potential impacts

1
Contents
Introduction (2218312)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Ecology (Student number: 3014032) …………………………………………………………………………………………7
1.1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7
1.1.1 Ecological Setting …………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
1.2. Scoping and Consultation ………………………………………………………………………………………………7
1.2.1. National and Local Policy …………………………………………………………………………………………7
1.2.2. Scoping………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
1.3. Impact Assessment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
1.3.1. Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
1.3.2. Baseline Study………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
1.3.3. Direct Impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
1.3.4. Indirect Impacts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………11
1.3.5. Mitigation Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………………….11
1.4. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12
2. Ornithology and chiropterology (Student number: 2620256)………………………………………………….13
2.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
2.2. Scoping and Consultation …………………………………………………………………………………………….13
2.2.1. Legislative context ………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
2.2.2. Protected sites ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
2.2.3. Scoping and Consultations……………………………………………………………………………………..15
2.2.4. Species of significance …………………………………………………………………………………………..16
2.3. Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
2.4. Baseline……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
2.5. Impact Assessment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
2.5.2. Constructional and decommissioning phase …………………………………………………………….18
2.5.3. Operational phase…………………………………………………………………………………………………19
2.6. Mitigation strategy………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
2.7. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20
3. Noise and Traffic (Student number: 2840353) ………………………………………………………………………23
3.1    Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
3.2   Scoping and Consultation …………………………………………………………………………………………….23
2
3.2.1 National and Local Policy…………………………………………………………………………………………23
3.2.2 Consultations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
3.3 Impact Assessment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………24
3.3.1 Noise Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………..24
3.4    Baseline ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26
3.4.1 Desk study…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26
3.4.2 Fieldwork………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26
3.5   Direct Impacts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………26
3.5.1 Noise ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26
3.5.2 Traffic …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..27
3.6 Indirect Impacts …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28
3.6.1 Noise ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………28
3.6.2 Traffic …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28
3.7 Mitigation Strategy ………………………………………………………………………………………………………28
3.7.1 Noise ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………28
3.7.2 Traffic …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29
3.8 Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29
4. Culture and Heritage (Student number: 2218312)…………………………………………………………………31
4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31
4.2 Scoping and Consultation ……………………………………………………………………………………………..31
4.2.1 National and Local Policy ………………………………………………………………………………………..31
4.2.2 Consultants …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31
4.3 Impact Assessment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
4.3.1 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
4.3.2 Baseline………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..33
4.3.3 Direct Impacts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….34
4.3.4 Indirect Impacts …………………………………………………………………………………………………….34
4.3.5 Mitigation Strategy ………………………………………………………………………………………………..34
4.4 Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35
5. Soils, Geology & Geomorphology (Student number: 2115375) ……………………………………………….36
5.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….36
5.2. Scoping and Consultation …………………………………………………………………………………………….36
5.2.1 National and Local Policy ………………………………………………………………………………………..36
5.2.2. Consultations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….37
3
5.3 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….37
5.4 Baseline………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
5.4.1. Desk-based studies ……………………………………………………………………………………………….38
5.4.2. Field Surveys ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..38
5.5 Soils ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
5.5.1 Direct Impacts: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………38
5.5.2 Indirect Impacts …………………………………………………………………………………………………….38
5.5.3. Mitigation Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………………….38
5.6 Geology and Geomorphology ………………………………………………………………………………………..39
5.6.1 Direct Impacts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….39
5.6.2. Mitigation Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………………….39
5.7 Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….39
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….39
6. Hydrology (Student number: 2513243) ………………………………………………………………………………..41
6.1 Watercourses………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41
6.1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….41
6.1.2 Scoping and Consultation ……………………………………………………………………………………….41
6.1.3 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………41
6.1.4 Baseline………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41
6.1.5 Direct Impacts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….41
6.1.6 Indirect Impacts …………………………………………………………………………………………………….41
6.1.7 Mitigation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42
6.1.8 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………42
6.2 Ground water………………………………………………………………………………………………………………42
6.2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42
6.2.2 Scoping and consultation………………………………………………………………………………………..42
6.2.3 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………42
6.2.4 Baseline………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..43
6.2.7 Mitigation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..43
6.2.8 Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….43
7. Landscape and visual (Student number: 2513243) ………………………………………………………………..44
7.1 Landscape Character …………………………………………………………………………………………………….44
7.1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..44
7.1.2 Scoping and Consultation ………………………………………………………………………………………..44
7.1.3 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………44
4
7.1.4 Baseline ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..46
7.1.5 Direct Impacts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….46
7.1.6 Indirect Impacts……………………………………………………………………………………………………..46
7.1.7 Mitigation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..46
7.1.8 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….46
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..46
8. Conclusion (Student Number 2218312) ……………………………………………………………………………….48
5
Introduction (2218312)
This Environmental Statement Report, prepared by Super Trouper Ltd on behalf of the University of
Stirling aims to outline the potential impacts that the development of a small wind farm will have on
the surrounding area. We have determined that the most significant impacts will be on ecology,
ornithology, traffic, soils and geomorphology, landscape and visual, hydrology, and culture and
heritage. We have dedicated members of staff who will be focussing on each of these sections,
carrying out both desk studies and site walkovers to determine baseline conditions.
The University of Stirling are currently working towards reducing their carbon footprint, and
emissions. The development of a 20MW wind farm to produce energy for use on the campus will lead
to a significant reduction in carbon emissions and will help the university maintain their goal of
reducing carbon emissions by 38% by 2020 which was based on their baseline measurements made
in the 2007/08 period (University of Stirling, 2018). The university, however, has exceeded their aim
of reducing carbon emissions by 37% with a reduction of 43.8% being measured in 2020.
The following figure (figure 1) shows the suggested locations for each of the 6 wind turbines to be
placed. These locations were chosen based on the gradient of the slopes of Dumyat as well as being
out with as many assets that could be negatively impacted as possible. We have also suggested that
the powerlines that transport the energy from the wind turbines to the substation on the grounds of
the University of Stirling follow the roads so as to reduce any impacts further.
Figure 1 Map showing the locations of the turbines and powerlines among the geological conservation sites, peat soil
locations, sites of special scientific importance (SSSIs) and historical sites.
The turbines will stand at a height of 137 metres and will provide the University of Stirling 3.6
megawatts of energy each.
6
Throughout the development of this document, we analysed the potential impact that the
construction of this wind turbine farm would have on environmental and historical assets within the
area around the University of Stirling. These included:
• Ecology
• Ornithology and Chiropterology
• Noise and Traffic
• Culture and History
• Soils, Geology, and Geomorphology
• Hydrology
• Landscape and Visual
Each of the above assets were analysed using a mixture of desk-based studies and site walkthroughs
to determine the potential risks and impacts that could occur, and the mitigations that would be
required to ensure that no undue harm will be done to the landscape.
We also consulted a number of different stakeholders in the city of Stirling, the University of Stirling,
and around Scotland. These stakeholders included:
• Bat Conservation Trust
• British Trust for Ornithology
• Clackmannanshire Council
• Dumyat Estate
• Forest and Land (formerly the Forest Commission)
• Historic Environment Scotland
• National Trust Scotland
• NatureScot (formerly Scottish Natural Heritage)
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
• Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
• Stirling City Council
• Stirling City Heritage Trust
• Traffic Scotland
These consultations were carried out so we could communicate with stakeholders the activities that
would be required during development, determine whether they had any conflicts with the
development, and resolve any issues that may occur before and during the planning application
section.
References
University of Stirling. (2018) Financial Statements 2017 – 2018.
7
Ecology (Student number: 3014032)
1.1. Introduction
1.1.1 Ecological Setting
The proposed location for this project is situated among forest and peatland habitats, with a small
amount of (4) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (from here, referred to simply as SSSIs), three (3) of
which are of relevant biological interest, and one (1) Special Area of Conservation (hereafter referred
to as SAC) within 5km of the total project area (see Section 1.3.2.). Proposed wind turbine locations
have been loosely grouped together to minimize fragmentation, the chief ecological concern for this
project, and strategically placed low behind a significant hill and close enough to a pre-existing road
that minimal effect will be felt across multiple spaces, especially nearby woodland forests. One small
access road would need to be constructed to connect the turbine sites to the existing
road, but alternative measures such as constructing a floating road are explored in mitigation
(Section 1.3.5.) to prevent undue harm to significant habitats and species present. The proposed
locations for the individual wind turbines themselves are presented in (latitude, longitude) format as
follows: (56.164442, -3.8921253), (56.164744, -3.8964564), (56.165771, -3.8880194), (56.164634, –
3.8836473), (56.166481, -3.8950603), and (56.166135, -3.8989248). The proposed power lines have
been strategically placed along roads intended for use of this development, thus further limiting any
potential fragmentation and loss of habitat.
1.2. Scoping and Consultation
1.2.1. National and Local Policy
To comply with national and local guidelines, this company has sought to follow the best practice
frameworks, policies, and standards of identified stakeholders, which include NatureScot, Scottish
Wildlife Trust, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Stirling Council, and Clackmannanshire
Council. Particularly relevant policies are listed below:
UK and Scottish National Policy:
·       Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

AssignmentTutorOnline

                                                                                         
8
1.2.2. Scoping
Preliminary findings suggest that key ecological impacts to be assessed include direct impacts on
habitat and wildlife, presenting chiefly in the constructing and decommissioning phases of the project,
as well as potential indirect impacts on habitat and wildlife, presenting chiefly in the operational phase
of the project. Direct impacts in the form of habitat loss and fragmentation comprise the bulk of
concern to the habitats and species of particular interest to this project.
1.3. Impact Assessment
1.3.1. Methodology
A Phase One (1) Survey was conducted to determine the existing state of the environment and
associated species for each of the proposed wind turbine locations. Within the span of two (2) weeks,
local landscape (including habitat and species therewithin) was assessed over four (4) sessions
for seven (7) hours each. Additionally, species of concern outlined by the Sensitive and Protected
Species Lists released by NatureScot were cross compared against actual documented species present
within 2km of each proposed wind turbine utilizing the Explore Your Area tool by NBN Atlas.
1.3.2. Baseline Study
Altogether, results of the methodology above revealed the existence of the following key species,

(Rana temporaria), the common toad (Bufo bufo), hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus), palmate newts
(Lissotriton helveticus), pine martens (Martes martes), red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris), smooth newts
(Lissotriton vulgaris), and viviparous lizards (Zootoca vivipara), (NBN Atlas, 2021; Sensitive Species of
Scotland List, 2021; Table of All of Scotland’s Protected Species, 2021).
Farther from the scene of activity, there exist four (4) SSSIs and one (1) SAC within 5km of the
proposed activity site, chiefly Abbey Craig SSSI, Craig Leith and Myreton Hill SSSI, Kippenrait Glen SSSI
and SAC, and Wolf’s Hole Quarry SSSI (NatureScot Sitelink 2021). Wolf’s Hole Quarry SSSI, however, is
of geological interest, as opposed to biological, and thus will not be discussed in the entirety of this
ecological report.
