Post on 17-Mar-2023
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007
B4
SyvashEnergoProm LLC
Syvash Wind Farm
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
Addendum
21 November 2018
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 1 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Report Summary
The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Addendum has been prepared
for SyvashEnergoProm LLC for the Syvash Wind Farm (the Project). This Addendum
captures the Project final layout which consists of 64 wind turbine generators (WTGs) each
with an individual capacity of up to 3.9 MW. The Project maximum capacity will be 250
MW. The Project is located in Syvash, in the Chaplynka district of Ukraine.
The purpose of this report is to update the Preliminary ESIA assessments to reflect the
final Project layout and additional site survey work.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 2 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Report Details
Client: SyvashEnergoProm LLC
Client Contact: Boerge Tvorg
Report Distribution:
SyvashEnergoProm LLC: Boerge Tvorg, Thorstein Jenssen
Wood: Chris Parcell, File
Report Classification: Confidential
Approval Record
Name Job Title Signature
Prepared by: Suzy Yendell Senior Consultant SIGNED
Craig Morton Senior Consultant SIGNED
Vicky McLean Senior Consultant SIGNED
Harry Matthews Graduate Consultant SIGNED
David McLaughlin Principal Consultant SIGNED
Reviewed by: Greg McAlister
Environment Team
Leader
SIGNED
Authorised by: Chris Parcell
Director of Feasibility
& Development
SIGNED
Date of issue: 21 November 2018
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 3 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Amendment Record
Revision
Number Date Summary of Amendments Purpose of Revision
A1 01 August 2018 n/a First draft
A2 02 August 2018 Minor amendments following
review
Internal authorisation
B1 06 August 2018 Minor amendments following
authorisation
Client issue
B2 13 August 2018 Updates to shadow flicker
mitigation.
Issue.
B3 24 October 2018 Updates to reflect EBRD comment
and ecology reporting.
Issue
B4 21 November
2018
Table 2-1 amended. Issue
NOTICE
This document entitled Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum, document number
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 B4 has been prepared solely for SyvashEnergoProm LLC in connection with Syvash Wind
Farm . This document in whole or in part may not be used by any person for any purpose other than that
specified, without the express written permission of Wood Group UK Limited.
Any liability arising out of use by a third party of this document for purposes not wholly connected with the
above shall be the responsibility of that party who shall indemnify Wood Group UK Limited against all claims
costs damages and losses arising out of such use.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 4 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Contents
A1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 12
1.1 This Document .................................................................................................................................12
1.2 Description of Project Amendments .......................................................................................12
1.3 Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) ......................................................................12
A2: Project Description .......................................................................................... 14
2.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................................14
2.2 Project Design Evolution ..............................................................................................................14
2.3 Project Components ......................................................................................................................16
2.3.1 Summary of Key Components ............................................................................................16
2.4 Cumulative Considerations .........................................................................................................16
2.5 Construction Works .......................................................................................................................17
2.5.1 Wind Turbine Generators (WTG) .......................................................................................17
2.5.2 Grid Connection and Substation .......................................................................................20
2.5.3 Water Supply .............................................................................................................................20
2.5.4 On-Site Roads and Underground Cabling .....................................................................20
2.5.5 Construction Compounds and Worker Accommodation Areas ............................21
A3: Legal and Institutional Framework ................................................................. 22
A4: Assessment Methodology .............................................................................. 23
A5: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment ................................................... 24
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................24
5.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................24
5.3 Landscape Character Assessment .............................................................................................24
5.3.1 Baseline Landscape Conditions ..........................................................................................24
5.3.2 Landscape Character Types .................................................................................................24
5.3.3 Assessment of Landscape Effects ......................................................................................24
5.4 Visual Amenity .................................................................................................................................25
5.4.1 Basis of the Assessment ........................................................................................................25
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 5 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
5.4.2 Viewpoints ..................................................................................................................................25
5.4.3 Assessment of Visual Impacts .............................................................................................25
5.5 Mitigation...........................................................................................................................................25
5.6 Residual Impact ...............................................................................................................................26
A6: Terrestrial Ecology .......................................................................................... 27
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................27
6.2 Further Survey and Assessment ................................................................................................27
6.2.1 Flora ..............................................................................................................................................27
6.2.2 Fauna ............................................................................................................................................31
A7: Ornithology ...................................................................................................... 41
7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................41
7.2 Spring Migration .............................................................................................................................41
7.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................41
7.2.2 Results and Assessment ........................................................................................................45
7.2.3 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................50
7.2.4 Summary .....................................................................................................................................51
A8: Hydrology and Hydrogeology ......................................................................... 52
8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................52
A9: Geology and Soils ........................................................................................... 53
A10: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ................................................................ 54
10.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................54
10.2 Assessment Methodology ...........................................................................................................54
10.3 Baseline Conditions ........................................................................................................................54
10.3.1 Characteristics of the Area ...................................................................................................54
10.3.2 Perceptions of Existing Cultural Heritage Features ....................................................56
10.4 Assessment of Effects ....................................................................................................................58
10.5 Mitigation...........................................................................................................................................59
10.5.1 Mitigation by Design ..............................................................................................................59
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 6 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
10.5.2 Construction ..............................................................................................................................59
10.5.3 Operation ...................................................................................................................................61
10.6 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................61
A11: Updated Noise Assessment ............................................................................ 62
11.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................62
11.2 Assessment Methodology ...........................................................................................................62
11.2.1 Regulatory and Policy Context ...........................................................................................62
11.3 Baseline Data Collection ...............................................................................................................63
11.3.1 Baseline Information ..............................................................................................................63
11.4 Updated Detailed Operational Noise Impact Assessment ..............................................63
11.4.1 Operations Phase Assessment of Effects ........................................................................64
11.4.2 Nordex N313/3900 WTG Emission Data ........................................................................65
11.4.3 Wind Farm Operational Noise Propagation Model....................................................65
11.4.4 Noise Model Results ..............................................................................................................66
11.5 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................69
11.6 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................69
11.6.1 Operational Mitigation ..........................................................................................................70
11.6.2 Optimised Noise Model Results ........................................................................................71
11.7 Residual Impacts .............................................................................................................................73
11.7.1 Operational Phase ...................................................................................................................73
11.8 Summary of Effects ........................................................................................................................73
11.9 Statement of Significance ............................................................................................................75
A12: Updated Shadow Flicker Assessment ........................................................... 76
12.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................76
12.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................76
12.2.1 Analysis Parameters ................................................................................................................76
12.3 Impact Assessment .........................................................................................................................76
12.3.1 Shadow Flicker Impact Area ................................................................................................76
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 7 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
12.3.2 Wind Farm Shadow Flicker Analysis Results .................................................................77
12.3.3 Potential Factors Reducing Shadow Flicker Impact ...................................................79
12.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................81
12.5 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................83
12.6 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................83
A13: Updated Transportation and Access .............................................................. 84
13.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................84
13.2 Assessment Methodology ...........................................................................................................84
13.3 Baseline Conditions ........................................................................................................................84
13.3.1 Transportation Route .............................................................................................................84
13.4 Assessment of Effects ....................................................................................................................85
13.4.1 Construction ..............................................................................................................................85
13.4.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................89
13.4.3 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................89
13.5 Residual Effects and Summary ...................................................................................................89
A14: Updated Social Impact Assessment ............................................................... 90
14.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................90
14.2 Updated Social Impact Assessment .........................................................................................90
14.2.1 General Approach ...................................................................................................................90
14.2.2 Survey Methods .......................................................................................................................91
14.2.3 Updated Baseline.....................................................................................................................94
14.3 Social Impact Assessment ......................................................................................................... 102
14.3.2 Population Influx (Job Seeker) ......................................................................................... 110
14.3.3 Construction Workers ......................................................................................................... 110
14.4 Mitigation........................................................................................................................................ 110
14.4.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 110
14.5 Population Influx (Job seekers) ............................................................................................... 111
14.6 Construction Workers ................................................................................................................ 112
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 8 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A15: Aviation .......................................................................................................... 113
15.1 Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 113
15.2 Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 113
15.3 Mitigation........................................................................................................................................ 113
A16: Summary of Impacts ..................................................................................... 115
A17: Environmental Management ......................................................................... 132
Spring Migration Ornithology Report ............................................. 133
Detailed Archaeology Report .......................................................... 134
Noise ................................................................................................ 135
Aviation Consultation ...................................................................... 146
Detailed Supplementary Ecology Report ....................................... 147
Figures
Figure 12-1: Modelled Shadow Flicker Occurrence (All Receptors – times shown on the Y-
axis are based on GMT+3) ...............................................................................................................79
Tables
Table 1-1: Project ESAP Requirements .................................................................................................13
Table 2-1: WTG Co-ordinates ..................................................................................................................17
Table 6-1: Terrestrial Ecology ESAP Requirements ..........................................................................27
Table 8-1: Hydrology / Hydrogeology ESAP Requirements .........................................................52
Table 11-1: Magnitude of Change and Resulting Effect for Noise Limits ...............................64
Table 11-2: Magnitude of Change and Resulting Effect for Additional Exposure ...............64
Table 11-3: Nordex N131/3900 (hub height 120 m) Mode 0 SWL Data .................................65
Table 11-4: NSR Locations ........................................................................................................................66
Table 11-5: Summary of Results (Day) ..................................................................................................67
Table 11-6: Summary of Results (Night) ..............................................................................................68
Table 11-7: Nordex N131/3900 (hub height 120 m) Serrated Edge Mode 0 SWL Data ...70
Table 11-8: WTGs Requiring Serrated Edge Blades .........................................................................71
Table 11-9: Optimised Summary of Results (Day) ...........................................................................72
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 9 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 11-10: Optimised Summary of Results (Night) .....................................................................72
Table 11-11: Summary of Effects (Day) ................................................................................................73
Table 11-12: Summary of Effects (Night) .............................................................................................74
Table 12-1: Potential Worst Case Shadow Flicker Occurrence Based on Receptor.............78
Table 12-2: Potential Shadow Flicker Occurrence Based on Receptor – Adjusted for
Sunshine Hours ....................................................................................................................................80
Table 12-3: Potential Total Shadow Flicker Occurrence Based on WTG and Receptor
Locations .................................................................................................................................................81
Table 12-4: Total Hours in Excess of Limits based on Representative Receptors ................83
Table 13-1: Summary of Traffic during Construction ......................................................................85
Table 13-2: Trips per Month during Construction Period .............................................................87
Table 13-3: Daily Average Movements per Construction Month ...............................................88
Table 14-1: Land Use Calculations for Each Village - Construction ........................................ 104
Table 14-2: Impacts on Grazing (Construction) ............................................................................. 107
Table 14-3: Impacts on Grazing (Operation) ................................................................................... 108
Table 16-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................................... 116
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 10 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Glossary
Abbreviation or Term Definition
EBRD European Bank of Reconstruction and Development
EHS Environment, Health and Safety
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
EPs Equator Principles
ESAP Environmental and Social Action Plan
ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
FGD Focus Group Discussions
GIS Geographical Information Systems
GLVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third
Edition)
Ha Hectare. Equivalent to an area of 10,000m2
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
IFC International Finance Corporation
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
LCT Landscape Character Types
LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
RDB
Red Data Book. - The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is a
comprehensive, global approach for evaluating the conservation
status of plant and animal species.
SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
VP
Vantage Point when used in the context of ornithological surveys to
describe a specific location chosen to undertake bird surveys.
Viewpoint when used to describe specific locations used to assess
visual impacts.
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 11 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Abbreviation or Term Definition
ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 12 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A1: Introduction
1.1 This Document
This Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Addendum has been prepared for
SyvashEnergoProm LLC for the Syvash Wind Farm (the Project). This document forms an
updated ESIA assessment for the Syvash Wind Farm (the Project) in Chaplynka district, Kherson
region, Ukraine. The location of the Project site is illustrated in the Preliminary ESIA, Volume 2,
Figure 1-1.
Since development of the Preliminary ESIA, the Project layout has been reviewed and final
WTG type determined. This ESIA Addendum presents updated Project details and assessments
to reflect the final WTG layout. The document only presents information however and should
be read alongside the Preliminary ESIA.
1.2 Description of Project Amendments
The following amendments have been made to the Project layout:
• Reduction in WTG numbers from 67 WTGs to 64 WTGs and amending the locations of
a further eight WTGs to reflect environmental and social constraints.
Confirmation of WTG type, dimensions and capacity as follows:
o WTG type and capacity – Nordex N131, 3.9 MW.
o WTG dimensions - 185.5 m to tip,120 m hub height, 131 m rotor diameter.
• Reduction in access track length.
• Reduction in substation requirements to one substation at the north-west of the
Project site.
The revised Project layout is provided in Volume 2, Figure 1.2. The layout refinement process
considered environmental, social and technical constraints. Further details on the layout
refinement process are provided in Section 2.2.
The ESIA Addendum presents updated information on the identification and assessment of
the likely significant environmental and social effects of the Project and its ancillary
infrastructure based on the final layout. The document has been prepared by Wood with
specialist ornithological input from Turnstone Ecology Ltd and specialist socio-economic input
from Environmental and Social Advisory Services Limited.
1.3 Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP)
A Project ESAP has been developed in coordination with the Lenders (European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)) and Lenders Technical Advisors.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 13 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
This ESIA Addendum incorporates the following aspects of the Project ESAP.
Table 1-1: Project ESAP Requirements
ESAP Ref ESAP Requirement ESIA Addendum Reference
11 Undertake additional review of
final Project design and layout
to include results of updated
bird, noise and shadow flicker
assessments.
This report captures the ESAP
requirements. Specific references:
• Birds – Section A7.
• Noise – Section A11.
• Shadow flicker – Section A12.
12 Undertake a detailed economic
assessment of economic
displacement impacts to
supplement existing ESIA and
determine whether a
Livelihoods Restoration Plan will
be required.
Section A14.
27 Conduct an assessment of land-
use in areas affected by the
construction and operations of
the Project.
Section A14.
30 Clarify the potential for influx of
job seekers and determine
whether an Influx Management
Plan will be necessary to
manage this impact.
Section A14.
31 Provision of Spring Migration
2018 Supplementary
Ornithology Report.
Section A7.
39 Carry out detailed site
archaeology survey as part of
detailed design.
Section A10.
43 Undertake additional targeted
consultation with land users and
vulnerable groups. Results to
update ESIA social impact
assessment.
Section A14.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 14 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A2: Project Description
2.1 Site Description
The proposed site comprises approximately 1,308 hectares of land within the Chaplynka
district in the Kherson region (oblast) of southern Ukraine. The site is located along the
northern shores of Lake Syvash and consists of plots leased from reserve lands of
Pershokostiantynivka, Hryhorivka, Pavlika/Novovolodymyrivka and Strohanivka village
councils. The southern boundary of the south-western corner of the site lies just north of the
Crimean border.
The topography of the site is generally flat. It consists of areas of cultivated land, and sections
of the Project area are used by local farmers for cattle and sheep grazing. There are some
localised areas of wetland, dominated by reeds. Infrastructure currently located on the site
includes large irrigation drains in addition to existing WTGs establishing the presence of
renewable energy in the area.
The villages of Novovolodymyrivka, Pershokostiantynivka and Strohvanivka are located to the
north of the proposed Project site at distances of approximately 700 m from the nearest WTGs.
2.2 Project Design Evolution
The layout and individual siting of the WTGs and associated infrastructure has progressed
through a number of design iterations and refinements, influenced by the ESIA process.
Specific design issues of relevance to the Project included ground conditions, archaeology
features, important habitats relating to ornithology and ecology and proximity to settlement
in relation to noise, shadow flicker and landscape and visual considerations. Other technical
considerations included proximity to existing infrastructure (overhead lines and existing
WTGs), WTG separation distances and proximity to the Crimea border.
Two main design iterations were undertaken, a description of each design iteration is set out
in the sections below.
2.2.1.1 Design Iteration 1 - Preliminary
A review of EBRD criteria for on-shore wind power projects identified the requirement that
generally WTGs should be located over 700 m from the nearest residential receptor in terms
of community health and safety aspects (including noise and shadow flicker aspects).
In addition to the EBRD criteria, the following modelling was undertaken to inform the WTG
layout:
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 15 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
• Noise - Initial noise modelling was undertaken to identify receptors potentially affected
by noise and then used to refine the WTG layout.
• Shadow flicker - Modelling was undertaken to determine the number of receptors
potentially affected by shadow flicker and then used to refine the WTG layout.
The Project layout was reviewed based on the above information. As a result, WTG R1, R2, R3
and R4 were deleted from the Project layout to ensure the EBRD buffer requirement of 700 m
was met and to reduce noise and shadow flicker impacts.
In addition, WTG 5 was deleted from the scheme at this point due to its proximity to the border
with Crimea.
2.2.1.2 Design Iteration 2- Final
A further design iteration was carried out following detailed archaeology, ornithology site
surveys and ground investigations. Other technical aspects were also considered in further
detail including proximity to overhead power lines and existing WTGs on site.
The layout was refined to reduce impacts, three WTGs were deleted and eight were microsited.
A summary is provided below.
• WTG 12 – WTG moved south to meet required buffer from existing overhead lines for
safety purposes.
• WTG 14 – WTG deleted due to proximity to key bird habitat. Removal increases the
buffer between WTGs and the area where assemblages of birds occur in shallow
water/mud habitats as well as the breeding colony of Gull-billed Terns and gulls. WTG
removal ensures 500 m from Gull-billed Tern breeding colony to closest WTG.
• WTG 23 – WTG moved east to accommodate ground conditions and to provide larger
buffer from key bird reedbed habitat to allow greater use of habitat.
• WTG 24 – WTG moved east to accommodate ground conditions and to provide larger
buffer from key bird reedbed habitat to allow greater use of habitat.
• WTG 26 - WTG moved east to accommodate ground conditions and to provide larger
buffer from key bird reedbed habitat to allow greater use of habitat.
• WTG 28 – WTG moved south – east to meet buffer required through national legislation
from archaeological burial mound identified during detailed survey work.
• WTG 29 - WTG moved east to accommodate ground conditions and to provide larger
buffer from key bird wetland habitat to allow greater use of habitat.
• WTG 30 – WTG moved north to accommodate WTG 28 separation distance.
• WTG 32 – WTG deleted due to proximity to existing wind farm and overhead lines.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 16 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
• WTG 33 – WTG moved east to provide increased buffer from existing WTGs and
overhead lines to meet required buffer for safety purposes.
• WTG 65 – WTG deleted due to proximity to key bird wetland habitat to allow
unimpeded movements of birds between the freshwater lake and coastline, as well as
resulting in large areas of the lake to be outside of likely disturbance distances.
Removes WTG in proximity to settlement, reducing noise and shadow flicker impact.
An overview of the design iterations and the final layout is shown on Figure A2-2.
2.2.1.3 Site Layout
The maximum capacity of the Project will be 250 MW. The proposed layout has been selected
with the aim of minimising conflicts with existing roads, residential areas and on-site
constraints.
The proposed Project will comprise up to 64 WTGs each with a maximum capacity of 3.9 MW.
The indicative WTG layout is shown in Volume 2, Figure A1-2. WTG dimensions are shown in
the Preliminary ESIA Volume 2, Figure 2-1.
2.3 Project Components
Detail of updated project information is provided below. Where no updates are reported
reference should be made to the Preliminary ESIA Chapter 2.
2.3.1 Summary of Key Components
The proposal is for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a wind farm
comprising the following components:
• 64 x 3.9 MW Nordex N131 WTGs.
• Access road from paved highway to the Project site.
• On-site grid connection and substation / control room.
• On-site WTG access roads and underground cables to carry electricity from the WTGs
to the control centre sub-station.
• Hardstanding areas.
• Construction compound.
2.4 Cumulative Considerations
A stand-alone cumulative assessment accompanies this ESIA Addendum.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 17 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
2.5 Construction Works
Updates to Project details are outlined below. This section only presents updated information
and should be read alongside the Preliminary ESIA, Chapter 2.
2.5.1 Wind Turbine Generators (WTG)
The proposed Project will comprise up to 64 Nordex N131 WTGs each with a capacity of
3.9 MW.
The WTG dimensions are as shown in Preliminary ESIA Volume 2, Figure 2-1 and are outlined
below:
• 185.5 m to tip.
• 120 m hub height.
• 131 m rotor diameter.
The WTGs will be three bladed horizontal axis machines.
The co-ordinates for the WTGs, are set out in Table 2-1 below. As outlined in Section 2.2.2 a
number of WTGs have been deleted from the Project layout to minimise environmental and
social impacts. WTG numbers remain as the original layout for referencing purposes.
Table 2-1: WTG Co-ordinates
WTG No
Co-ordinates (UTM WGS84 Z36)
Easting Northing
1 548598 5122169
2 548833 5121198
3 549191 5122250
4 549205 5120650
6 549438 5121695
7 549740 5121180
8 549780 5122395
9 549926 5120600
10 550063 5121643
11 550142 5120045
12 550361 5122008
13 550548 5120535
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 18 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
WTG No
Co-ordinates (UTM WGS84 Z36)
Easting Northing
15 551098 5120181
16 551176 5119553
17 551850 5119880
18 552347 5119489
19 552620 5120030
20 552966 5119543
21 553355 5120056
22 553601 5120742
23 554007 5119835
24 554240 5120321
25 554219 5119273
26 554594 5120776
27 554591 5119741
28 554910 5120097
29 554865 5121313
30 555384 5120364
31 555286 5121685
33 555814 5121369
34 556044 5122228
35 556225 5121644
36 556645 5122242
37 556757 5121347
38 557029 5122696
39 557237 5122058
40 557360 5121307
41 557452 5123122
42 557787 5122574
43 557834 5121856
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 19 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
WTG No
Co-ordinates (UTM WGS84 Z36)
Easting Northing
44 558085 5121271
45 558391 5123314
46 558397 5122697
47 558404 5122081
48 558685 5121310
49 559037 5121795
50 559466 5123755
51 559481 5123156
52 560873 5122902
53 560996 5122360
54 561452 5122047
55 562169 5121401
56 562558 5121022
57 563004 5120622
58 563516 5120238
59 563862 5120625
60 564103 5120017
61 564680 5120762
62 564702 5119651
63 566187 5119666
64 566973 5119910
66 568335 5120900
67 568714 5120346
68 569407 5120360
The WTGs are expected to have a design life of 20 to 25 years and the normal operating life
of the Project would be expected to be 20 to 25 years.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 20 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
2.5.2 Grid Connection and Substation
The point of connection to transport energy to the grid will be to the west of the site within
the leased land area as shown on Volume 2, Figure A1-2.
All power cabling on site from and between the WTGs to the sub-station (control) building will
be buried in trenches approximately 1 m wide by 1 m deep. The location of cabling is still to
be determined however this will follow access track routing as far as possible.
2.5.3 Water Supply
It is proposed that two ground water wells will be used for construction purposes. A full
ground water resource assessment / management plan will be developed prior to construction
works commencing to ensure there is no detrimental impact to local communities.
2.5.4 On-Site Roads and Underground Cabling
On-site roads are required to connect the WTGs to each other and to the substation (control)
building and compound. Volume 2, Figure 1-2 shows the proposed location of access tracks.
It is noted that the track layout would be subject to final micrositing however roads have been
designed to minimise impact on environmental considerations, particularly the reed bed area
located in the centre of the Project site. The roads will be constructed with specifications similar
to the access road, including roadway preparation, storm water controls, and placing gravel
where needed. Roads connecting the compound to the WTGs will be approximately 5 m wide.
A crane will be used to erect the WTGs. This crane will need to travel from one WTG location
to the next. The crane will require a suitably sized access road and hardstanding location at
each WTG as shown on Volume 2, Figure 1-2.
Underground transmission line cabling will be armoured with woven metal and buried to a
depth of approximately 1 m. Trenches will be approximately 1 m wide. Excavated material will
be used to backfill the trenches, with stockpiled topsoil and subsoil placed on the surface.
