Bird Sensitivity Map for Ireland: a tool to aid
planning and conservation in relation to Wind
Energy
Tierney, N., Murray, A., Cummins, S. Egan, S. Lauder, A. (2012)
Address for Correspondence: Niall Tierney
BirdWatch Ireland Unit 20, Block D, Bullford Business Campus, Kilcoole, Co. Wicklow, Ireland
Phone: +353-(0)1 2819878 Fax: +353 (0)1 2819878 e-mail: ntierney@birdwatchireland.ie
This project was supported by the Sustainable Energy Authority of
Ireland
(SEAI)
through
the
Renewable
Energy
Development & Demonstration Programme.
Research
SEAI is partly
financed by Ireland’s EU Structural Funds Programme co-funded
by the Irish Government and the European Union.
Contents
List of tables ............................................................................................................................. 3
List of figures ........................................................................................................................... 3
List of photographs ................................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5
1.1
Climate Change and Biodiversity .......................................................................... 5
1.2
Policy and legislative framework .......................................................................... 6
1.3
Wind energy and potential effects on birds ......................................................... 7
1.4
Sensitivity mapping ................................................................................................. 8
1.5
Species profiles ......................................................................................................... 9
Bewick’s Swan and Whooper Swan ............................................................................. 9
Red Grouse ..................................................................................................................... 11
2. Aims and objectives of project ‘Phase 1’................................................. 15
2.1
Project Phases .......................................................................................................... 15
2.2
Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 15
3. Methods ............................................................................................................. 17
3.1
Determination of the best approach .................................................................... 17
3.2
Consultation with BirdLife Partners ................................................................... 17
3.3
Establishment and operation of the High Level Stakeholder Group ............. 18
3.4
Sensitivity Mapping Expert Group...................................................................... 20
3.5
Species Sensitivity Index ....................................................................................... 20
Vulnerability factors ..................................................................................................... 21
Factors relating to conservation status and population ecology ........................... 26
3.6
Validation of the Species Sensitivity Index ........................................................ 31
3.7
Species Selection ..................................................................................................... 31
3.8
Generation of Phase 1 map layers ........................................................................ 33
3.9
Data sources and data used in the analysis ........................................................ 33
1
Bewick’s and Whooper Swans .................................................................................... 34
Red Grouse ..................................................................................................................... 35
4. Results ................................................................................................................ 37
4.1
Species Sensitivity Index ....................................................................................... 37
4.2
Sensitivity Maps ..................................................................................................... 37
4.3
Meetings with the High Level Stakeholder Group ........................................... 44
5. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 46
5.1
Species Sensitivity Index ....................................................................................... 46
5.2
Sensitivty Maps ...................................................................................................... 46
5.3
Colours used to represent sensitive areas........................................................... 47
5.4
Updating the sensitivity map ............................................................................... 48
5.5
Applications of the map ........................................................................................ 48
5.6
Limitations of the sensitivity map ....................................................................... 49
5.7
Next steps and Recommendations ...................................................................... 50
References ............................................................................................................... 52
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................... 58
Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................... 59
2
List of tables
page
Table 3.1
Summary of the main discussions with Birdlife International and other colleagues.
18
Table 3.2
Vulnerability scoring based on bird size.
21
Table 3.3
Vulnerability scoring based on soaring behaviour.
22
Table 3.4
Vulnerability scoring based on predatory birds and aerial foragers.
22
Table 3.5
Vulnerability scoring based on ranging behaviour.
22
Table 3.6
Vulnerability scoring based on flocking behaviour
23
Table 3.7
Vulnerability scoring based on nocturnal flying
23
Table 3.8
Vulnerability scoring based on aerial displays.
24
Table 3.9
Vulnerability scoring based on species range.
24
Table 3.10
Vulnerability scoring based on site fidelity.
25
Table 3.11
Vulnerability scoring based on the availability of preferred habitat.
25
Table 3.12
Vulnerability scoring based on habitat preference.
26
Table 3.13
Vulnerability scoring based on sensitivity to disturbance displacement
26
Table 3.14
Sensitivity scoring based on conservation status.
14
Table 3.15
Sensitivity scoring based on the proportion of the flyway/European breeding population. 28
Table 3.16
Sensitivity scoring based on adult survival rate.
28
Table 3.17
Summary of the factors used to assign sensitivity scores to species.
30
Table 3.18
Selected species used to validate the scoring of the Species Sensitivity Index.
31
Table 3.19
Summary of survey datasets used
35
Table 4.1
Summary scores from the Species Sensitivity Index for the 16 species evaluated.
37
List of figures
page
37
Figure 4.1
Distribution of Bewick’s and Whooper Swans in the Republic of Ireland showing all
records of the species recorded in the International Swan Census (2005 and 2010)
and I-WeBS (2004-2009).
Figure 4.2
Sensitivity Map for Bewick’s Swan showing sensitive areas at a 1 km square level.
40
Figure 4.3
Sensitivity Map for Whooper Swan showing sensitive areas at 1km square level.
41
Figure 4.4
Sensitivity Map for Red Grouse showing sensitive areas at 1km square level.
42
Figure 4.5
Composite Sensitivity Map for Whooper Swan, Bewick’s Swan and Red Grouse using
the highest sensitivity rating for each 1km square based on presence or absence of
each of the three species.
43
List of photographs
Cover
Image 1.1
Image 3,1
page
Tursillagh Wind Farm, Tralee, Co. Kerry. (Barry O’Donoghue)
Red Grouse in heather habitat. (Mike Brown)
Whooper Swan in farmland. (Colm Clarke)
3
12
3
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI), with
additional contribution to costs from BirdWatch Ireland (BWI). BWI wish to extend
particular acknowledgement and gratitude to Matthew Kennedy and John McCann for
their guidance and support during the project.
We would like to extent our gratitude to Vicky Jones (BirdLife International), Rowena
Langston (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), Jenny Bright (RSPB), Leo Bruinzeel
(Altenburg and Wymenga), Luv Hoogenstein (Vogelbescherming Nederland) and Sarah
Anthony (Natural England) for allowing us to draw on their experience from other
sensitivity mapping projects.
We would also like to extend our special thanks to the following people for their
involvement in the High Level Stakeholder Group (HLSG): Meave Flynn of Eirgrid, Bart
Moriarty of ESB Networks, Ciarán Fallon & Pat Neville of Coillte, Henk Van der Kamp of
DIT School of Planning, Peter Carvill of National Parks and Wildlife Service, Larry
O’Toole of RPS consultants, Gary Rowan of the Irish Planning Institute, Kenneth
Matthews, Sinead Hickey and Phil Kenealy of the Irish Wind Energy Association.
There was also significant input from various BirdWatch Ireland staff members
throughout the project. Alan Lauder provided valuable guidance on project
development as well as on the technical aspects of the project. Olivia Crowe made
available data from the International Swan Censuses and from the Irish Wetland Bird
Survey and provided invaluable technical expertise on the mapping software. Brian
Caffrey, Dick Coombes, Alex Copland, Olivia Crowe, Anita Donaghy, Kathryn Finney, Alan
Lauder, Stephen Newton and Dave Suddaby gave their time to be part of the Sensitivity
Mapping Expert Group, for which we are greatly appreciative. Thanks to Vivi Bolan for
her valuable input to the project and HLSG meetings. Many thanks also to all
administration staff at BirdWatch Ireland for their help and support.
4
1. Introduction
1.1
Climate Change and Biodiversity
Climate change and biodiversity loss are the greatest threats facing the planet. Without
immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions there will be devastating
consequences for humans and we risk the extinction of thousands of species. BirdWatch
Ireland, Ireland’s largest environmental NGO, is supportive of developing a low carbon
economy and is an advocate for Energy Policies that secure sustainable energy sources
to meet energy demands and also achieve better energy efficiency across all sectors.
BirdWatch Ireland supports Ireland’s targets to achieve 40% contribution from
renewable energy to gross electricity consumption and considers that in order to reach
our renewable energy targets there will need to be greater effort to facilitate the
compatibility of conservation targets and renewable energy development targets.
Ireland’s Renewable Energy sector must be ecologically sustainable, with
environmental safeguards in place that avoid impacts on natural capital and on the
capacity of ecosystems to help mitigate and adapt to changing climate (such as through
the carbon storage and sequestration of peatlands and the flood alleviation capacity of
alluvial wetlands). Responsibilities and obligations exist for the renewable energy
sector, and on those facilitating its growth, which must be fully addressed.
The status of Ireland’s protected habitats is poor (EPA, 2012; National Parks and
Wildlife Service, 2008) (with over 90% of protected habitats assessed as poor or
unfavourable condition) and many birds of conservation concern in Ireland (BirdWatch
Ireland and RSPB, 2008) are showing further declines in range and population.
According to the EPA, there remains a “significant challenge for Ireland in striving to
meet its obligations under the EU Habitats Directive and the EU policy objective of
halting the loss of biodiversity” (EPA 2012). Furthermore, Ireland also has a poor
record in relation to environmental protection (as highlighted by the European Court of
Justice) particularly for ensuring that ecological impacts and biodiversity policy
obligations are fully addressed across all sectors.
There are also ongoing (although largely unnecessary) conflicts between renewable
energy development and biodiversity policy in Ireland. Measures to facilitate the
sustainable development of the renewable sector are needed to addresses this conflict.
While this bird sensitivity mapping initiative focuses on the development of wind
energy in Ireland, all sectors must do more to address the challenges of climate change
mitigation and biodiversity loss.
In short, climate change is an enormous threat to wildlife and developing renewable
energy technologies, such as wind power, is an important part of the response required
to mitigate against it. Wind energy developments to date have been located mostly in
Ireland’s uplands. Upland habitats also support many birds of conservation concern,
leading to potential conflict with wind farms. BirdWatch Ireland considers that in order
5
to reach our Renewable Energy targets, in line with a range of international and
national commitments for sustainable development and for biodiversity conservation,
there must be greater effort to help incentivise and stimulate sustainable practices. Bird
sensitivity mapping identifies areas in which there are particular bird sensitivities to
land use change and development and is particularly relevant to wind energy
developments and associated infrastructure in Ireland.
1.2
Policy and legislative framework
Ireland has commitments to protect its avifauna and their habitats through the Birds
and Habitats Directives EEC 79/409 (1979), EEC 92/43 (1992). The protection
afforded wild birds in Ireland is not restricted to SPA and SAC designated sites.
European Case law has also clarified obligations to protect Annex 1 migratory, wetland
and other Annex 1 species and to protect habitat requirements of birds outside of
designated sites. The Birds Directive makes special provision for wetlands and wetland
birds and the Habitats Directive makes particular reference to corridors for the
movement and dispersal of species in the wider countryside and ’stepping stones’ of
habitats to support the Natura 2000 network of SACs and SPAs.
A 2007 ruling of the European Court of Justice against Ireland stated that Ireland failed
to ‘...fully transpose and apply the requirements of the second sentence of Article 4(4)’
of the Birds Directive which states that ‘....Outside these protection areas (SPAs),
Member States shall also strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats’. To date
this responsibility has not been adequately addressed. Bird sensitivity mapping will
help to address this need for strategic development of wind energy in Ireland and the
associated infrastructure and thus facilitate our meeting renewable energy targets by
2020 Careful location of renewable energy developments, including wind farms and
associated overhead power lines, is key to minimising effects on nature conservation
interests. It is essential to ensure that conflicts in both policy and legal responsibility
are addressed, not only because of the potential impacts on Ireland’s wildlife, but also
because policy conflicts are an area that will be monitored by the European Commission
as part of assessing delivery under national renewable energy plans. Member States
must reach targets and be credible in their achievements – i.e. without policy conflicts.
Other responsibilities for biodiversity protection exist under national, European and
international legislation, policy and agreements. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020
(European Commission 2011) contains actions for the integrations of species and
habitat protection and management requirements into key land use policies, both
within and beyond Natura 2000 areas.
Policy conflicts are an area that will be monitored by the European Commission as part
of assessing delivery under national renewable energy plans; sensitivity mapping is
designed to maintain compatibility of renewable energy development with nature
6
conservation, in this case management and protection of protected bird species and
their habitats.
1.3
Wind energy and potential effects on birds
The effects of wind energy developments on birds is highly variable and depends on a
number of factors such as the specification of the development, the topography, the
habitats affected and the abundance and species of birds in the area (Barrios &
Rodríguez 2004; Drewitt & Langston 2006). Most threats can be minimized or reduced
by avoiding sites with sensitive habitats and key populations of vulnerable and
endangered species.
The main impacts of wind energy developments on birds are generally due to collision
(Barrios & Rodríguez, 2004; Drewitt & Langston, 2006; Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009),
disturbance displacement (including barriers to movement) (Madders & Whitfield,
2006; Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009), habitat loss or damage (Drewitt & Langston 2006)
and barrier effects. Each of these potential effects can interact (Drewitt & Langston,
2006) to cause an increase in the impact or to decrease the impact on birds (i.e. the
reduction in abundance caused by habitat loss, will reduce collision risk). Madders &
Whitfield (2006) observed that it is the sensitivity of individuals to wind farm induced
disturbance that determines the primary impact of a wind farm on an individual bird: if
disturbance occurs, the bird may be affected by displacement, habitat loss or barrier
effects, and if disturbance does not occur, the bird is susceptble to collision.
Collision risk can be reduced by siting wind energy developments away from flight
corridors between roosting and foraging areas and from migratory bottlenecks (Dirksen
et al. 1998; Hötker et al. 2006). The Tarifa wind farm in Spain is responsible for
significant levels of collision mortality for migrating raptors, to such an extent that
population level effects have been reported for some species (Barrios & Rodríguez,
2004). Occurrence of White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla and Willow Ptarmigan
Lagopus lagopus collisions at the Smola Wind farm in Norway was investigated by
Bevanger et al. (2010). The study reported 39 dead or injured White-tailed Eagles
between August 2005 and December 2010, noting that certain turbines were
responsible for a disproportionate level of mortality. The majority of White-tailed Eagle
collisions at the Smola wind farm occured in the Spring, and the majority of these
involved adult birds (as opposed to sub-adults or juveniles). Of the 84 dead Willow
Ptarmigan found between August 2005 and December 2010 at the Smola Wind Farm, 74
mortalities were attribured to collisions. The majority of these birds were killed
between March and June, suggesting that collision risk may be higher during the
breeding season. The authors note a high scavenger bias for Willow Ptarmigan, which
suggests that the total number of mortalities is likely to be higher. In a study
investigating the level of wind farm avoidance by birds (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009)
found no evidence that raptors altered flight height around turbines was found.
7
There is a lack of conclusive data on collision risk, with many studies based on finding
carcases, with no corrections applied for those that are overlooked or removed by
scavengers (Langston & Pullan 2003). However, the use of “detection dogs” to search to
search for victims of collision has significantly increased the finding rate compared to
human searches alone (Bevanger, et al. 2010; Paula et al. 2011).
While disturbance displacement, habitat loss and barrier effects are considered nonlethal impacts on birds, these effects are likely to work at a poplation level as opposed
to an individual level. Birds may be displaced from a wind farm into areas of less
suitable foraging or breeding areas, which may negatively affect survival and
reproductive output (Langston & Pullan, 2003; Madders & Whitfield, 2006). This
functions effectively as habitat loss, as a bird is excluded from former suitable habitat,
and is likely, also, to result in barrier effects, which increase energetic demands on
birds. The level of impact on birds as a result of loss of habitat depends on the type of
the habitat itself and the availability of suitable habitat to accommodate the displaced
birds Langston & Pullan (2003).
Birds can be disturbed and displaced from wind farm sites throughout the lifespan of
the wind farm due to: human activity and machine noise during construction, the
operation of turbine rotors and maintenance and repair work (Langston & Pullan,
2003). In an investigation of the avoidance of wind farms by birds, 7 out of the 12
studied species occured in lower frequencies around turbines compared to control
areas (Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009). Buzzard Buteo buteo, Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus,
Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Curlew Numenius arquata
and Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe were the species that were most affected, showing
decreases in breeding densities by 15-53%. For a review of the several studies which
have investigated potential displacement effects on raptors at wind farms, see Madders
& Whitfield (2006). While there is some indication that wind turbines may form
barriers to bird novements, the issue of wind energy developments being barriers to
birds has recieved little attention (Hötker et al. 2006). It is expected that energetic
requirements will be increased if birds avoid wind farms, either on migration or while
performing regular local flights, by flying around the wind farm. Wind farm size and the
ability of the bird to compensate for the increased energy expenditiure will determine
the level of impact (Langston & Pullan, 2003).
1.4
Sensitivity mapping
Sensitivity mapping is a tool to provide support for enabling wind energy developers
and regulators to foresee and address potential conflict. In this way, sensitivity mapping
facilitates developers and regulators to identify the best areas for wind energy
development and deployment, and thus assist Ireland’s achievement of our renewable
energy targets.
8
According to the European Commission’s Guidance on Wind Energy Development and
Natura 2000 (published in 2011), ‘Developing wildlife sensitivity maps at the strategic
planning stage enables areas to be identified where wind farm development might be
considered a low, medium or high risk in terms of nature and wildlife. Several Member
States have demonstrated how this can be done with success. Such wildlife sensitivity maps
will also help to avoid potential conflicts with the provisions of Article 5 of the Birds
Directive and 12 & 13 of the Habitats Directive as regards the need to protect species of EU
importance throughout their entire natural range within the EU (i.e. also outside N2000
sites)’.
Bird sensitivity mapping will help to build capacity in the wind energy sector to assess
bird sensitivity in areas intended for wind energy development, however it is important
to reiterate that it will not create ‘no go areas’ for wind development. The mapping tool
will not replace other impact assessment requirements such as, AA, EIA or SEA although
it may help advise scoping for these processes, and can provide an indicative early
warning system or assessment of risk associated with pursuing developments that may
need additional or alternative design elements. The process will help to identify
information gaps in a strategic manner which can then be addressed, not as part of the
mapping project, but outside the process.
Bird sensitivity mapping with regard to wind energy developments is being successfully
applied in other EU member states and around the world: Germany (Garthe & Huppop,
2004), Scotland (Bright et al. 2008), Netherlands (Aarts & Bruinzeel, 2008), England
(Bright et al. 2009), Greece (Dimalexis et al. 2010), the USA (AWWI/TNC, 2011), South
Africa (Retief et al. 2012) and the Rift Valley/Red Sea region (Strix, 2012). The species
sensitivity index approach was used by Garthe and Huppop (2004), Retief et al. (2012),
Strix (2012) and by Desholm (2009) in a case study at an offshore wind farm in
Denmark.
1.5
Species profiles
Bewick’s Swan and Whooper Swan
The Bewick’s Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii is a wide ranging species, which breeds
across almost the entire Palaearctic. The western population winters in northwest
Europe (Brazil 2003). The Whooper Swan Cygnus Cygnus also has a very large breeding
range, which extends from Iceland across northern Russia to the Okhotsk Sea and the
Bering Sea (Brazil, 2003).
Bewick’s and Whooper Swans are listed in the Annex I of the EC Council Directive on the
Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) and are afforded protection under the
Wildlife Act, 1976-2000, as amended (Republic of Ireland). Whooper Swan, Cygnus
cygnus, is listed as an Annex I species by the EU Birds Directive. As such both species are
afforded protection through the designation of Special Protection Areas. Habitats for
9
birds, including Annex 1 listed species, are also afforded protection outside of
designated areas under this Directive. Bewick’s Swans are on the Red list, and Whooper
Swans are on the Amber list of Birds of Conservation Concern (Lynas et al. 2007).
Bewick’s and Whooper Swans both have all white plumage, have a long, erect neck and a
black bill with a yellow base. Whooper Swans are larger than Bewick’s Swans and have
a more extensive yellow patch on the bill. In both species, the sexes are alike. Juveniles
have grey plumage (Cramp & Simmons, 1997).
Both Bewick’s and Whooper Swans winter in Ireland and their populations are
monitored through two different surveys: the Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS)
(Boland and Crowe, 2012) and the International Swan Census (Crowe et al. 2005;
Boland et al. 2010). The Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS) has been undertaken
annually since the winter of 1994/95 each month between September and March. A
total of 639 sites and 1,611 subsites were covered in the 2004-2009 period, which
represents comprehensive coverage of suitable swan sites (Boland & Crowe, 2012). In
the 2005 International Swan Survey, 777 known swan sites in the Republic of Ireland
were surveyed and a total of 14,079 Whooper Swans were counted in 391 flocks. A total
of 224 Bewick’s Swans were counted in eight flocks. In the 2010 survey, coordinated
counts were supplemented with an aerial survey to ensure complete coverage of areas
with limited accessibility. A total of 835 count units were covered in the Republic of
Ireland resulting in 14,981 Whooper Swans being counted in 387 flocks. A total of just
80 Bewick’s Swans were recorded in six flocks. As in previous censuses, sites in County
Wexford supported by far the greatest number of Bewick’s Swans. Survey coverage was
considered to be good in both surveys. The Whooper Swan population in Ireland
increased by 6% in the period between the 2005 and 2010 censuses and population of
Bewick’s Swans continued an ongoing decline (Boland et al. 2010). Ireland supports a
substantial proportion (60.9%) of the Whooper Swan flyway (Crowe et al. 2008).
Whooper Swans have a widespread distribution in Ireland, with birds being recorded in
all counties except Carlow and Dublin (Boland & Crowe, 2010). Bewick’s Swan have a
much more limited range, with 84% of birds occurring at three sites in south County
Wexford (Boland and Crowe, 2010). Peak migration periods are during October and
March, with peak numbers occuring in Ireland in January (Cramp & Simmons, 1997).
Both species favour freshwater habitats and require shallow water for grazing. Winter
diet consists of aquatic plants, leaves, roots and shoots foraged from pasture farmland
(Cramp & Simmons, 1997).
Whooper Swans are considered to be sensitive to wind energy developments in terms
of disturbance displacement and collision risk (Langston & Pullan, 2003). While on
migration, Whooper Swans are one of the highest flying of all birds and have been
recorded at heights greater than 8,000 meters (Brazil, 2003). However, flight altitude
for local commuting movements occurs atlower altitudes, which are generally
10
performed at dawn and dusk (Cramp & Simmons, 1997). Due to the low flight
manouverability, both species are with likely to be susceptible to collision with wind
turbines or associated infrastructure. In a Whooper Swan study, Larsen and Clausen
(2002) noted that the swans are capable of avoiding wind turbines in good visibility and
that collision risk is highest during movment between roosting and feeding sites at
dawn and dusk. Whooper and Bewick’s Swans are generally much wilder than Mute
Swans Cygnus olor, and are therefore much more sensitive to disturbance (Brazil, 2003).
Red Grouse
In Ireland, Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus are a sub-species of Willow Grouse
Lagopus lagopus which have a circumpolar distribution and are largely found on tundra,
bogs and heaths. Recent research indicates that Irish Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus
hibernicus is genetically distinct from its nearest neighbour in Britain L.l. scoticus
(McMahon et al. 2012). As our only native species of grouse, the Red Grouse has
suffered from a serious decline in range (50%) in the past 40 years with an estimated
spring population of 4,200 adult birds (Cummins et al. 2010). A large amount of data
was collected for the National Red Grouse Survey, with 491 1km across 188 10km
squares being surveyed specifically for Red Grouse. In total, 229 1km squares were
occupied. A similar study in Northern Ireland in 2004, highlighted the extent of the
decline there, with a national population estimate of just 202 breeding pairs (Allen et al.
2004 Allen et al. 2005). The Red Grouse is protected under the Wildlife Act, 1976-2000,
as amended (Republic of Ireland) and it currently resides on the Irish Red List of Birds
of Conservation Concern (Lynas et al. 2007). It is listed under Annex III/I of the EC
Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC).
The Red Grouse is a medium sized gamebird. Males have a distinctive red comb above
each eye, which is much more vestigial in females. Well camouflaged, this largely
ground-dwelling species can be hard to detect in its heathery domain. Specific survey
methodologies were used during the national survey to detect Red Grouse, which
included using tape-playback methodologies and surveys using dogs (Cummins et al.
2010).
11
Image 1.1 Red Grouse in heather habitat
Despite a lack of recent data on productivity for Irish populations, it is known that most
pairs are monogamous, and pairs are generally single-brooded (Lance, 1976). Breeding
female numbers are largely determined by the numbers of territorial males (Moss et al.
1996, Mougeot et al. 2003a, 2003b). The population in Ireland has thought to have been
in decline (BirdLife International 2004) since the 1970s, with land-use changes
considered the biggest driver of these declines (Cummins et al. 2010).
Only 40% of the Irish population of Red Grouse occurs on designated lands (Cummins et
al. 2010). Red Grouse are largely restricted to areas of blanket bog and heath along
western and north-western counties, with strongholds also occurring in the Slieve
Blooms, Co. Laois and in the east (Wicklow and Dublin Mountains) and southeast
(Knockmealdowns and Comeragh Mountains). Few pairs remain on raised bogs in the
Midlands largely because of changes to habitat condition and extent. Of the original
area of 308,742ha of raised bogs, 64% have been lost to turbary, 24% to mechanical
extraction and 2% to forestry, leaving just 10% intact and warranting conservation
action (IPCC Peatland Sites Database 2009). Average densities of 1.1 birds/km2 in
spring are typical in Ireland, although numbers can be several times that in strongholds
like the Wicklow Mountains (Cummins et al.2010).
12
Given their largely sedentary nature (Wernham et al. 2002), rarely dispersing more
than 4km from natal territories (Warren & Baines 2007), grouse populations are
susceptible to habitat losses and changes in quality (Lance 1978a). Males establish
territories in autumn (months before the breeding season) with territorial males calling
at dawn and dusk, albeit less so in daytime particularly in the case of low density
populations (Watson & Jenkins 1963). The average number of chicks hatched
successfully in Ireland is 2.9 per pair. Although chicks are fully feathered when hatched,
they still need brooding until they are 7-10 days old and reach full maturity at 12 weeks
(Watson & O’Hare 1979a).
Populations in Ireland are intrinsically linked with habitat availability and habitat
quality. The Red Grouse is associated with specific habitat types, namely heaths,
blanket bogs and raised bogs (Cramp & Simmons 1980). Its diet is almost exclusively
ling heather (Calluna vulgaris) (Jenkins et al. 1963, Lance & Mahon 1974, Finnerty et al.
2007) and therefore its distribution is restricted to peatland habitats that have heather.
Historically, the Red Grouse was among the most characteristic birds of Ireland’s bogs
given its unique association with these habitats and heather where it spends its entire
life cycle (Watson & O’Hare 1979).
Ling heather Calluna vulgaris is so important to Red Grouse, as it constitutes the biggest
portion of their diet, particularly heather aged between 2-8 years, (Savory 1978) and
they also require heather for shelter and for nesting (Jenkins et al. 1963). Nowadays
and in the past, a number of suitable areas for Red Grouse in Ireland have had heather
management and predator control in place to improve local conditions for Red Grouse
in order to boost local populations (All Ireland Species Action Plan for Red Grouse 2012,
in prep). In the spring, cotton grass shoots are an important food source for adults as
they are much higher in essential nutrients like protein and phosphorous than heather
(Watson & Moss 2008). The prevalence of insects on blanket bogs in the summer is also
an important food supply for young grouse chicks (Savory 1977).
Philopatry is evident in Red Grouse populations, with young males breeding near where
they hatch, while hens move further from natal areas to avoid inbreeding (Watson &
Moss 2008). This sedentary nature can make populations more vulnerable to rapid
habitat changes and population may not be able to adapt quickly enough to such
changes.
Given national renewable energy targets are set at 20% by 2020 (Directive
2009/28/EC), the expansion of new and existing windfarms on non-designated
peatlands is likely to increase (Renou-Wilson et al. 2011). Mitigation for potential
impacts on Red Grouse such as the creation of Habitat Enhancement Areas adjacent to
windfarms (All Ireland Species Action Plan for Red Grouse 2012, in prep) are a
consideration.
Several species of game birds have a poorly developed fovea (the area on the retina with
the highest density of light-receptor cells), which may account for their particular
vulnerability to collide with power lines and fences (Bevanger 1994, 1995). Studies in
Norway have highlighted evidence of collisions of Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus (a
13
close relative of Red Grouse) with wind turbine masts (Bevanger 1994, Bevanger et al.
2010, Martin & Shaw 2010). Studies of other grouse species, Prairie Grouse T. cupido,
have shown that new power lines (and other tall structures such as wind turbines) can
lead to avoidance of previously suitable habitat and serve as barriers to movement
(Pruett et al. 2009).
Densities of Red Grouse have been shown to decline on wind farms during the
construction phase, although densities appear to recover by the first year of operation
(Pearce-Higgins et al. 2012). A study of Red Grouse at a single windfarm site in Scotland
has shown a positive correlation between their distribution and vegetation density and
a weak positive association between Red Grouse and accessroads (Douglas et al. 2011),
which can act as a source of grit for birds (Watson & Moss 2008). In addition, males like
to display along linear features (Watson & Moss 2008). However, as turbines are
invariably located near access roads, any associations between Red Grouse occurrence
and turbines are probably confounded by the close proximity of these roads to turbine
infrastructure. However, this was a single site study, and care needs to be taken when
drawing conclusions on Red Grouse behaviour that could be applied in a wider context.
14
2. Aims and objectives of project ‘Phase 1’
2.1
Project Phases
Because of the multi-annual nature of BirdWatch Ireland’s Bird Sensitivity Mapping
project as well as the level of stakeholder engagement in the project, the completion of a
consolidated bird sensitivity map for Ireland with associated guidance has been
structured in three phases.
Phase 1 of the project entailed development of a validated methodology for Bird
Sensitivity mapping for Wind Energy in Ireland, with three draft layers of the sensitivity
map for Whooper and Bewick’s Swan and for Red Grouse and the establishment of a
High Level Stakeholder Group to carry the project forward into completion.
Phase 2 of the project (which we intend to complete in 2013 subject to funding) will
complete the remaining map layers to produce the consolidated bird sensitivity map,
which will see the collated and interpreted existing data from a range of bird species
and species groups into a format that is more readily available and accessible. It is
intended that the consolidated map will be GIS based and freely available through an
online public GIS platform, as per the wind energy atlas. The consolidated sensitivity
map will be specifically designed to facilitate ease of use and accessibility for a range of
users. Guidance to accompany the consolidated sensitivity map will also need to be
produced to explain clearly the needs of particular species groups in areas likely to be
attractive for wind energy developments as well as in the range of habitat types likely to
be intersected by power lines.
Phase 3 (also subject to funding) will launch the Irish bird Sensitivity mapping for wind
energy tool and associated guidance as well as deliver a training programme.
2.2
Project Objectives
A key objective of Phase 1 of the project is to develop and test a methodology for
assessing and mapping the sensitivity of birds to wind energy developments in the
Republic of Ireland by producing three map layers. This work is designed to form the
scoping stage in a broader programme of work to produce a consolidated and user
friendly GIS based bird sensitivity map for Ireland. Phase 1 of the project has
communicated the merits of sensitivity mapping to the wind energy industry and to
gain support for the process, thus establishing the basis for completion of sensitivity
mapping for Ireland in 2013, subject to funding.
Ireland’s habitats support many birds of conservation importance, including 40 species
listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive (EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild
Birds, 79/409/EEC). Whilst some of these species of conservation importance are
concentrated in Special Protection Areas (SPAs), most are dispersed. The main objective
15
of this bird sensitivity mapping project is to complete a consolidated and user friendly
GIS based bird sensitivity map for Ireland using the most up to date data on selected
bird species or species groups. Phase 1 of the project has advanced the current thinking
and support for a sensitivity map for Ireland and has establish the basis for completion
of sensitivity mapping for Ireland in 2013, subject to funding.
The consolidated sensitivity map will help to build capacity in the renewable energy
sector to assess bird sensitivity in areas intended for wind energy development and can
be used to guide strategic development on national or regional levels as well as being
applicable at a local level, thereby facilitating the planning process. The map and the
associated guidance will assist more harmonious development of wind energy in
Ireland in order to successfully achieve Ireland’s renewables targets while proactively
addressing potential conflicts of energy and energy infrastructure developments with
birds and biodiversity before they arise.
Development of an Irish methodology for bird sensitivity mapping for wind energy
draws on experience and good practice approaches from other member states (where
sensitivity mapping tools have been developed by BirdLife partners) to tailor the
approach to the range of bird species and species groups most relevant in Ireland. An
expert group of BirdWatch Ireland staff has been established to ensure that the
methodology is scientifically sound and encompasses suitable criteria for the
development of the sensitivity index model which is used to compile the map layers for
each species.
Sensitivity mapping is a useful tool for planning authorities, developers and agencies in
their approach to wind energy development and for county based or regional renewable
energy strategies. Engagement of the end users is crucial to the success of this mapping
tool, hence this has been a key objective of Phase1. The aim of establishing the
stakeholder group was to support the development of the project from both a technical
development perspective as well as to ensure a participative process and user friendly
output. The establishment and ongoing operation of the High Level Steering Group also
intends to help to familiarise key wind energy developers and regulators with existing
legislative and policy requirements in the context of positively addressing potential
conflicts in a proactive and collective approach.
The specific objectives of this project have been to:

