THE ELECTRICITY WORKS (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2000
SCOPING OPINION FOR MUAITHEABHAL WIND FARM, EISGEIN ESTATE, ISLE OF LEWIS
Description of the development (see paragraph 1 of Schedule 4)
Description of the Development - General
1.1 The search area for the development is outlined in the Scoping Report and a clear description of the main components of the proposal is given. This includes the wind turbines and associated infrastructure, transformers and cable, substation, anemometers, access borrow pits, grid connection, construction details, vehicle movements, operational maintenance and decommissioning.
1.2 It is recommended that the following require particular attention:
· Clear indication of the means and location of the access to and within the site
· Where the turbines and towers will be constructed and how they will be transported to the sites where they will be installed.
· Actual location of turbines.
Trunk Roads
1.3 The Environmental Statement should provide information relating to the preferred route options for delivering turbines, materials etc. This should identify whether or not turbines etc. will travel via the Scottish trunk road network. Should the route option be via the trunk road network, the Environmental Impact Assessment should also address access issues, in particular, potential stress points at junctions and approach roads etc.
1.4 Where environmental impacts have been fully investigated but found to be of little or no significance, it is sufficient to validate that part of the environmental assessment by stating in the report:
a) the work that has been undertaken e.g. Transport Assessment etc;
b) what this has shown i.e. what impact if any has been identified; and
c) why it is not significant.
Design
1.5 The scheme should be designed within the context of an agreed design strategy. This should take into account guidance given to developers in the Scottish Executive's Planning Advice Note 68: Designing Statements, which seeks to promote good quality design throughout the build environment. This document reinforces well established guidance on design in "SPP1: The Planning System, Designing Places" and "A Policy on Architecture for Scotland".
1.6 The Design Statement should describe more explicitly a clear set of design objectives, a clear strategy for meeting these objectives, a justification for the resulting layout and evidence that the design ideas have been tested.
1.7 The Design Statement should also set out the way in which it has dealt with advice in Planning Advice Note 45: Renewable energy Technologies and also the siting, geometry and composition of the detailed layout. This would allow the testing of alternatives against clearly set design criteria.
Reference Documents
1.8 The Scoping Report sets out the relevant national and more local planning policies which will need to be appraised as part of the environmental assessment and provides a comprehensive list of Scottish Planning Policies, National Planning Policy Guidelines and Planning Advice Notes to be referred to. Although Planning Advice Note 57: Transport and Planning is referred to, the relevant National Planning Policy Guideline 17 is not. This should be, as access to the site is likely to be an issue. Similarly, Planning Advice Note 60: Natural Heritage and Planning Advice Note 62:
Telecommunications may also be relevant (although PAN 62 is referred to in the section on Telecommunications).
1.9 The relevant Local Plan in addition to the Western Isles Structure Plan should be referred to in the Environmental Statement.
1.10 The Environmental Statement should also make reference to the following documents:
· SNH's Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Windfarms in Respect of the Natural Heritage;
· Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Wind Farms and Small Scale Hydro Electric Schemes; (This document is referred to in Chapter 6 Landscape and Visual Amenity of the Scoping Report, but is of wider relevance to the EIA process.
· Benson, John et al (2000) Landscape Capacity Study for Onshore Wind Energy Development in the Western Isles.
· Benson, John et al (2000) Visual Assessment of Wind farms: Best Practice SNH Commissioned Report
· Wildness in Scotland's Countryside, A Policy Statement (SNH, Doc 64)
1.11 As it is proposed to source rock for track construction from local borrow pits, the developer should note that the Scottish Executive has published a good practice document under the Groundwater Regulations 1998: Code of Practice for the owners and operators of quarries and other mineral extraction sites. This Code can be viewed on: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/environment/mineral.PDF
Qualifications and Experience
1.12 The qualifications and experience of all those involved in surveying or completing technical sections should be set out within the Environmental Statement.
Description of the Environmental Impacts (see paragraph 2 of Schedule 4)
2.1 The ES needs to show that the developers have taken due account of the relevant wildlife legislation and guidance. Namely, Council Directive 97/62/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna and Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (commonly know as the Habitats and Birds Directives), the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the 1994 Conservation Regulations, Scottish Executive Interim Guidance on European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System and the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. In terms of the SE Interim Guidance, developers must give serious consideration to / recognition of meeting the three fundamental tests set out in this Guidance. It may be worthwhile for developers to give consideration to this immediately after the completion of the scoping exercise. It should be noted that this area contains a high concentration of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 1 bird species.
