Neart na Gaoithe

Proposed Offshore
Wind Farm
Scoping Report
November 2009

ProposedOffshoreWindFarmScopingReport:NeartnaGaoithe
DocumentReleaseandAuthorisationRecord
JobNo:
ReportNo:
Date:
ClientName:
ClientContact(s):

J/1/06/1419
09/J/1/06/1419/0848
November2009
NeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindLtd
CameronSmith

ZoeCrutchfield

QA

Name

Version:1

Status:Final

Signature

Date

ProjectManager

BruceTomlinson

Reportwrittenby

GenevraHarker
RosieBuse

Reportcheckedby

StevenFreeman

Reportauthorisedby

BruceTomlinson

Projectwebsite:www.neartnagaoithe.com

i|P a g e


TableofContents

ProposedOffshoreWindFarmScopingReport:NeartnaGaoithe.................................................................. i
TableofContents.......................................................................................................................................... i
TableofFigures...........................................................................................................................................vii
TableofTables.............................................................................................................................................ix
Acronyms...................................................................................................................................................... i
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1

BackgroundInformation............................................................................................................. 2

1.2

MainstreamRenewablePowerLtdandNeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindLtd .............................. 2

1.3

EmuLimited............................................................................................................................... 2

1.4

ScopingDocument ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.4.1

AimsofDocument .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.4.2

GetInvolved.................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5

SiteSelection ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.6

Consultation .............................................................................................................................. 8

LegislativeFramework ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1

TheNeedforOffshoreWindinScotland..................................................................................... 9

2.2

ScottishOffshoreWindPolicy..................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1

ScottishTerritorialWindFarms .................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2

StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentinScottishTerritorialWaters ............................................ 11

2.3

RegionalPolicy......................................................................................................................... 11

ProjectDescription ............................................................................................................................ 13
3.1

SiteLocation ............................................................................................................................ 13

3.2

WindResource......................................................................................................................... 13

3.3

DevelopmentDetails................................................................................................................ 14

3.4

PlanningandConsentforNeartnaGaoithe .............................................................................. 15

3.4.1

NavigationRights .......................................................................................................................... 17

3.5

EngineeringConsiderations ...................................................................................................... 17

3.6

GridConnection ....................................................................................................................... 18

3.6.1

OffshoreCableRoute.................................................................................................................... 18

3.6.2

OnshoreSubstation ...................................................................................................................... 19

3.7

Operation,MaintenanceandMonitoringofPerformance......................................................... 20

i|P a g e

PhysicalEnvironment......................................................................................................................... 21
4.1

Metocean ................................................................................................................................ 21

4.1.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 21

4.1.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 21

4.1.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 23

4.1.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 23

4.1.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 23

4.1.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 23

4.2

Bathymetry .............................................................................................................................. 24

4.2.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 24

4.2.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 24

4.2.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 24

4.2.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 27

4.2.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 27

4.2.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 27

4.3

Geology ................................................................................................................................... 27

4.3.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 27

4.3.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 28

4.3.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 28

4.3.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 28

4.3.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 28

4.3.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 28

4.4

SeabedSedimentsandBedforms ............................................................................................. 29

4.4.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 29

4.4.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 29

4.4.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 29

4.4.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 30

4.4.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 30

4.4.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 30

4.5

SedimentTransport.................................................................................................................. 30

4.5.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 30

4.5.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 30

4.5.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 31

4.5.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 31

4.5.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 31

4.5.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 32

ii|P a g e

BiologicalEnvironment ...................................................................................................................... 33
5.1

MarineEcology ........................................................................................................................ 33

5.1.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 33

5.1.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 35

5.1.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 36

5.1.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 37

5.1.5

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 37

5.2

FishandShellfishEcology ......................................................................................................... 37

5.2.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 37

5.2.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 40

5.2.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 42

5.2.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 42

5.2.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 43

5.2.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 43

5.3

MarineMammals..................................................................................................................... 43

5.3.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 43

5.3.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 45

5.3.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 46

5.3.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 46

5.3.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 47

5.3.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 47

5.4

Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 47

5.4.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 47

5.4.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 47

5.4.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 48

5.4.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 49

5.4.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 49

5.4.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 49

5.5

Ornithology.............................................................................................................................. 50

