Report on the environmental impact of the project involving a change in the number and parameters of the wind power plants at the planned Banie III wind farm

Biosfera – dr Dariusz Janicki ul. Ściegiennego 66/8, 70-352 Szczecin, ph.: 501 273546 [email protected] Report on the environmental impact of the project involving a change in the number and parameters of the wind power plants at the planned Banie III wind farm Investor: Fieldon Investments Sp. z o.o Wiatromill Sp. k. Al. Niepodległości 69, 02-626 Warsaw Elaborated by: Dariusz Janicki, Ph.D. Szczecin, March 2019 2 Table of contents: 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. 4 2. Qualification of the undertaking ………………………………………………………………………….... 4 3. Subject, scope and objective of the elaboration ………………………………………………..…... 4 4. Description of the planned undertaking …………………………………………………………….…. 5 4.1. Terms of land use in the execution and operation phase ………………………………..…….. 5 4.2. Features of the technological process........................................................................ 6 4.3. Expected emissions from the operation of the planned project ……………………………… 7 5. Methodology used for the study .......................................................................... 8 6. Description of the natural environment elements covered by the scope of the foreseen impact of the planned project ...…… ………………. 16 6.1. Location of the project area ...................................................................................... 16 6.2. Abiotic elements …………………………………………………….…………………………………………….. 20 6.2.1. Geomorphology ………………………………………………………………............................................ 21 6.2.2. Soils ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21 6.2.3. Hydrology ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21 6.2.4 Landscape ……………………………………………………………………............................................... 22 6.2.5. Climate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 6.3. Biotic elements …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23 6.3.1. Vegetation ..…………………………………………………………................................................. 23 6.3.2. Fauna in the last year of observation 2018 ……………………………………………………………. 23 7. Description of the form of nature conservation in the immediate range and in the vicinity of the planned project …………………………………………………………………..………….. 80 8. Description of monuments protected under the regulations on the protection and care over monuments in the study area .................................................................... 86 9. Description of the analyzed project options …………………….……………………………….…… 88 9.1. No project option ....................................................................................................... 88 9.2. Alternative options subject to analysis ....................................................................... 88 10. Impact of the project on the environment of the selected option ............................. 92 10.1. Impact during the construction phase …………………………………………………………………….. 92 10.2. Impact during the operation phase …………………………………………………………………………. 97 10.3. Impact during the decommissioning phase …………………………………………………………… 109 10.4. Impact of the investment on forms of nature conservation ………………………………….. 110 10.5. Impact of the investment on historical monuments and the cultural landscape …… 110 10.6. Possible cross-border impacts …………………………………………………..…………………………… 110 10.7. Cumulative Impact …………………………………………………………………………..…………………….. 110 10.8. The effects of a major structural integrity failure, industrial and natural disaster…… 111 11. Description of potentially significant impacts of the planned project on the environment …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 111 11.1. Resulting from the existence of the project …………………………………………………………… 111 11.2. Resulting from the use of natural resources ..........…………….…………………………………… 113 11.3. Resulting from emissions ………………………………………………….......................................... 113 12. Description of anticipated actions to prevent, reduce and provide natural compensation of possible negative impacts of the project on the environment .……………………………………………………………………………………… …………………. 113 13. Proposals for monitoring the impact of the planned project ........................................ 115 13.1. Proposals for monitoring during the construction phase …………………………................. 115 13.2. Proposals for monitoring during the operation phase …………………………………………….. 115 13.3 Proposals for monitoring during the decommissioning phase …………………………….…… 115 14. Analysis of potential social conflicts related to the planned 3 project …………………………………………………………….......................................... 116 15. Indication of the need to establish a limited use area ……….…. 116 16. Difficulties due to technical deficiencies or gaps in contemporary knowledge ........ 116 17. Summary and conclusions ……………………………….………………………………………………………. 116 18. Summary in nonspecialist language ……………….………………………………………………………. 119 19. Sources of information the report was based on ……………………………………………………… 121 20. Selected literature ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 122 Appendices: Appendix 1 – Groundwater Bodies Information Sheet 23. Appendix 2 – Groundwater Bodies Information Sheet 24. Appendix 2 – Acoustic analysis of the “Banie” Wind Farm in the Banie commune. Alternative and investor’s option for Nordex N117 and Vestas V110 turbines along with acoustic maps. 4 1. Introduction As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Poland is obliged to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other gases resulting from combustion, primarily coal. From the 19th century until today, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7° C, and exceeding the limit by 2° C could cause Greenland's glaciers to melt. Greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, are believed to be the main culprit of these changes. According to WWF, as much as 37% of these emissions come from fossil fuel energy production. The International Energy Agency (IEA), estimates that global electricity consumption will double by 2020. Globally, it is estimated that 20% of electricity will be generated from renewable energy sources. The energy obtained from wind turbines is called an environmentally clean form of energy. A 1 kWh of electricity generated during the operation of a wind turbine can replace a 1kWh of energy generated by coal-fired power plants. Thus, it eliminates the emission of pollutants associated with this process. It can be assumed that the annual emission of compounds to the atmosphere during the production of 1MWh of electricity in conventional power plants amounts to (Soliński and Solińska 2001): 7.8 kg of SO2; 3.2 kg of NO2; 937 kg of CO2; 0.2 kg of CO; 1.1 kg of dust. Despite their advantages, wind turbines can pose a threat to natural resources, especially birds and bats. Under adverse conditions, birds and bats may collide with structural elements of windmills. Bats additionally experience barotrauma, which is damage to the alveoli of the respiratory epithelium due to the rapid change in pressure when they fly between rotating blades. 2. Qualification of the project Pursuant to Article 59 sec. 1 of the Act dated October 3, 2008 on making available of information on environment and its protection, public participation in environmental protection and environmental impact assessments (Journal of Laws 2018, item 2081), an environmental impact assessment is required for the implementation of a planned project that may always have a significant impact on the environment. The present project involving the construction of wind power plants with a capacity of up to 115 MW, according to §2 sec. 1 item 5 of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers dated November 9, 2010 on projects likely to have significant impact on the environment (Journal of Laws 2016, item 71), is classified as a project that may always have a significant impact on the environment and concerns installations using wind energy for electricity generation with a total nominal capacity of the power plant of not less than 100 MW. The project is consistent with the amendment to the Study of Conditions and Directions for Spatial Development of the Banie commune, sanctioned by the resolution NR XXV/22/05 of the Banie commune council of April 20, 2005. The undertaking is in line with the valid spatial development plans of the Banie commune: resolutions from 2005; XXVI/224/05, XXVI/225/05, XXVI/226/05, XXVI/227/05, XXVI/228/05, XXVI/229/05 and XXVI/230/05 and amending resolutions from 2014; XXX/275/2014, XXX/276/2014, XXX/277/2014, XXX/278/2014, XXX/279/2014, XXX/280/2014 and XXX/281/2014. 3. Subject, scope and aim of the study The purpose of this study is to analyze the environmental impact of the updated project involving the construction of 34 wind power plants with changed parameters, towers height and rotor blades length, with particular emphasis on the impact on the avifauna. 5 This analysis concerns the initially planned construction of the “Banie Wind Power Plant Complex” consisting of 46 wind power plants with a total capacity of up to 115 MW, along with the necessary technical infrastructure, i.e. access roads, assembly yards, medium voltage power lines and fiber optic cable lines. The project is to be located in agricultural crop areas. On August 18, 2009, the Banie Commune Voyt issued a decision on environmental conditions of approval for the execution of a project consisting in the construction of the “Banie Wind Power Plant Complex” (GK7627/2/2008). The decision was based on the conducted proceedings for the environmental impact assessment of the project, as a result of the analysis of evidence constituting the study “Environmental impact assessment of design solutions for the construction of the Banie Wind Power Plant Complex" (Zyska et al. 2008), including nature monitoring from the years 2006-2007. The investor obtained building permits for the wind power plant complex in 2013 and obtained temporary building permits in 2014. Due to the passage of time, during which technological progress has been made in terms of increasing the efficiency and reliability of wind turbine operation and the withdrawal from production of older models of wind turbines, which were taken into account in the earlier environmental impact analysis, the investor decided to change the parameters of wind turbines, adapting the project to the current technological capabilities. Changes to the project include the number of wind power plants (reduction to 34 units), the height of the wind power plant tower, and the length of the rotor blade. The total capacity of the wind farm of up to 115 MW (according to the environmental decision of August 18, 2009) will be maintained. Location of the project, on plots in 10 geodesic precincts of the Banie commune: Babinek, Banie, Baniewice, Dłużyna, Kunowo, Lubanowo, Piaseczno, Sosnowo, Swobnica, Tywica (app. [missing appendix number in the original version – translator’s note]). Construction of wind turbines is planned on the following plots: - Banie 3 precinct, plots no. 835/1, 848/1, 848/2, 853/1, - Piaseczno precinct, plot no. 591/1, - Swobnica precinct, plots no: 174/2, 791/1, 810/1, 817/1, 822/1, 822/2, - Baniewice precinct, plots no: 409/3, 409/4, 417/2, 417/3, 435/1, - Lubanowo precinct, plots no: 88/7, 92/2, 95/1, 97/5, 216/2, 314/8, 314/6, 314/12, 330/2, 330/4, 330/6, - Sosnowo precinct, plots no: 23/2, 33/1, 42/1, 127/5, 127/7, 129/1, 132/3. The scope of the report includes issues contained in Article 66 of the Act of October 3, 2008 on the provision of information on the environment and its protection, public participation in environmental protection and environmental impact assessments (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 2081), with particular attention to the analysis of: - the impact of the change of parameters of wind turbines on the acoustic climate, - the impact of the change of parameters of wind turbines on avifauna, taking into account primarily the materials from pre-investment monitoring, - the option proposed by the applicant and the justification for the rational environmentally preferable option, - the anticipated actions aimed at avoiding, preventing and limiting negative impacts on the environment. 4. Description of the planned project 4.1. Terms of land use in the execution and operation phase Currently, the area of the proposed project is entirely occupied by agricultural land, 6 interspersed with field and communal roads. The area is monotonous in landscape with a small number of mid-field ponds that often dry out in the summer. No major concentrations of shrubs or mid-field trees. Small clusters of these are found along communal and field roads crossing the project area. During implementation, some agricultural crops will be taken out of agricultural production and used for assembly yards where the wind power plants will be built, and for access/service roads. The construction area of a single wind power plant with an assembly yard will be approximately 1200 m2. Access/service roads will have a minimum width of approximately 4.5 m. During operation, the assembly yards and access roads will be used to service the constructed wind power plants. 4.2. Features of the technological process Parameters of the foundation elements of the wind power plant towers and all the necessary accompanying technical infrastructure (assembly yards, access roads, cable lines, etc.) remain the same as in the earlier report and environmental decision (GK-7627/2/2008). Only the number, tower height, and rotor blade length are changed, which are the basis of the analysis in this paper. Two brand new wind power plant models were considered: Nordex N117 and Vestas V110. Prior output parameters of the wind power plants: - hub (tower) height – 100 m, - rotor diameter – 100 m, - total wind power plant height – 150 m. Wind power plant target parameters: - hub (tower) height – up to 120 m, - rotor diameter – up to 120 m, - total wind power plant height – up to 180 m, - increase in the total wind power plant height – 20%. A wind turbine is used to convert the kinetic energy of the blowing wind into electrical energy. The main components of a modern wind power plant are the rotor and nacelle located on the tower. The most important part of a wind power plant is the rotor, which converts wind energy into mechanical energy. It is mounted on a shaft through which the generator is driven. The rotor usually rotates at 7.8 to 14.8 rpm, while a typical asynchronous generator produces electricity at over 1,500 rpm. Therefore, it is necessary to use a gearbox in which the speed increase takes place. Some machines use a gearless mechanism consisting of a ring generator. The most common are tri-blade rotors, constructed of fiberglass reinforced with polyester. A servo motor is located in the rotor hub allowing the blade angle (pitch) to be set. The nacelle must be able to rotate 360 degrees so that it can always be positioned against the wind. Therefore, a motor is installed at the top of the tower to rotate it through a gear transmission. In low power plants, where the mass of the nacelle is relatively small, upwind positioning of the nacelle is provided by a directional rudder integrated into the nacelle. The operation of the blade setting and the power plant direction mechanism is managed by a microprocessor system on the basis of input data (e.g. wind speed and direction). In addition, the nacelle contains a transformer, bearings, lubrication systems, and a brake to stop the rotor in emergency situations. 7 Yaw system Brake Clutch Generator Hydraulic station Gearbox Blade pitch system Hub Anemometer Main shaft and bearing Source: Tomasz Boczar: Energetyka Wiatrowa Figure 1. Simplified schematic of a typical power industry wind power plant. Figure 2. Wind turbine components (V110). 4.3. Expected emissions from the operation of the planned project During the operation of the project, it is expected that mainly the following emissions will occur: noise. Other emissions: electromagnetic field, infrasound, and vibration will be largely suppressed by the wind power plant structure and screened by the external walls of the plant; therefore, their impact will not occur or will be negligible in the impact assessment. Noise emissions will result from the mechanical devices located in the nacelle and the swirling motion of the rotor blades. The measured sound intensity levels for each component of the 2.2 MW wind turbine are shown in the figure below. Key: Skrzynia przekładniowa – gearbox Wał wolnoobrotowy – low-speed shaft Wał szybkoobrotowy – high-speed shaft Łpaty wirnika – rotor blades Piasta – hub Serwomechanizm ustawienia łopat – blade pitch control Wiatromierz i chorągiewka kierunkowa – anemometer and wind vane Hamulec – brake Generator – generator Łożyska – bearings Wieża – tower Gondola – nacelle Serwomechanizm kierunkowania elektrowni – yaw control 8 Source: Tomasz Boczar – Energetyka Wiatrowa, Aktualne możliwości wykorzystania Figure 3. Noise generated by individual components of a wind turbine The noise level is related to the wind speed at which the power plant operates and is partially attenuated through isolation of the mechanical devices in the nacelle. The perception of noise levels is mainly influenced by aerodynamic noise propagating through space. The modern wind power plant structural components that will be used in this project have damping elements in the nacelles and towers. Hence, transmission of perceptible vibrations to the environment is not expected. The resulting electromagnetic fields occur at the nacelle, which contains mechanical equipment and a power generator. Due to their low value, their impact will be on the space immediately around the nacelle. At ground level, their impact will not be felt. Infrasound generated during the operation of the wind power plant will be partially attenuated by the structure itself. Only a portion of the emission will propagate through space, undergoing rapid attenuation in space. 5. Methodology used for the study The text of the study consists of a general and analytical section. The following forecasting methods were used in developing the report: - determination of the state of the environment on the basis of field observations (nature monitoring), - mathematical modeling (acoustic analysis), - cartographic analysis in the field and based on archival and contemporary maps, - selection of studies and results of research work on particular issues occurring in the project area, - publicly available materials from the Commune, the Ministry of Environment (www.mos.gov.pl) and others, - published and unpublished naturalist data, - supplemental field surveys. The applicable values of permissible noise levels in the environment result from the provisions of the ordinance of the Minister of Environment of June 14, 2007 on permissible noise levels in the environment [consolidated text Journal of Laws of 2014 item 112]. The limit values contained in the Key: Skrzynia biegów – gearbox Obracające się skrzydła – rotating blades Piasta – hub Generator – generator Urządzenia dodatkowe – auxiliaries Napływający wiatr – wind direction Wiatr aktywuje wirnik (A) i skrzydła (B) – wind activates the rotor (A) and blades (B) Wirnik obraca głównym wałem (C) i skrzynią biegów (D), które napędzają generator produkujący prąd – The rotor drives the main shaft (C) and the gearbox (D), which drive the power generator Łopaty – blades Wieża – tower 9 aforementioned regulation are shown in the table below. Permissible environmental noise levels caused by specific groups of noise sources, excluding noise generated by power lines and by take-offs, landings and flights of aircraft No. Terrain type Acceptable levels of noise in [dB] Roads or railways1) Other facilities and activities being the source of noise LAeq D referenc e time interval of 16 hours LAeq N referenc e time interval of 8 hours LAeq D reference time interval of the 8 least favorable consecutive hours of a day LAeq N referenc e time interval of the 1 least favorabl e hour of the night 1 a) Protected zone “A” of the health resort b) Hospital areas outside the city 50 45 45 40 2 a) Areas of single-family residential development b) Areas of development connected to permanent or temporary stay of children and youth2) c) Areas of nursing homes d) Areas of hospitals in cities 55 50 50 40 3 a) Areas of multi-family residential development and collective residence b) Farm building areas c) Recreational areas2) d) Residential and service areas 60 50 55 45 4 Areas in the city-center zone of cities above 100 thousand inhabitants3) 65 55 55 45 Day 6:00am–10:00pm Night 10:00pm–6:00am Based on the data, the areas around the wind turbines can be classified into several groups: 1) Agricultural areas – no acoustic protection 2) Areas of farm development, areas of multi-family residential development and collective residence  LAeqD – equivalent sound level for the daytime – 55 dB  LAeqN – equivalent sound level for the nighttime – 45 dB 16  Act dated October 3, 2008 on making available of information on environment and its protection, public participation in environmental protection and environmental impact assessments (Journal of Laws No. 199, item 1227, as amended),  Act dated August 18, 2011 amending the act on nature conservation (Journal of Laws No. 224 item 1337 as amended). 6. Description of the natural environment elements covered by the scope of the foreseen impact of the planned project 6.1. Location of the project area The project area is located in the Banie commune, in the south of the Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship, between the villages: Lubanowo, Sosnowo, Kunowo, Banie, Baniewice, Swobnica and Piaseczno (Fig. 3). The work area is divided into 4 elementary areas (patches) A-D (fig. 4). Figure 3. Location of the planned wind power plants in the Banie commune. Elementary area A – located near the Lubanowo locality. Most of the area is occupied by farmland, interspersed with communal and field roads. Some of the roads have lines of roadside trees. Area with a small number of mid-field ponds, some partially drained. One larger reservoir is located near the village of Lubanowo. Wind turbine Legend 17 Figure 4a. Physiography of elementary area A. Elementary area B – it extends southward from the village of Sosnowo to the village of Banie. One of the largest by area. Virtually all of the land is farmland, with a few field roads and sparsely developed rows of roadside trees. A small number of mid-field ponds. A system of kettle ponds stretches near the western boundary. The area is of a monoculture agricultural nature. 18 Figure 4b. Physiography of elementary area B. Elementary area C – it extends from the village of Baniewice to Swobnica. In the southern part it is surrounded by forest complexes. Interspersed with dirt roads with well-developed rows of tree canopies. There are a large number of mid-field ponds and a varied surface area. The terrain is slightly undulating. Most of the area is occupied by agricultural land. 19 Figure 4c. Physiography of elementary area C. Elementary area D – it is the smallest area. It is an agricultural monoculture overall with a predominance of cereals. It lacks mid-field ponds. It neighbors the district road from Banie to Piaseczno with a developed line of tree canopies. The terrain is almost flat, with a slight elevation. 20 Figure 4d. Physiography of elementary area D. 6.2. Abiotic elements According to the physicogeographical classification, the project is located at the junction of two mesoregions: 31. Province – Great European Plain, 313. Subprovince – South Baltic Coast 314–316. Subprovince – South Baltic Lake District, 313.2–3. Macroregion – Pobrzeże Szczecińskie, 314.4. Macroregion – West Pomeranian Lake District, 313.28. Mesoregion – Wełtyń Plain 314.41. Mesoregion – Myślibórz Lake District. Wełtyń Plain. An undulating moraine plateau, between the Wzgórza Bukowe in the north and the Myślibórz Lake District in the south. There are 35 small lakes, of which only 10 are larger than 10 ha. Its elevation varies between 50 and 70 m above sea level. Agricultural region. More significant patches of forest occur in the southwestern part (Kondracki 2001). Myślibórz Lake District. It presents a complex of glacial forms connected with the southernmost reach of the Pomeranian phase of the Vistulian glaciation. It covers an area of approx. 1810 km2. Only in few places moraine 21 hills exceed 100 m above sea level, with relative heights of 20 to 40 m. Many small lakes, 200 of which are larger than 1 ha. The largest is the Myslibórz Lake with an area of approx. 6 km2. The most extensive forests occur in the western part of the region (Kondracki 2001). 