (Cork) Ltd. Application for

construction of coast protection works along part of site (rock armour).

Environmental Report (November 2010) of the Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan

(Draft for Public consultation)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


5

4. STAGE 1 – SCREENING REPORT

This stage of the process identifies the likely impacts of a plan or project, either alone or in

combination with other plans or projects, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be

significant.

The first step in the screening process is to determine whether the project or plan is directly connected

with or necessary to the management of the Natura 2000 site. In this case the proposed project is not

directly connected to or necessary to the management of Cork Harbour SPA. Hence, the screening

process must continue through the next steps.

The next steps of the screening process are to describe the elements of the project, the characteristics of

the Natura 2000 site, the potential impacts of the project and finally assessing the potential significant

impacts associated with the project on a Natura 2000 site.

4.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The GSK site is situated approximately 1.5 kilometres southeast of the village of Ringaskiddy. It is

proposed to locate the single turbine at grid reference Easting 178401; Northing 62608 within the site

of the GSK facility at Currabinny. The wind turbine layout is shown on Figure 3.1 of the EIS Chapter.

The proposed turbine location is situated approximately 100m from the nearest boundary of the SPA.

Main features of the development

1 No wind turbine,

Associated transformer located within or adjacent to the turbine,

Buried electrical and fibre-optic cabling.

In addition, a temporary construction compound will be established on site for the duration of

the construction period.

Turbine structure

The proposed turbine will have a capacity of between 2 to 3 megawatts. The turbine will have a hub

height of up to 100 metres with a rotor radius of approximately 50.5 metres.

The turbine will be of a typical modern design incorporating a tubular tower and three blades

attached to a nacelle housing the generator, gearbox and other operating equipment.

The colour of the proposed turbine will be a suitable neutral colour.

The transformer will be housed within or adjacent to the turbine.

Turbine Foundations

The foundations will comprise a reinforced concrete pad. The dimensions of the pad may vary from

14m to 18m in overall length or diameter, however the dimensions of the pad depend on the ground

conditions and turbine size.

It is projected to have an operating lifetime of 25 years. The wind turbine operations will be

controlled from the GSK facility.

Cabling

Underground cables will link the turbine to the GSK facility. Typically the cables will be laid in a

trench one metre deep and one metre wide.

Operational phase

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


6

It is projected to have an operating lifetime of 25 years. The wind turbine operations will be controlled

from the GSK facility.

4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF NATURA 2000 SITES

Cork Harbour SPA is the only Natura 2000 within 5km of the proposed development site and is therefore considered to be the only Natura 2000 site potentially affected by the proposed project.

The Cork Harbour SPA (Special Protection Area) was designated primarily due to its bird populations.

The site includes a number of areas, which are interrelated, with bird populations moving between

different areas at different times. Lough Beg along with Monkstown Creek and the Owenboy Estuaries

are all within the Cork Harbour SPA boundary. Monkstown Creek which is within the Cork Harbour

SPA (Special Protection Area) is located less than1km north of the site.

4.3 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

This section identifies impacts associated with the construction and operational phases of the proposed

development which could potentially have significant negative impacts on the qualifying features and

conservation objectives of Cork Harbour SPA.

A number of factors were examined at this stage and dismissed or carried forward for AA as

relevant. The potential impacts from the single turbine at the GSK site were examined in the

context of the following:

Habitat loss or degradation

There will be no habitat loss within the boundary of the SPA. The turbine on this site is located

approximately 100m from the boundary of Cork Harbour SPA. The proposed turbine will be situated

on hardstanding in the GSK facility. On-site drainage systems will be used during construction to

ensure there are no hydrological impacts to the surrounding wetland habitats. This impact is not

considered further in this report.

Barrier effects

Wind farms, especially large establishments with tens of individual wind turbines, may force birds to

change direction, both during migrations and, more locally, during regular foraging activities. Whether

or not this is a problem depends on a range of factors such as the size of the wind farm, the spacing of

turbines, the extent of displacement of species and their ability to compensate for increased energy

expenditure as well as the degree of disruption caused to linkages between feeding, roosting and

breeding sites (European Commission, 2010).

The proposed wind turbine is not situated within a regularly used flight path of any of the bird species

for which the SPA has been designated. A single wind turbine is not likely to have a barrier effect. This

impact is not considered further in this report.

Disturbance and displacement of species

Bird disturbance leading to displacement or exclusion, and hence loss of habitat use, is a matter which

may be of concern for onshore and offshore wind developments (European Commission 2010). Bird

species may be displaced from areas within and surrounding wind farms due to visual, noise and

vibration impacts. Disturbance may also arise from increased human activity during construction work

and maintenance visits. Disturbance distances (the distance from wind turbines up to which birds are

absent or less abundant than expected) have been recorded up to 800m (including zero) for wintering

waterfowl (Petersen and Poulsen 1991). Therefore there is potential for disturbance to wintering and

breeding birds for which the SPA has been designated.

Collision risk

Birds may collide with various parts of the wind turbine. The level of collision risk depends very much

on site location and on the species present, as well as on weather and visibility factors (European

Commission, 2010). Some 17 species were recorded flying over land within 500m of the proposed

turbine location (see Table 7.8 of EIS). Five of these bird species are qualifying interests of Cork

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


7

Harbour SPA. The rotor swept area, will be a circle of 50.5m in radius so only those species recorded

within 200m are considered to be at risk of collision and considered further in this assessment.

4.4 CONCLUSIONS

The proposed turbine within the GSK site is located approximately 100m from the nearest boundary of

Cork Harbour SPA. The proposed development has the potential to cause significant impacts to bird

species which are the qualifying interests of Cork Harbour SPA as a result of disturbance and/or

collision mortality during the construction and operational phases of the development and as such there

is a possibility that the integrity of the SPA could be affected.

Conclusion of screening stage

The initial screening assessment has concluded that the proposed project is not directly connected with

or necessary for the management of the Natura 2000 site, and that some effects of the project could

potentially have significant negative impacts on Cork Harbour SPA. Therefore the Appropriate

Assessment process must proceed to Stage 2. Natura Impact Statement.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


8

5. STAGE 2 – NATURA IMPACT STATEMENT

The main objective of Stage 2 of the Appropriate Assessment process is to consider the impact of the

project or plan on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site, either alone or in combination with other plans

and projects, with respect to the conservation objectives of the site and where appropriate to identify

and assess mitigation measures against any adverse effects the plan or project are likely to cause.

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF NATURA 2000 SITE

Cork Harbour SPA (site code 004030)

Cork Harbour is a large, sheltered bay system, with several river estuaries – principally those of the

Rivers Lee, Douglas and Owenacurra. The SPA site comprises most of the main intertidal areas of

Cork Harbour, including all of the North Channel, the Douglas Estuary, inner Lough Mahon, Lough

Beg, Whitegate Bay and the Rostellan inlet.