Native grasses will then be re-established. The total length of underground cabling is to be
determined however this will predominately follow access tracks as outlined above.
Construction areas will be fenced as relevant to prevent unauthorised access during the
construction phase.
There will be no restrictions to access tracks during the operational phase.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 21 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
2.5.5 Construction Compounds and Worker Accommodation Areas
Temporary works are proposed to be used during construction and will consist of construction
and worker accommodation compounds. The locations are still being determined.
Based on preliminary investigations, a temporary construction compound is anticipated to be
located in the vicinity of WTG 33 to make use of existing services in the area. Land used by the
community for grazing will be avoided.
Worker accommodation is anticipated to be located to the north of the Project in an area with
existing services. Worker accommodation will be developed in accordance with IFC and EBRD
guidance in relation to workers accommodation and subject to the necessary agreements1.
1 IFC and EBRD, 2009. Workers' Accommodation: Processes and Standards. Report accessed at:
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-
ifc/publications/publications_gpn_workersaccommodation (02 August 2018)
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 22 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A3: Legal and Institutional Framework
The revised Project layout does not implicate the legal and institutional framework, details
remain as outlined within the Preliminary ESIA, Chapter 3.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 23 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A4: Assessment Methodology
The revised Project layout does not implicate the assessment methodology, details remain as
outlined within the Preliminary ESIA, Chapter 4.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 24 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A5: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
5.1 Introduction
This chapter of the ESIA evaluates the impacts of the Project on the landscape character and
visual amenity. It describes and evaluates the change to the landscape and visual amenity
during construction and once in operation, and the extent to which these affect perception
and views of the landscape and visual resource. The chapter should be read alongside the
Preliminary ESIA, Chapter 5 and provides an update to the assessment within that document
as relevant.
5.2 Methodology
Refer to Preliminary ESIA Section 5.2.
5.3 Landscape Character Assessment
5.3.1 Baseline Landscape Conditions
Refer to Preliminary ESIA Section 5.3.1.
5.3.2 Landscape Character Types
Refer to Preliminary ESIA Section 5.3.2.
5.3.3 Assessment of Landscape Effects
The reduction of WTG numbers from 67 to 64 and micrositing of WTGs will result in a reduction
of impacts associated with landscape character, however due to the numbers of WTGs
associated with the Project and the location of the WTGs deleted (within the wind farm
envelope) the change in WTG numbers will not materially affect the landscape character
assessment.
With reference to Chapter A15, aviation lighting will be installed on WTGs. As the character of
the area is already characterised by artificial lighting at night time due to existing infrastructure
/ industry, it is not anticipated that the introduction of aviation lighting on WTGs would result
in a significant effect on landscape character.
Impacts therefore remain as reported in the Preliminary ESIA.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 25 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
5.4 Visual Amenity
5.4.1 Basis of the Assessment
This section assesses the visual impact of the Project by determining the degree of anticipated
change in the visual amenity of people using buildings and areas of public open space that
would occur as a result of the Project. The key elements and characteristics of the Project
which may give rise to landscape and visual impacts are as follows:
• The introduction of up to 64 WTGs into the landscape.
• Access tracks and hardstanding areas.
• Temporary construction compound.
• Sub-station and control building.
• Aviation lighting (see Chapter A15).
All disturbed areas would be restricted as far as practicable to the specified areas and laydown
areas, temporary construction compound, excavations for WTG foundations, crane pads and
underground cables would also be reinstated once construction is complete.
5.4.2 Viewpoints
Refer to Preliminary ESIA Section 5.4.2.
5.4.3 Assessment of Visual Impacts
An updated Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) based on 64 WTGs shown in Volume 2, Figure
A5-1. Updated wirelines are presented in Volume 2, Figure A5-4 to 5-9.
The reduction of WTG numbers from 67 to 64 and micrositing of WTGs will result in a reduction
of impacts associated with visual amenity, however due to the numbers of WTGs associated
with the Project and the location of the WTGs deleted (within the wind farm envelope) the
change in WTG numbers will not materially affect the visual impact assessment.
Impacts for all viewpoints therefore remain as reported in the Preliminary ESIA.
In relation to aviation lighting, whilst the addition of aviation lighting will be a noticeable
change to the visual baseline at night time, as outlined above artificial lighting is already
present within the area, through lighting associated with existing infrastructure / industry. As
such the presence of artificial lighting has been established, and therefore the addition of
aviation lighting is not anticipated to result in a significant visual effect.
5.5 Mitigation
Mitigation measures remain as outlined within the Preliminary ESIA.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 26 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
5.6 Residual Impact
Residual impacts remain as reported within the Preliminary ESIA.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 27 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A6: Terrestrial Ecology
6.1 Introduction
The Preliminary ESIA identified a number of further survey requirements. Additional survey
work was therefore carried out, in accordance with the following ESAP requirements.
Table 6-1: Terrestrial Ecology ESAP Requirements
ESAP Ref ESAP Requirement
7 The existing relevant biodiversity reports to be updated in line with EBRD
PR1/IFC PS1 and PR6/IFC PS6, including management strategy and
mitigation measures for all phases in line with findings of additional
baseline studies.
32 Based on studies provide additional sensitive habitat maps within or
adjacent to the Project site as part of the cumulative assessment.
33 Develop bat survey protocol and the monitoring and mitigation protocols
implement the assessment and publish once a year the results of surveys
as part of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP).
34 Undertake additional baseline data collection studies to allow for
appropriate data on bird and bats, flora and fauna to further refine the
Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and Environmental
Health and Safety (EHS) management plans to limit impacts.
38 Develop suite of ecological (biodiversity offset) enhancement measures
to further support biodiversity in the area.
Details of the additional surveys are outlined below. A copy of the full Supplementary Ecology
Report is provided in 1.1.1.1Appendix E.
6.2 Further Survey and Assessment
6.2.1 Flora
Further surveys were carried out between 24 and 27 July 2018 to identify all areas of higher
quality habitats including those supporting Festuca valesiaca and Lepidium syvaschicum, and
to assess the potential for risk associated with invasive species.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 28 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
6.2.1.1 Methodology
Surveys concentrated on identifying and mapping habitats within areas affected and
potentially affected by the proposed locations of WTGs and associated access routes across
the Project site. Special attention was given to locating habitats of potential ecological
importance, such as Steppe vegetation, and identifying any nationally important species.
Full survey methodologies are set out in 1.1.1.1Appendix E.
6.2.1.2 Baseline Conditions
Agricultural land
The majority of the Project site is or has been affected by agricultural activities, such as
cultivation of crops or grazing by livestock. Habitats within the agricultural areas include arable,
steppe and grassland meadows.
Arable fields dominate flat inland areas within and immediately to the north of the Project site.
At the time of the 2018 surveys much of the arable areas were cultivated with a variety of crops
evident but where fields had been left uncultivated and fallow and/or dense ruderal vegetation
was present. Russian Knapweed (Acroptilon repens) continues to dominate the ruderal
vegetation with Cardario-Agropyretum, Convolvulo-Agropyretum repentis, Lepidietum drabae,
Xanthietum spinosi, Melilotetum albi-officinalis, Artemisietum absinthii, Polygonetum avicularis,
Bromo-Hordeetum murini, Ambrosio-artemisifoliae-Cirsietum setosi, Erigero-Lactucetum
serriolae, Cirsio-Lactucetum serriolae, Cynancho acuti-Convolvuletum arvensis, Bromo-
Hordeetum murini, Atriplicetum tataricae and Plantagini-Polygonetum avicularis also present.
Field margins and fallow vegetation are dominated by Artemisia Taurica, Lepidium perfoliatum,
Poa bulbosa, Bromopsis riparia, Eryngium campestre, Anthemis ruthenica, Senecio vernalis,
Salvia aethiopis, Lamium amplexicaule, Descurainia Sophia, Carduus acanthoides, Cardaria
draba and Convolvulus arvensis all also evident.
Steppe vegetation is present where areas are uncultivated or have avoided recent cultivation,
such as margins between fields and tracks where tree shelter belts were once present and
steeper slopes adjacent to drainage channels and wetland areas. The majority of these area
are heavily grazed and badly degraded by livestock and are essentially secondary meadows
growing on areas that would have formally been steppe grassland habitats. Species noted
within these areas and usually associated with Steppe habitats include Festuca valesiaca,
Elytrigia repens, E. іntermedia and E. preudocaesia as well as Elytrigia repens, Elytrigia
preudocaesia, Alopecurus arundinaceus, Calamagrostis epigeos and Bromopsis riparia.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 29 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Meadows are present in low lying areas around the edges of wetlands (both saline and
freshwater) and within depressions where more moisture is present. In areas where seasonal
flooding occurs, halophytic-beamed plant communities of Puccinellietum distans, Juncetum
gerardii and Puccinellietum (aeluroposum) littoralis, Juncus maritimus, Eleocharis mitracarpa,
Crypsis aculeata), Alisma gramineum and Ranunculus scleratus occur. Elytrigia elongata
dominates lower areas of the meadow habitat as well as in more damp areas where there are
formations of saline meadows. In these areas Puccinellietum distans and Juncetum gerardii also
occur. Almost all meadows within the Project area are badly degraded as a result of excessive
grazing and periodic burning. Although not located during the 2018 surveys, one species listed
in the Red Book of Ukraine (2009) – Lepidium syvaschicum was found within the flood meadow
habitats during previous surveys and this species is also listed in the European Red List (1991).
Freshwater wetland
Freshwater wetlands which consist of waterbodies dammed off from saline water and
surrounded by vegetation are scattered along the length of the Project site. Drainage channels
seasonally filled with freshwater are also present behind the steep embankment and adjacent
to existing access tracks running along the edge of the coast from the current wind farm east.
Aquatic vegetation includes Potamogeton pectinatus., Lemna triscula., Ceratophyllum
demersum and Вatrachium kаuffmаnnii whilst marginal vegetation is dominated by dense
stands of Phragmites australis and occasional stands of Typha angustifolia.
Saline habitats
Extensive saline areas of the Western Syvash border the southern edge of the Project site with
a saline inlet extending up into the far western part of the site. Vegetation in these areas is
almost non-existent due to the high salinity and pollution with bare mud dominating around
the edges of any water. Stands of Phragmites australis do however occur along sheltered parts
of the shoreline and on some of the offshore islands. Some Elytrigia elongate, Puccinellietum
distans and Juncetum gerardii is present in areas above the level of regular inundation by saline
water.
Survey Results
No species of national or international importance were found during the 2018 surveys.
Lepidium syvaschicum was found during previous survey work and remains the only botanical
species found on site that is listed within the Ukraine Red Book and European Red List. This
species was only found to be present within meadow habitats at the far eastern end of the
Project site and not within areas affected by WTGs or proposed access routes.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 30 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Habitat loss associated with the construction of WTGs and proposed access routes will be
minimal and mainly affect arable and grazed meadow habitats that are common in the region.
Small areas of steppe habitat will also be affected but this habitat is patchy and fragmented
on site and heavily grazed and disturbed. Habitat creation and enhancement included as part
of the proposals would offset any loss of steppe habitat as a result of turbine and access route
construction.
Freshwater wetlands and areas of seasonally flooded meadow, which are not common habitats
in the region, will not be directly affected by the proposals and appropriate mitigation
measures will be put in place to ensure potential indirect impacts, such as from pollution and
changes to hydrology, will be minimised.
6.2.1.3 Mitigation
Fully detailed mitigation measures to minimise any predicted impacts on habitats and plant
species within the Project area will be included within the updated ESMP.
The final locations of WTG and associated access routes will mainly avoid habitats that have
been identified as being of highest sensitivity. This includes freshwater wetlands, wet meadows
and less disturbed uncultivated areas of meadow and steppe vegetation. Habitat supporting
the National Red Data Book Species Lepidium syvaschicum, will also be avoided. This will
ensure that negative impacts on habitats and flora are kept to a minimum and of low
significance.
All areas of sensitive habitats and/or where notable species occur that are not being affected
by construction activities will be clearly marked on the construction plans and will be marked
on site to prevent construction activities in these areas. An ecologist will be present to
supervise any works that are required in close proximity to these sensitive habitats.
Pre-construction mitigation works to avoid and/or minimise the loss of sensitive species of
flora will be completed. This will include pre-works surveys for sensitive plant species that
could be present in areas affected by construction works associated with WTGs and access
roads during construction and where appropriate the translocation of species and/or
recreation of habitats completed. The recreation and enhancement of uncultivated steppe and
meadow habitats, including the retention and increase of field margins, will also be completed
as part of the proposals.
Standard pollution control measures will be enforced during the construction phase of the
Project to ensure there are no impacts on habitats. All fuel and lubricants will be stored in
double bunded storage containers and dedicated re-fuelling areas will be maintained. Spill kits
will be available at all storage and re-fuelling sites and all spillages will be cleaned up
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 31 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
immediately. Any incidents will be reported and investigated, and additional control measures
implemented as necessary. All vehicles being used on the site will be well maintained and
subject to regular service and maintenance.
Alien and/or invasive plant species are not currently frequent in habitats within or adjacent to
the Project site. Vehicles and any materials being brought onto site will therefore need to
checked for the presence of alien or invasive species prior to arriving on site to ensure none
are introduced into habitats within and adjacent to the Project site. If alien or invasive species
are found to be present within the Project area during the construction and operational phases
of the development then these will be eradicated using appropriate methods.
There will be no collecting of plant species within the Project site and this will be enforced by
the Project team. The remaining shelter belt trees will also be protected from felling and or
collection of fire wood by construction workers. Additionally, it will not be permissible to set
fire to trees and/or steppe and meadow habitats during the construction and operation phases
of the Project.
The site will maintain excellent housekeeping practices to ensure that all refuse and other
waste materials are disposed of correctly as well as ensuring high levels of recycling is
completed.
6.2.2 Fauna
6.2.2.1 Bats
Bat survey and data collection undertaken in 2018 involved the following techniques:
• Roost search;
• Transect surveys; and
• Static detector surveys.
Bat surveys were planned and setup by Turnstone Ecology with the surveyor team led by
Andriy-Taras Bashta, a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute of Ecology of the Carpathians
with extensive experience in bat surveying and ecology within Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
Methodology
Roost Search
The aims of the Roost Search were to identify and assess any potential bat roost sites within
or immediately adjacent to the Project site and determine the risks of roost site destruction
during the construction phase and bat fatalities and disturbance during construction and
operation.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 32 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Transect Survey
Transect Surveys attempted to identify the potential ecological function of the Project area for
foraging and commuting bats during the breeding season and highlight any important
habitats types (such as typical linear landscape features including shelter belts, areas with more
vegetation, wet areas and streams/ditches).
Static Detector Surveys
A single Echometer SM3 static detector was taken out to the Project site by Turnstone Ecology
during the May site visit and left on site for the duration of the 2018 bat surveys (May to end
of August).
Eight safe locations were identified where the static detector could be left (see Appendix
Appendix E) with surveys concentrating on using Locations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. These locations
are within or very close to proposed turbine areas and/or close to habitats of potential
importance for foraging bats. The static detector was requested to be moved to a different
safe location every five days with notes kept of dates at which location.
Data from the static detector was downloaded at regular intervals and passed on to Turnstone
Ecology where it has been analysed using Wildlife Acoustics Kaleidoscope software.
Safe static locations (and an overview of transect routes) are shown in Appendix E.
Full survey methodologies are set out in 1.1.1.1Appendix E.
Survey Results
Roost Search
Roost search surveys confirmed just a single roosting location within a large crack on the
eastern aspect of a concrete bridge over the drainage channel approximately 180m west of
WTG 54. A small number (3) of small bat droppings (characteristic of a pipistrelle species) were
present in the entrance to the crack. No bats could be seen within the crack and no bats were
recorded during further survey effort (emergence / re-entry surveys completed as part of
transect surveys).
Other concrete bridges are present along the drainage channels but searches of these found
no evidence of bats, although features such as cracks and holes in the concrete were present
in the majority of bridges and are suitable for roosting bats.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 33 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
No features suitable for roosting bats were found to be present in the trees scattered within
and adjacent to the Project site and although scattered farm buildings and existing wind farm
buildings do have features suitable for roosting bats no roosting bats or evidence of bats was
found during searches or additional activity survey effort.
Transect Surveys
Up to 13 species of bat were recorded in total across the summer period, of these 5 are
considered to be at medium or low risk from collision with wind turbines and 8 considered to
be at higher risk. Species with similar echolocation properties e.g. Kuhl’s and Nathusius’
Pipistrelles have been combined to reduce error margins and simplify analysis. Higher risk
species are coloured red and lower risk species yellow and green in the below tables.
22 Transects were completed in June with a total of 377 passes registered over this period
(Table 3). Kuhl’s/Nathusius’ Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus kuhlii/nathusii) were the most commonly
encountered bat with 144 passes recorded, which accounts for 38% of the calls recorded in
this month. Species at higher risk of collision with turbines accounted for 71% (269) of
registrations.
32 Transects were completed in July with a total of 410 passes registered over this period
(Table 4). Kuhl’s/Nathusius’ Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus kuhlii/nathusii) were the most commonly
encountered bat with 132 passes recorded, which accounts for 33% of the calls recorded in
this month. Pipistrelles as a group accounted for 66% (271/410 calls) of registrations over this
recording period. Species at higher risk of collision with turbines accounted for 78% (320) of
registrations.
31 Transects were completed in August and a total of 715 passes were registered over this
period (Table 5). Kuhl’s/Nathusius’ Pipistrelle were the most frequently encountered bat
with 190 registrations of these species accounting for approximately 27% of calls.
Pipistrelles as a group accounted for 44% (318/715) of registrations over this recording
period. Species at higher risk of collision with turbines accounted for 91% (654) of
registrations.
Static Detector
Full results of static detector surveys are pending and will be added when all data has been
received and processed.
Evaluation
Bats do regularly occur within the project area, with up to 13 species of bat recorded
commuting and foraging over the three months of 2018 transect surveys. Minimal roosting
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 34 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
activity was recorded and potential roosting sites are limited to a very small number of
structures.
Transect surveys have shown the species most frequently recorded was Pipistrellus kuhlii/P.
nathusii, which accounted for approximately a third of all recordings. These bats were most
frequently encountered on Transects 1 and 5, which is as would be expected based on habitat
types present within these areas. Assessment by transect point has shown that areas near to
freshwater wetlands and villages were used more than those in saline habitats and arable
farmland locations.
Bat activity was highest in August, with approximately double the recordings when compared
with June. Increases in activity during this month could be accounted for with the emergence
of young bats from nursery colonies, as well as the early movements of migrating species -
highlighted in particular by the increase in numbers of Nyctalus species and Vespertillio
murinus which are known to migrate between breeding and hibernation sites in this region of
the continent. This correlates with the results from previous surveys at the site which also
showed higher levels of activity in August than in other months.
At risk species were encountered on average between 9.05 times and 17.8 times per transect
per visit. This represents what would be considered a typical level of activity for a site with the
habitat types present.
Impacts
The results of the 2018 bat surveys are in line with the results of previous surveys completed
for the Project with levels of bat activity within the Project area generally low with a slight
increase in numbers during August. Species specific predicted impacts are therefore as stated
within the ESIA and repeated below.
Construction - High sensitivity bat species could be indirectly affected through noise
disturbance and or lighting impacts along commuting routes and or of foraging areas. Indirect
negative impacts on bats are considered to be of moderate to high significance.
Operation - The wind WTGs will be constructed in areas of habitat that are considered sub-
optimal for foraging and commuting however it is still possible that bats could be negatively
affected by the operational WTGs as within 200m of optimal habitats, resulting in low to
moderate magnitude impacts on receptors of moderate to high sensitivity. Unmitigated this
would result in negative impacts of moderate to high sensitivity.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 35 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
6.2.2.2 Otters
Information regarding terrestrial mammals was not provided within the baseline documents
provided by the University, however it was assumed for the purposes of the Wood. ESIA that
Eurasian Otter could be present within and or adjacent to Project site based upon species
range and habitats present. Eurasian Otter are listed as Vulnerable in the National Red Data
Book, Near Threatened by the IUCN and are also included on Annex II of the EU Habitats
Directive.
To confirm presence or likely absence of Otter within and adjacent to the proposed Project
site, Otter surveys were completed by Turnstone Ecology during a site visit in May 2018.
Methodology
A visit to the Project site was completed at the end of May 2018 with Otter surveys being
completed between 21st and 24th May 2018.
Surveys involved a thorough search for evidence of Otter of all freshwater wetlands and
watercourses (drainage channels) within and adjacent to the Project site. The banks and
margins of open water and within marginal reedbeds were checked for the presence of any
Otter prints, spraint, holts and/or couches. If any evidence of Otter activity was found then this
would have been recorded on to maps with details and coordinates of evidence also noted.
Full survey methodologies are set out in 1.1.1.1Appendix E.
Survey results
No evidence of Otter was found within or adjacent to the Project site during the May 2018
surveys.
Access to and around the wetlands was generally very good and although some parts of
wetlands were inaccessible, it was considered that if any Otters were present within the survey
areas then evidence would have been recorded.
The freshwater wetland habitats do appear suitable for Otter with the lakes at the western and
eastern ends of the Project site supporting fish but the saline habitats are unsuitable for Otter
and as the drainage channels and watercourses are dry for large periods during the year, they
are isolated from larger and more permanent watercourses.
Evaluation
Based on the results of the 2018 surveys and further assessment of suitable habitats on and
adjacent to the Project site and connectivity to other suitable aquatic habitat in the
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 36 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
surrounding area, it is considered that the presence of otter within the Project site is very
unlikely.
Specific mitigation measures for Otter are not required as part of the proposals but in the
unlikely event of Otter occurring within the vicinity of proposed works the required mitigation
measures to ensure there will be no negative impacts on the freshwater wetland habitats will
also ensure there will be no negative impacts on Otters.
6.2.2.3 Herpetofauna
Reptile and amphibian walkover surveys were completed as part of the University study in
2017 and as well as incidental sightings during other ecological surveys they registered three
species of amphibian and seven species of reptile. Single observations of Caspian Whipsnake
and Eastern Steppe Viper were recorded and both these species are included in the Ukraine
Red Data Book.
Three other species of reptiles were assessed as part of the University ESIA as although they
weren’t recorded survey effort was not sufficient enough to rule out their presence on site
given that they are known to occur in the biogeographical area of Project and therefore
could be affected by the Project. Two of the reptile species that weren’t recorded during
survey but could occur on site, Blotched Snake and Smooth Snake, are included in the
Ukraine Red Data Book.
No specific additional herpetofauna surveys have been completed during 2018 but incidental
sightings have been noted during Turnstone Ecology site visits in May and July 2018 and by
surveyors completing bird and bat surveys within the Project site. Further assessment of
habitats and their suitability to support snake species of conservation concern has also been
completed.
Eastern Steppe Vipers have been recorded on a number of occasions by the bird surveyors
completing spring migration surveys in April and May 2018. A minimum of three observations
were made with two records in meadow habitat at the far western end of the Project site and
one in meadow habitat adjacent to VP2. No other reptiles have been recorded during 2018
but amphibians (European Common Spadefoot and Marsh Frog) were common in freshwater
wetland habitats
Evaluation
Although no additional reptile and amphibian surveys have been completed during 2018, the
results of the 2017 surveys and incidental sighting obtained during other ecological surveys
undertaken in 2018 suggest that the Project site only supports small numbers of species of
conservation concern.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 37 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
The majority of proposed WTGs and access routes will affect cultivated arable fields or heavily
grazed and disturbed meadow and steppe habitats, which are of limited suitability for
amphibians and reptiles. Actual habitat loss will also be minimal with extensive areas of
meadow and steppe habitat remaining unaffected and suitable for reptiles and freshwater
wetlands remaining suitable for amphibians.