5.5.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 50

5.5.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 54

5.5.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 54

5.5.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 55

5.5.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 55

5.5.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 55

iii|P a g e

5.6

TerrestrialEcology.................................................................................................................... 56

5.6.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 56

5.6.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 58

5.6.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 59

5.6.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 63

5.6.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 64

5.6.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 64

5.7

NatureDesignations................................................................................................................. 64

5.7.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 64

5.7.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 66

5.7.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 68

5.7.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 68

5.7.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 69

5.7.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 69

HumanEnvironment.......................................................................................................................... 70
6.1

Landscape,SeascapeandVisualAssessment ............................................................................ 70

6.1.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 70

6.1.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 71

6.1.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 72

6.1.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 74

6.1.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 74

6.1.6

CumulativeEffects ........................................................................................................................ 75

6.2

ArchaeologyandCulturalHeritage ........................................................................................... 75

6.2.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 75

6.2.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 77

6.2.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 78

6.2.4

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 79

6.2.5

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 80

6.3

Navigation ............................................................................................................................... 80

6.3.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 80

6.3.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 80

6.3.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 81

6.3.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 83

6.3.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 83

6.3.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 83

iv|P a g e

6.4

CommercialFishing .................................................................................................................. 83

6.4.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 83

6.4.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 85

6.4.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 86

6.4.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 87

6.4.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 87

6.4.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 87

6.5

MilitaryandAviation................................................................................................................ 87

6.5.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 87

6.5.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 89

6.5.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 89

6.5.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 90

6.5.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 90

6.5.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 91

6.6

Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................................... 91

6.6.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 91

6.6.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 91

6.6.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 92

6.6.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 93

6.6.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 93

6.6.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 93

6.7

OtherHumanActivities ............................................................................................................ 93

6.7.1

GeneralDescription ...................................................................................................................... 93

6.7.2

AvailableData ............................................................................................................................... 95

6.7.3

MethodofAssessment ................................................................................................................. 96

6.7.4

FurtherRequirements .................................................................................................................. 96

6.7.5

PotentialMitigationandMonitoring............................................................................................ 96

6.7.6

CumulativeImpacts ...................................................................................................................... 96

ConclusionsandRecommendations ................................................................................................... 97

References................................................................................................................................................. 98

v|P a g e


TableofFigures

Figure11

OverviewoftheThreeZoneswithinScottishTerritorialWaters ................................................... 4

Figure12

ShippingDensityDataandPotentialSites...................................................................................... 5

Figure21

NnGOWLsite(9)inrelationtoBellRock(8),InchCape(7)andForthArray(10)sites................ 11

Figure31

ProposedLayout&Design............................................................................................................ 13

Figure33

ProposedCableRoutesfortheNeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindFarm....................................... 19

Figure41

WaveriderLocationinOuterFirthofForth .................................................................................. 22

Figure42

TidalDiamondInformationfortheOuterFirthofForth .............................................................. 24

Figure43

BathymetryoftheSurroundingArea ........................................................................................... 25

Figure44

2mIntervalDepthContoursforNeartnaGaoithe ...................................................................... 26

Figure45

BedrockGeology........................................................................................................................... 27

Figure46

SeabedSediments......................................................................................................................... 29

Figure51

FishSpawningandNurseryAreas................................................................................................. 39

Figure52

TheDistributionofNephrops.Source:SOAEFD(inRobson,C.F.1997)........................................ 40

Figure53

MarineMammalsightingsinFirthofForth(KeySpecies)............................................................ 44

Figure54

LeftHandSideTracksof108greysealsfittedwithsatelliterelaydataloggersoveraperiodof
about10years(McConnelletal.1999;SMRUunpublisheddata).RightHandSideHarbourseal
distributioninthenorthwesternNorthSeaafterReijndersetal.(1997).Alsoshownarehaulout
sitesduringthemoult(SMRUunpublisheddata)andatseasightingsfromJNCCsurveys(Pollock
etal.2000).Source:Hammondetal.,2004 ...................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................... 45