Owing to the sheltered conditions, the intertidal flats are often muddy in character. These muds support

a range of macro-invertebrates, notably Macoma balthica, Scrobicularia plana, Hydrobia ulvae,

Nepthys hombergi, Nereis diversicolor and Corophium volutator. Green algae species occur on the

flats, especially Ulva lactua and Enteromorpha spp. Cordgrass (Spartina spp.) has colonised the

intertidal flats in places, especially where good shelter exists, such as at Rossleague and Belvelly in the

North Channel. Salt marshes are scattered through the site and these provide high tide roosts for the

birds. Salt marsh species present include Sea Purslane (Halimione portulacoides), Sea Aster (Aster

tripolium), Thrift (Armeria maritima), Common Saltmarsh-grass (Puccinellia maritima), Sea Plantain

(Plantago maritima), Laxflowered Sea-lavender (Limonium humile) and Sea Arrowgrass (Triglochin

maritima). Some shallow bay water is included in the site. Cork Harbour is adjacent to a major urban

centre and a major industrial centre. Rostellan Lake is a small brackish lake that is used by swans

throughout the winter. The site also includes some marginal wet grassland areas used by feeding and

roosting birds.

Cork Harbour is an internationally important wetland site, regularly supporting in excess of 20,000

wintering waterfowl, for which it is amongst the top five sites in the country. The five-year average

annual core count for the entire harbour complex was 34,661 for the period 1996/97-2000/01. Of

particular note is that the site supports an internationally important population of Redshank (1,614) –

all figures given are average winter means for the 5 winters 1995/96-1999/00. A further 15 species

have populations of national importance, as follows: Great Crested Grebe (218), Cormorant (620),

Shelduck (1,426), Wigeon (1,750), Gadwall (15), Teal (807), Pintail (84), Shoveler (135), Red-breasted

Merganser (90), Oystercatcher (791), Lapwing (3,614), Dunlin (4,936), Black-tailed Godwit (412),

Curlew (1,345) and Greenshank (36). The Shelduck population is the largest in the country (9.6% of

national total), while those of Shoveler (4.5% of total) and Pintail (4.2% of total) are also very

substantial. The site has regionally or locally important populations of a range of other species,

including Whooper Swan (10), Pochard (145), Golden Plover (805), Grey Plover (66) and Turnstone

(99). Other species using the site include Bar-tailed Godwit (45), Mallard (456), Tufted Duck (97),

Goldeneye (15), Coot (77), Mute Swan (39), Ringed Plover (51), Knot (31), Little Grebe (68) and Grey

Heron (47). Cork Harbour is an important site for gulls in winter and autumn, especially Common Gull

(2,630) and Lesser Black-backed Gull (261); Black-headed Gull (948) also occurs.

A range of passage waders occur regularly in autumn, including Ruff (5-10), Spotted Redshank (1-5)

and Green Sandpiper (1-5). Numbers vary between years and usually a few of each of these species

over-winter. The wintering birds in Cork Harbour have been monitored since the 1970s and are

counted annually as part of the I-WeBS scheme.

Cork Harbour has a nationally important breeding colony of Common Tern (3-year mean of 69 pairs

for the period 1998-2000, with a maximum of 102 pairs in 1995). The birds have nested in Cork

Harbour since about 1970, and since 1983 on various artificial structures, notably derelict steel barges

and the roof of a Martello Tower. The birds are monitored annually and the chicks are ringed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


9

Extensive areas of estuarine habitat have been reclaimed since about the 1950s for industrial, port-

related and road projects, and further reclamation remains a threat. As Cork Harbour is adjacent to a

major urban centre and a major industrial centre, water quality is variable, with the estuary of the River

Lee and parts of the Inner Harbour being somewhat eutrophic. However, the polluted conditions may

not be having significant impacts on the bird populations. Oil pollution from shipping in Cork Harbour

is a general threat. Recreational activities are high in some areas of the harbour, including jet skiing

which causes disturbance to roosting birds (NPWS site synopsis, 2004).

Conservation objective

To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Qualifying

Interests and Special Conservation Interests for this SPA (NPWS, 2011).

The favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when:

• population data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself, and

• the natural range of the species is neither being reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable

future, and

• there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a

long-term basis.

The Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests for the Cork Harbour SPA are listed below

in Table 1.

Table 1. Qualifying Interests and Species of Conservation Interest

Common name Scientific name Annex of EU

Birds Directive

Qualifying

interests

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo not listed

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna not listed

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus not listed

Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria Annex 1

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus not listed

Dunlin Calidris alpine not listed

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa not listed

Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica not listed

Curlew Numenius arquata not listed

Redshank Tringa totanus not listed

Common tern Sterna hirundo Annex 1

Special

Conservation

Interests

Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis not listed

Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus not listed

Grey heron Ardea cinerea not listed

Wigeon Anas penelope not listed

Teal Anas crecca not listed

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


10

Common name Scientific name Annex of EU

Birds Directive

Pintail Anas acuta not listed

Shoveler Anas clypeata not listed

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator not listed

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola not listed

Black-headed gull Larus ribundus not listed

Common gull Larus canus not listed

Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus not listed

5.2 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

Disturbance and displacement of species

Disturbance can lead to displacement and exclusion, resulting in the short-term and long-term loss of

habitat use. Short-term habitat loss can occur as a result of disturbance during the construction stage.

The temporary disturbance associated with the erection of the turbine at GSK will not have a

significant impact on water birds due to distance from the SPA boundary.

Longer term displacement of birds from areas within and surrounding wind turbines, due to visual

intrusion and disturbance, can theoretically amount to habitat loss. Displacement may occur during

operation of wind turbines, and may be caused by the presence of the turbines themselves, through

visual, noise and vibration impacts, or as a result of vehicle/vessel and personnel movements related to

site maintenance (Drewitt and Langston, 2006).

There are no significant feeding or roosting sites for any of the birds species which are qualifying

interests or special conservation interests of the SPA within 100m of the GSK site. Therefore,

disturbance and/or displacement will not result in significant impacts to these bird species.

The base of the proposed turbine at GSK is approximately 100m from the nearest boundary of Cork

Harbour SPA. This is a sufficient distance to avoid any disturbance impacts on non-breeding birds on

the tidal area. From the available evidence, given above, there is unlikely to be any significant

displacement of water birds or raptors from the area immediately around the proposed turbine.

Displacement of birds is therefore not significant.

Collision risk

Five species for which Cork Harbour SPA has been designated were recorded flying within 200m of

the proposed turbine GSK1 and therefore potentially at risk of collision with the turbine rotors.

Studies of bird collisions at coastal windfarms in Blythe Harbour (North-east England) and Zeebrugge

(Belgium) reported collision rates in excess of one bird per turbine per year, with most casualties at

both sites being gulls (Laridae) (Percival, 2005). However, both windfarms involved lines of multiple

turbines (9 and 25 respectively) located on piers or breakwaters (Everaert and Steinen, 2007; Lawrence

et al., 2007) which give birds less opportunity for avoidance than the single turbine proposed for the

GSK site.