6.2.1. Geomorphology The area of the Banie commune, including the area of the plan, lies entirely within the West European Paleozoic platform which formed at the end of the Carboniferous period. The foundation of this platform is corrugated sedimentary rocks formed during the Paleozoic era. The modern landscape of the commune area began to form during the Quaternary period. The Quaternary surface is characterized by a varied relief. Its genesis is related to erosion and denudation processes that lasted throughout the Tertiary and part of the Quaternary period. Finally, the existing relief of the area was shaped during the North Polish Glaciation, especially in its last Pomeranian phase and the period of receding glacier. Transgression occurred during this period, which was marked by the accumulation of fluvio-glacial sands and gravels. The municipality is dominated by early post-glacial landscape characteristic for the ground moraine uplands. A significant part of the area is occupied by sand plains and ground moraine uplands. The area is mostly open, slightly hilly with few rises. Most of the area is farmland with small mid-field ponds. There are also forest complexes and lakes of various sizes, concentrated in the Tywa valley. It is a part of a ground moraine upland, slightly undulating. The area under study is mainly agricultural land with dominance of cereal monocultures. A small part of the area is located in the vicinity of the Tywa valley. The Tywa is a right tributary of the Oder. 6.2.2. Soils The soils of the Banie commune are inseparably connected with its geological structure. Soils in the area of the commune, similarly to the soil cover of Western Pomerania, are relatively young formations. The parent rocks of the soils in this area are Quaternary formations of glacial and fluvioglacial genesis of Pleistocene age and formations connected with later (Holocene), still continuing, processes of accumulation of organic and river sediments. These include sands and sands with gravels, tills, river silts and sands, and peats. They are dominated by tills and sands and gravels of various origin, which have developed mainly rusty podzolic soils and grey-brown podzolic soils. They are mostly included in quality classes III and IV, which constitute the majority of soils in the study area. There are few soils of classes V and VI. On the other hand, silts, river sands and peats are mainly found in the Tywa valley. 6.2.3. Hydrology The area of location of the WPP and accompanying infrastructure is devoid of major watercourses and water reservoirs. There are few remnants of a drainage system. Mid-field ponds of varying size occur in the vicinity of the WPP site. Mid-field ponds have a variably developed littoral zone. Some of them get dried up or desiccated during the summer. The project area is located outside the boundaries of major groundwater reservoirs. The area is located in the Odra river basin, in the Lower Odra and West Coast water region. The Tywa, a tributary of the Oder River, flows through the middle of the study area. And in its valley there are flow-through lakes of various sizes. The largest of these are the Długie Lake and the Dłużec Lake. The proposed project lies within the boundaries of two uniform groundwater bodies: 23 and 24. Most of the area can be found in the Groundwater Bodies Information Sheet 23. The project site is located within 3 uniform river surface water bodies: - Tywa from the source to the tributary from Tywica RW600025193275, 22 - Tributary from Tywica RW600016193276, - Tywa from the tributary from Tywica to the mouth RW600016193299. It should be noted that, as in previous years, a large proportion of mid-field ponds showed a tendency for water levels to drop or dry up during the summer. This has resulted in the reduction or disappearance of wetland and water table habitats suitable for amphibians and wetland bird species. Partial drying up or desiccation of ponds, wetlands, and ditches resulted in a reduction of favorable foraging habitats, primarily for birds and bats. 6.2.4 Landscape Natural Landscape. The landscape of this area was shaped by the impact of the last glaciation, and then, after it receded, by erosive processes and plant activity. The part of the commune covered by this study is varied in terms of terrain relief, which in geomorphological terms is a slightly undulating surface of moraine upland (ground moraine), rising at heights from about 43 to over 100 m above sea level. The terrain in the central part slopes gently towards the Tywa valley, which flows through the central part of the WPP site area in the direction from south to north. In the Tywa valley there is a complex of flow-through reservoirs, the largest of which are: the Długie and Dłużec lakes. The landscape of the study area is complemented by small mid-field ponds, often of an astatic nature, with a shore zone overgrown to various degrees with clusters of shrubs and trees. An important component of the landscape composition are clusters of shrubs and trees around the surrounding localities and rows of trees located along district and commune roads. An important element of the natural landscape are the forest complexes surrounding the project area and centrally located around the Długie Lake. Anthropogenic landscape In the Banie commune there are no large industrial plants having significant impact on the environment. There are no industrial plants in the area covered by this paper or areas immediately adjacent to it. The planned development is located entirely in an agricultural landscape. Virtually the entire area of the wind turbines’ location and accompanying infrastructure is covered by agricultural land. The agrarian structure is dominated by arable land, with a small area of wasteland. The main elements of anthropization of the wind turbine location area are: - villages located around the area covered by this paper: Banie, Lubanowo, Sosnowo, Parnica, Tywica, Baniewice, Piaseczno and Swobnica, - a system of district, communal and dirt roads connecting individual villages and providing access to fields, - high-, mediumand low-voltage power lines. An important element of the anthropogenic landscape are cell towers or religious buildings located outside the area covered by this paper. Villages around the investment area are mainly developed in the form of the so-called linear settlements, in which buildings are arranged along the road. Sources of noise Human activities emit noise into the surrounding environment. There are no industrial plants in the area of the project that are noise nuisance objects. The main sources of noise are: - vehicle traffic on surrounding poviat, communal and dirt roads, - high-voltage power line, - field work using heavy agricultural equipment (up to 80 dB). 23 6.2.5. Climate The study area is located in climate region R-VI — West Pomeranian climate region. The specific feature of the region is the relatively frequent occurrence of days with moderately cold weather with frost, low cloudiness and no precipitation, type 600 weather, and rare occurrence of days with moderately cold weather with frost, cloudiness and precipitation, type 601 weather. The least frequent in the region are days of moderately cold weather with precipitation, there are only 10 such days on average per year, and few days of moderately frosty weather with precipitation — approx. 7 days on average per year (Woś 1999). In terms of climate, it belongs to the Baltic District, the Myśliborski Lakes Region (Prawdzic). It encompasses an area with considerable topographic variation, and as a result, there is quite a bit of variation in local climatic conditions. There is a significant range of average annual temperatures, ranging from -7.0 to 8.0 °C. Precipitation ranges from 500 to 600 mm per year. The length of the vegetation period averages between 215 and 224 days. The number of days with snow cover varies from 28 to 50. 6.3. Biotic components The area in which the wind turbines are located consists mainly of agricultural monocultures of cereals and rapeseed. They form a weak anthropogenic ecosystem. It is of low physiographic diversity, with a small number of microhabitats. The biodiversity in the area is low. 6.3.1. Vegetation The vegetation of the area intended for the location of wind turbines and associated infrastructure is poor and of low diversity. Virtually the entire area is occupied by agricultural lands, dominated by cereals and rapeseed. Crops are accompanied to a small extent by segetal species, which form a group of weeds on the agricultural lands. These are mainly: melde (Chenopodium album), forking larkspur (Consolida regalis), cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa pastoris), chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla), common knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare), field pansy (Viola arvensis). Along the field roads, the following additional species occurred: scarlet pimpernel (Anagalis arvensis), chickweed (Stellaria media), common bent (Agrostis capillaris), common meadow-grass (Poa pratensis), and common cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata). The project area is practically devoid of mid-field shrub or tree buffers. Small concentrations of them can be found near mid-field reservoirs and along communal and dirt roads, located in the vicinity of the project. Only anthropogenic habitats of agricultural crops are present in the vegetation. The flora is dominated by cereal species and rapeseed, with a small admixture of ruderal plant species. None of the following were found in the project area: - sites of species protected by law, - habitats protected by law, - species or habitats of Community interest (Habitats Directive). 6.3.2. Fauna in the last year of observation — 2018. The animal species found during the field work in 2018 that may be affected by the proposed project are presented in the tables in the following section. During the work 111 animal species were found and analyzed, including 105 birds and 6 bats. Species that may be directly or indirectly affected by wind farm during migration were used to determine the impact of the wind turbines on migration. Animal species from other systematic groups were also observed to detect species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive, but were not found in the wind turbine location area. 24 90 84 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 58 63 34 Birds. The area of the planned “Banie” wind farm is characterized by a dominant landscape of agrocenosis. It is formed by a complex of arable land, sown with cereals and rapeseed. Small areas are occupied by grasslands and wastelands, e.g. in the form of fallows, hollows and mid-field ponds. Most of the area is devoid of forest lands, but elementary areas B and C are adjacent to forest complexes near the villages: Sosnowo and Swobnica. The surveyed area is interspersed with poviat, communal and dirt roads that delimit the area into smaller units. A small number of roads, running adjacent to the boundary of the wind farm site, feature developed rows of roadside tree buffers. The dirt roads crossing the wind farm site are devoid of shrub and tree buffers. The landscape in the vicinity is complemented by numerous clusters of shrub and tree buffers in fields and around villages. The sparsely diverse agricultural landscape of the wind farm location provides few ecological niches that are used by birds. Some species were observed in the vicinity of tree buffers and water bodies located at the edge of the wind farm site. A total of 105 bird species were found in the monitored area. Abundance of the taxa varied with the phenological period. The lowest occurred during the winter, the highest during the breeding season and breeding dispersal. Figure 5. Taxa abundance by phenological season. Some of the species, despite residing in adjacent areas, flew into the surveyed area to feed or rest during migration. Three main groups of birds can be distinguished: those preferring open fields and mid-field tree buffers, species associated with waters and wetlands, and those preferring forest complexes and their ecotones. The species composition was distinguished by the proportion of 3 groups of birds: those associated with agricultural lands, aquatic environments and forests. This was due to the presence in the monitored area and its immediate vicinity of: agricultural monocultures, small lakes and mid-field ponds, and extensive forest complexes. The following tables list the bird species observed in the monitored area. The altitude of flight and the importance of the site for birds are specified further in this paper. Table 1 below lists all bird species observed in the monitored area. Table 1. List of bird species found in the monitored area. No. English name Latin name Protection status BD RDBoA RLTS Presence Presence status A B C D winter spring migrations breeding and dispersal period fall migrations 25 1 Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus PS + + IB, OB 2 Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo PPS + + IB, OB 3 Eurasian bittern Botaurus stellaris PS + LC LC B 4 Grey heron Ardea cinerea PPS + + + IB, OB 5 White stork Ciconia ciconia PS + + + IB 6 Mute swan Cygnus olor PS + + IB, OF 7 Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus PS + + + OF 8 Bean goose Anser fabalis GS + + + + OB, OF 9 Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons GS OB, OF 10 Greylag goose Anser anser GS + + + OB, OF 11 Gadwall Anas strepera PS + OB 12 Eurasian teal Anas crecca GS + IB 13 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos GS + + + IB, OF 14 Common pochard Aythya ferina GS IB 15 Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula PS + IB, OB 16 Red kite Milvus milvus PS + NT NT + + + IB, OF 17 White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla PS + LC LC + + IB, OF 18 Western marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus PS + + + + + IB, OF 19 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus PS + VU VU + OB 20 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis PS + + + IB, OF 21 Eurasian sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus PS + + IB, OF 22 Common buzzard Buteo buteo PS + + + + IB, OF 23 Rough-legged buzzard Buteo lagopus PS + + + + OF 24 Common kestrel Falco tinnunculus PS + + + + IB, OF 25 Eurasian hobby Falco subbuteo PS + + IB 26 Grey partridge Perdix perdix GS + + + + IB, OF 27 Common pheasant Phasianus colchicus GS + + + + IB, OF 28 Eurasian coot Fulica atra GS + + IB 29 Common crane Grus grus PS + + + + + IB, OF 30 Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius PS + + IB 31 European golden plover Pluvialis apricaria PS + EXP EX + + OB 32 Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus PS + + + + IB,OF 33 Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata PS VU VU + OF 34 Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus PS IB, OB 35 Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus PS + + + + IB, OB 36 Common gull Larus canus PS OB 37 European herring gull Larus argentatus PPS + + IB, OB 38 Common wood pigeon Columba palumbus GS + + + + IB, OB 39 Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto PS + + + IB, OB 40 Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus PS + + + + IB 41 Barn owl Tyto alba PS + IB 42 Tawny owl Strix aluco PS + IB 43 Common swift Apus apus PS + + + IB, OB 44 European green woodpecker Picus viridis PS IB, OB 45 Black woodpecker Dryocopus martius PS + + IB 46 Great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major PS + + IB, OB 47 Lesser spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos minor PS + IB, OB 32 5.8% 3.2% 0.5% 39.9% 50.6% passerines anseriformes charadriiformes accipitriformes other When considering the entire monitored area, it can be seen that the eudominant species were: passerines (50.6%), and anseriformes (39.9%). The remaining taxa were characterized by low or minor percentage share (Fig. 6). Figure 6. Percentages of individual taxa for the entire monitored area. The data collected indicate that the monitored area is not of importance for birds during the winter, especially for species migrating over long-distances that appeared in small flocks. However, when considering the abundance of individual species, it should be noted that it was small compared to the Baltic coast, Miedwie Lake, Dąbie Lake or the Odra River Valley. Based on the data collected, it can be predicted that the monitored area did not represent a significant habitat for birds especially the species migrating over long-distances or the accipitriformes during the analyzed period. Spring migration period. The period of bird migration, spring migration in particular, is one of the most interesting processes occurring in nature. It is related to a change in location as a result of improved weather conditions, and thus the ability to find food and to raise offspring. This is why the birds undertake return migrations from warmer wintering areas to Poland, heading mainly east and north-northeast. Most birds, including many domestic birds, are migratory. The best known example of this phenomenon is the migration of the white stork. It takes place via two routes from Africa. Through the Bosphorus or the Strait of Gibraltar. The flyway is determined by the breeding site. Polish storks migrate mainly from Africa via the Bosphorus. Once the adverse winter conditions are over, a massive return migration to former breeding grounds occurs. A large proportion of the birds return to their regions in which they were born, some stay in other convenient habitats. Spring migration is shorter than fall migration and occurs over a shorter period. It is also related to the desire to occupy the best possible breeding grounds and nesting sites, which forces the birds to return quickly. Some birds, e.g. accipitriformes, arrive as early as the end of winter, in February and early March. Then, as weather conditions improve, the other species arrive as well. Some nomadic species, both sedentary individuals and early examples of migrating species, can also be observed during this period. It should be noted that some native species stay in the country for winter or only migrate over short distances. Thus, the species composition from this phenological period is a mix of spring migrants and locally wintering birds. Table 6. Inventory of species found. No. English name Latin name Protection status BD RDBoA RLTS Presence A B C D 1 Great cormorant Phalacrocorax PPS + + + 33 carbo 2 Grey heron Ardea cinerea PPS + + + 3 Mute swan Cygnus olor PS + + + 4 Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus PS + + + 5 Bean goose Anser fabalis GS + + + + 6 Greylag goose Anser anser GS + + + + 7 Eurasian teal Anas crecca GS + + 8 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos GS + + + + 9 Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula PS + + 10 White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla PS + LC LC + + + 11 Western marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus PS + + + + + 12 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus PS + VU VU + + 13 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis PS + + + 14 Eurasian sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus PS + 15 Common buzzard Buteo buteo PS + + + + 16 Grey partridge Perdix perdix GS + + 17 Common pheasant Phasianus colchicus GS + 18 Eurasian coot Fulica atra GS + + 19 Common crane Grus grus PS + + + + + 20 Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius PS + 21 Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus PS + + + + 22 Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus PS + + 23 Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus PS + + + + 24 European herring gull Larus argentatus PPS + + 25 Common wood pigeon Columba palumbus GS + + + + 26 Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto PS + + + 27 Tawny owl Strix aluco PS + + 28 European green woodpecker Picus viridis PS + + 29 Great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major PS + 30 Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis PS + + + + 31 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica PS + + 32 Western yellow wagtail Motacilla flava PS + + 33 European robin Erithacus rubecula PS + + 34 Black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros PS + + 35 Common blackbird Turdus merula PS + 36 Fieldfare Turdus pilaris PS + + + + 37 Common whitethroat Sylvia communis PS + + + 38 Garden warbler Sylvia borin PS + 39 Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus PS + + + 34 40 Marsh tit Poecile palustris PS + 41 Great tit Parus major PS + + + + 42 Eurasian blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus PS + + + 43 Eurasian nuthatch Sitta europaea PS + + + 44 Short-toed treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla PS + + + 45 Great grey shrike Lanius excubitor PS + + 46 Eurasian jay Garrulus glandarius PS + + 47 Eurasian magpie Pica pica PPS + + + + 48 Hooded crow Corvus cornix PPS + + + + 49 Common raven Corvus corax PPS + + + + 50 Common starling Sturnus vulgaris PS + + + + 51 House sparrow Passer domesticus PS + + + + 52 Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus PS + + + + 53 Common chaffinch Fringilla coelebs PS + + + + 54 European greenfinch Carduelis chloris PS + + + + 55 European goldfinch Carduelis carduelis PS + + + + 56 Common linnet Carduelis cannabina PS + + + 57 Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella PS + + + + 58 Corn bunting Emberiza calandra PS + + + + Legend: as in Tab. 1. 58 species were found in the monitored area (Tab. 6). Most were common and cosmopolitan species associated with arable land and forest habitats. However, wetland species such as swans, geese, ducks, and grey herons were also found. However, birds associated with aquatic environments were in the minority. 58 species were recorded, including: 45 species strictly protected by law, 5 species under partial protection, 8 game species (Tab. 6), 5 species of Community interest — the Birds Directive. Table 7. Species abundance (N) on transects in the monitored area. No. English name N N/km of transect A B C D ΣN A B C D 1 Great cormorant 1 0 1 0 2 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 2 Grey heron 1 2 1 0 4 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.00 3 Mute swan 12 5 4 0 21 0.50 0.21 0.17 0.00 4 Whooper swan 14 24 0 0 38 0.58 1.00 0.00 0.00 5 Bean goose 62 121 8 14 205 2.58 5.04 0.33 0.58 6 Greylag goose 0 36 14 0 50 0.00 1.50 0.58 0.00 7 Eurasian teal 0 1 2 0 3 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.00 8 Mallard 28 64 29 4 125 1.17 2.67 1.21 0.17 9 Common goldeneye 0 0 2 0 2 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 35 10 White-tailed eagle 3 2 6 1 12 0.13 0.08 0.25 0.04 11 Western marsh harrier 2 4 3 1 10 0.08 0.17 0.13 0.04 12 Hen harrier 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 13 Northern goshawk 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 14 Eurasian sparrowhawk 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 15 Common buzzard 3 2 2 1 8 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.04 16 Grey partridge 0 2 1 0 3 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.00 17 Common pheasant 1 0 0 0 1 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 Eurasian coot 0 2 1 0 3 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.00 19 Common crane 12 62 36 6 116 0.50 2.58 1.50 0.25 20 Little ringed plover 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 21 Northern lapwing 122 266 68 74 530 5.08 11.08 2.83 3.08 22 Green sandpiper 1 0 2 0 3 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.00 23 Black-headed gull 12 6 4 0 22 0.50 0.25 0.17 0.00 24 European herring gull 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 25 Common wood pigeon 12 26 16 6 60 0.50 1.08 0.67 0.25 26 Eurasian collared dove 1 4 2 6 13 0.04 0.17 0.08 0.25 27 Tawny owl 1 0 1 0 2 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 28 European green woodpecker 0 0 1 1 2 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 29 Great spotted woodpecker 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 30 Eurasian skylark 8 36 15 4 63 0.33 1.50 0.63 0.17 31 Barn swallow 1 0 0 0 1 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 Western yellow wagtail 1 0 1 0 2 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 33 European robin 1 1 0 0 2 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 34 Black redstart 1 0 1 0 2 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 35 Common blackbird 2 0 0 0 2 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 36 Fieldfare 17 31 2 8 58 0.71 1.29 0.08 0.33 37 Common whitethroat 1 1 1 0 3 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 38 Garden warbler 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 39 Willow warbler 1 1 1 0 3 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 40 Marsh tit 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 41 Great tit 22 18 24 3 67 0.92 0.75 1.00 0.13 42 Eurasian blue tit 8 1 2 0 11 0.33 0.04 0.08 0.00 43 Eurasian nuthatch 1 4 1 0 6 0.04 0.17 0.04 0.00 44 Short-toed treecreeper 8 36 2 0 46 0.33 1.50 0.08 0.00 45 Great grey shrike 1 1 0 0 2 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 46 Eurasian jay 1 1 0 0 2 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 47 Eurasian magpie 4 7 6 2 19 0.17 0.29 0.25 0.08 48 Hooded crow 6 8 3 2 19 0.25 0.33 0.13 0.08 49 Common raven 4 14 11 3 32 0.17 0.58 0.46 0.13 50 Common starling 14 22 28 1 65 0.58 0.92 1.17 0.04 51 House sparrow 12 18 4 2 36 0.50 0.75 0.17 0.08 52 Eurasian tree sparrow 6 11 8 0 25 0.25 0.46 0.33 0.00 53 Common chaffinch 14 21 8 2 45 0.58 0.88 0.33 0.08 54 European greenfinch 23 14 29 6 72 0.96 0.58 1.21 0.25 55 European goldfinch 41 11 8 2 62 1.71 0.46 0.33 0.08 56 Common linnet 16 2 8 0 26 0.67 0.08 0.33 0.00 57 Yellowhammer 6 3 4 2 15 0.25 0.13 0.17 0.08 58 Corn bunting 14 66 18 6 104 0.58 2.75 0.75 0.25 36 59 NI 16 68 11 14 109 0.67 2.83 0.46 0.58 A total of 2145 individual birds were recorded. Northern lapwings were the most numerous (530 individuals). Bean geese (205 individuals), mallards (125 individuals) and common cranes (116 individuals) were also abundant. Other species appeared in numbers ranging from 1 to 104 individuals. (Tab. 7). Table 8. Species abundance at specific points in the monitored area. No. English name N N/h of observation A B C D ΣN A B C D 1 Great cormorant 1 1 1 0 3 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 2 Grey heron 0 1 2 0 3 0.00 0.17 0.33 0.00 3 Mute swan 8 6 6 0 20 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.00 4 Whooper swan 6 4 0 0 10 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 5 Bean goose 84 218 67 104 473 14.00 36.33 11.17 #### 6 Greylag goose 8 28 22 14 72 1.33 4.67 3.67 2.33 7 Eurasian teal 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 