Figure55

BirdsensitivityintheregionofNeartnaGaoithe ....................................................................... 51

Figure56

PotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithintheForthinNationallyimportantnumbers......... 52

Figure57

PotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithintheForth(1) ......................................................... 52

Figure58

PotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithintheForth(2) ......................................................... 53

Figure59

PotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithintheForth(3) ......................................................... 53

Figure510

NatureConservationDesignationsAssociationwiththeNeartnaGaoitheCableRoutes........... 57

Figure511

NatureConservationDesignationsOnshorefromNeartnaGaoithe ........................................... 65

Figure61

SiteLocationinRelationtotheFifeandEastLothianCoasts....................................................... 71

Figure62

ProtectedWrecksandChartedWreckswithintheStudyArea .................................................... 76

Figure63

ShippingDensity ........................................................................................................................... 80

Figure64

CreelAreaandFishLandingsandSurveillanceData .................................................................... 84

Figure65

MilitaryPracticeAreasandRAFLeuchars .................................................................................... 88

Figure66

OtherMarineUsersandActivities................................................................................................ 94

vii|P a g e


TableofTables

Table11

SiteSelectionConstraints

Table12

StakeholderConsultationList

Table21

WindFarmsinScottishTerritorialWaters

10

Table31

CoordinatesofNeartnaGaoithe(WGS84DecimalDegrees)