Determine the best approach by conducting a desk study of the avian sensitivity
mapping work undertaken globally

Identify a list of key experts to provide useful contributions during the
development of the project

Establish a High Level Stakeholder Group and to foster a participative approach
to the project
16

Establish an internal Sensitivity Mapping Expert Group to contribute to the
development of the project

Produce and validate a Species Sensitivity Index, through consultation with
experts, to determine the species that are most susceptible to impacts

Select species to be included on the Phase 1 sensitivity maps

Generate Phase 1 sensitivity maps

Evaluate the outputs from the Species Sensitivity Index according to the relevant
literature

To discuss limitations of the approach

To provide a series of recommendations for areas of future work arising from
this project
3. Methods
3.1
Determination of the best approach
In order to determine the best approach, a review of existing work on avian sensitivity
mapping with regard to wind energy developments was undertaken. Sensitivity
mapping projects in relation to wind energy developments have been conducted in
Germany (Garthe & Huppop, 2004), Scotland (Bright et al. 2008), the Netherlands (Aarts
& Bruinzeel, 2008), England (Bright et al. 2009), Greece (Dimalexis et al. 2010), the USA
(AWWI/TNC, 2011), South Africa (Retief et al. 2012) and the Rift Valley/Red Sea region
(Strix, 2012). The species sensitivity index approach was used by Garthe and Huppop
(2004), Retief et al. (2012), Strix (2012) and by Desholm (2009) in a case study at an
offshore wind farm in Denmark.
3.2
Consultation with BirdLife Partners
In addition to conducting the desk study on existing work on sensitivity mapping,
expert input was sought, and international colleagues with sensitivity mapping
experience were consulted on the general approaches and the specific methodologies
being trialled. From the outset, exchange of information has been ongoing with relevant
experts as Table 3.1 shows.
17
Table 3.1 Summary of the main discussions with Birdlife International and other
colleagues.
Initial contact
Date
BirdLife
International
August,
2012