8 Mallard 14 22 36 2 74 2.33 3.67 6.00 0.33 9 Common goldeneye 1 0 2 0 3 0.17 0.00 0.33 0.00 10 White-tailed eagle 2 1 8 1 12 0.33 0.17 1.33 0.17 11 Western marsh harrier 2 2 3 1 8 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.17 12 Hen harrier 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 13 Northern goshawk 1 1 1 0 3 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 14 Common buzzard 1 2 1 1 5 0.17 0.33 0.17 0.17 15 Eurasian coot 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 16 Common crane 8 48 16 14 86 1.33 8.00 2.67 2.33 17 Northern lapwing 82 504 180 36 802 13.67 84.00 30.00 6.00 18 Black-headed gull 5 6 2 1 14 0.83 1.00 0.33 0.17 19 European herring gull 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 20 Common wood pigeon 9 18 14 11 52 1.50 3.00 2.33 1.83 21 Eurasian collared dove 2 3 1 1 7 0.33 0.50 0.17 0.17 22 European green woodpecker 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 23 Eurasian skylark 6 23 18 6 53 1.00 3.83 3.00 1.00 24 Barn swallow 2 1 0 0 3 0.33 0.17 0.00 0.00 25 European robin 1 0 0 0 1 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 26 Fieldfare 4 6 0 1 11 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.17 27 Marsh tit 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 28 Great tit 13 10 16 1 40 2.17 1.67 2.67 0.17 29 Eurasian blue tit 1 0 2 0 3 0.17 0.00 0.33 0.00 30 Short-toed treecreeper 1 14 2 0 17 0.17 2.33 0.33 0.00 31 Eurasian jay 1 0 0 0 1 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 Eurasian magpie 5 6 8 1 20 0.83 1.00 1.33 0.17 33 Hooded crow 11 6 6 2 25 1.83 1.00 1.00 0.33 34 Common raven 6 8 8 3 25 1.00 1.33 1.33 0.50 35 Common starling 12 41 21 8 82 2.00 6.83 3.50 1.33 36 House sparrow 18 7 4 6 35 3.00 1.17 0.67 1.00 37 Eurasian tree sparrow 6 8 4 4 22 1.00 1.33 0.67 0.67 38 Common chaffinch 6 2 0 1 9 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.17 39 European greenfinch 8 24 14 2 48 1.33 4.00 2.33 0.33 40 European goldfinch 21 16 2 0 39 3.50 2.67 0.33 0.00 37 41 Common linnet 4 0 1 0 5 0.67 0.00 0.17 0.00 42 Yellowhammer 2 1 1 1 5 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.17 43 Corn bunting 47 82 11 8 148 7.83 13.67 1.83 1.33 44 NI 11 84 41 14 150 1.83 14.00 6.83 2.33 A total of 2395 individual birds were recorded. The points were dominated by northern lapwings (802 individuals) and bean geese (473 individuals). Other taxa appeared in numbers ranging from 1 to 148 individuals (Tab. 8). Some of the first birds to appear were geese, swans, buzzards, common cranes and northern lapwings, which began to appear as early as late February and early March. This was due to increasing daytime temperatures above zero and nighttime temperatures remaining near freezing. They were followed by other species, with an increasing proportion of passerines. Other species appeared gradually, with increased flights occurring in late March to mid-April. In general, it can be concluded that flights during the migration period took place, as in previous years, mainly around the borders of the wind power plant foundation areas. The area of fields was used by birds to a small extent. The birds were moving along forest complexes, ponds of the Tywa River Valley and rows of trees. Observations indicate that the area of the proposed wind farm was not a particularly important place for migrating birds. The number of flying birds was lower than e.g. in the Oder River Valley or Warta River Valley. The table below shows the percentage share of each bird species, thus the dominance structure in each elementary area. The eudominant species were: northern lapwings and geese (A, B); northern lapwings (C, D) (Tab. 9). Most of the species shown belonged to subdominant and recendent species. Table 9. Dominance structure (D) of species in elementary areas No. English name A English name B English name C English name D 1 Northern lapwing 23.4 Northern lapwing 27.6 Northern lapwing 17.3 Northern lapwing 47.1 2 Bean goose 11.9 Bean goose 12.6 Common crane 9.1 Bean goose 8.9 3 European goldfinch 7.9 Corn bunting 6.9 Mallard 7.4 Fieldfare 5.1 4 Mallard 5.4 Mallard 6.6 European greenfinch 7.4 Common crane 3.8 5 European greenfinch 4.4 Common crane 6.4 Common starling 7.1 Common wood pigeon 3.8 6 Great tit 4.2 Greylag goose 3.7 Great tit 6.1 Eurasian collared dove 3.8 7 Fieldfare 3.3 Eurasian skylark 3.7 Corn bunting 4.6 European greenfinch 3.8 8 Common linnet 3.1 Short-toed treecreeper 3.7 Common wood pigeon 4.1 Corn bunting 3.8 9 Whooper swan 2.7 Fieldfare 3.2 Eurasian skylark 3.8 Mallard 2.5 10 Common starling 2.7 Common wood pigeon 2.7 Greylag goose 3.6 Eurasian skylark 2.5 11 Common chaffinch 2.7 Whooper swan 2.5 Common raven 2.8 Great tit 1.9 12 Corn bunting 2.7 Common starling 2.3 Bean goose 2.0 Common raven 1.9 13 Mute swan 2.3 Common chaffinch 2.2 Eurasian tree sparrow 2.0 Eurasian magpie 1.3 14 Common crane 2.3 Great tit 1.9 Common chaffinch 2.0 Hooded crow 1.3 15 Black-headed gull 2.3 House sparrow 1.9 European goldfinch 2.0 House sparrow 1.3 16 Common wood pigeon 2.3 Common raven 1.5 Common linnet 2.0 Common chaffinch 1.3 17 House sparrow 2.3 European greenfinch 1.5 White-tailed eagle 1.5 European goldfinch 1.3 18 Eurasian skylark 1.5 Eurasian tree sparrow 1.1 Eurasian magpie 1.5 Yellowhammer 1.3 38 19 Eurasian blue tit 1.5 European goldfinch 1.1 Mute swan 1.0 White-tailed eagle 0.6 20 Short-toed treecreeper 1.5 Hooded crow 0.8 Black-headed gull 1.0 Western marsh harrier 0.6 21 Hooded crow 1.1 Eurasian magpie 0.7 House sparrow 1.0 Common buzzard 0.6 22 Eurasian tree sparrow 1.1 Black-headed gull 0.6 Yellowhammer 1.0 European green woodpecker 0.6 23 Yellowhammer 1.1 Mute swan 0.5 Western marsh harrier 0.8 Common starling 0.6 24 Eurasian magpie 0.8 Western marsh harrier 0.4 Hooded crow 0.8 25 Common raven 0.8 Eurasian collared dove 0.4 Eurasian teal 0.5 26 White-tailed eagle 0.6 Eurasian nuthatch 0.4 Common goldeneye 0.5 27 Common buzzard 0.6 Yellowhammer 0.3 Common buzzard 0.5 28 Western marsh harrier 0.4 Grey heron 0.2 Green sandpiper 0.5 29 Common blackbird 0.4 White-tailed eagle 0.2 Eurasian collared dove 0.5 30 Great cormorant 0.2 Common buzzard 0.2 Fieldfare 0.5 31 Grey heron 0.2 Grey partridge 0.2 Eurasian blue tit 0.5 32 Common pheasant 0.2 Eurasian coot 0.2 Short-toed treecreeper 0.5 33 Green sandpiper 0.2 Common linnet 0.2 Great cormorant 0.3 34 Eurasian collared dove 0.2 Eurasian teal 0.1 Grey heron 0.3 35 Tawny owl 0.2 Hen harrier 0.1 Hen harrier 0.3 36 Barn swallow 0.2 Northern goshawk 0.1 Northern goshawk 0.3 37 Western yellow wagtail 0.2 Eurasian sparrowhawk 0.1 Grey partridge 0.3 38 European robin 0.2 Little ringed plover 0.1 Eurasian coot 0.3 39 Black redstart 0.2 European herring gull 0.1 European herring gull 0.3 40 Common whitethroat 0.2 European robin 0.1 Tawny owl 0.3 41 Willow warbler 0.2 Common whitethroat 0.1 European green woodpecker 0.3 42 Eurasian nuthatch 0.2 Garden warbler 0.1 Great spotted woodpecker 0.3 43 Great grey shrike 0.2 Willow warbler 0.1 Western yellow wagtail 0.3 44 Eurasian jay 0.2 Eurasian blue tit 0.1 Black redstart 0.3 45 Great grey shrike 0.1 Common whitethroat 0.3 46 Eurasian jay 0.1 Willow warbler 0.3 47 Marsh tit 0.3 48 Eurasian nuthatch 0.3 When considering the entire monitored area, it can be seen that the eudominant species were: charadriiformes (35%), passerines (32%) and anseriformes (26%). In total, they accounted for 93% of the total avifauna. The remaining taxa were characterized by minor percentage share (Fig. 7). 39 Figure 7. Percentages of individual taxa for the entire monitored area. Based on the collected data it can be predicted that the investment site is not attractive for migrating species, especially long-distance ones, and the investment should not significantly affect migratory birds on a regional and national scale. Breeding season and breeding dispersal period. During this period, species nesting in the monitoring area as well as moving from neighboring areas to feed or flying over the monitoring area to neighboring areas were observed. There were 84 species found, among which small birds, belonging to passerines, dominated. The most numerous were common species related to agricultural landscapes. The following species listed in the Directive are worth mentioning: Eurasian bittern, white stork, red kite, white-tailed eagle, western marsh harrier, common crane and red-backed shrike (these species are discussed in the following chapter). No nesting of key species, which would be directly affected by operating rotors, has been observed within the agroecosystems where the turbines are planned to be located. In the vicinity of EA-C, nesting sites of the following were found: Eurasian bittern, white stork, white-tailed eagle, western marsh harrier, red-backed shrike. Most of birds listed in the Directive, especially accipitriformes, were flying in the vicinity of the proposed location of the wind turbine, but the probability of collision situations is low due to the generally low altitude of flights, below the lower range of the rotor blades. To date, few collisions of accipitriformes have been reported in the national literature. There is also no information on white stork collisions with wind turbines. The same is true for the common crane and the other species found, there are no reports of their collisions in the national literature. Most of the species found were not breeding in the monitoring area, they were flying over or using it for feeding. Table 10. Inventory of species found. No. English name Latin name Protection status BD RDBoA RLTS Presence A B C D 1 Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus PS + + 2 Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo PPS + + 3 Eurasian bittern Botaurus stellaris PS + LC LC + 4 Grey heron Ardea cinerea PPS + + + 5 White stork Ciconia ciconia PS + + + 6 Mute swan Cygnus olor PS + + + + 7 Gadwall Anas strepera PS + 8 Eurasian teal Anas crecca GS + + 9 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos GS + + + + 10 Common pochard Aythya ferina GS + + + 11 Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula PS + + 12 Red kite Milvus milvus PS + NT NT + + + 13 White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla PS + LC LC + + + + 5% 1% 1% 26% 35% 32% charadriiformes passerines anseriformes gruiformes accipitriformes other 40 14 Western marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus PS + + + + + 15 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis PS + + + 16 Eurasian sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus PS + + 17 Common buzzard Buteo buteo PS + + + + 18 Common kestrel Falco tinnunculus PS + + 19 Eurasian hobby Falco subbuteo PS + 20 Grey partridge Perdix perdix GS + + + + 21 Common pheasant Phasianus colchicus GS + + 22 Eurasian coot Fulica atra GS + + 23 Common crane Grus grus PS + + + + + 24 Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius PS + + 25 Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus PS + + + + 26 Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus PS + 27 Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus PS + + + + 28 European herring gull Larus argentatus PPS + + + 29 Common wood pigeon Columba palumbus GS + + + + 30 Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto PS + + + + 31 Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus PS + + + + 32 Barn owl Tyto alba PS + + 33 Common swift Apus apus PS + + + 34 European green woodpecker Picus viridis PS + 35 Black woodpecker Dryocopus martius PS + + 36 Great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major PS + + 37 Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis PS + + + + 38 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica PS + + + + 39 Tree pipit Anthus trivialis PS + + 40 Western yellow wagtail Motacilla flava PS + + + + 41 White wagtail Motacilla alba PS + + + 42 Eurasian wren Troglodytes troglodytes PS + + 43 European robin Erithacus rubecula PS + + + + 44 Common nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos PS + + + 45 Common redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus PS + + 46 Whinchat Saxicola rubetra PS + + + 47 European stonechat Saxicola rubicola PS + 48 Northern wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe PS + 49 Common blackbird Turdus merula PS + + + 50 Fieldfare Turdus pilaris PS + + + + 51 Song thrush Turdus philomelos PS + + + 52 Mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus PS + + 53 River warbler Locustella fluviatilis PS + + 54 Marsh warbler Acrocephalus palustris PS + + 55 Great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus PS + + + 56 Lesser whitethroat Sylvia curruca PS + 57 Common whitethroat Sylvia communis PS + + + 58 Spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata PS + 41 59 Marsh tit Poecile palustris PS + + + 60 Great tit Parus major PS + + + + 61 Eurasian blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus PS + + + 62 Eurasian nuthatch Sitta europaea PS + 63 Eurasian treecreeper Certhia familiaris PS + 64 Short-toed treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla PS + + 65 Eurasian golden oriole Oriolus oriolus PS + 66 Red-backed shrike Lanius collurio PS + + + + 67 Great grey shrike Lanius excubitor PS + 68 Eurasian jay Garrulus glandarius PS + + + 69 Eurasian magpie Pica pica PPS + + + + 70 Western jackdaw Corvus monedula PS + 71 Rook Corvus frugilegus PPS + + + + 72 Hooded crow Corvus cornix PPS + + 73 Common raven Corvus corax PPS + + + + 74 Common starling Sturnus vulgaris PS + + + + 75 House sparrow Passer domesticus PS + + + 76 Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus PS + + + + 77 Common chaffinch Fringilla coelebs PS + + + + 78 European greenfinch Carduelis chloris PS + + + + 79 European goldfinch Carduelis carduelis PS + + + 80 Eurasian siskin Carduelis spinus PS + + 81 Common linnet Carduelis cannabina PS + + + + 82 Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella PS + + + + 83 Common reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus PS + + + 84 Corn bunting Emberiza calandra PS + + + + Legend: as in Tab. 1. 84 species were recorded, including: 70 species strictly protected by law, 7 species under partial protection, 7 game species (Tab. 10), 8 species of Community interest — the Birds Directive. Table 11. Species abundance (N) on transects in the monitored area. No. English name N N/km of transect A B C D ΣN A B C D 1 Great crested grebe 0 1 2 0 3 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 2 Great cormorant 1 1 0 0 2 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 3 Eurasian bittern 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 4 Grey heron 1 2 2 0 5 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.00 5 White stork 2 3 0 0 5 0.08 0.15 0.00 0.00 6 Mute swan 3 14 9 2 28 0.13 0.70 0.19 0.17 7 Gadwall 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 8 Eurasian teal 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 9 Mallard 19 64 24 3 110 0.79 3.20 0.50 0.25 10 Common pochard 1 6 4 0 11 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.00 11 Common goldeneye 0 1 5 0 6 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.00 12 Red kite 1 3 2 0 6 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.00 13 White-tailed eagle 2 3 14 1 20 0.08 0.15 0.29 0.08 14 Western marsh harrier 9 15 11 3 38 0.38 0.75 0.23 0.25 15 Northern goshawk 0 2 1 1 4 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.08 48 The results of the survey when compared to the rest of the country should be considered average, both in terms of species composition, abundance of individual species and distribution. During the key species census, the presence of 34 species from 9 taxa was found (Tab. 15): pelecaniformes, ciconiiformes, anseriformes, accipitriformes, gruiformes, charadriiformes, strigiformes, apodiformes, piciformes, passerines. Table 15. The presence of key species in the areas covered by the census. No. English name Latin name A B 1 Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo + + 2 Eurasian bittern Botaurus stellaris + + 3 Grey heron Ardea cinerea + + 4 White stork Ciconia ciconia + + 5 Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus + + 6 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos + 7 Red kite Milvus milvus + + 8 White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla + + 9 Western marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus + + 10 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus + + 11 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis + + 12 Eurasian sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus + + 13 Common buzzard Buteo buteo + + 14 Rough-legged buzzard Buteo lagopus + + 15 Common kestrel Falco tinnunculus + + 16 Eurasian hobby Falco subbuteo + + 17 Corncrake Crex crex + 18 Common crane Grus grus + + 19 Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius + + 20 European golden plover Pluvialis apricaria + + 21 Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus + 22 Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata + 23 Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus + + 24 Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus + + 25 Common gull Larus canus + + 26 European herring gull Larus argentatus + + 27 Barn owl Tyto alba + + 28 Tawny owl Strix aluco + + 29 Common swift Apus apus + 30 Black woodpecker Dryocopus martius + + 31 Red-backed shrike Lanius collurio P, POD 32 Rook Corvus frugilegus + + 33 Common raven Corvus corax + + 34 Corn bunting Emberiza calandra TE, POD Legend: P – a pair of birds in breeding habitat; TE – singing male; POD – birds with food for the young or droppings of the nestling. 49 In area A (wind farm area), 33 species were found, of which only 2 were classified as breeding species. Among these, only corn buntings nested in agricultural land where wind turbines are planned to be constructed. The red-backed shrike nested in the woodlands outside the location of wind turbines. In area B (outside the wind farm area), 31 species were found. Based on the collected data, it can be concluded that the area of the designed investment should not have a significant negative impact on breeding avifauna. Fall migration period. This phenological period, in addition to the breeding period, is the most important period to study the impact of power plants on avifauna. It is related to a change in location as a result of deteriorating weather conditions, and thus reducing the availability of food, the inability to raise offspring, and the need to search for sites suitable for surviving the winter period in breeding grounds. Hence the birds migrate to warmer regions of the globe, from Poland they head mainly west and south as well as south-west. Most birds, including many domestic birds, are migratory. The best known example of this phenomenon is the migration of the white stork. It takes place via two routes to Africa. Through the Bosphorus or the Strait of Gibraltar. The flyway is determined by the breeding site. Polish storks migrate to Africa via the Bosphorus. During fall migration, birds typically move in broad fronts. At the same time, migrations of most species are extended over time. Therefore they are less intense than spring migrations, but they last longer. This is caused, among others, by the lack of competition in occupying wintering grounds and the slowly decreasing availability of food. Birds have time to build up energy reserves for migration. During this period, flocks of nomadic birds, often reaching several thousand birds, and gatherings of long-distance species such as common cranes or storks, can be often observed. It is also an interesting period, because as some species fly away to warmer areas, species from colder regions of the globe, such as the Siberian tundra or northern Europe, come to us. There is a kind of species exchange, but it is limited to a few species, e.g., rough-legged buzzard, bean geese and some smaller passerine species. The tables below list the species observed, on transects and at observation points, during the fall migration period. The first small flights were observed as early as the end of August, when the first Northern lapwings appeared and when some small passerines like common starlings started to form larger flocks. Thereafter, flight intensity and flock size gradually increased, reaching a maximum in late September and mid-October. It then declined, and the last major flights were observed in late October. Single overflights were still observed in early November. Table 16. Inventory of species found. No. English name Latin name Protection status BD RDB oA RLTS Presence A B C D 1 Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus PS + + + 2 Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo PPS + + + 3 Grey heron Ardea cinerea PPS + + + 4 Mute swan Cygnus olor PS + + + + 5 Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus PS + + + + 6 Bean goose Anser fabalis GS + + + + 7 Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons GS + + 8 Greylag goose Anser anser GS + + 9 Eurasian teal Anas crecca GS + + + 10 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos GS + + + 11 Common pochard Aythya ferina GS + + 50 12 Red kite Milvus milvus PS + NT NT + + 13 White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla PS + LC LC + + + 14 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus PS + VU VU + 15 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis PS + + + 16 Eurasian sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus PS + + + 17 Common buzzard Buteo buteo PS + + + + 18 Rough-legged buzzard Buteo lagopus PS + + + 19 Common pheasant Phasianus colchicus GS + + 20 Common crane Grus grus PS + + + + + 21 European golden plover Pluvialis apricaria PS + EXP EX + + 22 Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus PS + + + + 23 Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata PS VU VU + + + 24 Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus PS + + + + 25 Common gull Larus canus PS + 26 European herring gull Larus argentatus PPS + + + 27 Common wood pigeon Columba palumbus GS + + + + 28 Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto PS + + + 29 European green woodpecker Picus viridis PS + + 30 Great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major PS + + + + 31 Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis PS + + + + 32 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica PS + + + 33 Tree pipit Anthus trivialis PS + + 34 Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis PS + 35 Western yellow wagtail Motacilla flava PS + + + + 36 White wagtail Motacilla alba PS + + + + 37 Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus PS + + + 38 European robin Erithacus rubecula PS + + 39 Fieldfare Turdus pilaris PS + + + + 40 Eurasian blackcap Sylvia atricapilla PS + 41 Marsh tit Poecile palustris PS + + + 42 Willow tit Poecile montanus PS + 43 Great tit Parus major PS + + + + 44 Eurasian blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus PS + + + + 45 Short-toed treecreeper Certhia brachydactyla PS + + + 46 Eurasian golden oriole Oriolus oriolus PS + 47 Great grey shrike Lanius excubitor PS + + + 48 Eurasian jay Garrulus glandarius PS + + + 49 Eurasian magpie Pica pica PPS + + + + 50 Hooded crow Corvus cornix PPS + + + + 51 Common raven Corvus corax PPS + + + + 52 Common starling Sturnus vulgaris PS + + + + 53 House sparrow Passer domesticus PS + + + 54 Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus PS + + + + 55 Common chaffinch Fringilla coelebs PS + + + + 56 European greenfinch Carduelis chloris PS + + + + 57 European goldfinch Carduelis carduelis PS + + + + 58 Eurasian siskin Carduelis spinus PS + + + + 59 Common linnet Carduelis cannabina PS + + + 60 Eurasian bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula PS + + 51 61 Hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes PS + + 62 Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella PS + + + + 63 Corn bunting Emberiza calandra PS + + + + Legend: as in Tab. 1. 