River Wear Sunderland and South Tyneside 2015-2016 Non-Breeding Bird Survey

Report

BLANK PAGE

Issuing office

The Schoolhouse | Live Theatre | 12 Trinity Chare | Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE1 3DF T: 0191 303 8964 | W: www.bsg-ecology.com | E: [email protected]

Client Sunderland City Council and South Tyneside Council

Project River Wear

Report title Sunderland and South Tyneside 2015-2016 Non-Breeding Bird Survey Report

Draft version/final FINAL

File reference 8449_r_wear_nb_sb_APPR_240816

Name Position Date

Originated N. Beamsley Principal Ecologist 04 August 2016

Reviewed S. Betts Partner 04 August 2016

Approved for Neil Beamsley Principal Ecologist 05 August 2016 issue to client

Issued to client Neil Beamsley Principal Ecologist 24 August 2016

Disclaimer

This report is issued to the client for their sole use and for the intended purpose as stated in the agreement between the client and BSG Ecology under which this work was completed, or else as set out within this report. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written agreement of BSG Ecology. The use of this report by unauthorised third parties is at their own risk and BSG Ecology accepts no duty of care to any such third party.

BSG Ecology has exercised due care in preparing this report. It has not, unless specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the content of this report and BSG Ecology assumes no liability for any loss resulting from errors, omissions or misrepresentation made by others.

Any recommendation, opinion or finding stated in this report is based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time that BSG Ecology performed the work. The content of this report has been provided in accordance with the provisions of the CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct. BSG Ecology works where appropriate to the scope of our brief, to the principles and requirements of British Standard BS42020.

Nothing in this report constitutes legal opinion. If legal opinion is required the advice of a qualified legal professional should be secured.

Derbyshire Oxford Newcastle Monmouth Swansea Glasgow Cork | BSG Ecology is a trading name of Baker Shepherd Gillespie LLP Registered in: England and Wales | No. OC328772 | Registered address: Wyastone Business Park, Monmouth, NP25 3SR

River Wear

Contents 1 Introduction ...... 2 2 Methods ...... 3 3 Results and Interpretation ...... 5 4 Conclusions ...... 9 5 References ...... 10 6 Figures ...... 11 Figure 1 – Summary of results for the river Wear survey area...... 12 Figure 2 – River Wear survey area – Hylton Bridge to Ford Quarry ...... 13 Figure 3 - River Wear survey area – Ford Quarry to QA bridge...... 14 Figure 4 - River Wear survey area – QA bridge to Wear-mouth Bridge ...... 15 Appendix 1 – Weather data ...... 16 Appendix 2 – Sunset/Rise times and tide state ...... 19 Appendix 3 – Summary of Surveyor experience ...... 20

1 02/08/2016

River Wear

1 Introduction

1.1 BSG Ecology was commissioned jointly by Sunderland City Council (SCC) and South Tyneside Council (STC) in September 2015 to complete a non-breeding bird survey of the lower tidal reaches of the River Wear perceived to provide a potential functional link for overwintering wader species using the Northumbria Coast SPA.

1.2 The survey has been commissioned to provide a baseline to inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment of the emerging local plans for both local authorities.

Site description

1.3 The survey area comprised the section of the Wear Estuary extending from the A19 Hylton Bridge (central grid reference NZ 34825 56727) to the area around Wearmouth Bridge (central grid reference NZ 39619 57294). The survey area included both banks of the estuary.

1.4 The survey area was defined for its perceived functional link to the Northumbria Coast SPA. The South Tyneside and Sunderland coast were studied at same time as the Wear Estuary sites (see Coastal Sites, Sunderland and South Tyneside 2015-2016 Non breeding bird surveys, BSG Ecology, 2016).

Aim of the Study

1.5 The aim of the study was to record all target species present within the survey area on a twice monthly basis between October 2015 and March 2016.