Impacts
Habitat assessment and incidental sighting of herpetofauna completed during 2018 have
confirmed that terrestrial habitat directly impacted by construction are considered to be of
low conservation value and populations of notable reptile and amphibian species are low.
It is possible that herpetofauna of conservation significance could occur within and or
commute across areas affected by the Project and includes four species of snake (high
sensitivity) as well as lizards and three species of amphibians (moderate sensitivity). Taking in
to consideration the extent of the proposed works, unmitigated impacts are considered to be
of a moderate magnitude which would result in a high to moderate negative impact on
herpetofauna.
6.2.2.4 Invertebrates
General
No specific invertebrate surveys have been completed during any of ecological work
undertaken as part of the proposed project. Impacts on invertebrates as a result of the
construction and operation of wind farms are not usually considered significant due to the
relatively small areas of habitat loss and disturbance.
Incidental observations of general invertebrate diversity and abundance was noted during site
visits completed by Turnstone Ecology in May and July 2018.
Evaluation
The proposed WTG locations and associated access routes will mainly affect cultivated arable
habitats and heavily grazed and disturbed meadow and steppe. Less disturbed areas of
meadow and steppe, including vegetated strips around the margins of arable fields and
adjacent to existing tracks, do support an abundance of invertebrates, although a high species
diversity was not observed during 2018 surveys.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 38 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Based on geographical range and habitats present on site there is the potential for the IUCN
Endangered Crimean Stone Grasshopper (Asiotmethis tauricus) to be present within the Project
site. This species is found in steppe habitats and although this habitat is limited and
fragmented on site it may be present. The Endangered Thick Grasshopper (Platypygius crassus)
inhabits saltings on wet bare ground with scarce halophytic vegetation along sea coasts and
therefore could occur in saline habitats adjacent to the Project site.
Impacts
Overall habitat loss as a result of the proposed WTGs and associated access routes will be
minimal with extensive areas of meadow and steppe habitat remaining unaffected and suitable
for a variety of invertebrates. It is also possible that invertebrates of conservation significance
could occur within habitats affected by the proposals.
Taking in to consideration the extent of the proposed works, unmitigated impacts are
considered to be of a moderate magnitude which would result in a moderate negative impact
on invertebrates.
6.2.2.5 Mitigation
General
Fully detailed mitigation measures to minimise any predicted impacts on fauna within the
Project area will be included within the updated ESMP.
The final locations of WTG and associated access routes will mainly avoid habitats that have
been identified as being of highest sensitivity for fauna species. This includes freshwater
wetlands, wet meadows and less disturbed uncultivated areas of meadow and steppe
vegetation. Habitat supporting species of conservation concern, such as Eastern Steppe Viper
and potentially Crimean Stone Grasshopper, will be largely avoided with extensive suitable
habitat remaining unaffected. This will ensure that negative impacts on fauna are kept to a
minimum and of low significance.
Pre-construction mitigation works to avoid and/or minimise the loss, death or injury to
sensitive species of fauna will be completed. This will include pre-works surveys for notable
fauna species that could be present in areas affected by construction works associated with
WTGs and access roads during construction and where appropriate the translocation of
species and/or recreation of habitats completed.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 39 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Speed limits will be enforced within the construction sites to reduce the likelihood of collision
with on-site vehicles. If animal crossings are identified by the on-site ecologist these will be
clearly signed during construction and if necessary additional mitigation will be undertaken to
reduce conflict with on-site traffic. This will include culverted animal crossings, particularly
where access roads cross through or between areas of freshwater wetlands and/or less
disturbed areas of steppe and meadow where reptiles, amphibians and mammals are most
common, and moving animals off on-site roads.
Standard pollution control measures will be enforced during the construction phase of the
Project to ensure no impacts on habitats and faunal receptors. All fuel and lubricants will be
stored in double bunded storage containers and dedicated re-fuelling areas will be
maintained. Spill kits will be available at all storage and re-fuelling sites and all spillages will
be cleaned up immediately. Any incidents will be reported and investigated, and additional
control measures implemented as necessary. All vehicles being used on the site will be well
maintained and subject to regular service and maintenance.
There will be no hunting and or collecting of fauna within the Project site and this will be
enforced by the Project team. The remaining shelter belt trees will also be protected from
felling and or collection of fire wood by construction workers. Additionally, it will not be
permissible to set fire to trees and/or steppe and meadow habitats during the construction
and operation phases of the Project.
The site will maintain excellent housekeeping practices to ensure that all refuse and other
waste materials are disposed of correctly as well as ensuring high levels of recycling is
completed.
Proposed steppe and meadow habitat restoration, protection and enhancement, as outlined
within the Preliminary ESIA, should improve habitat suitability for invertebrates and in turn
increase abundance and diversity of animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, small mammals and
passerine birds, that feed on them. The retention and increase of margins around agricultural
fields and alongside access tracks will also increase connectivity across the site and provide
vegetated corridors providing cover, feeding and breeding opportunities for a range of fauna
away from the WTGs.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 40 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Bats
In line with recommendations set out in Eurobats Publication Series no. 6 WTGs should be
located away from areas sensitive shown to be used more frequently by bats. The majority of
WTGs are located at least 200m from areas of freshwater and village outskirts, where most bat
activity has been recorded and WTG micrositing has further increased distances from
freshwater habitats. Some WTGs will be within 200m of freshwater, at the western and eastern
ends of the Project site, but extensive suitable habitat will be unaffected by WTGs and main
foraging and commuting routes across between village roost sites and freshwater will be
retained and unsevered.
Mortality of bats with the operational WTGs will be reduced as a result of locating the majority
of WTGs away from habitat features that could support foraging and commuting and retaining
extensive suitable habitat that will be unaffected by WTGs. Additional bat surveys will be
completed in order to develop continued mitigation packages to further reduce impacts on
receptors of high sensitivity. A carcass searching programme will also be completed, which will
inform any additional mitigation.
Additional survey should include the continuation of bat activity surveys (transects and static
detectors) throughout construction. Survey visits should be completed monthly and patterns
in activity analysed and mapped to allow amendments to the overall mitigation strategy to
be made. The requirement for post-construction bat activity surveys will be confirmed on
completion of analysis and assessment of these surveys during construction.
Carcass searching should be undertaken at each operational turbine every two weeks during
the active season (March-October inclusive) for the entire first year of operation. Depending
on the results of the carcass searching, monitoring effort and appropriate mitigation
measures will be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.
Based on current survey results and assessment, no curtailment is currently recommended.
The outcomes of additional surveys and/or carcass searching will be utilised to review required
mitigation and determine whether it will be necessary to introduce some level of WTG
curtailment. If required, this could include increased turbine cut in speeds (at least 1.5m/s
above the manufacturers specified cut in), timed shutdown of turbines to avoid operation
during periods of high activity (nightly or seasonally i.e. early Autumn to avoid migrating bats).
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 41 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A7: Ornithology
7.1 Introduction
The Preliminary ESIA identified a number of further survey requirements to include:
• Spring migration survey (Vantage point surveys and point count surveys).
• Breeding birds survey (Vantage point surveys and point count surveys).
• Autumn migration survey (Vantage point surveys and point count surveys).
Spring migration survey work is completed and outlined below. Supplementary reporting will
be developed on completion of Breeding and Autumn survey and assessment work in line with
ESAP requirements. This documentation will outline detailed mitigation and management
requirements.
7.2 Spring Migration
Spring migration survey has been completed by Turnstone Ecology. In order to provide a
summary of the spring migration work completed, extracted information from the Turnstone
Ecology report is outlined below, the full report is provided in Appendix A.
7.2.1 Methodology
A summary of the survey methodology followed is provided below. Full details are provided
in Appendix A.
7.2.1.1 Vantage Point Survey
Spring migration Vantage Point (VP) surveys were undertaken to:
• Quantify the impact of the project on key avian species;
• Inform final WTG layout;
• Develop additional mitigation (e.g. WTG shut down, habitat/species management
plan); and
• Form the baseline for any future required supplementary surveys and operational
monitoring.
VP surveys are designed to quantify the level of flight activity and its distribution over the
survey area. The primary purpose is to provide input data for the Collision Risk Model, which
predicts mortalities from collision with WTGs. Data can also be used to provide an overview of
bird usage of the site, which helps to inform an overview of potential disturbance and
displacement.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 42 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
The protocol for surveys at VPs was based on the methodology developed by Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH) Survey Methods for Use in Assessing the Impacts of Onshore Wind farms on
Bird Communities (2005), and most recently updated in 2014). 2
Six VPs were selected during a March 2018 site visit and were chosen in order to collect robust
field data for the proposed WTG locations and a 500 m buffer. VP locations were chosen
based on best overall survey points. Locations are shown in Appendix A and Preliminary ESIA
Volume 2, Figure 7-1.
VP surveys were completed daily from 21 March 2018 to 31 May 2018 with typically all six VPs
surveyed by a team of three surveyors each day. Survey sessions lasted three hours at each
VP, with three VPs surveyed during an early or mid-morning session and three VPs surveyed
during a mid or late afternoon session. Survey sessions were varied to ensure each VP was
subject to surveys at various times of the day throughout a survey week.
The VP migration survey period extended well into the breeding season but due to an
extended winter period, with cold weather lasting into early April, migration was slow to start
and continued throughout May with migrant birds still being recorded up until the last of the
VP surveys. Surveyors concentrated on recording migrating species during the VP surveys with
general notes/records of resident and/or breeding species made separately to VP recordings.
These records included species such as Marsh Harrier, which were almost continually observed
flying over the marshlands as they hunted and established nesting territories.
7.2.1.2 Target Species
When assessing the possible impacts of WTGs on birds, attention should be made to those
species that are potentially more susceptible to significant or adverse impacts. Therefore, the
species considered in this report are those that are:
• Species at particular risk from the introduction of WTGs.
• Species of special conservation concern.
• Any species present at a locally important level otherwise outside inclusion for of target
species.
2 Scottish Natural Heritage, 2017. Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of onshore
wind farms. Version 2. SNH, Edinburgh. Report accessed at: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-
06/Guidance%20Note%20-
%20Recommended%20bird%20survey%20methods%20to%20inform%20impact%20assessment%20of%20onshor
e%20windfarms.pdf
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 43 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A list of target species bird families are outlined below:
• Anseriformes – Swans, Geese and Ducks.
• Podicipedidae – Grebes.
• Phoenicopteridae – Flamingos.
• Otidiformes – Bustards.
• Gruidae – Cranes.
• Rallidae – Crakes and Rails.
• Gaviidae – Divers/Loons.
• Procellariiformes – Shearwaters.
• Phalacrocoracidae - Cormorants.
• Pelecanidae – Pelicans.
• Ardeidae – Herons. Egrets, Bitterns.
• Threskiornithidae – Ibis, Spoonbill.
• Ciconiidae – Storks.
• Charadriiformes – Waders.
• Accipitriformes – Osprey, Eagles, Vultures, Hawks, Buzzards.
• Falconidae – Falcons.
• Strigiformes – Owls.
In addition to undertaking VP surveys for target species, all other species (secondary species)
were noted on the back of survey forms. Information included species, number of birds
recorded, activity and approximate location in relation to the Project area.
A list of bird families that include secondary species are outlined below:
• Laridae – Gulls and Terns.
• Strisores – Nightjars and Swifts.
• Coraciiformes – Bee-eaters, Rollers.
• Sturnidae – Starlings.
• Alaudidae – Larks.
• Hirundinidae – Swallows and Martins.
Focal Bird Sampling
To carry out focal bird sampling, the area in view is scanned until a target species is detected
at which point it is followed until it ceases flying or is lost from view.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 44 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
The time the target bird was detected and the flight duration were recorded, and the route
the bird followed plotted in the field onto the maps provided. The bird’s flight height is
estimated at the time of detection and then at 15 second intervals thereafter, using, for
example, a count-down timer with an audible alarm. A 15 second interval is used as a practical
compromise that aims to minimise dependency within data while maximising the sample of
observations.
Flight heights will be classified into height bands, i.e. below the rotor- swept area, the rotor-
swept area and above the rotor-swept area, allowing for observer error. Where there is doubt
over the size of WTGs to be used, further height bands to reflect the possible WTG sizes may
be included.
7.2.1.3 Peak Count Surveys
Peak bird counts (including important species and significant numbers of feeding, roosting
and/or non-breeding flocks of any species) were recorded during the VP survey period, which
included late overwintering, passage migrant and early breeding species. Counts were made
from VP locations as part of the VP survey effort as well as peak count visits outside of the VP
survey times (typically prior to or following surveys) and targeted on locations where habitats
within and adjacent to the wind farm were considered likely to support notable species and/or
assemblages of birds. Any relevant behaviour such as regular movements between roosting
and feeding grounds, preferred roosting and breeding locations and nest sites were also
noted.
7.2.1.4 Notable Species
As well as windfarm collision target species, special consideration has been given to notable
species during surveys and subsequent assessment. Notable species for this project included
those listed as on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as
globally Threatened, Near Threatened or Vulnerable and those bird species that are listed in
the Red Book of Ukraine, which are nationally threatened species.
7.2.1.5 Collision Risk Assessment
In order to assess the potential adverse effects of the proposed WTGs, collision risk modelling
has been undertaken. The collision risk model used in this assessment was developed by SNH
and the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) (Percival et al. 1999, Band 2001) and is
currently considered the industry standard in this field. A brief description is provided below.
The model broadly runs as a two-stage process. Firstly, the risk of collision is calculated under
the assumption that the flight patterns that have been recorded within the survey area will be
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 45 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
unaffected in the future by the presence of the WTGs. This means that no avoidance action is
taken by birds to fly above or around the WTGs. The risk of collision is calculated as the product
of the probability of a bird flying through the swept area and the probability of a bird colliding
if it flies through this area. In order to estimate the theoretical numbers at risk of collision, this
probability is then multiplied by the number of individual bird movements through the wind
farm at the height of the rotating rotor blades.
The second stage applies an avoidance rate to incorporate the natural avoidance behaviour of
a bird upon seeing the WTGs in their flight path rather than flying blindly into the WTGs. This
sort of avoidance behaviour has been to shown in all studies of birds at existing wind farms.
Avoidance rates based on actual observation are known for a small number of species (SNH
2010). Where this is not the case a theoretical default avoidance rate of 98% is applied. This
has been determined from information currently available for a range of species and is the
current industry standard (SNH 2010).
Full methodology ae set out in Appendix A.
7.2.2 Results and Assessment
A summary of results and assessment is provided below. Full details are provided in Appendix
A.
7.2.2.1 General
A total of 77 bird species were recorded during the VP surveys with five species (Black-tailed
Godwit, Common Pochard, Northern Lapwing, Red-breasted Goose and Red-footed Falcon)
listed as Near Threatened or Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List and 29 species in the Ukraine
Red Book of threatened species.
A total of 88 species were recorded during peak count surveys. This include seven IUCN Red
List species and adds two Near Threatened IUCN Red List species (Curlew Sandpiper and
Ferruginous Duck) to the five recorded during VP counts. This also includes 26 Ukraine Red
Book species and adds five Ukraine Red Book species (Black Stork, Gadwall, Glossy Ibis, Kentish
Plover and Squacco Heron) to the list of 29 recorded during vantage point surveys.
No species were recorded migrating over site in internationally or nationally significant
numbers and compared to species and overall numbers of birds found within the three IBAs
in vicinity of the proposed wind farm, numbers were not of regional significance.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 46 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
In general, although more species were recorded on site during the 2018 peak count surveys
than during previous surveys outlined within the Preliminary ESIA, notable assemblages of
birds such as Ruff, gulls and terns on or adjacent to the Project site were of similar numbers
as previously recorded and no surprising bird species or numbers observed during the surveys.
Surveys showed that migrating birds, including sizeable flocks of Common Crane, Greater
White-fronted Goose and Ruff, occur over all parts of the Project site but in general the highest
numbers of birds and species are associated with wetland areas, such as the lakes within the
VP5 and VP6 viewsheds to the east of the Project and marshes and reedbeds within the VP1
and VP2 viewsheds to the west of the Project.
Numbers of the records, at risk flights and flight seconds were markedly higher at the eastern
end of the Project site (VPs 5 and 6). This is a result of more frequent movements of birds to/
from and along the Putrid Sea recorded from the two VPs located close to the coastline and
also movements to and from the lakes adjacent to the VPs. The larger recorded flocks of
Common Crane and Greater White-fronted Goose were also recorded migrating over VP5 and
VP6 during the surveys.
Although the total number of flight records was lowest at VP4, the numbers of birds was
second highest of the VPs and at-risk seconds were the third highest of the VPs. The largest
flock of Greater White-fronted Goose (2150) recorded during the surveys was over VP4 and
regular wetland birds, such as Ruff, and hunting harriers, such as Marsh and Montagu’s Harrier,
accounted for the majority of flights recorded from this VP.
VP2 had the highest total number of birds recorded but fewer at risk flights were observed.
Extensive wetland habitat is present within the viewshed of VP2 and a variety of wading birds
observed during the survey. Large numbers of Ruff were recorded, including a flock of 3500
observed at a height of over 215m, but this species and other wader species generally moved
short distances and at low level heights and explains why fewer at risk flights recorded despite
the high numbers of birds.
VP1 had the lowest total number of records, although the highest number of species were
recorded and there was a high number of records (i.e. lots of records of individual/small
numbers of birds) and at-risk flights so the total number of at risk seconds was similar to VP2.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 47 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
The lowest number of species and at risk flight seconds was from VP3, although number of
records and at risk flights were similar to VPs 1 and 2. VP3 is located inland from the coast and
the viewshed is dominated by agricultural fields so fewer wetland bird species occurred during
the surveys and this accounts for the fewer number of species. Without the wetland habitats
that support the larger bird numbers and species, flights through the viewshed were generally
quicker and consisted of individuals/smaller flocks.
7.2.2.2 Collision Risk Assessment (CRA)
Of all the species recorded and used in the CRA, only Ruff had a collision risk of over one bird
per year based on spring passage data and an avoidance rate of 98%. Greater White-fronted
Goose also had a collision risk of over one bird per year based on an avoidance rate of 98%
but it is considered appropriate to use a 99% avoidance rate for this species as per SNH
avoidance rates for similar geese species. Further details are provided below.
Eight IUCN Vulnerable or Near Threatened species were recorded during the VP surveys. None
were recorded regularly enough and/or in large enough numbers to suggest the proposed
wind farm will have a significant risk to these species as a result of collisions during spring
passage.
Red-breasted Goose is IUCN Vulnerable and although only a single flock of three birds was
recorded during the surveys the proposed wind farm site is located within the main migration
route between wintering sites along the western Black Sea coast and breeding grounds in
northern Russia. Red-breasted Geese are also recorded at the Askania Nova Biosphere Reserve
to the north of site during passage. There is a risk of larger numbers and/or more frequent
movements of Red-breasted Goose over site during spring passage in other years when
weather conditions could alter movements and during autumn passage and potentially over
the winter when over 500 are known to occur at the nearby Karkinits'ka and Dzharylgats'ka
Bays Important Bird Area (IBA).
Red-footed Falcon were regularly recorded over site during the VP surveys and migrating birds
appear to not be at significant risk of collisions as a result of the Project. This species does
however breed on and around site and at-risk flight seconds over site are likely to increase
during the breeding season and potentially into the autumn passage period when young birds
and migrating birds are likely to regularly hunt over site.
29 Ukraine Red Book species were recorded during the VP surveys, but none appear to be at
significant risk of collision during spring passage.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 48 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Common Crane and Great White Pelican have the highest collision risk of 0.6 birds per annum
based on 98% avoidance so if similar numbers were recorded over site during autumn passage
then potentially 1 to 2 birds are at risk of collision per year. Considering known passage
numbers nationally and regionally (based on the nearby IBA data) this collision risk is still
unlikely to have a significant impact on Common Crane or Great White Pelican.
Of the non-IUCN/Ukraine Red Book species recorded during the surveys, Ruff were recorded
in the highest numbers and had the most at-risk flight seconds. The CRA predicts that nearly
5 birds per annum are at risk of collision based on 98% avoidance rates and if similar numbers
are recorded over site during autumn passage there is the potential for 10 collisions per year.
This would equate to over 200 collisions for the lifetime of the wind farm but as over 40,000
Ruff are known to occur in the nearby Syvash Bay IBA during passage then these potential
collisions as a result of the proposed wind farm are unlikely to have a significant impact on
Ruff populations.
Greater White-fronted Goose were regularly recorded flying over the site during the VP
surveys and the CRA predicts that 1.6 birds per annum are at risk of collision based on 98%
avoidance rates. However, it is considered appropriate to use an avoidance rate of 99% for this
species based on SNH avoidance rates for similar geese species and this equates to 0.8 birds
per annum at collision risk. If similar numbers of birds were to pass over site during autumn
passage then 1 to 2 birds would be at risk of collision per year. Considering over 500,000
Greater White-fronted Geese are known to occur at nearby Askania Nova during passage then
potential collisions as a result of the Project are unlikely to have a significant impact on
populations of Greater White-fronted Goose.
Marsh Harrier were recorded foraging across site however largely concentrated over reedbed
areas. Collision risk is lower for this species given the time spent over the reedbed areas away
from the WTGs themselves. Displacement of birds is a more likely risk for this species rather
than collisions and impacts as a result of displacement will be discussed further after breeding
bird data has been analysed in full.
Based on the passage period VP surveys and CRA, no other species is likely to be significantly
affected by the proposed wind farm as a result of annual collisions.
7.2.2.3 Displacement
Displacement occurs at wind farm sites where birds use areas of land for activity such as
feeding, roosting and loafing. Whilst displacement will occur on one level with birds flying
through site this is covered more by barrier effect and accordingly the data from peak counts
of birds actively using site habitats is used to assess displacement.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 49 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Seven IUCN Red List Status Near Threatened or Vulnerable species were recorded during the
peak count surveys and none were recorded regularly enough and/or in large enough
numbers to suggest the Project will have a significant risk to these species as a result of
displacement during spring passage. Of the seven IUCN Red List species, five were recorded
in double figures during peak counts over the wind farm site and four of these were recorded
within VP 6 viewshed, which indicates this location as a potentially more sensitive area within
the wind farm site. VP1 viewshed also held two counts of these species that reached double
figures.
A total of 26 Ukraine Red Book species were recorded during the peak count surveys but none
appear to be at significant risk of the impacts of displacement during spring passage. VP6 and
VP1 viewsheds again show the highest levels of activity of these species with the most notable
record being of 60 White Pelican (approximately 0.5% of the European Population) occurring
at VP 6.
Of species outside of conservation concern those recorded in high numbers include Ruff, Gull-
billed Tern and Marsh Harrier.
The larger flocks of Ruff were recorded largely in marshland/grassland adjacent to water
bodies. Although displacement is possible within VP2, 4 and 5 viewsheds, areas of suitable
habitat for this species greater than 500 m from WTGs are present in VP 3, 4 and 6 viewsheds
(with a lower peak recorded count in VP1). Accordingly, the species should continue to use the
habitats within and adjacent to the Project in good numbers (along with those birds using
habitats within 500m of WTGs once habituated).
Gull-billed Tern are breeding on an island within the VP1 viewshed and this colony is within
the vicinity of the original WTG layout assessed within the Preliminary ESIA. Impacts could be
possible on use of this island for breeding however mitigation (detailed below) has increased
the distance of the nearest WTG to greater than 500m meaning it is very likely that this colony
will not be displaced.