63 species were recorded, including: 49 species strictly protected by law, 6 species under partial protection, 8 game species (Tab. 16), 6 species of Community interest — the Birds Directive. Table 17. Species abundance (N) on transects in the monitored area. No. English name N N/km of transect A B C D ΣN A B C D 1 Great crested grebe 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.00 2 Great cormorant 8 2 1 0 11 0.50 0.17 0.03 0.00 3 Grey heron 2 4 2 0 8 0.13 0.33 0.06 0.00 4 Mute swan 14 34 8 2 58 0.88 2.83 0.25 0.10 5 Whooper swan 0 6 0 0 6 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 6 Bean goose 46 210 28 46 330 2.88 17.50 0.88 2.30 7 Greater white-fronted goose 0 22 0 0 22 0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 8 Greylag goose 0 12 8 0 20 0.00 1.00 0.25 0.00 9 Eurasian teal 2 1 1 0 4 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.00 10 Mallard 13 182 24 6 225 0.81 15.17 0.75 0.30 11 Common pochard 0 1 2 0 3 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.00 12 Red kite 1 1 0 0 2 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.00 13 White-tailed eagle 2 1 7 0 10 0.13 0.08 0.22 0.00 14 Hen harrier 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 15 Northern goshawk 0 2 0 1 3 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.05 16 Eurasian sparrowhawk 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.00 17 Common buzzard 2 4 2 1 9 0.13 0.33 0.06 0.05 18 Rough-legged buzzard 2 1 1 0 4 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.00 19 Common pheasant 1 0 2 0 3 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 20 Common crane 42 28 58 11 139 2.63 2.33 1.81 0.55 21 European golden plover 6 21 0 0 27 0.38 1.75 0.00 0.00 22 Northern lapwing 660 1280 186 42 2168 41.25 106.67 5.81 2.10 23 Eurasian curlew 1 3 0 0 4 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.00 24 Black-headed gull 51 40 8 4 103 3.19 3.33 0.25 0.20 25 Common gull 0 6 0 0 6 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 26 European herring gull 4 11 8 1 24 0.25 0.92 0.25 0.05 27 Common wood pigeon 24 182 52 9 267 1.50 15.17 1.63 0.45 28 Eurasian collared dove 3 6 2 0 11 0.19 0.50 0.06 0.00 29 European green woodpecker 1 0 1 0 2 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 30 Great spotted woodpecker 2 1 1 1 5 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.05 31 Eurasian skylark 41 154 112 8 315 2.56 12.83 3.50 0.40 32 Barn swallow 86 34 66 12 198 5.38 2.83 2.06 0.60 33 Tree pipit 1 0 1 0 2 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 34 Meadow 1 0 0 0 1 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 52 pipit 35 Western yellow wagtail 2 1 1 1 5 0.13 0.08 0.03 0.05 36 White wagtail 1 6 0 1 8 0.06 0.50 0.00 0.05 37 Bohemian waxwing 36 4 12 0 52 2.25 0.33 0.38 0.00 38 European robin 2 0 1 0 3 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.00 39 Fieldfare 8 164 23 2 197 0.50 13.67 0.72 0.10 40 Eurasian blackcap 1 0 0 0 1 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 41 Marsh tit 2 2 1 0 5 0.13 0.17 0.03 0.00 42 Willow tit 1 0 0 0 1 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 43 Great tit 36 42 51 7 136 2.25 3.50 1.59 0.35 44 Eurasian blue tit 8 3 6 2 19 0.50 0.25 0.19 0.10 45 Short-toed treecreeper 38 0 6 0 44 2.38 0.00 0.19 0.00 46 Eurasian golden oriole 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 47 Great grey shrike 1 1 2 0 4 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.00 48 Eurasian jay 0 2 4 1 7 0.00 0.17 0.13 0.05 49 Eurasian magpie 7 6 3 4 20 0.44 0.50 0.09 0.20 50 Hooded crow 18 21 8 2 49 1.13 1.75 0.25 0.10 51 Common raven 22 61 42 11 136 1.38 5.08 1.31 0.55 52 Common starling 680 2164 220 610 3674 42.50 180.33 6.88 30.50 53 House sparrow 14 11 0 6 31 0.88 0.92 0.00 0.30 54 Eurasian tree sparrow 16 38 8 2 64 1.00 3.17 0.25 0.10 55 Common chaffinch 61 36 48 3 148 3.81 3.00 1.50 0.15 56 European greenfinch 6 48 61 14 129 0.38 4.00 1.91 0.70 57 European goldfinch 20 166 48 16 250 1.25 13.83 1.50 0.80 58 Eurasian siskin 6 8 14 2 30 0.38 0.67 0.44 0.10 59 Common linnet 31 12 8 0 51 1.94 1.00 0.25 0.00 60 Eurasian bullfinch 1 0 1 0 2 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 61 Hawfinch 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.00 62 Yellowhammer 22 31 24 8 85 1.38 2.58 0.75 0.40 63 Corn bunting 51 26 6 8 91 3.19 2.17 0.19 0.40 64 NI 22 56 31 32 141 1.38 4.67 0.97 1.60 A total of 9381 individual birds were recorded (Tab. 17). The most abundant species were common starlings and northern lapwings, with numbers of 3674 individuals for common starlings and 2168 individuals for northern lapwings (Tab. 17). Starlings traveled in flocks of up to several hundred individuals, usually above ground in zone 1 or roosted on the ground. Northern lapwings traveled similarly. Table 18. Species abundance (N) at specific points in monitored area. No. English name N N/h of observation A B C D ΣN A B C D 1 Great crested grebe 2 1 0 0 3 0.22 0.11 0.00 0.00 2 Great cormorant 21 12 4 0 37 2.33 1.33 0.44 0.00 3 Grey heron 1 3 1 0 5 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.00 4 Mute swan 24 18 16 2 60 2.67 2.00 1.78 0.22 5 Whooper swan 6 0 8 0 14 0.67 0.00 0.89 0.00 6 Bean goose 54 84 36 38 212 6.00 9.33 4.00 4.22 7 Greater white-fronted goose 12 8 0 0 20 1.33 0.89 0.00 0.00 8 Greylag goose 0 4 0 0 4 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 9 Mallard 14 34 16 6 70 1.56 3.78 1.78 0.67 53 10 Common pochard 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 11 Red kite 0 1 0 0 1 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 12 White-tailed eagle 1 1 4 0 6 0.11 0.11 0.44 0.00 13 Northern goshawk 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 14 Eurasian sparrowhawk 0 2 1 1 4 0.00 0.22 0.11 0.11 15 Common buzzard 2 6 3 1 12 0.22 0.67 0.33 0.11 16 Rough-legged buzzard 1 0 1 0 2 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 17 Common crane 28 148 22 9 207 3.11 16.44 2.44 1.00 18 Northern lapwing 228 940 310 14 1492 25.33 104.44 34.44 1.56 19 Black-headed gull 21 24 8 1 54 2.33 2.67 0.89 0.11 20 European herring gull 2 2 0 0 4 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.00 21 Common wood pigeon 11 61 8 6 86 1.22 6.78 0.89 0.67 22 Eurasian collared dove 2 1 1 0 4 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.00 23 European green woodpecker 0 0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 24 Great spotted woodpecker 1 0 1 0 2 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 25 Eurasian skylark 26 240 68 31 365 2.89 26.67 7.56 3.44 26 Barn swallow 22 41 8 8 79 2.44 4.56 0.89 0.89 27 Western yellow wagtail 0 1 1 0 2 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 28 White wagtail 0 0 2 0 2 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 29 Fieldfare 31 62 12 6 111 3.44 6.89 1.33 0.67 30 Marsh tit 1 0 0 0 1 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 31 Great tit 8 22 14 6 50 0.89 2.44 1.56 0.67 32 Eurasian blue tit 1 0 1 0 2 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 33 Short-toed treecreeper 0 22 0 0 22 0.00 2.44 0.00 0.00 34 Great grey shrike 1 0 1 0 2 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 35 Eurasian magpie 4 6 5 3 18 0.44 0.67 0.56 0.33 36 Hooded crow 6 14 8 1 29 0.67 1.56 0.89 0.11 37 Common raven 9 22 12 4 47 1.00 2.44 1.33 0.44 38 Common starling 262 1840 190 422 2714 29.11 204.44 21.11 46.89 39 Eurasian tree sparrow 0 0 2 0 2 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 40 Common chaffinch 4 22 6 1 33 0.44 2.44 0.67 0.11 41 European greenfinch 4 31 6 4 45 0.44 3.44 0.67 0.44 42 European goldfinch 4 46 14 5 69 0.44 5.11 1.56 0.56 43 Eurasian siskin 0 0 32 0 32 0.00 0.00 3.56 0.00 44 Common linnet 2 4 2 0 8 0.22 0.44 0.22 0.00 45 Yellowhammer 6 6 18 0 30 0.67 0.67 2.00 0.00 46 Corn bunting 16 9 18 0 43 1.78 1.00 2.00 0.00 47 NI 31 102 42 22 197 3.44 11.33 4.67 2.44 A total of 6206 individuals were recorded during flights (Tab. 18). At the observation points the most numerous was the common starling with a total number of 2714 individuals, and the northern lapwing with 1492 individuals. Larks (365 individuals) and bean geese (212 individuals) were the next abundant taxa. Considering the percentage of each bird species, the dominance structure in each elementary area is evident. The eudominant species were: common starlings and lapwings (A, B, C); common starlings (D). The remaining species belonged to subdominant and recendent species (Tab. 19). Table 19. Dominance structure (D) of species in elementary areas 54 No. English name A English name B English name C English name D 1 Common starling 32.3 Common starling 42.4 Common starling 18.6 Common starling 72.3 2 Northern lapwing 31.3 Northern lapwing 25.1 Northern lapwing 15.7 Bean goose 5.5 3 Barn swallow 4.1 Bean goose 4.1 Eurasian skylark 9.5 Northern lapwing 5.0 4 Common chaffinch 2.9 Mallard 3.6 Barn swallow 5.6 European goldfinch 1.9 5 Black-headed gull 2.4 Common wood pigeon 3.6 European greenfinch 5.2 European greenfinch 1.7 6 Corn bunting 2.4 European goldfinch 3.3 Common crane 4.9 Barn swallow 1.4 7 Bean goose 2.2 Fieldfare 3.2 Common wood pigeon 4.4 Common crane 1.3 8 Common crane 2.0 Eurasian skylark 3.0 Great tit 4.3 Common raven 1.3 9 Eurasian skylark 1.9 Common raven 1.2 Common chaffinch 4.1 Common wood pigeon 1.1 10 Short-toed treecreeper 1.8 European greenfinch 0.9 European goldfinch 4.1 Eurasian skylark 0.9 11 Bohemian waxwing 1.7 Great tit 0.8 Common raven 3.6 Yellowhammer 0.9 12 Great tit 1.7 Black-headed gull 0.8 Bean goose 2.4 Corn bunting 0.9 13 Common linnet 1.5 Eurasian tree sparrow 0.7 Mallard 2.0 Great tit 0.8 14 Common wood pigeon 1.1 Common chaffinch 0.7 Yellowhammer 2.0 Mallard 0.7 15 Common raven 1.0 Mute swan 0.7 Fieldfare 1.9 House sparrow 0.7 16 Yellowhammer 1.0 Barn swallow 0.7 Eurasian siskin 1.2 Black-headed gull 0.5 17 European goldfinch 0.9 Yellowhammer 0.6 Bohemian waxwing 1.0 Eurasian magpie 0.5 18 Hooded crow 0.9 Common crane 0.5 Mute swan 0.7 Common chaffinch 0.4 19 Eurasian tree sparrow 0.8 Corn bunting 0.5 Greylag goose 0.7 Mute swan 0.2 20 Mute swan 0.7 Greater whitefronted goose 0.4 Black-headed gull 0.7 Fieldfare 0.2 21 House sparrow 0.7 European golden plover 0.4 European herring gull 0.7 Eurasian blue tit 0.2 22 Mallard 0.6 Hooded crow 0.4 Hooded crow 0.7 Hooded crow 0.2 23 Great cormorant 0.4 Greylag goose 0.2 Eurasian tree sparrow 0.7 Eurasian tree sparrow 0.2 24 Fieldfare 0.4 Common linnet 0.2 Common linnet 0.7 Eurasian siskin 0.2 25 Eurasian blue tit 0.4 European herring gull 0.2 White-tailed eagle 0.6 Northern goshawk 0.1 26 Eurasian magpie 0.3 House sparrow 0.2 Eurasian blue tit 0.5 Common buzzard 0.1 27 European golden plover 0.3 Eurasian siskin 0.2 Short-toed treecreeper 0.5 European herring gull 0.1 28 European greenfinch 0.3 Whooper swan 0.1 Corn bunting 0.5 Great spotted woodpecker 0.1 29 Eurasian siskin 0.3 Common gull 0.1 Eurasian jay 0.3 Western yellow wagtail 0.1 30 European herring gull 0.2 Eurasian collared dove 0.1 Eurasian magpie 0.3 White wagtail 0.1 31 Eurasian collared dove 0.1 White wagtail 0.1 Grey heron 0.2 Eurasian jay 0.1 32 Grey heron 0.1 Eurasian magpie 0.1 Common pochard 0.2 Great crested grebe 0.0 33 Eurasian teal 0.1 Grey heron 0.1 Common buzzard 0.2 Great cormorant 0.0 34 White-tailed eagle 0.1 Common buzzard 0.1 Common pheasant 0.2 Grey heron 0.0 35 Common buzzard 0.1 Bohemian waxwing 0.1 Eurasian collared dove 0.2 Whooper swan 0.0 36 Rough-legged buzzard 0.1 Eurasian curlew 0.1 Great grey shrike 0.2 Greater white-fronted goose 0.0 55 2.3% 6.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 27.9% 62.1% passerines charadriiformes anseriformes gruiformes accipitriformes pelecaniformes other 37 Great spotted woodpecker 0.1 Eurasian blue tit 0.1 Great crested grebe 0.1 Greylag goose 0.0 38 Western yellow wagtail 0.1 Great cormorant 0.1 Eurasian teal 0.0 39 European robin 0.1 Eurasian teal 0.1 Common pochard 0.0 40 Marsh tit 0.1 Eurasian sparrowhawk 0.1 Red kite 0.0 41 Rough-legged buzzard 0.1 White-tailed eagle 0.0 42 European green woodpecker 0.1 Hen harrier 0.0 43 Great spotted woodpecker 0.1 Eurasian sparrowhawk 0.0 44 Tree pipit 0.1 Rough-legged buzzard 0.0 45 Western yellow wagtail 0.1 Common pheasant 0.0 46 European robin 0.1 European golden plover 0.0 47 Marsh tit 0.1 Eurasian curlew 0.0 48 Eurasian golden oriole 0.1 Common gull 0.0 49 Eurasian bullfinch 0.1 Eurasian collared dove 0.0 50 Hawfinch 0.1 European green woodpecker 0.0 When considering the entire monitored area, it can be seen that the eudominant species were passerines and charadriiformes, which together accounted for 90% of the total avifauna during this period. The dominant taxa was anseriformes, which made up 6.9% of the avifauna. The remaining taxa were characterized by minor percentage share (Fig. 9). Figure 9. Percentages of individual taxa for the entire monitored area. The collected data indicate that this area is not an important site for bird migrations, especially long-distance ones. Especially, if one compares the numbers of swans and geese in the Odra River Valley or in the Słońsk reserve in the Warta River Valley, located several dozen kilometers to the south, where their flocks reach several thousand individuals. Based on the collected data, it can be predicted that the area of the designed investment is not an important location on migration routes. Therefore, it can be concluded that the designed investment will not have a significant adverse impact on migrating avifauna. Characteristics of bird flights. The direction and altitude of flights of individual bird species was variable and depended mainly on the phenological period, the location of their destination nesting sites, topographic conditions along the flight route, and the strength and direction of the winds. The flight directions during the period of horizontal migration were consistent with the general trend in the country and Europe. During the spring migration period birds traveled mainly in northern and northeastern 56 directions. This was a period of quick return of birds from wintering to breeding and feeding grounds. In the fall migration period, the flight directions were opposite. Birds were flying in southern and southwestern direction. At that time, birds were departing for their wintering grounds in warmer regions of Europe and Africa. The use of space varied and depended on the phenological period. Flights were recorded in all zones. In winter most flights were within zone 1 (<50 m) (Fig. 10). This was due to unfavorable weather conditions and low numbers of birds. The intensive use of zone 3 was linked to warming at the end of the winter period and the beginning of spring migration. A similar situation continued during the spring migration period, which is shorter and often more intense. In this period the use of zone 1 increased, presumably as a result of the increased number of birds in the investment area that completed their migrations here, as well as their intensive movement when searching for nesting sites, building them and feeding. During the rest of the phenological periods flight gradation also occurred. During the breeding season and breeding dispersal the use of space in zone 1 increased and was the highest of the year (Fig. 10). The reason was probably the movement of nesting birds for feeding and, during the dispersal, the concentration of young birds after flying off the nest. The higher number of birds resulted in an increase in flights in zone 1. Low number of flights in zone 3 resulted from the lack of migratory flights. The use of space in zone 3 increased again during the fall migration period. Winter period Spring migrations Key: strefa - zone 57 Breeding season and breeding dispersal period Fall migrations Figure 10. Frequency of bird flights by phenological period, for the entire monitored area. Most taxa moved at or below the range of the blades of the designed wind turbines (Fig. 10). As shown in Figure 10, the use of zone 2 was low in each period and ranged from 6.8% to 11.8%. Observed in zone 2 were mainly representatives of anseriformes, accipitriformes, common cranes, pigeons and gulls from charadriiformes and mainly corvids from passerines. Herons and swifts were occasionally recorded flying into zone 2 (Fig. 10). The use of zone 2 resulted from, among other things, the fact that some migrating birds landed on the ground or lowered their flight in the area covered by this paper to feed or rest. This was the behavior of swans, geese, accipitriformes, and small passerines, among others. Most of the birds moved within zone 1. This group consisted mainly of small passerines, cormorants, anseriformes, common cranes, charadriiformes, and most accipitriformes that were flying in from surrounding areas, feeding or flying across the investment site between surrounding areas. Hence, their flights were at low altitudes. A small number of migrating species was observed in zone 2 – a potential collision zone. It mainly concerned geese and northern lapwings during migration, while during breeding and breeding dispersal periods - also buzzards, gulls, occasionally common cranes and large corvids. In zone 3 flights were recorded during all phenological periods, but were most numerous during migration periods (Fig. 10). Most birds and taxa were observed in zone 1. A small group of species traveled within zone 2 – a potential collision zone. In contrast, at the highest altitudes in zone 3 only geese, white-tailed eagles, buzzards, and common cranes were recorded (Fig. 11). Key: strefa - zone 64 Based on the collected data, it is possible to predict adverse impact of the investment on the whitetailed eagle, but it is difficult to determine it precisely. Therefore, measures have been proposed above to minimize the threat to the white-tailed eagle posed by the discussed project. Western marsh harrier – observed throughout the monitoring area, in the spring migration and breeding and breeding dispersal period (EA-A-D). It appeared alone or less frequently in pairs. A total of 99 flights were reported throughout the year, of which only 1 was in zone 1. It was not found nesting within the investment area. Nested in the vicinity, in the Tywa River Valley and in a mid-field pond west of Kunów. National literature reports collisions of 2 individuals with wind turbines. In Europe its collisions have been recorded in 4 countries (Dürr 2014). Due to the distance of the breeding site from the wind turbine and movement in zone 1, it can be predicted that the investment will have no adverse impact on this harrier. Hen harrier – observed incidentally, only 3 flights of single individuals during spring and fall migration in the EA-A and B. No collisions between this harrier and wind turbines have been reported in the national literature. In Europe, its collisions have been reported in 3 countries (Dürr 2014), for a total of 5 individuals. Due to no breeding in the vicinity of the wind farm and sporadic use of the investment area during migration, it can be predicted that the investment will have no adverse impact on this harrier. Common crane – observed in most of the monitored area. It was also present at a considerable distance, flocks were observed flying in the vicinity of the Odra River Valley and cranes were heard calling from the neighboring areas, e.g. south and south-west of the EA-C border. It appeared as one of the first birds already in the beginning of March. Most numerously found during fall migration. Most often observed were feeding single individuals or pairs. Small flocks of 4 to 42 individuals were observed flying during migration. The literature mentions collisions of common cranes with wind turbines in 4 European countries, including 1 collision in Poland. No nesting was observed in the monitored area. No significant risk of adverse impact of the investment is forecasted. European golden plover – observed only in the fall migration period in elementary areas A and B. A total of 27 individuals were recorded, in two flocks. It traveled within zone 1. No risk of adverse impact of the investment is forecasted. Black woodpecker – observed during the breeding season and breeding dispersal in EA-C. A total of 2 individuals were recorded at the forest edge. Probably breeding in the adjacent forest complex, but no nest was found. No risk of adverse impact of the investment is forecasted. Red-backed shrike – observed during the breeding season and breeding dispersal period in most of the monitored area (EA-A-C) where mid-field tree and shrub buffers were present. It usually moved one at a time at low altitudes, below the lower range of wind turbine blades. It is a breeding species in area covered by this paper and its vicinity. A total of 10 individuals were recorded. In the literature there are no reports of collisions of the red-backed shrike with wind turbines. No risk of adverse impact of the investment is forecasted. The obtained data allow to predict that the designed wind farm investment will not cause significant threat to local and regional populations of key species. Bats. The monitoring activities were also focused on bats, mammals that may be affected by operating wind turbines. The adverse impact for these animals is primarily the possibility of flying bats colliding with the rotor blades and experiencing barotrauma due to pressure changes when flying between the blades. 65 Six species of bats were identified during the course of the works (Tab. 21). All of them are under legal protection. None are of Community interest and are not listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive. Table 21. Bat species found in the monitored area. No. English name Latin name Protection status HD PRDBoA PRLTS IUCN 1 Daubenton's bat Myotis daubentonii PS LR: LC 2 Serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus PS LR: LC 3 Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus PS LR: LC 4 Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus PS LR: LC 5 Nathusius’s pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii PS 6 Common noctule Nyctalus noctula PS LR: LC Legend: HD — Habitats Directive Annex II; PRDBoA — Polish Red Data Book of Animals; PRLTS — Polish Red List of Threatened Species; IUCN — International Union for Conservation of Nature; PS — protected species; LR: LC — lower risk: least concern. Spotted flying bats were also recorded during the work, but being out of range of the detectors they were not marked and are listed in the tables as not identified. Using a night vision device, an attempt was made to determine the approximate use of the space above the detector range. One should bear in mind that this is an estimation method because not all bats can be spotted. However, the data obtained provide some approximation of space utilization at higher levels within the range of the rotor blades. This estimation was done to find out the approximate use of the space above the detector range. The practical range of the detectors is small. Most bats can be detected up to about 30 - 50 m from the detector. Some species such as the common noctule or the serotine bat emit signals at longer distances, even up to about 100 – 150 m. It is connected with their flight in open spaces, where there are no landmarks. Some species can only be detected at short distance of up to 5 – 10 m (horseshoe bats). In the course of the works, the average bat activity index was determined based on the collected data, as a unit of activity per hour. The data collected allow us to approximate the value of areas to bats and the extent to which bats use the space above the monitored area. Table 22a. Average activity indices of species on transects and points in period 1. Species Transect Points Average Daubenton's bat 0.00 0.00 0.00 Serotine bat 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common pipistrelle 0.00 0.00 0.00 Soprano pipistrelle 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nathusius’s pipistrelle 0.40 0.00 0.20 Common noctule 0.00 0.00 0.00 Not identified 0.40 0.00 0.20 Overall average 0.11 0.00 0.06 Table 22b. Average activity indices of species on transects and points in period 2. Species Transect Points Average Daubenton's bat 0.53 0.00 0.27 Serotine bat 1.27 0.16 0.71 66 Daubenton 's bat 7% 9% Serotine bat 21% 40% Common pipistrelle 13% 10% Soprano pipistrelle 40% 40% Serotine bat Nathusius’s pipistrelle Common noctule 20% Common pipistrelle 0.80 0.00 0.40 Soprano pipistrelle 0.60 0.00 0.30 Nathusius’s pipistrelle 2.40 0.08 1.24 Common noctule 0.40 0.16 0.28 Not identified 0.80 0.08 0.44 Overall average 0.97 0.07 0.52 Figure 14a. The share of individual species on transects in period 2. Figure 14b. The share of individual species on transects in period 2. Table 22c. Average activity indices of species on transects and points in period 3. Species Transect Points Average Daubenton's bat 1.40 0.03 0.72 Serotine bat 1.60 0.36 0.98 Common pipistrelle 2.20 0.00 1.10 Soprano pipistrelle 0.90 0.00 0.45 Nathusius’s pipistrelle 7.20 0.12 3.66 Common noctule 2.10 0.78 1.44 Not identified 0.80 0.12 0.46 Overall average 2.31 0.20 1.26 67 2% 28% 61% 9% Daubenton's bat Serotine bat Nathusius's pipistrelle Common noctule 12% 22% 34% 9% 17% 6% Daubenton's bat Serotine bat Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Nathusius’s pipistrelle Common noctule Figure 15a. The share of individual species on transects in period 3. Figure 15b. The share of individual species on transects in period 3. Table 22d. Average activity indices of species on transects and points in period 4. Species Transect Points Average Daubenton's bat 2.65 0.05 1.35 Serotine bat 1.14 0.14 0.64 Common pipistrelle 2.02 0.00 1.01 Soprano pipistrelle 0.76 0.00 0.38 Nathusius’s pipistrelle 4.04 0.03 2.04 Common noctule 1.45 0.31 0.88 Brown long-eared bat 0.00 0.00 0.00 Not identified 0.69 0.02 0.36 Overall average 1.82 0.08 0.95 Figure 16a. The share of individual species on transects in period 4. 14% 9% Daubenton 's bat 10% 14% 47% 6% Serotine bat Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Nathusius' pipistrelle Common noctule 68 Daubenton's bat 20% 13% Serotine bat 12% Common pipistrelle 26% 16% Soprano pipistrelle 13% Nathusius’s pipistrelle Common noctule 3% 22% 53% 22% Daubenton's bat Serotine bat Nathusius's pipistrelle Common noctule Figure 16b. The share of individual species on transects in period 4. Table 22e. Average activity indices of species on transects and points in period 5. Species Transect Points Average Daubenton's bat 0.76 0.03 0.40 Serotine bat 0.69 0.24 0.47 Common pipistrelle 0.88 0.00 0.44 Soprano pipistrelle 0.76 0.00 0.38 Nathusius’s pipistrelle 1.52 0.24 0.88 Common noctule 1.14 0.58 0.86 Not identified 0.25 0.07 0.16 Overall average 0.86 0.17 0.51 Figure 17a. The share of individual species on transects in period 5. Figure 17b. The share of individual species on transects in period 5. 