Target species

1.6 Following the initial site walkover survey completed on the 28th September 2015, and a review by BSG Ecology earlier survey work, it was agreed with the client (SCC and STC) that the survey work would concentrate on the following:

• Those species forming the cited interest of the Northumbria Coast SPA, namely wintering purple sandpiper and turnstone (little tern is a summer breeding species, and therefore was considered unlikely to be present within the Site for the majority of the survey period). • Those species forming part of the wading bird assemblage present at the coast, and that are birds of conservation significance. These are knot Calidris canutus, redshank Tringa totanus , curlew Numenius arquata, oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, sanderling Calidris alba, golden plover Pluvialis apricaria, ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula, dunlin Calidris alpina , black-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica, snipe Gallinago gallinago and lapwing Vanellus vanellus .

•

1.7 It was agreed that sea duck, gull, passerine, raptor and other species of bird were not considered to be key species for the purposes of the survey. These species were only recorded where the numbers were considered to be significant at a local conservation level (for example large flocks of Birds of Conservation Concern [Eaton et al,2016] Red or Amber Listed species).

2 02/08/2016

River Wear

2 Methods

2.1 A desk study has been undertaken using data obtained from the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside database (http://magic.defra.gov.uk/, accessed on 18 September 2015) to establish the extent and nature of any statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest located within the Site. This includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

2.2 A review of the information held by the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Wetlands Birds Survey (WeBS) database was completed. This confirmed that the position reported by Arcus Consultancy Services in their 2014/15 survey report (Arcus Consultancy Services, 2015), which was that a complete WeBS data set was not available for the most recent 5 year period. Consequently WeBS data do not provide useful additional data to inform the assessment.

2.3 There are a number of additional sources of data that have been considered in this assessment: • Royal Society for the Protection of the Birds ‘Bird Guide’ web application (www.rspb.org.uk/ /discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/, accessed 15th September 2015). • British Trust for Ornithology ‘Bird Trend’ database (www.bto.org.uk/birdtrends, accessed on 16 September 2015). • Eaton, M. Aebischer, N. Brown, A. Hearn, R. Lock, L. Musgrove, A. Noble, D. Stroud, D. and Gregory, R. (2016) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man • Anderson, P., Armstrong, T., Bell, C., Bell, P. Bowey, K., Mills, I., Milton, F., Newsome, M., Raw, D., Strowger, J. (2012) Birds of Durham, Published by the Durham Bird Club.

Field study

2.4 The survey area comprised the Wear Estuary between the Hylton viaduct (central grid reference NZ 34825 56727) and Wear mouth bridge (Central grid reference NZ 39619 57294). It included both banks of the estuary and covered intertidal habitats and the adjacent shore.

2.5 Survey visits were completed between October 2015 and March 2016 inclusive (the survey period).

2.6 An initial scoping visit was completed on the 28 September 2015. The purpose of this survey was to assess the entire survey area and consider matters such as the health and safety of the survey team, to identify potential obstructions and areas of limited view, and to highlight likely key areas of bird activity.

Bird activity survey

2.1 [? paragraph numbering] The survey area was covered by a single field surveyor during each survey visit. Where possible, the same surveyor was used for the duration of the survey work, although some substitution was required on occasion.

2.2 The surveyor completed three transect passes of the survey area during a six hour survey period. The survey period extended for three hours either side of low tide on one day each month and three hours either side of high tide on a second day each month, giving a total of 12 hours survey effort per area per month. Initially four transect passes were completed, however following consultation with SCC / STC, it was agreed that this provided insufficient time to accurately identify and assess all roosting and feeding locations, particularly in the more challenging survey areas where the habitat meant that birds were difficult to spot quickly. Therefore the survey effort was reduced to three transect passes per survey (each survey being of 6 hours duration).