Marsh harrier were recorded over all wetland areas. These areas will likely be impacted by
displacement from WTGs due to the proximity, however, areas throughout the site will remain
over 500m from optimal hunting and potential breeding locations and whilst there may be a
reduction in numbers (peak counts were VP1 - 2, VP2 - 13, VP3 - 7, VP4 - 8, VP5 - 5 and VP6 -
6) the moving of WTGs from areas of reedbed within the VP2 viewshed and removal of a WTG
in the VP6 viewshed (detailed below) will ensure the reduction is minimised.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 50 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
7.2.2.4 Barrier Effect
Operational WTGs can cause additional impacts as a result of barrier effect. These effects are
a result of birds flying around operational WTG arrays due to natural avoidance behaviour. In
some cases these enforced flights can lead to significant increases to energy expenditure which
subsequently can cause a reduction in survivability. At its worst barrier effects can result in
significant population impacts if large numbers of birds are forced to change annual or daily
migration patterns.
The migration surveys completed in spring 2018 and during previous years, does not indicate
that the Project area is subject to high levels of migration, either in terms of a particular species
or the combined migrating assemblage. The Project site is within a large, open and flat
landscape and any birds migrating through the operational Project would not have to
significantly deviate (either fly around or at greater heights) from their migration route to avoid
the WTGs. In isolation it is therefore considered that this scheme will not cause a significant
barrier to migrating birds.
7.2.3 Mitigation
The predicted impacts of collision and displacement during Spring are not internationally
significant however areas within VP1 and VP6 viewsheds were considered those of highest
sensitivity and accordingly removal and micrositing of WTGs was undertaken focussed on
these areas.
Removal of the original WTG 65 (on the western edge of the freshwater lake in VP6 viewshed)
was undertaken to allow unimpeded movements of birds between the freshwater lake and
Putrid Sea coastline as well as large areas of the lake outside of likely disturbance distances.
Removal of the original WTG 14 (on the inlet within VP1 viewshed) was undertaken to increase
the buffer between WTGs and the area where assemblages of birds occur in shallow
water/mud habitats as well as the breeding colony of Gull-billed Terns and gulls.
In addition, WTGs 23, 24, 26 and 29 have been microsited to move them further away from
reedbeds, which will allow greater use of these habitats.
As stated in the Preliminary ESIA and based on current survey effort and data, operational
mitigation and monitoring will be required with the detail subject to further iteration based on
updated survey information. Any operational mitigation would also be subject to adaptive
management strategies and will be fully detailed in the Project ESMP document. Mitigation
and monitoring includes:
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 51 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
• A minimum of three years operational mitigation and monitoring will be completed.
This will include observer and or technology-led shut down during migration and
wintering seasons. Shut down initiation parameters will be determined based on the
results of ongoing surveys.
7.2.4 Summary
In summary, based on updated spring migration data the level of impact from the proposed
works is unlikely to have a significant impact on species of conservation concern. Whilst peak
wader use in the marsh areas around water bodies could possibly be reduced, the micrositing
and removal of WTGs from the more sensitive areas will result in a lower impact. Further data
obtained during summer and autumn will go towards updating the assessment of impacts and
monitoring/mitigation plan further to ensure that if the use of the site varies across years the
changes will be covered by mitigation.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 52 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A8: Hydrology and Hydrogeology
8.1 Introduction
It is noted that the WTG layout refinement process has resulted in WTGs being located farther
from reedbed / wetland areas. The amendment to the Project layout is not anticipated to result
in a material change to the impact assessment and mitigation outlined within the Preliminary
ESIA.
The Preliminary ESIA identified outstanding baseline information with regard to groundwater
studies. A full ground water resource assessment / management plan will be developed as a
standalone document in accordance with ESAP requirements.
Ongoing work is being carried out in accordance with the following ESAP requirements.
Table 8-1: Hydrology / Hydrogeology ESAP Requirements
ESAP Ref ESAP Requirement
20 Develop construction water availability resource use assessment and
management plan, addressing ability and capacity of existing local supply
to provide construction requirements without impacting existing users for
any groundwater utilised during the construction phase.
21 Develop operational water availability / resource use assessment. Subject
to results identify water management plan for operational phase.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 53 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A9: Geology and Soils
The amendment to the Project layout is not anticipated to result in a material change to the
impact assessment and mitigation outlined within the Preliminary ESIA.
The Preliminary ESIA identified outstanding baseline information with regard to ground
investigations. Once ground investigation studies are complete the information will be utilised
to inform detailed mitigation within the Project Environmental and Social Management Plan
and associated sub plans.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 54 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A10: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
10.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present additional baseline data and to review the impact
assessment based on amendments to the Project design.
10.2 Assessment Methodology
Assessment methodology remains consistent with the Preliminary ESIA.
10.3 Baseline Conditions
The Department of Archaeology of Crimea and North-West Black Sea Region of the Institute
of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine carried out a detailed desk
based assessment of site survey of the Project site in April and May 2018. A detailed survey
report has been prepared and is provided in Appendix B. This document identified additional
archaeological features to those outlined within the Preliminary ESIA.
Volume 2, Figure A10-1 has been updated with reference to the updated baseline information.
10.3.1 Characteristics of the Area
The Project site has been subject to anthropogenic impact. The northern area is in many places
spotted with various field emplacements due to the military operations directed to capture of
Crimean peninsula in 1920, 1941 and 1944. In 1987–1990, damage was inflicted to
archaeological sites located along the edge of the Syvash lake due to the construction of
Prysyvashshia portion of the drainage channel for the Kakhovka irrigation system. Within the
Project site the drainage channel extends from Hryhorivka village to southern outskirt of
Strohanivka village and further to the water storage reservoir near Druzheliubivka village. This
can be seen on Volume 2, Figure A10-1. Most of the channel is constructed along the shore of
lake Syvash, and its remaining sections are embanked on artificial dams of large volumes of
earth taken from the nearby areas. It is anticipated that the construction of the drainage
channel has destroyed or impacted on a number of archaeological features.
The most numerous and the most frequently found cultural heritage sites of this area are burial
mounds, many of which had been recorded in the course of exploration by V.I.Yadvychuk as
part of Kherson surveying company of Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of
Ukrainian SSR in 1975–1976 and M.P. Olenkovskyi in 2006, as well as by other researchers.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 55 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
In May of 2006, during the construction of foundations for the existing WTGs on site three
burial places were discovered in two 5 х 5 m construction pits, 50 m apart from one another,
which were determined to be the Hryhorivka burial grounds and interpreted as the remains of
a Nogai cemetery dating back to the 16th –17th centuries. Olenkovskyi has found through the
dating of graves on Muslim burial grounds that dating should most likely be extended at least
to the middle of the 19th century.
Almost all known burial mounds are registered as those protected by the state. Burial mounds
identified within proximity to the Project infrastructure are shown on Volume 2, Figure A10-1.
Those of particular note include three burial mounds in located in close proximity to WTG 28,
approximately 50 m at the closest point (prior to micrositing).
In terms of settlements, a two-layered settlement Novovolodymyrivka ІІ (the Upper Paleolithic
Age, ca. 16.5 to 16.0 thousand years ago, and the Early Bronze Age, from late ІV to ІІІ millenia
B.C.) is located approximately 1.5 km south-west from Novovolodymyrivka village within the
region of WTG 34 to 49. In close vicinity three more archaeological finds of Upper Paleolithic
and Mesolithic ages have been discovered: Novovolodymyrivka VІІ, Novovolodymyrivka Х and
Novovolodymyrivska Balka.
At least three of them (specifically the two-layered settlement site Novovolodymyrivka ІІ, as
well as settlements Novovolodymyrivka Х and Tabirna Balka) are located beyond the
construction site – to the north and west of WTG 49. Other sites (Novovolodymyrske
settlement, Novovolodymyrivka V, VІІ and VІІІ settlement sites) may fall within proximity of
WTG 44, 48 and 49, however it was not possible to identify the settlement areas during the
site visit. It is also noted that during 1987–1990 the whole area fell directly into the zone of
construction of the drainage channel and there is therefore the potential archaeological
features were destroyed or impacted on during construction of the drainage channel.
Novovolodymyrivka І settlement, where several stemmed flints and a fragment of a smoking
pipe have been found, is thought to be located between WTG 53 and WTG 54, however the
location could not be determined, again due to the presence of the drainage channel and the
inaccurate referencing.
The Meso-Neolithic settlement of Ivanivka Prysyvaska ІІ under state protection, is located
approximately 1.3–1.4 km to the south of WTG 67.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 56 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Strohanivka І and 4 to 9 settlements discovered by M.P.Olenkovskyi in 1983 have the potential
to fall within the vicinity of construction sites of certain WTGs but only if they were spared by
the construction of the drainage channel. Their existence could not be confirmed during site
visit. Moreover, their georeferencing is relatively approximate. Again, the location of
Strohanivka 1 to 3 has not been determined, it is thought that they were destroyed during the
construction of the drainage channel.
Only Novovolodymyrivka ІІ and VІІ, as well as Ivanivka Prysyvaska ІІ settlement site and the
Bronze Age settlement Novovolodymyrivka have state protection.
10.3.2 Perceptions of Existing Cultural Heritage Features
During focus group discussions with the project affected communities, discussions were held
as part of the socio-economic baseline data collection in July 2018. Information was provided
in terms of scope, location, duration of a project, and any Project activities, further detail on
consultation activity is provided within Section A14.
The following information was determined in relation to cultural heritage. The locations of all
noted features are shown in Volume 2, Figure A10-1.
10.3.2.1 Pershokostyantynivka
Importance was placed on the cemetery visited occasionally for burials and during specific
religious holidays with relevant customs as outlined above.
Additional features relate to war memorials and graves of soldiers. These include:
• World War Two commemorative sign for the Perekop charge.
• Cemetery and graves of Soviet Army soldiers. The area includes a number of
monuments for soldiers.
Importance was placed on a World War Two commemorative sign for the Perekop charge,
however the community indicated that this was only visited during World War Two events.
This is located within the Project site boundary as shown in Volume 2, Figure A10-1. The
memorial for the Perekop charge is located to the west of the community.
10.3.2.2 Hrygorivka
Importance was placed on the cemetery, churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) and pray
house within the village territory, visited occasionally for burials and during specific religious
holidays with relevant customs (for example, one week before Easter there is a special day to
visit the graves).
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 57 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Additional features relate to war memorials and graves of soldiers. These include:
• Mass grave for Red Army soldiers.
• Grave of unknown World War Two pilot.
• Grave of World War Two hero Novikv.
• Monument for village soldiers.
• War headquarters location.
These are all located within the community. No particular importance was placed on these
features during focus group discussions. All features are located within the village boundary.
10.3.2.3 Pavlivka / Novovolodymyrivka Community
Importance was placed on the cemetery and church, visited occasionally for burials and during
specific religious holidays with relevant customs as outlined above. the cemetery is located to
the south of the village territory as shown on Volume 2, Figure A10-1.
Additional features relate to war memorials and graves of soldiers. These include:
• Mass grave for Red Army and Soviet Army soldiers.
• Memorial to Victims of the Civil War.
• Grave of World War Two Major.
• Monument for village soldiers.
Importance was placed on the mass grave site located outwith the village territory, located to
the south of the Project site boundary as shown in Volume 2, Figure A10-1, however the
community indicated that this was only visited during World War Two events.
10.3.2.4 Stroganivka Community
Importance was placed on the cemetery and church located within the village territory visited
occasionally for burials and during specific religious holidays with relevant customs as outlined
above.
Additional features relate to war memorials and graves of soldiers. These include:
• Mass grave for Red Army and Soviet Army soldiers.
• Monument for village soldiers.
• Monument for Syvash crossing.
• Monument for Syvash charge.
• War headquarters location.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 58 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Importance was placed on a World War Two commemorative sign for the Syvash charge,
however the community indicated that this was only visited during World War Two events.
This is located to the south – east of the village as shown on Volume 2, Figure A10-1.
10.4 Assessment of Effects
As outlined within the Preliminary ESIA, the Project is not deemed to directly impact on any
international or nationally recognised heritage (critical cultural heritage as defined by PS 8)
and consultation with the Office for Cultural Affairs of the Kherson District State Administration
confirmed that identified features have been excluded from the land area.
As WTG 28 was located in very close proximity to three burial mounds, the Project design
process saw a micrositing exercise be carried out to ensure that protection zones required
through national legislation will be met. WTG 28 was moved to the south to ensure protection
zones were adhered to and to avoid direct impacts on the identified archaeology features.
As a result of the presence of known archaeological, religious and aesthetic sites within close
proximity to the Project site boundary, including those protected by national legislation, the
site sensitivity is assessed to be High. The magnitude of direct impact on known features is
assessed as Very Low, due to exclusion from the Project site and micrositing to meet national
requirements, therefore the impact significance is Minor and not significant.
A number of historic settlements are located within the vicinity of the Project infrastructure,
however the precise location could not be determined during site survey. It is noted that
existing archaeological features have been subject to impact from previous development and
as such the value of many features has been undermined. However due to presence of
archaeological features within the area, to include historic settlement the precise location of
which could not be determined, there remains the potential to uncover previously buried
archaeology (chance finds) during construction works. The magnitude of impact on unknown
features is assessed as Medium therefore the impact significance is Major and significant.
The communities have placed importance on additional features relating to war memorials
and war graves within proximity to the Project. The majority of features are located within
village territories and will not be impacted by the Project. Of those identified the following are
located within the Project area and identified as of importance to the community:
• World War Two commemorative sign for the Perekop charge, located in proximity to
the west of Pershokostyantynivka.
In addition, the following features identified as important to the local community are within
close proximity to the Project site infrastructure:
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 59 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
• Mass grave for Red Army and Soviet Army soldiers, located to the south of
Novovolodymyrivka.
• Cemetery, located to the south of Novovolodymyrivka.
The location of features is shown on Volume 2, Figure A14.1.
The identified features will not be directly impacted by the Project. There is however the
potential for impacts to community access to the three features identified during the
construction phase if not managed appropriately. Disruption could arise due to fencing of
construction areas in the vicinity of these sites. It is emphasised that the features are only
visited by the community during commemorative war events or for occasional burials and not
on a regular basis. The impact would be short term and temporary, the impact is identified as
Very Low to Low due to the infrequent access required, therefore the impact significance is
Moderate and significant during construction.
Full access will be achievable during the operational phase, as there will be no fencing of access
tracks, there will therefore be no impacts during the operational phase.
10.5 Mitigation
10.5.1 Mitigation by Design
The buffer requirements of the decision of the Executive Committee Kherson Regional Council
of People's Deputies No. 633/2 will be maintained. This requires that the following buffers will
be maintained. Micrositing has been carried out with reference to the below requirements:
• Isolated mounds of archaeological significance - the boundary of the conservation
zone is 10 m from the edge of the fill, the buffer from the construction zone requires
100 m from the edge of the fill.
• Mound groups and mound fields of archaeological significance - the boundary of the
conservation zone is 50 m from the edge of the fill of the last mound, the buffer from
the construction zone is 300 m from the edge of the fill of the last mound.
10.5.2 Construction
Mitigation during will focus on the implementation an appropriate management to protect
existing archaeological / cultural heritage features and an appropriate archaeological chance
finds procedure during initial construction works to identify any uncovered archaeological
features. Detailed archaeology surveys currently being completed on site will be utilised to
feed into the management documentation set out below.
A cultural heritage management plan will be developed in accordance with the requirements
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 60 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
of EBRD PR 8 and IFC PS8. The management plan will outline actions and measures necessary
for the effective management of risks and impacts to cultural heritage during the construction
phase of the Project. This will include setting out roles and responsibilities for implementation
of mitigation and management requirements and outlining mitigation for the protection of
existing cultural heritage features by way of demarcation of existing features for example.
The management plan will outline a programme of consultation with project affected
communities to ascertain requirements for accessing features of importance and outline
measures that will ensure access will be available to communities at all time required and
taking into account community health, safety, and security considerations. This will also be
managed through the Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Community Health and Safety Plan.
In accordance with the requirements of Ukrainian Law, EBRD PR 8 and IFC PS8,
SyvashEnergoProm LLC will develop provisions for managing chance finds through a chance
find procedure which will be applied in the event that cultural heritage is subsequently
discovered. SyvashEnergoProm LLC or its contractors will not disturb any chance find further
until an assessment by a competent professional is made and actions consistent with the
requirements of EBRD PR8 and IFC PS8 are identified.
An archaeological chance finds procedure is defined as a formal programme of observation
and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for non-archaeological reasons
(i.e. construction of a wind farm) within a specified area or site where there is the possibility
that archaeological deposits may be disturbed or destroyed (the working area). The procedure
will result in the preparation of a report and ordered archive.
An archaeological chance finds procedure will in all cases be intended:
• To allow, within the resources available, the preservation by record of archaeological
deposits. The presence and nature of which could not be established (or established
with sufficient accuracy) in advance of development or other potentially disruptive
works.
• To provide an opportunity, if needed, for the watching archaeologist to signal to all
interested parties, before the destruction of the material in question, that an
archaeological find has been made for which the resources allocated to the chance find
procedure itself are not sufficient to support a treatment to a satisfactory and proper
standard.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 61 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
The archaeological chance finds procedure will be intended to establish and make available
information about the archaeological resource existing on the site. The chance find procedure
will be developed in consultation with the Archaeological Institute. Qualified archaeologists
will carry out the watching brief.
In accordance with the Law of Ukraine On the Protection of Cultural Heritage if archaeological
or historical objects are discovered during excavation works, such excavation shall be
terminated with immediate notification to the District Inspection for the Historical and Cultural
Monuments Protection.
During construction, toolbox talks will be provided to ensure that workers will be alert to any
signs of past cultural activity in the area. Should any artefacts or evidence of past activity be
discovered, SyvashEnergoProm LLC will notify the appropriate authorities and await direction
before taking action that would disturb the resources.
10.5.3 Operation
The cultural heritage management plan will include requirements for protection of existing
cultural heritage / archaeology features during operation to ensure no impact during any
maintenance works.
10.6 Residual Effects
There is the potential for impacts on any previously undiscovered sites and features that may
be discovered during construction works. In addition there is the potential for impacts to
community access of important features during the construction phase.
With mitigation, it can be concluded that there would be no significant impacts associated
with cultural heritage as a result of the Project.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 62 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A11: Updated Noise Assessment
11.1 Introduction
This chapter considers the likely significant effects in terms of noise from the Project WTGs at
noise sensitive receptors (NSRs). Following the receipt of confirmation of final WTG type to be
used and site layout, this chapter provides updated details on the assessment methodology;
the likely significant noise effects of operation of the Project; the mitigation measures required
to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects; and the likely residual effects after
these measures have been employed.
11.2 Assessment Methodology
11.2.1 Regulatory and Policy Context
An overview of key guidance with respect to noise is outlined below, and further details of
legislation, policy and guidance specifically for operational noise are set out in the Preliminary
ESIA.
Noise propagation has been modelled in accordance with International Standard ISO 9613-2:
1996 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound Propagation Outdoors – Part 2: General Method of
Calculation3.
The impact of operational noise has been assessed in accordance with the IFC Environmental,
Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for Noise Management4, along with ETSU-R-975, taking
cognisance of the most recent good practice guide (GPG) of the Institute of Acoustics6, and
Supplementary Guidance Notes7.
3 International Standard ISO 9613-2: 1996, Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors
4 International Finance Corporation - Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines, Noise Management, 2007
5 ETSU-R-97 (2007) The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry
6 A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise, Institute of
Acoustics, May 2013
7 A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise, Supplementary
Guidance Notes 1-5, November 2013 - September 2014
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 63 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
11.2.1.1 Applicable Standards / Noise Limits
The operational noise assessment has been carried out in accordance with the guidance
specified in IFC EHS Guidelines, which provide guidance in the allowable noise impacts beyond
the property boundary of the Project, together with recommendations of ETSU-R-97 - The
Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms.
The current practice on controlling wind farm noise imposes noise limits at the NSRs. Noise
limits should be applied to external locations and should apply only to those areas frequently
used for relaxation or activities for which a quiet environment is highly desirable. Noise levels
from the development should not exceed the levels presented in the IFC EHS guidance. These
include one-hour LAeq of 55 dB(A) during the day or 45 dB(A) at night. Additional guidance
recommends that noise levels should result in a maximum increase in background levels of 3
dB at the nearest receptor location off-site.
Separate noise limits should apply for day-time and for night-time. Absolute noise limits and
margins above background should relate to the cumulative effect of all WTGs in the area
contributing to the noise received at the properties in question. Any existing WTGs should not
be considered as part of the prevailing BGN.
11.3 Baseline Data Collection
Refer to section 11.2.4 of the Preliminary ESIA.
11.3.1 Baseline Information
Refer to section 11.3 of the Preliminary ESIA.
11.4 Updated Detailed Operational Noise Impact Assessment
The criteria for operational noise are subject to fixed limits for day time and night time. These
limits account for the noise levels received at NSRs from the Project.
The following limits from IFC EHS guidelines have been applied to the Project for the purposes
of this assessment:
• Day time – limit of 55 dB(A).
• Night time - limit of 45 dB(A).
At levels above these criteria the noise emissions from the Project would be considered to
have a significant impact.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 64 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
An additional criterion stated in the IFC EHS guidelines is that noise levels should result in a
maximum increase in background levels of 3 dB at the nearest receptor location off-site.
However, in many locations, where background levels are low, this is not achievable and
instead this assessment considers an increase of above 3 dB to result in moderate effect and
an increase of 10 dB above background noise to result in significant effect.t These values are
loosely based on those of British Standard (BS) 41428.
11.4.1 Operations Phase Assessment of Effects
The significance of effect is described as a function of magnitude of change. The magnitude
of change, and resulting significance of effects are described in Table 11-1 for excess over
absolute limits, and in Table 11-2 for excess over additional exposure.
Table 11-1: Magnitude of Change and Resulting Effect for Noise Limits
Excess over Criterion Magnitude of Change Effect
> 0 dB High Significant
≤ 0 dB Low Not Significant
Table 11-2: Magnitude of Change and Resulting Effect for Additional Exposure
Excess over Criterion Magnitude of Change Effect
> 10 dB High Significant
10 > 3 dB Medium Moderate
< 3 dB Low Not Significant
8 BS 4142:2014, Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound, BSI, 2014
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 65 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
11.4.2 Nordex N313/3900 WTG Emission Data
The operational noise has been assessed on the noise levels emitted from Nordex N131/3900
WTGs of hub height 120 m, using information supplied by manufacturer specification
documents for standard operation Mode 0 (full power) between 4 and 12 m/s. The sound
power level (SWL) at 10 m height against wind speed is shown in Table 11-3. Octave band data
are shown in Table 11-3.
Table 11-3: Nordex N131/3900 (hub height 120 m) Mode 0 SWL Data
Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
97.5 102.8 106.7 107.7 107.7 107.7 107.7 107.7 107.7
This WTG has a maximum SWL higher than those used in previous assessments, but lower SWL
at cut-in wind speeds.
Maximum uncertainty as stated by the manufacturer is up to 1.5 dB. This is a 1.645 σ value,
meaning 95% of WTGs will be better than this. The probability that all of the WTGs will be
1.5 dB noisier than average is vanishingly small. Slightly more realistic, but still conservative,
would be to assume that three out of the nearest five WTGs to any receptor are 1.5 dB noisier
than average, resulting in an aggregate uncertainty of 1 dB. This uncertainty has been
accounted for to provide a worst-case scenario result.
11.4.3 Wind Farm Operational Noise Propagation Model
A total of 64 WTGs have been incorporated into a 3D noise propagation model. A list of the
WTGs and their coordinates are provided in Appendix C.
The sound propagation over distance, including the effect of atmospheric absorption, was
calculated using the WindPRO model NORD2000. In accordance with the GPG, the following
factors and assumptions have been used to calculate the propagation effects:
• Uniform roughness length of 0.05 m.
• Uniform roughness class 1.4.
• Terrain Type D: crop, field, spring, autumn, grass, normal.
• The receiver height was taken to be 1.5 m.
• Air absorption characteristic of 10ºC, 70% relative humidity was used.
• Stability conditions of clear night sky.
