The Scottish Government

THE ELECTRICITY WORKS (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2000

SCOPING OPINION FOR THE PROPOSED WINDFARM AT SCAUT HILL 8KM SOUTH OF DUFFTOWN

1. Description of the development

Description of the Development

1.1 You should note if the final design is for a 50MW (or less) proposal, it will fall to be determined by Moray Council within the Town and Country Planning regime. The Scottish Ministers only consider windfarm proposals in excess of 50MW.

1.2 The proposed Scaut Hill Windfarm is located 8km to the south of Dufftown, which is the largest of the Speyside towmns. The site is part of the Glenfiddich Estate and is centred on grid reference NJ32042953.

1.3 The TThe proposed site would consist of 60 three bladed turbines, each with an envisaged hub height of 80m and a rotor diameter of 90m, although turbines with a 105m hub height might be considered depending on the findings of the assessment. The maximum power output of this scheme would be approximately 180MW.

1.4 There is an agreement with the national grid to connect Scaut Hill Windfarm to the electricity distribution network.

Planning Policy Background and Guidance

1.5 The applicant should be aware of the following:

· National Planning Framework for Scotland (2004)

· SPP1: The Planning System (2002)

· SPP15: Planning for Rural Development (2005)

· SPP17: Planning for Transport (2005)

· SPP 20: Role of Architecture and Design Scotland (2005)(2005)

· NPPG5: Archaeology and Planning (1994)

· NPPG6: Renewable Energy Developments (2000)

· NPPG14: Natural Heritage (1999)

· NPPG18: Planning and Historic Environment (1999)

· PAN42: Archaeology -The Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures (1994)

· PAN45: 2002 Renewable Energy Technologies (2002)

· PAN51: Planning and Environmental Protection (1997)

· PAN56: Planning and Noise (1999)

·PAN57: Transport and Planning

· PAN58: Environmental Impact Assessment (1998)

· PAN60: Planning for Natural Heritage (2000)

· PAN68: Design Statements (2003)

· PAN 75: planning Planning for Transport (2005)

· Designing Places: A Policy Statement for Scotland (2001)

· A Policy on Architecture for Scotland

· Planning Authority Development Plans, including Moray Structure Plan (approved 1999) and Moray Area Local Plan (adopted 2000)

Decommissioning

1.6 Plans for reinstatement of the site after use need to be provided.

Design

1.7 Architecture+Design Scotland (A+DS) places particular importance on the layout design of windfarms and considers there is a need for a coherent, structured and quality driven approach to windfarm development. The appearance of windfarms is of particular interest to A+DS and it recommends the need for a coherent design strategy to be considered at scoping stage and to be prepared before submission of the Environmental Statement. The strategy should explain the design principles behind the layout plan in a rational way that can be easily understood

1.8 A+DS would suggest that a planning and design strategy should first look at the proposed location and address, whether this is a sensible location in relation to wind, access to the grid and to the character of the landscape.

1.9 A+DS advice on windfarm design complies with the Scottish Executive's policies on design, which seek to promote good quality. It would therefore refer the applicants to advice contained in PAN 68: Design Statements. A+DS recommends that the design strategy be expressed through a Design Statement. The Design Statement should follow the clear and effective presentation format set out on pages 10 and 11 of PAN 68. This would ensure that the wider advice contained in PAN 68 is being followed.

1.10 In addition, A+DS recommends that the Design Statement should describe a clear strategy for meeting these objectives, a justification for the resulting layout and evidence that the design ideas have been tested against the objectives.

1.11 The Statement should also set out the way in which it has dealt with advice in PAN 45: Renewable Energy Technologies and also the siting, geometry and composition and detailed three dimensional layout. This would allow the testing of alternatives against clearly set design criteria.

1.12 The routing of tracks and design of control buildings should also be discussed in the Design Statement. A+DS advice in terms of control structures is for contemporary designs using good quality materials

1.13 A+DS also advises that the design statement should state whether the design is dependent upon the site boundaries. Unless the site boundaries are clearly defined by the landscape, a design dependent upon a site boundary may relate to the landscape in a visually arbitrary way.

1.14 A+DS recommends that the Design statement should be incorporated into the section of the Environmental Statement that describes the proposal and not in the sections dealing with landscape and visual assessment. It further recommends the use of diagrams and sketches to illustrate the principles of the design.

2. Description of the Environmental Impacts

Landscape and Visual Assessment

2.1 You should We refer to the applicant the to an SNH (draft) guidance note entitled "Cumlative Effect of Windfarms" (April 2005) "Guidance for the Assessment of Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts arising from Windfarm Developments".

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/cumulativeeffectsonwindfarms.pdf and to SNH's Guidelines on the Environmental Impacts of Windfarms and small scale Hydroelectric Schemes: SNH Natural Heritage Management Series (February 2001).

Potential visual impacts on view from nearby settlements within the 10 km radius will require particular investigation. It would also be desirable to consider the impacts of access tracks, pylons and ancillary buildings in the landscape and visual assessment. There is a tv or radio mast on Round Hill, to the east of the application site, which it may be useful to include when considering the landscape and visual assessment.