Musters et al. (1996) monitored the bird casualties around an array of five wind turbines (each 30m in

height with rotor swept area of 25m diameter) in an estuary site in the Netherlands. During a one-year

period, the bodies of 26 birds of 17 different species were found. Six birds were certainly killed by the

turbines. The species that were certain or probable collision victims included Brent Goose, Mallard,

Teal, Gadwall, Oystercatcher, Grey Plover, Snipe and Black-headed Gull. From this sample it was

calculated that the average number of all certain and possible victims amounted to 0.01 per wind

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


11

turbine per day, On this basis, the average number of collision victims from the proposed turbine at

GSK would, theoretically, be on average 3.7 birds per year. It should be noted that the proposed turbine

at GSK is at least 700m from the nearest estuarine habitat and so is unlikely to cause this level of

mortality.

Studies using radar-tracking at existing windfarms have shown that birds are generally able to avoid

collisions with wind turbines and do not fly into them blindly. Reported collision rates are typically in

the range of 1 per 1,000 - 10,000 bird flights through a wind farm (Percival, 2005). The probability of

birds avoiding a single wind turbine is much greater than where there are multiple turbines closely

spaced in a windfarm. In the case of GSK1, many birds already fly at a greater height than normal to

avoid the high buildings in the surrounding industrial complexes, close to which the proposed turbine

will be located.

Of those species recorded flying within 200m of the proposed turbine location (EIS Chapter 7 Table

7.8) Mute Swan, Brent Goose, Sparrowhawk, Lapwing and Black-tailed Godwit are considered to have

a potential risk of collision with wind turbines (European Commission, 2010). Lapwing and Black-

tailed Godwit are Qualifying Interests for Cork Harbour SPA. Ducks and waders generally have a low

risk of collision.

The risk of collision by susceptible species recorded at the GSK site is slight given the high probability

of avoidance and the fact that the turbine will be located in close proximity to existing high buildings in

an industrial plant. The turbine location is not within any significant flight paths recorded during visual

and radar surveys in 2009-11. In a worst-case scenario, if the proposed turbine did result in 1 to 10

casualties per year, in total, this would not have a significant impact on the populations of any of those

species recorded at the turbine site. Compensatory mortality due to cold weather and food shortage is

likely to be greatly in excess of any mortality due to collision.

The potential impact of collision during operation of GSK1 for all susceptible bird species, including

Lapwing and Black-tailed Godwit, is considered to be slight. In a worst case scenario, the loss of a

small number of birds of this species (less than 10 per year), due to collision with the proposed turbine,

would not be significant in terms of the populations of any this species in Cork Harbour or in Ireland.

5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The EC (2001) guidelines on the provision of Article 6 of the Habitats‟ Directive state that the phrase

„in combination with other plans or projects‟ in Article 3(3) of the Habitats Directive refers to the

cumulative impacts due to plans or projects „that are currently under consideration together with the

effects of any existing or proposed projects or plans.‟ Direct and indirect impacts have already been

identified in section 5.2

As part of the Cork Lower Harbour Wind Energy Group Wind Energy Project, six turbines have been

proposed within the Ringaskiddy area, including the turbine proposed at the GSK site. Assessing the

cumulative impacts of all six turbines it has been concluded that there will be no barrier effects, as the

six wind turbines are widely spaced from each other. The cumulative collision risk of all six turbines

will have no measurable impact on the populations of those susceptible species that are qualifying

interests or special conservation interests of Cork Harbour SPA. Hence, there will be no additional

cumulative impacts of all six proposed turbines on the integrity of the SPA.

A review of other non-domestic projects within the study area described below in Table 2, shows that

none of these projects will have a significant impact on the Cork Harbour SPA.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


12

Table 2. Non-domestic planning applications for developments in Cork Harbour

Planning

Reference

Project name and location Was EIA or AA carried

out for this

development? Yes/No

Predicted impacts on SPA

1052019 (Cobh

TC)

Harbour Flights Ireland Ltd. –

Planning granted for the

installation of floating

pontoons, etc for the berthing

of a sea plan at the Quays Bar

and Restaurant, Westbourne

Place, Cobh, Co. Cork.

Screening for AA (full

AA not required) No potential impact on the

qualifying interests of either

Natura 2000 site.

1052015 (Cobh

TC) Cove Sailing Club – Planning

granted for the installation of

74 berth marina etc at

Whitepoint, Cobh, Co. Cork

Screening for AA No significant impact

CCC Planning

Ref.114171

Application by Michael

O‟Regan.

Construction of marina to

include 123 berths, two storey

marina building etc at

Garranekinnefeake, East Ferry,

Co.Cork.

No EIS required. No

AA Screening

undertaken, however

letter from the DAU

DoEHLG to Cork CC

on (9/3/11) to

recommended AA

screening be carried out.

Not available

CCC Planning

Ref.9317.

ABP

Ref.PL04.236980

Marina Company Co. Ltd. -

Planning granted to

Monkstown Bay Marina

Company Ltd. for for 285

berth marina etc. at Strand

Road, Monkstown, Co. Cork.

Sub threshold EIS and

also Stage 2 Appropriate

Assessment undertaken.

The conclusion of the AA

was as follows: “The proposed

Marina at Monkstown will not

result in the loss of any

feeding areas or roosting sites

for wintering waterfowl or

waders. There will therefore

be no impact on the qualifying

interests for Cork Harbour

SPA, or on the integrity of the

Spa. There will be no negative

impacts on marine mammals

(including otters).”

CCC Planning

Ref. 105684

GlaxoSmithKline (Cork) Ltd.

Planning granted for the

construction of coast

protection works along part of

site (rock armour) at

Curraghbinny, Carrigaline,

Co. Cork.

Appropriate Assessment

undertaken

The conclusion of the AA was

that residual impacts are

unlikely to be significant.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


13

Planning

Reference

Project name and location Was EIA or AA carried

out for this

development? Yes/No

Predicted impacts on SPA

The Environmental Report (November 2010) of the Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan (Draft

for Public consultation) states in relation to potential threats to Cork Harbour SPA

“This is a very important habitat and one of the largest in the county. With its location adjoining Cork

city and other harbour area settlements the site would be sensitive to land use changes, population

increase, recreational demands, intensification of uses and surface water run off. This site does not

form part of any of the settlements in this electoral area. This SPA bounds the coast along the

Rochestown Road, at Douglas and continues onto the edge of Passage West. Discharges to Cork

Harbour and coastal developments will impact on the quality and integrity of this designation.”

The proposed development at GSK will not have a significant impact on the SPA and will not

contribute any discharges to the Cork Harbour.

The cumulative impact assessment concludes that the proposed project will not contribute significantly

to a negative cumulative impact on the Cork Harbour SPA.

5.4 MITIGATION

The mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce the significance of any adverse impacts on flora

and fauna are outlined in this section. These measures are over and above those already incorporated

into the project design, which has sought to avoid areas of particular sensitivity for rare and protected

species by eliminating or relocating turbines.