These conditions account for a worst-case assessment for noise sensitive receptors.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 66 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Receptors in this assessment are based on point sources which will receive maximum noise
exposure for settlements considered in proximity of Project WTGs, these are listed below in
Table 11-4.
Table 11-4: NSR Locations
Receptor
Locations UTM WGS84 Z36
Easting Northing Representing Settlement
A (West) 550873 5121188 Pershokostiantynivka
A (South) 552589 5120725 Pershokostiantynivka
B 557034 5125119 Hryhorivka
C 560267 5123641 Novovolodymyrivka
D 567989 5121525 Stohanivka
11.4.4 Noise Model Results
The noise impact assessment assumes that sound energy propagates in all directions from the
WTGs. Some energy will be absorbed in the air and some by the ground. On that basis, detailed
results of predicted noise levels in relation to wind speed and direction received at the NSRs
for day-time and night-time are presented in Appendix C. From these results, a summary of
worst case results for wind direction are presented in Table 11-5 and Table 11-6 for daytime
and night time respectively. Refer to Appendix C for full results.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 67 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 11-5: Summary of Results (Day)
Receptor
Day-time
Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Limit (dB(A)) 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Location
A (West)
Background Noise
(dB(A)) 33.8 36.0 39.0 42.6 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 33.8
WTG Noise (dB(A)) 36.0 40.6 44.4 45.5 45.4 45.3 45.2 45.1 36.0
Additional Exposure
(dB(A)) 2.2 4.6 5.4 2.9 -1.5 -1.6 -1.7 -1.8 2.2
Location
A (South)
Background Noise
(dB(A)) 33.8 36.0 39.0 42.6 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 33.8
WTG Noise (dB(A)) 35.6 40.1 43.9 45.0 44.9 44.8 44.7 44.6 35.6
Additional Exposure
(dB(A)) 1.8 4.1 4.9 2.4 -2.0 -2.1 -2.2 -2.3 1.8
Location
B
Background Noise
(dB(A)) 30.3 31.8 33.6 35.9 38.5 38.5 38.5 38.5 30.3
WTG Noise (dB(A)) 27.1 31.4 35.2 36.4 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 27.1
Additional Exposure
(dB(A)) -3.2 -0.4 1.6 0.5 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3 -3.2
Location
C
Background Noise
(dB(A)) 35.0 36.7 38.7 41.0 43.7 43.7 43.7 43.7 35.0
WTG Noise (dB(A)) 33.7 38.3 42.1 43.2 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.1 33.7
Additional Exposure
(dB(A)) -1.3 1.6 3.4 2.2 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -1.3
Location
D
Background Noise
(dB(A)) 33.8 36.0 39.0 42.6 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 33.8
WTG Noise (dB(A)) 31.3 35.9 39.7 40.9 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 31.3
Additional Exposure
(dB(A)) -2.5 -0.1 0.7 -1.7 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 -2.5
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 68 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 11-6: Summary of Results (Night)
Receptor
Night-time
Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Limit (dB(A)) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Location
A (West)
Background
Noise (dB(A)) 28.5 30.6 33.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 36.0 40.6 44.4 45.5 45.4 45.3 45.2 45.1 45.0
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 7.5 10.0 11.4 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.5
Location
A (South)
Background
Noise (dB(A)) 28.5 30.6 33.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 35.6 40.1 43.9 45.0 44.9 44.8 44.7 44.6 44.5
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 7.1 9.5 10.9 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.0
Location
B
Background
Noise (dB(A)) 24.9 26.4 28.7 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 27.1 31.4 35.2 36.4 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 2.2 5.0 6.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
Location
C
Background
Noise (dB(A)) 32.9 34.0 35.8 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 33.7 38.3 42.1 43.2 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.1
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 0.8 4.3 6.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
Location
D
Background
Noise (dB(A)) 28.5 30.6 33.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 31.3 35.9 39.7 40.9 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 2.8 5.3 6.7 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 69 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Where noise emissions from the Project exceed the fixed limits, the magnitude of change
results in significant effect and mitigation is required.
The graphs and tables show that the predicted levels for total operational noise for all NSRs
meet the 55 dB daytime limit. The effect is not significant and therefore no mitigation is
required.
At night time, there is a slight exceedance of the 45 dB night time limit at Location A (West
and South) resulting in a significant effect. The instances of significant effect will require
mitigation.
In terms of additional exposure for daytime conditions, there is a moderate effect at A (west)
and A (south) at wind speeds of 5 and 6 m/s, indicating moderate effect.
For night-time conditions, for additional exposure, there is a moderate effect for all locations,
and an instance of significant effect at 6 m/s for A (West) and A (South). Where noise levels
at NSRs are increased by 10 dB or more by the Project WTGs, it is recommended mitigation is
considered. An increase of 10 dB or more is an indication of significant adverse impact. The
instances of significant effect will require mitigation.
11.5 Cumulative Impacts
Currently there are two TURBOWINDS T600-48 WTGs and a total of 16 USW 56-100 WTGs.
The two T600-48 WTGs were modelled and determined to have negligible impact on at
receptors. No data could be sourced for the USE 56-100 WTGs, as they are small in size and
are sufficient distance away from monitoring locations they are assumed to have negligible
impact.
11.6 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation has been considered to reduce any significant effects at NSRs. Mitigation in the
form of serrated edges has been considered. From assessment, it has been determined that
the noise limits can be met therefore reducing the effects to not significant or moderate using
an optimised strategy from the installation of serrated edges. Details are set out below.
In addition, an operational noise monitoring and management plan will be developed for the
Project prior to the operational phase commencing. This will include a protocol to address any
grievances raised in relation to operational noise.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 70 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
11.6.1 Operational Mitigation
The input noise levels emitted from Nordex N131/3900 WTGs with serrated edges of hub
height 120 m, was provided from manufacturer specification documents for standard
operation Mode 0 (full power) between 4 and 12 m/s. The sound power level at 10 m height
against wind speed is shown in Table 11-3. Octave band data are presented in Table 11-7:
Nordex N131/3900 (hub height 120 m) Serrated Edge Mode 0 SWL Data.
Table 11-7: Nordex N131/3900 (hub height 120 m) Serrated Edge Mode 0 SWL Data
Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
96.0 101.3 105.2 106.2 106.2 106.2 106.2 106.2 106.2
Where significant effect was predicted, an optimised strategy to reduce the magnitude of
change at NSRs has been calculated to provide the most efficient reduction to noise output
for the Project. Table 11-8 show the WTGs identified that should have serrated edges installed.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 71 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 11-8: WTGs Requiring Serrated Edge Blades
WTG ID
Locations
UTM WGS84 Z36
Easting Northing
6 549438 5121695
7 549740 5121180
9 549926 5120600
10 550063 5121643
11 550142 5120045
12 550361 5122008
13 550548 5120535
15 551098 5120181
17 551850 5119880
19 552620 5120030
21 553355 5120056
22 553601 5120742
11.6.2 Optimised Noise Model Results
Detailed results from modelling of the optimised wind farm with serrated edges can be found
in Appendix C. A summary of worst case results for wind direction are presented in Table 11-9
and Table 11-10 for daytime and night time conditions. Only data for NSRs A (West) and A
(South) are presented, as all other receptors are unaffected by the optimisation.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 72 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 11-9: Optimised Summary of Results (Day)
Receptor
Day-time
Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Noise Limit
(dB(A)) 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Location
A (West)
Ambient Noise
(dB(A)) 33.8 36.0 39.0 42.6 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 34.8 39.2 43.0 44.2 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 1.0 3.2 4.0 1.6 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6
Location
A (South)
Ambient Noise
(dB(A)) 33.8 36.0 39.0 42.6 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9 46.9
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 34.6 39.0 42.8 43.9 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 0.8 3.0 3.8 1.3 -2.9 -2.9 -2.9 -2.9 -3.9
Table 11-10: Optimised Summary of Results (Night)
Receptor
Night-time
Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Noise Limit
(dB(A)) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Location
A (West)
Ambient Noise
(dB(A)) 28.5 30.6 33.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 34.8 39.2 43.0 44.2 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 6.3 8.6 10.0 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8
Location
A (South)
Ambient Noise
(dB(A)) 28.5 30.6 33.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5
WTG Noise
(dB(A)) 34.6 39.0 42.8 43.9 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 73 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Receptor
Night-time
Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Noise Limit
(dB(A)) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Additional
Exposure (dB(A)) 6.1 8.4 9.8 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5
11.7 Residual Impacts
11.7.1 Operational Phase
With the proposed mitigation scheme, the maximum residual effect would be moderate.
11.8 Summary of Effects
Table 11-11 and Table 11-12 provides a summary of the predicted significance of effect
associated with the operational phase of the Project for day and night conditions.
Table 11-11: Summary of Effects (Day)
Receptor Criteria Significance
of Effect
Mitigation Residual
Effect
Location
A (west)
Noise
Limits
Not
Significant
- Not Significant
Additional
Exposure
Moderate - Moderate
Location
A (South)
Noise
Limits
Not
Significant
- Not Significant
Additional
Exposure
Moderate - Moderate
Location
B
Noise
Limits
Not
Significant
- Not Significant
Additional
Exposure
Not
Significant
- Not Significant
Location
C
Noise
Limits
Not
Significant
- Not Significant
Additional
Exposure
Moderate - Moderate
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 74 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Receptor Criteria Significance
of Effect
Mitigation Residual
Effect
Location
D
Noise
Limits
Not
Significant
- Not Significant
Additional
Exposure
Not
Significant
- Not Significant
Table 11-12: Summary of Effects (Night)
Receptor Criteria Significance
of Effect
Mitigation Residual
Effect
Location
A (west)
Noise
Limits
Significant Optimised
Serrated Edges
Not
Significant
Additional
Exposure
Significant Optimised
Serrated Edges
Moderate
Location
A (South)
Noise
Limits
Significant Optimised
Serrated Edges
Not
Significant
Additional
Exposure
Significant Optimised
Serrated Edges
Moderate
Location
B
Noise
Limits
Not
Significant
- Not
Significant
Additional
Exposure
Moderate - Moderate
Location
C
Noise
Limits
Not
Significant
- Not
Significant
Additional
Exposure
Moderate - Moderate
Location
D
Noise
Limits
Not
Significant
- Not
Significant
Additional
Exposure
Moderate - Moderate
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 75 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
11.9 Statement of Significance
Unmitigated, the effect from the Project is significant at Location A (West) and Location A
(South), however with the implementation of mitigation impacts reduce to not significant or
moderate and fixed limits defined by the IFC will be met.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 76 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A12: Updated Shadow Flicker Assessment
12.1 Introduction
This chapter presents an updated assessment of the shadow flicker effect of the development
on nearby sensitive receptors. The assessment considers shadow flicker effects from the
operation of the proposed wind farm based on the 64 WTG layout and Nordex N131 WTG.
12.2 Methodology
Refer to Preliminary ESIA Section 12.2.
12.2.1 Analysis Parameters
12.2.1.1 WTG Data and Layout
The modelling was undertaken based on the proposed WTG layout comprising 64 WTGs each
with a rotor diameter of 131 m and a hub height of 120 m. This presents a worst case scenario
based on the identified candidate WTG options.
12.2.1.2 Analysis Assumptions used
The identification of potential shadow flicker receptors was based on inspection of
topographical maps, satellite imagery and the site visits undertaken in March 2018.
Note that a worst case assessment has been undertaken on the basis of the worst case WTG
dimensions and the layout which is closest to sensitive receptors. This will ensure that any
changes to layout or WTG type will not result in shadow flicker effects being higher than those
predicted in this chapter.
12.3 Impact Assessment
12.3.1 Shadow Flicker Impact Area
Using ReSoft WindFarm software, a potential shadow flicker impact area map was produced
based on the assumption that shadow flicker impact is negligible beyond a distance of 10
rotor diameters (1,310 m). This is shown in Figure 12-1. The shading illustrates areas predicted
to experience shadow flicker effects >30 hours per year, based on conservative worst-case
modelling scenario.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 77 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Volume 2, Figure 12-1 indicates that a number of residential properties are predicted to
experience more than 30 hours of shadow flicker per year (in the region of 100 properties).
The actual duration of shadow flicker occurrence has been modelled at a selection of
representative locations based on the worst-case scenario. Eight representative receptors have
been modelled for the updated assessment to represent each of the main receptor groupings,
these are shown on Volume 2, Figure A12-1.
12.3.2 Wind Farm Shadow Flicker Analysis Results
For the representative potential shadow flicker receptors, a total number of shadow flicker
hours in a year was modelled. The results of this modelling are shown in Table 12-1.
It should be noted that these results represent theoretical hours for which the representative
receptor could potentially be affected by shadow flicker based on ‘worse case’ scenario
modelling. Again, it should be noted that the results do not take into account factors that
would reduce shadow flicker such as periods when there is insufficient sunshine due to cloud-
cover, periods when the WTG is not rotating or screening from any existing vegetation and
buildings.
For illustration, it is assumed that each representative receptor has a single window of
dimensions 2 m by 2 m, oriented due south (with the exception of property 3 which, for
illustration purposes, was also modelled with a window orientated towards the south-west).
As the modelled receptors are representative, it should be noted that the actual duration of
shadow flicker effects experienced at specific receptor locations in the vicinity of the modelled
receptors may be slightly more or less than is predicted herein.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 78 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 12-1: Potential Worst Case Shadow Flicker Occurrence Based on Receptor
Receptor Easting
(UTM Zone
36N)
Northing
(UTM Zone
36N)
Orientation Days per
Year
Max hours
per day
Max hours
per day in
excess of
limit
Mean hours
per day
Total hours
per year
Total hours
per year in
excess of
limit
1 551237 5121055 180 79 0.65 0.15 0.47 37.2 7.2
2 552467 5120840 180 101 0.48 0 0.39 39.4 9.4
3a 560402 5123682 180 50 0.53 0.03 0.41 20.5 0
3b 560402 5123682 238 98 0.58 0.08 0.43 42.3 12.3
4 567869 5121603 180 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 570034 5120926 180 89 0.61 0.11 0.54 47.9 17.9
6 551118 5122070 180 93 0.69 0.19 0.48 44.4 14.4
7 552828 5121323 180 93 0.59 0.09 0.43 40.1 10.1
8 560556 5123473 180 76 0.57 0.7 0.41 30.8 0.8
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 79 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
As can be seen in Table 12-1, seven receptors (receptor 1, 2, 3b, 5, 6, 7 and 8) are predicted to
experience above 30 hours of shadow flicker per year. Although receptor 3a was predicted to
experience below 30 hours per year, it is predicted to slightly exceed the 0.5 hours per day
limit. Further, if the window at receptor 3 is assumed to be oriented to the south-west (towards
nearby WTGs) the receptor (shown as receptor 3b in Table 12-1) is predicted to experience
42.3 hours per year and a maximum of 0.58 hours per day, exceeding both the annual and
daily elements of the recommended limits. Consequently, receptor 4 is the only modelled
receptor not predicted to experience shadow flicker in excess of the recommended limits.
Figure 12-1 illustrates the timing of shadow flicker effects predicted at any and all of the
modelled receptors over the course of a year. As can be seen, shadow flicker is predicted to
occur throughout the year, in the winter and late autumn (mornings and late afternoons) and
in the spring and autumn (early mornings and early evening).
Figure 12-1: Modelled Shadow Flicker Occurrence (All Receptors – times shown on the
Y-axis are based on GMT+3)
12.3.3 Potential Factors Reducing Shadow Flicker Impact
There are a number of factors that are likely to reduce the incidence of shadow flicker. These
include weather conditions (lack of bright sunshine), presence of vegetation and buildings, the
WTG being in shut down mode due to wind speeds being too high or too low and orientation
of the rotor disc. These factors are not taken into account in the WindFarm software analysis.
It should be noted that if there is no direct sun then the intensity of shadow flicker is
dramatically reduced.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 80 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Available information regarding annual average sunlight hours9 indicated that the area
typically experiences sunshine for approximately 53% of daylight hours each year. For
illustration, adjusted estimates of total annual shadow flicker duration at each representative
receptor were calculated based on a more realistic scenario that takes account of sunshine
hours. The results are shown in Table 12-2.
Table 12-2: Potential Shadow Flicker Occurrence Based on Receptor – Adjusted for
Sunshine Hours
Receptor Easting
(UTM Zone
36N)
Northing
(UTM Zone
36N)
Total hours
per year
(worst-case)
Total hours
per year
(adjusted)
1 551237 5121055 37.2 19.7
2 552467 5120840 39.4 20.9
3a 560402 5123682 20.5 10.9
3b 560402 5123682 42.3 21.9
4 567869 5121603 0 0
5 570034 5120926 47.9 25.4
6 551118 5122070 44.4 23.5
7 552828 5121323 40.1 21.2
8 560556 5123473 30.8 16.3
As the shadow flicker limits stipulated in the guidance documentation relate to the modelling
of a worst-case scenario, as per the modelling undertaken to obtain the shadow flicker
predictions presented in Table 12-1, the adjusted estimates do not change the conclusion that
a number of residential properties (in the region of 100 properties) are predicted to experience
shadow flicker in excess of the recommended 30 hours per year limit. However, they do
provide a more realistic indication of the duration of shadow flicker effects that may be
experienced by nearby residents.
9 http://www.crimea.climatemps.com/sunlight.php and http://www.odessa.climatemps.com/sunlight.php
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 81 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
12.3.3.1 WTGs Causing Shadow Flicker Effects on Modelled Receptors
Table 12-3 lists the WTGs that are predicted to cause shadow flicker effects at the modelled
receptors. As can be seen, nine of the 64 WTGs are identified as potential sources of shadow
flicker effects at the modelled receptors. The table also presents the combined total duration
of shadow flicker effects predicted at any and all affected receptors as attributable to each of
the nine WTG. The results are based on modelling of the worst-case scenario.
Table 12-3: Potential Total Shadow Flicker Occurrence Based on WTG and Receptor
Locations
WTG No. Days Per Year Max Hours Per Day Mean Hours Per Day
Total Hours
Per Year
10 40 0.48 0.38 15.2
12 53 0.69 0.55 29.2
13 79 0.65 0.47 37.4
21 64 0.47 0.4 25.7
22 130 0.59 0.42 54
50 48 0.58 0.45 21.6
51 88 0.53 0.40 35.2
52 38 0.51 0.43 16.3
68 89 0.61 0.54 48.2
12.4 Mitigation Measures
As there are a number of residential properties predicted to experience shadow flicker effects
in excess of the recommended limits (approximately 100 properties, based on current worst -
case scenario), a procedure will be put in place to mitigate potential impacts.
In relation to shadow flicker mitigation, the IFC Environmental Health and Safety (EHS)
Guidelines for Wind Farms (2015)10 specify that ‘wind turbines can be programmed to shut down
at times when shadow flicker limits are exceeded’.
10https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/2c410700497a7933b04cf1ef20a40540/FINAL_Aug+2015_Wind+Energy_E
HS+Guideline.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 82 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Measures to mitigate shadow flicker effects based on the above IFC guidelines are outlined
below.
WTGs will be programmed to shut-down during periods when shadow flicker limits are
exceeded by way of a WTG shadow flicker control module in order to ensure impacts are
reduced.
If any complaints are raised by the local community (through the grievance mechanism or
other channels) relating to shadow flicker from the wind farm, the wind farm operator shall
investigate and instigate, at their own expense and within one month of being advised of the
complaint, appropriate measures to mitigate the shadow flicker effects.
Modelling will be run for any receptor that raises a grievance to quantify and identify specific
shut down requirements at individual receptors. A visit to the property will be carried out to
determine exact orientation, number and size of windows to inform modelling.
An operational shadow flicker monitoring and management plan will be developed to outline
the mitigation measures outlined above in detail.
To illustrate the extent to which WTGs will need to be shut-down, total hours of shadow flicker
at each receptor per year in excess of the IFC limit are outlined in Table 12-4Table 12-4. The
WTGs responsible are also shown along with the percentage of the WTG’s maximum potential
operational hours per year that would be impacted assuming that WTGs will be shut down by
the shadow flicker module for the full period over the IFC limit. This is based on the worst-case
scenario modelling outputs in Table 12-1. For illustration, where two WTGs contribute to the
shadow flicker impact at one receptor, it has been assumed that the required duration of shut-
down will be shared equally between both WTGs. However, the specific details of mitigation
implementation will be confirmed within the operational shadow flicker monitoring and
management plan.
It can be seen that the shut-down impacts will be very small and any impact on the Project
energy yield will be negligible.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 83 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 12-4: Total Hours in Excess of Limits based on Representative Receptors
Receptor Total Hours in Excess of
Limit at Receptor WTG Causing Impact
% of Maximum Annual
Hours of WTG
Operation
1 7.2 13 0.08
2 9.4
21
0.05 x 21
22
3a 0 n/a n/a
3b 12.3
50
0.07 x 21
51
4 0 n/a n/a
5 17.9 68 0.20
6 14.4
10
0.08 x 21
12
7 10.1 22 0.12
8 0.8
51
0.005 x 21
52
Notes:
1 Percentage of maximum potential annual hours of WTG operation is calculated based on total hours in excess of limit being
shared equally between both contributing WTGs. The percentage shown would be applicable to each contributing WTG.
12.5 Residual Effects
Shadow flicker effects are predictable and easily mitigated. Consequently, with the adoption
of the above proposed mitigation strategy, no residual effects are anticipated.
12.6 Conclusions
A number of residential properties are predicted to experience shadow flicker effects in excess
of the recommended limits. However, shadow flicker effects are predictable and easily
mitigated. Consequently, with the adoption of a proposed mitigation strategy, no residual
effects are anticipated.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 84 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A13: Updated Transportation and Access
13.1 Introduction
This chapter has been prepared by Wood to identify the significant effects of the amended
Project layout on receptors in the study area. A summary of changes is detailed including
revised material loads following the reduction in the number of WTGs on the site. Where
possible, Chapter 13 of the preliminary ESIA Report has been referenced to avoid repetition.
13.2 Assessment Methodology
The assessment methodology remains the same as that set out within Chapter 13 of the
preliminary ESIA Report.
13.3 Baseline Conditions
13.3.1 Transportation Route
The proposed WTG model for the purposes of this assessment is the Nordex N131. The
finalised transport route for WTG components to move to the Project site from Port is as
follows:
• Arrival of materials at Olvia Port.
• Continue onto the T1501 bypass for 15 km.
• Turn right onto the E58 / M14 for around 60 km.
• Continue straight onto the Kherson bypass E97/M17 for 22 km.
• Turn onto the T2206 and follow for around 70 km.
• Turn right onto the T2202 and continue for around 55 km.
• Minor roads to the Project site.
A transportation study dated 03 May 2018 undertaken by Holleman Ukraine SLL has been
carried out based on the Nordex WTG. This identifies key constraints to use of the proposed
route for abnormal load vehicles. Areas where large modifications are required include:
• Area close to the port requires a road curve to be enlarged (Portside road intersection
with Korabelov Avenue).
• T2206 road – a tree, road sign and 6m of bridge fence requires removal.
• T2202 Chaplinka bypass – three signs need to be removed and left curve modified.
• The access road to the Project site needs to be developed with the junction and access
road in accordance with the Nordex transport specifications.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 85 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
No direct impacts were identified on community infrastructure other than temporary removal
of power lines, lighting, barriers and signage.
The transportation study notes that 10 km of road sections are in very bad condition and will
require repair prior to use. Permission will be required to repair governmental roads which
belong to local branches of the National Automotive Road Agency, Ukravtodor. It is also noted
that a further study will be required at least eight weeks prior to the start of deliveries to check
the condition of the proposed route.
13.4 Assessment of Effects
13.4.1 Construction
13.4.1.1 Traffic Generation
Activities to be undertaken with the sub-phases of construction, the total number of HGV /
abnormal loads associated with the activities and predicted traffic generation are detailed in
Table 13-1 below. Each delivery consists of two movements, into and out of the site. The
figures below have been modified to take into account the reduction in the number of WTGs
and associated access track.