Part of the southern end of the site falls within the Cairngorm Straths ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area).

2.2 The Scoping Report refers to the Moray and Nairn Landscape Character Assessment, it may be that the Cairngorms LCA is also needed to provide the necessary information on landscape character. SNH supports the use of relevant LCA and other landscape character assessments but considers that certain sections of the report are now out-of-date and can be misleading. This is because all statements in the LCA regarding wind energy generation are based upon mid/late 1990s technology when turbines were roughly half the height of today's machines. Accordingly, all statements referring to sensitivity to wind farm development in the LCA(s) should be (re)considered in the light of today's technology.

2.3 SNH draft Guidance for the "Assessment of Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts Arising from Wind farm Developments" (March 2002). Is available from their website: www.snh.org.uk. Please note that these guidance documents are only in draft form and have yet to be finalised, but in the meantime we recommend that this guidance should be followed. For you information, attached to SNH response is Appendix B is a dr aft scoping note (November 2003, updated June 2004) produced by SNH Landscape Group which identifies most of the key issues which a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) should address.

Ecology:

2.4 The Scoping Report details the SSSIs/SACs/SPAs located within 30km of the proposed site. You should however note the following;-

· The Ladder Hills SSSI is also an SAC for alpine and subalpine heaths, blanket bog and dry heaths.

· Tips of Corsemaul and Tomore SSSI is also a SPA for common gull.

· Creag nan Gamhainn SAC is a SSSI for grassland, woodland, lichen and invertebrate interests. The SAC qualifying interest is the hard-water springs depositing lime

2.5 The ES needs to show that you 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, applicants must give serious consideration to/recognition of meeting the three fundamental tests set out in this Guidance. It may be worthwhile for applicants to give consideration to this immediately after the completion of the scoping exercise.

2.6 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.

2.7 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. Applicants are encouraged to undertake this survey work at the earliest opportunity.

2.8 You 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.

Aviation:

2.9 NATS En Route Plc ("NERL") is responsible for the safe and expeditious movement in the en-route phase of flight for aircraft operating in controlled airspace in the UK. To undertake this responsibility NERL has a comprehensive infrastructure of radars, communication systems and navigational aids throughout the UK, all of which could be compromised by the establishment of a windfarm. In this respect NERL is responsible for safeguarding this infrastructure to ensure its integrity to provide the required services to Air Traffic Control (ATC). In order to discharge this responsibility NERL assess the potential impact of every windfarm development in the UK which have applied for planning approval.

2.10 NERL offer services to assist in pre-planning for windfarm developments. Details of these services are available on http://www.bwea.com/aviation/nats.html or by contacting NERL directly on NATSSafeguarding@nats.co.uk or writing to

NERL Safeguarding - Mailbox 27

NATS - CTC

4000 Parkway

Solent Business Park

Whiteley

Hampshire

PO15 7FL

NATS require the OS Grid Reference for each individual wind turbine (easting and northings) before they can comment.

2.11? The Defence Estates inform you that the site is 42 km from; in line of site to and will cause unacceptable interference to the Air traffic Control radar at RAF Lossiemouth. The Defence Estates inform you that the turbines will be 81 km from; in line of sight to; and will cause unacceptable interference to the Air Defence radar at RAF Buchan. Following trails carried out in 2005 it has been concluded that wind turbines can effect the probability of detection of aircraft flying over or in the vicinity of wind turbines. Due to this, the RAF would be unable to provide a full Air Traffic Radar service in the area of the proposed windfarm. Research is on-going to identity possible solutions that may be applied to the radar to mitigate effects of wind turbines in the future, and it may also be possible by site amendment to achieve a mutually acceptable solution.

2.12 A reduction in turbine height may remove any Air defence objections. This could be achieved by using the intervening terrain at approximately 15 km from the radar head.

2.13 Please note that this assessment has been based on one grid reference using wind turbines at 125 metres to blade tip. Should you want the Ministy of Defence to review the site further, a grid refernce for each individual turbine will be required.

2.14 The Civil Aviation Authority recommends that, as indicated within the SR, to establish an aviation industry wide perspective on the proposed development, youthe developer will need to enter a related consultation process and should be referred to the Department of Trade and Industry document, Wind Energy and Aviation Interests - Interim Guidelines. This document recommends pre-planning consultation to establish both civil and military aviation related issues at the earliest possible stage. In fact the CAA's has already been involved in such a consultation process in association with the Scaut Hill development; during January 2005 Infinergy were advised that the Authority has no site-specific observations. That remains the case.

2.15 More generically, the developer wasyou were advised that there might be a need to install aviation obstruction lighting to some or all of the associated wind turbines should development proposals be progressed.
This comment is made specifically if there were concerns expressed by other elements of the aviation industry; ie the operators. For example, if the Ministry of Defence or a local aerodrome had suggested such a need, we the Civil Aviation Authority (sponsor of policy for aviation obstruction lighting) would wish, in generic terms, to support such a claim. We would do so if it could reasonably be argued that the structure(s), by nature of their location and nature, could be considered a significant navigational hazard. That said, if the claim was clearly outside credible limits (ie the proposed turbine(s) was/were many miles away from an any aerodrome or it/they were of a height that was unlikely to effect even military low flying) the Authority would play an 'honest-broker' role.