RSPB
Natural
England
Altenburg
and
Wymenga1



Advice and
guidance on
September,
potential




2012
mapping
approaches
Consultation on
the Species
October,

Sensitivity
2012
Index
Consult on
methodology
November,2

and future
012
directions
1 Wildlife Consultancy Company in the Netherlands – Project partners on the Dutch
Sensitivity mapping project.
3.3
Establishment and operation of the High Level Stakeholder Group
The stakeholder group was established to involve key energy developers, regulators
and planners to ensure a participative process in the development of the bird sensitivity
mapping tool. During 2012, approaches were made to a range of key stakeholders in the
project, including Eirgrid, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) and the Irish Wind Energy Association
(IWEA).
Upon confirmation of SEAI grant award for Phase 1, contact was made with a range of
stakeholder interests alerting them to the commencement of the project and inviting
them to the first meeting of the High Level Stakeholder Group (HLSG). Most of the
organisations and individuals invited to attend responded positively to the project and
in a supportive move agreed to come to a stakeholder meeting. The meeting was
scheduled with input from those who had responded to invitations in order to
accommodate a wide attendance.
18
The HLSG met twice over the course of the project.
The first meeting was held in Wilton Place, Dublin, in a room provided by SEAI. The
specific objectives of the first meeting which were circulated to all participants in
advance, outlined the proposed approach to develop the sensitivity mapping tool and
associated guidance and to get input and feedback on this from a range of end users.
Presentations were made by BWI outlining the context, background, objectives,
participative approach being taken and the expectations of the project.
Communications were maintained and pursued after the meeting with both those who
had attended the first HLSG meeting and those who were unable to attend. Further
project information and a meeting report was circulated to additional stakeholders as
well as phone calls to garner engagement.
A document was circulated widely between the two meetings, which stated the overall
objective of the project, the terms of reference of the High Level Stakeholder Group,
modus operandi, the ‘added value’ associated with sensitivity mapping, a summary of
project outputs and limitations This document can be found in Appendix 2.
The second meeting of the high level stakeholder group took place on Wednesday 7th
November 2012 in the Mont Claire Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2. The objectives of
this meeting were to further clarify the purpose of the project and provide additional
information on the process being used generating the map, the data being used and
how the process has gone elsewhere. To this end, a remote presentation was
delivered by the RSPB about sensitivity mapping in England and in Scotland,
demonstrating the development and application of sensitivity mapping tools.
The meeting heard a presentation on BWI data sources from Dr Olivia Crowe, BWI,
which outlined how all data is collected through various BWI operated surveys and all
outputs are peer reviewed and published. BWI clarified that the data collection is
repeated at regular intervals and maps can be updated accordingly.
19
3.4
Sensitivity Mapping Expert Group
The BirdWatch Ireland Conservation and Surveys & Monitoring Teams have experience
and expertise in a number of fields relevant to the current Sensitivity Mapping project.
Members of these teams were selected based on their experience to be part of a
Sensitivity Mapping Expert Group, with the remit to provide input into the creation and
calculation of the Species Sensitivity Index and the process of generating the example
map layers. Collectively, this Expert Group has knowledge of avian behavioural ecology,
ecological mapping, project development and environmental policy. The Sensitivity
Mapping Expert Group formally convened on two occasions over the course of the
project, and members of the group also inputted outside of these formal sessions.
The first Sensitivity Mapping Expert Group workshop took place on the 20th September
2012 and served to: refine an early edition of the Species Sensitivity Index and decide
on a number of fundamentals such as species selection for the example map layers and a
discussion on the suitability of including formally protected areas into the process. The
second workshop took place on the 30th October 2012. The objectives of this workshop
were to; further refine the Species Sensitivity Index by scrutinising the rationale for the
inclusion of each of the sensitivity factors; to agree on the scoring system used in the
index; and to score both the species used in the example map layers and the
supplementary species by mutual agreement.
3.5
Species Sensitivity Index
A number of factors may influence species-specific sensitivity to wind energy
developments. Therefore, defining a list of priority species by assigning sensitivity
scores to species is a prerequisite to creating a sensitivity map. The presented approach
to assigning sensitivity scores to species is based on the most relevant references on the
subject, the South African Sensitivity mapping project (Retief et al. 2010) and a seabird
vulnerability index (Garthe & Huppop 2004). These studies address the sensitivity of
birds to wind farms based on distributional data and the inferred vulnerability to these
developments on a selection of species. The sensitivity index was created by compiling a
list of factors expected to affect a species’ vulnerability to wind energy developments
along with information on the species conservation status and population ecology.
Scores for each of these factors are combined to determine the overall sensitivity
ratings.
20
Vulnerability factors
Twelve vulnerability factors were chosen to be included in the species sensitivity index.
These factors are based on the risk of birds colliding with turbines; being displaced by
wind farm developments; being affected by wind farms forming barriers to movement
or migration; or being affected by habitat loss as a result of wind energy developments.
The vulnerability factors are divided into two groups according to whether they broadly
related to flight behaviour or habitat requirements. Each factor was scored on a 5-point
scale from 0 to 4, with higher scores increasing the ultimate vulnerability score. Two of
the factors were based on real data, whereas the remaining ten could only be assessed
subjectively. Each of the subjective factors was scored by mutual agreement by the
species expert group, which comprised of key members of the BirdWatch Ireland
Conservation and Surveys and Monitoring Teams (see section 3.4). The 12 vulnerability
factors are outlined below.
(i)
Size
This factor was scored according to the size of the bird, as previous studies have
indicated that larger species are more susceptible to collisions with wind turbines
that smaller species (Langston & Pullan 2003), which have greater manoeuvrability.
Each species was assigned a size category based on measurements in Svensson
(2010).
Table 3.2 Vulnerability scoring based on bird size.
(ii)
Score
Size
4
3
2
1
0
Very Large
Large
Medium
Small
Very small
Soaring behaviour
The propensity for a species to soar is likely to contribute to the species’
susceptibility to collide with wind turbines, as soaring birds often are using the same
wind resource as the turbines (Barrios & Rodríguez 2004; Strix 2012). This factor
accommodates this risk, by assigning scores according to the soaring behaviour of
each species. Due to the absence of empirical data, this factor was scored
subjectively by the expert group.
21
Table 3.3 Vulnerability scoring based on soaring behaviour.
Score
Soaring
4
3
2
1
0
Always
Usually
Regularly
Sometimes
Never
(iii)
Aerial foraging / predatory behaviour
Many of the birds killed at wind farms are also predatory in nature (Langston & Pullan,
2003). This factor is included as high speed aerial pursuit or focused attention on the
ground may reduce the bird’s awareness of wind turbines or other obstacles.
Table 3.4 Vulnerability scoring based on predatory birds and aerial foragers.
Score
4
3
2
1
0
(iv)
Predatory / aerial forager
Highly
Partially
Never
Ranging behaviour
It is expected that species with large ranges or territories are more likely to come into
contact with wind energy developments, and this is likely to increase their potential for
collision. This factor was scored subjectively by the expert group, due to a paucity of
available data on the species in question.
Table 3.5 Vulnerability scoring based on ranging behaviour.
Score
Ranging behaviour
4
3
2
1
0
Very wide range
Long, daily commuter
Wide
Local movements
Sedentary
22
(v)
Flocking
This factor is included as it is likely that birds flying in large flocks are more susceptible
to colliding with wind energy structures if they are focused on neighbouring individuals
in the flock for navigation. Still et al.(1996) reports that Common Eiders at the rear of
“V” flight formations were observed to fly critically close to turbines. On one occasion,
four birds were observed to fall into the water after being struck by a turbine blade or
caught in the associated turbulence.
Table 3.6 Vulnerability scoring based on flocking behaviour.
Score
Flocking
4
3
2
1
0
Always
Sometimes
Never
(vi)
Nocturnal flight
There is evidence that species that fly at night are more susceptible to collisions than
diurnal species (Dirksen et al.1998). This is probably due to the fact that, for most
species, vision at night is not as good as it is during the day. The categories account for
species that are active at dawn and dusk as well as those active throughout the night.
The most susceptible species are those that are commute at night between foraging and
roosting areas.
Table 3.7 Vulnerability scoring based on nocturnal flying.
Score
Nocturnal flying
4
3
2
1
0
Active at night
(vii)
Crepuscular
Diurnal
Aerial display
Species with aerial courtship displays during the breeding season or aerial interactions
with competitors, which take them to turbine heights, are more vulnerable to collision
than ground dwelling species. Therefore this risk factor must be considered in the
23
analysis. However, as these behaviours are likely to be seasonal in nature, and only
performed at certain times of the year, the maximum score available here is 2.
Table 3.8 Vulnerability scoring based on aerial displays.
Score
Aerial display
4
3
2
1
0
Frequent
Occasional
Never
(viii) Range in Ireland
This factor was scored according to the national range of the species in Ireland. This
factor is important as species with very localised distributions are likely to be more at
risk to a population level affect as a result of wind energy developments compared to
those species with widespread distributions. Species with restricted range were scored
higher that widespread species.
Table 3.9 Vulnerability scoring based on species range.
Score
Range
4
3
2
1
0
Very limited range
Limited range
Localised
Widely distributed
Very widely distributed
24
(ix)
Site fidelity
This factor was included to account for disturbance displacement associated with
species with high levels of site fidelity. Species that exhibit site fidelity are likely to
incur greater negative impacts as a result of habitat damage compared to species that
are less tied to specific sites.
Table 3.10 Vulnerability scoring based on site fidelity.
Score
Site fidelity
4
3
2
1
0
High
(x)
Medium
Low
Availability of preferred habitat
Many species that are sensitive to disturbance caused by development will leave the
area in an effort to find other suitable areas and their success in this regard is
dependent on the availability of suitable habitat in the vicinity. It is expected that
species with specific habitat requirements will be impacted by habitat loss to a greater
degree than those with more flexible requirements. It is likely that, if displaced by a
development, species with flexible habitat requirements will find suitable habitat more
easily than species with specific habitat requirements.
Table 3.11 Vulnerability scoring based on the availability of preferred habitat.
Score
4
3
2
1
0
(xi)
Availability of preferred
habitat
Low
Medium
High
Habitat preference
Wind energy developments are generally located in open areas, especially in upland
areas. This factor was included to assign greater sensitivity those species that frequent
these areas. The influence of wind energy developments on woodland species is likely to
be minimal.
25
Table 3.12 Vulnerability scoring based on habitat preference.
Score
Habitat preference
4
3
2
1
0
Open
(xii)
Semi-open
Closed
Sensitivity to disturbance displacement
Human disturbance is widely considered to be a serious conservation problem,
especially to species of conservation concern. Retief et al.(2010) expects that
disturbance and displacement probably affect birds to a greater extent that collisions.
Many species that are sensitive to disturbance caused by development will leave the
area in an effort to find other suitable areas.
Table 3.13 Vulnerability scoring based on sensitivity to disturbance
displacement.
Score
Sensitivity to disturbance
4
3
2
1
0
High
Medium
Low
Factors relating to conservation status and population ecology
Three factors related to population are included in the Species Sensitivity Index, all of
which can be based on real data. These factors are based on the potential population
level affects that wind energy developments have on species. As above, each factor was
scored on a 5-point scale from 0 to 4, with higher scores increasing the ultimate
sensitivity score. The three factors are outlined below.
(i)
Conservation status
Countries have a legal and moral obligation to conserve their biodiversity, especially
species which are of conservation concern. Each species was assigned a score according
to whether it featured on any of the lists of conservation concern: Annex I of the EU
Birds Directive (2009/147/EC), BirdLife International SPEC list (BirdLife International,
26
2004) or Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland (BoCCI) (Lynas et al.2007). This
approach was also used in designing sensitivity maps in other countries (Garthe &
Huppop 2004; Bright et al.2008; Bright et al.2009; Retief et al.2012). In order to
determine a priority score, each of the three classification systems was used and the
maximum score obtained was used (i.e. a species that has is not listed on the Annex I list
of the Birds Directive, but that is on the BoCCI Red List will get a score of 4, see Table
2.14.).
Table 3.14 Sensitivity scoring based on conservation status.
Score
Birds Directive Annex I1
EU SPEC2
BoCCI3
4
3
2
1
0
Yes
No
SPEC 1
SPEC 2
SPEC 3(W)
SPEC 4
Red
Amber
Green
EU Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) 2 BirdLife International (2004) SPEC1: Global
conservation concern, SPEC2: Unfavourable European conservation status, and with more
than half of the global breeding or wintering population concentrated in Europe, SPEC3:
Unfavourable European conservation status, but with less than half of the global breeding or
wintering population within Europe, SPEC4: Favourable conservation status in Europe. 3 Birds
of Conservation Concern in Ireland (Lynas et al.2007). Red: The population has declined
dramatically in the recent years, the breeding population has undergone a large and
widespread decline since 1800, or the population is of global conservation concern. Amber:
The population or range has declined moderately in recent years, the species are rare
breeders, the breeding or wintering population is localised or of internationally important
numbers, or the species has unfavourable conservation status in Europe. Green: The species
does not meet Red or Amber-listing criteria.
1
(ii)
Proportion of the population
The scale of potential impacts on birds caused by the wind energy developments, at a
population level, will depend on the proportion of the flyway (for migrants) or breeding
(for residents) population that occurs in Ireland. For this reason, the species sensitivity
index takes the proportion of the breeding / flyway population relative to the European
population into account. Data on global populations was obtained from Wetlands
International (2006) for wintering waterbirds, and from BirdLife International (2004)
for all other species. As population ranges were presented in many cases, values should
be considered as indicative, and should be updated when new information becomes
available. After calculating the respective proportion, each value was scored accordingly
(Table 2.15). Red Grouse is one of four endemic subspecies that occurs in Ireland and as
the survival of this subspecies is dependent on conservation action taken within Ireland,
Red Grouse was given the maximum score of 4 for this factor.
27
Table 3.15 Scoring based on the proportion of the flyway or European breeding
population.
Score
Proportion of population
4
3
2
1
0
>50%
26-50%
11-25%
1-10%
<1%
(iii)
Adult survival rate
The impact of wind farm-induced mortality or reduced breeding ability must be
assessed at a population level rather than at an individual level. Adult survival rate is
included here, as additional mortality or reduced reproductive output affects species
with higher adult survival rates to a greater degree than those with lower adult survival
rates. This factor was considered by Garthe & Huppop (2004) when creating a wind
farm sensitivity index for seabirds.