Abbey Craig SSSI is located approx. 3.5km southwest of the proposed project site and features a mixed
ash woodland that is home to a number of creatures, including a significant population of
beetles, such as Red Data Book and Nationally Scarce
species like Phyllodrepoidea crenata, Ptinella limbate, and Oedemera femoralis, the last of which is
found solely at this site in Scotland (Littlewood, N.A., 2017; NatureScot Sitelink, 2021).
Craig Leith and Myreton Hill SSSI feature upland assemblage facing negative pressures from off-road
vehicles involved in the agricultural sector, as well as upper mixed ash woodland facing negative
pressures from plant pests and diseases and over-grazing (NatureScot Sitelink, 2021). The area
is situated approx. 3.5km southeast of the proposed development site and is home to a breeding
colony of the Nationally Scarce northern brown argus butterfly (Aricia Artaxerxes) as well as the sticky
catchfly plant (Lychnis Viscaria), both of national interest (Littlewood, N.A., 2017).
Kippenrait Glen SSSI comprises yet another area of upper mixed ash woodland forest, situated
approx. 3km northwest of the proposed site of activity, and is home to a plethora of insects, including
such species as the cranefly (Lipsothrix ecucullata), which faces negative pressures from
invasive plant species, and various beetles, including rare Red Data Book species such
as Bledius erraticus, Pityophthorus lichtensteini, Melolontha hippocastan, and Sphaerites glabratus (
NatureScot Sitelink, 2021; Littlewood, N.A., 2017).
9
Kippenrait Glen SAC, situated along the same geographical territory as Kippenrait Glen SSSI, is
registered separately as a Special Area of Conservation for the fact that it is situated upon base-rich
soils typically associated with rocky slopes (NatureScot Sitelink, 2021).
1.3.3. Direct Impacts
Direct impacts primarily entail predictable, observable impacts upon the ecology of the project site,
with specific actions leading to inherent outcomes. Such impacts have been further divided into two
categories below: the construction and decommissioning phases, and the operational
phase. Included just below is a chart (Table 1.1) for the visualization of how severe an impact is likely
to be based off the magnitude of the impact itself (permanent vs temporary, for example) and the
value of the species at hand (whether it is of least concern or critically endangered, for example.)
Table 1.1. Determination of significance of ecological impacts on the species investigated during the Ecological Impact
Assessment (SP MANWEB 2010). Included for general background knowledge.
1.3.3.1. Constructional and Decommissioning Phases:
Most direct impacts are expected to reveal themselves during the constructional and
decommissioning phases, as this is when we would expect the most human activity to take place
coupled with the largest terrestrial disturbance. For example, a small access road will need to be
constructed in order to connect an existing road to the area housing the grouping of wind
turbines. During the constructional phase, we expect habitat fragmentation to occur as the access
road separates the land it must run through. One proposition has been to build said access road on
peatland, which would disturb less woodland forest habitat, but would inherently mean disturbing the
peatland habitat. This decision could prove especially significant in effect for not only the
woodland/peatland habitats themselves, but the creatures existing therewithin. Creatures known to
exist in the general area of site activity include badgers (Meles meles), the common frog
10
(Rana temporaria), the common toad (Bufo bufo), hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus), palmate newts
(Lissotriton helveticus), pine martens (Martes martes), red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris), smooth newts
(Lissotriton vulgaris), and viviparous lizards (Zootoca vivipara); with half of those species inhabiting
woodland terrain (bluebell, badgers, pine martens, the common frog, the common toad, red squirrels,
hedgehogs via woodland edges), as well as numerous invertebrate species (beetles, butterflies,
moths, etc), the decision to simply contruct the access road over peatland may seem facile. Peatland,
however, is valuable in its own right to Scottish conservation efforts; this past year, the Government
of Scotland proclaimed their interest in peat as an effective means of carbon sequestration by
announcing a significant investment campaign for peatland restoration (Peatland ACTION Project,
2021). Peat is also a very nutrient-rich soil, and supports a significant amount of biodiversity,
especially for invertebrates often left undefended in the realm of conservation. Moreover,
peatland plays a decidedly large role in the cultural history and natural pride of Scotland. Thus,
the decision of where and how to build the necessary access road has the potential to impact much
more than merely the land it is built on. Even the best constructed road has the potential to create a
negative impact on even the smallest of creatures, such as newts, frogs, toads, and even insects, which
may find themselves harmed by oncoming vehicles or jolting habitat fragmentation.
More than the mere construction of one single access road, this project also demands the placement
of 6 individual wind turbines, each approx. 130m tall with a blade diameter of approx. 104m
across. Careful attention must be paid to the erection of each wind turbine so as not to disturb
any particular wildlife homes, especially those of significant species enlisted in this report. If the
turbines were irresponsibly placed, habitat loss and fragmentation would be both guaranteed and
exacerbated. While strides have been made to avoid woodland forest habitats known to house many
significant species, and in cases such as the previously mentioned SSSIs and SACs, known to be
significant in and of themselves, the possibility of even accidentally destroying a badger’s
underground woodland home, further fragmenting the ecosystem so that more fauna are likely to be
stranded from terrain they once recognized inherently, or even simply destroying a respected forest
teeming with ecologically critical flora creates a situation that is far less than ideal.
The decommissioning of the wind turbines holds the potential to impact the habitats and creatures of
the project area nearly as significantly as the construction of said wind turbines. While there exists
less risk of destroying and fragmenting habitat, and instead offers more hope of a successful return to
ecological “normalcy,” the increased activity (especially as seen of large transport vehicles for
equipment etc.) still poses threat of disturbance to the ecology of the site in question. Increased
vehicle activity, especially large vehicles utilized for transport, may pose threat to life of fauna who
find themselves traveling throughout the area.
The direct impact of constructing a power line alongside the road specifically intended for this
project’s use poses little obvious threat to habitat or non-aviary wildlife. At most, flying insects such
as butterflies, dragonflies, and moths could potentially be at risk of collision if they were to fly into the
powerlines; however, considering the placement being alongside the road as opposed to randomly
obstructing an open habitat, the potential severity of this impact is limited.
The specific impacts which could affect birds and bats, as well as watersheds, will be explored in the
coming chapters of Ornithology and Hydrology, respectively.
1.3.3.2. Operational Phase
This company does not foresee many clearly direct impacts to affect the selected flora and fauna
previously specified for concern throughout the operational phase of this project’s timeline.
11
One potential impact may be threat to wildlife alongside the main and access roads involved in this
project, as vehicles will occasionally use these roads to reach the wind turbines for maintenance
etc. Thus, vehicle drivers must utilize considerable caution when operating vehicles along these
paths.
1.3.4. Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts are those which are not easily foreseen or directly connected to any one specific
action; one action does not necessarily cause another, and the cause of one impact may not easily be
determined or solely contribute to said impact. This company does not foresee many indirect impacts
to present themselves on the habitats and wildlife of the chosen active site, but that is not to say that
none will present in actuality.
1.3.4.1. Constructional and decommissioning phases
The most likely potential impacts foreseen at this time include effects on wildlife resulting from traffic
and noise. While these effects will be further explored in the chapter entitled Noise and Traffic, it is
worth noting here that particularly sensitive fauna may find the commotion to be frightful and may
flee the area for an undisclosed amount of time in response.
1.3.4.2. Operational phase
The most likely potential impact foreseen echoes the concern expressed in the constructional and
decommissioning section above, wherein fauna may be frightened away from the project site while
the wind turbines are active if they run quite loudly and/or are frequently visited by maintenance staff
for upkeep.
1.3.5. Mitigation Strategy
Mitigation strategies offered follow best practice for windfarm construction projects, with some
suggestions taken from a joint publication by Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish
Environmental Protection Agency, Forestry Commission Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland,
Marine Scotland Science, and AEECoW (Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction, 2019). The
mitigation strategy proposed here focuses primarily on the avoidance and limitation of habitat loss
and fragmentation, as each in part have been identified as the primary impacts foreseen in response
to the enactment of this development.
Regarding the small access road that must be constructed to connect the main road to the wind
turbines, it is suggested that a floating road be constructed over the peatland, to avoid inference as
much as possible with both woodland and peatland habitats. This could in turn limit habitat
fragmentation, as a route through the natural peatland could still be available to existing fauna.
Regarding the erection and decommissioning of wind turbines and potential threats to wildlife
addressed above, environmental specialists could be hired in managerial positions to watch over the
commencement of both activities and thus ensure no undue harm befalls the habitat or its players at
hand.
Regarding the impact posed by increased vehicle activity, due process is recommended when selecting
responsible drivers to aid this project. Proper signs (denoting speed and presence of significant
species in the area, etc.) posted all along the route of interest are also recommended.
Regarding the commotion caused by general traffic and noise along the proposed roads and surround
the wind turbines themselves, it is recommended that vehicles are made to drive slowly and
cautiously, and that the wind turbines are only run at optimal times of day and at optimal speeds to
best ensure the tranquility of the natural environment.
12
Regarding potential threats posed to flora by deforestation, it is recommended that forested areas
are not denuded and instead left alone as much as possible, accounted for by the strategic placement
of the wind turbines. Thus, avoidance of significant ecological areas has been largely if not totally
accounted for.
Regarding proper management and upkeep of the environment for best ecological health and data
thereof, it is recommended that all active sites be regularly monitored and assessed during and after
the length of the project; ideally, for approx. five (5) years or more after final decommissioning.
Lastly, to compensate for any negative impacts caused by this development, it is recommended that
disrupted habitats be reinstated and/or enhanced at the conclusion of this project.
1.4. Conclusion
In conclusion, with due diligence and proper respect to ecology paid, the commencement of the
proposed development does not inherently demand the ruin of the local environment. Rather, it
offers a pathway to a sustainable future via clean, green energy, working in conjunction with, rather
than against, the environment it is situated in. With sustainable mitigation measures including the
endorsement of habitat enhancement/reinstatement at the conclusion of this project, it has the
potential to be an ally, rather than opposing foe, to the ecology at hand; especially if proper
monitoring and assessment strategies are employed throughout the duration (and even after the
decommissioning of) this project.
References
Littlewood, N.A. 2017. A revision of invertebrate features of designated sites in Scotland. Scottish
Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 1007Records.nbnatlas.org. 2021. Explore Your Area |
NBN Atlas. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 April
2021].
NatureScot. 2021. Peatland ACTION Project. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 April 2021].
NatureScot. 2021. Sensitive Species of Scotland list. [online] Available at:
[Accessed 30 April 2021].
Nature.Scot. 2021. SiteLink. [online] Available at:
[Accessed 30 April 2021].
NatureScot. 2021. Table of all of Scotland’s Protected Species. [online] Available at:
[Accessed 30 April 2021].
2019. Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction. 4th ed. [PDF] Available at:
_good_practice_during_wind_farm_construction_original.pdf> [Accessed 30 April 2021].