2.16 There is a requirement in the UK for all structures over 300 feet high to be charted on aviation maps. Should this development progress and the 300 feet height be breached, to achieve this charting requirement, developers will need to provide details of the development to the CAA and Defence Geographic Centre.

2.17 The number of pre-planning enquiries associated with windfarm developments has been significant. It is possible that the proliferation of wind turbines in any particular area might potentially result in difficulties for aviation that a single development would not have generated. It is, therefore, not necessarily the case that, because a generic area was not objected to by the aviation industry, future, similarly located potential developments would receive the same positive response. There is a CAA perceived requirement for a co-ordinated regional wind turbine development plan, aimed at meeting renewable energy priorities, whilst addressing aviation concerns and minimising such proliferation issues.

2.18 Clearly, in addition to establishing the CAA viewpoint, it is essential that the Ministry of Defence and NATS (formally National Air Traffic Services Ltd) position is established and that any concerns mitigated.

Radio links:

2.19 BT have studied the proposals with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point to point microwave radio links and satellite. BT conclusion is that, the windfarm project indicated should not cause interference to BT's current and presently planned radio networks.

2.20 Ofcom has found no civil fixed links that should be affected by your proposals.

2.21 Ofcom only comment in respect of microwave fixed links and does not include broadcast transmissions or scanning telemetry links that may be affected by your proposal.

2.22 OFCOM no longer forwards queries to the BBC regarding affects on TV reception. An online tool is available for developers at: http://windfarms.kw.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/windfarms/

Archaelogical Significance

2.23 Historic Scotland recommends that you contact Mr Ian Shepherd at the Counciul Archaeological Services, in this case mr Ian Shepherd, Aberdeenshire Archaeology Services, Aberdeenshire Council, \Pplanning and Development, Woodhill House, Westburn Road, Aberdeen, AB16 5GB.

2.24 Historic Scotland recommends that you engage suitably qualified archaeological/cultural heritage consultants to advise on, and carry out the detailed assessment of impacts on cultural heritage aspects of this EIA.

2.25 Baseline information should be garthered through desk assessment of existing cultural heritage records and sources of information. Your archaeological/cultural heritage consultant will be able to advise on the details of this requirement. It should identify all scheduled monuments, archaeological sites and landscapes, listed buildings, historic gardens and designed landscapes and conservation areas both within the boundry of the development area and within the Zone of Visual Influence. (ZVI) once that has been identified. The information garthered through desk assessment should be further assessed and augmented by non-invasive walk over survey and field evalution which would assess the area's potential for the discovery of further, as yet unrecorded archaeological sites.

2.26 Information on the location of all scheduled monuments, listed buildings and historic gardens and designed landscapes can be obtained from www.PASTMAP.org.uk This is a free, interactive website produced jointly by Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monument of Scotland.

2.27 Historic Scotland confirms that there are no scheduled monuments/listed buildings, historic gardens or designed landscapes within your search area.

2.28 Consideration of historic environmental issues should be included in any outline of alternatives considered and reported on in the Environmental Statement

2.29 It is possible that a windfarm in this location could affect the setting of cultural heritage features across a wide area beyond the boundary of both your search area and development site. Historic Scotland recommends the following cultural heritage features be given due attention:

• SAM 90024, Auchindoun Castle, castle and fort
• Sam 356, Drumin Castle
• SAM 337, Doune of Dalmore
• Sam 2341 Deskie Castle
• Catogory A Listed Building 9164, Beldorney Castle
• Catogory C(s) Listed Building 2251, Blackwater Lodge
• Category B Listed Building 2256, Deveron House (Former Church of Scotland Manse) Steading and Garden Wall.
• Category B Listed Building 2255, CabrachParish Church and Burial Ground (Church of Scotland)
• Category C(s) Listed Bridge 2252, Blackwater Bridge over Blackwater Burn (A94). Historic Scotland notes that although transport routes are yet to be finalised the A94 is a possible option. They would advise that particular attention be paid to the assessment of possible direct impacts upon this bridge should this route be chosen.

2.30 Where significant impacts are predicted you should provide within your ES wirelines and photomontages depicting views of the development both to and from the cultural heritage site.