2.3 Surveys were completed in accordance with both the tide cycles and available daylight hours. Both weekday and weekend surveys visits were carried out. Survey visits were completed on foot to

3 02/08/2016

River Wear

ensure that full coverage of each survey area was completed during each transect pass. Where opportunities allowed, cars were used to move between survey areas, to ensure full coverage was possible within the time allowed. Details of the experience of survey staff used to complete this survey work are given in Appendix 3.

2.4 During each visit, surveyors were required to record the location and number of all target bird species encountered within their survey area. This process was repeated during each of the three transect passes, allowing a peak number to be established for each species per survey visit.

2.5 Key species were defined in accordance with those cited species likely to be considered as part of any future Habitats Regulations Assessment; namely purple sandpiper Calidris maritima , turnstone Arenaria interpres, and little tern Sternula albifrons,. In addition and to add context all other wading species encountered were also recorded. The additional species were recorded in agreement with the client, prior to the survey work commencing in October 2015.

2.6 No record was made of any gull, sea duck, passerine, raptor or other species of bird unless the record was considered to be of significance given the location.

2.7 Table 1 (below) lists the dates of the twelve activity surveys that have been undertaken.

Table 1 – Dates of bird activity surveys

Month Low tide survey High tide survey

October 2015 29.10.15 21.10.15

November 2015 27.11.15 23.11.15

December 2015 2.12.15 7.12.15

January 2016 13.1.16 6.1.16

February 2016 13.2.16 18.2.16

March 2016 21.3.16 30.3.16

NB: Details of the weather conditions recorded during each survey and the time of activity are provided in appendix 1

Limitations to methods

2.8 Due to the timings of the survey work over the winter period, and the need to synchronise both surveyors and tidal cycles with daylight length, some dawn and dusk survey was necessary on a few occasions. In such cases where a short-term lack of light could lead to target species being undetected a combination of increased searching effort (spending longer at prominent high points) with binoculars/field scopes and audible cues were used to both locate and record species.

2.9 Specific access restrictions were in place around the location of the new Wear bridge crossing (Central grid reference NZ 36987 58183), where construction activity prevented the surveyors from gaining full access. This restriction was addressed through the use of remote vantage point survey techniques, using field scopes to look into the restricted areas from accessible areas close by.

2.10 Taking into account the localised restrictions described above there are not considered to be any significant limitations to the survey work completed as detailed in table 1.

4 02/08/2016

River Wear

3 Results and Interpretation

3.1 In this section the results of fieldwork and desk study are brought together. Their implications are then considered.

Natura 2000 Sites

3.2 A desk study has identified that river Wear study area does not fall within the boundaries and site of international conservation significance, however this study has been commissioned to consider the functional linkage between SPA and Ramsar site and inland areas. Therefore the following sites have been considered within this report:

• Northumbria Coast SPA;

• Northumbria Coast Ramsar site.

3.3 The qualifying interest of these sites was established following consultation with the Government MAGIC website1 and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website2.

3.4 The Durham Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest were also considered to provide context, particularly for key species such as purple sandpiper and sanderling.

Northumbria Coast SPA

3.5 The following brief description of the Northumberland Coast SPA is taken from the JNCC website:

3.6 “The Northumbria Coast SPA includes much of the coastline between the Tweed and Tees Estuaries in north-east England. The site consists of mainly discrete sections of rocky shore with associated boulder and cobble beaches. The SPA also includes parts of three artificial pier structures and a small section of sandy beach. In summer, the site supports important numbers of breeding Little Tern Sterna albifrons, whilst in winter the mixture of rocky and sandy shore supports large number of Turnstone Arenaria interpres and Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima”.

3.7 The Northumbria Coast qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive:

3.8 During the breeding season:

• Little Tern Sterna albifrons, 40 pairs representing at least 1.7% of the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)

3.9 This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species:

3.10 Over wintering populations:

• Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima, 763 individuals representing at least 1.5% of the wintering Eastern Atlantic - wintering population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)

• Turnstone Arenaria interpres, 1,456 individuals representing at least 2.1% of the wintering Western Palearctic - wintering population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)”.