13
2. Ornithology and chiropterology (Student number: 2620256)
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1 This section will give a detailed description of the ecological impacts of the proposed
development of the Dumyat Wind Farm and the associated sub-station (described in the Introduction
section) on avian fauna and bat species. The assessments will evaluate the impacts of the works
conducted during all life stages of the proposed development, including the construction phase,
operational phase and decommissioning. This chapter will also discuss the scoping and consultation
processes involved in the assessment, the policy context of the development, describe the
methodology of the relevant ecological assessments, baseline conditions and the direct and indirect
impacts identified and will explain the suggested mitigation strategies. Finally, if any significant
impacts are anticipated then appropriate mitigation measures will be deployed to prevent or minimize
the negative ecological impacts on avian fauna and bat species. Moreover, habitat improvement
options will be offered as well, to ensure the proper protection of the natural environment in the
study area in all three stages of the development.
2.1.2. The proposed development will be located on the north-eastern slopes of Dumyat hill, which is
part of the Ochil Hills range. The project will include the erection of 6 wind turbines, each generating
around 3.6MW of power, with a total of 21.6MW of electricity produced. The total height of the
turbines will be 137m. The development includes the instalment of a power line that has a total length
of 3.17 km.
2.1.3. The first predictions suggest that the largest impacts are likely to occur during the construction
and decommissioning stages of the development since those will include active site works, therefore,
habitat loss and disturbance are expected. During the operational stage, collision impacts are
anticipated. For the purpose of the ecological impact assessment on avian fauna and bat species, the
construction and decommissioning stages will be discussed together, as they are predicted to have
similar potential effects on bird and bat species in the study area and will most likely require similar
mitigation measures to be put in place. The impacts and mitigation measures associated with the
operational phase will likely differ, and therefore, will be discussed separately.
2.2. Scoping and Consultation
2.2.1. Legislative context
2.2.1.1. To make sure that the Environmental Impact Assessment and the development are compliant
with current legislation, a number of national and local policies and guidelines have been evaluated.
The following legislation, policies and guidelines have been used for the evaluation:
EU level:
• EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) (European Commission 1992)
• EU Birds Directive (amended Directive 2009/147/EC) (European Commission 2009)
• EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (amended Directive 2011/92/EU amended in 2014
by Directive 2014/52/EU) (European Commission 2014)
UK level:
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (UK Government 1981)
• The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) 1992–2012 (UK Government 1994)
• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (UK Government 2017)
14
• UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework: Revised Implementation Plan (2018–2020) (JNCC and Defra
2018)
Scottish national level:
• Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended) (Scottish Government 2004)
• Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 (Scottish Government 2006)
• Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (Scottish Government 2011)
• Sensitive Species of Scotland list by NatureScot (2015) (NatureScot 2015)
• Scottish Energy Strategy: The future of energy in Scotland (December 2017) (1Scottish
Government 2017)
• The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017
(2Scottish Government 2017)
• Good Practice During Windfarm Construction (Scotland) by Scottish Renewables, SNH, SEPA, FC
(Scotland), Historic Scotland (2019, 4th Edition) (Scottish Renewables 2019)
• Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Post-2020: A Statement of Intent (December 2020) (1Scottish
Government 2020)
• Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (revised December 2020) (2Scottish Government 2020)
• Planning and development: standing advice and guidance documents by NatureScot
Council level:
• Stirling Council Stirling Local Development Plan October 2018 (Stirling Council 2018)
• Clackmannanshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2012-2017 (extended to 2020) (Clackmannanshire
Council 2012)
2.2.2. Protected sites
2.2.2.1. Near the proposed site there are a number of conservation areas that have been designated
for protection under various policies including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Special
Areas of Conservation (SACs). SSSIs are designated by NatureScot under the Nature Conservation
(Scotland) Act 2004 based on detailed surveys and evaluation against the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee criteria (NatureScot 2020). SACs have been established to protect species and habitats
listed in the EU’s Habitats Directive (European Commission 1992). In the ecological impact assessment
of avian fauna and bat species, only protected areas within 5km of the proposed site were considered
(Figure 2.1).
2.2.2.2. The Abbey Craig SSSI is located 3.5 km south-westwards of the proposed development. The
area involves an upland mixed ash woodland which is in unfavourable, declining condition as of August
2001. Bird and bat species of interest are not noted (1NatureScot Sitelink 2021).
2.2.2.3. The Craig Leith and Myreton Hill SSSI can be found 3.5 km south-eastwards of the site and it
involves an upland mixed ash woodland, small areas of dry dwarf shrub heath in an acid grassland
habitat, a basin mire above Craig Leith and patches of gorse and blackthorn. The site provides habitat
for several bird species including raven, ring ouzel, wheatear, kestrel and peregrine that have all been
recorded to breed on site, as well (2NatureScot Sitelink 2021).
2.2.2.4. About 3 km to the northwest of the site, there are the Kippenrait Glen SSSI and SAC. Both are
designated for the upland mixed ash woodland in the area. Bird and bat species of interest are not
noted (3NatureScot Sitelink 2021 and JNCC 2021).
15
2.2.2.5. The Wolf’s Hole Quarry SSSI is not designated for its biological features (4NatureScot Sitelink
2021).
Figure 2.1 The locations of the protected areas that are situated within 5 km of the proposed development with
the locations of the six wind turbines (Google Maps 2021).
2.2.2.6. Since the nearest protected area was 3 km away from the site of the proposed development,
the sites listed above were not considered further in the ecological impact assessment.
2.2.3. Scoping and Consultations
2.2.3.1. A number of consultations have been carried out with local stakeholders to give an
opportunity to the different interest groups to voice their opinions on how the development will
impact the ecology of the proposed site. Options were provided for both in-person and online forums
to allow for flexibility and compliance with COVID-19 regulations. The stakeholders approached were
as follows:
• NatureScot
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scotland
• British Trust for Ornithology (BTO)
• Bat Conservation Trust
• Clackmannanshire Council
• Stirling Council
2.2.3.2. NatureScot has been content with the Phase1 survey planned but asked for habitat
enhancement to be implemented where possible.
2.2.3.3. SEPA has not responded to our messages until the publishing of this document.
16
2.2.3.4. RSPB provided information on the bird species that have the highest conservation priority and
subsequent discussions clarified the surveying necessary on the site. RSPB also proposed continued
monitoring on-site to make sure that the impacts during the operational phase are kept to a minimum.
2.2.3.5. The BTO asked for a survey of nesting areas on and in close proximity to the site to make sure
that the breeding of birds is not disturbed. In case of the presence of nests on the site, the BTO
suggested the timing of the construction works according to the breeding season of the species
present.
2.2.3.6. With the Bat Conservation Trust bat roost and activity surveys have been agreed on to
establish the rate of occurrence of the bat species present on the proposed site. Their biggest concern
was that the development might interfere with the roosting of bats. The Bat Conservation Trust
suggested continued monitoring during the operational phase to make sure that roosting trees are
not disturbed and that collision risk with the wind turbines is minimal.
2.2.3.7. Clackmannanshire Council proposed to put more focus on the area of the proposed
development in terms of their habitat management planning efforts to offset the negative impact of
the wind farm if they occur.
2.2.3.8. Stirling Council is content with the proposed surveys and requested ecological site monitoring
that continues during the operational and decommissioning phases of the development.
2.2.4. Species of significance
2.2.4.1. Avian species
2.2.4.1.1. Species recorded on site that are determined to be threatened under the EU’s Birds Directive
(European Commission 2009):
• Chaffinch – Fringilla coelebs
• Great spotted woodpecker – Dendrocopos major
• Merlin – Falco columbarius
• Short-eared owl – Asio flammeus
• Sparrowhawk – Accipiter nisus
• Wren – Troglodytes troglodytes
2.2.4.1.2. Species recorded on site that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended) (UK Government 1981):
• Merlin – Falco columbarius
• Scaup – Aythya marila
• Short-eared owl – Asio flammeus
• Spotted flycatcher – Muscicapa striata
2.2.4.1.3. Species recorded on site that are included on the Sensitive Species of Scotland list by
NatureScot (2015) (NatureScot 2015):
• Merlin – Falco columbarius
• Short-eared owl – Asio flammeus
2.2.4.1.4. Species included in the red or amber list of RSPB (RSPB 2021):
17

2.2.4.1.5. The pink-footed goose is a potential wintering species at the site while curlews, kestrels,
lesser black-backed gulls, merlins, short-eared owls and snipes have been recorded breeding in the
extended proximity of the proposed development site (Wilson et al. 2015).
2.2.4.2. Bat species
2.2.4.2.1. The two bat species recorded within a 2 km radius of the site, the common pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and the soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) are both included on the
sensitive species list of Scotland and are, therefore, vulnerable to overexploitation or persecution
(NatureScot 2015). Both species are European Protected Species protected by the EU’s Habitats
Directive (European Commission 1992) and are included in Stirling Council’s Stirling Local
Development Plan October 2018 (Stirling Council 2018) and in Clackmannanshire’s Biodiversity Action
Plan 2012-2017 (extended to 2020) (Clackmannanshire Council 2012).
2.3. Methodology
2.3.1. Desk studies and field surveys were undertaken to establish the baseline conditions on the site
and to carry out the ecological impact assessment. The desk studies were focused on determining if
there are any specific species on the site that need to be considered and if protected areas (SSSI, SPA,
SAC or Ramsar sites) are overlapping with or can be found near the site of the proposed development
(NatureScot 2017). The relevant protected areas are described in section 2.2.2. The resources used
during the desk studies included scientific and historical data and consultations with local stakeholders
on the potential ecological impacts of the proposed development on the species and habitats on and
18
in close proximity (2 km) to the site. The stakeholders approached during the ecological impact
assessment process are detailed in section 2.2.3.
2.3.2. To investigate the avian fauna and bat species occurring on and within a 2 km radius of the site,
the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas online tool (NBN 2020) was employed. The results of
the NBN database were compared to the following protected and vulnerable species lists (section
2.2.4.):
• EU’s Birds Directive (European Commission 2009)
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (UK Government 1981)
• Sensitive Species of Scotland list by NatureScot (2015) (NatureScot 2015)
• The red and amber lists of RSPB (RSPB 2021)
2.3.3. After the desk-based studies were completed and the suggestions and requests of the
stakeholders were incorporated into the assessment process, a Phase1 survey was carried out to
establish the baseline conditions on the site. There was a special focus on breeding and wintering birds
(section 2.2.4.1.5.) and bat activity and roosts that were evaluated by protected species surveys and
automated static surveys (NatureScot 2017 and NatureScot et al. 2019). According to regulations,
species protected under the EU’s Birds Directive (European Commission 2009) and the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (UK Government 1981) require special conservation measures,
therefore the field surveys involved protected species surveys on the proposed site (NatureScot 2018).
2.4. Baseline
2.4.1. The baseline conditions were established through stakeholder consultations, desk studies and
Phase1, protected species and automated static field surveys. It was determined that among the
breeding/wintering bird species and the avian and bat species protected under the EU’s Birds Directive
(European Commission 2009), EU’s Habitats Directive (European Commission 1992) and the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (UK Government 1981), curlews, lesser black-backed gulls,
merlins, pink-footed geese, scaups, short-eared owls, snipes, sparrowhawks, spotted flycatchers,
common pipistrelles and soprano pipistrelles rarely occur on site. Great spotted woodpeckers and
kestrels have been observed at a higher frequency but the most common bird species on site are
chaffinches and wrens. However, no bird nests or bat roosts were recorded within 500 m proximity of
the proposed turbines. The results of the bat activity assessment showed moderate levels of activity.