14

Table32

MetMastLocation

15

Table51

Summaryofthecharacteristichabitats,biotopesandassociatedspecies

35

Table52

SpawningPeriodsforSpeciesintheFirthofForth

38

Table53

AnApproachforAssessingtheValueorSensitivityofEcologicalReceptorsinScotland

62

Table54

CriteriaforDescribingImpactMagnitude

62

Table55

MatrixforDeterminingSignificanceofEcologicalImpacts

63

Table61

OnshoreWindFarmsintheregion

95

ix|P a g e

Acronyms

AD

AirDefence

DTi

DepartmentofTradeandIndustry

ADS

ArchaeologyDataService

EC

EuropeanCommission

AGDS

AcousticGroundDiscriminationSystem

ECU

EnergyConsentsUnit

AIL

AbnormalIndivisibleLoads

EcIA

EcologicalImpactAssessment

AIS

AutomaticIdentificationSystem

EIA

EnvironmentalImpactAssessment

AML

AdditionalMilitaryLayers

Emu

EmuLimited

ANSP

AirNavigationServiceProvider

EO

EarthObservation

ATC

AirTrafficControl

ERMC

BAE

BAESystemsInsyte

EnvironmentalRiskManagement
Capability

BAP

BiodiversityActionPlan

ES

EnvironmentalStatement

BERR

DepartmentforBusiness,Enterprise
andRegulatoryReform

ESRC

EconomicandSocialResearchCentre

EST

EnergySavingsTrust

BGS

BritishGeologicalSurvey

EU

EuropeanUnion

BODC

BritishOceanographicDataCentre

FEPA

FoodandEnvironmentalProtectionAct

BWEA

BritishWindEnergyAssociation

FREDS

CA

CruisingAssociation

ForumforRenewableEnergy
DevelopmentinScotland

CAA

CivilAviationAuthority

FRPB

ForthRiverPurificationBoard

CAP

CivilAviationAuthorityPublication

FRS

FisheriesResearchServices

CD

ChartDatum

GH

GarradHassan

CEC

CrownEstateCommission

GIS

GeographicalInformationSystems

CEFAS

CentreforEnvironment,Fishand
AquacultureScience

GLOSS

GlobalSeaLevelObservingSystem

CEO

ChiefExecutiveOfficer

CERT

CarbonEmissionsReductionTarget

CMACS

CentreforMarineandCoastalStudies

COWRIE CollaborativeOffshoreWindResearch
intotheEnvironment
CPA

CoastalProtectionAct

CREEM

CentreforResearchintoEcologicaland
EnvironmentalModelling

DASSH

DataArchiveforSeabedSpeciesand
Habitats

DECC

DepartmentforEnergyandClimate
Change

DEFRA
DFT

DepartmentforEnvironment,Foodand
RuralAffairs

GOOSAG GlobalOceanObservingSystemAction
Group
HER

HistoricEnvironmentRecords

HS

HistoricScotland

IBA

ImportantBirdArea

ICES

InternationalCouncilforthe
ExplorationoftheSea

ICOMOS InternationalCouncilonMonuments
andSites
IEEM

InstituteofEcologicaland
EnvironmentalManagement

IFA

InstituteforArchaeologists

IHO

InternationalHydrographic
Organisation

ILS

InstrumentedLandingSystems

DepartmentforTransport

i|P a g e


IODE

InternationalOceanographicDataand
InformationExchange

IWC

IntegratedWaterColumn

JNAPC

JointNauticalArchaeologyPolicy
Committee

JNCC

JointNatureConservationCommittee

LBAP

LocalBiodiversityActionPlan

MAGIC

MultiAgencyGeographicInformation
fortheCountryside

RAMSAR TheRAMSARConventiononWetlands
RCS

RadarCrossSection

RO

RenewablesObligation

ROW

ReceiverofWreck

RSL

RelativeSeaLevel

RSPB

RoyalSocietyfortheProtectionofBirds

RYA

RoyalYachtingAssociation

SAC

SpecialAreaofConservation

MCA

MaritimeandCoastguardAgency

SEA

StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment

MEDIN

MarineEnvironmentalDataand
InformationNetwork

SEL

SoundExposureLevel

SEPA

MESH

MappingEuropeanSeabedHabitats

ScottishEnvironmentProtection
Agency

MOD

MinistryofDefence

SFF

ScottishFishermensFederation

MTZ

MandatoryTransponderZones

SKM

SinclairKnightMerzGroup

NAS

NationalArchiveofScotland

SMRU

SeaMammalResearchUnit(Ltd)

NATS

NationalAirTrafficService

SNH

ScottishNaturalHeritage

NBN

NationalBiodiversityNetwork

SPA

SpecialProtectionArea

SPP

ScottishPlanningPolicy

SRA

SyntheticRadarAperture

SSR

SecondarySurveillanceRadar

TCP

TownandCountryPlanningAct

TTS

TemporaryThresholdShift

UKHO

UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice

NERCEODCNaturalEnvironmentResearchCentre
EarthObservationDataCentre
NERL

NATSEnRoutePlc

NFFO

NationalFederationFishermens
Organisation

NGET

NationalGridElectricityTransmission

NnGOWL NeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWind
Limited
NRL

NaturalResearchLtd

NVC

NationalVegetationClassification

OBS

OpticalBackscatterSensor

ode

odeLimited

OFGEM

OfficeofGasandElectricityMarkets

OFTO

OffshoreTransmissionOwner

OREI

OffshoreRenewableEnergy
Installations

OSPAR

TheConventionfortheProtectionof
themarineEnvironmentoftheNorth
EastAtlantic

OWE

OffshoreWindEnergyEurope

PAR

PrecisionApproachRadar

PSR

PrimarySurveillanceRadar

PTS

PermanentThresholdShift

UNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,Scientific
andCulturalOrganization
UXO

