20.05.2014 Views

Forthbank Wind Energy Development - Partnerships for Renewables

Forthbank Wind Energy Development - Partnerships for Renewables

Forthbank Wind Energy Development - Partnerships for Renewables

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Forthbank</strong> <strong>Wind</strong> <strong>Energy</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />

Otter Survey: Methodology<br />

11.2.44 The otter survey was undertaken by two RPS ecologists on 7 May 2010. The survey involved<br />

systematically searching <strong>for</strong> otter field signs (see below <strong>for</strong> details) and included all areas of<br />

suitable habitat (e.g. watercourses, waterbodies, coastal margins and associated terrestrial<br />

habitats) within 500m of the application area as requested by Clackmannanshire Council 23 .<br />

This survey distance exceeds the standard 250m survey area advised by SNH in its on-line<br />

otter survey guidance 5 .<br />

11.2.45 The only exceptions to the coverage of the survey were;<br />

• the exclusion of habitats on the eastern side of the Black Devon (the opposite side<br />

of the watercourse from the proposed wind energy development site); and,<br />

• areas of dense, tussocky grassland located over 100m from the northern boundary<br />

of the proposed wind energy development site.<br />

11.2.46 The reasoning <strong>for</strong> these exceptions is explained below.<br />

11.2.47 The land on the opposite side of the Black Devon is dominated by an open landscape of arable<br />

fields with occasional minor drainage ditches situated behind the protective coastal defence<br />

embankments of the Forth Estuary and the Black Devon. Although it was considered likely<br />

that otters would occupy this side of the river, the habitat was largely considered to be suboptimal<br />

<strong>for</strong> otters, particularly in terms of the availability of suitable habitat <strong>for</strong> resting sites (e.g.<br />

holts). In addition, this part of the survey area was considered to be sufficiently segregated<br />

from the development site such that otters would be unlikely to be affected by any proposed<br />

works. Furthermore, the few areas which were considered to provide suitable habitat <strong>for</strong><br />

resting sites (e.g. isolated scrub) were located over 50m from the application area and<br />

there<strong>for</strong>e beyond the maximum critical distance within which a European Protected Species<br />

licence <strong>for</strong> otters would be required from the Scottish Government.<br />

11.2.48 With regard to the dense, tussocky grassland to the north of the application area, the density<br />

and extent of this expansive grassland habitat was such that it was considered extremely<br />

unlikely that any otter evidence, let alone potential resting sites (i.e. couches, the suitability and<br />

potential <strong>for</strong> holts to be present was negligible) would be discovered. There<strong>for</strong>e, the survey<br />

focussed on all areas located within 100m of the northern boundary of the application area.<br />

This was considered sufficient since any resting sites located beyond this survey area would<br />

be beyond the critical 50m distance <strong>for</strong> which a European Protected Species licence <strong>for</strong> otters<br />

would be required from the Scottish Government.<br />

11.2.49 The otter survey area is shown in Figure 11.3.<br />

11.2.50 During the survey, evidence of otter presence and activity was recorded and mapped. Otter<br />

field signs are described in Bang & Dahlstrøm 24 and SNH (2008) 5 , and include:<br />

• holts;<br />

• couches;<br />

November 2010 Chapter 11 Page 9<br />

Copyright <strong>Partnerships</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Renewables</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Co. Ltd 2010 ©

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!