1 www.magic.gov.uk (Accessed 3 March 2016). 2 www.jncc.gov.uk (Accessed 3 March 2016).

5 02/08/2016

River Wear

Northumbria Coast Ramsar site

3.11 The brief description below is for the interest features of the Northumbria Coast Ramsar site. The information is taken from the JNCC website3:

3.12 “The Northumbria Coast Ramsar site comprises several discrete sections of rocky foreshore between Spittal, in the north of Northumberland, and an area just south of Blackhall Rocks in County Durham. These stretches of coast regularly support nationally important numbers of purple sandpiper and high concentrations of turnstone. The Ramsar site also includes an area of sandy beach at Low Newton, which supports a nationally important breeding colony of little tern, and parts of three artificial pier structures which form important roost sites for purple sandpiper”.

3.13 The Northumbria Coast Ramsar qualifies under Criterion 6 for the following reasons:

3.14 “Species regularly supported during the breeding season: Little tern , Sterna albifrons, W Europe 43 apparently occupied nests, representing an average of 2.2% of the GB population (Seabird 2000 Census) Species with peak counts in winter: Purple sandpiper , Calidris maritima, E Atlantic - wintering 291 individuals, representing an average of 1.6% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3) Ruddy turnstone , Arenaria interpres, NE Canada, Greenland/W Europe & NW Africa 978 individuals, representing an average of 1% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3)”

Conservation Objectives

3.15 The Habitats Directive states that the conservation status of the listed habitats and species is considered should be favourable. The Directive requires that the range and areas of the listed habitats and the range and population of the listed species, should be at least maintained at their status at the time of designation. Site‐specific conservation objectives aim to define favourable conservation conditions for a particular habitat or species at that site.

3.16 Article (1) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) describes favourable conservation status for habitats and species as follows.

3.17 Favourable conservation status of a habitat is achieved when:

 Its natural range, and area it covers within that range, are stable or increasing, and

 The specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long‐term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and

 The conservation status of its typical species is favourable.

3.18 The favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when:

 Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and

 The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and

 There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis.

3.19 As the SPA and Ramsar site interest features are the same it is considered that the SPA conservation objectives are also relevant for the Ramsar site. The sites conservation objectives are as follows:

3 www.jncc.gov.uk (Accessed 3rd March 2016)

6 02/08/2016

River Wear

• Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features

• The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features

• The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely

• The population of each of the qualifying features, and, The distribution of the qualifying features within the site

Bird Activity Surveys

3.20 The following section summarises the survey results for each of the twelve key species considered within this study (see paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3).

3.21 During the survey work it was found that on a number of occasions, small groups of the target species were recorded both foraging and roosting within a very similar location at the same time. As such the average peak figure takes account of the total numbers of both foraging and roosting individuals within each given area irrespective of the birds’ activity.

3.22 Figure 5 at the rear of this report provides a visual summary of the data recorded for each target species, with individual species accounts provided below

Turnstone

3.23 Turnstone was recorded during six of the twelve survey visits to the Wear Estuary. This species was mostly recorded in small numbers between the Queen Alexandra Bridge (Central gird reference NZ 38184 57786) and the site of the new Wear crossing (Central grid reference NZ 36987 58183), using the intertidal mudflats for both foraging and roosting. The species was present at both low tide and high tide.

3.24 During the March 2016 surveys, significantly greater numbers of turnstone were recorded at a location approximately 500m downstream from the site of the new Wear crossing. A peak count of 43 was recorded during the low tide survey, and 31 during the high tide survey.

3.25 Overall the average peak count for the Wear Estuary survey area during the twelve survey visits was 7.7 individuals.

Purple Sandpiper

3.26 Purple sandpiper was not recorded anywhere within the Wear Estuary survey area during the survey period.

Redshank

3.27 Redshank was recorded on each of the twelve survey visits. Peak numbers recorded during this period ranged from 26 (January 2016 low tide survey) to 163 (March 2016 high tide survey). Birds were spread throughout the survey area with higher numbers recorded in certain locations.