UnexplodedOrdnance

VMS

VesselMonitoringSystem

VTS

VesselTrafficServices

WWII

WorldWar2

ZTV

ZoneofTheoreticalVisibility

ii|P a g e

ExecutiveSummary
NeartnaGaoitheisaScottishGaelicphrasemeaningmightofthewind.
NeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindLtd(NnGOWL),asubsidiarycompanyofMainstreamRenewablePowerLtd,is
proposingtodevelopanoffshorewindfarm15.5kmeastofFifeNess.Theproposedoffshorewindfarmis
called Neart na Gaoithe. The development is part of The Crown Estates invitation to developers to bid for
potential offshore wind farm sites within Scottish territorial waters. Following the bid, the Crown Estate
offered exclusivity agreements for ten sites around Scotland, with the potential to generate over 6GW of
offshore wind power. These agreements are subject to the Scottish Governments Strategic Environmental
Assessment(SEA)foroffshorewindwithinScottishterritorialwaters.TheSEAisduetobecompletedin2010,
subject to its findings, The Crown Estate will award agreements for lease for suitable sites. Leases which
enablethedeveloperstoprogresswithconstructionworkswillonlybegrantedbyTheCrownEstateoncethe
developerhasobtainedstatutoryconsentsandpermissionsfromtheScottishGovernment.
As part of NnGOWLs development ethos, this scoping report has been prepared to ease the process and
provideasmuchinformationupfrontaspossible.Thereportthereforecontainsmoredetailedinformationat
thisstagethanusuallyexpected.NnGOWLarecommittedtothisdevelopmentandbyundertakingdetailed
studiesandconsultationearlyintheprocess,NnGOWLaimtoachieveconsentofthebestpossibleprojectina
timelymanner.
Theaimofthisscopingreportistoinformstakeholdersabouttheproposedoffshorewindfarmdevelopment,
give an overview of the existing environment, and propose methods for assessing the potential impacts. It
givesstakeholderstheopportunitytocommenton,andmakesuggestionsforimproving,theenvironmental
assessment.Assuch,thisdocumentidentifiesthekeyconstraintstodevelopment,theavailabledatasources,
outlines the proposed methods of assessment, describes further requirements and considers potential
mitigationandmonitoringrequirementsaswellasidentifyinganycumulativeimpactsforeachissue.
Keyissuesthathavebeenidentifiedthroughthisscopingphase,include:
Radar Neart na Gaoithe is likely to affect the PrimarySurveillance Radar (PSR)atRAF Leuchars. Potential
solutionswillneedtobediscussedwithRAFLeucharstodeterminesuitablemitigation.
Birds The proposed site is relatively close to several SPAs on the coast and Firth of Forth Islands, and is
adjacenttoapotentialfeedinggroundatWeeBankie.Inparticular,thecoloniesontheIsleofMayandBass
Rock will be considered. The species most likely to occur in the area are gannet, kittiwake, puffin, fulmar,
guillemotandrazorbill.
Marine Mammals Several species of marine mammal are known to occur in the Outer Firth of Forth,
including minke whale, harbour porpoise, whitebeaked dolphin, Atlantic whitesided dolphin, killer whale,
Rissodolphinandbottlenosedolphin.ThebottlenosedolphinsmaybeindividualsfromtheMorayFirthSAC.
TheFirthofTayandEdenEstuarySACisimportantforcommonseal,whiletheIsleofMaysupportsabreeding
colony of grey seals. The potential impacts on these species will need robust study and may require an
AppropriateAssessment.
OtherSeaUsersNnGOWLrecognisethattheproposedwindfarmoperationhasthepotentialtoimpactupon
existinguserstheareaandarecommittedtoworkingwithstakeholderstominimiseandmitigateallpotential
conflicts.
Suitable methods for assessment will be discussed with the relevant stakeholders through this scoping
process,andappropriatemitigationandmonitoringdevelopedwhererequired.

1|P a g e

Introduction

1.1 BackgroundInformation
Theworldisfacingnewchallenges,whichhavesignificantsocial,environmentalandeconomicconsequences;
inparticular,climatechangeandenergysecurity.Consequently,governmentsareimplementingradicalpolicy
changes and setting targetsto reduce carbon dioxide emissions. European Union leaders have agreed on a
bindingtargetof20%ofEUenergyconsumptiontobeprovidedbyrenewablesourcesby2020.Bythesame
year, they have also agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels. Although energy
securityisanimportantissue,thisscopingreportisfocussedontheenvironmentalconcerns,ratherthanthe
socialandeconomic.
Tohelpachievethesetargets,inMay2008TheCrownEstateinviteddeveloperstobidforpotentialoffshore
wind farm sites within Scottish territorial waters. Following the bid, the Crown Estate offered exclusivity
agreementsfortensitesaroundScotland,withthepotentialtogenerateover6GWofoffshorewindpower.
NeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindLtd(NnGOWL),asubsidiarycompanyofMainstreamRenewablePowerLtd,
wasawardedoneoftheseexclusivityagreements.TheproposedoffshorewindfarmprojectiscalledNeartna
GaoitheandislocatedtothenortheastoftheFirthofForth,15.5kmdirectlyeastofFifeNess.Theproposed
wind farm would cover an area of approximately 105 km2; comprise around 75 turbines and have a target
capacityofupto450MW.