16% 29% 43% 12% Daubenton's bat Serotine bat Nathusius's pipistrelle Common noctule 69 No bat activity was observed in period 6. The values of the averaged activity indices varied depending on the period of bat activity and physiography. The highest indices were recorded during the periods of highest bat activity, i.e. during the formation of breeding colonies, disintegration of these colonies and dispersal of bats (periods 35). The highest indices were obtained in periods 3 and 4 on transects, for the Nathusius' pipistrelle, Daubenton's bat and common pipistrelle. Their highest indices reached values of respectively: 7.20, 2.65 and 2.20. The indices of the remaining taxa did not exceed the value of 2.10. The lowest values occurred in period 1, the period of awakening from hibernation and the beginning of spring migration. No bat activity was recorded during period 6 – end of fall migration and beginning of hibernation. Significantly lower values of the indices were characteristic for listening points. The highest value of the indices was recorded in period 5 for the common noctule – 0.78. Only 4 species were recorded at the points (Tab. 22e). These were species that fly into open areas of agricultural crops or hunt near water reservoirs. This spatial distribution of activity was probably related to the habitat preferences of the bats. They moved mainly along linear landscape structures - roadside trees, forest complexes, watercourses or around buildings. The vast majority of the monitored area consisted of agricultural crops without ponds and mid-field woodlots. In the turbine location area, for the most part, there were no mid-field ponds or larger mid-field woodlots that would increase habitat diversity and thus provide new feeding sites for bats. There were a small number of mid-field ponds and watercourses in areas adjacent to the turbine location area. This caused species to group in certain areas, mainly outside the turbine location, and hence the low value of the average activity indices. Bats were found mainly near buildings, roadside alleys, forest complexes and the Tywa River Valley. These physiographic structures provided flight routes and feeding habitats. Hence, the preponderance of signals came from areas outside the wind turbine location. As shown in tables ..., only occasional or no flights were recorded at listening points located in open areas of agricultural crops. The collected data indicate that the planned location of the wind turbine in the agricultural crop area will not have an adverse impact on bat populations. Pipistrelles and Daubenton's bats were recorded mainly in the vicinity of human settlements and rows of roadside trees. The common noctule and serotine bat were also registered in open areas in the vicinity of forest complexes and roadside trees. This is probably the reason for the higher number of the common noctule and serotine bat flights at the listening points located in the open spaces of arable land, where they flew in from the trees and forests adjacent to the monitored area. Based on the monitoring data, biology of the species and night-vision observations, the approximate use of the open field areas - wind turbine locations - can be determined. Most flights were over the area at low altitudes of up to about 2 – 15 m. Night-vision observations of the area of the planned wind turbine location showed few flights up to about 30 m above ground level. No bat flights were recorded above this altitude. These values may be higher because not all flights can be observed using night vision devices. The Daubenton's bat was observed mainly in EA-A, B and C, where there were a few ponds and remnants of a drainage system. It moves mainly in the vicinity of buildings of nearby villages, in the Tywa River Valley and along rows of trees. This species also fed by the water and in its immediate vicinity. Its flights were at the altitude of about 12-15 m. It is one of the most common species. Prefers areas with access to water reservoirs, and such areas are far from the designed wind turbine location. The serotine bat was observed mainly in the vicinity of trees, ponds and buildings of the nearby villages usually at an altitude of 2 - 10 m. It was recorded throughout the entire monitored area, including the village-field ecotone in the area of the planned investment. This species was observed feeding around concentrations of trees along field roads and roadside alleys. It often hunted near human settlements and on roads passing through villages. It is a synanthropic species. Pipistrelles are one of the more common bat species and were the most numerous one in the 70 monitored area. They were recorded in all elementary areas. These bars prefer anthropogenic areas, often feed in villages or along woodlots and by water reservoirs. They were present throughout the monitored area. Fed at low altitudes up to about 20 m. The Nathusius' pipistrelle obtained the highest index values. Unlike the common and soprano pipistrelle – the Nathusius' pipistrelle prefers wooded areas, does not avoid woodlands, and feeds near water reservoirs. It is significantly less synanthropic than the previous two species. Pipistrelles avoid open spaces, which helps to reduce the potential for collisions with a wind turbine, especially since the turbines will be located away from woodlots. The common noctule was recorded throughout the entire monitored area. It appeared frequently both on transects and at listening posts. It was the most numerous species at the listening points. It moved mainly along ecotones of forests and fields, and along roadside trees. It was the most frequently observed bat in the area of open agroecosystems, where it dominated together with the serotine bat. No large breeding colonies (>20 individuals) or hibernation sites (>20 individuals) of bats were found in the monitored area or within 1 km from it. No significant bat migration routes were identified above the monitored area. The investment area is covered with agricultural crops, while in the vicinity there are forest complexes and settlements. No suitable habitats for wintering or breeding colonies were found. There are no caves, adits, underground structures etc. No dugouts or open wells in use. No wintering was observed in road bridge structures. No sites convenient for wintering and forming breeding colonies were found in the forest areas. There is no concentration of old growths of trees, practically the entire forest area is covered by industrial forest crops of age class not exceeding 100 years. No large hollows suitable for use during the breeding season were found there. Alleys and rows of trees along district and communal roads as well as areas with ponds and mid-field lakes in the Tywa River Valley should be considered valuable for bats. An analysis of bat flights and areas of their highest activity does not suggest that any fragments of the area should be excluded from the investment. The areas of the highest bat activity include village buildings, roadside trees and forest complexes. They are far from the open agroecosystem areas, where the wind turbines will be located. Considering the very average indices of activity at the listening points, it can be expected that there will be no adverse impact of the turbine on bats. The obtained data allow to predict that the designed investment will not cause significant threat to local and regional populations of bats. It will also not have an adverse impact on their migration routes. The project in question will not cause any adverse impact on breeding colonies and hibernation sites. Summary and conclusions of fauna observations. This section presents findings from the pre-investment monitoring carried out in 2018. One should bear in mind that the presented conclusions are certain assumptions and may change in the future as more data is collected. The data obtained present a slice of the reality investigated, and the assumptions and conclusions made may evolve in the future.  During the observation 111 animal species were found and analyzed, including 105 birds and 6 bats.  105 bird species were found, of which: 88 were under strict protection, 7 were partially protected, 10 were unprotected game species, and 11 species were of Community interest and are listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive. 71  At least 34 bird species were observed during the winter period, including 2 species listed in the Birds Directive. In this period, the vast majority of birds moved at low altitudes up to 50 m. They accounted for 59.3% of total flights.  During the spring migration period there were 58 bird species observed, including 5 species of Community Interest. Spring migration of birds took place mainly at low altitudes in zone 1 (74.7%), i.e. below the lower range of the rotor blades.  During the breeding season 84 bird species were recorded, including 8 from Annex 1 of the Birds Directive. They predominantly flew in zone 1 (89.2%), i.e. below the reach of the turbine rotor blades.  During the fall migration period a total of 63 bird species were found. Of these, 6 were species of Community Interest. Again, most birds moved in zone 1 (88.7%), which is below the range of the rotor blades.  Long-distance migrants traveled at high altitude, even up to about 250 meters, which is above the upper range of the wind turbine rotor blades. Some migrants flew within the wind turbine operation zone. This mainly concerned geese, accipitriformes, northern lapwings, and common cranes, which sometimes landed within certain elementary areas.  Among long-distance migrants the majority were geese, swans, common cranes and northern lapwings.  Small birds - mostly passerines - usually moved at low altitudes below 50 m.  In terms of numbers, passerines dominated in all phenological periods. Less abundant were charadriiformes and anseriformes. Woodpeckers and cuckoos were the least abundant.  Horizontal bird migration routes are consistent with general national trends and local physiography. In fall, the main direction is western and south-western. In spring it is the opposite - northern and north-eastern.  There were 11 bird species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive: the Eurasian bittern, white stork, whooper swan, red kite, white-tailed eagle, western marsh harrier, hen harrier, common crane, European golden plover, black woodpecker and red-backed shrike.  No significant threats to individual key species associated with the planned wind farm were identified.  Potential conflict situations may occur between the white-tailed eagle and the wind turbines located in the southern part of the EA-C by the village of Swobnica. A protection zone is located nearby. The birds were observed flying in the vicinity of the nest, roosting in the area and flying to feeding grounds. There is a threat of collision between the white-tailed eagle and the turbine during its migration to Lake Długie. It is recommended to conduct permanent monitoring of the area until the turbine is built, and then at least 5 years of post-investment monitoring. A mitigation and rescue action plan should be developed prior to beginning construction.  It is recommended to consider decommissioning or relocation of the 2 closest wind turbines eastward towards Swobnica or periodic shutdown of the turbines no. 5 to 8 during the day.  The works revealed 6 common bat species present in the monitored area: the Daubenton's bat, serotine bat, common, soprano and Nathusius’ pipistrelles, as well as the common noctule. None are of Community interest.  The monitored area has low values of average activity indices on the national scale. The highest values of indices were recorded near rows of roadside trees, watercourses and settlements.  Very low index values were shown at listening points, in agroecosystem areas and at the location of wind turbines.  Bats were flying into the monitored area at a short distance, or flying between clusters of trees. All species moved at low altitudes, below the range of rotor blades. 72  There were no regionally significant migration routes of bats through the area of the designed wind farm. No significant hibernation sites or breeding or summer colonies were found.  The data collected so far allow to predict that the planned investment should not have a significant adverse impact on the avifauna and chiropterofauna.  No habitats or plant and animal species listed in the Habitats Directive were found in the area of the proposed wind farm.  Three species from the Birds Directive – the European bittern, western marsh harrier and redbacked shrike – were found in the monitored area. The white stork and the white-tailed eagle nest in the vicinity. Other species were observed over the investment area less frequently or occasionally in small numbers.  The collected data indicate that the proposed wind farm will not have a significant adverse impact on the integrity and continuity of the Natura 2000 network.  Based on the collected data, it can be predicted that the proposed Banie III wind farm should not have a significant adverse impact on the avifauna and chiropterofauna of the area under monitoring.  The compiled study indicates that providing the proposed mitigation measures are observed, the investment area is suitable for the construction of the Banie III wind farm. 6.3 3. Diversity of avifauna in the years 2011 – 2018. During the work 114 animal species were found and analyzed, including 107 birds and 7 bats. Species that may be directly or indirectly affected by wind farm during migration were used to determine the impact of the wind turbines on migration. Animal species from other systematic groups were also observed to detect species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive, but were not found in the wind turbine location area. Table 23. Inventory of bird species found in the course of pre-investment monitoring. No. English name Latin name Protection status BD RDBoA RLTS 1 Mute swan Cygnus olor PS 2 Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus PS + 3 Bean goose Anser fabalis GS 4 Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons GS 5 Greylag goose Anser anser GS 6 Gadwall Anas strepera PS 7 Eurasian teal Anas crecca GS 8 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos GS 9 Common pochard Aythya ferina GS 10 Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula PS 11 Grey partridge Perdix perdix GS 12 Common pheasant Phasianus colchicus GS 13 Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis PS 14 Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus PS 15 Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo PPS 16 Eurasian bittern Botaurus stellaris PS + LC LC 17 Grey heron Ardea cinerea PPS 18 White stork Ciconia ciconia PS + 19 Red kite Milvus milvus PS + NT NT 73 20 White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla PS + LC LC 21 Western marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus PS + 22 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus PS + VU VU 23 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis PS 24 Eurasian sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus PS 25 Common buzzard Buteo buteo PS 26 Rough-legged buzzard Buteo lagopus PS 27 Lesser spotted eagle Aquila pomarina PS + LC LC 28 Common kestrel Falco tinnunculus PS 29 Eurasian hobby Falco subbuteo PS 30 Corncrake Crex crex PS + DD 31 Eurasian coot Fulica atra GS 32 Common crane Grus grus PS + 33 Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius PS 34 European golden plover Pluvialis apricaria PS + EXP EX 35 Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola PS 36 Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus PS 37 Common snipe Gallinago gallinago PS 38 Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata PS VU VU 39 Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus PS 40 Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus PS 41 European herring gull Larus argentatus PPS 42 Common tern Sterna hirundo PS + 43 Stock dove Columba oenas PS 44 Common wood pigeon Columba palumbus GS 45 Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto PS 46 Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus PS 47 Tawny owl Strix aluco PS 48 Common swift Apus apus PS 49 European green woodpecker Picus viridis PS 50 Black woodpecker Dryocopus martius PS + 51 Great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major PS 52 Lesser spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos minor PS 53 Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis PS 54 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica PS 55 Common house martin Delichon urbicum PS 56 Tree pipit Anthus trivialis PS 57 Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis PS 58 Western yellow wagtail Motacilla flava PS 59 White wagtail Motacilla alba PS 60 Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus PS 61 Eurasian wren Troglodytes troglodytes PS 62 European robin Erithacus rubecula PS 63 Common nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos PS 64 Black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros PS 65 Whinchat Saxicola rubetra PS 66 European stonechat Saxicola rubicola PS 67 Common blackbird Turdus merula PS 68 Fieldfare Turdus pilaris PS 69 Song thrush Turdus philomelos PS 80 Flights of young individuals took place in the vicinity of the forest complex where the nest was located. They were observed when perching in trees near the forest wall and training flights along the forest wall up to about 300 m into the fields (Fig. 23). Figure 23. Major routes and directions of migration of white-tailed eagle in EA-C (2011-18). 7. Description of the form of nature conservation in the immediate range and in the vicinity of the planned project In the area of the proposed location of wind turbines and accompanying infrastructure there are no natural objects protected by law. In the vicinity (up to 10 km) there are sites belonging to the Natura 2000 ecological network. There are habitat refuges in the immediate vicinity (up to 5 km): Las Baniewicki, Dziczy Las and Dolina Tywy (Fig. 24a). Further away (up to 10 km) there are: habitat refuges – Pojezierze Myśliborskie, Ostoja Wełtyńska; bird refuges – Dolina Dolnej Odry, Ostoja Witnicko-Dębniańska and Jeziora Wełtyńskie (Fig. 24b). The others are located at a greater distance approximate nest location observations of young birds main flight routes potential collision location of WT potential location of WT removed WT Legend 81 from the monitoring area, i.e. from a dozen to several dozen kilometers. "Las Baniewicki” refuge PLH320064. A dense complex of fertile deciduous forests with a fairly uniform oak-hornbeam character. In local depressions, riparian forests develop on small areas, in the north-western part, there are areas which are more difficult to be included in a syntaxonomic classification and to diagnose the habitat, referring to inland acid oak forests (however, it is probably the influence of the acidification of the habitat due to the former higher share of coniferous species in the forest stand). More than 56% of the area consists of well-developed habitats of fertile deciduous forests, mostly sub-Atlantic oakhornbeam forest – a habitat poorly represented in the N2000 network approved by the European Commission so far. The forests have good conservation prospects, they are characterized by wealth of flora species. As many as 107 ha are habitats developed in a typical way (state A). The remaining area of the site consists of similar oak-hornbeam habitats, which are, however, degraded by the breeding of mixed stands with coniferous or geographically alien species (Northern red oak, Canadian poplars). Greening of forest management, however, contributes to a gradual improvement in the composition of tree stands and with time we should rather expect an increase in the area of protected habitats. The area contributes significantly to the achievement of appropriate representativeness within the Natura 2000 network for the sub-Atlantic oak-hornbeam habitat, the resources of which are concentrated in Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship. The nearest wind turbines will be located approximately 2.1 km from the refuge. "Dziczy Las" Refuge PLH320060. Almost half of the area (44.5%) is occupied by well-preserved natural habitats with good prospects for conservation, characterized by wealth of flora species. In the remaining area, there are potential habitats where, if the composition and structure of the tree stand are properly adjusted, regeneration of natural habitats is possible. The area is important because it improves the representativeness of the regional variability of beech habitats, at the regional scale concentrated in several larger forest complexes. Beech forests occur in a mosaic with ash riparian forests occupying small areas, which is reminiscent of the Bukowe Hills landscape. The presence in the area of welldeveloped sub-Atlantic oak-hornbeam forests and transitional peat bogs, which are underrepresented in the N2000 network on a regional scale, but are important due to the concentration of their occurrence in this part of the country, is important. Eutrophic lakes and ponds, which, due to being common in the country, are not usually treated as an important value of the Natura 2000 system. The nearest wind turbines will be located approximately 0.6 km from the refuge. “Dolina Tywy” refuge PLH320050. The greatest natural value of “Dolina Tywy” habitat area is its habitat diversity. Sixteen natural habitat types were found here, including 3 with priority status. They cover about 31% of the area. The greatest significance of “Dolina Tywy" refuge is the significant proportion of well-preserved habitats in Western Pomerania: 9130, 3150, 91E0*. There are also habitats, one of the westernmost in Poland, of chara-lakes (3140) and of Cretaceous vegetation (7210*) with endangered plant species (Mirek at al. 2006). The specific character of this refuge makes it also a kind of ecological corridor between the Myślibórz Lake District and the Lower Oder Valley. The Tywa River has long stretches of water preferred by fish from the Cobitis complex (spined loach), which are quite numerous in some places. Moreover, the above-mentioned diversity of biotopes makes this watercourse very interesting from the ichthyological point of view and worthy of protection (even though only two “Natura” species have been observed here). In addition, some places of the watercourse are ideal spawning grounds for European river lamprey, salmon or European bullhead. The nearest wind turbines will be located approximately 0.6 km from the refuge. “Pojezierze Myśliborskie" refuge PLH320014 82 The area of Community importance "Pojezierze Myśliborskie" in Kondracki's classification (2002) is located in the central part of the Myślibórz Lake District mesoregion. The southern axis of the refuge is formed by numerous ribbon and flow-through lakes which are part of the hydrographic network of the Myśla River basin. Among the most important ones are: Chłop, Łubie, Sitno Wielkie, Będzin. The most important watercourses draining the Myśla River basin within the area include: the Głęboki Canal (draining Sitno Wielkie Lake), the Tarnów Canal (Tchórzyno Lake and Jezierzyca Lake to Myśliborskie Lake). It should be emphasized here that the refuge area has undergone significant interference in water relations in the past and is almost completely devoid of natural watercourses. Nevertheless, spring phenomena are frequently observed here, both within forests and non-forest ecosystems. In geomorphological terms, the area is a mosaic of glacial forms (mainly ground moraines, marginal plains, glacial channels) related to the three phases of the Pomeranian stage of the last glaciation. A varied lithology of surface sediments was found here. They are dominated by Pleistocene tills and clayey sands of moraine uplands, sands of sand plains, clays and other fractions of glacial tills (e.g. Sitno Lake), sands and gravels in river valleys, Holocene gyttjas (often calcareous) and peats. The lakeland landscape is dominated by forests (deciduous in the area of Przydarłów and Chłop Lake, managed coniferous forests in the remaining part). The largest areas of non-forest ecosystems (mainly arable fields used for agricultural purposes and grasslands) are located around the following lakes: Sitno Wielkie, Chłop, Łubie, Będzin. The most important nature reserve in the refuge is the floral reserve "Tchórzyno", with an area of 37.18 ha, created on 23 October 1965 to preserve the unique flora and wetland communities formed on the artificially exposed in the 19th century lake marl (including Schoenetum nigricantis and Cladietum marisci communities). Other fragments of the Myślibórz Lake District which are very valuable from the point of view of nature include the eastern shore of Sitno Wielkie Lake (an exposed calcareous gyttja with a unique calciphilous flora), the channel and the surroundings of Chłop and Grochacz Lakes (mesotrophic lakes surrounded by fertile forests on the slopes) and a vast forest complex in the area of Przydarłów (important for the preservation in the region of large patches of fertile beech forests, sub-Atlantic oak-hornbeam forests and elm-ash forests). 12 natural habitats were found: 3140, 3150, 6210, 6410, 6510, 7210, 7230, 9130, 9160, 91D0, 91E0, 91F0. The following animal species listed in Annex II were found: Bombina bombina, Cobitis laenia, Cottus gobio, Liparis loeselii, Unio crassus. In the refuge, there are only 2 species under protection: the European bullhead and the Unio crassus. The nearest wind turbines will be located approximately 6.6 km from the refuge. “Ostoja Wełtyńska” refuge PLH320069 The area includes a complex of water reservoirs and hydrogenic habitats – riparian forests, Molinia meadows and peat bogs in the basin of a small watercourse, a tributary of the Oder River – the Omulna River, with a large lake – Wełtyń Lake (349 ha). The area surrounding the reservoirs is dominated by agricultural landscape – farmland, small meadows, pastures and tree stands; only in two places, in the southwestern and northeastern part, small forest complexes dominated by riparian forests have been preserved. More than 90% of the area overlaps with the Special Protection Area for birds and their habitats – Wełtyń Lake PLB320018. The refuge is important for the protection of six types of natural habitats from Annex I of the Habitats Directive – hard water lakes, eutrophic lakes, Molinia meadows, alkaline peat bogs, acid oak forests and alder-ash riparian forests. The largest area is occupied by habitat 3140 (hard water lakes), which includes most of the area of Wełtyń Lake. A slightly smaller area is occupied by eutrophic reservoirs (3150) and riparian forests represented mainly by well-developed alder and ash riparian forests (91E0). 