3.28 Small numbers of individual redshank were recorded along the edges of the estuary throughout the survey period, with larger numbers consistently recorded in the area immediately surrounding the new Wear crossing. The average peak count for this location was 74.4 individuals.

3.29 Redshanks were found to be feeding on the intertidal mudflats and roosting at the high water mark. A concrete hulled boat wreck is present upstream of the new Wear crossing (grid reference NZ 36678 57977). This was found to be a regularly used high tide roosting location by redshank.

7 02/08/2016

River Wear

Curlew

3.30 Curlew was also recorded within the Wear Estuary survey area on each of the twelve survey visits. Numbers of curlew recorded ranged from 10 (during the February 2016 low tide survey) to 69 (during the January 2016 high tide survey).

3.31 Curlews were recorded in small numbers (1-4 individuals) in the zone between the Hylton Viaduct and the Queen Alexandra Bridge, however the majority of curlews recorded were in the area surrounding the new Wear crossing. Curlews were found to be using both the north and south banks of the river, but the largest numbers were found on the intertidal mudflats on the southern bank. An average peak count of 35.6 individuals was recorded within this area.

3.32 As with redshank, curlews were also recorded using the concrete hulled boat in addition to staging associated with the disused Grove Cranes site (central grid reference NZ 36967 57935), both located on the southern bank of the Wear Estuary.

Oystercatcher

3.33 Oystercatchers were found to be largely absent from the survey area with the exception of the high tide survey in February 2016 and both surveys in March 2016. A peak of 10 individuals was recorded during the February survey and 4 during the March surveys.

3.34 The species was recorded at the edge of the intertidal mudflats, foraging for a short period before moving down river. This behaviour was observed during each of the three occasions the species was recorded.

Lapwing

3.35 A flock of twenty, post-breeding lapwing along with a small number of individual birds were recorded on a single occasion during the October 2015 low tide surveys. This was the only time the species was recorded within the Wear Estuary survey area. These birds were recorded within a zone on the southern bank of the Wear Estuary between the Claxheugh Rock and Ford Limestone Quarry SSSI (central grid reference NZ 362 573) and a location 500m downstream (approximate grid reference NZ 37323 58147) of the new Wear crossing.

Other species

3.36 Sanderling, ringed plover, golden plover, bar-tailed godwit, dunlin and snipe were not recorded within the Wear Estuary survey area during any of the twelve survey visits.

8 02/08/2016

River Wear

4 Conclusions

4.1 The results of the 2015/16 survey carried out by BSG Ecology show that some species of wading bird are widely distributed across the Wear Estuary survey area. Turnstone (SPA species) was recorded occasionally but purple sandpiper (SPA species) was absent. The abundance of turnstone was found to be highly variable.

4.2 Survey data gathered over the twelve survey visits show that the areas of intertidal mudflats, which are exposed at low tide and are located approximately 400m upstream and 500m downstream of the location of the new Wear crossing are the areas favoured most by visiting birds. These are considered to be the most important locations used by wading species within the survey area. This assessment is based on the number of birds recorded. Peak numbers for turnstone, redshank and curlew were all recorded during each survey visit in this area. Smaller numbers of curlew and redshank were also found to be using the intertidal mudflats on the opposite (northern) side of the river, but without the same regularity.

4.3 Small numbers of wading species were found throughout the survey area, particularly in areas with exposed mudflats at low tide. However, these records were for individual and small groups of birds, which were found to be very mobile, regularly changing their location both up and downstream.

4.4 It is considered likely that the area around the new Wear crossing is the core foraging habitat for wading bird species within the Wear Estuary survey area. Low levels of bird movement occurred into and out of this area throughout the tidal cycle.