2.5. Impact Assessment
2.5.1. The significance of the ecological impacts of the development on the evaluated species was
determined based on Table 1.1. in Chapter 1 and guidance by NatureScot and CIEEM (NatureScot 2018
and CIEEM 2018).
2.5.2. Constructional and decommissioning phase
2.5.2.1. The direct impacts considered during the first and last phases of the development included
habitat loss, disturbance and displacement caused mainly by the construction of an access road
(detailed in Chapter 3), the erection of the six wind turbines and the poles for the overhead powerline.
2.5.2.2. Despite the high conservation value of some of the species (European Protected Species:
chaffinch, great spotted woodpecker, merlin, short-eared owl, sparrowhawk, wren (European
Commission 2009)), due to the low magnitude, short-term and temporary nature of the impacts in
these phases of the development alongside with the lack of breeding birds on site, the level of
significance of ecological impacts was determined to be low.
19
2.5.2.3. The constructional and decommissioning phases of the development also have low
magnitude, short-term and temporary impacts on the two bat species that occur on the site (common
pipistrelles and soprano pipistrelles). Bats are species of high protection value both nationally and
internationally (European Commission 1992 and UK Government 1981), however, bat roosts were not
identified within 500 m of the proposed development and the activity level of bats was found to be
only moderate in the survey area. Therefore, the overall level of significance on the direct ecological
impacts on bats was found to be low.
2.5.3. Operational phase
2.5.3.1. Collision is a major impact arising from the operation of wind farms. There have been several
research studies conducted to assess the risk of collision of birds with wind turbines but due to the
complexity of influencing factors uncertainties remain regarding the level of significance of the
impacts of a collision on bird species (Marques et al. 2014 and Cabrera-Cruz et al. 2020).
2.5.3.2. In periods of poor visibility, the risk of collision with overhead lines, and subsequent
electrocution increases (Bernardino et al. 2018 and Bernardino et al. 2019), however, if the proposed
mitigation measure is applied, the impacts on bird species are not significant.
2.5.3.3. Despite the moderate likelihood of bats foraging in the area, for the reasons mentioned in
section 2.5.2.3., the significance of the direct ecological impacts on bats was found to be low in the
operational phase, as well.
2.6. Mitigation strategy
2.6.1. The updated planning proposal includes considerations of the breeding seasons of the
breeding/wintering bird species (NatureScot 2009) and the avian and bat species protected under the
EU’s Birds Directive (European Commission 2009) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended) (UK Government 1981) that might occur on the site, including chaffinches, curlews, great
spotted woodpeckers, kestrels, lesser black-backed gulls, merlins, pink-footed geese, scaups, shorteared owls, snipes, sparrowhawks, spotted flycatchers, wrens, common pipistrelles and soprano
pipistrelles.
2.6.2. To reduce the risk of electrocution and collision with power lines, it is proposed to install wiremarking in the entirety of the proposed overhead line (Bernardino et al. 2019).
2.6.3. Considering the high conservation value and the moderate level of bat activity in close proximity
of the site, it is proposed to establish a 50 m buffer zone between wooded areas and the wind farm
development, despite the low impacts identified (NatureScot 2019).
2.6.4. The University of Stirling, as the owner of the wind farm will carry out site monitoring surveys
during the operational phase of the development to make sure that the risks to avian and bat species
arising from collision with the turbines or overhead lines and disturbance by maintenance works are
kept to a minimum.
2.7. Conclusion
Overall, all ecological impacts on the avian and bat species occurring on the site are of low significance.
Due to the uncertainties regarding the risks of collision with wind turbines, mitigation measures will
focus on monitoring to make sure that the impacts do not become significant. The risks of
electrocution and collision with overhead lines will be mitigated by the instalment of wire-markings.
The impacts of the proposed development on the bat species of high protection value will be
minimised by the establishment of a buffer zone. The University of Stirling will carry out the continued
20
monitoring of the survey to ensure that the significance of the ecological impacts of the Dumyat Wind
Farm on avian and bat species remain low.
References
Bernardino, J., Bevanger, K., Barrientos, R., Dwyer, J. F., Marques, A. T., Martins, R. C., Shaw, J. M.,
Silva, J. P. and Moreira, F. (2018) Bird collisions with power lines: State of the art and priority areas for
research. Biological Conservation, 222, pp. 1-13.
Bernardino, J., Martins, R. C., Bispo, R. and Moreira, F. (2019) Re-assessing the effectiveness of wiremarking to mitigate bird collisions with power lines: A meta-analysis and guidelines for field studies.
Journal of Environmental Management, 252, 109651.
Cabrera-Cruz, S. A., Cervantes-Pasqualli, J., Franquesa-Soler, M., Munoz-Jiménez, Ó., RodríguezAguilar, G. and Villegas-Patraca, R. (2020) Estimates of aerial vertebrate mortality at wind farms in a
bird migration corridor and bat diversity hotspot. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e00966.
CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial,
Freshwater, Coastal and Marine. Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management.
Clackmannanshire Council (2012) Clackmannanshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2012-2017. Available:
https://www.clacks.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/.
European Commission (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L 206/7.
European Commission (2009) Council Directive 2009/147/EC. EUR-Lex – 32009L0147 – EN.
European Commission (2014) Council Directive 2014/52/EU. EUR-Lex – 32014L0052 – EN.
JNCC (2021) Kippenrait Glen. Available: https://sac.jncc.gov.uk/site/UK0030177.
JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries’ Biodiversity Group) (2018) UK Post-2010 Biodiversity
Framework: Revised Implementation Plan (2018–2020). Available:
https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/587024ff-864f-4d1d-a669-f38cb448abdc#UK-Post2010-BiodiversityFramework-2012.pdf.
Marques, A. T., Batalha, H., Rodrigues, S., Costa, H., Pereira, M. J. R., Mascarenhas, M. and Bernardino,
J. (2014) Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible
mitigation strategies. Biological Conservation, 179, pp. 40-52.
National Biodiversity Network (2019) NBN Atlas. Available: https://nbnatlas.org/.
NatureScot (formerly Scottish Natural Heritage) (2009) Bird Breeding Season Dates in Scotland.
Available: https://www.nature.scot/bird-breeding-season-dates-scotland.
NatureScot (formerly Scottish Natural Heritage) (2015) Sensitive Species of Scotland list. Available:
https://www.nature.scot/sensitive-species-scotland-list.
NatureScot (formerly Scottish Natural Heritage) (2017) Recommended bird survey methods to inform
impact assessment of onshore wind farms – Version 2. Available:
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-06/Guidance%20Note%20-
%20Recommended%20bird%20survey%20methods%20to%20inform%20impact%20assessment%20
of%20onshore%20windfarms.pdf.
21
NatureScot (formerly Scottish Natural Heritage) (2018) Assessing Significance of Impacts from Onshore
Wind Farms Outwith Designated Areas Guidance – Version 2. Available:
https://www.nature.scot/guidance-assessing-significance-impacts-bird-populations-onshore-windfarms-do-not-affect-protected.
NatureScot (formerly Scottish Natural Heritage), Natural England, Natural Resources Wales,
RenewableUK, Scottish Power Renewables, Ecotricity Ltd, University of Exeter, Bat Conservation Trust
(2019) Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines: Survey, Assessment and Mitigation – Version: January 2019.
Available: https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/planning-and-development/planning-anddevelopment-advice/planning-and-development-standing-advice-and-guidance-documents.
NatureScot (2020) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Available:
https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/protected-areas-and-species/protectedareas/national-designations/sites-special-scientific-interest-sssis.
1NatureScot Sitelink (2021) Abbey Craig SSSI. Available: https://sitelink.nature.scot/site/3.
2NatureScot Sitelink (2021) Craig Leith and Myreton Hill SSSI. Available:
https://sitelink.nature.scot/site/420.
3NatureScot Sitelink (2021) Kippenrait Glen SSSI. Available: https://sitelink.nature.scot/site/866.
4NatureScot Sitelink (2021) Wolf’s Hole Quarry SSSI. Available: https://sitelink.nature.scot/site/1643.
RSPB (2021) The red list. Available: https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/ukconservation-status-explained/.
Scottish Government (2004) Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Edinburgh: The Scottish
Government. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/6/contents.
Scottish Government (2006) Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.
Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/17/contents.
Scottish Government (2011) Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. Edinburgh: The
Scottish Government. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/6/contents/enacted.
1Scottish Government (2017) Scottish Energy Strategy: The future of energy in Scotland. Edinburgh:
The Scottish Government. Available: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-energy-strategyfuture-energy-scotland-9781788515276/.
2Scottish Government (2017) The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(Scotland) Regulations 2017. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Available:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2017/102/contents/made.
1Scottish Government (2020) Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Post-2020: A Statement of Intent.
Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Available: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottishbiodiversity-strategy-post-2020-statement-intent/.
2Scottish Government (2020) Scottish Planning Policy – Finalised Amendments. Edinburgh: The Scottish
Government. Available: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy-finalisedamendments-december-2020/.
Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Forestry
Commission Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland, Marine Scotland Science, AEECoW (2019) Good
22
Practice during Wind Farm Construction. 4th ed. Available:
https://www.scottishrenewables.com/publications/498-guidance-good-practice-during-wind-farmconstruction.
Stirling Council (2018) Stirling Local Development Plan – October 2018. Stirling: Planning & Building
Standards Infrastructure Services at Stirling Council. Available: https://stirling.gov.uk/planningbuilding-the-environment/planning/development-planning/local-development-plan-2018/.
UK Government (1981) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Richmond upon Thames: Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office (HMSO). Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69.
UK Government (1994) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP): 1992–2012. Richmond upon Thames:
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Available: https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/uk-bap/.
UK Government (2017) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Richmond upon
Thames: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). Available:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/contents/made.
Wilson, M. W., Austin, G. E., Gillings, S. and Wernham, C. V. (2015) Natural Heritage Zone Bird
Population Estimates. SWBSG Commissioned report number SWBSG_1504. pp72. Available:
www.swbsg.org.
23
3. Noise and Traffic (Student number: 2840353)
3.1    Introduction
In constructing a wind farm, which in this project includes wind turbines, substation, overhead lines,
and the construction of an access road, we must take into consideration the potential noise and traffic
impacts.
This section will assess the potential impact of noise and traffic during construction, operation and
decommission, how this is assessed and what can be done to mitigate the impacts.
3.2   Scoping and Consultation
3.2.1 National and Local Policy
There are a number of legislations that must be taken into consideration when constructing
the Dumyat Wind Farm and the access road.
The following legislations are relevant to help with assessment for noise and traffic impacts:
• The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (Scottish Government, 1997).
• Control of Pollution Act 1974 Part III: Noise (UK Government, 1974).
• The Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (commencement no. 3) (Scotland)
order 2015 (Scottish Government, 2015).