Table 3.16 Scoring based on adult survival rate.
Score
Adult survival rate1
4
>0.85-1.00
3
>0.70-0.85
2
>0.60-0.70
1
>0.50-0.60
0
<0.50
1 The proportion of the adult population
surviving from one year to the next.
Species Sensitivity Index Calculation
The following steps were used to calculate the Species Sensitivity Scores (see Table
3.17). The 12 vulnerability factors were organised into two groups: flight behaviour
(factors a - g) and habitat preference (i – m). For each of the two groups, an average
score for the respective factors was calculated (h and n). These average scores were
subsequently added to give the Final Vulnerability Score (o) for each species.
The population status score (t) was calculated by taking the maximum score for each of
the conservation concern classifications and the score for the proportion of the
flyway/European breeding population that Ireland supports (p - s). This score (t) and
28
the score for the Annual adult survival rate (u) were then added to give the Final
Population Score (v).
Finally, the Species Sensitivity Score (w) was calculated by multiplying the Final
Vulnerability Score (o) by the Final Population Score (v).
Final Vulnerability Score (o)
= averaged flight behaviour scores (a –g) + averaged habitat preference scores (i – m).
Final Population Score (v)
= Population Status Score (t) + annual adult survival score (u).
Species Sensitivity Score (w)
= Final Vulnerability Score (o) x Final Population Score (v)
29
Table 3.17 Summary of the factors used to assign sensitivity scores to species.1
Size
Soaring
Predatory / aerial
forager
a
b
Score 0
Very small
Never
c
Never
Ranging Behaviour
Flocking
Nocturnal flight
activity
Aerial Display
Vulnerability score flight
d
e
Sedentary
Never
f
g
Diurnal
Never
Range in Ireland
Site fidelity
Availability of
preferred habitat
Habitat Preference
Sensitivity to
displacement
Vulnerability Score
- habitat
Final Vulnerability
Score
Annex I of the Birds
Directive
EU SPEC
BoCCI
Proportion of
flyway population
Population Status
Score
Annual adult
survival rate
Final Population
Score
Species Sensitivity
Score
Score 1
Small
Sometimes
Score 2
Medium
Regularly
Partially
Local
movements
Sometimes
Wide
Always
Occasional
Crepuscular
Frequent
Score 3
Large
Usually
Score 4
Very Large
Always
Highly
Long
commuter
Very wide
range
Active at
night
h
i
j
Very widely
distributed
Low
Widely
distributed
k
l
High
Closed
Medium
Semi-open
Low
Open
m
Low
Medium
High
SPEC 3(W)
Amber
SPEC 2
Yes
SPEC 1
Red
Localised
Medium
Limited
range
Very limited
range
High
n
o
p
q
r
No
SPEC 4
Green
s
0%
<1%
1-10%
10-50%
>50%
<1%
1-10%
11-25%
26-50%
>50%
t
u
v
w
See section 3.5 for the rationale for including each of the factors.
30
3.6
Validation of the Species Sensitivity Index
The species sensitivity index was initially validated by mutual agreement within the
expert group by scoring 16 pseudo-randomly selected bird species (Table 3.18). This
list comprised of species that are either resident or regular migrants in Ireland, and
represents a range of bird families with different morphology, behavioural ecology and
conservation status. This exercise was conducted to ensure that the scoring system used
to create the Phase I map layers was applicable to a wider selection of birds, allowing
amendments to be made as necessary to correct for any potential biases when other
species are incorporated into the sensitivity mapping process. The output of the Species
Sensitivity Index, a ranking of the species from high sensitivity to low sensitivity, was
compared with available literature to determine if the species that emerged with high
sensitivity scores were also considered sensitive in the literature.
Table 3.18 Selected species used to validate the scoring of the Species Sensitivity
Index.
Whooper Swan
Shoveler
Red Grouse
Red-throated Diver
Manx Shearwater
Golden Eagle
Purple Sandpiper
Curlew
Moorhen
Herring Gull
Woodpigeon
Skylark
Swallow
Blue Tit
Yellowhammer
Cygnus cygnus
Anas clypeata
Lagopus lagopus
Gavia stellata
Puffinus puffinus
Aquila chrysaetos
Calidris maritima
Numenius arquata
Gallinula chloropus
Larus argentatus
Columba palumbus
Alauda arvensis
Hirundo rustica
Cyanistes caeruleus
Emberiza citrinella
3.7
Species Selection
Whooper Swan and Red Grouse have been chosen for the creation of the Phase 1 map
layers as they are both likely to be susceptible to the negative impacts of wind energy
developments and are sufficiently different from each other with regard to their
behavioural ecology, aerodynamic abilities, habitat choice and conservation status to
merit being chosen to demonstrate the mapping process. As Bewick’s Swans share
many of the same behavioural and structural traits as Whooper Swans, and as suitable
distributional data was readily available, they were also included in the example maps.
31
Whooper Swans and a number of goose species (Pink-footed Goose Anser
brachyrhynchus, European White-fronted Goose A. albifrons, Barnacle Goose Branta
leucopsis, Brent Goose B. Bernicla) are considered to be sensitive to wind energy
developments in terms of disturbance displacement and collision risk (Langston &
Pullan, 2003). The list of species and families with particular sensitivities to wind
energy developments is designed to be indicative and not exhaustive (Langston &
Pullan, 2003), so although Bewick’s Swan was not included on this list, it is likely to be
affected by wind energy developments in a similar way.
Figure 3.1 Whooper Swans (with Wigeon)
Red Grouse are affected by disturbance during construction of wind energy
developments, and show a decline in density around wind farms (Pearce-Higgins et
al.2012). Langston & Pullan (2003) lists Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix, and Capercaille T.
Urogallus as being susceptible to disturbance displacement, collision and habitat loss as
a result of wind energy developments. Like Black Grouse and Capercaillie, Red Grouse
are members of the Tetraonidae family, and share many behavioural and ecological
characteristics. Therefore, it is likely that they are susceptible to the same impacts.
32
3.8
Generation of Phase 1 map layers
The map was created in ArcGIS ArcMap 10. Distributional data (see Table 3.19 for data
sources) was plotted in ArcMap to create a separate map layer for each species. For the
National Red Grouse Survey data, grouse locations were given at the 6-figure grid
reference resolution. The locations of Red Grouse in the Supplementary Records
Database were mostly provided at 6-figure grid reference resolution, but some were
just given at the 4-figure level. For the I-WeBS and National Swan Census datasets,
central six figure grid references were provided for each of the subsites where swans
were recorded. The Phase 1 Sensitivity map was created at a 1km square scale as this
was deemed a sufficiently fine resolution to be useful to developers and planning
authorities. This scale was used in the Scottish (Bright et al.2008) , English (Bright et
al.2009) and Dutch (Aarts & Bruinzeel, 2008) sensitivity mapping projects. The
distributional data for each species was buffered by 1 km. The individual species’
buffered distributional maps were converted to 1km resolution by selecting the 1km
squares in which species buffers covered at least one third of the square. Species
sensitivity scores were applied to each square. In the event that more than one of the
species occurred in a 1 km square the maximum of the species sensitivity scores was
used. In order to assign a greater sensitivity to 1 km squares that support more than
one of the species, species rich squares were weighted based on the number of sensitive
species that they support.
The proportion of the total species sensitivity scores per 1 km square (i.e. the sum of the
sensitivity scores for each of the mapped species) was used to assign extra weighting,
by increasing the sensitivity score for the square (the maximum species sensitivity
score in that square) by up to 10%. The weightings are as follows: 10% of the maximum
sensitivity score was added to score for the square if the sum of the species sensitivity
scores in that square was greater than 80% of the total species sensitivity scores; 8%
was added if the sum of the species sensitivity scores in the square was between 60 and
80% of the total species sensitivity score; 6% was added if the sum of the species
sensitivity scores in the square was between 40 and 60% of the total species sensitivity
score; 4% was added if the sum of the species sensitivity scores in the square was
between 20 and 40% of the total species sensitivity score; 2% was added if the sum of
the species sensitivity scores in the square was less than 20% of the total species
sensitivity score.
3.9
Data sources and data used in the analysis
BirdWatch Ireland conducts periodic national and regional surveys. The most recent
datasets were used, but the age varied between species. The survey coverage for
Bewick’s Swan, Whooper Swan and Red Grouse is reasonably comprehensive. The data
sources used for each species are listed in Table 3.19.
33
Bewick’s and Whooper Swans
The International Swan Census monitored the population of Bewick’s and Whooper
Swans at all know swan sites in Ireland in 2005 (Crowe et al.2005) and 2010 (Boland et
al.2010). In the 2005 survey, 777 known swan sites in the Republic of Ireland were
surveyed on the weekend of the 15/16th January. A total of 14,079 Whooper Swans
were counted in 391 flocks and just 224 Bewick’s Swans was counted in eight flocks. In
the 2010 survey, coordinated counts were conducted on the 16th and 17th January and
were supplemented with an aerial survey to ensure complete coverage of areas with
limited accessibility. A total of 835 count units were covered in the Republic of Ireland
resulting in 14,981 Whooper Swans being counted in 387 flocks. A total of just 80
Bewick’s Swans were recorded in six flocks. As in previous censuses, sites in County
Wexford supported by far the greatest number of Bewick’s Swans. Survey coverage was
considered to be good in both surveys, but the 2010 survey took place during the
coldest January since 1985, which resulted in swans being observed away from their
usual sites.
The Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS) is the primary tool for monitoring populations
of non-breeding waterbirds and their key wetland sites in the Republic of Ireland, and
has been undertaken annually since the winter of 1994/95. Waterbirds are counted
each month between September and March each year. A total of 639 sites and 1,611
subsites were covered in the 2004-2009 period, which represents comprehensive
coverage of suitable swan sites (Boland & Crowe, 2012).
Due to the “look-see” survey method (Bibby et al.1992) employed for I-WeBS and the
International Swan Census, and the fact that Bewick’s and Whooper Swans are
migratory species, flocks can be recorded by surveys while outside their core areas. For
example, a flock of swans recorded at one time in a particular location, does not mean
that the area is a “swan site”, and therefore doesn’t warrant that area’s inclusion on a
sensitivity map, as the birds may have stopped off temporarily en route to traditional
wintering areas. While the International Swan Census is conducted during January in
order to capture the distribution of swans in their wintering areas (i.e. not on
migration), it still doesn’t discount the fact that flocks may temporarily move away from
core areas as a response to weather or other stimuli. For this reason, only sites where
swans were observed on multiple occasions were mapped, with all sites where swans
were only recorded on one occasion being excluded from the dataset.
34
Table 3.19 Summary of survey datasets used
Species
Data sources
Red Grouse
Lagopus lagopus
National Red Grouse
Survey
Red Grouse
Supplementary
Records Database
International Swan
Census
International Swan
Census
Irish Wetland Bird
Survey
Whooper Swan
Cygnus cygnus
Bewick's Swan
Cygnus columbianus
bewickii
International Swan
Census
International Swan
Census
Irish Wetland Bird
Survey
Year
Coverage
2006-2008
Nationwide
2000-2011
Nationwide
2010
Nationwide
2005
Nationwide
2004-2009
Nationwide
2010
Nationwide
2005
Nationwide
2004-2009
Nationwide
Red Grouse
The National Red Grouse Survey surveyed a sample of 1km squares, by selecting 1 km
squares with suitable grouse habitat within the historical Red Grouse range (see
Cummins et al. (2010) for details). A total of 491 1km squares distributed across 188
10km squares were surveyed between 2006 and 2008. During March to December in
2006-2008, tape playback was used to elicit a response from territorial males and
thereby record grouse abundance and distribution. This method was supplemented by
any incidental sightings of males or females and fresh signs of grouse presence at a site.
Due to the cryptic nature of this species, fresh evidence of grouse occupancy (feathers,
droppings) was used to indicate grouse presence where no birds were actually sighted.
The survey period (December to March) was deemed sufficient to account for the
distribution and abundance of Red Grouse in Ireland, as grouse do not disperse widely
from their natal territories, winter and breeding season distribution is considered to be
the same. Also, surveying the birds prior to the breeding season limits disturbance to
these sensitive ground nesters (April onwards) and also takes into account the period
when males are at their most territorial prior to the breeding season.Due to the
difficulty of surveying this low density population, supplementary records from
incidental sightings of Red Grouse by birdwatchers, hill-walkers, consultants and
hunters, together with records from other surveys, were included in a separate
database and were used to augment the formal survey data. The resulting estimate for
35
the Irish population of Red Grouse was just over 4,200 birds (Cummins et al. 2010),
with the highest densities per unit area (i.e. km2) being found in the Wicklow Mountains.
All records from the National Red Grouse Survey were included in the sensitivity
mapping database, however not all records were used from the Supplementary Records
database. The database was filtered to display only records from 2000 – 2011, meaning
that all records that predated the year 2000 were excluded. Database entries that
reported sighs of “past evidence” were also excluded leaving those that reported
confirmed bird sightings or proof of “recent evidence.”
36
4. Results
4.1
Species Sensitivity Index
The 16 species evaluated had strongly different Species Sensitivity scores. Golden Eagle
ranked highest (i.e. is the most sensitive), followed by Red-throated Diver, Whooper
Swan, Manx Shearwater, Bewick’s Swan and Curlew. The lowest Species Sensitivity
scores were calculated for Yellowhammer, Woodpigeon, Swallow and Blue Tit. Table 3.1
summarises the Species Sensitivity Scores. The full table showing the scores for each
factor is in Appendix 1.
Table 4.1 Summary scores from the Species Sensitivity Index for the 16 species
evaluated. For details of methodology see Section 3.5.
Species
Golden Eagle
Red-throated
Diver1
Whooper Swan
Manx
Shearwater1
Bewick's Swan
Curlew1
Herring Gull1
Purple Sandpiper
Shoveler2
Red Grouse
Moorhen
Skylark1
Yellowhammer1
Woodpigeon
Swallow
Blue Tit
Population
Status
Score
Final
Population
Score
Vulnerability
- flight
behaviour
Vulnerability
- habitat
requirements
Final
Vulnerability
Score
Species
Sensitivity
Score
4
8
2.3
3.2
5.5
43.9
4
4
8
8
0.9
1.6
4.0
3.2
4.9
4.8
38.9
38.2
3
4
4
4
1
4
4
1
2
4
1
2
1
7
7
7
8
4
5
4
3
3
5
3
2
2
1.6
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.0
3.8
3.6
3.8
2.4
3.4
2.4
3.4
2.0
1.8
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
5.4
5.2
4.8
3.7
4.5
3.1
3.7
2.3
2.1
1.0
1.3
1.1
0.0
37.6
36.2
33.6
29.5
18.2
15.6
14.7
6.9
6.3
5.0
3.8
2.2
0.0
1 Scored based on breeding season only. 2 Scored based on winter season only
4.2
Sensitivity Maps
Figure 3.1 shows all sightings of Bewick’s and Whooper Swans recorded during the
International Swan Census (2005 and 2010) and I-WeBS (2004-2009), while Figures
3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate only the sensitive areas for Bewick’s and Whooper Swans.
Sensitive areas for Bewick’s Swans are confined to five discrete coastal areas in Co.
Wexford. While Whooper Swans show a much wider distribution, sensitive areas are
around the Shannon system and its many tributaries, in counties Galway and Mayo and
37
around the Midland Lakes. Sensitive areas for Red Grouse are patchily distributed, being
focussed in the Wicklow Mountains and in counties Mayo, Galway and Donegal. The
composite sensitivity map of the Republic of Ireland (Figure 3.5) is a combination of the
three species layers. In cases where more than one of the three species occurred in a
square the species colour of the most sensitive (of the three) species is shown.
Unshaded areas on the map are of represent areas that are not sensitive locations for
Bewick’s Swans, Whooper Swans or Red Grouse. Overall, 4.7% (3,458 1 km squares) of
the country is considered sensitive, with 3.60% sensitive for Red Grouse (2,639 1 km
squares), 1.09% for Whooper Swan (830 1 km squares) and 0.02% sensitive for
Bewick’s Swan (17 1 km squares).
38
Figure 4.1 Distribution of Bewick’s and Whooper Swans in the Republic of Ireland
showing all records of the species recorded in the International Swan Census (2005 and
2010) and I-WeBS (2004-2009).
39
Figure 4.2 Sensitivity Map for Bewick’s Swan showing sensitive areas at a 1 km square
level.
40
Figure 4.3 Sensitivity Map for Whooper Swan showing sensitive areas at 1km square level.
41