Potential threats

4.5 At the time of the 2015/16 survey work was being completed, construction work for the new Wear crossing was progressing on the northern and southern banks of the estuary. As work progresses then the area of potential impact may extend into the areas directly adjacent to the key bird foraging and roosting areas highlighted by this study. Survey work completed in 2015/16 has shown that the intertidal habitats in the vicinity of the new crossing are an important foraging area for a number of wading bird species, including turnstone (SPA species).

4.6 Impacts arising from the construction of the new bridge have been assessed separately (see AMEC report (August 2011)). Within the AMEC report severance of habitat, loss of mudflat feeding areas, and direct and indirect disturbance effects arising from the bridge during both its construction and operational phase have been considered.

4.7 Development is also planned for the former Grove cranes site. It is understood that the site is being considered for potential future housing and mixed commercial use. The increased occupancy of the site with new residents and the potential increases in noise, lighting and direct disturbance could potentially lead to greater disturbance pressure, when combined with disturbance from the new river crossing.

4.8 It is considered that effective mitigation could be provided within the mixed use scheme. This could include use of edge planting as a visual screen to prevent direct disturbance events occurring, use of sympathetic lighting to prevent direct light spill, and effective safeguards to reduce the risk of potential pollution incidents occurring.

4.9 Development elsewhere close to the river, but away from the site of the new river crossing could also result in impacts upon the wading species using the intertidal mudflats. However surveys have indicated that populations are much smaller and far more mobile, therefore the importance of potential impacts are likely to be less significant.

9 02/08/2016

River Wear

5 References

Anderson, P., Armstrong, T., Bell, C., Bell, P. Bowey, K., Mills, I., Milton, F., Newsome, M., Raw, D., Strowger, J. (2012) Birds of Durham, Published by the Durham Bird Club.

British Trust for Ornithology ‘Bird Trend’ database (www.bto.org.uk/birdtrends, accessed on 16 September 2015).

Eaton, M.A., Aebischer, N.J., Brown, A.F., Hearn, R.D., Lock, L., Musgrove, A.J., Noble, D.G., Stroud, D.A. & Gregory, R.D. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708–746.

Royal Society for the Protection of the Birds ‘Bird Guide’ web application (www.rspb.org.uk/ /discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/, accessed 15th September 2015).

AMEC report (August 2011) – ‘Grove Cranes Ltd – Ecological Assessment’

10 02/08/2016

River Wear

6 Figures

6.1 List of figures

Figure 1 – Summary of results for the river Wear survey area.

Figure 2 – River Wear survey area – Hylton Bridge to Ford Quarry

Figure 3 - River Wear survey area – Ford Quarry to QA bridge

Figure 4 – River Wear survey area – QA bridge to Wear-mouth Bridge

11 02/08/2016

River Wear

Figure 1 – Summary of results for the river Wear survey area.

12 02/08/2016

River Wear

Figure 2 – River Wear survey area – Hylton Bridge to Ford Quarry

13 02/08/2016

River Wear

Figure 3 - River Wear survey area – Ford Quarry to QA bridge

14 02/08/2016

River Wear

Figure 4 - River Wear survey area – QA bridge to Wear-mouth Bridge

15 02/08/2016

River Wear

Appendix 1 – Weather data

Cloud Tide Temperature Date Time Survey type cover Wind Rain state (0C) (oktas) (Beaufort)

21.10.15 High 07:00 8/8 12 F1WSW None 21.10.15 High 08:00 8/8 12 F1WSW None 21.10.15 High 09:00 7/8 12 F1WSW None 21.10.15 High 10:00 Transect 7/8 13 F2WSW None 21.10.15 High 11:00 7/8 13 F2WSW None 21.10.15 High 12:00 6/8 12 F1WSW None 21.10.15 High 13:00 4/8 13 F1WSW None