• Road Traffic Act 1960 Part I: Construction and Use of Vehicles and Equipment (UK
Government, 1960).
• Section 96 of the Roads (Scotland) Act (Scottish Renewables et al, 2019).
3.2.2 Consultations
The following stakeholder consultations are in regard to the noise and traffic from the project:
• Stirling Council
• Private property owners at the foot of Dumyat (Who Owns Scotland, n.d.)
• Residents of settlements along the A91 e.g. Menstrie and Alva (Google Maps, 2021)
• Residents from Cauldhame and the outskirts of Dunblane (Google Maps, 2021)
• Schools (Scottish Renewables et al, 2019)
• Traffic Scotland
• NatureScot
• University of Stirling
• Police (Scottish Renewables et al, 2019)
• Local Roads Department (Scottish Renewables et al, 2019).
24
3.3 Impact Assessment
3.3.1 Noise Methodology
3.3.1.1 During construction
Noise from construction of access road
An assessment has been made as to where the access road would be best suited to allow accessibility
for the construction of the wind farm. Consideration was taken into account in regard to which
direction the vehicles would have to travel as to where the access road could be located, allowing
minimal disruption.
The assessment would also take into consideration the minimal impact on the environment such as
landscape, the shorter the access road, the less impact there will be.

Figure 3.1 – The proposed wind turbines (blue flags) and the proposed access road (red line) (Google Maps, 2021).
Figure 3.1 is showing the proposed wind turbines sites as well as the proposed access road. This
proposed access road has avoided any areas of importance in terms of geologically and historically. It
does go through an area of peat, which will have to be accessed as to its depth in order to construct
the road access properly (see soil, geology, and geomorphology section for more details).
Noise from transportation
Assessments have been made into the potential impacts from the transporting of components and
workers to the construction site. Mapping out the routes will allow a better assessment to be
provided.
25
Figure 3.2 – Proposed routes for the transportation of goods to the Dumyat Wind Farm site (blue flags) (Google Maps, 2021)
Figure 3.2 is showing a number of alternative routes which vehicles could take in order to gain access
to the Dumyat Wind Farm site. On inspection of the routes via google maps the blue route has been
rejected as it is a single lane road which would require it to be widened in order for the HGVs to gain
access to it. Also, the green route has been rejected as there is a sharp bend in the road along the
university which would prove to make transportation access difficult, especially for the larger
components. Both the red and pink routes have been considered, depending on which direction the
components are coming from. Due to this, assessments have been done along both routes.
There has been an assessment of the noise levels before, during and after the construction phase
allowing any alterations to be made which would reduce noise pollution. This has been looking
closely at areas which have settlements close to or along the A91, the pink route and alternatively
along the red route (see figure 3.2), where there are any residential areas.
3.3.1.2 During operation
Wind turbines produce noise from a number of sources such as multiple mechanical and aerodynamic
(Rogers and Manwell, 2004). There still are public concerns over the noise produced by wind
turbines even though, over the years the advancement has allowed them to be quieter compared to
previous designs (Rogers and Manwell, 2004). Impact on residents should be minimal as there aren’t
any major settlements around the foot of Dumyat. Private landowners at the foot of
Dumyat have been consulted regarding access to the site.
3.3.1.3 During decommissioning
During the decommission phase, the noise impact will be less significant compared to the construction
phase. The noise impacts will come mainly from the dismantling and transportation of the
components which should take less time to complete compared to the construction phase of the wind
farm. Noise levels will be monitored during this phase to make sure it keeps within the appropriate
noise level.
26

3.3.2 Traffic Methodology
3.3.2.1 During construction
Assessments have been made before and during the construction phase to ascertain the extent of
impact there will be on the normal traffic in the area, especially along the pink route (A91) and along
the red route (see figure 3.2). This assessment has looked at the peak times during the weekdays and
weekend to see if there is a significant increase in the level of traffic. Once the assessment was done
then this will determine, if necessary, when transportation to the site would take place.
3.3.2.2 During operation
During the operation of the wind farm there will be no traffic impacts. The only time there will be
vehicles going to the farm is for maintenance.
3.3.2.3 During decommissioning
During the decommission of the wind farm, there will be an increase in the number of HGVs gaining
access to remove the component and they will be using either the pink or red route to transport the
goods away from the site (see figure 3.2). This means that there will be an increase in traffic and again
this will be assessed to see which route that the HGVs would take to reduce the impact to traffic.
3.4    Baseline
Site investigation will include desk study and fieldwork.
3.4.1 Desk study
Desk studies has involved mapping out a suitable location for the access road, taking into account
geological and historical importance. Also mapping out the routes for the transportation of the
components and workers to the site has taken place.
3.4.2 Fieldwork
A number of surveys have been conducted, focusing on the noise and traffic of the area. These
included a traffic survey which has taken place before and continue during the construction. This
would record data such as the number/type of vehicle and flow of traffic during certain times of the
day. Also, noise level data has been taken again at the construction phase and will take place during
the decommission phase along the transportation routes to make sure that the noise levels are within
the appropriate levels.
3.5   Direct Impacts
3.5.1 Noise
3.5.1.1 During construction
During construction there are a number of noise impacts that need to be considered. These impacts
are:
Road construction
All the components that are required in constructing a wind farm will need to be transported to their
corresponding sites. For the wind turbines, a road will need to be constructed for the turbine and
blades to be transported to the slope of Dumyat. There is currently no road access, only paths for hill
walkers. Construction of a road will require equipment and workers which will also have to be
transported to that location. During the construction of the road there will be a number of noise
sources such as digging up the soil, flattening the route and lying down the new surface for the road.
All of these activities will require large pieces of machinery which would cause an increase in
27
temporary noise levels. Less machinery and noise would be caused, if the use of floating roads is
considered, as the area is very peaty.
Noise from transportation
As mentioned in the previous section, all the components and workers required for this project will
need to be transported. Some of the components may have to travel a distance and the type of
transportation will vary according to size, weight etc of the components. There are two main routes
which could be used, route pink and route red (see figure 3.2). Along the A91 there are a number of
rural settlements that these larger vehicles will have to go through, including Alva, Menstrie,
Tillicoultry and Dollar (Google Maps, 2021). The number of wind turbines will also have an effect on
the number of round trips that will have to be made.
Noise for residents/visitors
Depending on the route the HVGs take will affect different settlements, however this will be only
during the time of construction and decommissioning. The further away from the road the housing is,
the less impact there will be from noise pollution from transportation.
Noise at Stirling University
The construction of the substation must also be considered in this project. The small substation would
be built by the gardens and greenhouses on campus. This is over 500m from any major university
building and accommodation and so the noise generated from the construction of the substation
should have minimal impact on staff or students.  Also transporting materials and equipment will have
minimal noise impact as the area can be accessed without having to go through the university.
3.5.1.2 During operation
During the operational phase, there will be minimum impact regarding noise and traffic.
3.5.1.3 During decommissioning
During the decommission phase there will be an increase in the noise level and traffic as the wind farm
is dismantled, however the impact would not be as significant compared to the construction phase.
3.5.2 Traffic
3.5.2.1 During construction
During the construction of the project, there will be a large number of vehicles transporting
components and workers to and from Stirling and the surrounding areas. This will disrupt the daily
flow of traffic through the pink and red route, depending on the size of the vehicle. Settlements
affected by this would be along these routes such as Dollar, Tillicoultry, Alva and Menstrie. Having
large vehicles going through, could potentially cause road disruptions.
3.5.2.2 During operation
Minimal impact on traffic during the operational phase. Only gaining access for maintenance.
3.5.2.3 During decommissioning
During the decommissioning of the wind farm, there will be an increase in the number of vehicles
gaining access to the site. This will, like the construction phase, cause traffic and disruption while the
components are being transported away.

28
3.6 Indirect Impacts
3.6.1 Noise
There is a potential impact on the ecology and ornithology of the area as the construction phase could
disrupt wildlife (see ecology and ornithology sections). It could also disrupt the hill walkers around the
site area (see landscape and visual section).
3.6.2 Traffic
For traffic there is an indirect impact on the hydrology as with an increase in traffic, this could
potentially result in surface run-off of oil from transportation. This run-off will run into streams etc
and could potentially have an effect (see hydrology section).
3.7 Mitigation Strategy
3.7.1 Noise
3.7.1.1 During construction
There will be some noise pollution during the construction of the wind farm and access road and the
transportation of the wind turbine components etc. These impacts could be mitigated by limiting the
time-of-day construction could take place to when people are working and so will not be home. Also,
for the vehicles, they will follow the appropriate guidelines regarding tires used to minimise the noise
level (gov.uk, 2021) and the time of day for transporting components and workers to the site. All
vehicles must keep within the speed limit as this will also keep the noise at a reasonable level while
passing on the road (see figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3 Decibel levels (noise) for different types of vehicles, subject on their speed (Grubeša & Suhanek, 2020).
Regarding the access road being constructed on peat, depending on the depth, this will also have to
take into consideration floating roads which would have less environmental impact on the excavation
of the peat, compared to a standard road (Scottish Renewables et al, 2019).
Also, with the substation being constructed on the University of Stirling property, noise and traffic
would be kept to a minimum as the access road to the area where the substation is, is located around
the outskirts of the university and so should not have a major impact on the students and staff.
However, if it does then construction would take place after university working hours or possibly
during holiday time.
29
3.7.1.2 During operation
With the advancement of wind technology, the noise generating is minimal. To reassure the public
who will be walking up Dumyat it is advised that the wind turbines are away from the Dumyat footpath
on the west slope.
3.7.1.3 During decommissioning
During the decommission phase, the mitigation used in the construction phase will be considered, and
if any problems were raised during construction, the mitigations will be altered if necessary.
3.7.2 Traffic
3.7.2.1 During construction
There are a number of ways in which traffic impacts could be mitigated during the construction phase
of the project. The first is the route which vehicles should take to gain access to the construction site.
Smaller vehicles such as vans could come any route as the roads can accommodate that size of vehicle.
For the HGVs and extended lorries for the blades and other large components would have to travel
along the M9 and follow the red route (see figure 2). As mentioned in the noise mitigation section,
the time of day is also an important concern, avoiding peak traffic times and when schools start and
finish. Keeping the local communities informed about transportation dates, timings etc will help local
residents to avoid the routes, making alternate arrangements where possible (Scottish Renewables et
al, 2019). This can be done by newspaper notices, informing community councils, local radio
announcements and letters through people’s doors (Scottish Renewables et al, 2019). Another
consideration is to check the dates of any events which could affect the traffic such as farmers markets
etc and should be avoided if possible (Scottish Renewables et al, 2019).
As mentioned in the indirect impact section (3.6.2) to reduce the impact of oil spills from the large
HGVs and other modes of transportation being used, hiring of road sweepers to clean up any mess
would be considered (Scottish Renewables et al, 2019).
3.7.2.2 During operation
During the operation of the wind farm there will be minimal traffic disturbance. There will be
maintenance vehicles going to check and maintain the turbines, which would have insignificant effect
on the daily flow of traffic.