2.31 The following list is not all inclusive but simply suggests a number of factors which might be helpful in thinking through what characterises the particular setting of any heritage resource, whether that setting is important to an understanding of the site and whether the impact of the development upon it is likely to be significant:

• importance of topographic location for understanding the function of the site and the choice of its location;
• relevance of current or past land use;
• group setting and relationship to other sites in the landscape;
• visual prominence, though that may not be particularly importance for some sites whose presence and place in the landscape is indelible linked to other landscape or topographical features which bear witness to their presence.
• scale, both of the site and of the development;
• views both to and from the site, including cases where the development and the site may not be intervisible but are both caught in important views;
• less tangible issues of perception or experience of the site which can be nevertheless be important e.g. sense of remoteness/evocative of historic past/sense of place/cultural identity/ spiritual responses;
• recreational/leisure value of the site within its landscape either formally or informally;
• potential role as an educational resource, either formally or informally e.g. in explaining both the cultural history of an area and the evolution of its landscape;
• contribution of the site within its setting to local diversity and distinctiveness;
• nature and scale of the landscape which comprises the setting of the site and its ability to absorb new development without eroding its characteristics;
• distance between the site and the development/presence of intervening buildings/vegetation/topography between the site and the development;
• presence and extent of other development within the landscape and how that currently affects/defines the site's setting;
• conversely whether the site survives within a reasonably unchanged landscape;
• cumulative impact of the development as a whole, not simply an assessment of its individual features; and
• cumulative impact measured with other similar developments in the wider area.

3. Analysis of Environmental Impact Including Methodology

Cumulative Impact Assessment

3.1 The Scottish Ministers are of the view that in assessing cumulative effects, it is unreasonable to expect this to extend beyond schemes in the vicinity that have been built, those which have permission and those that are currently the subject of undetermined applications. Applicants should therefore have regard to schemes within these parameters before finalising their proposals.

3.2 SNH advises the site is within a local landscape designation. It does not lie within a National Scenic Area (NSA) or Inventory-listed Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDLs). However, it is located near the Cairngorms National Park. The Cairngorm Mountains NSA may fall within the ZTV (zone of theoretical visibility, previous referred to as ZVI) or study area of the proposal. It does not appear that any GDLs lie within 20km of the site, but Leith Hall to the east may be close to this distance away.

3.3 The location of the proposed Scaut Hill wind farm falls within Zone 2 (medium natural heritage sensitivity) of SNH's "Strategic Locational Guidance" (SLG; Policy 02/02). Zone 2 identifies that the area has some sensitivity to wind farm development. However, by careful choice of location, there is often scope to accommodate development of an appropriate scale, siting and design - having regard to cumulative effects - in a way which is acceptable in natural heritage terms.

3.4 The application site is not located within one of SNH's Areas of Search for Wild Land. Nevertheless, the area is likely to be characterised by several of the criteria which contribute to a sense of wildness - such as remoteness and perceived naturalness. The EIA should assess the impact of the proposed development upon these and upon any additional attributes of 'wildness'. Policy guidance is provided by Wildness in Scotland's Countryside (SNH Policy Statement 02/03).

Fisheries

3.5 Due to the number of windfarms in the vicinity of this proposal the Fishery Fisheries Research Services would expect an EIA to include an assessment of the cumulative effects of this development.

3.6 We would make you aware that such developments will have considerable construction implications and these very often can be conducted without proper regard or understanding of the potential impacts on water courses, water quality and migratory and other fish species. Such impacts could include:

• 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.

3.7 Construction contractors are often unaware of the potential for impacts such as these but, when proper consultation with the local fishery board is encouraged at an early stage, many of these problems can be averted or overcome.

3.8 The Association of Salmon Fisheries Board advicses that you liaise closely with the Spey District Salmon Fishery Board. The board has a range of statutory powers and responsibilities relating to the management of the salmon and sea trout stocks in the catchment concerned, and they would ask that the Board is fully consulted.

3.9 The Fisheries Research Services identifies that 180 mw is the maximum the site could hope to generates ansd accepts that this is unlikely to be achieved. It immediately strikes them that with the necessary access tracks the turbine numbers will have to be greatly reduced if a major environmental impact is to be avoided. They make this comment identifying that the headwater of the River Fiddich (tributary of the River Spey) and the head water of the River Black Water (tributary to the Deveron) cut across the east and west sides of the site. The Deveron and Spey are important rivers for their salmonid populations especially salmon and sea trout.

3.10 To your credit there is a promise of ecological monitoring programme and contingency plans for unforeseen problems. Fisheries Research Services comment that the monitoring should have at least 1 but preferable 2 years of baseline data. This would allow a better assessment of the construction/operation impacts if any and direct the contingency plan. Although not explicit in the text it I would be expected that should baseline fish survey work, as mentioned at 5.43 in the scoping report, identify important populations that fish will be included in the ecological monitoring programme. The scoping report identifies the site's water courses as having a flashy response. This will only increase in light of the new access roads, turbine bases and other hardstand areas. You should address in an EIA to what extent the extremes of flow resulting from these land changes will have on the habitat of any fish populations on the site. Typically summer follows will reduce where as in the winter months flooding will increase.

3.11 You mention in the scoping report that a water quality may be done. Fisheries Research Services suggest that a baseline survey be carried out and that continuous suspended solid montoring equipment be installed on tributaries of the Fiddich and Black Water.

3.12 The contact details of those responsible for the main rivers affected by this windfarm are as follows

Robin Vasey, Deveron, Bogie & Isla Rivers Charitable Trust, The offices, Avochie Stables, Avochie, Huntly, AB54 7YY. Tel/Fax - 01466 711388.