Lighting

In order to comply with national and international regulations on health and aviation/shipping safety

there will be a light on the turbine. A flashing white strobe light will be used as this type of lighting has

been proposed to be less attractive for birds that e.g. solid or pulsating red light (EU Commission

2010).

Monitoring

Following construction, bird populations within 1km of the turbine, will be monitored on a monthly

basis over three years, by a competent ornithologist to determine if any effects of displacement

disturbance can be detected. In addition, periodic searches for bird casualties will be undertaken within

a radius of 100m of the turbine to monitor the actual number of collisions. Any casualties will be

logged and identified to species by a competent ornithologist.

5.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

The residual impacts are the expected impacts that remain after mitigation has been taken into account.

Following the proposed mitigation measures, to be implemented during the construction phase of the

project, the expected impacts on the conservation objectives of the Cork harbour SPA will not be

significant.

5.6 CONCLUSION OF STAGE 2 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

Overall, impacts of the proposed wind turbine at GSK will, at worst, have only slight effects on two

bird species for which the SPA has been designated. There will be no displacement of any species

which is a qualifying interest (QI) or special conservation interest (SCI) of the SPA. The risk of

collision during operation of turbine GSK1 is slight for Lapwing and Black-tailed Godwit.

Favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when (a) population data on the species

concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself; (b) the natural range of the species is neither being

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


14

reduced or likely to be reduced in the near future; and (c) there is, and will probably continue to be, a

sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis. Each of these criteria is

satisfied for both of the QI species concerned. The only exception is Criterion (a) relating to Lapwing,

for which the All-Ireland non-breeding population trend is a 19.5% decrease (Crowe et al 2008).

However, analysis of the mean annual peaks for Lapwing in Cork Harbour, show that the wintering

populations of this species within the SPA are stable between 2003/04 and 2008/09 (IWeBS data). This

indicates that the species concerned is maintaining itself in Cork Harbour SPA.

Hence, the predicted slight or imperceptible impacts for these species will be of no significance to the

favourable conservation status of the bird populations, which are the qualifying interests or special

conservation interests of the SPA. Thus, there is no likely significant impact of the proposed

development on the integrity of the SPA.

5.7 RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS

The table below lists a number of agencies, and their responses, consulted as part of the EIA and AA

stages.

Name of agencies

consulted

As part of the preparation

of this Appropriate

Assessment

Summary of responses

BirdWatch Ireland Supply of IWeBS wetland bird counts from Cork Harbour

National Parks and

Wildlife Service (NPWS)

of the Department of

Environment, Heritage and

Local Government

(DoEHLG)

Meetings were held on the 1st October 2009, 28th April 2010 and 10th

February 2011 with NPWS personnel including:

Dr. Jervis Good NPWS Divisional Ecologist Southern Division

David Tierney NPWS Birds Unit

Danny O‟Keeffe NPWS Conservation Ranger, South-west Region

9. REFERENCES

Crowe, O., Austin, G.E., Colhoun, K., Cranswick, P.A., Kershaw, M. and Musgrove, A. 2008.

Estimates and trends of waterbird numbers wintering in Ireland, 1994/95 to 2003/04. Bird Study

55, 66-77.

Drewitt, A.L. and Langston, R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148:

29-42.

Everaert, J.and Steinen, E.W.M. 2007. Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium).

Biodiversity Conservation 16: 3345-3359.

Musters, C,J.M., Noordervliet, M.A.W and Ter keurs, W,J. 1996. Bird casualties caused by a wind

energy project in an estuary. Bird Study 43, 124.126.

Nagle, T. 2006. The Status of Birds of Prey and Owls in County Cork. In: Cork Bird Report 1996-

2004. (eds. Cronin, C., Barton, C., Hussey, H. and Carmody, M.) Cork Bird Report Editorial

Team. pp 285-308.

NPWS 2004. Site synopsis for Cork Harbour SPA [004030]. Department of the Environment Heritage

& Local Government.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


15

NPWS 2011. Conservation objectives for Cork Harbour SPA [004030]. Generic Version 2.0.

Department of the Environment Heritage & Local Government.

Percival, S.M. 2003. Birds and Wind farms in Ireland: A review of potential issues and impact

assessment. Dublin. Sustainable Energy Ireland Authority.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

Appendix 7.3

Bird Radar Survey

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27





Appendix 7.3 Page 1

Bird Radar Survey

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

Cork Lower Harbour Wind Turbine

Development

Bird Radar Monitoring

Final Report

Commissioned by Arup Ltd and CLHEG

*Simms, I.C., Plonczkier, P., & Johnson L.

April 2011

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Bird Management Unit

Food and Environment Research Agency

Sand Hutton

York

YO41 1LZ

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27

Bird Detection Radar

Cork Lower Harbour Wind Turbine Development: Final BDR Report 2

` Name: Date: Signature:

Written by:

I. C. Simms

P. Plonczkier

L. Johnson

Checked by: I C Simms

Checked by:

Version number: Final Issue

File path:

FERA Contract

Code:

V5WE – Cork BDR 2010-11

Version: Date: Amended by: Accepted by: Notes:

Draft

Client

Issue

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27



CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ............................................................................. 5

2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 7

2.1 Aims .......................................................................................................... 8

3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 8

3.1 Bird Detection Radar .................................................................................. 8

3.2 Radar configuration ................................................................................... 8

3.3 Target detection ......................................................................................... 9

3.4 Weather and terrain factor .........................................................................10

3.5 Radar data .................................................................................................10

3.6 Horizontal S-band data processing ............................................................11

3.7 Radar Location..........................................................................................11

3.8 Ornithological Field Observations .............................................................12

3.9 Radar Analysis ..........................................................................................12

3.9.1 Tracks ...................................................................................................12

3.10 Weather ....................................................................................................15

4. RESULTS ............................................................................. 15

4.1 Survey Effort ............................................................................................15

4.2 General bird movements ...........................................................................16

4.2 Key activity patterns and flight corridors. ..................................................18

4.3 Dawn/Dusk Radar Movements. .................................................................18

4.4 Tidal Wader Movements ...........................................................................26

4.5 Mass Migration events ..............................................................................45

4.6 SPA Related Species: Visual Observations................................................47

4.6.1 Pale-bellied Brent Goose Branta berniclahrota .....................................48

4.6.2 Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis .............................................................48

4.6.3 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo .................................................48

4.6.4 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea ....................................................................48

4.6.5 Little Egret Egretta garzetta ..................................................................48

4.6.6 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis .......................................................49

4.6.7 Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus .................................................49

4.6.8 Great Northern Diver Gavia immer .......................................................49

4.6.9 Common Shelduck Tadorna tadorna.....................................................49

4.6.10 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos ..............................................................49

4.6.11 Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope ........................................................49

4.6.12 Eurasian Teal Anas crecca.................................................................49

4.6.13 Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata ..................................................49

