6.18.09074.GLA-Syvash-ESIA-Addendum-Report ... - EMERGY

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.




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




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.




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




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




10.5.2 Construction ..............................................................................................................................59

10.5.3 Operation ...................................................................................................................................61

10.6 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................61

A11: Updated Noise Assessment ............................................................................ 62

11.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................62


11.2.1 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




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


13.3 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




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




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




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




Abbreviation or Term Definition

ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility




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.




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.




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:




• 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


• WTG 26 - WTG moved east to accommodate ground conditions and to provide larger


• 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.




• 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.




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




WTG No


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




WTG No


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.




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.




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)

https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-ifc/publications/publications_gpn_workersaccommodation

https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-ifc/publications/publications_gpn_workersaccommodation




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.




A4: Assessment Methodology

The revised Project layout does not implicate the assessment methodology, details remain as

outlined within the Preliminary ESIA, Chapter 4.




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


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.




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


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.




5.6 Residual Impact

Residual impacts remain as reported within the Preliminary ESIA.




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.




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.




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.




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




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.




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.


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.




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




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.




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.


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




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.




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.




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.




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.




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).




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.




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




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.




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




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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:




• 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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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).





• 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.


• Mass grave for Red Army and Soviet Army soldiers.

• Memorial to Victims of the Civil War.

• Grave of World War Two Major.


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.


• Mass grave for Red Army and Soviet Army soldiers.


• Monument for Syvash crossing.

• Monument for Syvash charge.

• War headquarters location.




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:




• 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




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.




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.




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.


11.2.1 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




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.




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




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.




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.




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




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




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.




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.




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.




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




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





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)


of Effect

Mitigation Residual

Effect

Location

A (west)

Noise

Limits

Significant Optimised

Serrated Edges

Not

Significant

Additional

Exposure


Serrated Edges

Moderate

Location

A (South)

Noise

Limits


Serrated Edges

Not

Significant

Additional

Exposure


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




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.




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.




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.




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




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.




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

http://www.crimea.climatemps.com/sunlight.php

http://www.odessa.climatemps.com/sunlight.php




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




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.




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.




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.


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.




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




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.




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




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




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.




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




• 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;




• 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.




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




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.




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.


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




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.




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.


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




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.




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.


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.




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;




• 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




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:




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




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)


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 not leased by the Project as it is outside the Project area 182.5

Total available grazing area lost during construction 11.2




Aspect Area (approximate ha)



Total available grazing area not leased by the Project 0.1


Strohanivka


Total available grazing area not leased by the Project 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:




• 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




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.




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.




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.




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




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.




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.




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.




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




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.




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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


• 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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




Environmental

Receptor


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.




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.


6.18.09074.GLA.R.007 Revision B4


Spring Migration Ornithology Report




Detailed Archaeology Report




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


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





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




WTG

ID




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




WTG

ID




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




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




Table A5: Noise Model Results Receptor A (South)

Wind


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


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°





Table A6: Noise Model Results Receptor B

Wind



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


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°





Table A6: Noise Model Results Receptor C

Wind



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


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°





Table A7: Noise Model Results Receptor D

Wind



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


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°





Detailed Optimised Noise Model Results

Table A8: Optimised Noise Model Results Receptor A (West)

Wind



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°





Table A9: Optimised Noise Model Results Receptor A (South)

Wind



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°





Aviation Consultation




Detailed Supplementary Ecology Report

6.18.09074.GLA-Syvash-ESIA-Addendum-Report ... - EMERGY

Documents

Transcript of 6.18.09074.GLA-Syvash-ESIA-Addendum-Report ... - EMERGY