29.10.15 Low 07:30 8/8 12 F2SSE Heavy 29.10.15 Low 08:30 7/8 12 F2SSE Drizzle 29.10.15 Low 09:30 8/8 13 F2-3SSE Heavy 29.10.15 Low 10:30 Transect 8/8 12 F2-3SSE Heavy 29.10.15 Low 11:30 8/8 12 F2SSE None 29.10.15 Low 12:30 8/8 12 F2SE None 29.10.15 Low 13:30 8/8 12 F2SE None

23.11.15 High 10:00 8/8 6 F4-5NW None 23.11.15 High 11:00 8/8 6 F5NW None 23.11.15 High 12:00 8/8 6 F3-4NW Heavy 23.11.15 High 13:00 Transect 8/8 6 F3NW Heavy 23.11.15 High 14:00 8/8 6 F3NW Heavy 23.11.15 High 15:00 8/8 6 F3-4NW Light 23.11.15 High 16:00 8/8 6 F304NW Light

27.11.15 Low 07:00 5/8 13 F2-3SW None 27.11.15 Low 08:00 6/8 12 F2-3SW None 27.11.15 Low 09:00 7/8 13 F2SW None 27.11.15 Low 10:00 Transect 7/8 13 F2SW None 27.11.15 Low 11:00 6/8 13 F3SW None 27.11.15 Low 12:00 5/8 12 F2SW None 27.11.15 Low 13:00 5/8 11 F2SW None

2.12.15 Low 11:00 8/8 12 F3-4SW None 2.12.15 Low 12:00 8/8 12 F3SW None 2.12.15 Low 13:00 8/8 13 F3SW None 2.12.15 Low 14:00 Transect 8/8 13 F3SW None 2.12.15 Low 15:00 4/8 13 F2SW None 2.12.15 Low 16:00 7/8 12 F2SW None 2.12.15 Low 17:00 8/8 13 F2SW None

7.12.15 High 10:00 8/8 12 F1-2SW None Transect 7.12.15 High 11:00 8/8 12 F1SW None

16 02/08/2016

River Wear

7.12.15 High 12:00 8/8 12 F1-2SW None 7.12.15 High 13:00 0/8 12 F2SW None 7.12.15 High 14:00 2/8 12 F2SW None 7.12.15 High 15:00 4/8 12 F2-3SW None 7.12.15 High 16:00 8/8 12 F3SW None

6.1.16 High 10:00 8/8 10 F4-5SE Heavy 6.1.16 High 11:00 8/8 11 F4-5SE Heavy 6.1.16 High 12:00 8/8 12 F4E Heavy 6.1.16 High 13:00 Transect 8/8 12 F4E Heavy 6.1.16 High 14:00 8/8 12 F4-5SE Heavy 6.1.16 High 15:00 8/8 12 F4-5E Heavy 6.1.16 High 16:00 8/8 12 F5E None

13.1.16 Low 09:00 0/8 2 F3N None 13.1.16 Low 10:00 0/8 2 F2-3N None 13.1.16 Low 11:00 1/8 3 F2N None 13.1.16 Low 12:00 Transect 2/8 3 F2N None 13.1.16 Low 13:00 7/8 3 F2-3N None 13.1.16 Low 14:00 8/8 3 F2-3N None 13.1.16 Low 15:00 8/8 4 F2N None

13.2.16 Low 10:00 7/8 4 F3SE Rain 13.2.16 Low 11:00 8/8 4 F3-4SE Rain 13.2.16 Low 12:00 7/8 5 F3-4SE Rain 13.2.16 Low 13:00 Transect 8/8 5 F3-4E Rain 13.2.16 Low 14:00 8/8 5 F4-5E Heavy 13.2.16 Low 15:00 8/8 4 F4E Heavy 13.2.16 Low 16:00 8/8 4 F3-4E Rain

18.2.16 High 10:00 0/8 3 F0 None 18.2.16 High 11:00 0/8 3 F1W None 18.2.16 High 12:00 1/8 4 F1-2W None 18.2.16 High 13:00 Transect 2/8 4 F1-3W None 18.2.16 High 14:00 2/8 4 F1W None 18.2.16 High 15:00 1/8 4 F1W None 18.2.16 High 16:00 1/8 4 FO None