1.2 MainstreamRenewablePowerLtdandNeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindLtd
MainstreamRenewablePowerLtd(referredtoasMainstreamthroughoutthedocument)wasfoundedin2008
byDr.EddieOConnorandFintanWhelan,theformerCEOandCorporateFinanceManagerofAirtricity.Since
February2008Mainstreamhas:

SetupofficesinBerlin,Chicago,Dublin,London,Santiago,SydneyandToronto;

Identifiedandrecruitedsomeofthemosttalentedandexperiencedteamsintheindustry;

Established its board to include chairman, Fintan Drury, Sir Roy Gardner, former head of Centrica,
BrendanHalliganofSustainableEnergyIrelandandMarkBrownofBarclaysCapital;

Raised72millioninequityincluding20millionfromBarclaysCapitalinreturnfora14.6%stakein
thecompany;and

Identifiedpotentialpartnersinkeymarkets.

Mainstream,anditssubsidiarycompanyNnGOWL,iscommittedtoundertakingallnecessaryworktodelivera
consented wind farm that will be responsibly designed and capable of being constructed and operated in a
timelyfashion,efficientlyandsafely.

1.3 EmuLimited
This Scoping document has been produced by Emu Limited in close collaboration with staff at Mainstream.
EmuLtdspecialisesinconsultancy,researchandsurveyinthemarinesector.Thecompanyundertakesfulllife
cycle marine development projects. In particular, Emu assists developers and regulators in data collection,
analysisandinterpretationrangingfromsiteselection,feasibilityandconsenttomonitoringandmitigation.
The team comprising Emu Ltd has been operating since 1988 and currently operates with 110 staff
undertakingmultidisciplinarymarinerelatedprojectsacrosstheglobe.Significantexperiencehasbeengained
in marine renewables (wind, wave and tide), marine aggregates (sand and gravel) and oil and gas. Recently
Emu Ltd has been heavily involved in Regional Environmental Assessments (REA) which focus heavily on
cumulativeandincombinationimpacts,stakeholderengagementandexploringopportunitiesforstreamlining
theconsentingprocess.

2|P a g e

1.4 ScopingDocument
1.4.1 AimsofDocument
NnGOWLregardseffectiveplanningandtherobustscopingoftheenvironmentalimpactassessment(EIA)asa
criticalsteptosecuringconsentwiththesupportofstakeholders.Aspartofthefeasibilityworktodefinethe
siteduringthebidphase,initialconsultationwasundertakenwithvariousstakeholders.Theseincludedthe
Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), Fisheries Research Services (FRS), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH),
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scotland,
Chamber of Shipping, Scottish Fishermens Federation (SFF), and the Ministry of Defence (MOD). The
knowledgeandadvicegainedfromthisprocesshavebeenincorporatedintothisscopingdocumentandinitial
windfarmproposals.
ThisScopingDocumentispartoftheconsentprocess.Itistheinitialdocumentwhichdescribestheproposed
NeartnaGaoithedevelopment,andsurroundingenvironment.Itthendescribespotentialimpactsidentified
atthisstage,whatdataareavailable,andhowthefullassessmentwillbeundertaken.Thisinformationisthe
basisfortheEIA,whichwillbesubmittedinsupportoftheplanningapplicationasanES.
NnGOWL value the feedback received during the scoping process and particularly welcome advice from
stakeholderson:

AdditionaldatasetsorimpactassessmenttoolsthatmaybebeneficialtotheEIAprocess.

Howtobetterunderstandthepotentialimpactstolocalcommunitiesandindustriesandmitigation
optionsavailable.

SuggestionsandadviceonhowtobestengageallstakeholdersintheEIAprocess.

1.4.2 GetInvolved
There are a number of ways in which you can get involved in the scoping process and be kept informed of
developments:
Websitewww.neartnagaoithe.com
Registeratthewebsitewww.neartnagaoithe.comto:

DownloadourScopingdocumentandotherdocumentationasitbecomesavailable.

Receivealertsviaemailonprojectupdatesandupcomingevents.