E-mail robinvasey@deveron.org

Robert Laughton (Biologist), Spey Research Trust, Nether Borlum Cottage, Knockando, AB38 7SD. Tel - 01340 810841 Fax - 01340 810843

E-mail research@speyfisheryboard.com

3.13 SNH states that The River Spey is classified as an Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (the "Habitats Directive") which applies a common protection regime to all European sites. The SAC is designated for its important populations of freshwater pearl mussel, Atlantic salmon, sea lamprey and otter.

3.14 Mitigation is required to ensure that the qualifying interests of the River Spey SAC will not be adversely affected by this proposal. This should include consideration of the impacts during construction, operation and decommissioning. These measures will need to be addressed under the following headings as per the applicant's scoping report/

• Ecology
• Hydrology and ground conditions
• Transport , or

could be provided as a section dedicated to the River Spey containing information that would inform an appropriate assessment.

3.15 Increased run off into the Fiddich as a result of construction, decommissioning and operational elements of the proposal has the potential to reduce the extent of suitable spawning habitat in this tributary. This is likely to have a significant effect on the Atlantic salmon interest, and as such the proposal would require an appropriate assessment to be carried out by the competent authority to determine whether these impacts would adversely impact on the integrity of the SAC.

3.16 SNH therefore considers that the applicant will need to assess the potential impacts on the River Spey SAC that could result from the majority of construction works, decommissioning and the operational phase of the wind farm. This should also include any works required on the public road system to allow for delivery of turbines/cranes etc.

3.17 It should be demonstrated within the ES, that mitigation measures can be implemented that will safeguard the watercourses from any sediment or pollution throughout the lifetime of the development. If this cannot be achieved and there are no satisfactory alternatives (e.g. alternative access routes/turbines locations) it is possible that the proposal would result in loss of spawning habitat from this tributary.

3.18 In the ES the applicant should provide information to inform an appropriate assessment that would address these issues. Particular attention will need to be paid to the following;

• the Atlantic salmon interest and the presence and location of spawning habitats within the River Fiddich
• cement and sediment run-off from track construction, and from turbine placement, during the construction, decommissioning and operational phases;
• accidental spillages of oil and fuel during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases;
• river bank stability in relation to track construction* and also with regard to long-term vehicle movements during the operational phase of the wind farm;
• maintenance regimes for ditch and sediment trap management throughout the phases.
• watercourse/ditch-crossings, in particular any crossings leading to the Fiddich and any of its tributaries.
• public road works (could include widening, bridge works, upgrading) that could affect any of the Spey's tributaries.

Risk of peat slides

*Track construction will need to consider gradients, the type of surface finishing used, the arrangement of cut off drains or swales, the effective use of sediment traps and lagoons and adverse weather damage. It will need to consider the suitability of different types of track construction i.e. excavated and floating tracks.

Ecology

Peat lands

3.19 Particular attention should be paid to the effects of the proposals on any peat land habitats on the site, and we would emphasise that turbine locations should be determined on the basis of habitats on the site, especially with regard to any areas of deep peat and intact hydrological units of mire vegetation, on the open ground or within any afforested area. This may mean that turbines need to be located in the light of vegetation survey work. Similarly, roads will need to be carefully iterated with regard to vegetation communities, peat habitats and peat depth.

3.20 Both "active" raised bogs and blanket bog are priority habitats within Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive and are material considerations in the assessment of environmental impacts.

3.21 NVC survey should be undertaken on all area of peat bog within the footprint of the application area, with particular emphasis on mapping peat land (depth, nature, hydrology and condition), and this in turn should inform the layout of tracks and turbines, to ensure that deep peat areas as well as blanket bog and raised bog vegetation are avoided.

3.22 A detailed assessment of the risks of peat slide arising from the development should also be undertaken.

3.23 We would also suggest that the ecological survey methods are agreed with SNH specialist advisers and that all the ecological survey data collected during ES survey work should be made available by the applicant to SNH, in a form which would enable them to make future analyses of the effects of windfarms if appropriate.

3.24 RSPB comment that the windfarm site represents a very significant incursion into a large area of relatively wild land, generally one on the most undeveloped and undisturbed parts of NE Scotland. The SW edge of the application area lies some 3 km away from the boundary of the Cairngorms National Park. Much of the area is dominated by blanket bog, with a typical suite of vegetation types (including almost certainly some 'active' bog areas) and upland bird communities. A number of bird species listed in Annex 1 of EU 'Birds' Directive are found in the area. WeRSPB consider this area to be of at least 'medium' sentivity in a Scottish context, in terms of potential impacts on a range of priorty bird species.