4.6.14 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus ..........................................................51

4.6.15 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa ...................................................51

4.6.16 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica .................................................52

4.6.17 Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus .................................................52

4.6.18 Common Redshank Tringa tetanus ....................................................52

4.6.19 Greenshank Tringa nebularia ............................................................53

4.6.20 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago .................................................53

4.6.21 Knot Calidris canutus .......................................................................53

4.6.22 Dunlin Calidris alpina .......................................................................53

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27



4.6.23 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus ...............................................54

4.6.24 Turnstone Arenaria interpres ............................................................54

4.6.25 Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula ..................................................54

4.6.26 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola .......................................................55

4.6.27 Eurasian Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria .......................................55

4.6.28 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus ................................................................55

4.6.29 Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis ...................................................55

4.6.30 Common Tern Sterna hirundo ...........................................................55

4.6.31 Larids ................................................................................................55

5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 56

6. REFERENCES ...................................................................... 58

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27


Cork Lower Harbour Wind Turbine Development: Final BDR Report

5

1. SUMMARY

The need to collect more information on nocturnal bird movements associated with

the Cork Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) was identified by the National Parks

and Wildlife Service.

To enable a more accurate assessment of species movements specifically during

nocturnal periods and interconnectivity between the various SPA areas a bird radar

study was commissioned by Cork Lower Harbour Energy Group and undertaken by

Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera).

This final report details radar monitoring undertaken for 240 hours per month each

month between November 2010 and March 2011

The chosen radar location provided better than expected radar coverage despite the

interference associated with industrial buildings and local topography and therefore

a single site was used for the whole study period.

The data from each radar deployment was analysed separately and key flight

patterns were identified for further discussion. There were no significant differences

in flight pattern recorded by the radar for the five deployments; visual patterns and

species distribution were also similar for the first four visits ( November – February)

with reduced numbers in March.

The radar identified a number of significant nocturnal flight patterns and corridors.

Large number of corvids moving to and from their nocturnal roosts masked any

other movement patterns during the dusk and dawn periods.

Distinct flight activity was recorded connecting Lough Beg with Owenboy River at

incoming and outgoing tide periods.

No widespread distinct patterns were observed joining Monkstown Creek to Lough

Beg although clutter issues meant that detection in some of the overlying area

between these sites was compromised. A minor flightline was recorded by radar

connecting these locations during outgoing tides in March and to a lesser extent

January. Birds from Lough Beg headed northwest between the hill at Barnahely and

the Martello Tower hill to the east towards Monkstown creek area.

Small numbers of movements were detected between the western end of Monkstown

creek and Owenboy River although there was no evidence that these were SPA birds

or tide related. However the fact that tracks were recorded in these areas illustrates

that no significant patterns have been missed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27



6

Specific activity associated with the individual turbines was problematic due to

clutter issues associated with the industrial landscape, however activity in and out of

Lough Beg was recorded by the radar using the lough mouth and visual observations

confirmed the radar findings.

General flight activity close to turbine locations was of a similar nature to the wider

study area during corvid roost activity however no corresponding pattern was found

between proposed turbine location areas and areas of high activity during wader

tidal movements.

Observers recorded additional flight activity over the eastern side of the lough

(Johnson and Johnson building) these flights were unrecorded by radar due to the

building’s excessive levels of radar reflection (clutter).

There was no evidence of significant changes in bird behaviour during the study

periods although number of birds and corresponding flight activity was reduced in

March.

Two early night periods of broadfront migration were recorded in March.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:27



7

2. INTRODUCTION

Fera Bird Detection Radar (BDR) allows the remote monitoring of bird flight activity

over significantly greater temporal and spatial scales than the human observer is able

to conduct. Radar has been used as a study tool in ornithology for over 60 years

(Gauthreaux & Belser, 2003) and the great advantage is that it provides detailed bird

movement data continuously over an area covering tens of square kilometres. In

addition, the BDR is capable of collecting data during periods of poor visibility due

to adverse weather and darkness. For these reasons it provides a valuable technique

with which to monitor and assess bird movement through proposed wind farm

development areas, as outlined by Desholm et al., 2004 (COWRIE);

“Radar is uniquely able to accurately plot bird flight altitude and trajectories for the pre-and

post-construction of wind turbines. Radar can gather such data by day and night and in

some conditions of poor visibility. When associated with supplementary means of species

verification, radar provides a very powerful tool to support the effective development of EIAs

relating to offshore wind farms”.

Within the last 10 years the rapid advancements in computing speed and digital

technology have allowed adapted high-powered marine radars to be designed for

bird detection research purposes. Fera, an executive agency of DEFRA, have been

using mobile BDR units since 2003 for EIA and ornithological research purposes

within the UK and the EU and they are increasingly used in the USA and Europe. In

addition to Fera’s mobile bird detection systems, BDR is also currently used in the

UK at RAF Kinloss, Scotland. This radar system is in place to safeguard aircraft

landing at RAF Kinloss from the associated flight activity of the wintering migratory

geese species that reside in and around Findhorn Bay.

Natura Environmental Consultants were commissioned by the Lower Harbour

Energy Group to undertake an avian impact assessment of proposed wind turbines

at Ringaskiddy and Lough Beg, Co. Cork. The first stage of the avain impact

assessment involved a winter survey of waterbirds in the immediate area of Cork

Harbour.

The key issue to be addressed by the survey is whether the proposed wind turbines

are likely to have significant negative impacts on the bird species for which the

Special Protection Area in Cork Harbor is designated. This is the central question

which must be answered in any Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats

Directive.

Cork Harbour is a designated Special Protection Area (SPA) for Birds under Article 4

of the European Union Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC)

with conservation objectives as detailed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



8

• To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species and species of

special conservation interest , and of wetlands and waterbirds, or significant

disturbance to these species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is

maintained

• To ensure for the qualifying species and species of special conservation

interest, and for wetlands and waterbirds, that the following are maintained

in the long-term:

(i) the population of the species as a viable component of the site;

(ii) the distribution and extent of the habitats supporting the species;

(iii) the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting

the species.

Nocturnal flight movements of water birds are important to survey as studies have

shown that collision risks with wind turbines are highest during darkness, in

particular during very dark nights and during nights with bad weather and poor

visibility (i.e. fog) (Percival, 2003). Studies on nocturnal flight paths have also shown

that waders do not always use the same inland high tide roosts during darkness and

during the day. Therefore, waders may use different flight paths at night when

moving between tidal flats and inland roosts (Dirksen et al.,1999).

This reports includes and builds upon the initial findings presented in the Interim

Bird Radar Report (Simms et al 2011) with the additional data collected from the

three additional radar deployments in 2011

2.1 Aims

The key aims of this radar study were to monitor nocturnal bird flight activity and

identify if possible any flights illustrating interconnectivity between the various SPA

component sites and their proximity to the proposed turbine locations.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Bird Detection Radar

The Fera Bird Detection Radar System (BDR) can track bird movements continuously

over large distances. It can consistently and objectively detect and record birds 24

hours a day, in difficult weather conditions and poor visibility.