9 natural habitats were distinguished: The following animal species listed in Annex II were found: Bombina bombina, Leucorrhinia pectoralis, Lutra lutra, Triturus cristatus. In the refuge, only the fire-bellied toad is under protection. The nearest wind turbines will be located approximately 8.1 km from the refuge. “Jeziora Wełtyńskie” refuge PLB320018 The area includes, from the north, a complex of small mid-field lakes, surrounded by cultivated fields, meadows and pastures. The area is characterized by a well-preserved agricultural landscape offering 83 favorable habitat for agricultural landscape animals especially amphibians and birds. The largest lake is Wełtyń Lake with an area of about 360 ha. This lake is characterized by relatively low trophic levels and moderate levels of anthropogenic changes. There are islands and small areas of common reed rushes on the lake. It offers good breeding conditions for water and marsh birds. Small beech forests and forest areas of wetlands occur in this area. In addition, there are 13 lakes with an area larger than 1 ha. The vast majority are located in the northern part of the Natura 2000 area. These lakes are characterized by varying trophic levels determined by anthropogenic impacts. All these reservoirs are eutrophic lakes with a well-developed strip of common reed rushes. In the case of 5 of them (Brudzno, Gardzienko, Gardyńskie, Głębokie and Krzywienko Lakes) there are particularly favorable habitats for birds and amphibians. The area of Wełtyń Lake PLB320018 belonging to Natura 2000 is one of the smallest bird refuge in Poland. It covers an area of only 2811.2 ha, but this refuge, due to its location between other bird refuges, is of key importance for the coherence of the Natura 2000 network. It is especially a link between the “OSO Jezioro Miedwie i okolice” PLB320005 and the “OSO Dolina Dolnej Odry” PLB320003. This area has been designated in a frugal way in terms of its size, but the habitats of bird species of Community importance cover almost 100% of the refuge. These habitats are wellpreserved, offering very attractive conditions for birds, which in turn is evident in the extremely high density of nesting pairs. Most breeding bird species here are unable to reach the criterion of 0.5% national population. Thus, the following criteria should be applied: habitat convenience, a link between population and high density. In the refuge, the following are under protection: Anser albifrons, Anser anser, Anser fabalis, Chlidonias niger, Cygnus cygnus. The nearest wind turbines will be located approximately 7.7 km from the refuge. "Dolina Dolnej Odry" refuge PLB320003 The area includes the Oder River Valley between Kostrzyn and the Szczecin Lagoon (total length of 150 km) together with Dąbie Lake. Dąbie Lake is a shallow delta reservoir (5,600 ha, depth of max. 4 m), with a diversified shoreline. It is supplied by rainwater and river water, as well as by sea water (backwater phenomenon). The lake is separated from the Oder River stream by islands: Czapli Ostrów, Sadlińskie Łąki, Mienia, Wielka Kępa, Radolin, Czarnołęka, Dębina, Kacza and Mewia. The meadows and wetlands of Rokiciny, Sadlińskie and Trzebuskie Łęgi are adjacent to the southeastern shore of the lake. Dębie Lake has rich aquatic vegetation. The banks are occupied by a wide belt of rushes (mainly reeds and bulrush), behind which riverside herb vegetation grows. Large areas are occupied by riparian forests and willow scrubs. The interiors of large islands are covered with alder and ash-alder riparian forests. The estuary of the Oder River has two main branches – the East Oder and the Regalica. The area between the main branches (channels) (Międzyodrze) is a flat plain with numerous lakes and smaller channels, it is marshy, with periodically flooded meadows and fragments of riverine riparian forests. The area below Cedynia is called the Oderbruch, within which the Kostrzynieckie Swamp is of particular importance for birds. The refuge contains the entirety of the Lower Oder River Natura 2000 habitat area. On the German side, the Lower Oder Valley National Park extends along the Oder River. In the central and southern parts of the area, fragments of forest adjacent to the valley with the highest density of birds of prey were included. A bird refuge of the European range E 06. There are at least 43 species of birds from Annex I of the Birds Directive, 14 species from Polish Red Data Book (PRDBoA). A very important area especially for water and marsh birds during breeding, migration and wintering season. During the breeding season the area is inhabited by at least 1% of the national population (C3 and C6) of the following bird species: Eurasian bittern (PRDBoA), montagu's harrier and greylag goose; the following occur in relatively high density (C7): black tern, red-backed shrike and aquatic warbler (PRDBoA). During the migration period, at least 1% of the migration route populations (C2 and C3) of the following bird species occur: bean and greater white-fronted goose; the following occur in relatively high density: whooper swan, great crested grebe, gadwall, northern lapwing and European golden plover; in the fall staging area, up to 5,000 individuals (C5) of common cranes can be recorded. In winter, the great crested grebe occurs in high density (C3). 74 species of birds of the refuge are under protection. The nearest wind turbines will be located approximately 8.6 km from the refuge. 84 "Witnicko-Dębniańska" refuge PLB320015 The Witnicko-Dębniańska refuge occupies a part of the forests of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, located north of the Warta River, covering the edge zone of its valley and the adjacent fairly dense forest complex occupying the central part of the refuge in Zachodniopomorskie voivodeship, as well as a mosaic of farmland, mid-field ponds and smaller lakes, tree buffers and forest fragments between Warnice and Trzcińsko-Zdrój. The area is characterized by dense forest cover (about 70% of the refuge's area), with a predominance of pine forests, lesser amounts of riparian forests, oakhornbeam forests and beech forests, concentrated mainly along river valleys, around lakes and ponds. Within the forests there are numerous raised bogs, dystrophic ponds and larger water reservoirs – eutrophic lakes. Currently, the area of the refuge is relatively little urbanized and anthropogenically transformed, however, due to the high landscape values, the refuge is under quite strong pressure from recreation and tourism. In addition, the refuge is a place where mining industry is growing (a natural aggregate mine as well as an oil and gas mine). Within the borders of the refuge there are small localities, among which we can mention Gogolice Piaseczno, Chełm Dolny and Górny, Barnówko, Mostno, Bogusław, or Cychry. The land around the villages is used for agriculture. The preservation and maintenance of the habitats of valuable bird species in “Witnicko-Dębniańska” refuge is favored by the varied post-glacial landscape and the associated diversity of natural habitats, dense forest cover and non-forested agricultural areas, which provide feeding grounds for the species subject to protection. The most important threats to the avifauna and its habitats in the area in question are: the development of tourism and recreational development of the lake shores as well as urban pressure on open areas, which are mainly feeding grounds for the species subject to protection, mediumand high-voltage power lines crossing the area and the areas directly adjacent to it, the existing, planned and projected wind farms concentrated around the borders of the area, in its immediate vicinity, creating an additional barrier effect. A very serious threat to the avifauna is predation and the plundering of nests by alien species of predatory mammals such as American mink, raccoon and raccoon dog. Other threats include the processes of draining the ecosystems of fens, transitional raised bogs and high peat bogs, watercourse maintenance and the associated interference with the riverbed and banks, fertilizer runoff from fields intensifying the process of eutrophication of water reservoirs and peat bogs, afforestation of open feeding grounds, sewage disposal causing the direct pollution of surface waters, the penetration of bird habitats connected with fishing, angling, hunting and poaching, the expansion of the oil and gas mine and exploitation fields located near the refuge, as well as insufficient knowledge about the species subject to protection in the area, which may lead to adverse impact on avifauna as a result of unconscious activities connected with, among other things, forest management. A bird refuge of international importance (IBA PL013). There are at least 34 species of birds listed in Annex I of the Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive) and 2 species of migrating birds, of which 30 species are classified as breeding birds, 6 as migrating birds, while 12 species are listed in the Polish Red Data Book of Animals (PRDBoA). High numbers during the breeding season (more than 1%) are reached by greylag goose, Eurasian eagle owl (PRDBoA), common goldeneye, common crane, white-tailed eagle (PRDBoA), black kite (PRDBoA), red kite (PRDBoA), osprey (PRDBoA). 74 bird species in the refuge are subject to protection. The nearest wind turbines will be located approximately 9.6 km from the refuge. “Rozlewisko pod Mielnem Pyrzyckim” (trans. Mielno Pyrzyckie Swamp) ecological site. Established by virtue of Resolution No. VI/69/11 of the Kozielice commune council dated September 1, 2011. The purpose of establishing the site is protection of water-muddy ecosystem, being a place of existence of protected fauna species. The site covers an area of 38.63 ha, located in Mielno Pyrzyckie district, Kozielice commune. 85 Figure 24a. Location of the project on the background of the local Natura 2000 network. habitat refuges bird refuges CPK buffer zone ecological site WF patches Legend 86 Figure 24b. Location of the project on the background of the regional Natura 2000 network. In the vicinity of wind turbines location on the basis of the nature valorization of Banie commune (Piątkowska et al. 1998), specific objects were selected for protection of habitats as well as plant and animal sites. Some of them were maintained in the natural valorization of the Zachodniopomorskie voivodeship (Spieczyński ed. 2010). However, they were not included in the plans of Banie commune and were not created. Hence, as non-existent, they were not included in the analysis. 8. Description of monuments protected under the regulations on the protection and care over monuments in the study area There are no monuments protected by law in the wind turbines location area. In the vicinity of the project, in surrounding villages, there are still immovable monuments protected by law and entered in the register of the Voivodeship Office for Monument Protection in Szczecin. Table 28. Immovable monuments in the vicinity of the investment area. Legend habitat refuges bird refuges CPK buffer zone WF patches 87 Locality Reservoir Register no. Date of entry Decision no. Babinek Churchyard cemetery 160 1/19/2004 DZ-4200/63/O/03/2004 Babinek manor park 1048 12/2/1980 KL.I.5340/41/80 Babinek Church of St. Ann [kościół św. Anny] 160 1/19/2004 DZ-4200/63/O/03/2004 Banie Old Town area 70 10/29/1955 Kl-V-0/52/55 Banie Chapel of St. George [Kaplica św. Jerzego] 1019 12/5/1963 Kl.20/46/63 Banie Jewish Cemetery 946 9/12/1994 PSOZ/Sz-n/5340/128/94 Banie Church of Our Lady of Succour to the Faithful [kościół M.B. Wspomożenia Wiernych] 995 7/2/1956 Kl.V.-0/97/56 Banie Churchyard cemetery 995 6/12/2015 DZ.5130.14.2015.AR Banie powder tower 1023 12/5/1963 Kl.20/45/63 Baniewice Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus [Kościół NSPJ] 996 7/2/1956 Kl.V.-0/98/56 Baniewice Churchyard cemetery 996 6/12/2015 DZ.5130.16.2015.AR Dłusko Gryfińskie Church of Our Lady, Queen of Poland [Kościół MB Królowej Polski] 952 5/30/1974 Kl.I.6801/8/74 Dłusko Gryfińskie Churchyard cemetery 952 6/12/2015 DZ.5130.15.2015.AR Górnowo Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus [Kościół NSPJ] 1499 1/19/2016 DZ.5130.01.2016.AR Górnowo Churchyard cemetery 1499 1/19/2016 DZ.5130.01.2016.AR Kunowo Churchyard cemetery 172 7/13/2004 DZ-4200/16/O/2004 Kunowo Church of St. Adalbert of Prague [Kościół Św. Wojciecha] 172 7/13/2004 DZ-4200/16/O/2004 Lubanowo manor park 932 12/12/1980 KL.I.5340/47/80 Lubanowo Church of Christ the King [Kościół Chrystusa Króla] 1001 7/31/1956 Kl.V.-0/127/56 Lubanowo Churchyard cemetery 1001 6/12/2015 DZ.5130.12.2015.AR Otoki smock mill 948 5/29/1989 Kl.3-5340/26/89 Piaseczno Church of Our Lady of the Rosary [kościół MB Królowej Różańca Św.] 973 7/31/1956 Kl.V.-0/143/56 Piaseczno Churchyard cemetery 973 6/12/2015 DZ.5130.10.2015.AR Rożnowo manor park 949 12/3/1980 KL.I.5340/45/80 Rożnowo Church of Our Lady of Częstochowa [Kościół M.B. Częstochowskiej] 1179 10/22/1957 Kl.V.-0/283/57 Sosnowo Church of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary [kościół Niepokalanego Poczęcia NMP] 981 8/1/1956 Kl.V.-0/159/56 Sosnowo Churchyard cemetery 981 6/12/2015 DZ.5130.13.2015.AR Swobnica manor park 760 12/4/1980 KL.I.5340/55/80 Swobnica Church of St. Casimir [Kościół św. Kazimierza] 1025 8/1/1956 Kl.V.-0/163/56 Swobnica castle 760 3/31/1957 Kl.V.-0/248/57 88 There are also archaeological protection zones in the vicinity of the wind turbines location, however, their occurrence outside the wind turbines location and their assembly and service yards exclude any negative impacts. 9. Description of the analyzed project options 9.1. No project option This option was not analyzed due to the issued environmental decision specifying the conditions for the construction of the Banie wind power plant complex consisting of 46 wind turbines (GK-7627/2/2008) and obtaining a building permit by the Investor. This option will be implemented by the investor if the proposed "new" option is not agreed upon. Figure 25. Wind turbines location in the "old" option. 9.2. Alternative options subject to analysis. The analysis of the proposed project implementation alternative options was performed taking into account 2 criteria: - impact on noise levels, - impact on the natural environment. Legend wind turbine 89 9.2.1. Impact on noise levels in the environment. Due to the development of construction technology and the operation of new wind turbine models, two state-of-the-art wind turbine models were analyzed: Nordex 1N117 and Vestas V110. Total for 39 wind turbines of both models. The analysis of the generated noise indicated that permissible noise levels are not exceeded during the daytime. A possibility of slight exceeding of permissible noise levels at night was found in relation to 8 Nordex wind turbines (change of operation mode) and 5 Vestas V110 wind turbines (elimination of 3 units and power reduction in 2 units) (Appendix). To eliminate noise level exceedances, mitigation measures were taken that led to wind turbine reduction or operating power reduction to optimize turbines’ acoustic power. As a result, noise levels were determined with the reduced number of wind turbines and their acoustic power. Another analysis included 37 Nordex wind turbines and 34 Vestas wind turbines (Appendix). In case of N117 turbines, the power of 8 units had to be reduced to meet permissible nighttime noise levels. In case of V110 turbine, the power of 2 units had to be reduced to meet permissible nighttime noise levels. 9.2.2. Cumulative impact on the natural environment. During the preliminary analysis phase of the “new” project variant, the number of wind turbines was reduced by 7, from the original 46 units to 39. Analyses of the natural conditions, based on many years of pre-investment monitoring, indicated that the Tywa River Valley is an important habitat for avifauna, during nesting and migration periods. Appreciating the value of the Tywa River Valley, it was decided against constructing 6 wind turbines along the eastern border of the valley along the section from Sosnów to Banie (Fig. [missing figure number in the original version – translator’s note]). An important part of the impact is the nesting of the white-tailed eagle in the vicinity of the wind turbines located near Swobnica (EA-C). The birds return to the nest annually, and the flights over the Tywa River Valley and northward of adult birds and training flights of young birds near the nest may result in collisions with the nearest two wind turbines. The annual pre-investment monitoring reports suggested moving or eliminating the two nearest wind turbines. In order to protect the white-tailed eagle population and minimize the possibility of collisions, the investor decided to eliminate 3 wind turbines: 1 to the north and 2 to the east — located closest to the nest (Fig. 26). 96 During construction works a minor, temporary destruction of vegetation, including agricultural crops (cereals, rapeseed) in the area of the wind turbines installation, construction of assembly and service yards and service roads. The adverse impact on flora will be spatially limited and, due to the project covering a small area, should not cause great damage to the biocenosis. There are no natural or little transformed habitats in the area covered by the project: mid-field ponds, refuges or mid-field vegetation clusters. The fact that the project is distanced from any such areas found in the vicinity allows to conclude that the planned project will not have a negative impact on the vegetation of the area in question. No significant adverse impact on the vegetation is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on fauna. The main impact on animals, including birds, will be related to high noise levels generated by heavy construction machinery. The exhaust fumes generated or the movement of the heavy construction machinery itself is of a lesser significance. The aforementioned impact will be temporary and short term. There may be temporary abandonment of areas around the wind turbine installation sites by birds. Construction works will result in the exclusion of small portions of the installation sites that are animal habitat. The author’s observations and data from wind farms already in operation indicate that this impact on birds is temporary and that some birds return to their old habitats after construction is complete and noise has ceased. No significant adverse impact on fauna, especially birds, is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on biodiversity. Any project implemented in the natural environment interferes directly or indirectly with local biodiversity resources. The area of the planned project is characterized by low biodiversity. Areas of agrocenosis, in particular monocultures of cereals or rapeseed, are characterized by very low species diversity. This applies to all taxa, both plants and animals. Temporary occupation of small parts of agrocenosis for assembly and service yards and access roads will not result in a significant decrease in available habitat for breeding or feeding. Observations indicate that the areas around wind turbine become re-inhabited by animals. The organisms most likely to be affected by wind turbines are birds and bats. Birds are the most numerous group of animals protected by law in the agrocenosis area. Observations from operating wind farms in the Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship show that the most common breeding species in agrocenoses — the Eurasian skylark, returns to areas around wind turbines in following breeding periods. Nesting, mating flights and singing of Eurasian skylarks were observed in the space between the wind turbine and the horizontal range of the rotor blades’ reach. Many other species that feed in fields also return and travel between the operating wind turbines or between rotor blades. Mammals also return to the areas around wind turbines. Examples include deer or foxes that have been observed feeding near operating wind turbines. Deer tracks were observed at a distance of about 1.2 m from the towers of operating wind turbines. No significant adverse impact on biodiversity resources is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on protected areas. 97 There are no existing forms of nature conservation in the area covered by the project. There are some protected sites located in the neighboring areas. The construction and assembly works will be carried out in a small, limited area, hence there will be no impact of the purpose and objects of protection covered by the protected areas. Due to the distance, the proposed project will have no adverse impact on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 areas and their continuity and integrity. Due to the distance, the proposed project will not adversely affect the protection objectives of the Cedynia Landscape Park (Polish name: Cedyński Park Krajobrazowy - CPK) and its buffer zone. Due to the distance, the project will have no adverse impact on the protection objectives of the “Rozlewisko pod Mielnem Pyrzyckim” (trans. Mielno Pyrzyckie Swamp) ecological site. No adverse impact on the existing protected areas is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on living conditions and human health. Due to the nature of the project, the wind turbines shall be built at a considerable distance from buildings and human habitation. Construction and installation works will be carried out in the open spaces between the villages. Hence, there will be no impact on the residents of nearby villages. Noise, dust and chemical fumes (paints, varnishes, anti-corrosive coatings, etc.) may be a nuisance only to the employees of companies performing construction, installation and painting work in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. They should be provided with suitable protection in accordance with applicable health and safety regulations. Taking into account the scope and nature of the planned works and distance of the construction sites from buildings and places of permanent human habitation, there is no possibility of an adverse impact of the project on the health of the residents of local villages. No adverse impact on human health is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Summary of construction phase impact. At this stage, the impact of the project will be low, and most of the above-mentioned elements will only have a temporary, short term impact on the environment and will cease upon completion of the works. Construction works would not result in any significant impact in all aforementioned areas. Compared to the “old” variant, the reduction of the number of wind turbines in the “new” variant will reduce the environmental impact of the project in all of the above-mentioned areas. The construction phase impact analysis concludes that the proposed “new” project variant will be more favorable to the environment. Its implementation will result in reduced impact compared to the “old” variant. 10.2. Impact during the operation phase After the construction and commissioning of the wind farm the main impact will be on the biotic and to a lesser extent on the abiotic environment. In the case of abiotic components the impact will focus on acoustic climate, electromagnetic field and landscape. In the case of biotic components, the impact may affect fauna, especially birds and bats, which may move near and between the wind turbines. The reduction of the number of wind turbines alone will result in the reduction of the adverse impact. 98 Impact on the ground surface. The impact of the project in this phase will not be perceptible. Operating wind turbines do not affect the ground surface. No adverse impact on the ground surface is predicted. Impact on water. Wind turbines are unmanned devices. Electricity generation technology does not require supply of water. All operating devices will be monitored by a computer-based system of remote monitoring and diagnosing of wind turbines. Lack of necessity to constantly operate the devices will result in no household (sanitary) wastewater being generated. The wind turbine construction is a closed, sealed environment; any spills from operating equipment will be captured in the turbine into oil sumps and disposed of. In addition, each turbine will be located away from watercourses, water reservoirs and elements of the drainage system. The possibility of surface water and groundwater contamination is negligible. The operating turbines will not adversely affect the chemical and ecological state and will not cause any increase in the risk of failing to meet the environmental objectives: the Groundwater Bodies Information Sheets 23 and 24 and the Surface Water Body Information Sheet. No adverse impact on surface water and groundwater is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on air. The operating wind turbines are unmanned installations and do not contain any sources of dust, gas or other chemical emissions. The planned wind farm will have a positive impact on air due to production of green energy, contributing to reduction of fossil fuel combustion for heating and industrial purposes. Limitation of fossil fuel combustion will result in reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfur oxides and harmful fractions of PM2.5 and PM10 dust in combined heat and power plants, municipal heating plants and domestic heating facilities. Positive impact on the condition and quality of air is predicted. Impact on the climate. Wind turbines, due to their construction and lack of emissions, do not affect the climate on a regional scale. They may affect the microclimate of areas in the immediate vicinity. Since the planned turbines will be located at a distance from each other, their cumulative impact on the microclimate will be negligible. The proposed variant with a reduced number of wind turbines will further mitigate the impact on the local climate. Wind turbines will contribute to the reduction of fossil fuel combustion, thereby reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide and other substances. No adverse impact on the climate is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on natural resources. No natural resources will be used at this stage. 