Estimates of traffic generation during the construction phase have been developed based on
estimates of the quantities of material and equipment required and previous experience of
other wind farm developments.
Table 13-1: Summary of Traffic during Construction
Activity Vehicle Type Total Trips (Two
Way)
Total Trips (One
Way)
Delivery of stone for
internal access track
construction &
hardstanding.
Articulated HGV 14,138 28,276
Delivery of concrete for
WTG foundations. Road lorry 3,432 6,864
Delivery of reinforcing steel. Articulated HGV 206 412
Delivery of cable. Articulated HGV 34 68
Delivery of crane. Mobile crane and
articulated HGV 280 560
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 86 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Activity Vehicle Type Total Trips (Two
Way)
Total Trips (One
Way)
Delivery of WTG
components.
Oversized road
transporter
(abnormal load)
512 1,024
Delivery of ancillary
infrastructure (transformers,
switchgear etc.)
Articulated HGV 355 710
Miscellaneous construction
vehicles. Various 174 348
Authority Escorts (if
required) Car 410 824
Construction workers. Various light vehicles 13,086 26,172
TOTAL 32,639 65,598
Table 13-2 illustrates the monthly traffic volumes over the 18-month construction period. The
maximum traffic impact for HGV movements associated with the construction phase will be
within month 7.
Table 13-3 sets out the daily average traffic movements per month based on an average of 4.5
weeks per month and an average of five working days per week (rounded down to 22 days
per month).
During month 7, an average of 319 vehicle movements is predicted to be generated on each
working day (around 160 in and 160 out). For HGV / abnormal load traffic, this would be
around 50 movements into site and 50 out of site per day.
It should be noted that the direction of traffic movements is dependent upon the source of
the construction materials. This is the worst-case scenario based on the transportation of all
stone for road construction to site.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 87 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 13-2: Trips per Month during Construction Period
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Delivery of concrete for WTG
foundationsHGV 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624 624
Stone delivery, access track
and hardstanding
construction
HGV 3,000 3,076 3,400 3,400 3,000 3,000 2,800 2,800 2,000 1,800
Delivery of reinforcing steel HGV 68 68 68 70 70 68
Delivery of cable HGV 34 34
Delivery of cranes / removal HGV 280 280
Delivery of WTG components Abnormal 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128
Delivery of ancillary
infrastructure (transformers,
switchgear)
HGV 120 118 118 118 118 118
HGV 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8
LGV 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 8 8
Escort LGV 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103
Construction staffMinibus, 4x4,
car1,000 1,000 1,800 1,800 1,800 2,000 2,600 2,400 2,000 1,800 1,400 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 972 800 800
HGV 3,010 3,086 3,478 4,102 3,702 3,738 3,940 3,622 2,754 2,552 752 752 8 8 8 8 288 8
Abnormal 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128
LGV 10 10 10 10 10 10 115 115 115 113 113 113 111 111 8 8 8 8
Minibus, 4x4,
car1000 1000 1800 1800 1800 2000 2600 2400 2000 1800 1400 1000 1000 1000 1000 972 800 800
ALL 4,020 4,096 5,288 5,912 5,512 5,748 6,783 6,265 4,997 4,593 2,393 1,993 1,247 1,247 1,016 988 1,096 816
Activity Vehicle Type
Miscellaneous construction
vehicles
TOTAL
Construction Month
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 88 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 13-3: Daily Average Movements per Construction Month
Details
Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
HGVs 137 140 158 158 179 186 190 175 136 127 45 45 0 0 0 0 13 0
Abnormal Loads 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0
LGVs 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0
Minibus, 4x4, Car 45 45 82 82 82 91 118 109 91 82 64 45 45 45 45 44 36 36
TOTAL 183 186 240 240 261 288 319 296 238 220 120 101 57 46 46 45 50 37
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 89 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
13.4.1.2 Effects on Road Network
The reduction in WTG numbers is not likely to result in any change in impact to that
specified in the Preliminary ESIA report. The Project is likely to have Moderate significant
impacts on the road network however mitigation proposed within Section 13.6 of the
preliminary ESIA Report will assist in reducing this level of significance.
13.4.1.3 Evaluation of Effects
The evaluation of effects in accordance with the IEMA guidelines remains the same as that
which is set out within Section 13.4.1.4 of the Preliminary ESIA Report. No significant
changes are predicted as a result of the reduction in WTGs on the Project site.
13.4.2 Operation
The evaluation of effects during the operational period of the Project remains the same
as that for the assessment set out within the Preliminary ESIA Report. No significant effects
are predicted.
13.4.3 Mitigation
No additional mitigation is required in addition to that which is set out within Section 13.6
of the Preliminary ESIA Report.
13.5 Residual Effects and Summary
The transportation of the WTG components will take around a day from the port to the
Project site. The effect of the Project’s construction HGV / abnormal load traffic on the
existing roads cannot be quantified given the lack of traffic data however, considering all
construction traffic and proposed mitigation, the impact is likely to be of Minor to
Moderate significance during construction and Negligible during operation.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 90 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A14: Updated Social Impact Assessment
14.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an updated socio-economic baseline and provides additional
information that was not included within the Preliminary ESIA. The new baseline is used
to conduct a social impact assessment and design mitigation and monitoring measures
for the impacts identified. The chapter has been prepared with input from Environmental
and Social Advisory Services Limited, a UK-based company that specialises in the
provision of social impact assessment services.
14.2 Updated Social Impact Assessment
14.2.1 General Approach
Additional survey work has been completed to enhance the social baseline. A land use
survey was completed from 11 July 2018 to 12 July 2018 to gather information on the
following:
• General village conditions and current needs;
• The activity of locally active non-governmental organisations and civil society
groups;
• The way in which local people use land within the Project area for the grazing of
animals and other purposes;
• The distance people travel from their place of living to the Project area, to use
land;
• Details of any recent conflicts between different groups of people using land
within the Project area;
• The type and location of cultural heritage sites that are located within the Project
area (see Chapter A10);
• The type of vulnerable people that may be present within communities across the
Project area;
• The potential for job seekers to travel to communities during construction, seeking
work and other types of economic opportunities;
• General village perceptions towards the wind farm development Project; and
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 91 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
• Socio-economic characteristics of people who were observed to be located inside
the Project area, using land for grazing, during the time of the land use survey.
In parallel with the land use survey, a series of geographical Information Systems (GIS)
based calculations were completed to quantitatively assess the area of land, the majority
of which is used for animal grazing, that will no longer be available for grazing during
Project construction and operation. Relatively small proportions of land will not be
accessible for grazing during construction due to the presence of access roads, laydown
areas, and construction works. Similarly, small portions of land will not be available for
grazing during the operational stage due to the ongoing presence of WTGs, hardstanding
and access tracks. Whilst the total areas of land that are no longer going to be accessible
are expected to be small, the actual percentage of land lost had not been calculated until
the GIS study was completed.
14.2.2 Survey Methods
For the purpose of the land use survey, two techniques were used to gather socio-
economic data: focus group discussions (FDGs) and catch interviews.
Four, separate, FGDs were held at four communities that are locally responsible for the
administration of land within the Project area:
• Pershokostyantynivka;
• Hryhorivka;
• Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka as a combined discussion; and
• Strohanivka.
As stated above, a single FGD was held with representatives from both Pavlivka and
Novovolodymyrivka as these two communities are located geographically close to each
other, and the village of Novovolodymyrivka (located to the south of Pavlivka) has a
relatively small population.
The FGDs were held during 11 and 12 July 2018 and facilitated by SyvashEnergoProm
LLC’s local team in Ukrainian. For each FGD, the following types of people were invited
to attend:
• Village leaders;
• Members of local agricultural associations / herders union;
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 92 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
• Members of NGOs or civil society groups;
• Women’s representatives;
• Representatives from nearby health and educational establishments; and
• People involved in local businesses.
SyvashEnergoProm LLC’s local team contacted local administrations for their support in
the organisation of FGDs, which included the identification of a suitable venue and inviting
people to attend from each local village. The FDG invitations were issued by each of the
local administrators as outlined below:
• Pavlivka - Anatoliy Andriyevskiy.
• Hrygorivka - Sergiy Klischevskiy.
• Stroganivka - Svitlana Zagorodniuk.
• Pershokostyantynivka - Vyasheclav Gelysh.
All of the FDGs were held in public places (the administrative building relevant for each
local village) and attended by between eight to 21 people. Attendees were recorded and
details are outlined below:
• Pavlivka - 20 people, 12 women, 8 men.
• Hrygorivka - 21 people, 14 women, 7 men.
• Stroganivka - 11 people, 7 women, 4 men.
• Pershokostyantynivka - 8 people, 6 women, 2 men, to include head of the village
herders union.
The FGDs were completed using the following steps:
Step 1 – Introduction to the exercise – Introducing the Project and the purpose of the
land use survey, completing the attendance sheet, informing the attendees about the
confidentially principle: “the content of the discussion can be shared outside the group, but
participants are requested not to identify a person who made any specific statement”.
Step 2 – Asking a set of pre-determined questions – Questions were asked to the
group, with each person asked to provide a response. If they did not wish to speak then
the next person was invited to provide their view.
Step 3 – Recording the discussion – A concise summary of each discussion was prepared
indicating the main outcomes.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 93 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
In addition, the project grievance mechanism as outlined within the Stakeholder
Engagement Plan was disclosed during the FGD’s. All FGD attendees received a grievance
information note setting out the procedure and relevant contact details and signed both
for their participation and the note
In addition to the FGDs, a series of ‘catch interviews’ were completed by identifying at
random people who were either using land within the Project area or are known by village
representatives to use the land, and then a surveyor asking them a set of pre-determined
questions. The use of catch interviews is a common social survey technique during land
use surveys and aims to provide an indication of the socio-economic profile of people
using the land, how this varies throughout the year, the different types of land use that
occurs, and details of any conflicts between different user groups.
The catch interview approach is not intended to be statistically valid, as this requires the
total population of land users to be known to determine the appropriate sample
population using acceptable confidence levels and margins of error. Instead, it is used to
give a general picture of land use to conduct a social impact assessment. The catch
interviews were completed on 11 and 12 July 2018 and were facilitated by
SyvashEnergoProm LLC’s local team in Ukrainian.
A total of 7 catch interviews were carried out. Details are outlined below:
Hrygorivka
• Interview 1 – Male living in community for 64 years. Use land for grazing year
round, raising ducks and for hunting.
• Interview 2 – Male living in community for 37 years. Use land for grazing April to
November & hunting.
Pavlivka
• Interview 1 – Female living in community for 42 years. Use land for grazing
throughout year & collecting mushrooms.
• Interview 2 – Male living in community for 9 years. Use land for grazing throughout
year & collecting mushrooms / hunting.
Pershokostyantynivka
• Interview 1 – Male living in community for 55 years. Use land for grazing during
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 94 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
April to October. Note this interviewee is a head of the village herders union.
• Interview 2 – Female living in community for 28 years. Use land for grazing during
April to October period & collecting mushrooms.
Stroganivka
• Interview 1 – Female living in community for 30 years. Use land for grazing during
April to December period.
14.2.2.1 Herders Unions
Note that not every village has a formalized herders union and herding is not the major
economic activity in every village.
Only one village reported that cattle-related production provides for livelihood of 80 %
of population (see Section 13.2.3.3). In that village (Pershokostyantynivka) there is a formal
herders union utilised predominately to deal with buyers of milk in a unified legal format.
The head of that union was both present and interviewed during FGDs and catch
interviews.
Stroganivka also has a grazing / herders union however it does not have a formal head or
management body. Members of the union (herders) were present during FGDs.
14.2.3 Updated Baseline
14.2.3.1 Land Administration
Land leased for the Project is state land leased from the Chaplynka District Data
Administration. The rent is paid each month pro-rata to the accounts of
Pershokostiantynivka village council, Hryhorivka village council, Pavlivka village council,
and Stroganivka village council. The four village councils administer the use of land, some
of which is to be used by the Project, for the grazing of animals and other purposes.
Further detail in relation to leases is provided within the Preliminary ESIA, Chapter 14,
particularly Table 14-8.
Volume 2, Figure A14.1 illustrates the geographic boundaries within which each village
council that have a responsibility for the administration of land using four different
colours.
The areas of grazing land leased for the Project are also shown in Volume 2, Figure A14.1.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 95 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
14.2.3.2 Village conditions, needs and NGOs
This section provides a summary of general village conditions, village needs and details
of locally active NGOs.
Pershokostyantynivka
The FGD indicated that there has been no significant change to conditions within the
village over the last five years. The population was stated to be 1,200 based upon the
2001 census. Village needs include:
• Improved reliability of electricity;
• More jobs for young people;
• Improvements to the public road network and street lighting.
• Improvements to village infrastructure including the village administration
building, local infirmary, library, cultural centre and kindergarten. Typical
problems with village infrastructure includ a lack of reliable electricity, equipment
and heating;
• Improvements to quality of pond area which is no longer utilised for fishing and
swimming due to poor quality; and
• Additional village spaces for the benefit of the wider population including
recreational areas.
There are two locally active NGOs (Krasa Tavriyi and Shkilniy Dim) who are focused on
education for children and the provision of child care facilities. There is also a grazing /
herders union made up of cattle owners which was developed to provide collective
representation during the process of negotiating prices for farmers (such as for the sale
of meat and milk), and to ensure that it is completed in accordance with national
legislation.
Hryhorivka
The FGD indicated that there has been a recent improvement to village infrastructure,
including access to emergency health care during the last five years. The population has
also recently increased, although a decrease in the available grazing grounds has occurred
due to the presence of large commercial farms in the area located outwith the Project site
boundary. An impact from the presence of the commercial farms is that land has been
increasingly allocated to the farms for crops, resulting in an overall loss of grazing land
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 96 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
for the community. As stated above, there are no commercial farming activities within
the Project area.
The population was stated to be 1,425 people (15% more women than men), with local
infrastructure including a school, kindergarten, cultural centre and a small number of
shops.
Village needs are similar to Pershokostyantynivka and include the need for a centre for
elderly people to be established. A single NGO is active locally (Future of Grygorivka)
which focuses on trying to improve local socio-economic conditions.
Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka
The combined FGD at these two villages indicated that there has been a decrease in
grazing grounds available within the last five years due to the presence of large
commercial farms becoming established, all of which are outside the Project area. An
increase in prices has recently occurred in relation to food, animal feed and gas prices and
improvements to village infrastructure have been made, including kindergarten facilities.
The population was stated to be 1,219 across the two communities, with
Novovolodymyrivka featuring an estimated population of 54. There are approximately
15% more women than men, 300 people who are retired (approximately 4%); 90 school
age children (0.7%), and 350 were specified as unemployed (29%). Important sources of
local employment include a large commercial farm (Interra) and social workers such as
teachers and other village workers).
Village needs include assistance with the legal allocation of additional grazing land, with
the aim of legalising land not currently utilised or occupied so that this can be used for
village grazing; improving access to health and poor condition of education facilities;
supporting elderly and other people who have ill-health, and improving local road
conditions.
An NGO is active locally (Zlagoda) which supports village needs from other large
investment companies through focused corporate social responsibility activities. There is
also a veterans union and a social activists group; a combined group that provides social
welfare support and assistance to cattle owners.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 97 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Strohanivka
The FGD indicated that within this village, there has been a recent decrease in population
due to local people leaving to seek improved job opportunities elsewhere, a decrease in
household income due to higher cost of living (as is the case in the other villages) and an
increase in land rental payments within the last five years.
A new shop had opened recently within the village. The estimated population was stated
to be 1,071 with more woman then men. This is common across the region as women
typically have less opportunities to develop professionally, as they are married earlier in
life and are traditionally 'homemakers'; bound to the household, children, taking care of
elderly etc.
This region traditionally lived off selling vegetables and fruits to Crimea. Due to Crimea’s
recent occupation the market for selling products is now closed and many people had to
find alternative livelihoods, typically men who have been forced to seek formal
employment elsewhere and live outside the Project area, away from their family
household.
Village needs include an area for the disposal of construction waste, improvements to
village infrastructure and medical equipment, modernisation of a kindergarten,
establishing a retirement home, and improvements to the physical condition of roads.
An NGO is active locally which deals with directing charity funds to village needs (Vid
serdtsya do sedtsya) as well as a veterans union and a grazing / herders union. The grazing
/ herders union is made up of cattle owners, similar to Pershokostyantynivka discussed
above.
14.2.3.3 Land Use
This section provides a description of land use conditions within the Project area.
Pershokostyantynivka
Land within this village council administration is currently used for animal grazing (mostly
cattle), hay collection and the hunting of rabbits, ducks and geese. The soil is not suitable
for large-scale agriculture. A servitude agreement is in place with the communal
enterprise for use of the Project area land as outlined in Section 14.2.3.1. Village cattle is
represented by about 500 cows, 80% of the population live off sale of milk to two milk
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 98 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
factories.
The cattle in the village are divided into four herds: two with a financial charge (UAH 65
for each head per month), two with no financial charge but mandatory participation (1
head of cattle = 0.5 day of herding). Services of the herder can be purchased for UAH 200
a day but that’s not a regular occurrence. Herds are typically defined by the geography,
where cows are sent to the closest herd to the household. There are few permanent
herders that walk two herds and if the household wishes to send their cow to those herds,
they pay UAH 65 / month as a financial charge.
There are two herds that do not have permanent herders so each person whose cow is in
these herds has to take their turn in herding (which is mandatory). For each head of cow,
a household is required to send a person who works as a herder for half a day.
Alternatively, households can come together to hire a herder (if available) for UAH 200 a
day. This is a typical way of managing herds within the communities in the Project area.
Animal herding is undertaken by people who are over 16 years of age; children are not
involved. People do not travel from outside the village to use the land and there are no
conflicts between different groups of land users.
Information from two, separate, catch interviews with animal herders indicated the
following:
• Their household is located 15 minutes from the grazing land and they have both
lived in their village for long periods of time (55 years and 28 years);
• Their animals are kept to generate milk and meat which is either sold for
household income, or used for household consumption. Ducks, chickens and hens
are typically bred for the sale of their eggs, or for their products to be used for
household consumption.
• They use the grazing land within the Project area regularly between April and
October, and other times when the weather is agreeable. During the winter the
households purchase hay and fodder for their animals, and this is sometimes
required also during summer months when the level of grazing grass is low. One
of the households collects mushrooms from the land.
• The households do not pay for the land or have any formal agreements for the
use of the land.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 99 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Hryhorivka
FGDs identified that the village residents are typically self-employed in agricultural sector
(selling milk, meat, eggs for sale), with some working as seasonal workers on larger farms.
Approximately 30% of population are cattle owners.
A servitude agreement is in place with the communal enterprise for use of the Project
area land as outlined in Section 14.2.3.1. No estimates were provided for the number of
cattle in the village. Assuming that the ratio of cattle between residents is the same across
other village administrations engaged with during the land use survey, it can be assumed
that Hryhorivka has approximately 585 cattle.
Those that use the land for grazing do so by mandatory participation (1 head of cattle =
1 day of herding). Services of the herder can be purchased although this is not a regular
occurrence. Cattle is managed in a similar way to Pershokostyantynivka.
Local disputes have arisen in relation to the identification of land users involved in the
collection of hay and these were resolved though individual negotiation. The same level
of conflicts has been reported, compared with five years ago. Local people use land within
the Project area for the collection of hay and grazing.
Two catch interviews were completed and indicated similar results to the previous
interviews. Notable differences include one interviewee stating that they were breeding
150 ducks that were intended to be released back into the wild for conservation purposes,
in an attempt to ensure the population remains strong after hunting seasons.
Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka
Approximately 25% of the population are self-employed within the agricultural sector,
generating vegetables, milk, eggs, meat with 300 head of cattle. A servitude agreement is
in place with the communal enterprise for use of the Project area land as outlined in
Section 14.2.3.1. There are seven to eight herds with those that use the land for grazing
doing so by mandatory participation (1 head of cattle = 1 day of herding). Services of the
herder can be purchased however it is noted that this is not a regular occurrence. Cattle
are managed in a similar way to Pershokostyantynivka.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 100 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Two catch interviews were completed and indicated similar results to the previous
interviews, with farmers occasionally supplementing grazing grass with animal feed.
Notable differences include one interviewee stating that they breed two goats for
household consumption, and that foxes sometimes catch their chickens.
Strohanivka
The FGD identified 500 heads of cattle within the village. A servitude agreement is in place
with the communal enterprise for use of the Project area land as outlined in Section
14.2.3.1.
Those that use the land for grazing doing so by mandatory participation (1 head of cattle
= 1 day of herding). Services of the herder can be purchased for UAH 250 – 300 a day
however it is noted that this is not a regular occurrence. Cattle are managed in a similar
way to Pershokostyantynivka.
People travel to land administrated by this village from outside the Project area for fishing.
People do not travel from outside to graze their animals. Some disputes have occurred
in recent years over access to grazing areas and have been settled through negotiations.
There is the same frequency of disputes compared to five years ago.
Other than animal grazing, people use land within the Project area for collecting hay,
hunting (rabbits, ducks and geese), fishing and collecting mushrooms. One catch
interview with an animal grazer was carried out for this village and gave similar responses
to the previous interviews. Notable differences include that the interviewee stated that
there is no shortage of food for the animals during the summer.
14.2.3.4 Catch Interview Summary
In summary, data from the catch interviews provides a general picture of the type of
people who are using the Project land for grazing. One interviewee was the head of
Pershokostyantynivka cattle owners association. Specifically, the following common
characteristics can be identified:
• The individuals grazing are both male and female; none of them under the age of
16 years;
• The number of cattle varies significantly between herders, ranging from 2 to 45;
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 101 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
• The number of ducks ranges from 10 to 150, with one interviewee indicating that
they intend to release all of their ducks to the wild for conservation purposes;
• All grazers typically use the land regularly between April and October, and have
to purchase feed for animals during the winter months. Some herders purchase
feed during the summer months when the level of grass is low;
• None of the animal grazers pay to use the land, or have any type of formal
agreement in place with the village council; and
• The incidence of land-related conflicts between different groups is relatively
infrequent and is resolved through discussions with the people involved.
14.2.3.5 Vulnerable People
During the land use survey questions were asked about the type of vulnerable people that
are present within the Project area, and the sources of their vulnerability. The following
groups were identified:
• Families with a number of children as they have many dependants, and household
income has to provide for all members of the household;
• The disabled who often require additional support for daily living, and access to
high-quality health care facilities;
• The elderly and those in ill-health who often require additional support for daily
living, and access to high-quality health care facilities; and
• Veterans who have returned from a location of recent conflict. Some veterans find
returning to civilian life difficult after experiencing conditions of conflict,
experience stress, depression and difficulties in maintaining domestic
relationships.
All of the above groups have equal access to land within the Project area, although the
elderly and long-term sick predominately survive off social welfare payments. There is no
evidence to suggest that vulnerable people are grazing animals within the Project area.
Instead, the people involved in grazing activities are typically middle-aged and have been
undertaking grazing activities for a significant portion of their lives.
14.2.3.6 Potential Influx for Job Seekers
The land use survey gathered perceptions from village representatives on the potential
for the Project to attract people from outside the local area, seeking jobs and other forms
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 102 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
of economic opportunities during construction. Experiences from previous projects in the
local area were discussed to determine if there is any precedent of influx historically.
There was consensus amongst the participants of the four FGDs that the potential for
influx into the Project area during construction was very low, with no recent memory of
influx occurring from similar construction projects during the five years. The only
examples where people have moved into the area seeking work are from those trying to
obtain work in commercial farms, which is seasonal. There is a potential that village
residents may return to their original place of birth seeking work, although that this
(according to the representatives) should not be considered influx as the people will be
recognised and are considered ‘local people’ themselves, not ‘outsiders’.