3.25 RSPB comment that many of these issued are touched on in the report, they recommend that the following issues are considered in significant detail within the EIA:

• Potential impacts on Golden Eagles and other Annex 1 birds of prey (including collision risk if appropriate). This should include the autumn and winter periods.
• Potential impacts on breeding peatland waders, including golden Plover and Dunlin.
• Potential impacts on birds moving over the area throughout the year, including geese and gulls.
• The extent of destruction of peatland through turbine, access track and cabling construction (this includes so-called 'floating roads' which in fact cause significant damage to peatlands.
• Potential impacts on peatland hydrology and sedimentation, in particular in relation to the nearby River Spey SAC (including tributaries)
• The cumulative impacts of all other windfarm schemes 9most are listed on page 14 of the Scoping Report) in connection with these issues.
• Compensation for habitat loss by land management elsewhere on the estate (5.35 on page 16). This is an important issue for a windfarm potentially of this size, and should include vegetation management, the encouragement of good feeding and nesting conditions for raptors, and wetlands restoration through drain blocking.

3.26 SNH informs you that in addition to the Euopean Protected Species mentioned in the SR, they would like to highlight the presence of a plant EPS - yellow marsh saxifrage ( Saxifraga hirculus) on Hill of Towanreef SSSI/SAC and on a site near Cabrach. It occurs at the lower edge of moorland where it has been particularly vulnerable to changing land-use. In Scotland about 950 flowering plants have been recorded - most in Grampian. The total population of vegetative plants is much larger. It is possible that this species could be present on the wind farm site. Given its status as an EPS, survey work will be required to determine whether or not it is present. The species flowers at this time of year (August) but can rarely be seen if the ground is closely grazed. The optimum time for survey would be when the species is flowering otherwise the surveyor would need to be familiar with the plant's vegetative growth. The following link is for the species action plan for yellow marsh saxifrage: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=560

3.27 When assessing the impact on EPS species, the applicant will need to have done survey work that provides an understanding of the way the species use the site if they are found to be present as this is essential to inform any mitigation that could be required.

Bird Ecology

3.28 SNH has guidance relating to bird interests; Assessing Significance of Impacts From Onshore Wind farms on Birds out with Designated Areas. It should be stressed that this document does not substantially change the methodologies given in earlier guidance, rather it seeks to clarify and update earlier versions. An up-to-date copy of the guidance can be found on SNH's web-site: www.snh.org.uk

3.29 As identified in paragraphs 5.41 and 5.42 of the scoping report, the site is likely to support a range of upland raptor species. SNH considers that the key raptor species likely to require assessment under EIA for this proposal should include, in addition to those identified in the report, hen harrier and short-eared owl.

3.30 SNH advises that specific raptor breeding surveys will be required for this site, due to the likely presence of these species. This will ensure that the behaviour and use of the site by raptors is understood and appropriate mitigation measures can be developed to safeguard the species presence for the lifetime of the wind farm.

3.31 SNH also considers that there will be the need to carry out bird surveys during the winter months to establish how the site is used by bird species including raptors.

3.32 The ES should also consider common gull and goose movements over the site.

3.33 SNH's bird guidance should be followed regarding survey requirements, survey methodology, any collision risk analysis and also regarding the presentation of this work in any submitted ES. It is essential that the record of the survey work which has been undertaken is presented clearly and in a transparent manner. Likewise the full workings of any collision risk analysis should be presented clearly in an ES. Maps should be clearly laid out, and it is helpful for flight-line maps and for maps recording the locations of breeding birds to be also marked with the finalised wind farm layout.

3.34 Should information be gathered regarding bird species sensitive to disturbance, SNH would be willing to advise on an appropriate format for dissemination of this information. For example, it is possible that a confidential annex may be required in relation to the distribution of vulnerable nesting birds.

Transport,Traffic and Roads:

3.35 The Environmental Statement should provide information relating to the preferred route options for delivering the turbines etc. via the trunk road network. The Environmental Impact Assessment should also address access issues, particularly those impacting upon the trunk road network, in particular, potential stress points at junctions and approach roads etc. In addition, information must be supplied identifying potential environmental impacts on the trunk road network once the proposal is operational, together with appropriate mitigation measures.

3.36 Where potential environmental impacts have been fully investigated but found to be of little or no significance, it is sufficient to validate that part of the assessment by stating in the report:

• the work has been undertaken, e.g. transport assessment etc
• what this has shown i.e. what impact if any has been identified, and
• why it is not significant

This can be done in a paragraph or two. It is not necessary to include all the information gathered during the assessment of the impact.

3.37 Due to the excessive dimensions of many of the pieces, authorisation from the Highways Agency may be required (for movements within Scotland, this is processed by TR-NMD Bridges Branch Tel no 0131 244 4363) and it is advisable that prior to detailed planning Bridges Branch are consulted as to the feasibility of the transportation of these items to the site. In addition, due to their large number and frequency the UK policy is to restrict these movements via the nearest suitable port.

Habitat

3.38 SNH recommends that the proposed site is surveyed to National Vegetation Classification (NVC) level. Target notes can enhance NVC survey where vegetation communities are worthy of special note or where they are too small to map. As well as undertaking an NVC survey of the development area, any rare or nationally scarce higher and lower plant species within the survey area should be identified, and any necessary mitigation described.