99 No adverse impact on the natural resources is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on tangible property. There will be no impact on tangible property at this stage. No adverse impact on tangible property is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on the natural and cultural landscape. Wind turbines are new specific tall objects that change the landscape, and their location is always perceived subjectively. During construction, the impact of the wind turbines will be minor, mainly related to the increase in height of the towers during their gradual, partial assembly. The impact of operating wind turbines on the surrounding landscape results from the visual specificity of the structures themselves, the physiography of the investment area and the settlement structure of the region. The specificity of the wind farm structure lies in the visual impact on the landscape values of the area, which are closely linked to the structure of the wind turbines, the terrain and the settlement structure of the region. The impact of the turbine depends mainly on its height parameters. In the variant under analysis, the total height of the wind turbine will increase by 30 m. In case of such high structures, such an increase is unnoticeable in the spatial perception. Especially since the previous variant, with the total height of the turbine of 150 m, demonstrated no significant adverse impact on the landscape. Such high objects constitute a strange, technical element of the natural landscape. Due to their height it is difficult to incorporate and "mask" the turbines in the landscape, as they tower over the trees. However, the presence of forest complexes, mid-field tree buffers or roadside trees contributes to the reduction of landscape disharmony. The site of the planned investment is surrounded by wooded areas. The planned location of the wind farm should not significantly reduce the aesthetic value of the landscape. The presence of forest complexes around the wind farm location sites will partially "mask" the existence of the wind turbines. Additionally, in the middle of the area, between the wind farm patches, stretches the Tywa River Valley, surrounded by forest complexes, especially in the southern part, between Banie and Swobnica, which will also mask the wind farm to some extent. Due to the size of the wind turbines it is not possible to completely mask them in the landscape. Large areas of forests, roadside alleys and village buildings will to a large extent neutralize their presence in the landscape. The aesthetic value of the landscape depends on how the turbine is painted. Usually it is white or the pastel color that has the least contrast to the background. There are no archaeological sites or preservation zones in the areas of the planned location of wind turbines. The investment site is an agricultural area and there is no modern cultural assets. No significant adverse impact on landscape, cultural heritage and historical monuments as well as on modern cultural assets is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on acoustic climate. The operation of the "new" variant of the project selected for implementation will not cause a significant adverse impact on the environment. 100 The increase in noise levels will occur in the immediate vicinity of the operating turbines. It will only affect the animals in the vicinity. As demonstrated by observations from operating wind farms, this impact will be short-lived and most animals become accustomed to it. The turbines will be located in agricultural areas away from buildings and places of permanent human habitation. The isophones indicate that acceptable noise levels will not be exceeded, both during the day and at night. No adverse impact on noise levels is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on vibrations Modern wind turbines are equipped with elements that dampen the generated vibrations in the devices and tower structures. Since the turbines will be dampened, no significant amounts of vibration will be transmitted to the environment. No significant adverse impact on vibration generation is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on electromagnetic field emissions. The emitted electromagnetic fields will be shielded by the construction of the nacelle and the entire turbine. Measurable fields will occur surrounding the equipment in the nacelle. They will be practically non-measurable at ground level. Therefore, there will be no impact on humans or animals. No adverse impact from electromagnetic field emissions is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on infrasound emissions. Infrasound will be attenuated by the wind turbine structure. Based on data from existing wind farms, it can be concluded that infrasound levels near buildings will be comparable to the background (wind noise) or lower. No adverse impact from infrasound emissions is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. Impact on waste management. Virtually no waste will be produced in this phase. Small amounts of operational waste will be produced during the servicing of the turbine, which is carried out as it is for any piece of equipment in operation. The waste produced will not be accumulated, but will be removed by the servicing personnel on an ongoing basis. No adverse impact on waste management is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the amount of waste generated, thus the impact of the project. Impact on vegetation. 101 During their operation the wind turbines will have no impact on the vegetation. The areas around the service yards will continue to be used for agricultural production. No adverse impact on the vegetation is predicted. Impact on fauna. The analysis of the impact of the planned investment on fauna, performed for 46 turbines in the "old" variant, did not indicate a significant adverse impact (Zyska and Rychlewski 2008). It was the basis for the positive decision on environmental conditions of the project issued in 2009. The analysis of the "new" variant of the project, which assumes changes of three parameters of the project: increase of the total height of the wind turbine, the length of rotor blades and reduction of the number of wind turbines, also demonstrates no significant adverse impact on the environment. It should be emphasized that the reduction of the number of turbines to 34 will significantly reduce the impact on fauna. The impact was analyzed in two ways, in terms of the influence of the changed wind farm parameters on animals and their habitats and in terms of its influence on the white-tailed eagle population nesting in the vicinity of the EA-C near Swobnica. Projected impact of the project on animals It is planned to change the number of turbines and the total height of the turbine from 150 to 180 m. This results from the technological progress and the discontinuation of production of the previous smaller wind turbine models by the manufacturers, as well as from the use of wind energy in a more optimal way. The use of new models will result in higher efficiency with fewer wind turbines. Thus, it will increase the profitability of the investment with less impact on the natural environment. Impact on mammals Observations reveal that the impact of the wind farm will practically only affect birds. Mammals present on the site use the investment area for feeding. Deer, wild boars and foxes often appeared in the vicinity of the designed wind turbines. Observations of operating wind farms indicate that wind turbines do not constitute an obstacle or a deterrent for them. They were often feeding near them. The impact of habitat loss on mammals will be very small or non-existent. Deer, wild boars, and foxes appearing on agricultural crops become accustomed to wind turbines. In areas of operating wind farms deer and foxes were observed feeding near the very towers. Therefore, no negative impact is predicted for large mammals. No negative impact is expected for bats either. This is evidenced by the data from listening points that were located in agricultural areas in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm site. The use of this space was negligible, limited to single flights. Night-vision observations showed that bat flights occurred mostly at low altitudes of up to about 20 m, well below the lower range of the rotor blades. Increasing the total height will result in the increase of zone 1 by 10 m to an altitude of 60 m. This will additionally considerably reduce the possibility of collisions with bats, which mostly moved at up to approx. 20 m. In the areas of the wind farm location there are no mid-field refuges, roadside shrub and tree buffers, and thus they are unattractive to bats. The investment site lacks habitats attractive to bats. Even the species moving in open areas (the serotine bat and the common noctule) appeared sporadically. No significant bat flight and migration routes were identified above the investment area. The “new” proposed project variant would have no significant adverse impact on mammals. 102 Impact on birds. Due to the number of species, their numbers and distribution, birds constitute a group particularly vulnerable to the impact of the project. The collected data indicate that the investment site was not intensively used by birds, both during breeding and post-breeding periods. The presence of 105 taxa was recorded. Most were protected species, frequent or common on a national scale. Rare species were usually observed only occasionally. The main impact of wind turbines is related to the limitation of availability of habitats, the possibility of collisions and the occurrence of an ecological barrier effect during flights, especially the migratory ones. Loss of habitats. The planned wind farm will be located in agricultural areas that are unattractive for most bird species. The investment area is intensively farmed. The area is occupied by monocultures of cereals and rapeseed, with a small share of other crops. Wastelands constitute a very small area. The agrocenosis areas, in particular monocultures of cereals and rapeseed, are used during the breeding season by a small number of species associated with agricultural areas, mainly small passerines, dominated by the Eurasian skylark and the corn bunting. Galliformes – common pheasants and grey partridges were also observed. Occasionally moving over the crops were charadriiformes, mainly pigeons, as well as accipitriformes and corvids (crows, rooks, ravens) and other small passerines (yellowhammers, sparrows). There are no mid-field shrub and tree buffers or habitats attractive for birds at the locations of the designed wind turbines. Short, non-continuous rows of shrubs and trees (often wild fruit trees) were present in few sections of the area, along field roads. However, their numbers are declining every year, as a result of felling and dieback. The destruction of roadside shrub and tree buffers in order to increase the crop area was observed. The low mosaicism of crops resulted in low number and abundance of bird species. Thus, it had an impact on the low use of space in the wind turbine locations. The construction of the wind farm and associated infrastructure entails a change in use of a portion of the area. There will be a temporary loss of a small portion of habitats used by birds. The reduction in the number of turbines, and thus the size of the infrastructure, will result in an approx. 20% reduction of the converted area. This will result in a 20% increase in the habitats available for birds, compared to the "old" variant of the project. Their loss to the turbine location will not be significant for most species. The areas for assembly and service yards are under cultivation, and thus unattractive for most birds. The areas of the wind turbine locations are monocultures of crops, lacking mid-field shrub, tree buffers and ponds, which makes them little attractive. The grounds intended for service roads include already existing field roads and field accesses. Only small fragments of crops will be converted. It should be noted that the investment will not affect habitats adjacent to the planned wind farm area. Construction works will be carried out only at the sites of the designed infrastructure, in the area of agricultural crops. The project will not cause damage or degradation of habitats in the vicinity, nor will it fragment them. The area of lost habitats in relation to the total area will be very small and will not have a significant impact on the condition of the habitats attractive to birds found in the vicinity. Thus, the loss of a marginal portion of agricultural crops will not adversely affect the condition and availability of habitats for birds. Collisions. Birds nesting in the area of the proposed wind farm and the birds traversing the area during migratory flights are in risk of collisions. During the breeding season, only two species were found nesting in the area: the Eurasian skylark and the corn bunting, as well as probable breeding of the grey partridge. However, together with the pheasant, it breeds mainly in mid-field refuges and wastelands, which were practically absent from the area. 103 Other species, in particular the species covered by the Directive, nested in the periphery or outside of the wind farm location or even the monitored area. They appeared over the wind farm area during habitat migration or feeding. Impacts to field species are reasonably well recognized based on data from existing wind farms that have been in operation for years now and are located primarily on agricultural lands. The Eurasian skylark, nesting in the vicinity of wind farms, is considered particularly exposed to the risk of collisions. However, observations from wind farms already in operation do not support this. Monitoring results from the West Pomeranian region show its low collision rate, e.g., 1 Eurasian skylark collision was observed at Jagniątkowo wind farm in 2007–2011; no collisions were observed at Zagórze wind farm in 2003–2009; no Eurasian skylark collisions were observed at Karściono wind farm in 2009–2010; 1 Eurasian skylark collision was observed at Resko wind farm in 2015–2017; no Eurasian skylark collisions were observed at Banie I wind farm in 2016–2018. Flocks of Eurasian skylarks have been observed flying in the vicinity of operating wind turbines and even singing in flight between rotor blades. Eurasian skylarks seem to be able to adapt to the presence of wind turbines. Despite numerous observations of the Eurasian skylarks during the breeding season and breeding dispersal, the number of collisions is insignificant compared to the population. Corn buntings, despite their presence in wind turbine location sites, are not a species at risk of collision. In their case, this is probably related to adaptation and low-level, non-collision low-altitude flights. In the West Pomeranian region, there were no collisions with wind turbines were reported. Monitoring and literature data suggest that no significant negative impact of the project on local and regional population status is to be expected for the 2 species mentioned above. Bird migration in the wind turbine location sites fluctuated between phenological periods. The breeding and dispersal periods were dominated by low-altitude flights, below the lower range of the rotor blades’ reach (Fig. 28). These were habitat flights, associated with feeding and raising young, and roosting prior to migration. Flights in the collision zone were of low intensity, limited to a small number of taxa, mainly large passerines (pigeons, crows, ravens), flocks of Eurasian skylarks and common starlings, and accipitriformes. They accounted for 6.8 – 11.8% of total avifauna flights. Accipitriformes and corvids are able to move and feed adjacent to the wind farm as well as within range of rotor blades. Flights are more intense during the migration period, with birds moving in flocks at various altitudes. Mainly anseriformes (geese and less frequently swans) and cranes were observed in the collision zone. The presence of these species was associated with some birds landing in the monitored area or lowering the altitude for landing outside the area of the project. Occasionally there were gulls, pigeons, some accipitriformes or crows and ravens. Observations from the wind farms already in operation show that the aforementioned species can react to the presence of operating wind turbines and avoid them, fly between wind turbines or increase their altitude to fly over them. It should be noted that during the migration period only a portion of the birds moved within the area of the proposed wind farm, a large portion flew over the location of the wind farm. Few cases of collisions between gulls, geese, or accipitriformes are mentioned in the literature. There are virtually no reports of collisions of swans, cranes, crows or ravens. The analyzed new variant assumes an increase in tower height and rotor blade length. Compared to the “old” variant, this will enlarge Zone 1 — safe by 10 m and Zone 2 — potential collision hazard, by 20 m. Enlarging Zone 1 will have a positive effect by reducing the number of potential collisions. Most birds traversing during all seasons, use Zone 1 (Fig. 28). Some of the birds flew at an altitude of 50 m above ground level which was previously included in Zone 2. Increasing the ceiling of Zone 1, will increase the number of birds using the safe zone, thereby minimizing the impact of the project (Fig. 28). As the figures show , in contrast to the “old” variant, after increasing the ceiling of zone 1, the use of Zone 2 decreased in all phenological periods, vulnerable migration periods in particular. This will translate into fewer potential collisions. 104 3 14.1 14.8 2 8.6 10.4 new old 1 77.3 74.7 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 3 0.4 0.5 2 6.9 9.7 new old 1 92.7 89.2 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 3 4.4 4.5 2 4.6 6.8 new old 1 91.0 88.7 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Figure 28a. Comparison of space use by birds in the old (h — 150 m) and new (h — 180 m) project variants during winter. Figure 28b. Comparison of space use by birds in the old (h — 150 m) and new (h — 180 m) project variants during spring migration. Figure 28c. Comparison of space use by birds in the old (h — 150 m) and new (h — 180 m) project variants during the breeding and breeding dispersal period. 3 28.3 28.7 2 9.5 11.8 new old 1 62.2 59.3 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 105 Figure 28d. Comparison of space use by birds in the old (h — 150 m) and new (h — 180 m) project variants during fall migration. The possibility of collisions of birds with wind turbine cannot be completely ruled out. Observations from the wind farms already in operation show that collisions do happen. However, their intensity is very low and usually insignificant compared to the populations of most species. The reduction in wind turbine and the enlargement of Zone 1, will further reduce the impact of the project. Based on data from wind farms in Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship (Świtajski et al. 2012), the number of collisions relative to the volume of flights in Zone 2 was estimated to range 0.01 – 0.38%. Based on these assumptions, the potential minimum and maximum number of collisions for both alternatives can be estimated: Winter Spring migration Breeding and dispersal period Fall migration Old variant Min. number 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 Max. number 2.6 9.5 13.9 16.0 New variant Min. number 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 Max. number 2.1 7.8 9.7 10.9 The table above shows a decrease in the number of potential bird collisions under both variants. For the minimum number, values are similar to 1 bird per 2 years of farm operation. For the maximum value, differences range from 1 to 4 birds per 1 year of farm operation. It should be kept in mind that as the volume of flights in Zone 2 increases, the number of potential collisions in the “new” variant of the project will decrease. Thus, the “new” variant will have a lesser potential adverse impact. Projected impact of the project on the white-tailed eagle. One of the impacts of the project may white-tailed eagle collisions with the wind turbines on flight routes from the nest to the feeding grounds and back, and collisions of young birds in the vicinity of the nest. Taking into account the flight routes and directions of white-tailed eagles, there may be collisions of birds with elements of the wind turbines, rotor blades in particular. This may be particularly true for young birds that are just practicing their flying skills in the vicinity of operating wind turbines. Taking into account that the area where the young birds were observed was approx. 300 – 400 m into the fields, the potential threat may be posed by 2 wind turbines, turbines no.: 39 and 44 (old designations 39 and 41). Although they are located at a distance of 1.2 and 1.4 km from the nest (approx. 630 m from the boundaries of the protection zone), they are closest to the nest and the flight zone of the young birds and on the flight route to Lake Długie and the Tywa River Valley (Fig. 1). Additionally, one wind turbine located north of the nest was removed (Fig. 29). Increasing the height could potentially increase white-tailed eagle collisions with the wind turbines. However, the planned new parameters will result in the increase of Zone 1 — safe, by 10 m, from 50 to 60 m from the ground level to the lowest position of the rotor blades. Zone 2 — potentially hazardous, will be increase by 30 m, to 180 m above ground level. (60 – 180 m). Vertically, white-tailed eagles flew most frequently in Zone 1 — safe, less frequently in Zone 2 — potentially hazardous, and occasionally in Zone 3 — safe (Fig. 29). Adult birds were observed in all zones, while young eagles were observed only in Zone 1. Thus, it can be predicted that collisions may primarily involve adult birds. 112 In the table below, green color indicates the reduction of the impact of an adverse parameter in the “new” variant in comparison to the “old” variant. Table 30. Projected impact of the project on the environment. No. Type of Impact Execution period Operation period Decommissioning period 1 2 3 4 5 1. Positive - Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere Restoration of the original function of the site 2. Adverse Transformation of soil and topsoil, periodic emission of noise, dust and other pollutants into the atmosphere, and sound emission from machinery operation Noise emissions, impact on fauna Periodic emission of noise, dust and other pollutants into the atmosphere and sound emissions from the operation of machinery 3. Direct Transformation of soil and topsoil, reduction of biologically active surfaces Reduction in the area of plant and animal habitat, impact on avifauna Restoration of the original function of the site 4. Indirect Reduction in the area of plant and animal habitats Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to atmosphere, Restoration of biologically active surfaces, plant and animal habitats disharmony of landscape, slight reduction in the area of plant and animal habitats 5. Short-term Periodic emission of noise, dust and other pollutants into the atmosphere and sound emissions from the operation of machinery - Temporary increase in sound emission 6. Long-term Transformation of soil and topsoil, reduction of biologically active surfaces Transformation of part of the land surface and noise emissions Restoration of biologically active surfaces, plant and animal habitats 7. Reversible Transformation of soil and topsoil, reduction of biologically active surfaces Noise emissions, landscape disharmony, reduction in the area of plant and animal habitats, impact on avifauna - 8. Irreversible (cumulative) - - - 113 9. Permanent - - Restoration of biologically active surfaces, plant and animal habitats, 10. Periodic Transformation of soil and topsoil, periodic emission of noise, dust and other pollutants into the atmosphere, and sound emission from machinery operation, reduction of biologically active surfaces Noise emissions, landscape disharmony Temporary increase in noise emissions 11.2. Resulting from the use of natural resources During the operation of the project, non-renewable natural resources will not be used. No adverse significant impacts are predicted. 11.3. Resulting from emissions Reducing the number of wind turbines will reduce the area subject to noise emissions. There will be a reduction in the area impacted by exhaust and dust emissions from the transportation of construction components and building materials and a smaller network of service roads. The designed reduction in the number of wind turbines will reduce the amount of emissions to the environment generated during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the project. The changes in the "new" project variant will have a favorable impact on the local natural environment. 