2.2 It needs to be categorically established which species are present on the site, and where, before the application is considered for consent. The presence of protected species such as Schedule 1 Birds or European Protected Species must be included and considered as part of the application process, not as an issue which can be considered at a later stage. Any consent given without due consideration to these species may breach European Directives with the possibility of consequential delays or the project being halted by the EC.
2.3 For all applications detailed surveys should be carried out before applying for consent: several scoping documents submitted recently cite that a habitat survey based on NVC and Phase 1 Habitat Survey will be carried out, using aerial photography to determine key habitat areas for a ground survey. Target notes would then be produced to provide further information on habitat features of value to different ecological groups such as plants, mammals, birds and invertebrates. This methodology is useful for establishing the habitat types present on the site but it is not clear whether there is then an intention to determine the presence of individual protected species, both plants and animals, on the site. As mentioned previously, the establishment of the presence of protected species both plant and animal is crucial, in terms of the legal requirements of the Directives. In order to do this a separate walkover ground survey must also be carried out to look for specific protected species. For the majority of protected species, the only way to determine whether they are present is by looking for physical evidence, which in the case of animals are signs such as spraints or droppings, resting places etc, through a ground survey. Developers are encouraged to undertake this survey work at the earliest opportunity.
2.4 The applicant must also remember that it is an offence to disturb both European Protected Species such as bats, otters and Schedule 1 birds when undertaking such research work. Even if the works themselves would not make any permanent changes, the construction phase of the operation may need to be licensed. If any protected species are found on the site we therefore recommend that the Species Team of the Scottish Executive be formally approached at the earliest possible opportunity to clarify whether a licence is needed.
Habitat - Designated Sites (National Scenic Area)
2.5 As the search area lies partly within the National Scenic Area that extends across South Lewis, Harris and North Uist, the potential impact on the landscape and visual amenity is likely to be the most significant environmental issue requiring to be addressed in the Environmental Statement.
Habitat - Surveys (General Comments)
2.6 The Scoping Report provides some detail on some of the methods to be used for the ecological survey work. The developer should use the most modern standard methods, and that all should be agreed with SNH specialist advisers.
2.7 Ecological, ornithological and hydrological survey work should be undertaken within an envelope encompassing the site, turbine locations, anemometry, substations and access roads. For vegetation and mammal studies, an envelope of 500 m around the works boundary is recommended. For upland bird studies a 500m envelope is recommended, and for raptors we an envelope of 2 km should be surveyed. If some of the turbines are to be located on or close to the site boundary provided, the need to survey to the limits of the defined envelope, and not the site boundary outlined is emphasised.
Habitat - Hydrology Surveys
2.8 The Environmental Statement should include hydrological surveys, and the developer should consider carefully the effects on any peatland hydrological units present on the site. Turbine locations, road routes and construction methods, such as floating road construction techniques, should be considered to minimise their effects on peatland habitats and hydrology, and the effects of any construction activities in any areas of deep peats should be subject to careful geotechnical assessment, taking into account peat stability and the risk of peatslides and landslips. The production of a map of indicative peat depths across the site would be valuable, not least as an aid to the determination of access routes and turbine siting, which can be designed to avoid deeper peats and intact hydrological units.
Habitat - Non-bird Ecology Survey Methods
2.9 With regard to the non-bird ecology survey methods, a Phase 1 survey on this site is recommended, with reference to National Vegetation Classification as regards vegetation communities, and a specific information search for, and survey of, any rare or scarce plant species or communities. The use of the MLURI Land Classification for Scotland 1988 dataset, and the Land Cover Map 2000 held by CEH may be helpful in identifying and checking habitat information. On a site such as this, particular attention should be paid to the effects on peatland habitats, and the design stage mitigation which can be undertaken to avoid disturbance to those habitats and their eco-hydrological units.
Habitat - Animal Surveys
2.10 Animals other than birds should be assessed by a desk review of the species present on Lewis and the use of a detailed walkover survey to check their presence and signs; it is probable that otters will make substantial use of this area. Survey methods for any mammals should be agreed with SNH.