14.2.3.7 Village Perceptions
The land use survey also investigated perceptions towards the Project, with a specific
focus as to whether they believed that women and men may disproportionally be
impacted. Specifically, the following common perceptions can be identified:
• Men and women are expected to be impacted equally by the Project; there is no
differentiation by gender. One village representative stated that women may
benefit more due to the creation of indirect job opportunities, for example
cooking, laundry and cleaning services at the construction worker camp;
• The Project will benefit the region from improved social infrastructure and
employment opportunities;
• The Project will contribute to the development of the country by providing
renewable energy, generating electricity and taxation; and
• The Project will demonstrate the application of the latest renewable wind turbine
technology resulting in a sense of pride for the host region in the country.
14.3 Social Impact Assessment
In relation to land use, potential impacts to users during the 18 month construction phase,
comprise:
• A loss of grazing land from the construction of the access roads, substation,
turbine installation working area, and laydown area, with the potential to result in:
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 103 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
o A deterioration to animal health, particularly during winter and peak
summer periods, when some farmers purchase fodder for their cattle;
o An increase in land use conflicts between different groups due to a net loss
of grazing land; and
o A temporary loss of access to some parts of the Project area that are used
for hunting, the collection of mushrooms and hay, and potentially other
products.
It is noted that all areas utilised for fishing by the local communities are outwith the
Project footprint. On this basis the Project is not anticipated to impact on fishing activities.
During the 20 to 25 year operational phase of the Project, potential impacts to land use
are similar to the above, with the following notable differences:
• The total land footprint of the Project will be much smaller during operations,
compared with construction, as there will be no need for fences to restrict access
to the installation area, and no construction corridor; and
• The duration of the operational phase is significantly greater than the construction
phase.
14.3.1.1 Construction Impacts
During construction, local people will be able to seek alternative locations to conduct
hunting activities, and collect mushrooms, hay and other products. Positive impacts will
arise from temporary employment and from the provision of training and skill
development opportunities. All workers involved in the Project will be provided with a
certificate of their training and employment record, which should help them to find
alternative employment within the construction sector in the future.
As stated above, the main impact from the Project is a loss of grazing land. To
quantitatively assess the loss during construction, a set of GIS calculations were
completed based upon the construction footprint and available land for grazing within
the wider Project area.
Volume 2, Figure A14.1 shows the construction footprint, based on the Project substation,
WTGs, crane hardstandings, access tracks and grazing areas. A construction corridor has
been applied to infrastructure, to account for a 20 m corridor of access tracks and a 10 m
buffer for other infrastructure. It is noted that the footprint excludes construction
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 104 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
compounds and construction camps. It is planned that these will be located out with
grazing areas.
Grazing areas were determined through consultation with local village administrations
who provided information of the grazing grounds their villagers use utilising maps. This
data was collected by SyvashEnergoProm LLC’s local team. The area of grazing for each
village was then mapped on GIS and the area used for grazing within the project leased
area calculated utilizing GIS.
The Project leased area covers approximately 1,308 hectares. Within the Project area,
approximately 693.2 hectares are utilised for grazing purposes and there are
approximately 36.3 additional hectares that lie outside the Project area that are also used
for the grazing of animals. The construction footprint was calculated to be 36.31 hectares
within the Project area, which is 0.3 % of the total area taking into consideration the
availability of grazing land for each village administration which is located outside the
Project area. A breakdown of these calculations is provided in Table 14-1 for each village.
Table 14-1: Land Use Calculations for Each Village - Construction
Aspect Area (approximate ha)
Pershokostyantynivka
Total available grazing area leased by the Project 472.8
Additional grazing area not leased by the Project as it is outside the Project area 283.6
Total grazing area lost during construction 24.8
Hryhorivka
Total available grazing area leased by the Project 165.1
Total available grazing area not leased by the Project as it is outside the Project area 182.5
Total available grazing area lost during construction 11.2
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 105 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Aspect Area (approximate ha)
Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka
Total available grazing area leased by the Project 49.7
Total available grazing area not leased by the Project 0.1
Total available grazing area lost during construction 0.4
Strohanivka
Total available grazing area leased by the Project 5.6
Total available grazing area not leased by the Project 0.0
Total available grazing area lost during construction 0.0
As outlined within the table above, there is alternative land that is already being used for
grazing, located outside the Project area.
As the grazing land at Strohanivka is not utilised for the Project no impact will be realised,
no further assessment is required.
The GIS calculations indicate that within the Project area alone, a total of 3.1 % of
available grazing land will be temporarily lost during the Project construction phase.
Percentages of available grazing land lost for each village during construction are outlined
below:
• Pershokostyantynivka – 3.3 %.
• Hryhorivka – 3.2 %.
• Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka – 0.8 %.
• Strohanivka – 0%.
Using the details associated with the number of cattle provided during FGD, an
assessment was completed to determine the area of grazing land required to support this
number. Based upon the results from FGDs and catch interviews there is the following
herd size in each village:
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 106 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
• Pershokostyantynivka - 500 cattle.
• Hryhorivka - 585 cattle.
• Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka - 300 cattle.
As noted previously the estimated 585 cattle in Hryhorivka is an estimate based on a ratio
of population and overall herd size for the other villages.
According to the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University
who have extensively assessed cattle grazing in Ukraine, a single hectare of land providing
grass fodder for cattle would yield 900 to 1,100 kg of beef during the 5 or 6 month pasture
period.11 This equates to approximately 2 beef cattle per hectare of grazing land. This
calculation is influenced by the quality of fodder that the grazing land provides that is in
turn, linked to the volume of milk produced. According to the research, as the grazing
land is generally poor quality, the assumption that a value of two cattle per hectare is
sufficient to maintain animal health.
11 Saiko, V.F., 1995. Problems of Rational Agricultural Land Use in Ukraine. Working Paper 95-WP 145. Center
for Agricultural and Rural Development. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 107 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 14-2: Impacts on Grazing (Construction)
Village Total available grazing area (approximate Ha)
Area used by the Project (approximate Ha)
Area remaining (approximate Ha)
Head of cattle
Total required grazing area (approximate Ha)
Calculated difference
(approximate Ha)
Assessment of impact
Pershokostyantynivka 756.4 24.8 731.6 500 250 +481.6 No impact – the land available after the
Project is more than the area required to
support the number of cattle reported.
Hryhorivka 347.6 11.2 336.4 585 293 +43.3 No impact – the land available after the
Project is more than the area required to
support the estimated number of cattle
that has been calculated using the typical
village population: cattle size ratio.
Pavlivka and
Novovolodymyrivka
49.8 0.4 49.4 300 150 -100.6 It is noted that the existing area available
is not deemed sufficient to support 300
grazing cattle. As a result grazing is
currently supplemented by feed. The area
needed for the Project is 0.8% of available
land area and, during construction (total
duration of 18 months) the impact is
expected to be negligible.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 108 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Using the results shown in Table 14-2 above, the construction phase of the Project is not
expected to significantly impact the livelihoods of people grazing animals, or increase
land-use conflicts between groups of people, as the percentages of land lost are very
small. The Project is also not expected to disproportionally impact the various types of
vulnerable groups that have been identified within the Project area, as available land will
be available to all village members and there is no evidence to suggest that vulnerable
people are involved in animal grazing.
14.3.1.2 Operation Impacts
During operation the area of land lost will be lower than that during construction as there
will not be a requirement for a construction corridor. Furthermore, there will be free access
for grazers across the Project site. The impacts are assessed in Table 14-3 below.
Table 14-3: Impacts on Grazing (Operation)
Village Area used by Project
(approx. Ha)
Area used by Project (%)
Total required grazing area (approx. Ha)
Area remaining post Project (approx. Ha)
Impact
Pershokostyantynivka 9.8 1.3 % 250 746.6 None – the land available
after the Project is more
than the area required to
support the number of
cattle reported.
Hryhorivka 5 1.4 % 293 342.6 None – the land available
after the Project is more
than the area required to
support the estimated
number of cattle that has
been calculated using the
typical village population:
cattle size ratio.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 109 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Village Area used by Project
(approx. Ha)
Area used by Project (%)
Total required grazing area (approx. Ha)
Area remaining post Project (approx. Ha)
Impact
Pavlivka and
Novovolodymyrivka
0.2 0.4 % 150 49.6 It is noted that the
existing area available is
not deemed sufficient to
support 300 grazing
cattle. As a result grazing
is occasionally
supplemented by feed
during peak winter and
summer months, when
needed. The proportion
of land that is to be
impacted by the Project
during operation (20 to
25 years) is 0.4% of
available land area and
this is not considered to
be significant or even
noticeable to land users.
Consequently, the impact
to land users is
considered to be
negligible.
The total area of grazing land lost during operation would be 1.3 % of the total grazing
land available. Percentages of available grazing land lost for each village during operation
are outlined below:
• Pershokostyantynivka – 1.3 %.
• Hryhorivka – 1.4 %.
• Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka – 0.4 %.
From the results shown above and in Table 14-3 above, the Project is not expected to
significantly impact the area or availability of grazing land during operation.
No specific impacts will be seen on vulnerable groups as access to Project land will be
available to all parties.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 110 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
14.3.2 Population Influx (Job Seeker)
Recent large-scale construction projects within Ukraine, including the construction of
bypasses and highway upgrades on the Kiev-Poltava highway requiring a total
construction workforce of more than 500 people and construction period of 2 years; and
the construction of a combined heat and power plant in Kam'yanets-Podilskiy, requiring
a workforce of more than 250 people and construction period of 1.5 years, have not
caused any significant influx of job seekers. All those involved with civil works were
employed under standard procedures of employment as per Ukrainian legislation,
including local disclosure of information for required personnel.
During the FGDs none of the village representatives stated that they believed population
influx would occur during the construction phase.
On this basis, the influx of job seekers is not expected to occur or present any specific
impact associated with the Project.
14.3.3 Construction Workers
A number of contractors will be accommodated within the vicinity of the Project within
construction camps. The Preliminary ESIA, Chapter 14, Section 14.3.3 outlines potential
impacts associated with the additional number of construction workers.
14.4 Mitigation
14.4.1 Land Use
The assessment associated with the loss of grazing land has indicated that the proportion
lost during construction and operation is insignificant for Pershokostyantynivka,
Hryhorivka and Strohanivka. In relation to Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka whilst the
current available land is unable to support the estimated numbers of cattle present,
implementation of the Project is predicted to have a negligible (barely noticeable) impact
on the overall availability of grazing land, with just 0.8% and 0.4% being lost during
construction and operation respectively. Given the impact is identified as negligible, it is
considered that a Livelihood Restoration Plan is not required, as the loss is not expected
to impact animal health in any significant way.
Ongoing monitoring and consultation will however be carried out with land users as
follows:
• Pre-construction meeting with land users (to include members and heads of
grazing / herders association where applicable) to provide details of potential
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 111 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
construction impacts, provide mapping of construction area and associated
grazing implications and the construction programme to allow land users to plan
grazing /other activities in advance.
• Regular meetings will be held with land users (to include members and heads of
grazing / herders where applicable) every two months to specifically track
perceptions towards the impacts to livelihoods arising from the loss of grazing
land during the construction period. All meetings will be recorded.
• Where concerns are raised in relation to insufficient food for livestock during
construction, these will be evaluated to determine if any further action is necessary
and additional mitigation is required. Should additional mitigation be required this
will be reviewed and determined as appropriate on a case by case basis, however
may include provision of additional animal fodder.
• If no concerns are raised during construction when the constrained footprint is
higher, these meetings will no longer be needed and not continued during
operation.
• If concerns are raised, meetings will continue every quarter during operation for
the first year of operations. Outcome of meetings will be reviewed and if no
concerns are raised meetings will be discontinued.
In addition, the grievance mechanism will be available throughout the construction and
operational to record and mitigate any concerns raised by land users.
Measures will be included within the Community Health and Safety Plan to ensure safe
access is obtained to grazing land during the construction phase which will include, for
example, cordoning off the working area to prevent the unauthorised entry of third-
parties.
14.5 Population Influx (Job seekers)
Monitoring will be undertaken to quantify any influx into the region during construction.
Monthly community meetings to monitor any Project impacts associated with job seeker
influx. A management plan will be developed should influx occur. In addition, the
grievance mechanism will be available throughout the construction and operational to
record and mitigate any concerns raised by the community.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 112 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
14.6 Construction Workers
Mitigation measures will be applied as outlined in the Preliminary ESIA (Chapter 14,
Section 14.3.4) to mitigate the increased pressures associated with construction workers
residing in the Project area. Consolidated mitigation requirements will be outlined in the
Project ESMP.
Construction camps will be utilised for housing of construction workers. Camps will be
developed in accordance with IFC and EBRD worker accommodation standards and will
ensure facilities are in place so as there will be no associated impact on existing village
facilities. A Construction Camp Management Plan will be prepared and describe the
applicable controls on the contractor workforce.
Pre-construction community meetings will be held to provide information regarding the
construction workforce and camp and monthly community meetings will be held to
discuss issues arising, review and monitor Project impacts resulting from construction
workforce. Camp management plans and mitigation measures will be reviewed following
each meeting and updated if required. In addition, the grievance mechanism will be
available throughout the construction and operational to record and mitigate any
concerns raised by the community.
The Project SEP outlines all issues to be discussed during the pre-construction and
monthly community meetings.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 113 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A15: Aviation
15.1 Consultation
WTG blade tips may impact aircraft safety directly through potential collision or alteration
of flight paths, or indirectly through impacting on aviation radar.
A consultation process is underway with civil / military aviation bodies based on the 67
WTG layout included within the Preliminary ESIA.
Consultation with the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine, Ukrainian State Air Traffic
Services Enterprise was carried out for the 67 WTG scheme. An assessment was carried
out based on the criteria of the ICAO Doc 8168 OPS/611 "Procedures for Air Navigation
Services. Aircraft Operations" and departmental building codes "VSN 7-86 MGA."
The approval letter dated 29 May 2018 confirmed that the Project will not affect aircraft
flights in accordance with the established rules (standard departure, arrival and approach
routes) to aerodromes (helicopter aerodromes), air traffic services on which is operated
by Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise, and the operation of communication,
navigation and surveillance facilities that belong to Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services
Enterprise.
In addition, consultation was carried out with the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine based
on the 67 WTG scheme. The response dated 30 May 2018 confirmed that the scheme was
approved, requiring the Staff of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to be notified
on the commencement and completion of the construction of the mentioned facility
Translated approval letters are provided in Appendix D.
15.2 Impact Assessment
Approvals have been obtained for the 67 WTG scheme. Additional consultation is
underway to obtain approvals for the 64 WTG scheme, however as approval has been
obtained for the concept of the wind farm at the Project location, and for a larger scheme,
no significant impacts are anticipated.
15.3 Mitigation
No impacts were identified during the consultation process, however the following
measures will be employed.
The Ministry of Defence will be notified on the commencement and completion of
construction.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 114 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
In addition, in terms of aviation safety, aircraft warning lights will be installed on all WTGs
in accordance with the Ukrainian State Aviation Service / International Civil Aviation
Organization12 aviation lighting regulations.
The aircraft warning lights shall be installed on the WTG nacelle in such a way that they
could allow an unobstructed visibility for approaching aircraft from any direction.
12 International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 14 Aerodromes http://www.warningspheres.com/pdf/icao-
annex-14-2013.pdf
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 115 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A16: Summary of Impacts
Table 16-1 provides a summary of impacts during construction and operation in the
absence of mitigation for those assessments that have been updated within the ESIA
Addendum. The table should be read alongside Preliminary ESIA Table 16-1. A
consolidated table is provided within the Project ESMP.
Note that the table below is not an exhaustive list of all impacts and mitigation measures.
For this, each individual chapter of the ESIA should be consulted.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 116 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table 16-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Ecology and Ornithology
Designated sites,
habitat and flora
Direct loss of vegetation and habitat (including
food sources).
Indirect impacts associated with construction
include potential pollution of water courses and or
other areas of higher habitat value as well as
disturbance of fauna as a result of construction
activities, noise, lighting and movement of vehicles
and people.
Unmitigated, the potentially negative impacts of
pollution on habitats and flora of Project are
considered to be of low to moderate significance.
The final locations of WTG and associated access routes will mainly avoid habitats
that have been identified as being of highest sensitivity. This includes freshwater
wetlands, wet meadows and less disturbed uncultivated areas of meadow and
steppe vegetation. Habitat supporting the National Red Data Book Species
Lepidium syvaschicum, will also be avoided. This will ensure that negative impacts
on habitats and flora are kept to a minimum and of low significance.
All areas of sensitive habitats and/or where notable species occur that are not
being affected by construction activities will be clearly marked on the construction
plans and will be marked on site to prevent construction activities in these areas.
An ecologist will be present to supervise any works that are required in close
proximity to these sensitive habitats.
Pre-construction mitigation works to avoid and/or minimise the loss of sensitive
species of flora will be completed. This will include pre-works surveys for sensitive
plant species that could be present in areas affected by construction works
associated with WTGs and access roads during construction and where
appropriate the translocation of species and/or recreation of habitats completed.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 117 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
The recreation and enhancement of uncultivated steppe and meadow habitats,
including the retention and increase of field margins, will also be completed as
part of the proposals.
Standard pollution control measures will be enforced during the construction
phase of the Project to ensure there are no impacts on habitats. All fuel and
lubricants will be stored in double bunded storage containers and dedicated re-
fuelling areas will be maintained. Spill kits will be available at all storage and re-
fuelling sites and all spillages will be cleaned up immediately. Any incidents will
be reported and investigated, and additional control measures implemented as
necessary. All vehicles being used on the site will be well maintained and subject
to regular service and maintenance.
Alien and/or invasive plant species are not currently frequent in habitats within or
adjacent to the Project site. Vehicles and any materials being brought onto site
will therefore need to checked for the presence of alien or invasive species prior
to arriving on site to ensure none are introduced into habitats within and adjacent
to the Project site. If alien or invasive species are
found to be present within the Project area during the construction and
operational phases of the development then these will be eradicated using
appropriate methods.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 118 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
There will be no collecting of plant species within the Project site and this will be
enforced by the Project team. The remaining shelter belt trees will also be
protected from felling and or collection of fire wood by construction workers.
Additionally, it will not be permissible to set fire to trees and/or steppe and
meadow habitats during the construction and operation phases of the Project.
The site will maintain excellent housekeeping practices to ensure that all refuse
and other waste materials are disposed of correctly as well as ensuring high levels
of recycling is completed.
Fauna Disturbance of fauna from presence of people,
machinery, traffic, and noise.
Indirect impacts associated with pollution
incidents could affect habitats and breeding sites.
This is of low to moderate significance.
High sensitivity bat species could be indirectly
affected through noise disturbance and/or lighting
impacts considered to be moderate to high
significance.
The final locations of WTG and associated access routes will mainly avoid
habitats that have been identified as being of highest sensitivity for fauna
species. This includes freshwater wetlands, wet meadows and less disturbed
uncultivated areas of meadow and steppe vegetation. Habitat supporting
species of conservation concern, such as Eastern Steppe Viper and potentially
Crimean Stone Grasshopper, will be largely avoided with extensive suitable
habitat remaining unaffected. This will ensure that negative impacts on fauna are
kept to a minimum and of low significance.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 119 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Pre-construction mitigation works to avoid and/or minimise the loss, death or
injury to sensitive species of fauna will be completed. This will include pre-works
surveys for notable fauna species that could be present in areas affected by
construction works associated with WTGs and access roads during construction
and where appropriate the translocation of species and/or recreation of habitats
completed.
Speed limits will be enforced within the construction sites to reduce the
likelihood of collision with on-site vehicles. If animal crossings are identified by
the on-site ecologist these will be clearly signed during construction and if
necessary additional mitigation will be undertaken to reduce conflict with on-site
traffic. This will include culverted animal crossings, particularly where access
roads cross through or between areas of freshwater wetlands and/or less
disturbed areas of steppe and meadow where reptiles, amphibians and
mammals are most common, and moving animals off on-site roads.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 120 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Standard pollution control measures will be enforced during the construction
phase of the Project to ensure no impacts on habitats and faunal receptors. All
fuel and lubricants will be stored in double bunded storage containers and
dedicated re-fuelling areas will be maintained. Spill kits will be available at all
storage and re-fuelling sites and all spillages will be cleaned up immediately.
Any incidents will be reported and investigated, and additional control measures
implemented as necessary. All vehicles being used on the site will be well
maintained and subject to regular service and maintenance.
There will be no hunting and or collecting of fauna within the Project site and
this will be enforced by the Project team. The remaining shelter belt trees will
also be protected from felling and or collection of fire wood by construction
workers. Additionally, it will not be permissible to set fire to trees and/or steppe
and meadow habitats during the construction and operation phases of the
Project.
The site will maintain excellent housekeeping practices to ensure that all refuse
and other waste materials are disposed of correctly as well as ensuring high
levels of recycling is completed.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 121 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Proposed steppe and meadow habitat recreation, protection and enhancement
should improve habitat suitability for invertebrates and in turn increase
abundance and diversity of animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, small mammals
and passerine birds, that feed on them. The retention and increase of margins
around agricultural fields and alongside access tracks will also increase
connectivity across the site and provide vegetated corridors providing cover,
feeding and breeding opportunities for a range of fauna away from the WTGs.
Fauna – operational Possible killing and injuring of animals by site
traffic resulting in negative impacts of low to
moderate significance.
Killing of bats due to WTG operation, leading to
moderate to high significant impacts.
In line with recommendations set out in Eurobats Publication Series no. 6 WTGs
should be located away from areas sensitive shown to be used more frequently
by bats. The majority of WTGs are located at least 200m from areas of freshwater
and village outskirts, where most bat activity has been recorded and WTG
micrositing has further increased distances from freshwater habitats. Some
WTGs will be within 200m of freshwater, at the western and eastern ends of the
Project site, but extensive suitable habitat will be unaffected by WTGs and main
foraging and commuting routes across between village roost sites and
freshwater will be retained and unsevered. Mortality of bats with the operational
WTGs will be reduced as a result of locating the majority of WTGs away from
habitat features that could support foraging and commuting and retaining
extensive suitable habitat that will be unaffected by WTGs.
Enforcement of speed limits on site.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 122 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Monitoring of road conditions and any damages repaired.
Maintenance of any animal crossings.
A carcass searching programme will be undertaken at each operational turbine
every two weeks during the active season (March-October inclusive) for the
entire first year of operation. The results of this programme will inform the
requirement for any additional survey effort and any additional mitigation
including increasing of cut-in wind speeds of the WTGs (at least 1.5m/s above
the manufacturer’s specified cut in) and or timed shutdown of turbines to avoid
operation during sensitive periods (periods of high bat activity: nightly or
seasonally, i.e., early autumn, to avoid migrating bats).
Additional survey should include the continuation of bat activity surveys
(transects and static detectors) throughout construction. Survey visits should be
completed monthly and patterns in activity analysed and mapped to allow
amendments to the overall mitigation strategy to be made. The requirement for
post-construction bat activity surveys will be confirmed on completion of
analysis and assessment of the surveys carried out during construction.
Maintain the ban on hunting and collecting of firewood.
Prohibit fires to wooded areas or meadow habitats.
Implement enhancements where possible including increasing the quality and
amount of wet meadow habitat and improving woodland areas.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 123 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Birds - Impacts
during construction
activities
Construction impacts are likely to include habitat
loss and possible nest destruction for passerine
and ground nesting bird species as well as
disturbance impacts in the Project and adjacent
areas.
Design and Planning
Avoidance of areas of highest quality habitats and use of buffer zones where
possible between wet grasslands and marshes.
Site Preparation
Habitats that will be lost during construction should be removed outside of the
bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). If this is not possible, a check
must be done by the on-site ecologist to ensure breeding birds not directly
affected.