21.3.16 High 11:30 3/8 11 F2NW None 21.3.16 High 12:30 7/8 12 F2NW None 21.3.16 High 13:30 6/8 13 F3NW None 21.3.16 High 14:30 Transect 5/8 12.5 F2W None 21.3.16 High 15:30 6/8 12.5 F2W None 21.3.16 High 16:30 6/8 12 F2W None 21.3.16 High 17:30 6/8 12 F2W None

30.3.16 Low 10:30 1/8 6 F1-2NW None 30.3.16 Low 11:30 Transect 5/8 10 F2NW None 30.3.16 Low 12:30 7/8 10 F2NW None

17 02/08/2016

River Wear

30.3.16 Low 13:30 4/8 10 F2NW None 30.3.16 Low 14:30 2/8 10 F2NW None 30.3.16 Low 15:30 2/8 11 F2NW None 30.3.16 Low 16:30 2/8 12 F2NW None

18 02/08/2016

River Wear

Appendix 2 – Sunset/Rise times and tide state

Date Type of survey Tide peak/trough Sunrise Sunset

21-Oct-15 High Tide transect 10:05 07:46 17:54 29-Oct-15 Low Tide Transect 10:30 07:02 17:47

23-Nov-16 High Tide Transect 13:05 07:52 15:52 27-Nov-16 Low Tide Transect 10:15 07:59 15:47

02-Dec-15 Low Tide Transect 13:46 08:07 15:42 07-Dec-15 High Tide Transect 12:44 08:14 15:39

06-Jan-16 High Tide Transect 12:55 08:28 15:56 13-Jan-16 Low Tide Transect 11:38 08:23 16:05

13-Feb-16 Low Tide Transect 12:48 07:33 17:07 18-Feb-16 High Tide Transect 12:09 07:23 17:17

21-Mar-16 High Tide Transect 14:28 06:04 18:22 30-Mar-16 Low Tide Transect 13:27 06:42 19:41

19 02/08/2016

River Wear

Appendix 3 – Summary of Surveyor experience

Neil Beamsley BSc MCIEEM – Principal Ecologist BSG Ecology - Project manager

Neil is a professional ecologist with more than 12 years’ experience. He has worked on a wide range of projects across the UK, undertaking many different ecological surveys including targeted survey work for birds. This includes vantage point surveys for both upland and lowland wind energy schemes, wintering bird surveys, breeding bird surveys and species specific surveys, including black grouse and Schedule 1 species.

Steve Betts CEcol CEnv MCIEEM - Partner BSG Ecology – Project Supervisor

Steven Betts MCIEEM is a professional ecologist with more than 20 years’ experience. He has worked on a wide range of projects undertaking many different ecological surveys including bird surveys. This includes vantage point surveys, Brown & Shepherd wader surveys, breeding bird surveys and species specific surveys, such as for hen harrier. He has worked in a number of different habitat types including rocky shore, sandy shore, farmland, woodland and moorland

Ian Forsyth – Freelance surveyor

Ian has a thorough knowledge of all species regularly encountered in Great Britain. During the last 30 or so years he has led or participated in countless bird surveys of a wide variety and thus accumulated substantial experience of established survey methodologies. This includes many coastal tidal surveys and tidal river/estuary surveys in many parts of northern England and Scotland.

Martin Hughes - Freelance surveyor

Martin has been a freelance ornithologist for the past 13 years working on numerous projects in England and Scotland. Research work for Newcastle and Aberdeen Universities and visiting lecturer for the former. Ornithological Consultant to Durham Wildlife Trust. Bird ringer with a full British ringing permit, held for over thirty years, and BTO Ringing Committee (the body which controls British ringing) Member 2008-11. Full Norwegian Ringing permit 2012 to date. Birding experience on six continents over 50+ years. Botany and Zoology degree.

20 02/08/2016