Habitat - Ornithological Surveys
2.11 Systematic and up to date bird survey information is limited and the developer will need to establish which species are present on the site in order that an accurate assessment of impact can be made. For this general survey the moorland survey methodology of Brown and Shepherd is recommended. The contractors should ensure that the surveys are timed properly: the recommended times for survey are early April - mid May and mid-May - late June.
2.12 Additional surveys will need to be undertaken to determine the presence and status of important bird species which may breed on the proposed development site but which will not be adequately covered by the Brown and Shepherd moorland survey. There should be specific survey effort to search for the presence of golden and white tailed eagles, peregrine, merlin and both black-throated divers and red throated divers. In addition to nesting locations the identification of important foraging areas within the development site should be determined for the birds of prey. This is best achieved by observations carried out from carefully selected vantage points. The methodology proposed by Madders is recommended. In addition, we recommend close liaison with Scottish Natural Heritage over rare and specially protected species.
2.13 The most important issue that will need to be addressed concerns bird of prey. The high level of eagle activity and breeding in this area has been noted by RSPB Scotland in previous survey work. The developer will need to clearly evaluate all potential impacts on these breeding species. While the breeding performance is monitored annually by RSPB Scotland, little is known about their movements within the site.
2.14 Little is known about diver breeding in the area. Even less is known about the flight patterns they generally use and flight lines used to access lochs or sea. The Environmental Statement will need to determine these matters in order that the overall potential impact on divers can be determined.
2.15 Species-specific surveys for divers and raptors are recommended, and recommend close liaison with SNH, RSPB and local Raptor Study Group over provision of existing information.
2.16 Vantage point and flightline studies should be required of bird flightlines throughout the year, recorded from carefully-selected vantage points, taking particular note of both species of divers, raptors and any other relevant species. The assessment of eagle and diver flightlines may be particularly crucial in this case, and methods and vantage points should be tailored to provide the necessary data on eagle home-range use and diver movements to and from hill lochs in the area. The summer and winter vantage point watches should produce a single, compatible, year-round dataset using the same methods. The details of the methods should be agreed with SNH, who have a draft guidance document (Band, Whitfield and Madders In press. Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risks at windfarms) which provides the most recent standards. Similarly, the surveys should use the most up-to-date version of the Survey Methods documents from SNH (both of the above are detailed in the attached document). The use of collision modelling for assessing the risks to flying birds at this site is recommended, given the species that are known to be present in the area.
2.17 The flight heights of birds should be recorded as specific estimates, perhaps in 20 m height bands. It may be seen as appropriate to record heights in three the categories to match the turbine heights (i.e. below, within and above the turbine arcs), to enable collision risk analysis to be undertaken. However, we have seen a number of cases where turbine specifications have changed and the final proposal has a larger or smaller turbine than was originally proposed. Only if the data are collected in unitary height categories (say 20m units) can a new analysis of risk be done to evaluate the changed circumstances.
Habitat - Impact on Ornithology (General Considerations)
2.18 The area of search for the proposed development includes no sites designated for their ornithological interest. While there are key bird interests the developer should assess potential impacts on all species using the site, be it for breeding, wintering or on passage, using appropriate methodologies. The three potential impacts to be considered are:
· Direct habitat loss
· Indirect habitat loss through displacement
· Collision mortality, including both turbine blades and other infrastructure such as overhead power lines
2.19 The most significant groups of birds to be assessed are breeding divers, raptors and waders; migratory wildfowl and waders; and wintering waders. In this regard, the statement in the scoping document that there s no need for winter ornithological work other than the observation of raptors is inaccurate. With such a potentially large scheme the potential impact is large and so observation effort should be commensurate with this.
Habitat - Eagle Diet
2.20 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos and white-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla are the two species which are of most concern and it is helpful that a considerable effort has already been made to assess the movements and distribution of these species. The proposals in the scoping document also seem to recognise the value of estimating the abundance of food for these species, and it may be that some idea of diet (and therefore relevant prey species) has already been gathered. The elements of eagle diet requiring most attention are likely to be red grouse, mountain hares and carrion. However, if work done by the developer indicates other important prey items, impacts on these will need to be assessed in the same way.