Figure 4.4 Sensitivity Map for Red Grouse showing sensitive areas at 1km square level.
42
Figure 4.5 Composite Sensitivity Map for Whooper Swan, Bewick’s Swan and Red Grouse
using the highest sensitivity rating for each 1km square based on presence or absence of
each of the three species.
43
4.3
Meetings with the High Level Stakeholder Group
First HLSG meeting
The first meeting was scheduled with input from those who had responded to
invitations in order to accommodate a wide attendance. The meeting took place in
Wilton Place on Friday 19th October 2012, attended by Coillte, DIT School of Planning,
Eirgrid, ESB Networks, the Irish Planning Institute, National Parks and Wildlife Service
of the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht, RPS consultants, and SEAI. Others
interested but unable to attend included IWEA, SSE and Department of the Environment
and Local Government.
After the BirdWatch Ireland presentations outlining the context, background, objectives,
participative approach being taken and the expectations of the project, participants
welcomed that the process is evidence based and provides a potential ‘win-win’
scenario by proactively seeking to accommodate the ‘coexistence’ of wind energy
development and conservation. Support was indicated by all present and it was agreed
to develop a Terms of Reference for the HLSG and to bring in several important
stakeholders for future meetings. Further clarity was requested on what the project is
and what it is not (for example clear statement on how the map will be indicative rather
than creating ‘no go zones’) and further detail on the added value was sought. There
was good discussion around the development of the methodology and the technical
aspects of the Species Sensitivity Index. Questions were raised regarding the scientific
quality of the data being used and it was clarified that all survey data used is collected
according to standard methodology, is subjected to a validation process and, in
many cases, is published in peer-reviewed journals.
In interim between the two meetings, strong support was expressed by the Department
of Environment and Local Government, interest and engagement from the Department
of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and CER, and willingness to
participate from Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE), IWEA and the Department of the
Environment and Local Government. The DEHLG, the CER, and DCENR each had a range
of questions about the project and suggestions. Strong support and solid suggestions
were received from the IPI representative. Many of the questions posed by stakeholders
directly to the project team outside of the stakeholder group meetings were similar to
those questions and queries that came through the stakeholder group meeting, which
indicates that the stakeholder grouping was reflecting common questions and
suggestions for the direction of the project; and that the stakeholder group is
functioning as intended to take on those queries, concerns and intentions for the
development and completion of the sensitivity mapping tool that will serve to ensure
that the end product is pitched appropriately and widely understood.
44
Second HLSG meeting
The second meeting was attended by representatives from Coillte, Eirgrid, ESB
Networks, RPS consultants, NPWS, three representatives from the Irish Wind Energy
Association, three representatives from SEAI and the project team in BirdWatch Ireland.
Apologies came from DIT planning school, SSE, and DELG. The engagement of such a
wide grouping at the meeting represents considerable success in engaging with a range
of stakeholders during the project. The meeting was attended by representatives from
Coillte, Eirgrid, ESB Networks, RPS consultants, NPWS, three representatives from the
Irish Wind Energy Association, three representatives from SEAI and the project team in
BirdWatch Ireland. Apologies came from DIT planning school, SSE, and DELG.
Benefits of the project were put forward by participants and the was process discussed.
The meeting set a good base to move the project on with support for the project being
articulated by all by the end of the meeting, provided the approach is right.
Key discussion points in the meeting included the terms of reference for the group
which were compiled based on discussions in the first meeting, stakeholder group
functions, project phases and timeframes. It was agreed that an opportunity will be
provided after Phase 1 for the stakeholder group to further input to the terms of
reference. The value of the project was discussed, specifically how it is expected to
compliment risk indicators work of grid development and the integrated approach to
the Birds and Habitats Directives that is required. Several of those present, expressed
strong support for the project and have expressed an interest in supporting completion
of the mapping tool through Phases 2 and 3. The wider applicability of sensitivity
mapping tools was also discussed: while this project is about bird sensitivities in
relation to wind energy and associated infrastructure, the approach can be applied to
other development categories.
The group expressed the importance of documenting the approach and methodology.
The importance of guidance was discussed, for example the need to expressly state that
this is not to be used to create exclusion zones; maps will be indicative rather than
definitive; will not replace EIA, AA or SEA requirements. Further funding for the project
was discussed however Phase 1 completion will determine further funding
opportunities. All those in attendance were thanked for their participation, support,
positive and constructive input.
45
5. Discussion
5.1
Species Sensitivity Index
Five factors incorporated into the SSI were based on data but this was not possible for
the remaining ten factors, which had to be assessed subjectively based on the opinion of
the Sensitivity Mapping Expert Group and appropriate score rankings determined for
each of the ten factors. This approach has been widely used, for example in the offshore
sensitivity mapping of seabirds (Garthe & Huppop 2004). This is currently the best
available approach and all other avian sensitivity mapping projects in relation to wind
energy developments used expert opinion, where empirical findings were lacking
(Bright et al. 2008; Aarts & Bruinzeel 2008; Bright et al. 2009; Dimalexis et al. 2010;
AWWI/TNC 2011; Retief et al. 2012; Strix, 2012).
The output of the Species Sensitivity Index, the ranking of the 16 species according to
their computed sensitivity level, is broadly as expected. The fact that Golden Eagle, Redthroated Diver and Whooper Swan are most sensitive, is not surprising, and is
consistent with the indicative list of sensitive species in Langston & Pullan (2003). Redthroated Diver was a close second (to Black-throated Diver) in Seabird sensitivity
ranking produced by Garthe & Huppop (2004). Similarly, the species that emerged from
the model with low sensitivity scores were not unexpected.
5.2
Sensitivty Maps
A conservative approach must be taken when assigning sensitivity indices to maps, as
the value of this project to the wind energy sector hinges on maps being produced that
illustrate an accurate representation of the important bird areas sensitive to wind
energy development. This is especially relevant for assigning sensitivity to areas used
by migrant birds on passage migration, which may briefly stop off at a site en route to
core areas. For this reason, any sites where Bewick’s or Whooper Swans were recorded
on just one occasion during the three surveys (International Swan Census 2005 (Crowe
et al. 2005), 2010 (Boland et al. 2010) and I-WeBS 2004-2009 (Boland & Crowe, 2012))
were excluded from the database. Figure 4.1 shows a number of sites where Bewick’s
and Whooper Swans have been recorded over the course of the aforementioned
surveys. Bewick’s Swans have been recorded on a number of occasions outside their
core area in coastal Co. Wexford (Figure 3.3), but due to the frequency of occurrence at
these sites, these areas were not deemed suitable to apply the Bewick’s Swan sensitivity
score to them.
This is not the case for sedentary species like Red Grouse, which rarely disperse more
than 4km from natal territories (Warren & Baines 2007). Red Grouse diet is almost
exclusively ling heather (Calluna vulgaris) (Jenkins et al. 1963, Lance & Mahon 1974,
Finnerty et al.2007) and therefore its distribution is restricted to peatland habitats that
46
have heather. For this reason, all records of Red Grouse were considered to be in
suitable habitat, and those areas were deemed to be sensitive areas.
Of the three species mapped, 3.60% of 1 km squares in Ireland are considered sensitive
for Red Grouse, 1.09% for Whooper Swan and 0.02% for Bewick’s Swan, giving a total of
4.7%. Therefore, 95% of the country is not considered sensitive for the three mapped
species. Until Species Sensitivity Scores are computed for a broader range of species, it
is not meaningful to assign sensitivity categories to the three mapped species (e.g. high,
medium, low sensitivity). Bewick’s Whooper Swans ranked 5th and 3rd respectively out
of the 16 species evaluated in the Species Sensitivity Index, while Red Grouse ranked
10th out of the 16. This suggests that the two swan species will ultimately be considered
“high sensitivity” species, but this will depend on the suite of species considered for
inclusion in Phase 2 of the project.
The proportion of 1 km squares considered sensitive to wind energy developments will
undoubtedly increase as further species are added in Phase 2 of the project, but there is
likely to be considerable overlap in the ranges of these species, meaning that the overall
number of sensitive 1 km squares will not increase in proportion to the number of
species included.
5.3
Colours used to represent sensitive areas
There are a number of different options available when assigning colours to sensitive
areas: from using one-colour gradients (e.g. light blue to dark blue), multiple colour
gradients (e.g. green to amber to red), to using distinct colours. Due to the methodology
employed in designing of the Greek Sensitivity Map, Dimalexis, et al. (2010) chose a
range of colours to represnt the various areas highlighted, as the aim was not to show a
hierarchy of sensitivities, but to identify areas that were selected for different reasons
(e.g. SPAs that are migratory bottlenecks, buffered Vulture nests etc.). In the Scotland
and England Sensitivity Maps, Bright et al. (2008, 2009) used a colour gradient, where
depth of colour indicated greater sensitivity. The colour gradient ran from light yellow,
for areas of low or unknown sensitivity, to dark red, for areas of high sensitivity.
The “traffic light” system (red, amber, green) was intentionally avoided in the current
project due to the connotations associated with the colours red and green. Sensitivity
mapping is intended indicate areas of avian sensitivity, and is not equipt to categorically
decide whether a wind energy development should or should not be realised in
harmony with nature conservation interests. For example, a green 1 km square on a
Sensitivity Map would not necessarily mean that there are no nature conservation
conflicts in that 1 km square, as this would have to be decided based on appropriate
assessment. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the colour red on a sensitivity could
be percieved as indicating a “no-go” area, but again, it is not the remit of the sensitivity
mapping process to define where wind energy developments should or should not be
47
realised (see Section 1.4). The use of a colour gradient to represent levels of sensitivity
is useful however, and the potential for misinterpretation can be reduced by avoiding
colours such as red and green. This approach has been taken with the Dutch Sensitivity
Map, which used a colour gradient ranging from light blue, through dark blue to purple
(Aarts & Bruinzeel, 2008) and in the Sensitivity Map for soaring raptors in the Red
Sea/Rift Valley flyway (Strix, 2012), again, where lighter colours represented areas
perceived to be less sensitive, and darker colours represented areas of higher
sensitivity.
5.4
Updating the sensitivity map
While the current example layers were produced using the best available datasets,
updating of the map will be required as new survey data and information becomes
available. The species list and sensitivity scores will also need to be updated based on
changes in conservation status and as new literature on wind energy development
associated impacts becomes available.
Various surveys are scheduled to be conducted in the coming year, or years, and will
provide useful updates to the current map layers. When validation is complete in
December 2012, the BTO Bird Atlas dataset will provide a crucial addition to the maps,
especially for Red Grouse.
5.5
Applications of the map
In early stages of proposed developments or in strategic planning for the roll out of
renewable energy infrastructure, Sensitivity Mapping will function as an indicative tool
available to the sector and to the decision-making processes associated with the
delivery of renewable energy targets.
The consolidated sensitivity map and associated guidance will facilitate ecological
interpretation of data according to the behaviour and the requirements of selected
species. This ‘species outwards’ type of approach provides the opportunity to do more
than ‘put dots on a map’ but potentially incorporates flyways and wider habitat.
The mapping tool makes data and knowledge of species needs accessible to sectors and
those engaged in decision-making processes in a manner that is useful for the planning
and screening processes. With appropriate use of the accompanying guidance, the
mapping tool will compliment assessment procedures (appropriate assessment under
the Habitats Directive, EIA or SEA) and act as a qualitative tool which ‘tells a story’ of
why particular locations are important. While not replacing EIS and AA requirements,
the mapping tool will provide a basis for wider consideration both in terms of ecological
needs of species as well as in the range of species included. The map is also not confined
to the scope of an EIS (set thresholds) or Appropriate Assessment (Natura interests).
48
Sensitivity mapping is an indicative tool that can be used to guide strategic
development, for example feeding in to Local Authority Renewable Energy Strategies.
The consolidated map will provide an indicative early warning system or assessment of
risk associated with pursuing developments that may need additional or alternative
design elements, and pre-empts this in advance, rather than later in the planning
process, which is usually more costly. It can provide accessible information at an early
stage of strategic and project planning that would help to identify areas in which there
are potential bird sensitivities and thus enable these to be addressed at the earliest
stages of project design (including for grid and transmission infrastructure). This
application should be particularly useful for wind energy developers and grid
developers.
The mapping tool will contribute to the need to consider the requirements of species
outside of designated sites (‘in the wider countryside’) and to consider species that are
not Annex 1 listed. This important issue has been highlighted by the European Court of
Justice in rulings against Ireland and has yet to be fully addressed.
5.6
Limitations of the sensitivity map
The example maps provided were created using the best data and information currently
available, but there are some caveats which apply to the maps.
The data used in the creation of the maps was not collected for the purposes of
sensitivity mapping, which can result in an ill fit between the collected data and the
sensitivity mapping requirements. The BTO Bird Atlas 2007-2011 is a good example in
this case. This survey sought to chart the distribution and abundance of all commonly
occurring species in the UK and Ireland during the winter and the breeding season over
a four year period. Comprehensive coverage was achieved, which makes the Atlas
dataset an invaluable tool for conservation. However, due to the objectives of the
project, the finest level that data was collected at was 2 km squares, with a large
proportion if it being at 10 km square resolution. This means that extracting data from
the Atlas database for use in a sensitivity map (at a 1 km square level) is not
straightforward.
While comprehensive, recent datasets were available for the mapped species, data
deficiency and gaps in survey coverage are inevitable, and will come to light when
further species are included in the process. A number of species could not be mapped in
the Scottish Sensitivity Mapping project, due knowledge gaps with regard to species
distribution or problems associated with the spatial scale of the collected data (Bright et
al. 2008).
49
Furthermore, the survey datasets available for use are often only based one season
(generally either the breeding season or the winter), preventing an assessment of the
birds’ sensitivity outside of these periods. This is important when considering
migratory birds such as Bewick’s and Whooper Swans. The International Swan Census
takes place during the month of January in order to chart the distribution and
abundance of Bewick’s and Whooper swans. While this is very useful data regarding
swan distribution in wintering areas, it cannot reveal anything about the migration
routes of these birds or highlight areas where the birds are vulnerable to wind energy