Emailusyourqueriesandfeedback.

Wewillbeorganisingconsultationeventsthroughoutthedevelopmentprocessandwillbeposting
detailsonthiswebsite.Wecaninformyouofeventsbyemailonceyouhaveregistered.

Email

Contactusatinfo@neartnagaoithe.com

Writetous:
OffshoreEnvironmentManager
NeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindLtd
AbbeyBusinessCentre
TheBeacon
176St.VincentStreet
Glasgow
G25SG.

3|P a g e

1.5 SiteSelection
Thefirststageofsiteselectionwastoidentifyareasofseabedlessthan60mindepth,aroundtheScottish
coast. This was refined to areas located within an economic distance of major grid connection points and
ports,butthatavoidedareasofexcessivewaveheights,thatwereremote(suchasareasinthefarwestand
northofScotland)orhadknownmajorecologicalconstraints.Thisprocessledtotheidentificationofthree
largeareasforfurtherinspection:theFirthofClyde,theouterSolwayFirth,andtheareatotheeastofthe
FirthsofForthandTay(Figure11).
Allthreeregionswerefoundtohaveenvironmentalconstraints.However,overall,theeastcoastregionwas
deemedthemostfeasibleasthewestcoastzoneshadsignificantbird,shippingandMODissues,aswellas
possiblelimitationswiththegeologyandgridconnectionopportunities.Consequently,variousstudieswere
thencommissionedtoassesstheeastcoastregioninmoredetailtoselectapossiblecandidatesite.

Figure11

OverviewoftheThreeZoneswithinScottishTerritorialWaters

Earlyresultsindicatedthatbothbirdandmarinemammalissuesarekeyfactorsacrosstheeastcoastregion.
However,giventhemobileandwiderangingnatureofthesefactorsalternativeconstraintswereinitiallyused
to define potential sites. Therfore, the first dataset used to divide the region into potential areas for
developmentwasshippingdensity.TheinitialdatawereprovidedinJune2008(Anatec,2008a);thesewere
then further refined in August (Anatec, 2008b), prior to the bid, and have subsequently been updated in
December(Anatec,2008c).
Figure12belowshowstheoriginalsitesconsidered(whichwerebasedontheJune2008data)superimposed
on the updated shipping density data from December 2008. The cells are presented with the following
rankings:

Rank1:<10shipsperyear;

Rank2:10to25shipsperyear;

Rank3:25to60shipsperyear;

Rank4:60to150shipsperyear;and

Rank5:>150shipsperyear.

4|P a g e

Figure12

ShippingDensityDataandPotentialSites

The figure shows that there are some relatively high density routes within the region. The data also show
areaswherethereislittleornoshippingactivitythroughouttheyear.TheNeartnaGaoithesiteclearlyfitsin
anareaofverylowshippingdensities.Itshouldalsobenotedthatotherareasthatwereinitiallybasedon
areaswithlowshippingdensitieshavesubsequentlybeenshowntoaffectareasofhigherrelativedensityas
moreinformationhasbeencollated(e.g.SitesBandF),whichcontributedtothechoiceofthepreferredsite
(E).
Having assessed the birds, marine mammals and navigation datasets, NnGOWL commissioned technical
appraisalsofallsixeastcoastsitesinordertoassess,refineandultimatelyrankthecandidatesitesfromthe
followingorganisations:

GarradHassan(GH)(windresourceandenergyyield);

EmuLtd.(overallenvironmental);

SKM(grid);and

odeLtd(geotechnicalandfoundationdesign).

Theenvironmentalreportcontainedfurtherspecialistreportsfrom:

CorkEcology(ornithologyandmarinemammals);

NaturalResearchLtd(ornithology);and

LUC(landscape/seascapeandvisual).

In addition to the above, consultations were undertaken with the Scottish Government, MCA, Chamber of
Shipping,RSPB,SNH,FRS,SEPA,SFF,MontrosePort,MOD,VisitScotland,andFifeCouncil.
TheassessmentofthewindresourcecarriedoutbyGHshowedthatSiteEhadthehighestlongtermmean
windspeedamongstthesitesthatwereconsidered.