3.39 The scoping report indicates that the land cover of the site is open mountain and moorland (paragraph 5.24). The vegetation communities found on-site are likely to equate to upland heathland - a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat. Field survey should focus on mapping this interest (depth of peat, nature, hydrology and condition), and this mapping should inform the finalised wind farm layout presented in the ES including the route of proposed tracks (whether excavated or floated) and the placement of turbines and ancillary equipment. It is possible that there could be areas of deep peat on-site (and potentially blanket bog vegetation as well) and this would generally need to be avoided. Blanket bog is a "priority habitat" listed under Annex I of the Habitats Directives and as such is a material consideration in the assessment of development proposals.

3.40 Any secondary effects on vegetation interests should be considered, assessed and any mitigation proposals presented in the ES. This includes any changes to land management practice resulting from the presence of a wind farm, for example, changes in grazing, sporting or muirburn practice.

3.41 The presentation of vegetation survey results is important; work should be presented clearly and transparently. It is important to ensure that vegetation survey is carried out at the right time of year. It is also helpful if the maps that present vegetation recorded on-site are also marked with the finalised layout of the wind farm proposal, including turbines and tracks.

Access and recreation

3.42 SNH recommends that the following matters are given consideration in the ES:

• Impact on those users around the wind farm site in relation to the setting and the changes in view which may arise as a result of the proposals.
• Impact on those travelling the A941 and A939
• Impact on recreational users at distance: such as visitors to Cairngorms National Park.
• The effect on the enjoyment of any strategic walking, cycling and riding routes, especially in Glenlivet.
• The use of boundary features and essential access controls to ensure that these are not a barrier to the general right of access.
• Increased noise and other changes in experience of the area from its present character.

3.43 The EIA should deal with the temporary and permanent effects of the proposals on recreation and access. SNH would expect that an assessment will be made of how current and future recreational use are likely to be affected during construction and subsequent operation of the wind farm.

3.44 SNH has a guidance publication ' Constructed tracks in the Scottish uplands' that can be referred to.

4. Description of Methods to Offset Adverse Environmental Effects

General

4.1 Habitats are particularly important and need to be addressed, in conjunction with groundwater levels, river levels and retention of these.

4.2 There may be a considerable need for borrow pits in the construction of wind farms. The need for borrow pits should be determined, and 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 whether it is proposed to include the borrow pits as ancillary development within the section 36 application or if it is the intention to submit separate applications for the opening of borrow pits.

4.3 If borrow pits are proposed the applicants should be aware of the Executive's approved good practice guidance document made under the Groundwater Regulations 1998: Mineral Extraction: Code of Practice for the owners and operators of quarries and other mineral extraction sites (Paper 2003/12)(available on the Executive's website) www.scotland.gov.uk

4.4 SEPA is generally opposed to the culverting of watercourses. It is therefore important that there is no intention to culvert any of the burns within the development area. However it is recognised that road crossings of burns will be necessary, and bridge crossings should be considered in preference to culverts.

Construction

4.5 You should be aware of useful guidance on, inter alia, minimising impact from construction of the type of access roads used in windfarms can be found in "Forests and Water Guidelines" Third Edition (2000) which can be obtained from the Forestry Commission. www.forestry.gov.uk

4.6 You should be aware of information held by SEPA that may be of use such as rainfall and hydrological data and of the need to plan the works in order to avoid road construction during periods of high rainfall.

Hydrology

4.7 The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations 2005 will comecame into force on 1 April 2006, with transitional arrangements in the interim. These Regulations will introduce specific controls on activities which impact on the water environment, for example concerning engineering works such as water crossings and point source pollution, in order to meet the requirements of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) as implemented by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. The Regulations were approved by t on 2 June 2005; copies of them are available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Further details can be found on SEPA's website at the following link - http://www.sepa.org.uk/wfd/index.htm

4.8 SEPA advises that, through the EIA process, preferably as part of the ES but alternatively as a planning condition requirement,method statements be produced for all aspects of site work that might impact upon the environment, containing further preventative action and mitigation to limit impacts. This is particularly important for the construction phase. From experience, the most likely risks associated with the construction phase will be from sediment and mineral oils. 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 prior to their being finalised.

4.9 It is important that you examine all potential impacts on the water environment, especially during the construction phase. Potential impacts include track construction, borrow pits, use of plant and machinery, plant compounds, oil storage and turbine base excavations. It is important that SEPA, as indicated, are fully involved in discussions on this proposal in order that proper mitigation measures are introduced.

4.10 Method statements should be produced for all aspects of site work that might impact upon the environment, containing further preventative action and mitigation to limit impacts. It is recommended that SEPA is provided with the opportunity to view these method statements in draft form prior to their being finalised should development take place.

4.11 Measures should be adopted that ensure the safe and appropriate storage and handling of harmful substances such as fuel or oil. Additionally if fuel or oil is to be stored on site, it will be necessary to provide bunding or containment to retain spillage or leakage. The standard requirement is the provision of containment capacity for 110% of the volume stored.

4.12 Consideration should be given to the micrositing of all components of the windfarm be they temporary or permanent so as to minimise all environmental effects.