3.7.2.3 During decommission
During the decommission phase, the mitigation used in the construction phase will be considered, and
if any problems were raised during construction, the mitigations will be altered if necessary.
3.8 Summary
There is a possibility for some significant impacts regarding noise and traffic towards and around
the Dumyat Wind Farm site. The potential impacts have been identified, assessed further, through the
desk study and fieldwork, and finally, mitigation strategies are put in place to reduce these impacts to
the environment and the local communities.
References
Control of Pollution Act 1974 Part III Noise 1974 40.

30
Google Maps (2021) Google Maps. [online] Available
at: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Dumyat/@56.1443242,-
3.8829947,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4888878f5d04de5d:0xd454be5f4fb99d7c!8m2!3d56.1574722!
4d-3.8761666 [Accessed: 27th April 2021]

April 2021].
Road Traffic Act 1960 Part 1: Construction and Use of Vehicles and Equipment 1960 16.
Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/16/part/I/crossheading/constructionand-use-of-vehicles-and-equipment/enacted, Available: legislation.gov.uk [Accessed: 27th April
2021].
Rogers, A. and Manwell, J. (2002) Wind Turbine Noise Issues. Researchgate.net: Renewable Energy
Research Laboratory Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Department of Mechanical

Available: https://www.nature.scot/guidance-good-practice-during-wind-farmconstruction [Accessed: 28th April 2021].
The Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (commencement no. 3) (Scotland) order 2015
2015 74 (C.16). Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2015/74/article/1/made, Available:
Legislation.gov.uk [Accessed: 29th April 2021].
Town an

Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/8/contents [Accessed: 27th April 2021].
Who Owns Scotland (n.d) Stirling A-Z. Internet:
Available: http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/property-index.php?c=st&r=az [Accessed: 29th April
2021].
31
4. Culture and Heritage (Student number: 2218312)
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will cover the culture and heritage section of our assessment. It will firstly identify any
significant cultural sites within the proposed wind farm site and will then outline the potential impacts
– both direct and indirect – that the development may have on these historical sites in Stirlingshire.
Following the identification of sites, and the potential impacts we will then recommend a series of
measures that will reduce any impacts on the sites, and potentially mitigate them. These suggestions
will include positioning the turbines out with historical boundaries and ensuring that any required
road works will not occur within these sites.
4.2 Scoping and Consultation
4.2.1 National and Local Policy
Due to the nature of this development and the potential for historical assets to be impacted during
construction Historic Environment Scotland were consulted. Considerations of the Historic
Environment Policy for Scotland is not required during this development as it is non-statutory (Historic
Environment Scotland, 2019) however, we consider the potential cultural assets that may be present
within the site to be significant, and the policy should be followed when carrying out the development.
Stirling Council’s Local Development Plan will also be considered during this development. Section 7
of Stirling Council’s Local Development Plan (Stirling City Council, 2018) outlines their policies relating
to cultural assets. When looking through this document in relation to the development of a wind farm,
policy 7.1 – Archaeology and Historic Building Recording (designated and undesignated buildings/sites
– was considered. This policy ensures that all potential archaeological remains are evaluated before
any planning application is made, and the developer makes provisions for preserving the features
(Stirling City Council, 2018). Policy 7.7 will also be considered – Energy Efficiency and MicroRenewables within Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas – as it supports the development of energy
efficient infrastructure in the event that the proposal ensures that the integrity of an archaeological
site is not compromised.
Stirling and the surrounding area are full of culturally and historically important sites (Stirling City
Heritage Trust, 2021), with tourism being worth upwards of £350 million to the local economy (Stirling
Council, 2021). Due to the importance of tourism to Stirlingshire’s economy we are dedicated to
ensuring that we identify as many of the significant assets within the region, and prevent any undue
impacts occurring.
4.2.2 Consultants
Historic Environment Scotland was consulted on this development. They required prior knowledge of
the development and the potential impacts that would occur.
The University of Stirling was consulted as we were required to ensure that their energy needs would
be met whilst also committing the least negative impacts as possible.
Dumyat Estate were also consulted during this development. They were reassured that the utmost
would be done to ensure that the state of the land and archaeological assets on the site would not be
damaged during development.
Throughout the development of this document, we continuously consulted with a number of different
stakeholders to reassure them that their land and assets would not be damaged during the
32
development of the wind turbines, and we took suggestions and recommendations of what could be
done to reduce any undue impacts.
4.3 Impact Assessment
4.3.1 Methodology
The initial phase of the cultural impact assessment was carried out as a desk study. Using QGIS and a
number of files from relevant databases we assessed the site and determined whether it was situated
on any sites of important cultural and heritage significance. Data was taken from the following
sources:
• Canmore National Record of the Historic Environment
• Digimap Ordinance Survey
• Open Street Map (accessible on QGIS)
Canmore houses over 320,000 records of historic and archaeological sites across Scotland and their
GIS shapefile contains over 90,000 known historical sites in Scotland. This data was used in conjunction
with QGIS to visualise the known historic archaeological sites across Stirlingshire.
Using QGIS and data from the Canmore National Record of the Historical Environment archaeological
sites within the rough buffer zone of 5km were identified (and can be seen below in figure 4.1). These
sites include cairns, standing stones, shieling huts, and farmsteads among others from differing
periods throughout history.
Figure 4.1 Map showing archaeological sites within the Stirlingshire region. (Canmore National Record of the Historic
Environment, 2021).
The map extent that was used when analysing the historical sites was chosen as it covers an area of 5
kilometres from the potential site of the development and north of the University of Stirling as it was
33
deemed that these sites were the only ones that could be impacted by the development of the wind
turbines.
Following the desk studies a number of site walkovers were carried out. This included walking through
the sites that are indicated in the above figure (figure 4.1). This was to ensure that the proposed site
for the development was not impeding on any of the historical sites that were identified in the desk
study section.
4.3.2 Baseline
The table below lists the named archaeological sites within proximity to the development site. It also
includes the distance to the nearest turbine. The proposed site would consist of 6 turbines, all of which
have the potential to impact these historic sites negatively and so we have also given them a level of
potential impact: minor, moderate, and major.

Figure 4.2 Table showing the names and classification of archaeological assets within the construction site, with the distance
from development, and potential impact that the development may have on the site. (Canmore National Record of the Historic
Environment, 2021).
The sites in the above table were deemed more at risk from impact during development due to their
size and proximity to the proposed turbine sites. We gave each site a potential impact level based on
the proximity to the development, and this level can be seen above in figure 4.2. As can be seen we
concluded that the overall risk to historical assets within the area is moderate.
34
4.3.3 Direct Impacts
When carrying out the development the most likely impact on historical sites would be from
transportation of the turbines. The turbines will be transported via heavy machinery and so a number
of new roads may require construction to safely transport the turbines to the site (refer to section 3
for more information on potential road construction).
Turbine construction could also negatively impact the archaeological assets as the development site
it quite small, and- as can be seen in figure 4.1) has a large number of archaeological sites. Powerline
construction also has the potential to impact the sites negatively.
4.3.4 Indirect Impacts
The indirect impacts that could happen to historical assets are primarily visual. It was decided that we
would not include Stirling Castle in the list of historical assets that could be at risk of this development
as it is more than 5 kilometres from the proposed development site and any impact that could occur
would be purely visual. The reasoning for disregarding Stirling Castle in the cultural assessment was
primarily due to time constraints with the development of this document, and that we did not deem
the wind turbines to be of significant visual impact as there is a number of already existing man-made
structures between the castle and the proposed development site.
Section 7 outlines, in more detail, the potential visual impacts that this development could have.
4.3.5 Mitigation Strategy
When looking into ways to mitigate potential damage to the historic assets we concluded that the
main risks would be from the location of the wind turbines, and the transportation routes that would
be used during the development. Referring to the table in figure 4.2 we suggest that mitigation
measures are firstly carried out on the assets that have the highest impact level.
These mitigation measures will include the positioning of the wind turbines, and powerlines, and the
routes that are going to be taken when transporting materials to the site. Figure 4.3 as shown below
35
indicates six proposed locations for the wind turbines. These sites were chosen as they do not
intercede on any of the cultural sites that were identified in figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3 Map showing archaeological sites within the Stirlingshire region and the proposed locations of the wind turbines.
4.4 Summary
We have carried out impact assessment into the cultural and historic assets within the area on the
slopes of Dumyat that is the proposed development site. From there we identified named sites that
would be at most risk of impact and we determined that the majority of impacts would be minor or
moderate, with a small number having higher impact risks. From there we considered the
development area and suggested some minor mitigation measures that would reduce any potential
impact that could occur.
References
Canmore National Record of the Historic Environment (2021) Data
Downloads. Available: https://canmore.org.uk/content/data-downloads [Accessed: 20/04/2021].
Historic Environment Scotland. (2019) Historic Environment Policy for Scotland.
Stirling City Heritage Trust (2021) Stirling’s
Heritage. Available: https://www.stirlingcityheritagetrust.org/about-stirling/stirlingsheritage/ [Accessed: 20/04/2021].
Stirling Council. (2018) Stirling Local Development Plan.
36
5. Soils, Geology & Geomorphology (Student number: 2115375)
5.1. Introduction
5.1.1. An assessment of the impact of the impact on soils, geology and geomorphology by the
proposed Dumyat Windfarm and associated sub-station was conducted, during the construction, use
and decommissioning phases of the development.
5.1.2. The site is located on the north-side of Dumyat hill, lying at the western edge of the Ochils. The
hill is notable for its geomorphology, two peaks (Castle Law and Dumyat) with the summit being 418m
above sea-level, and rising out of very flat ground to the south (see Landscape Character). This is a
result of sitting on the boundary of the Ochil Fault line. There are several gullies on the hillside, which
have formed as a result of erosion.
5.1.3. Dumyat is an area that contains peaty soils (see Figure 5..), which are important carbon sinks
and therefore damaging peatlands is to be avoided where possible, to prevent loss of carbon
sequestration functions. Damage/disturbance of peat can also result in peat slides, especially in wet
weather, resulting in peat being released into watercourses (siltification, see Hydrology).
Figure 5.1. The proposed sites for three of the turbines and for a section of the powerline is on peat soils.
5.2. Scoping and Consultation
5.2.1 National and Local Policy
There is a designated Geological Conservation Review site located on the southern side of Dumyat hill
(see Figure 5.2), “Sheriffmuir Road to Menstrie Burn”. The site is 224.59ha and the main geology is old
red sandstone (SpatialData.gov.scot, 2020). This designation is equivalent to the designation of SSSI,
and as such the site is afforded the same legal protections as SSSIs. It is illegal for anyone to
“intentionally or recklessly damage any natural elements of a SSSI” (NatureScot, n.d.). GCRs are
designated because they contain “geological and geomorphological features of national importance”
37
and they are selected through a process known as the Geological Conservation Review (NatureScot,
n.d.). The criteria for GCR site selection are:
• the finest and/or the most representative features for illustrating a particular aspect of
geology or geomorphology.
• a minimum of duplication of interest between sites,
• sites should be possible to conserve in a practical sense (NatureScot, n.d.).