Habitat - Eagle Diet (Red Grouse)
2.21 To ascertain the abundance and distribution the developer should use a method explicitly for this species, ideally using dogs. The Brown and Shepherd Moorland Bird Survey is not efficient at recording grouse. Doing counts in both Spring and autumn would facilitate making productivity estimates, which could be of value for mitigation and restoration measures. If grouse dung counts are carried out as well it may be possible to ascertain whether this is an efficient quick method for recording grouse.
Habitat - Eagle Diet (Mountain Hare)
2.22 It would be preferable for all squares within the proposed site to be surveyed for mountain hare, rather than simply random squares. If this is done by dung counts it should be validated by more intensive direct searches to check this method's utility as an indirect method.
Habitat - Eagle Diet (Carrion )
2.23 Carrion distribution and abundance within the whole of the proposed site should be assessed. A complete search in conjunction with a transect method would provide a means of assessing whether carrion tends to be clumped. Again, this would help inform both siting and mitigation measures.
Habitat - Construction Impact on Ornithology
2.24 The impact of the various proposed access routes on these key bird species should be determined both for the construction period and during the operation of the windfarm. Mitigation measures, for example phasing of construction works to avoid the breeding season, should be considered.
Habitat - Cumulative Impact on Ornithology
2.25 The Environmental Statement should consider the cumulative impact on the existing nature conservation interests on a wider area. The inclusion of a statement within the Environmental Statement documenting the number of windfarms in Lewis / Harris that potentially could impact on each key species (e.g. golden eagle, black-throated and red-throated divers) would be a revealing first step, particularly if it were accompanied by a statement of the current island populations for these threatened species.
Habitat - Migratory Fish
2.26 The Environmental Statement should consider the following issues which could have an impact on migratory and other fish:
· obstruction to upstream and downstream migration both during and after construction
· disturbance of spawning beds during construction - timing of works is critical
· increases in silt and sediment loads resulting from construction works
· point source pollution incidents during construction
· drainage issues
Landscape Impacts
2.27 There is a distinct change in the topography from the lower lying moor land of South Lochs to the hills of North Eishken, and this creates an "edge" which in landscape and visual terms is inherently sensitive. These hills and those further south from the skyline in views from the A859, from both the north and west. The northern part of the Area of Search is classed as zone 2/1 (medium to low sensitivity) in SNH's strategic locational guidance. The Environmental Statement should use ZVIs and computer generated images to identify with a relatively low level of landscape and visual impact.
2.28 The southern part of the Area of Search as shown on figure 1 and figure 2 falls within the South Lewis, Harris and North Uist National Scenic Area (NSA) and an area of search for wildland. This southern area is defined as zone 3, the most sensitive category, in the Scottish Natural Heritage locational guidelines. Given the nature of the South Eishken landscape, its scenic qualities and the remoteness of its hills and coast, the proposed windfarm is likely to have a significant impact on the character. The landscape and visual impact assessment in the Environmental Statement should examine the proposed development against the integrity of the NSA.
2.29 The development in this area would mean the construction of significant track and other infrastructure. The terrain, exposure, altitude and nature of the climate here would mean that successful restoration and reinstatement would be extremely difficult and run the risk of long-term damage and a scarred landscape. The Environmental Statement needs to address ways in which such effects could be obviated and / or as well as evidence for the feasibility of restoration and reinstatement at decommissioning.
2.30 The Environmental Statement should provide a systematic consideration of landscape change against which the impacts of the proposal can be judged. The assessment methodology for landscape and visual impacts will need to provide criteria specific to landscape for weighing up the significance of their impacts.
2.31 The Environmental Statement should consider local and regional landscape values as well as national designations.
Landscape and Visual Amenity - Visual Impacts
2.32 In addition to the items listed at 6.12 of the Scoping Report, the Environmental Statement should include visual impacts as might be experienced on a journey through the area, either as a video montage or a series of static images.
Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Water Resources
2.33 With regard to section 7.6 of the Scoping Report, this should include a field survey of the depth and nature of the peat deposit in the vicinity of the borrow pits, tracks and turbine bases. The proposed site should also be assessed in the context of susceptibility to bog bursts in order that any areas of high risk are avoided.
Ecology
2.34 The main issues to be considered in the Environmental Statement are blanket bog, otters and wild salmonids. This section should include a breakdown of the direct and indirect habitat losses which may result from the proposed development.