Birds - Impacts
during operational
activities
Disturbance of birds from WTG noise, shadow
flicker, people, and traffic.
Loss of birds from collision with WTGs.
A minimum of three years operational mitigation and monitoring will be
completed. This will include observer and or technology-led shut down during
migration and wintering seasons. Shut down initiation parameters will be
determined based on the results of ongoing surveys.
Birds - Enhancement
measures
A number of enhancement measures identified
which should be incorporated in to the Project in
order to have a positive impact on breeding /
resident birds:
Installation of small raptor (falcon) nest boxes on the pylons that are at least
1 km away from operational WTGs. These artificial nesting opportunities have
been shown to be very successful in the UK and Europe.
Development and enhancement of wet meadow habitat and shelter belts / small
copses.
Installation of bird boxes within the shelter belts that will provide a range of
nesting opportunities for passerine birds.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 124 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Buried
archaeological items
Due to presence of archaeological features within
the area there remains the potential to uncover
previously buried archaeology (chance finds)
during construction works. The impact significance
is High and significant without mitigation.
Community Access to cultural heritage features has
the potential to be disrupted during construction.
The impact significance is Moderate without
mitigation.
A cultural heritage management plan will be developed in accordance with the
requirements of EBRD PR 8 and IFC PS8. The management plan will outline actions
and measures necessary for the effective management of risks and impacts to
cultural heritage during the construction phase of the Project.
The management plan will outline a program of consultation with Project affected
communities to ascertain requirements for accessing features of importance and
outline measures that will ensure access will be available to communities at all
times required taking into account community health, safety, and security
considerations. This will also be managed through the Stakeholder Engagement
Plan and Community Health and Safety Plan.
Existing features will be marked / fenced to ensure no direct impact by
construction activities. Buffer distances required by Ukrainian Law will be
maintained.
In accordance with the requirements of Ukrainian Law, EBRD PR 8 and IFC PS8,
SyvashEnergoProm LLC will develop provisions for managing chance finds
through a chance find procedure which will be applied in the event that cultural
heritage is subsequently discovered.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 125 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
An archaeological chance finds procedure is defined as a formal programme of
observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for
non-archaeological reasons (i.e. construction of a wind farm) within a specified
area or site where there is the possibility that archaeological deposits may be
disturbed or destroyed (the working area). The procedure will result in the
preparation of a report and ordered archive.
An archaeological chance finds procedure will in all cases be intended:
•To allow, within the resources available, the preservation by record of
archaeological deposits. The presence and nature of which could not be
established (or established with sufficient accuracy) in advance of development or
other potentially disruptive works.
•To provide an opportunity, if needed, for the watching archaeologist to signal to
all interested parties, before the destruction of the material in question, that an
archaeological find has been made for which the resources allocated to the chance
find procedure itself are not sufficient to support a treatment to a satisfactory and
proper standard.
The archaeological chance finds procedure will be intended to establish and make
available information about the archaeological resource existing on the site. The
chance find procedure will be developed in consultation with the Archaeological
Institute. Qualified archaeologists will carry out the watching brief.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 126 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
In accordance with the Law of Ukraine On the Protection of Cultural Heritage if
archaeological or historical objects are discovered during excavation works, such
excavation shall be terminated with immediate notification to the District
Inspection for the Historical and Cultural Monuments Protection.
During construction, toolbox talks will be provided to ensure that workers will be
alert to any signs of past cultural activity in the area. Should any artefacts or
evidence of past activity be discovered, SyvashEnergoProm LLC will notify the
appropriate authorities and await direction before taking action that would
disturb the resources.
SyvashEnergoProm LLC or its contractors will not disturb any chance find further
until an assessment by a competent professional is made and actions consistent
with the requirements of EBRD PR8 and IFC PS8 are identified.
Conduct training of workers on the chance find procedure following start of
construction.
Noise and Shadow Flicker
Construction noise General nuisance to local population caused by
construction activities. Without a detailed noise
management plan, the impacts could be
significant.
Construction activities will be scheduled, unless otherwise agreed, from Monday
to Saturday 0600 to 2000. Unattended plant equipment should be kept to a
minimum.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 127 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Implement a detailed Noise Management Plan for the construction phase, and
set up community relations with a compliant reporting system.
Operational noise
levels at nearby
receptors
The noise model predicts exceedance of the night-
time 45 dB limit at night, resulting in significant
impact. Additional exposure levels at Locations A
over 10 dB indicate a significant impact.
Mitigation has been proposed to reduce any significant effects at NSRs. Mitigation
in the form of WTG blade serrated edges will be installed on site for WTGs 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 22.
An operational noise monitoring and management plan will be developed for the
Project prior to the operational phase commencing.
Shadow flicker
during operation
Four out of five representative shadow flicker
receptors are expected to experience shadow
flicker impacts in excess of the recommended limits
subject to the actual orientation of windows. This is
representative of approximately 100 properties.
An operational shadow flicker monitoring and management plan will be
developed setting out the mitigation measures in detail.
Mitigation measures to be implemented include:
• Programming of WTGs to shut-down during periods when shadow
flicker is predicted to occur at the affected receptors at times when
shadow flicker limits are exceeded.
• If any complaints are raised by the local community (through the
grievance mechanism or other channels) relating to shadow flicker from
the wind farm, the wind farm operator shall investigate and instigate, at
their own expense and within one month of being advised of the
complaint, appropriate measures to mitigate the shadow flicker effects.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 128 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Social Impact
Land Use / Economic
displacement
The assessment associated with the loss of grazing
land has indicated that the proportion lost during
construction and operation is insignificant for
Pershokostyantynivka, Hryhorivka and Strohanivka.
In relation to Pavlivka and Novovolodymyrivka
whilst the current available land is unable to
support the estimated numbers of cattle present,
implementation of the Project is predicted to have
a negligible impact, and therefore is not expected
to have a significant impact on the overall
availability of grazing land, with just 0.8% and 0.4%
being lost during construction and operation
respectively.
It is considered that a Livelihood Restoration Plan is not required, as the loss is
not expected to impact animal health in any significant way.
Consultation and monitoring will be undertaken with land users as follows:
• Pre-construction meeting will be held with land users (to include members and
heads of grazing / herders where applicable) to provide details of potential
construction impacts, provide mapping of construction area and associated
grazing implications and the construction programme to allow land users to plan
grazing /other activities in advance.
• Regular meetings every two months will be held with land users (to include
members and heads of grazing / herders where applicable) to track perceptions
towards the impacts to livelihoods arising from the loss of grazing land during the
construction period. All meetings will be recorded.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 129 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
• Where concerns are raised in relation to insufficient food for livestock during
construction, these will be evaluated to determine if any further action is necessary
and additional mitigation is required. Should additional mitigation be required
this will be reviewed and determined as appropriate on a case by case basis,
however may include provision of additional animal fodder.
• If no concerns are raised during construction when the footprint is higher, these
meetings will no longer be needed and not continued during operation.
• If concerns are raised, meetings will continue every quarter during operation for
the first year of operations. Outcome of meetings will be reviewed and if no
concerns are raised meetings will be discontinued.
In addition, the grievance mechanism will be available throughout the
construction and operational to record any concerns raised by land users.
Measures will be included within the Community Health and Safety Plan to ensure
safe access is obtained to grazing land during the construction phase which will
include, for example, cordoning off the working area to prevent the unauthorised
entry of third-parties.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 130 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
Population influx
(Job Seeker)
Job seeker influx is not expected to occur, however
monitoring measures are proposed to quantify any
impact.
Monitoring will be undertaken to quantify any influx into the region during
construction. Monthly community meetings to monitor any Project impacts
associated with job seeker influx. A management plan will be developed should
influx occur. In addition, the grievance mechanism will be available throughout
the construction and operational to record and mitigate any concerns raised by
the community.
Construction camps A number of contractors will be accommodated
within the vicinity of the Project within construction
camps. The camps will be developed in accordance
with IFC and EBRD worker accommodation
standards and will ensure facilities are in place so as
there will be no associated impact on existing
community facilities.
A Construction Camp Management Plan will be prepared and will describe the
applicable controls on the contractor workforce.
Pre-construction community meetings will be held to provide information
regarding the construction workforce and camp and monthly community
meetings will be held to discuss issues arising, review and monitor Project impacts
resulting from construction workforce. Camp management plans and mitigation
measures will be reviewed following each meeting and updated if required. In
addition, the grievance mechanism will be available throughout the construction
and operational to record and mitigate any concerns raised by the community.
Aviation
Operation No impacts are predicted following consultation.
State Aviation requirements will be met.
The Ministry of Defence will be notified on the commencement and completion
of construction.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 131 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Environmental
Receptor
Predicted Impact Mitigation
In addition, in terms of aviation safety, State Aviation Service aviation lighting
requirements will be followed. The aircraft warning lights shall be installed in
accordance with the State Aviation Service regulations / International Civil
Aviation Organization Annex 14, Aerodromes.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4 Page 132 of 132
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
A17: Environmental Management
Environmental management measures remain in line with those set out within the
Preliminary ESIA. A detailed Environmental and Social Management Plan and detailed sub
plans are being developed in line with ESAP requirements.
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Spring Migration Ornithology Report
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Detailed Archaeology Report
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Noise
WTG Octave Band Data
Table A1: Nordex N131/3900 (hub height 120 m) Mode 0 Octave Band Data
Frequency Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
31.5 Hz 69.1 72.6 76.5 77.5 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0
63 Hz 79.0 82.5 86.4 87.4 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0
125 Hz 86.4 89.8 93.7 94.7 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1 94.1
250 Hz 90.4 94.8 98.7 99.7 98.4 98.4 98.4 98.4 98.4
500 Hz 92.0 97.3 101.2 102.2 101.7 101.7 101.7 101.7 101.7
1000 Hz 91.7 97.9 101.8 102.8 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0
2000 Hz 88.4 94.7 98.6 99.6 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8
4000 Hz 82.5 84.8 88.7 89.7 91.9 91.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
8000 Hz 73.3 76.8 80.7 81.7 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1
Total 97.5 102.8 106.7 107.7 107.7 107.7 107.7 107.7 107.7
Table A2: Nordex N131/3900 (hub height 120 m) Serrated Edge Mode 0 Octave
Band Data
Frequency Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
31.5 Hz 69.2 72.7 76.6 77.6 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9
63 Hz 79.1 82.6 86.5 87.5 87.9 87.9 87.9 87.9 87.9
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Frequency Wind Speed (m/s)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
125 Hz 85.8 89.2 93.1 94.1 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0
250 Hz 88.6 92.9 96.8 97.8 97.8 97.8 97.8 97.8 97.8
500 Hz 89.7 95.0 98.9 99.9 100.4 100.4 100.4 100.4 100.4
1000 Hz 90.1 96.3 100.2 101.2 101.1 101.1 101.1 101.1 101.1
2000 Hz 88.2 94.5 98.4 99.4 98.6 98.6 98.6 98.6 98.6
4000 Hz 82.6 84.9 88.8 89.8 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1
8000 Hz 73.4 76.9 80.8 81.8 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0
Total 96.0 101.3 105.2 106.2 106.2 106.2 106.2 106.2 106.2
WTG Locations
Table A3: Updated WTG Locations (Site Layout)
WTG
ID
Original Locations New Locations
UTM WGS84 Z36 UTM WGS84 Z36
Easting Northing Easting Northing
1 548598 5122169 548598 5122169
2 548833 5121198 548833 5121198
3 549191 5122250 549191 5122250
4 549205 5120650 549205 5120650
5 549209 5119736
6 549438 5121695 549438 5121695
7 549740 5121180 549740 5121180
8 549780 5122395 549780 5122395
9 549926 5120600 549926 5120600
10 550063 5121643 550063 5121643
11 550142 5120045 550142 5120045
12 550407 5122056 550361 5122008
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
WTG
ID
Original Locations New Locations
UTM WGS84 Z36 UTM WGS84 Z36
Easting Northing Easting Northing
13 550548 5120535 550548 5120535
14 550591 5119648
15 551098 5120181 551098 5120181
16 551176 5119553 551176 5119553
17 551850 5119880 551850 5119880
18 552347 5119489 552347 5119489
19 552620 5120030 552620 5120030
20 552966 5119543 552966 5119543
21 553355 5120056 553355 5120056
22 553601 5120742 553601 5120742
23 553882 5119770 554007 5119835
24 554055 5120345 554240 5120321
25 554219 5119273 554219 5119273
26 554480 5120862 554594 5120776
27 554591 5119741 554591 5119741
28 554691 5120319 554910 5120097
29 554761 5121412 554865 5121313
30 555235 5120120 555384 5120364
31 555286 5121685 555286 5121685
32 555469 5120646
33 555773 5121345 555814 5121369
34 556044 5122228 556044 5122228
35 556225 5121644 556225 5121644
36 556645 5122242 556645 5122242
37 556757 5121347 556757 5121347
38 557029 5122696 557029 5122696
39 557237 5122058 557237 5122058
40 557360 5121307 557360 5121307
41 557452 5123122 557452 5123122
42 557787 5122574 557787 5122574
43 557834 5121856 557834 5121856
44 558085 5121271 558085 5121271
45 558391 5123314 558391 5123314
46 558397 5122697 558397 5122697
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
WTG
ID
Original Locations New Locations
UTM WGS84 Z36 UTM WGS84 Z36
Easting Northing Easting Northing
47 558404 5122081 558404 5122081
48 558685 5121310 558685 5121310
49 559037 5121795 559037 5121795
50 559466 5123755 559466 5123755
51 559481 5123156 559481 5123156
52 560873 5122902 560873 5122902
53 560996 5122360 560996 5122360
54 561452 5122047 561452 5122047
55 562169 5121401 562169 5121401
56 562558 5121022 562558 5121022
57 563004 5120622 563004 5120622
58 563516 5120238 563516 5120238
59 563862 5120625 563862 5120625
60 564103 5120017 564103 5120017
61 564680 5120762 564680 5120762
62 564702 5119651 564702 5119651
63 566187 5119666 566187 5119666
64 566973 5119910 566973 5119910
65 567295 5120443
66 568335 5120900 568335 5120900
67 568714 5120346 568714 5120346
68 569407 5120360 569407 5120360
R1 550477 5121203
R2 551825 5120490
R3 553016 5120617
R4 567313 5121054
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Detailed Noise Model Results
Table A4: Noise Model Results Receptor A (West)
Wind
Direction Wind Speed (m/s)
Degrees 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 35.9 40.5 44.2 45.3 45.1 45.0 45.0 44.9 44.8
30 35.9 40.5 44.2 45.3 45.2 45.1 45.0 44.9 44.9
60 35.9 40.4 44.2 45.2 45.1 45.0 45.0 44.9 44.8
90 35.9 40.4 44.1 45.2 45.0 44.9 44.8 44.7 44.7
120 35.9 40.4 44.1 45.2 45.0 44.9 44.8 44.7 44.7
150 36.0 40.5 44.2 45.3 45.1 45.1 45.0 45.0 44.9
180 36.0 40.5 44.3 45.4 45.3 45.2 45.2 45.2 45.1
210 36.0 40.6 44.4 45.5 45.4 45.3 45.3 45.3 45.3
240 36.0 40.5 44.3 45.4 45.4 45.3 45.3 45.3 45.3
270 36.0 40.5 44.3 45.4 45.3 45.2 45.2 45.2 45.2
300 35.9 40.4 44.2 45.3 45.2 45.1 45.1 45.1 45.0
330 35.9 40.4 44.1 45.2 45.1 45.0 44.9 44.9 44.9
Figure A1: Predicted Noise Level as a Function of Wind Speed and Direction
Receptor A (West)
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
LA
eq (
dB
)
WindSpeed (m/s)
0° 30° 60° 90° 120°
150° 180° 210° 240° 270°
300° 330° Day Limit Night Limit
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table A5: Noise Model Results Receptor A (South)
Wind
Direction Wind Speed (m/s)
Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4
0 35.4 39.9 43.7 44.7 44.6 44.5 44.5 44.4 44.3
30 35.5 39.9 43.7 44.7 44.6 44.5 44.4 44.4 44.3
60 35.4 39.9 43.6 44.7 44.5 44.4 44.4 44.3 44.3
90 35.4 39.9 43.7 44.8 44.6 44.6 44.5 44.5 44.5
120 35.5 40.0 43.7 44.8 44.7 44.7 44.7 44.7 44.7
150 35.6 40.1 43.9 45.0 44.9 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8
180 35.6 40.1 43.9 45.0 44.9 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8
210 35.5 40.0 43.8 44.9 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.7 44.7
240 35.4 39.9 43.7 44.8 44.6 44.6 44.5 44.5 44.5
270 35.4 39.8 43.6 44.6 44.4 44.3 44.3 44.2 44.2
300 35.3 39.8 43.5 44.5 44.3 44.2 44.1 44.1 44.0
330 35.4 39.9 43.6 44.6 44.5 44.3 44.3 44.2 44.1
Figure A2: Predicted Noise Level as a Function of Wind Speed and Direction
Receptor A (South)
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
LA
eq (
dB
)
Windspeed (m/s)
0° 30° 60° 90° 120°
150° 180° 210° 240° 270°
300° 330° Day Limit Night Limit
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table A6: Noise Model Results Receptor B
Wind
Direction Wind Speed (m/s)
Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4
0 22.4 24.9 27.2 27.2 26.2 25.3 24.5 23.8 23.2
30 23.7 27.0 30.0 30.3 29.4 28.8 28.2 27.8 27.5
60 25.6 29.6 33.2 34.1 33.6 33.4 33.3 33.2 33.1
90 26.5 30.7 34.5 35.5 35.2 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1
120 27.0 31.3 35.0 36.1 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9
150 27.1 31.4 35.2 36.3 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1
180 27.1 31.4 35.2 36.4 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.2
210 27.0 31.3 35.1 36.2 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.1 36.1
240 26.5 30.7 34.5 35.6 35.3 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2
270 25.6 29.7 33.2 34.2 33.8 33.6 33.5 33.4 33.3
300 24.5 28.3 31.8 32.5 31.6 31.1 30.7 30.3 30.0
330 23.1 26.0 28.4 28.4 27.3 26.4 25.7 25.1 24.5
Figure A3: Predicted Noise Level as a Function of Wind Speed and Direction
Receptor B
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
LA
eq (
dB
)
Windspeed (m/s)
0° 30° 60° 90° 120°
150° 180° 210° 240° 270°
300° 330° Day Limit Night Limit
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table A6: Noise Model Results Receptor C
Wind
Direction Wind Speed (m/s)
Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4
0 33.3 37.8 41.5 42.6 42.4 42.3 42.2 42.1 42.0
30 33.3 37.8 41.5 42.5 42.4 42.3 42.2 42.1 42.1
60 33.3 37.8 41.5 42.6 42.4 42.3 42.3 42.2 42.1
90 33.4 37.9 41.6 42.7 42.6 42.5 42.4 42.3 42.3
120 33.5 38.0 41.8 42.9 42.8 42.7 42.7 42.7 42.6
150 33.7 38.2 42.0 43.1 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0
180 33.7 38.3 42.1 43.2 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.1
210 33.7 38.3 42.1 43.2 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.2
240 33.7 38.2 42.0 43.2 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.1
270 33.6 38.2 41.9 43.1 43.0 42.9 42.9 42.9 42.8
300 33.6 38.1 41.8 42.9 42.8 42.7 42.7 42.6 42.6
330 33.3 37.8 41.5 42.6 42.4 42.3 42.2 42.1 42.0
Figure A4: Predicted Noise Level as a Function of Wind Speed and Direction
Receptor C
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
LA
eq (
dB
)
Windspeed (m/s)
0° 30° 60° 90° 120°
150° 180° 210° 240° 270°
300° 330° Day Limit Night Limit
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table A7: Noise Model Results Receptor D
Wind
Direction Wind Speed (m/s)
Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4
0 30.8 35.3 39.1 40.2 40.1 40.0 40.0 39.9 39.8
30 30.9 35.5 39.3 40.4 40.3 40.2 40.2 40.1 40.1
60 31.0 35.5 39.3 40.5 40.4 40.4 40.3 40.3 40.3
90 31.0 35.6 39.4 40.6 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5
120 31.2 35.7 39.6 40.7 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6
150 31.2 35.8 39.6 40.8 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7
180 31.3 35.9 39.7 40.9 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8
210 31.3 35.9 39.7 40.9 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8
240 31.3 35.8 39.6 40.7 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6
270 31.2 35.7 39.5 40.6 40.5 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.3
300 31.1 35.6 39.4 40.4 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.2 40.1
330 31.0 35.6 39.3 40.3 40.3 40.2 40.1 40.0 39.9
Figure A5: Predicted Noise Level as a Function of Wind Speed and Direction
Receptor D
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
LA
eq (
dB
)
Windspeed (m/s)
0° 30° 60° 90° 120°
150° 180° 210° 240° 270°
300° 330° Day Limit Night Limit
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Detailed Optimised Noise Model Results
Table A8: Optimised Noise Model Results Receptor A (West)
Wind
Direction Wind Speed (m/s)
Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4
0 34.7 39.1 42.8 43.9 44.0 44.0 43.9 43.8 43.8
30 34.7 39.1 42.9 44.0 44.1 44.1 44.0 43.9 43.8
60 34.7 39.1 42.8 43.9 44.0 43.9 43.9 43.8 43.7
90 34.6 39.0 42.7 43.8 43.9 43.8 43.7 43.6 43.6
120 34.6 39.0 42.7 43.8 43.9 43.8 43.7 43.7 43.6
150 34.7 39.1 42.8 43.9 44.0 44.0 43.9 43.9 43.8
180 34.7 39.2 42.9 44.1 44.2 44.2 44.1 44.1 44.1
210 34.8 39.2 43.0 44.2 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3
240 34.7 39.2 43.0 44.1 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3
270 34.7 39.1 42.9 44.0 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2 44.2
300 34.6 39.0 42.8 43.9 44.1 44.1 44.0 44.0 44.0
330 34.6 39.0 42.7 43.9 44.0 43.9 43.9 43.8 43.8
Figure A6: Optimised Predicted Noise Level as a Function of Wind Speed and
Direction Receptor A (West)
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
LA
eq (
dB
)
Windspeed (m/s)
0° 30° 60° 90° 120°
150° 180° 210° 240° 270°
300° 330° Day Limit Night Limit
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Table A9: Optimised Noise Model Results Receptor A (South)
Wind
Direction Wind Speed (m/s)
Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4 Degrees 4
0 34.4 38.9 42.6 43.7 43.7 43.7 43.6 43.5 43.4
30 34.5 38.9 42.6 43.7 43.7 43.6 43.6 43.5 43.5
60 34.4 38.9 42.6 43.7 43.7 43.6 43.6 43.5 43.5
90 34.5 38.9 42.6 43.8 43.8 43.8 43.7 43.7 43.7
120 34.5 39.0 42.7 43.8 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9
150 34.6 39.0 42.8 43.9 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
180 34.6 39.0 42.8 43.9 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
210 34.5 38.9 42.7 43.8 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9
240 34.4 38.8 42.5 43.6 43.7 43.7 43.6 43.6 43.6
270 34.3 38.7 42.4 43.5 43.5 43.4 43.3 43.3 43.2
300 34.3 38.7 42.3 43.4 43.4 43.3 43.2 43.1 43.1
330 34.4 38.8 42.4 43.5 43.5 43.4 43.4 43.3 43.2
Figure A7: Optimised Predicted Noise Level as a Function of Wind Speed and
Direction Receptor A (South)
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
LA
eq (
dB
)
Windspeed (m/s)
0° 30° 60° 90° 120°
150° 180° 210° 240° 270°
300° 330° Day Limit Night Limit
Wood Group UK Ltd Syvash Wind Farm - Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Addendum
6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4
Certified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO17025
Aviation Consultation