Figure 5.2. Sheriffmuir Road to Menstrie Burn Geological Conservation Review Site.
5.2.2. Consultations
Consultations were conducted with the following organisations, that were deemed to have relevant
knowledge of the area pertaining to soils, geology and geomorphology:
• Stirling Council
• NatureScot
• Private property owners: Dumyat Estate, Drumbrae, Fossochy and Parkhead Estate (Who
Owns Scotland, n.d.)
• Forest and Land (formerly the Forestry Commission) which owns land adjacent to Dumyat hill.
5.3 Methodology
5.3.1. The following methodologies and mitigation strategies have been designed using the guidelines
laid out in the ‘Good Practice During Wind-farm Construction’ report (Scottish Renewables et al.,
2019). The methodologies to assess the potential impacts on soils, geology and geomorphology
involved desk studies, consultations with local landowners/managers and field surveys.
38
5.4 Baseline
5.4.1. Desk-based studies
To conduct baseline surveys, desk-based studies were conducted in which open-source spatial data
was used to establish the types of soils on site and their risk of erosion due to heavy rainfall, the
presence of peatlands on site (Scotland’s Soils, n.d.). Spatial data pertaining to protected areas and
their designations was also used to identify the GCR located on Dumyat Hill (Natural Spaces, n.d.).
5.4.2. Field Surveys
Field surveys conducted include site visits to complement the findings of desk-based studies. These
included surveys pertaining to underlying geology, peat condition (eroded, bare, etc), soil
type/condition and geomorphological features such as gullies, slope, and aspect.
5.5 Soils
5.5.1 Direct Impacts:
Direct impacts were found to most likely occur during the construction and decommissioning phase
of the development. These would include direct damage to peat, resulting in a loss of carbon and
future carbon sequestration function of the soil, which increases the length of time in which carbon
pay-back can be achieved (SEPA, 2017). It was found that the peat would be significantly impacted if
wind turbines and associated infrastructure were placed onto peat, as the surface peat lying under
the footprint would need to be removed and could not be replaced back into the original location.
5.5.2 Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts of peat removal relate to impacts on hydrology (see Hydrology) and associated
biodiversity of peat (see Ecology).
5.5.3. Mitigation Strategy
The principal mitigation strategy recommended to developers is to avoid placing the wind turbines
and associated infrastructure on peat soils. This strategy has many associated benefits to both
stakeholders and developers. By avoiding peat sites there are less difficulties for the developers that
come with constructing on peat pertaining to costs and technical difficulties, also avoidance of working
on wet peat in bad weather which is notoriously difficult. There is also no need to store excavated
peat and find an alternative use for it, which saves time and reduces costs.
Should avoidance of peat be impossible, there are other mitigation techniques that can limit the
impact of the development on peat soils. Firstly, by conducting peat probing surveys, the depths of
peat soils can be determined, and the deepest peat can be avoided. Also, by determining the condition
of the peat on site through soil surveys, already damaged peat can be targeted instead of placing the
turbines on pristine peat, which would allow turbines to be microsite, a process whereby the best site
on a micro-scale is selected. In order to minimise the impact of the access roads on the peat soils,
floating road design may be used following hydrological and peat-stability analysis. This allows roads
to be constructed on top of peat, instead of removing the peat itself (NatureScot, 2013). Where a
significant negative impact on peat soils is unavoidable, other mitigation techniques may be deployed,
to counteract the loss of carbon and carbon absorbing functions. By restoring other nearby peatlands
to better function, the impact of the development can be mitigated somewhat. Some restoration
projects that would be recommended are tree removal in peatlands, as trees contribute to the overall
drying of peat soils. Removing drainage mechanisms such as drains can also restore the function of
peatlands and constructing small dams to ensure the water levels are optimal for preventing the loss
39
of carbon are also effective measures. Peat turf may also be removed and stored for alternative
use/replacement after construction/decommission. Peat that has been removed can be reused onsite
or offsite and should be done so in line with SEPA regulations (SEPA, 2017). Removed peat, if stored
correctly, can be used to create road verges for the access roads being constructed. If it is not possible
to use onsite the peat can be used for agricultural purposes off-site. Finally, if none of these
alternatives are viable, peat can be disposed of in line with SPE regulations.
5.6 Geology and Geomorphology
5.6.1 Direct Impacts
Direct impacts would be as a result of damage to the geological features that are unique to this site,
and therefore have led to the designation as a GCR. As stated above, this designation comes with legal
protection forbidding the intentional/reckless damage of the unique natural features of the site. To
assess impacts of this development on the geology of the site, the criteria laid out by DMRB Stage 3
EIA requirements were used, as seen in other developments in Scotland (CH2M, n.d.). Using these
criteria, it was found that the area of Dumyat that is designated a GCR would be highly sensitive to
negative impacts of this development. The magnitude of the impacts would be minor (only a small
portion of the area would be disturbed with a small amount of topsoil damaged, no effect on value of
area). By combining the magnitude of impact and the area sensitivity, it was found that the
development would have a minor negative impact on the geology of this site. However, should the
magnitude of the disturbance increase due to additional infrastructure being necessary for
construction/decommission, this impact would become moderate. Therefore, careful mitigation
strategies will be necessary to maintain a minor impact.
5.6.2. Mitigation Strategy
First and foremost, the recommended mitigation strategy would be to avoid constructing turbines and
associated infrastructure on the designated GCR site. This may require alternative routing of access
roads and present some initial challenges but will be the best solution in the long-term. If this is not
possible, alternative mitigation techniques include: detailed geological surveying to identify where the
most valuable geological/geomorphological features of the GCR are located on site. These results can
then be used to microsite the turbines in the most suitable locations, to reduce the impact and can
also be used to decide the best route for access tracks.
5.7 Summary
There is potential for significant impacts on the soils, geology and geomorphology of this site. By
thoroughly creating a baseline and examining where the most vulnerable soils and valuable
geological/geomorphological features are, these impacts may be reduced to a minor level. Where it is
not possible to avoid such areas, appropriate mitigation strategies have been laid out.
References
NatureScot. (n.d.). Geological Conservation Review sites. [online] Available at:
https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/protected-areas-and-species/protected-areas/localdesignations/geological-conservation-reviewsites#:~:text=Geological%20Conservation%20Review%20(GCR)%20sites [Accessed 26 Apr. 2021].
NatureScot. (n.d.). The Geological Conservation Review. [online] Available at:
https://www.nature.scot/landforms-and-geology/protecting-our-geodiversity/geologicalconservation-review [Accessed 26 Apr. 2021].
40
NatureScot. (n.d.). Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). [online] Available at:
https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/protected-areas-and-species/protectedareas/national-designations/sites-special-scientific-interest-sssis [Accessed 26 Apr. 2021].
NatureScot. (n.d.). Advising on carbon-rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat in
development management. [online] Available at: https://www.nature.scot/advising-carbon-richsoils-deep-peat-and-priority-peatland-habitat-developmentmanagement#Assessing+the+impacts+of+development+on+carbon-rich+soils [Accessed 26 Apr.
2021].
Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage, SEPA, Forestry Commission Scotland, Historic
Environment Scotland, Marine Scotland Science and AECoW (2019). Good Practice during Wind Farm
Construction. [online] Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction. Available at:
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2020-
12/Good%20Practice%20during%20wind%20farm%20construction%20-%204th%20Ed.pdf [Accessed
27 Apr. 2021].
CH2M, (n.d.)A9 Dualling -Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore DMRB Stage 3 Environmental Impact
Assessment. [online] . Available at: https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/41077/chapter-10-
geology-soils-and-groundwater.pdf.
Scotland’s Soils, (n.d.). Carbon and peatland 2016 map | Scotland’s soils. [online] Available at:
https://soils.environment.gov.scot/maps/thematic-maps/carbon-and-peatland-2016-map/
Natural Spaces (n.d.). Natural Spaces – Scottish Natural Heritage. [online] Available at:
https://gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural-spaces/.
NatureScot, (2013). Constructed tracks in the Scottish Uplands 2 nd Edition. [online] . Available at:
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/Publication%202015%20-
%20Constructed%20tracks%20in%20the%20Scottish%20Uplands.pdf [Accessed 28 Apr. 2021].
SEPA, (2017) Developments on Peat and Off-Site Uses of Waste Peat Background. [online] . Available
at: https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-ofwaste-peat.pdf.
SpatialData.gov.scot, S.G. (2020). Geological Conservation Review Sites. [online] data.gov.uk.
Available at: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/6e8c39b2-02a7-42ae-b86d-10588fa71163/geologicalconservation-review-sites [Accessed 28 Apr. 2021].
Who Owns Scotland (n.d.). Stirling Property Index A-Z. [online] Available at:
http://www.whoownsscotland.org.uk/property-index.php?c=st&r=az [Accessed 28 Apr. 2021].
41
6. Hydrology (Student number: 2513243)
6.1 Watercourses
6.1.1 Introduction
While there are no major watercourses in close proximity to the proposed site, there are however a
number of small burns in the area some of which feed into larger water bodies and reservoirs.
6.1.2 Scoping and Consultation
An initial walkover survey was complete to visually assess the proximity of any watercourses to the
proposed site. The local burns were visually assessed on their conditions and any sedimentation and
erosion that was see was noted and photographed.
SEPA, NatureScot and Independent hydrologists were consulted on the impact of the project on local
water courses. Independent ecologists were also consulted in order to assess the ecological impact of
any impacts on the watercourses.
6.1.3 Methodology
An initial desk study was carried out in order to locate the surrounding water bodies that would be of
concern and their proximity to the development site. Two small burns were identified as potentially
at risk of impact, Menstrie Burn and Loss Burn. Loss Burn posed a greater risk of impact as it feeds into
Lossburn Reservoir.
6.1.4 Baseline
A hydrology survey was carried out at the site that assessed the baseline conditions of these two burns
prior to construction. Ongoing monitoring throughout construction will be necessary to monitor any
change in the water conditions. In order to establish a baseline for the assessment of the watercourses
near the site an initial survey was carried out and water samples were taken at a number of
locations. This included a survey of environmental indicator species before construction began that
can be used to compare with the results from the same survey completed during the construction
phase of the operation.
6.1.5 Direct Impacts
• Chemical run-off into water courses from cement pouring to lay the foundation for
the turbines during construction. This was identified as a moderate impact as although
unlikely with mitigation measures in place.
• Increased sedimentation disturbed during construction entering the waterways and
polluting the water, this would decrease both the water quality and visibility and lead to
not only hydrological impacts but also visual.
• The operational and decommissioning phases of the project are unlikely to cause any
hydrological impacts on surrounding water bodies. The decommissioning may cause
increased sedimentation in the area; however, the site will not be close enough to
the watercourses for this to make any significant impact on the sedimentation.
• Pollution of the watercourses could also impact aquatic ecology see section 1.
6.1.6 Indirect Impacts
• Increased traffic including the transport of the turbines to the site could also impact
water quality by increasing the risk of erosion around the burns and water bodies which
may lead to increased sedimentation. The impact of this however was not found to be
significant.