3.2 Radar configuration

The BDR operates two specially adapted marine scanners (Fig. 1). Horizontal S-band

(10cm wavelength) surveillance radar tracks and records bird movements over the

surrounding area in a plan view. It provides information on bird distribution over a

circular area with a radius of up to 11 km, their flight trajectory and flight speed.

Vertical X-band (3cm wavelength) radar records the altitude of birds moving

through a narrow band. As it is smaller and more sensitive, it collates data up to an

altitude of approximately 1.4 km. Its vertical positioning does not allow for obtaining

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



9

accurate data on flight direction and speed. Although both radars operate

simultaneously, they are independent from each other and do not provide full three

dimensional representation of bird movements.

Figure 1. The Fera bird detection radar system

3.3 Target detection

Radar detects anything that reflects its electromagnetic signal. The ability of a bird to

reflect radar energy depends on its size, or more precisely, the water content within a

bird’s body. The birds with long wings like Gannets are not necessarily easier targets

to detect than for example short-winged geese. Feathers don’t reflect radar energy.

Similarly, a flock of Starlings may create more defined radar echo than a single duck,

because reflectivity of a flock of birds is greater than this of a single bird.

Interestingly, even a big skein of geese may be perceived by radar as one target.

A distance of 15 km for S-band and 1.4 km for X-band radars are thought to be the

limits of this equipment in tracking bird movements effectively and are based upon

the known radar performance characteristics and the radar cross-sections of

individual birds (Eastwood, 1967; Rinehart, 1997). In favourable conditions

horizontal radar is able to detect a skein of geese at 15 km and more importantly

track it for 30 km. Similarly, a group of thrushes or starlings can be detected as far as

10-15 km from the radar. Single birds are detectible depending on their size,

surrounding ground cover and distance from radar. The effective detection rate over

land is smaller than that over the uncluttered water surface. The operational ranges

of both antennas can be decreased to fit specific requirements. In fact, operating

radar over smaller ranges provides better accuracy in detection and tracking of

FERA MOBILE BIRD DETECTION RADAR UNIT

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



10

smaller birds. The vertical radar is so sensitive that it can even detect insects carried

with the wind. For the purposes of this study the horizontal S-band radar was set to

2nm (3.7km) range to enable recording of flights within the local environs. This

distance was also considered optimal in terms of landscape interference and

topographical limitations (eg areas of higher ground).

3.4 Weather and terrain factor

One of the biggest advantages of radar over human observers is its ability to “see” in

low visibility conditions caused by darkness and fog. Unfortunately, weather

phenomena like rain; snow or precipitating clouds may impair detection of bird

targets. The S-band radar can successfully detect and track birds in light rain due to

its relatively long wavelength. However, consistent and prolonged heavy rain masks

bird targets, making them impossible to track.

Apart from weather conditions, the choice of radar location may significantly

influence the level of bird detection. An ideal position for radar would be a flat area

without any immediate obstructions, like trees, power lines or buildings. Diverse

topography and a mixture of habitats (especially woodlands) may impair radar

detection. Usually, less clutter in the surrounding environment provides better

detection of the birds. It needs to be said that any targets over-flying the radar

location will fall outside radar cover. Radar is not designed to detect targets directly

above the radar antenna, this gap is known as the cone of silence.

Also problematic may be operating the radar close to marine environment (or any

vast basin of inland water) due to so-called sea clutter. Essentially sea clutter is

backscattered returns from patches of the water surface illuminated by a transmitted

radar pulse. Simply they are disturbing radar echoes of wave crests. The chaotic

character of sea clutter and the massive scale, in which it appears on the radar screen,

causes the radar software to produce false bird targets. In a practical sense it means

that it is impossible to discern real bird targets from any area of the radar display

affected by sea clutter. This effect is of course increased during periods of windy

weather. There are limited ways of dealing with this problem. One of the methods is

to apply the sea clutter-suppressing algorithm, but this in turn can not be done

without some detection losses in areas not affected by sea clutter.

3.5 Radar data

Radar returns are generated by potential targets, permanent landscape features

(“clutter”) and by randomly generated returns (“noise”). Returns are filtered, using

specially developed algorithms, which differentiate between potential bird targets

and other returns, such as noise or clutter. In addition, each target is attributed with

an array of descriptive parameters, which then allows birds to be classified into

different categories based on their speed or size. For every new 24 hr period the

radar software generates an Access database that stores all the bird targets as

recorded by both radars. This database is used to reconstruct the radar tracks as bird

flightlines that are presented on easily understandable maps, depicting bird

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



11

movements through the areas over specific time periods. In the case that species-

specific identification is needed, ground based ornithologists can provide this level of

information.

3.6 Horizontal S-band data processing

Each database is used to reconstruct the radar tracks as bird flightlines in ArcGIS.

The data processing techniques developed have had a three-fold purpose;1) filter out

any remaining noise; 2) allow the data to be presented so that mass bird movements

can be interpreted and 3) to allow statistical analysis of these movements. Raw radar

data are initially digitised and then processed using Merlin radar processing

software. Once the radar data are processed, the tracks of individuals and flocks of

birds can be followed for up to 30km from the time they enter until the time they

leave the radar swept area. The settings within the Merlin software programme

allow various parameters to be adjusted and are set by the radar ornithologists on

site. Each track is displayed as a line of best fit showing the length of the track and its

bearing as identified by the coloured azimuth bearing. This allows the numbers of

tracks moving in a given direction, within a standard time period, to be determined.

3.7 Radar Location

The radar unit was located close to and overlooking Lough Beg (Figure 2). Detection

was limited in relation to radar clutter returns from the GSK site on the southern

edge of Lough Beg, Johnson and Johnson at the far (eastern) edge of Lough Beg and

higher area of ground to the north west and south-south west. Specific radar site

selection was determined by the available radar beam coverage, health and safety

considerations, landowner access, security, frequency assignments from the Irish

Aviation Authority and the proposed wind turbine locations.

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



12

Figure 2. Radar deployment location, limit of radar coverage and initial proposed turbine locations.

3.8 Ornithological Field Observations

In addition to manning and monitoring the live radar screens, Fera ornithologists

undertook detailed vantage point field monitoring synchronised with the radar

deployment for 7 hours each day. The optical equipment used throughout the

observation period included Leica 10x40 and 8x30 binoculars and a tripod mounted

Kowa telescope TSN823M with 30x-wide eyepiece. The observers confirmed the

species and composition of the tracks initially detected by radar as well as providing

additional information such as flock size, formation and height. The visual data was

used to evaluate and identify the species composition associated with flight patterns

and corridors during daylight hours, specifically dawn/dusk, this data was used to

explain and detail probable species and groups associated with similar flight paths

and corridors recorded by the radar during darkness.