Recreation & Access
2.35 The Environmental Statement should assess the impact on recreational use such as hillwalking.
Analysis of Environmental Impact Including Methodology (see paragraph 3 of Schedule 4)
Air Quality and Climate
3.1 Section 14 of the Scoping Report states that combating climate change is identified as a potential impact (positive) of the proposal. The Environmental Statement needs to put this in perspective, by quantifying gains over the life of the project against release of carbon dioxide during construction, including loss of peat bog and construction of roads / tracks and turbines.
Access Tracks
3.2 Section 3.18 of the Scoping Report states that the Environmental Statement will consider a range of options for access. This should include an assessment of their relative effect on the landscape and visual resource, wild land and the effectiveness or otherwise of mitigation by restoration and reinstatement and the requirements of ongoing operational maintenance.
Access Tracks - Reinstatement
3.3 Section 3.19 of the Scoping Report states that "tracks that are not required will be reinstated wherever possible". The Environmental Statement should make reference to any work or research carried out as to the success of reinstatement of tracks in terrain that will be found here (peat). Hydrological change may take place and especially if the base material for the track is left in place.
Alternative Sites
3.4 The Scoping Document identifies in sections 6-15 the main issues to be studies and outlines for each topic the potential impacts and scope for mitigation, the assessment methodology, relevant standards and guidance, impact evaluation and the proposals for consultation. The main points are all included in these sections.
3.5 Nevertheless, it is considered that a detailed analysis of alternative site(s) should be included. The site chosen by the developer is very exposed in proximity to Loch Seaforth and the Harris Hills. An analysis of the suitability of other land within Eisgein Estate would be useful.
Pollution Prevention - General Comments
3.6 A key area in relation to windfarm developments is pollution prevention measures during the construction, operation, demolition and restoration. The construction phase includes construction of access roads (usually significant areas in windfarm applications), turbine bases and any other site infrastructure.
3.7 The Environmental Statement should systematically identify all potential risks associated with the proposals and identify preventative measures and mitigation. Sensitive uses (including abstractions) need to be identified and potential impact upon them needs to be assessed.
3.8 Particular care needs to be taken to ensure particulate or chemical contamination of watercourses will not occur due to conservation and water quality issues.
3.9 If there are watercourses or lochs in the vicinity, or if tracks need to cross watercourses, then SEPA would wish to see the sensitivity of receiving waters to polluting impact from, for example, siltation. Turbines in close proximity to watercourses and tracks clearly will need to cross watercourses. The interests of some watercourses are particularly vulnerable to pollution (for example, salmonid rivers, rivers with freshwater pearl mussels).
3.10 The Environmental Assessment should identify the issue of private water supplies within the catchment. Prior identification of and protective / mitigation measures in relation to all these sources are required if necessary.
3.11 SEPA produces a series of Pollution Prevention Guidelines, several of which could be usefully utilised in preparation of the Environmental Statement and development of this proposal. These include SEPA's guidance note PPG6: Working at Construction and Demolition Sites, PPG5: Works in, near or liable to affect Watercourses, PPG2: Above ground storage tanks, and others, all of which can be accessed on SEPA's website www.sepa.org.uk The principles contained in these documents should be incorporated within the Environmental Statement.
3.12 In order to deal with these matters systematically, SEPA advise that the basis for future work method statements be set out in the Environmental Statement. The basis should identify all aspects of site work that might impact upon the environment, preventative action and mitigation to limit impacts. The most likely risks associated with the construction phase will be from sediment, mineral oils and waste management. Those associated with sediment arise from operations including stockpile storage, storage of weather sensitive materials at lay-down areas, haul routes, access roads, earthworks to provide landscaping, mechanical digging of new or existing drainage channels, vehicle access over watercourses, construction of watercourse crossings and digging of excavations (particularly regarding management of water ingress). With regards to oil, it is imperative that there is a detailed contingency plan to deal with large oil spills that cannot be dealt with at a local level. It is essential that SEPA is provided with the opportunity to view these method statements in draft form before their being finalised.
3.13 One aspect that needs to be specifically addressed is fuel transport and storage management. There are issues of whether in addition to designated bunded fuel stores there are to be mobile bunded stores; whether or not auxiliary power supplies are required in relation to the turbines themselves which may require fuel storage. Maintenance of turbines can involve usage of oils and oil management needs to be considered. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a site compound to avoid having fuel and other chemicals stored at numerous locations around the extensive site.