• Water pollution or sedimentation in Lossburn reservoir, while the reservoir is a
distance from the proposed site and the risk of pollution is small due to the majority of the
42
site being downstream of the reservoir there is still a slight risk of pollution. This could
lead to serious economic and health consequences to humans. With the mitigation
measures in place this impact is not however significant due to the unlikeliness of the
impact.
6.1.7 Mitigation
• Directing runoff into a container where it can be collected and disposed of
appropriately.
• Continued water quality testing and monitoring to ensure that the quality is not
reduced from the initial baseline tests from before construction on the site.
• Placing a physical barrier to prevent sediment from the construction site from
entering the water courses.
• Where possible any crossing of watercourses will be kept to minimal level and
chemical leakage should be minimised as much as possible.
6.1.8 Summary
The impact of the development to the watercourses around the site was found to be minor, while the
potential consequences of pollution either chemical or excess sedimentation could be severe, the risk
of the impact is thought to be low due to the mitigation measures that are in place. Specifically, by
redirecting any runoff away from watercourses and containing it so that it can be disposed of
appropriately the risk of any chemical pollution is significantly minimised.
6.2 Ground water
6.2.1 Introduction
Ground water in Scotland provides up to 73% of drinking water and so any potential impact on the
surrounding ground water at the site could potentially have negative impacts on human health and
safety and could impact water supply leading to significant economic impacts (Dochartaigh et al.,
2015).  An initial survey was carried out to assess the composition of the ground near the site and
locate any aquifers that could be impacted by the project.
6.2.2 Scoping and consultation
An initial desk study was completed in order to assess the area around the site and the composition
of the soil as well as the presence of any aquifers. Scottish water, SEPA, Stirling council and experts
from the centre of ecology and hydrology were consulted on the impact that the development may
have on the groundwater at the site.
6.2.3 Methodology
The methodology for the assessment of the impacts on groundwater is based around ensuring that
the development complies with the Scottish governments water management legislation.
Groundwater samples were taken before construction and will continue to be taken during the
construction phase of the development, this to ensure an accurate assessment of the impact that the
development has during the construction phase on the quality of the groundwater. The results of soil
samples prior to construction will also be taken as water loss from peat containing soils can have
potentially damaging environmental impacts (Zhong, 2020) see section 5.5 for more details on impact
to soils.
43
6.2.4 Baseline
Groundwater and soils samples were taken prior to the construction phase of the development in
order to establish a baseline to which results can be compared when samples are later taken during
construction.
The water content of the soils containing peat were measured.
Photographs of the site were taken so as to be compared with the site after construction, this will be
used to assess the impact of any erosion which could result in water loss from the soils.
6.2.5 Direct Impacts
• Chemical pollutants from the concrete used leaching into the groundwater and
potentially polluting water supplies. This could potentially impact human health and
safety.
• Areas surrounding the site contain soils that are composed of peat (see section 5.5)
which is a carbon store that depends on water retention for carbon sequestration. If this
water supply is altered or polluted in some way this could have significant impacts on the
peatlands ability to sequester carbon dioxide and cause greater environmental impacts
that will contribute to climate change (Regan, 2019).
6.2.6 Indirect Impacts
• Carbon emissions from damaged peat soils (Neilson et al., 2020).
• Economic cost to restoring any damaged peat soils.
6.2.7 Mitigation
• Avoiding construction on any sites that are above groundwater that is part of the
national water supply.
• Wherever possible avoid building on soils that contain peat, where this is unavoidable
ensure that the soils containing peat are shallow peaty soils and not deep.
• Continued testing of groundwater and soil throughout the construction phase of this
project and during decommissioning.
6.2.8 Summary
 The impact on ground water was found to be of low significance due to the area over which the
development will be situated being a relatively small area. Climate change is predicted to have a
significant negative impact on ground water due to increased risk of flooding and droughts and so the
emissions that will be prevented by this development will counteract damage that is done to a small
area of groundwater near the site (Loáiciga, 2003).
References
Dochartaigh, B., MacDonald, A., Fitzsimons, V. and Ward, R., 2015. Scotland’s Aquifers and
Groundwater Bodies. Nottingham: British Geological Survey.
Regan, S., Flynn, R., Gill, L., Naughton, O. and Johnston, P., 2019. Impacts of groundwater drainage on
peatland subsidence and its ecological implications on an Atlantic raised bog. Water Resources
Research, 55(7), pp.6153-6168.
Zhong, Y., Jiang, M. and Middleton, B.A., 2020. Effects of water level alteration on carbon cycling in
peatlands. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 6(1), p.1806113.
44
Neilson, R., Lilly, A., Aitkenhead, M., Artz, R., Baggaley, N., Giles, M.E., Holland, J., Loades, K., Ovando
Pol, P., Rivington, M. and Roberts, M., 2020. Measuring the vulnerability of Scottish soils to a changing
climate. The James Hutton Institute.
Loáiciga, H.A., 2003. Climate change and ground water. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 93(1), pp.30-41.
7. Landscape and visual (Student number: 2513243)
7.1 Landscape Character
7.1.1 Introduction
Stirling is known as the gateway to the highlands and has a distinctive and unique character that comes
from being a city in a valley surrounded by rolling hills. The proposed site is classified as lowland valley
and hills by the landscape character assessment by NatureScot, 1999. Wind turbines are often
regarded as unsightly scars on the landscape however in recent years, they are becoming more
accepted especially in urban areas with existing anthropogenic infrastructure such as Stirling (Van
Griekan and Dower, 2017).
7.1.2 Scoping and Consultation
The initial scoping for the landscape and visual assessment for landscape character was carried out by
engaging local stakeholders and seeking their opinions on how the turbines will impact the character
of the landscape. This engagement was in the form of both in person and online forums where the
public and other local stakeholders were able to voice their opinions and any concerns that they might
have had. The conclusions drawn from the NatureScot Review- Stirling to Grangemouth landscape and
character assessment, 1999, were considered when carrying out the scoping for this project.
Landscape character is a subjective area of the EIA and therefore insights from local people for whom
the landscape is part of their everyday lives was essential in assessing the visual impacts of the project.
While 95% of the 487 participants agreed that renewable sources of energy were important to invest
in in Scotland, 32% of the participants would rather that they didn’t have to see turbines every day in
their local area and 46% said they would dislike the turbines at first, but they would likely get used to
them in time. The 80% of participants aged 18 to 35 accepted that the need for renewable energy
outweighed the impact on the landscape, this percentage was lower (63%) amongst the 36–50 yearolds and lower still (46%) amongst those aged 51 to 75.
7.1.3 Methodology
A walkover study was conducted after the consultation so that specific areas of local concern could be
assessed. Photographs were taken of the proposed site and the surrounding areas so as to assess how
the turbines would fit into the landscape and how they would stand out visually when compared to
the other manmade structures that are present in the area such as electricity pylons.
The photographs were also used to assess how the turbine would impact the character of the
landscape and were used to understand what emotions they evoked from the stakeholders that saw
the pictures of the turbines superimposed onto the landscape. The participants were asked to describe
the two images below and note how they felt that they impacted the environment. Stakeholders were
asked to compare the turbines to other structures that are present around the site such as buildings
and pylons.
The images that were presented to stakeholders can be seen below in figure 7.1 and 7.2. 
45
Figure 7.1 The south face of Dumyat before the proposed wind farm construction.
Figure 7.2 The proposed wind farm superimposed onto the image of the site.
46
In order to find the appropriate colour for the turbines so as to best fit into their environment an
assessment of the colour of the sky was done in the form of a year-round study that looked at the
local weather. This assessment was conducted over a period of 12 months and during a variety of
different weather conditions. The colour that was selected for the turbines was the colour that was
found to blend in with the frequently partially cloudy weather in Stirling similar to that which can be
seen in figure 7.1 and 7.2.
7.1.4 Baseline
The baseline for the landscape character assessment was established by consulting local stakeholders,
taking images of the proposed site predevelopment, and looking at past landscape assessments and
literature.
7.1.5 Direct Impacts
The project was found to have a relatively low impact on the character of the landscape as there are
already man-made structures that break up the landscape such as pylons so the turbines would not
stand out in an otherwise natural view. We also found from our stakeholder engagement that a large
percentage of local people thought that the turbines could potentially add to the character of the
landscape as they represent the green and renewable energy of the future and Scotland at the
forefront of this change.
7.1.6 Indirect Impacts
The indirect impacts on the character of the landscape relate mostly to the cultural heritage of the
area while Stirling has a rich history and many areas which are of value to Scottish culture such as
Stirling castle, Stirling bridge and the Wallace monument, these features would not be impacts by the
development as they are outside the zone of visibility being on the northside of Dumyat whereas the
proposed site would be on the southside.
7.1.7 Mitigation
In order to mitigate the visual impacts on the character of the landscape for those stakeholders who
had concerns that the turbines would cause Stirling’s landscape to lose its character and be potentially
economically worse off due to loss of tourism. The colour of the turbines was considered carefully
to ensure that it best matched the skyline of the area, the white paint that will be used for the turbines
is the shade that most closely reflects the most frequent shade of cloud seen over the site. This will
minimise the impact for a large part of the year. As can be seen by the image of the proposed wind
farm above the blades of the wind turbine blend in well with the cloud cover and will not be overly
noticeable as to break up the landscape.
7.1.8 Conclusion
The impact from the windfarm development on the landscape character of the site will be moderate,
while the south face of Dumyat is not visible from any significant cultural sites, the landscape is not as
broken up by pre-existing structures. This has the potential to damage the character of the landscape,
however the local people who live in the area are mostly in favour of the development and the positive
steps that it represents for the environment. There will be mitigation strategies in place such as placing
the turbines closer together so as to reduce the area that will be impacted and painting the turbines
the colour that best blends in with the surrounding environment.
References
NatureScot (Scottish National Heritage), 1999. Stirling to Grangemouth landscape character
assessment. NatureScot Review. Edinburgh.
47
Van Grieken, M. and Dower, B., 2017. Wind turbines and landscape. In Wind Energy Engineering (pp.
493-515). Academic Press.
48
8. Conclusion (Student Number 2218312)
Throughout the development of this report, we assessed the potential impacts that the construction
of a number of wind farms would have on a series of different environmental, ecological, and historic
assets within Stirlingshire.
Impact concerns ranged from species habitat loss (as seen in section 1. Ecology and section 2.
Ornithology and Chiropterology), disruption of current traffic levels due to requirement to transport
materials (as seen in section 3. Noise and Traffic) potential destruction of historic assets and landmarks
(as summarised in section 4. Culture and Heritage), disruptions to environmentally important
peatlands (as seen in section 5. Soils, Geology and Geomorphology) to chemicals from construction
leaching into ground water (as mentioned in section 6. Hydrology) and interference of the landscape
and views (as see in section 7. Landscape and Visual). We have carried out research and conducted
both desk-based studies and field walkovers and from there have determined that the potential
impacts for the most part are moderate, and we have suggested a number of mitigation measures to
ensure that any impacts are reduced as much as possible.