3.9 Radar Analysis

Full track analysis was undertaken for the combined data sets for all 5 visits and

includes identification (where present) of flight corridors and associated spatial

movements, flight track density distribution, mean directionality of flight activity

and overall nocturnal flight track descriptions. Patterns of radar flight activity were

further compared and integrated with visual observations.

3.9.1 Tracks

All flight tracks described within the results section are filtered via key flight track

categories, e.g. speed is less than 35 m/s. In addition, only tracks of certain length are

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



13

included within the analysis (providing a more robust and representative “bird

track” picture). Figure 3a illustrates 10 consecutive nights (12-22 November 2010)

worth of radar coverage, and Figure 3b just a single night; the radar tracks illustrated

are all those with 3 or more consecutive radar returns. Within these figures the areas

associated with target suppressing clutter and the radar’s cone of silence are visible

as areas devoid of tracks within the 2nm (3.7km) detection range. These areas of

diminished detection function are further illustrated in Figure 4. It is important to

refer to Figure 4 when evaluating the flight distribution maps illustrated within the

results section.

The lines on the figures are flight tracks as recorded by the radar software and

several of these radar tracks may correspond to a single bird flight track. The points

where these tracks start and finish are directly related to the x-y coordinates the

software assigns to the radar returns. Occasionally this may be indicative of birds

landing and taking off however the majority of short tracks are artefacts of the

tracking algorithm and post deployment Matlab analysis. A plotted track may be lost

to the radar for only 3 revolutions (approximately 6 seconds), this break in the track

pattern results in the software classifying any further records as a new track. The

losses in track detection can result from ground clutter, interference from other tracks

and the industrial landscape.

Figure 3a. All All bird activity recorded during 10 nights (12-22 November 2010, 18:00-06:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



14

Figure 3b. All bird activity recorded during a single night (20/21 November 2010, 18:00-06:00)

Figure 4. Areas where radar track detection is greatly diminished due to industrial clutter and local topography.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



15

3.10 Weather

The weather was recorded continuously (at 15 minute intervals) throughout the

study period using Vantage Pro weather station mounted to the radar at 3 meters

height above ground level (agl). The parameters recorded included wind strength

and direction, temperature, barometric pressure and rainfall.

4. RESULTS

4.1 Survey Effort

Five 10-day deployments were carried out between November 2010 and March 2011

amounting to 1186 hours of radar data (Table 1). Additional observer fieldwork

averaged 60 hours per visit. Table 1. Total hours survey effort for all radar deployment between November 2010 and March 2011.

Deployment Dates Radar data Visual observations

1 12/11/10 - 22/11/10 233 60

2 07/12/10 - 17/12/10 238 59

3 09/01/11 - 19/01/11 236 65

4 07/02/11 - 17/02/11 239 58

5 10/03/11 - 20/03/11 240 59

Total (hours) 1186 301

Site specific foraging and roosting locations used within the text are illustrated in

Figure 5

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



16

Figure 5. Location of roosting and foraging sites discussed within species accounts.

4.2 General bird movements

November to February visits produced similar data, both in terms of movements and

number of birds involved however there was a reduction in numbers of birds and

flight activity recorded in March. The only major exception to this came at the

beginning of the December visit, when the majority of field feeding Curlew Numenius

arquata and Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa did not use the fields south west of

Lough Beg to feed (Figure 5: Reference location F).

Twelve hours of nocturnal activity with a strong filtering analysis (minimum of 5

tracked radar returns) are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. The pattern of these radar

tracks is similar for all nights monitored and shows a consistent pattern of night time

movements.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



17

Throughout both deployment periods nocturnal activity followed a similar pattern of

intensive corvid (Rook Corvus frugilegus and Jackdaw Corvus monedula) movements

to the roost at Curraghbinny Woods in the evening and subsequent departure at

dawn and a number of waterfowl movements connecting Lough Beg with Owenboy

Estuary; probably in relation to the outgoing tide when optimal foraging

opportunities occurred on the exposed mud flats.

Figure 6. All Bird flight tracks 12th December: Dusk - Midnight (18.00-00.00).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



18

Figure 7. All bird flight tracks 13th December: Midnight – dawn (00.00-06.00).

4.2 Key activity patterns and flight corridors.

Four distinct key categories of nocturnal flight activity were identified during post

deployment analysis:

• Dawn/dusk activity associated with large corvid roosts.

• Tidal cycle wader movements between different areas of the SPA.

• Tidal led wader movements from the SPA to adjoining on-land foraging

locations.

• Nocturnal mass migration events.

Whist the dawn/dusk corvid and tidal wader movements were recorded on a daily

basis, large scale migration was only recoded over two nights. These patterns of

flight activity are further discussed in terms of directionality, flight corridor

dimensions, flight activity in relation to proposed turbine locations and species status

(i.e. SPA and Non SPA designate species) in the following sections (4.3-4.5). The

radar data is further supplemented with visual observations and species counts

where appropriate. 4.3 Dawn/Dusk Radar Movements.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



19

The largest and most widespread patterns recorded by the radar were associated

with roost activity at dawn and dusk mainly involving non SPA designate species,

mostly Rook and Jackdaw. These birds moved to and from roost sites along the river

Owenboy at dawn and dusk on a daily basis. During these movements birds came

from all directions into the roost and numbered many thousand birds. Dawn roost

dispersal activity followed a similar pattern. The magnitude of these large

movements obscured any waterfowl dawn/dusk activity that might have been

associated with the SPA. The amount of roost activity remained constant throughout

November – February but was much reduced in March.

Examples of dawn flight activity over the general area are illustrated in Figure 8 and

the reduced activity in March, Figure 9. Figures 10 -12 illustrate activity around the

proposed turbine locations

Figure 8. Dawn bird activity including corvids leaving the roost sites (22 November 2010, 06:00-09:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



20

Figure 9. Dawn bird activity including corvids leaving the roost sites (18 March 2011, 06:00-09:00)

Corvid roosts were located in several woods along the river Owenboy, the largest

being in Currabinney woods, with numbers estimated at around 10 000 birds. The

two main species involved were Jackdaw and Rook, with similar numbers of each.

Small numbers of Hooded Crow Corvus cornix were also seen heading towards the

roosts on a daily basis.. A count of birds leaving the Currabinny roost heading west

along the river Owenboy on the 10th February totalled 3550 birds.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



21

Figure 10. Dawn bird activity (zoomed around all turbines) -22 November 2010, 06:00-09:00

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



22

Figure 11. Dawn bird activity around turbines CEN1, NOV1 and NOV2 (22 November 2010, 06:00-09:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



23

Figure 12. Dawn bird activity around turbines GSK1, DEP1 and DEP2 (22 November 2010, 06:00-09:00)

The flight patterns illustrated in Figures 10-12 show the areas close to some proposed

turbines (especially CEN 1 and GSK 1) were radar track detection is greatly

diminished however tracks are visible close to the other proposed turbine locations.