3.14 The Environmental Statement should address the working arrangements in relation to concrete production. If there is to be a concrete batching plant, then SEPA would expect this element to be developed and measures to prevent discharge to watercourses set out in detail. Potential requirement for a Part B authorisation for the concrete batching process should be discussed at an early stage with SEPA.
3.15 Proposed temporary and long-term welfare arrangements for workers on site need to be set out. Reference can be made to SEPA's guidance note PPG4: Disposal of sewage where no mains drainage is available. It is noted that given the scale of the development, a large foul drainage requirement may arise with respect to the workforce, with a consequent application for discharge consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (as amended). The likely location of and potential environmental impact from this discharge needs to be considered.
3.16 Maintenance of vehicles and plant should be carried out only on impermeable areas where any oil spillages can be contained.
3.17 Information should be provided if the substation will incorporate foul drainage facilities (in which case satisfactory measures should be set out) or if oil-cooled power cables are to be used (in which case contingency measures for rapid response to burst cables should be set out). Pollution control measures regarding the regular gearbox oil changes associated with the turbines should be set out, and information regarding bunding or roofing of the transformer area should be set out.
Construction- Site Specific (Muaitheabhal windfarm)
3.18 It is noted that the SEPAs Pollution Prevention Guidelines will form an integral part of the Environmental Statement and the principals within them should be deployed in a site-specific manner rather than mere reference to adherence to them. The developer should also take note of SEPAs Civil Engineering guidance, CIRIA documentation, the Forestry Commission's "Forest and Water guidelines" etc. Despite adherence to these sources of guidance, inevitably there will be residual impact from pollution due to construction activities and the Environmental Statement should contain an assessment of this.
Road and Crane Hardstanding Construction - General Comments
3.19 Useful guidance on minimising impact from construction of the type of access roads used in windfarms can be found in "Forests and Water Guidelines" Fourth Edition (2004) which can be obtained from the Forestry Commission. However, given that tracks in some cases will be located on peat and will carry very heavy loads, evidence will be necessary of additional consideration of specific measures required in similar schemes elsewhere to deliver best practice.
3.20 The need to plan the works in order to avoid road construction during periods of high rainfall is important.
3.21 If there are to be crane hardstanding pads associated with each turbine, then clarification is needed as to whether they will be removed and ground reinstated or if they are to be retained for future maintenance works. The Environmental Statement should clarify this and assess impact.
Construction- Site Specific (Muaitheabhal windfarm)
3.22 Section 3.23 of the Scoping Report gives a list of principal activities the construction phase will consist of. With reference to the construction of culverts under track to facilitate drainage, account should be taken of the sub surface flow within the peat as wells as the various watercourses that will be crossed.
3.23 With regard to section 3.25 of the Scoping Report, the Environmental Statement should clarify whether public vehicular access will be made available after the construction phase.
3.24 Section 3.26 of the Scoping Report states "all ground will be cleared prior to the bird breeding season to minimise potential ornithological impacts". Any ground clearance at this time of the year increases the potential for pollution to occur due to siltation. Whilst the need to take into account birds is important, it is not the only issue affecting timing, and careful consideration should be given to whether or not this is the best environmental option for the construction clearance. Indeed, the timing with regards to birds has to take into account several factors, not just the breeding period but protection of food supply from pollution caused by ground clearance outside the dry season.
3.25 With regards to timing of ground clearance, a longer term and more holistic view of the environment is required. It is noted with this regard that bird deterrents (section 9.2 of the Scoping Report) may be utilised as a mitigation measure. The areas representing significant potential source of pollution of sensitive watercourses need to be identified and in those cases the construction should be carried out at a time of year that minimises the threat i.e. during dries weather. Construction works on this type of ground during wet weather can result in serious pollution.
Environmental Management - General Comments
3.26 Planned operations can give rise to problems due to the use of sub-contractors who are not aware of site-specific concerns or are inadequately managed. Mechanisms to ensure subcontractors will be well controlled and be aware of particular issues need to be identified. Consideration should be given to site presence of an appropriately qualified environmental scientist during construction to provide specialist advice. Additionally, details of emergency procedures to be provided should be identified.