4.13 The Environmental Statement should identify mechanisms to ensure subcontractors are well controlled and aware of particular issues. 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.

4.14 The ES must identify all water crossings and 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. It may be useful for the applicant to demonstrate choice of watercourse crossing by means of a decision tree, taking into account factors including catchment size (resultant flows), natural habitat and environmental concerns.

Pollution

4.15 The Environmental Statement needs to address pollution issues. SEPA advises that youTthe applicant should identify all potential pollution risks associated with the proposals and identify preventative measures and mitigation. Proposed discharges should be set out and dilution data provided. Sensitive uses (including abstractions) need to be identified and potential impact upon them needs to be assessed.

4.16 Earthworks will be required during construction (excavations, roads, borrow pits etc). This could cause pollution if not properly controlled. Construction wastes must be disposed of correctly. SEPA as the environmental and waste regulations authority should be contacted to provide advice on environmental protection and waste disposal.

4.17 All private water supplies within the catchment should be identified and measures taken to ensure protection of these supplies from pollution during and after construction. SEPA advises that prior identification of and protective/mitigation measures in relation to all these sources are required if necessary.should be identified and measures taken to ensure protection of these supplies from pollution during and after construction Contact should be made with the Local Authority Environmental health department regarding this issue.

4.18 Proposed temporary and long-term welfare arrangements and proposed methods of disposal of foul effluent at the site should be laid out in the Environmental Statement. Reference can be made to SEPA's guidance note PPG4 "Disposal of sewage where no mains drain is available".

Pollution - Guidelines

4.19 SEPA produces a series of Pollution prevention Prevention guidelinesGuidelines, several of which should be usefully utilised in preparation of an ES and during development. 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 are available on SEPA's website at www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/ppg/ppghome . SEPA would look to see the principles contained within PPG notes to be incorporated within the ES.

4.20 Forest felling operations, if any, must be carried out in accordance with the standard Forest and Water Guidelines.

Waste

4.21 Potential requirement for waste management licences or licensing exemptions in relation to waste disposed of to borrow pits should be discussed at an early stage with SEPA.

4.22 SEPA advises the preparation of the site specific method statement for the construction works. It would be adviseable that at the time of compiling the method statement the applicant identifies all waste stream (such as peat and other materials excavated in relation to infrastructure) associated with the works.

4.23 SEPA encourages the recovery and reuse of controlled waste provided that it is in accordance with the Waste Management Licensing Regulation 1994. There are specific criteria which if met will constitute an exemption under the above Regulation. 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 agricultural 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 as it arises.

4.24 SEPA seeks that developers demonstrate that a) the development includes construction practices to minimise the use of raw materials and maximise the use of secondary aggragates and recycled or renewable materials; b) waste materials generated by the proposal is reduced and reused or recycled where appropriate on site (for example in landscaping not resulting in excessive earth moulding and mounding). The ES should address these aspects.

Borrow pits

4.25 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 detailed investigations of the need for and impact of such facilities as part of the EIA process.

4.26 Moray Council states that in relation to "potential impacts" consideration should be given to the effects of blasting in the formation of borrow pits. Detailed guidance on air over pressure and acceptable peak particle velocity values of vibration can be referenced in PAN 50 Annex C Control of Vibration At Surface Mineral Workings, as well as BS 5228. This Section would therefore expect reference to be made to this aspect in the EIA. Dependant on the size of the charge and distance to properties from borrow pits, consideration may be required to carry out a predictive assessment of vibration as referenced in BS 5228. In respect of operational turbine noise, the other two references in 5.95 are appropriate.

Sustainable Development

4.27 SEPA informs you that some windfarm Environmental Statements (ESs) are now addressing displacement of fossil fuel fired generation as a likely significant impact of the proposal. In line with SEPA'S interest in sustainable development, it would be useful for windfarm ESs more systematically to contain a section on this impact, quantifying the gains over the life of the project against release of carbon dioxide during construction, including loss of peat bog and construction of roads/tracks, turbine bases and turbines and other infrastructure.

4.28 SEPA stresses that it is also important to ensure that the carbon balance of renewable energy projects is not adversely affected by management of the peat resource. There needs to be measures in place to ensure that the development does not lead to significant drying or oxidation of peat through, for example, development of access tracks and other infrastructure, drainage channels, cable trenches or "landscaping" of excavated peat. SEPA therefore recommends that the basis for these measures be set out within the ES, on which a detailed peat management scheme, required through planning condition, can subsequently be designed to ensure that the carbon balance benefits of the scheme are maximised.

5. Non Technical Summary (see paragraph 5 of Schedule 4)

5.1 This should be written in simple non-technical terms to describe the various options for the proposed development, and the mitigation measures against the adverse environmental impacts which would result.

5.2 Applicants should be aware that the ES should also be submitted in a user-friendly pdf format which can be placed on the Scottish Executive website.

6. Difficulties in Compiling the Additional Information (see paragraph 6 of Schedule 4)

6.1 No additional requirements.

Signed ……………………………….

Authorised by the Scottish Ministers

to sign in that behalf

27 September 2006