12. Description of anticipated measures to prevent, mitigate and provide natural compensation of possible adverse impact of the project on the environment In order to minimize the possible impact of wind turbines on the environment, proposed measures to mitigate, prevent adverse impact on the environment are presented. Mitigation and prevention measures. Implementation phase: - organize building sites and back-up facilities outside areas of high natural value, - prior to works commencement, inspect construction areas for burrows, nests, or other structures used for animal breeding, - if animal breeding sites are found, perform minimization measures developed on an ongoing basis by the naturalist, - conduct works in an orderly manner, - work equipment should be in good working condition, - the possibility of leakage of lubricants, operating fluids and fuels onto the ground must be prevented, - if spills are observed, collect the contaminated substrate and store in a sealed container, 114 - collect the waste in containers and hand it over for disposal to companies with appropriate authorization, - conduct construction activities between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. to limit temporary noise increases, outside of the period of continuous construction work on the foundations, - limit the running time of the engines construction equipment and heavy vehicles to the necessary minimum, - when transporting excavated soil, cover hoppers with tarps, - power turbines will be made of ready-made elements assembled at assembly yards, - during construction and installation works, properly stockpile the stripped soil in a designated area for reuse to restore the original condition upon completion of construction, - the surface layer of soil obtained during the earthworks should be reused on the building sites, - disposal of the resulting construction waste to designated disposal sites or to an operating landfill, - protect excavations for the foundations of towers and the created infrastructure from amphibians, reptiles and small mammals falling into them, and in case they are found, allow them to leave the excavation freely, - after completion of the construction and assembly works, the area around the towers should be restored to its original condition using the soil obtained during the earthworks, - strictly restore any loss of vegetation. Operation phase: - the locations of individual towers have been moved at least 160 m away from trees, - locate the power plant towers at an appropriate distance from residential buildings, in order to meet the conditions resulting from the acceptable noise standards, - measure actual noise levels after commissioning, - tower construction uses tubular structure, which has less impact on birds than lattice structure, - the planned wind turbines will be equipped with modern technological solutions ensuring lower noise emission into the environment, - to eliminate light reflections, the towers and rotor blades will be painted in a light pastel matte color, in addition to the markings required by air traffic regulations, - no advertising should be placed on wind towers and nacelles, the logo of the power plant manufacturer or energy producer harmonizing with the color of the tower and nacelle itself is acceptable, - carry out post-implementation monitoring within 3 years from the commissioning of the wind farm, with an annual report submitted to the Regional Nature Conservator, - submit the monitoring methodology for approval to the Regional Nature Conservator, - based on the monitoring results provided, the Regional Nature Conservator may decide to apply other necessary minimization measures, - the investor is obliged to finance the treatment and recovery of birds injured by wind turbines, - the investor is obliged to keep records of bird fatalities, - if any bird mortality is observed during migration or breeding season, especially of rare bird species, immediate action should be taken to mitigate the adverse impact on birds. Decommissioning phase: 115 - the works should be carried out outside the night time between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. in order to eliminate the noise associated with the operation of construction machinery and means of transport, - transport any waste to a designated disposal site or to an operating landfill, - after the completion of construction works and decommissioning of the investment, the initial character of the area should be restored so as to enable agricultural use, recultivate the sites where access roads and foundations of wind turbines were located, - in case of a possible wind turbine tower failure or collapse, the investor is obliged to repair any damage caused to the natural environment. 13. Proposals for monitoring the impact of the planned project During construction, operation and decommissioning of the project, the Investor is obliged to monitor the works and functioning of the project as well as the impact of the investment on the environment. 13.1. Proposals for monitoring during the construction phase The following should be inspected during the construction phase: - the course of construction and assembly works, in terms of impact on the vegetation, - the excavations for the foundations of wind turbines and the created infrastructure for the presence of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals that might have fallen into them, - amount of noise emissions, - compliance with the provisions of the environmental decision. 13.2. Proposals for monitoring during the operation phase - Make measurements of the actual noise level after the start of operation, - permissible noise levels must be met, - carry out post-implementation environmental monitoring within 3 years from the date of commissioning the wind farm; monitoring should include: - avifauna, based on the recommendations of the General Directorate for Environmental Protection (GDOŚ - Pol. Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska) included in the study by Chylarecki et al. (2011) and more recent studies, - chiropterofauna based on recommendations included in the study by Kepel et al. (2011) and more recent studies, - place wind turbines near Swobnica, in the vicinity of the white-tailed eagle nest, under special surveillance, - submit annual monitoring reports to RDOŚ in Szczecin, - the investor is obliged to conduct monitoring of the investment for the occurrence of cases of injured birds at a frequency determined by the environmental supervision, - in the event of a collision, the investor is obliged to immediately undertake rescue measures at its own expense, - the investor is obliged to register bird fatalities and report them to RDOŚ in Szczecin. 13.3. Proposals for monitoring during the decommissioning phase During this phase, the investment area should be restored to its original condition, prior to the start of construction. 116 14. Analysis of potential social conflicts related to the planned project A conflict analysis was performed for the earlier, "old" project variant in 2010. As indicated, potential conflicts may relate to the impact on the landscape and visual perception of the wind turbines as new dominant heights in space. No community conflicts were identified during previous planning work. The proposed "new" variant of the project assumes raising the total height of the wind turbines by 30 m. In the spatial visual perception of wind turbines this will be a small change, probably unnoticeable to many people. Reduction of the area of the wind farm by eliminating 12 wind turbines will reduce landscape occupation by approximately 25%. There will be a significant reduction in the number of new dominant heights. Wide areas of undeveloped landscape will thus be created, that will in turn significantly reduce the visual impact of the investment. The main public objection to this type of project is the increased noise level. As shown in the calculations above, the investor has selected the number and type of turbines that guarantee compliance with the legal noise levels. Maintaining appropriate noise levels should not raise public objections in this case. 15. Indication of the need to establish a limited use area The project does not require the establishment of a limited use area. 16. Difficulties due to technical deficiencies or gaps in contemporary knowledge The environmental impact of wind turbines have been well studied. A lot of monitoring and research has been done in the last 2 decades in the world, Europe and Poland. The spread of renewable energy sources and the rapid development of wind energy in the last decade, also in Poland and in the Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship, have contributed to this. Zachodniopomorskie is a region with a large number of completed wind farms, including some of the first and some of the largest in the country. The projects were preceded by pre-implementation and post-implementation monitoring, which provided data showing the impact of wind turbines on the environment, especially on the avifauna. Despite the abundance of data on the environmental impact of wind turbines, we still cannot determine the impact of a specific project on avifauna with 100% certainty. Although numbers of collisions for individual wind farms are lower than the predicted rates, we still do not know all possible interactions. Forecasting is based on fragmentary data and the results are abstracted to the entire lifetime of the wind turbines. Hence, the forecasts are subject to some error that is still difficult to estimate. Therefore, following the precautionary principle, the possibility of collision situations should always be taken into account. This is why the investor, before starting the operation, should have a post-implementation monitoring program developed together with environmental supervision and consulted with RDOŚ. 17. Summary and conclusions  As part of the study, an analysis of the potential environmental impact of changing the "old" wind farm variant to the "new" wind turbine siting variant was performed.  For the old variant, the decision on environmental conditions of the project (GK-7627/2/2008) was obtained in 2008 and the construction permit was issued.  In the proposed variant, the number of wind turbines was reduced from 46 to 34 and the wind turbines parameters were changed: tower height to 120 m, rotor blade length to 60 m, total wind turbine height to 180 m. 117  This change stems from the passage of time, during which technological progress has been made in terms of increasing the efficiency and reliability of wind turbine operation and the withdrawal from production of older models of wind turbines, which were taken into account in the previous environmental impact analysis.  The investor decided to change the parameters of wind turbines, adapting the project to the current technological capabilities.  Other infrastructure elements of the "old" variant remain unchanged.  Annual pre-investment monitoring was performed for the project, which forms the basis for the environmental impact analyses of the “new” variant.  The analysis of the impact of the “new” variant, in alternative and investor versions, on the acoustic climate was performed.  In the course of the analysis, the variant assuming construction of 34 Vestas V110 wind turbines was adopted for implementation. During the construction phase: - The impact on soil and ground surface of the “new” variant was found to be reduced in comparison to the “old” variant - The project is not expected to have an adverse impact on surface water, groundwater, or underground water. - The project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the condition of the air. The proposed variant will reduce pollutant emissions, thereby reducing the threat to the air. - No adverse impact on climate is expected from the construction of the wind farm. The proposed “new” variant will significantly reduce potential climate impact. - The project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the natural resources. - The project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on tangible property, - The project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the natural landscape. The project is not expected to have adverse impact on historical monuments and modern cultural heritage, - The project is not expected to pose significant threat to the acoustic environment. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No vibration hazards beyond the boundaries of the areas covered by works are predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact from electromagnetic fields is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse infrasound impact is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse environmental impact is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No significant adverse impact on the vegetation is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No significant adverse impact on fauna, especially birds, is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No significant adverse impact on biodiversity resources is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact on the existing protected areas is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact on human health is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project.  The construction phase impact analysis concludes that the proposed "new" project variant will be more favorable to the environment. Its implementation will result in reduced impact compared to the "old" variant. 118 During the operation phase: - No adverse impact on the ground surface is predicted. - No adverse impact on surface and groundwater is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - Positive impact on the condition and quality of the air is predicted. - No adverse impact on the climate is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact on natural resources is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact on tangible property is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No significant adverse impact on landscape, cultural heritage and historical monuments as well as on modern cultural assets is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact on noise levels is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines will further reduce the impact of the project. - No significant adverse impact on vibration generation is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact from electromagnetic field emissions is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact from infrasound emissions is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact on waste management is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the amount of waste generated, thus the impact of the project. - No adverse impact on the vegetation is predicted. - The “new” proposed project variant would have no significant adverse impact on mammals. - No significant adverse impact of the proposed variant on avifauna in all phenological periods is predicted, the reduction of the occupied space and the number of wind turbines will reduce the impact in comparison to the "old" variant, - The analysis of the reduction in the number and increase in the wind turbine parameters indicates a significant reduction in the impact of the “new” variant of the project on the population of white-tailed eagles. - Implementation of the "new" variant will reduce the potential for bird collisions with wind turbines. - Implementation of the "new" variant will result in a reduction of transformed habitats, thus increasing the areas favorable for birds. - The potential impact on fauna is predicted to decrease as a result of reduced numbers of wind turbines and changes in their parameters. The new variant would not result in significant adverse impact on fauna, - No adverse impact on biodiversity is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed alternative will further reduce the impact of the project. - No adverse impact on human health is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project.  During the decommissioning phase, no adverse impact on the environment is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project.  No adverse impact on existing forms of nature conservation is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project.  No adverse impact on elements of the Natura 2000 ecological network is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project.  No adverse impact on historical monument and the cultural landscape is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project. 119  No cross-border impact is predicted.  No significant cumulative effect is predicted.  No adverse environmental impact resulting from a failure or disaster is predicted. Reducing the number of wind turbines in the proposed variant will further reduce the impact of the project.  The designed reduction in the number of wind turbines will reduce the amount of emissions to the environment generated during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the project.  The changes in the "new" project variant will have a favorable impact on the local natural environment.  The anticipated measures aimed at minimizing the potential environmental impact of the project during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases were presented.  The assumptions for monitoring the impact of the planned project during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases were presented.  The collected data and performed analyses indicate that the "new" variant of the project is more environmentally friendly.  Implementation of the "new" project variant will have a positive environmental impact compared to the "old" variant. 18. Summary in non-specialist language The subject of the study is the construction of a wind farm consisting of 34 wind turbines in the Banie commune. The report analyses a new variant for a wind farm with 46 wind turbines, for which the environmental decision was obtained in 2009 (GK-7627/2/2008) and the construction permit was issued. The purpose of the study is to analyze the possible environmental impact of the "new" variant of the investment, with the following change of parameters: tower height to 120 m and blade length to 60m. Other elements of the wind farm infrastructure remain unchanged. For the purposes of the study, a noise analysis was performed for the new variants of the investment: alternative and investment ones. The most environmentally favorable variant consisting of 34 Vestas V110 wind turbines was proposed. The proposed alternative variant will meet environmental regulatory requirements. No adverse environmental impact is predicted during construction. In some cases, there will be a positive environmental impact. No significant adverse environmental impact is predicted during operation. Similar to the construction phase, there will be a positive impact on the environment, especially on the avifauna. The collected data indicate that the impact on birds will be lower compared to the "old" variant (46 wind turbines), and in some aspects even positive (collisions, habitat loss, barrier effect). The impact of the "new" variant on the white-tailed eagle population is projected to decrease compared to the "old" variant. Also for mammals, especially bats, a reduction in impact is anticipated compared to the "old" variant. No adverse impact on the existing forms of nature conservation located in the vicinity of the project, including the ecological integrity and continuity of the Natura 2000 network, is expected. Analysis of available materials does not indicate the possibility of a cross-border impact or the occurrence of a cumulative impact. The proposed "new" investment variant will result in reduced adverse impact and positive impact on the environment, especially birds. In order to minimize the possible impact of wind turbines on the environment, proposed measures to mitigate, prevent adverse impacts on the environment are presented: implementation phase: 120 - organize building sites and back-up facilities outside areas of high natural value, - prior to works commencement, inspect construction areas for burrows, nests, or other structures used for animal breeding, - if animal breeding sites are found, perform minimization measures developed on an ongoing basis by the naturalist, - conduct works in an orderly manner, - work equipment should be in good working condition, - the possibility of leakage of lubricants, operating fluids and fuels onto the ground must be prevented, - if spills are observed, collect the contaminated substrate and store in a sealed container, - collect the waste in containers and hand it over for disposal to companies with appropriate authorization, - conduct construction activities between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. to limit temporary noise increases, outside of the period of continuous construction work on the foundations, - limit the running time of the engines construction equipment and heavy vehicles to the necessary minimum, - when transporting excavated soil, cover hoppers with tarps, - power turbines will be made of ready-made elements assembled at assembly yards, - during construction and installation works, properly stockpile the stripped soil in a designated area for reuse to restore the original condition upon completion of construction, - the surface layer of soil obtained during the earthworks should be reused on the building sites, - disposal of the resulting construction waste to designated disposal sites or to an operating landfill, - protect excavations for the foundations of towers and the created infrastructure from amphibians, reptiles and small mammals falling into them, and in case they are found, allow them to leave the excavation freely, - after completion of the construction and assembly works, the area around the towers should be restored to its original condition using the soil obtained during the earthworks, - strictly restore any loss of vegetation. operation phase: - the locations of individual towers have been moved at least 160 m away from trees, - locate the power plant towers at an appropriate distance from residential buildings, in order to meet the conditions resulting from the acceptable noise standards, - measure actual noise levels after commissioning, - tower construction uses tubular structure, which has less impact on birds than lattice structure, - the planned wind turbines will be equipped with modern technological solutions ensuring lower noise emission into the environment, - to eliminate light reflections, the towers and rotor blades will be painted in a light pastel matte color, in addition to the markings required by air traffic regulations, - no advertising should be placed on wind towers and nacelles, the logo of the power plant manufacturer or energy producer harmonizing with the color of the tower and nacelle itself is acceptable, - carry out post-implementation monitoring within 3 years from the commissioning of the wind farm, with an annual report submitted to the Regional Nature Conservator, 121 - submit the monitoring methodology for approval to the Regional Nature Conservator, - based on the monitoring results provided, the Regional Nature Conservator may decide to apply other necessary minimization measures, - the investor is obliged to finance the treatment and recovery of birds injured by wind turbines, - the investor is obliged to keep records of bird fatalities, - if any bird mortality is observed during migration or breeding season, especially of rare bird species, immediate action should be taken to mitigate the adverse impact on birds. decommissioning phase: - the works should be carried out outside the night time between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. in order to eliminate the noise associated with the operation of construction machinery and means of transport, - transport any waste to a designated disposal site or to an operating landfill, - after the completion of construction works and decommissioning of the investment, the initial character of the area should be restored so as to enable agricultural use, recultivate the sites where access roads and foundations of wind turbines were located, - in case of a possible wind turbine tower failure or collapse, the investor is obliged to repair any damage caused to the natural environment. In summary, it can be concluded that the proposed "new" variant of the project, which consists in reducing the number of wind turbines to 34 and changing the height of the tower and rotor blade length, will not significantly affect the quality of the environment. Quite the opposite, it will positively affect the environment, compared to the "old" variant. 19. Sources of information the report was based on  Janicki D. 2010. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2010. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Janicki D. 2011. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2011. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Janicki D. 2012. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2012. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Janicki D. 2013. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2013. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Janicki D. 2014. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2014. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Janicki D. 2016. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2015. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Janicki D. 2017. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2016. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Janicki D. 2018. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2017. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Janicki D. 2019. Raport z przyrodniczego monitoringu przedrealizacyjnego farmy elektrowni wiatrowych „Banie”. Raport końcowy – 2018. Biosfera, Szczecin.  Piątkowska D., Wierzchowska E., Wiraszka P. 1998. Waloryzacja przyrodnicza gminy Banie. Operat generalny. BKP, Szczecin.  Spieczyński D. ed. 2010. Waloryzacja przyrodnicza województwa Zachodniopomorskiego. BKP, Szczecin.  Zyska P., Zyska W., Rychlewski M. 2008. Ocena oddziaływania na środowisko rozwiązań projektowych budowy „Zespołu elektrowni wiatrowych Banie”. Domrel, Szczecin.