Hydrology and Culverting - General Comments
3.27 Hydrological issues should be considered within the Environmental Statement. Impacts on watercourses and other such water features such as dubh lochans need to be assessed. Measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation or discolouration will be required, along with monitoring proposals and contingency plans.
3.28 If culverting should be proposed, either in relation to new or upgraded tracks, then it should be noted that SEPA has a policy against unnecessary culverting of watercourses. Schemes should be designed to avoid by preference crossing watercourses, and to bridge watercourses which can not be avoided. Culverting is the least desirable option. Rather than generalised statements relating to culverting, the scheme should include a systematic table of watercourse crossings or channelising, with detailed justification for any such elements and design to minimise impact. The table should be accompanied by photography of each watercourse affected and include dimensions of the watercourse. Where a culvert is shown to be unavoidable, it should be designed in accordance with the Scottish Executive guidance on River Crossings and Migratory Fish. This guidance can be found on the Scottish Executive website at: www.scotland.gov.uk/consultation/transport/rcmf-06.asp
3.29 The size of culverts needs to be large enough to cope with sustained heavy precipitation.
3.30 Measure to avoid erosion of the hillside associated with discharge from road culverting should be set out in the Environmental Statement.
3.31 If the area is used by otters, then this has implications in terms of design of culverts to allow otter movement and other small mammal movements.
Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Water Resources - Assessment Methodology
3.32 Section 7.5 of the Scoping Report confirms that various desktop studies will be carried out. These studies should be complemented by field survey to verify site soil and geological conditions for all areas where significant construction works will take place over a prolonged period i.e. bases for turbine / cranes, substations and tracks, particularly in the most sensitive areas, such as where there are sensitive watercourses. The developer should consult SEPA and the Fishery Trust over areas considered to be particularly sensitive.
Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Water Resources - Assessment Methodology
3.33 The impact evaluation within section 7.9 of the Scoping Report could be usefully expanded to include evaluation of impact should the worst case scenario occur, for example the destruction of a fish population or the food on which it relies by catastrophic pollution or by chronic pollution such as by siltation.
Waste Management and Waste Minimisation - General Comments
3.34 SEPA recommends the preparation of a site specific method statement for the construction works. It would be advisable that at the time of compiling the method statement, the developer identifies all of the waste streams (such as peat and other materials excavated in relation to infrastructure) associated with the works.
3.35 Any recovery and reuse of controlled waste should be in accordance with the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. There are specific criteria which if met will constitute an exemption under these Regulations. These exemptions are required to be registered by SEPA and the details must be forwarded to the relevant SEPA office. Please note that waste peat or soil from excavations spread on this land would not necessarily be to agriculture benefit; if excavated peat or soil is to be used in landscaping the site, then this should be included in the plans, and not dealt with in an ad-hoc fashion.
3.36 SEPA wishes that in relation to substantial new development as proposed here, developers should demonstrate that:
a) the development includes construction practices to minimise the use of raw materials and maximise the use of secondary aggregates and recycled or renewable materials; and
b) waste material generated by the proposal is reduced and re-used or recycled where appropriate on site (for example in landscaping not resulting in excessive earth moulding and mounding)
3.37 The Environmental Statement should address these aspects.
Borrow Pits - General Comments
3.38 It is sometimes the case that the need for borrow pits or the detailed location of borrow pits appears only after an application has been determined, but the impact of such facilities (including dust, blasting and impact on water) needs to be appraised as part of the overall impact of the scheme. SEPA recommends that detailed investigations for the need for and impact of such facilities as part of the EIA process.
3.39 Potential requirement for waste management licenses or licensing exemptions in relation to waste disposed of to borrow pits should be discussed at an early stage with SEPA.
Borrow Pits - Site Specific (Muaitheabhal windfarm)
3.40 Section 3.20 of the Scoping Report refers to "reinstatement of borrow pits", and clarification of this is required. SEPA would expect conventional restoration and aftercare proposals in relation to these mineral operations. Hydrological impact of excavation and restoration will need to be assessed, and reference to previous research on restoration of borrow pits within peatland should be included.
Nature Conservation - General Comments
3.41 The habitats and species surveys should be carried out at appropriate times or periods of the year by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel, and suitability of timing needs to be considered within the Environmental Statement.