developments while on migration. Conversely, while the National Red Grouse Survey
fieldwork took place between December and March only (Cummins et al. 210), it is not
considered to be an issue for a sedentary species such as Red Grouse, which remain in
the same areas throughout the year.
Another important omission of the map is that it was not possible to map key foraging
areas for swans on farmland. This is due to the fact that field usage by foraging Swans is
not routinely covered by I-WeBS, which focuses predominantly on coastal sites and
estuarine sites (Crowe et al. 2008). Furthermore, changing cropping patterns will effect
swan distribution annually. It would not be appropriate to simply apply buffers to
traditional swan sites in a effort to capture the areas that the swans are using as these
buffers would probably include unsuitable foraging areas. Similarly, information on he
routes taken by swans on their twice-daily commutes between foraging and foraging
areas is not known.
5.7
Next steps and Recommendations
Recommendation 1 - Completion of consolidated map
Phase 1 has successfully developed a robust Species Sensitivity Index based on 16 bird
species, and produced three sensitivity map layers for Bewick’s Swan, Whooper Swan
and Red Grouse. The project team recommend that funding is provided to complete this
process for a range of other species with sensitivities to wind energy, allowing the
development of a consolidated bird sensitivity map for wind energy in Ireland.
Completion of the map has the express support of wide ranging stakeholders (as
garnered through the establishment of the High Level Steering Group). While funding
may come from several sources on a further phased basis, it is recommended that the
funding provided will allow the project to be completed with realistic timeframes,
allowing a robust consolidated Sensitivity Map to be produced with optimal HLSG
participation, while still providing value for money.
Recommendation 2 –stakeholder participation
50
Maintenance of High Level Steering Group through Phases 2 and 3 will be necessary in
order to ensure a participative approach to the project and successful uptake of the
consolidated map and guidance.
Recommendation 3 – guidance to support map
Guidance, information and training, as discussed elsewhere in this report, are required
to accompany the consolidated map, which will give the basis for the mapping tool and
information on how it is to be used and applied. It is recommended that this be
developed as part of Phase 2.
Recommendation 4 – addressing knowledge gaps
It is recommended that the knowledge gaps that are highlighted throughout lifetime of
this project are submitted by BWI to the National Biodiversity Research Platform.
51
References
Aarts, B., & Bruinzeel, L. (2008). De nationale windmolenrisicokaart voor vogels. Report
commissioned by Vogelbescherming Nederland .
Allen, D., Mellon, C. & Mawhinney, K. (2004) The Status of Red Grouse in Northern Ireland
2004. Environment & Heritage Service, Belfast.
Allen, D., Mellon, C., Mawhinney, K., Looney, D. & Milburne, J. (2005) The Status of Red
Grouse Lagopus lagopus in Northern Ireland 2004. Irish Birds 7, 449-460.
AWWI/TNC. (2011). Landscape Assessment Tool (LAT). (American Wind and Wildlife
Institute and The Nature Conservancy) Retrieved November 12, 2012, from
http://wind.tnc.org/awwi
Barrios, L., & Rodríguez, A. (2004). Behavioural and environmental correlates of
soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41,
72-81.
Bevanger, K. (1994). Bird interactions with utility structures; collision and
electrocution, causes and mitigating measures. - Ibis 136: 412-425.
Bevanger, K. (1998). Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by
electricity power lines: a review. Biol. Cons. 86: 67–76.
Bevanger, K. (1999). Estimating bird mortality caused by collision with power lines and
electrocution: a review of methodology. In Birds and Power Lines: Collision,
Electrocution and Breeding. M. Ferrer & G.F.E. Janss, Eds. Quercus. Madrid.
Bevanger, K., Berntsen, F., Clausen, S., Dahl, E.L., Flagstad, Ø. Follestad, A., Halley, D.,
Hanssen, F., Johnsen, L., Kvaløy, P., Lund-Hoel, P., May, R., Nygård, T., Pedersen,
H.C., Reitan, O., Røskaft, E., Steinheim, Y., Stokke, B. & Vang, R. (2010). Pre- and
post-construction studies of conflicts between birds and wind turbines in coastal
Norway (BirdWind). Report on findings 2007-2010. - NINA Report 620. 152 pp.
Bibby, C., Burgess, N., & Hill, D. (1992). Bird Census Techniques. London: Academic Press.
BirdLife International. (2004). Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and
conservation status. Cambridge, UK.
BirdLife International. (2004). Birds in the European Union: a status assessment.
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Boland, H., & Crowe, O. (2012). Irish wetland bird survey: waterbird status and
distribution 2001/02 – 2008/09. BirdWatch Ireland, Kilcoole, Co. Wicklow.
Boland, H., McElwaine, J., Henderson, G., Hall, G., Walsh, A., & Crowe, O. (2010). Whooper
Cygnus cygnus and Bewick’s C. columbianus bewickii Swans in Ireland: Results
of the International Swan Census January 2010. Irish Birds, 9, 1-10.
52
Bright, J., Langston, R., & Anthony, S. (2009). Mapped and written guidance in relation to
birds and onshore wind energy development in England. RSPB Research Report No
35. A report by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, as part of a
programme of work jointly funded by the RSPB and Natural England.
Bright, J., Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans, R., Gardner, S., & Pearce-Higgins, J. (2008).
Map of bird sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and
conservation. Biological Conservation, 141, 2342–2356.
Cramp, S. & Simmons, K.E.L. (eds.) (1980) The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. II.
Oxford University Press. 391-405.
Crowe, O., Austin, G., Colhoun, K., Cranswick, P., Kershaw, M., & Mugrove, A. (2008).
Estimates and trends of waterbird numbers wintering in Ireland, 1994/95 to
2003/04. Bird Study, 55, 66-77.
Crowe, O., McElwaine, J., Worden, J., Watson, G., Walsh, A., & Boland, H. (2005). Whooper
Cygnus cygnus and Bewick’s C. columbianus bewickii Swans in Ireland: Resuts of
the International Swan Census January 2005. Irish Birds, 7, 483-488.
Cummins, S., Bleasdale, A., Douglas, C., Newton, S., O’Halloran, J., & Wilson, H. (2010).
The status of Red Grouse in Ireland and the effects of land use, habitat and
habitat quality on their distribution. Results of the national Red Grouse Survey
2006-2008. Irish Wildlife Manuals, 50.
Desholm, M. (2009). Avian sensitivity to mortality: Prioritising migratory bird species
for assessment at proposed wind farms. Journal of Environmental Management,
90, 2672–2679.
Dimalexis, A., Kastritis, T., Manolopoulos, A., Korbeti, M., Fric, J., Saravia Mullin, V., . . .
Bousbouras, D. (2010). Identification and mapping of sensitive bird areas to wind
farms in Greece. Athens: Helenic Ornithological Society.
Dirksen, S., Spaans, A., & Van Der Winden, J. (1998). Studies on Nocturnal Flight Paths
and Altitudes of Waterbirds in Relation to Wind Turbines: A review of current
research in the Netherlands. Proceedings of National Avian - Wind Power
Planning Meeting III California, 1998. 97-109.
Drewitt, A., & Langston, R. (2006). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis,
148, 29-42.
Douglas, D.J.T., Bellamy, P. E. & Pearce-Higgins, J.W. (2011) Changes in the abundance
and distribution of upland breeding birds at an operational windfarm. Bird Study,
58, 37-43.
EEC 79/409 (1979) Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds. Official Journal of the
European Union L 103: 1.
53
EEC 92/43 (1992) Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and
Flora. Official Journal of the European Union L 206: 7.
EPA. (2004) State of the Environment Report. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012
European Commission. (2011) 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. Publications Office of the
European Union.
Finnerty, E.J., Dunne, J. & McMahon, B.J. (2007) Evaluation of Red Grouse Lagopus
lagopus scoticus habitat in the Connemara National Park. Irish Birds 8: 207-214.
Garthe, S., & Huppop, O. (2004). Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms
on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 41, 724–734.
Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B. & Chapman, R.A. (1993) The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in
Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. T and A.D. Poyser, London.
Hötker, H., Thomsen, K., & Jeromin, H. (2006). Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of
renewable energy sources: the example of birds and bats - facts, gaps in knowledge,
demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of
renewable energy exploitation. Bergenhusen: Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU.
Lance, A.N. (1976) The Red Grouse Project at Glenamoy: A preliminary report on the work
from 1971-1976. An Foras Taluntais, Dublin.
Lance, A.N. (1978) Survival and recruitment success of individual young cock red grouse
Lagopus l. scoticus tracked by radio-telemetry. Ibis 120: 369-378.
Langston, R., & Pullan, J. (2003). Windfarms and birds: an analysis of the effects of wind
farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site
selection issues. Report T-PVS/Inf (2003) 12, by BirdLife International to the
Council of Europe, Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife
and Natural Habitats. RSPB/BirdLife in the UK.
Lynas, P., Newton, S., & Robinson, J. (2007). The status of birds in Ireland: an analysis if
conservation concern 2008-2013. Irish Birds, 8, 149-167.
Madders, M., & Whitfield, D. (2006). Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm.
Ibis, 148, 43-56.
Martin, G.R. & Shaw, J.M. (2010) Bird Collisions with power lines: Failing to see the way
ahead? Biological Conservation 143, 2695-2702.
McMahon, B.J., Johansson, M., Piertney, S., Buckley, K., & Höglund, J. (2012) Genetic
variation among endangered Irish red grouse (Lagopus lagopus hibernicus)
populations: implications for conservation and management. Conservation
Genetics. (in press)
54
Moss, R., Watson, A. & Parr, R. (1996) Experimental prevention of a population cycle in
Red Grouse. Ecology 77: 1512-1530.
Mougeot, F., Redpath, S.M., Leckie, F. & Hudson, P.J. (2003a) The effect of aggressiveness
on the population dynamics of a territorial bird. Nature 421: 737-739.
Mougeot, F., Redpath, S.M., Moss, R., Matthiopoulos, J. & Hudson, P.J. (2003b) Territorial
behaviour and population dynamics in red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus. I.
Population experiments. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 1073-1082.
NPWS. (2008) The status of EU protected Habitats and species in Ireland. National
Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government .
Paula, J., Leal, M., João Silva, M., Mascarenhas, R., Costa, H., & Mascarenhasa, M. (2011).
Dogs as a tool to improve bird-strike mortality estimates at wind farms. Journal
for Nature Conservation, 19, 202-208.
Pearce-Higgins, J., Leigh, S., Douse, A., & Langston, R. (2012). Greater impacts of wind
farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation:
results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49,
386–394.
Pearce-Higgins, J., Leigh, S., Langston, R., Bainbridge, I., & Bullman, R. (2009). The
distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 46, 1323–1331.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R. H. W. & Bright, J.A. (2008) Assessing the
cumulative impacts of wind farms on peatland birds: a case study of golden
plover Pluvialis apricaria in Scotland. Mires and Peat, Volume 4 (2008/9), Article
01, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X. © 2008 International
Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society
Pruett, C.L., Patten, M.A. & Wolfe, D.H. (2009). Avoidance Behaviour by Prairie Grouse:
Implications for Development of Wind Energy Conservation Biology. Volume 23,
Issue 5, pages 1253–1259, October 2009.
Retief, E., Diamond, M., Anderson, M. D., & Smit, H. A. (2012). Avian wind farm sensitivity
map: criteria and procedures used. Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa.
Renou-Wilson, F., Bolger, T., Bullock, C. Convery, F., Curry, J., Ward S., Wilson, D., &
Muller, C. (2011). Bogland: Sustainable Management of Peatlands in Ireland.
Strive Report Series, No. 75. Environmental Protection Agency, PO Box 3000,
Johnstown Castle Estate, Co. Waterford.
Savory, C.J. (1977) The food of red grouse chicks Lagopus L. scoticus. Ibis 119: 1-9.
Savory, C.J. (1978) Food consumption of Red Grouse in relation to the age and
productivity of heather. Journal of Animal Ecology, 47, 269-282.
55
Still, D., Little, B., & Lawrence, S. (1996). The Effect of Wind Turbines on the Bird
Population at Blyth Harbour, Northumberland. ETSU W/13/00394/REP, Energy
Technology Support Unit, UK Department of Trade & Industry.
Strix. (2012). Developing and testing the methodology for assessing and mapping the
sensitivity of migratory birds to wind energy development. Report to BirdLife
International.
Svensson, L. (2010). Collins Bird Guide. London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Warren, P. & Baines, D. (2007) Dispersal distances of juvenile radio tagged red grouse
Lagopus lagopus scoticus on moors in northern England. Ibis 149: 758-762.
Watson, A. & Jenkins, D. (1963) Notes on the behaviour of the Red Grouse. British Birds
57: 137-169.
Watson, A. & Moss, R. (2008) Grouse The Natural History of British and Irish Species.
Collins. New Naturalist Series.
Watson, A. & O’Hare, P.J. (1979a) Bird and mammal numbers on untreated and
experimentally treated Irish bog [Mayo, Ireland]. Oikos 33: 97-105.
Wernham, C.V., Toms, M.P., Marchant, J.H., Clark, J.A., Siriwardena, G.M. & Baillie S.R.
(eds.) (2002) The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland.
T. and A.D. Poyser, London.
Wetlands International. (2006). Waterbird Population Estimates - Forth Edition.
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wetlands International.
Wetlands International. (2006). Waterbird Population Estimates – fourth edition.
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wetlands International.
56
57
Appendix 1
Adult survival
rate
Size
Soaring
Predatory /
aerial forager
Ranging
Behaviour
Flocking
Nocturnal
flight activity
Aerial Display
Range in
Ireland
Site fidelity
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
0
4
4
0
2
4
0
2
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
1
1
4
1
0
1
1
0
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
1
0
2
1
1
2
0
1
4
3
4
2
4
3
3
1
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
1
3
4
3
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
4
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
4
4
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
0
0
0
0
1 Scored based on breeding season only. 2 Scored based on winter season only
58
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
3
3
4
2
2
1
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
0
Species
Sensitivity
Score
Proportion of
flyway
2
2
0
3
2
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
Sensitivity to
displacement
BoCCI
4
4
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Availability of
preferred
habitat
Habitat
Preference
EU SPEC
Golden Eagle
Red-throated Diver1
Whooper Swan
Manx Shearwater1
Bewick's Swan
Curlew1
Herring Gull1
Purple Sandpiper
Shoveler2
Red Grouse
Moorhen
Skylark1
Yellowhammer1
Woodpigeon
Swallow
Blue Tit
Annex I of the
Birds Directive
Column1
Appendix 1. Scoring for each of the factors and the resulting Species Sensitivity Index values for each of the 16 species. For details see
Section 3.5.
2
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
43.9
38.9
38.2
37.6
36.2
33.6
29.5
18.2
15.6
14.7
6.9
6.3
5.0
3.8
2.2
0.0
Appendix 2
High Level Stakeholder Group to inform development of Bird Sensitivity Mapping
for wind energy & associated infrastructure in Ireland
A. OBJECTIVE:
The stakeholder group will work in a spirit of partnership to assist in the delivery of a
bird sensitivity mapping tool for Ireland.
B. TERMS OF REFERENCE:
1. The stakeholder group will involve key energy developers, regulators and
planners to ensure a participative process in developing a bird sensitivity
mapping tool
2. The stakeholder group will advise the development of the sensitivity mapping
tool and associated guidance in order to maximise correct use and interpretation
of the mapping tool produced and to avoid misinterpretation of the maps
The stakeholder group will support the completion of the sensitivity mapping
tool, associated guidance, and communication and training
3. The stakeholder Group will develop a programme for communication of and
training in the use of the sensitivity mapping tool and associated guidance, once
complete, as well as seeking appropriate hosting for the mapping tool.
C. MODUS OPERANDI
The group shall meet at regular intervals throughout the project, with meeting dates
and venues to maximise participation. Agenda and supporting documentation will be
circulated in advance by BWI. In order to facilitate participation by those who are
interested in the process but are unable to be on the stakeholder group, participation
will be facilitated by the circulation of meeting reports and supporting documentation
and by phone contact to discuss project development.
D. SUMMARY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS AND LIMITATIONS
Bird sensitivity mapping:

will help to build capacity in the wind energy sector to assess bird sensitivity in
areas intended for wind energy development
59








will not create ‘no go areas’ for wind development
is an indicative tool that can be used to guide strategic development, for example
feeding in to Local Authority Renewable Energy Strategies
can provide accessible information at an early stage of strategic and project
planning that would help to identify areas in which there are potential bird
sensitivities and thus enable these to be addressed at the earliest stages of
project design (including for grid and transmission infrastructure)
will not inform new or existing nature conservation designations such as SPAs
does not replace other impact assessment requirements such as, AA, EIA or SEA
although it may help advise scoping for these processes and can provide an
indicative early warning system or assessment of risk associated with pursuing
developments that may need additional or alternative design elements
does not involve gathering new data, it just makes existing data more accessible
in new format
will facilitate identification of data gaps
is intended to be made publicly accessible and freely available in a manner
similar to the wind maps
E. THE ‘ADDED VALUE’ ASSOCIATED WITH SENSITIVITY MAPPING
In early stages of proposed developments or in strategic planning for the roll out of
renewable energy infrastructure, Sensitivity Mapping will function as an indicative tool
available to the sector and to the decision-making processes associated with the
delivery of renewable energy targets.
The additional value associated with delivering sensitivity mapping for Irish birds
includes the following:
1. While using existing data, the sensitivity map and associated guidance will
facilitate ecological interpretation of data according to behaviour and needs of
selected species. This ‘species outwards’ type of approach provides the
opportunity to do more than ‘put dots on a map’ but potentially incorporates
flyways and wider habitat and ecological needs of species.
2. It makes data and knowledge of species needs accessible to sectors and those
engaged in decision-making processes in a manner that is useful for the planning
and screening processes. In this way the map and associated guidance is a
qualitative tool which ‘tells a story’ of why particular locations are important.
3. At a strategic level it provides an indicative early warning system or assessment
of risk associated with pursuing developments that may need additional or
60
alternative design elements and pre-empts this in advance rather than later in
the planning process which is usually more costly.
4. While pulling together existing species knowledge and data, the mapping
exercise also identifies gaps in knowledge and hence a more strategic approach
to addressing knowledge gaps that can otherwise delay roll out of renewable
energy.
5. The exercise does not replace but complements EIS and AA requirements by
providing a basis for wider consideration both in terms of ecological needs of
species as well as in the range of species included. The map is also not confined
to the scope of an EIS (set thresholds) or Appropriate Assessment (Natura
interests).
6. It contributes to the need to consider the requirements of species outside of
designated sites (‘in the wider countryside’) and to consider species that are not
Annex 1 listed as has been highlighted by the European Court of Justice in rulings
against Ireland.
61
62