As previously stated these tracks are associated with roost dispersal and general

flight activity of non-SPA species

Examples of dusk activity patterns are shown in Figures 13 and 14, with birds

entering the roost from all directions and similar levels of track detection were

recorded over the proposed turbine locations as at dawn ( see example Figures 10-

12). Corvid numbers reduced greatly towards the end of the winter period, with an

almost complete absence of Rooks present in the roost in March. In addition to this,

there were several pre-roosts around the surveyed area. The most notable of these

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



24

were around Rabbit point and at the Martello tower to the north of Lough Beg. Large

numbers of birds would gather in these pre-roosts for around an hour, before

heading to the main roost sites.

Figure 13. Dusk bird activity including corvids gathering at the roost sites (21 November 2010, 15:00-18:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



25

Figure 14. Dusk bird activity including corvids gathering at the roost sites (17 March 2010, 15:00-18:00)

Several small Woodpigeon roosts were located in the area. The most notable in terms

of proposed wind turbine locations, was a small roost in the trees just north of the

GSK building. Birds entering and leaving the roost mostly commuted over Lough

Beg from the north. Other roosts were located on the southern side of the river

Owenboy. Groups of Starling, averaging around 40 birds, passed through the area at

dawn and dusk on a daily basis. These birds headed to and from a roost in the

direction of Cobh and appeared not to follow any specific flightline.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



26

4.4 Tidal Wader Movements

Tidal wader movements associated with foraging areas (Figure 15), general roosting

sites (Figure 16) and Lough Beg specific roost sites (Figure17) remained consistent

over the study period and the majority consisted of waterfowl movements

connecting Lough Beg with Owenboy Estuary; probably in relation birds returning

to Lough Beg roost sites on incoming tides ( green/light blue easterly tracks, Figures

17-21) and leaving Lough Beg roost sites on outgoing tides when optimal foraging

opportunities occurred on the exposed mud flats ( red/pink westerly tracks, Figures

22-26).

All flightline figures are examples to illustrate the typical patterns of nocturnal avian

activity; these patterns of movement are common to all months.

Figure 15. Wader foraging areas associated with radar flightlines

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



27

Figure 16.Wader roost sites associated with radar flightlines

Figure 17. Lough Beg wader roost sites associated with radar flightlines

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



28

Figure 18.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to incoming tide (18 November 2010, 00:00-01:00)

Key patterns to note during incoming tide periods in Figures 18-22 are:

• Birds moving out of Owenboy River as tides rises (green tracks)

• Light blue and green tracks around mouth of Lough Beg

• Movement in all direction in the immediate vicinity of Lough Beg

• Strong similarity of movement patterns for figures 18,20,21 and 22

• Less concentrated pattern in Figure 19

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



29

Figure 19.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to incoming tide (16 December 2010, 22:00-00:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



30

Figure 20.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to incoming tide (15 January 2011, 23:00-00:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



31

Figure 21.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to incoming tide (13 February 2011, 23:00-00:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



32

Figure 22.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to incoming tide (16 March 2011, 00:00-01:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



33

Figure 23.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to outgoing tide (18 November 2010, 04:00-06:00)

Generally the patterns recorded for the outgoing tide periods are opposite to the

incoming tide periods. Birds head toward intertidal foraging areas especially on

Owenboy River and from Lough Beg towards the mouth of Monkstown Creek in

March (Figure 27) and to a lesser extent in January (Figure 25)

Key patterns to note during outgoing tide periods in Figures 23-27 are:

• Birds moving towards Owenboy River as tides falls (red/pink tracks)

• Dark pink tracks near Ringaskiddy ( Figures 25,27)

• Movement in all direction in the immediate vicinity of Lough Beg

• Strong similarity of movement patterns for all figures.

• Green/light blue tracks on northeasterly side of Lough Beg

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



34

Figure 24.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to outgoing tide (16 December 2010, 02:00-04:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



35

Figure 25.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to outgoing tide (16 January 2010, 03:00-05:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



36

Figure 26. Nocturnal bird activity in relation to outgoing tide (14 February 2010, 02:00-04:00)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:28



37

Figure 27.Nocturnal bird activity in relation to outgoing tide (16 March 2010, 04:00-06:00)

The examples of tidal dependent flight activity illustrated in Figures 18-27 are

strongly associated with Curlew, godwits and, to a lesser extent, small waders

(Dunlin and Knot). These tracks are probably in relation to the uncovering of the

shallow intertidal mud flats of the river and their associated foraging potential

during the outgoing tide (westerly movements) and birds returning to the Lough Beg

areas during incoming and high tide states (presumably to the previously identified

roost sites).

The strong pattern during incoming tides is one of easterly movement (green tracks)

away from Owenboy River and this is easily seen for this tide state in all months.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:29



38

These tracks can also be seen to extend further on the southern side of Lough beg

indicating birds passing past Lough beg to other roost sites.

During the outgoing tide (Figures 23-27) a strong pattern of south westerly

movement from Lough Beg following a corridor to the south of the radar onto

Owenboy River is shown (pink and red tracks which have a southerly and westerly

component to them), . This pattern may extend up to and slightly to the north of the

radar but clutter interference prevents tracks being detected here.

An additional pattern is noticeable during March and January (Figures 27 and 25

respectively), the dark pink tracks are birds heading north/northwest from Lough

Beg between the hills either side of Ringaskiddy presumably to feed in Monkstown

Creek.

For all tide states and over all months, activity on Lough Beg itself was concentrated

to the flights between the shores of the waterbody.

To further investigate the extent of the intertidal movements in relation to the

proposed turbine locations, a series of figures were produced (Figures 28-33) in finer

detail, allowing a visual comparison of activity in key wader movement areas to

those areas associated with turbine placement.

For Figures 28-30, during the incoming tide, the key wader moments are of an

easterly nature and illustrated in the standard green/light blue colour range. There

was no indication of any pattern of a similar nature near the proposed turbine

locations, CEN1, NOV1, NOV 2, DEP1 and DEP2, although the effects of clutter from

the GSK complex may have compromised radar detection in this area, it still seems

that birds were heading around the GSK1 turbine site; either over Lough Beg or to

the south of the site and then heading east-north east as illustrated in Figure 30.

For outgoing tide movements there is a similar lack of correlation between activity

patterns close to the turbine locations and those in key wader flight corridors.

This lack of correlation between wader activity patters in the turbine/flight corridor

areas is in contrast to the results of the same descriptive analysis for the dawn/dusk

roost activity period.

It is therefore possible to state, although radar detection was compromised in some

of the exact proposed turbine locations by industrial complex and ground clutter,

that:

• for dawn/dusk corvid movements both turbine locations and the wider study

area show similar activity patterns;

• whereas there are no apparent correlations between the turbine locations and

wader flight corridors during key tidal movement periods.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 11-07-2013:23:42:29

Date post:	30-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

TECHNICAL NOTE Title Assessment of shadow flicker from the ... · Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd St...

Documents