Peatlands - General Comments
3.42 Particular care on some aspects will be required if there are fragile peatlands and mire systems present. The use of blinding cement on roadways may be inappropriate due to possible effect on pH of bog areas. The integrity of shuttering used for pouring concrete would need to be tested as the foundations for the turbine towers may be in deep peat. The hydrological impact of excavations into peat will also be examined.
Earthworks
3.43 Earthworks will be required during construction (excavations, roads, borrow pits etc). Such works could cause pollution if not properly controlled and construction wastes must be disposed of correctly. SEPA as the environmental and waste regulation authority should be contacted to provide advice on environmental protection and waste disposal.
3.44 Plans for the re-instatement of earthworks after use should be provided in the Environmental Statement.
3.45 The Environmental Statement should give consideration to settling out soil particles from run-off water during construction. SEPA should be contacted to provide advice on this aspect.
Habitats - Waste
3.46 Habitats are particularly important and need to be addressed, in conjunction with groundwater level, river levels and retention of these.
Hydrology and Geology
3.47 The Environmental Statement should consider the impact on groundwater from excavations.
Description of Methods to Offset Adverse Environmental Effects (see paragraph 4 of Schedule 4)
Cultural Heritage - Archaeology
4.1 The methodology presented in the Scoping Report appears to be inconsistent in the assessment process.
4.2 Paragraphs 11.6, 11.7 and 11.9 contains inconsistencies in the text which mean that the size of the search area seems in doubt. 11.9 states that the landscape and visual impact assessment will be used to identify any changes in the setting of monuments. As the landscape and visual assessment can cover 25-30 km, it is assumed that this will be the primary tool for identifying affected monuments over what could possibly be great distances. However, paragraph 11.6 states that, for the assessment, archaeology will be evaluated around the proposed site, yet paragraph 11.7 states that the search area will focus on "the area where turbines and associated structures including the access track will be situated. Given the inconsistencies in the scoping report, the area to be evaluated should be fixed as soon as possible. This may depend on the actual locations of the turbines, tracks, buildings and borrow pits for both setting issues and given that these are yet to be fixed, archaeological assessment could be integrated into the design process that will select the actual locations.
4.3 It is noted that, given that actual data on the archaeology surviving in the area is not presented in the Scoping Report, the developer considers that it is appropriate to suggest a watching brief as mitigation at this stage in the assessment process. A watching brief can not be considered as mitigation in that actual destruction of physical remains that, as advocated by national planning guidance, should be preserved in situ. Given the area's potential for the discovery of presently unknown archaeological remains pre-application evaluation, in line with advice from the regional archaeologist would be more appropriate.
4.4 Historic Scotland is able to provide the information on the location and shape of scheduled areas over large distances, in electronic form only, for the use in a geographical information system. This can be provided for use in the assessment of a Zone of Visual Influence for the development, as constructed for the Landscape and Visual Amenity (LVA) assessment. The LVA chapter in the Scoping Report does not mention the collaborative approach that the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage chapter proposes and which Historic Scotland advocates. In addition, the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage chapter does not include any methodology for the identification and assessment of cumulative impacts from similar sites that will be intervisible with this site.
4.5 The Archaeological and Cultural Heritage chapter should make reference to Planning Advice Note 42: Archaeology, the Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures and National Planning Policy 18: Planning and Historic Development. These documents should be considered as part of a full assessment process.
4.6 In terms of listed buildings, there are no designations within the site boundary. There are however, a number in the surrounding area and the Scoping Report states that the proposal may cause "visual intrusion on any listed buildings". This indirect impact on the setting of these designations would occur both in the construction and operational phase of the development. Advice on the setting of listed buildings can be located in section 10.1 of the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 1998.
4.7 The Environmental Statement should consider Lews Castle designated landscape. This is situated 18km to the north of the proposed development and should be assessed for any possible indirect impacts. Information on this site can be located in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes; Supplementary Volume 2, Highland and Islands.
Non Technical Summary (see paragraph 5 of Schedule 4)
5.1 It would be helpful if the non-technical summary would include copies of key photomontages.
Difficulties in Compiling the Additional Information (see paragraph 6 of Schedule 4)
6.1 The applicant should highlight any the difficulties in compiling the additional information. This should include difficulties in accessing information on protected species which has been withheld for reasons of confidentiality.
Signed ……………………………….
Authorised by the Scottish Ministers
to sign in that behalf
11 June 2004