5|P a g e


The conclusions from the environmental,engineering and energy yield assessments were then combined to
identifythemostfeasiblesitewithintheregion.ThiswasdeterminedtobeSiteE,asshowninTable11.
ThecolourcodingschemeforTable11isillustratedbelow:
Technical
Red
MajorTechnicalIssue
Orange SignificantAdverseFinancialImpacton
ProjectViability
Yellow Someremainingmanageabletechnical
risk
Green Technicalaspectwhichissignificantly
beneficial

Consent/Environmental
Red
MajorIssueSignificantConsentRisk
Orange ModerateIssue
Yellow

Minorissue

Green

NoIssues

6|P a g e

Item
Rank

EnvironmentalCriteria

TechnicalCriteria

Site

SiteSpecificEcologyand
Wildlife
1

Ornithology(highsensitivity:
proximitytoIsleofMay,Wee
Bankieforagingarea/sandeel
fishery)

VisualImpact

Aviationand
Radar

Fishing

EnergyYield
(estimatedwind

speedinms 1)

Foundation
Type

GridConnection

HighyieldGoodwind
speedof9.0/9.1ms1,
clearofshore

Ornithology(mediumsensitivity); Moderate/Major
PotentialRAF
possiblesalmonissueswithTay pooralignment8km LeucharsPSR
estuary;closeproximitytoseal fromsensitiveshore
colony

Possiblemitigation Possibleimpacton
requiredfor
nephropsfishing
MontrosePort

LowyieldWindspeed Jacket,tripod
of8.5/7.9ms1on
andsome
marginofviability
piling

1030m
sedimentary
depositsover
bedrock.

Possibleconnection
toKintoreTealing
Significantlandfall
issue

Ornithology(overlaphigh
sensitivityarea:proximityto
MontroseBaySPA)possible
salmonissues

Moderatepoor
alignmentalong
coast,8kmfrom
Shore

Possiblemitigation Possibleimpacton LowyieldWindspeed Jacket,tripod

forMontrosePort, Nephropsfishing
of8.5/7.5ms1below
andsome
limitedalignment
viability
piling
flexibility

1030m
sedimentary
depositsover
bedrock.

Possibleconnection
toKintoreTealing
Significantlandfall
issue

Ornithology(proximitytoWee
Bankieforaging)

LowOutside13km RAFBuchan&
mediumzone
Perwinnesradar

Ornithology(highsensitivityarea: MajorImpacton
MinimalImpact
proximitytoIsleofMay&coastal sensitivelandscapes
SPAs)
N.BerwickEyemouth

Table11

RAFBuchan.
PotentialPARat
Leuchars

MinimalImpact,
Possibleimpacton HighyieldGoodwind
flexibilitytoadjust Nephropsfishing
speedof9.1ms1,clear
alignment
ofshore

Sitelocatedby
highdensity,major
shippinglane
significantCoS
concern
Ornithology(consideredextreme MajorImpacton
Majorimpacton
Potentialimpacton
impactarea,proximitytocoastal sensitivelandscapes RAFLeuchars
shippingidentified
SPAdueforexpansion);BellRock includingmajor
within15nmof
inAugust08
submergedreef;sealcolony;Tay touristcentreSt
SSR,inPARlineof Anatecdata
salmon
Andrews
sight

Significanttrawling LowyieldWindspeed
impact,alsopotting of8.5/7.5ms1below
&manysmall
viability
fishingboats.

2008EmuReport,Natural
ResearchReport2008,Cork
EcologyReport2008,
ConsultationwithRSPB,SNH,
FRS,ScottishGovernmentSeabird
groups

ICESlandingdata,
Consultationwith
FRS,Scottish
Fisheries
Federation,
MontrosePort

2008LUCReport,
2008PagerPower 2008Anatec
2006DtiSEAstudy, Report,MOD
Report,
FifeCouncilguidance, consultation
Consultationwith
2006ASHreport
Chamberof
Shipping,MCA,
MontrosePort

Limitedimpacton
localfishingfleet,
possibleimpacton
codnursery

Jacketand
Tripod

Physical
Conditions

Minimalimpact,
Minimallocal
flexibilitytoadjust impact
alignment

DataSource

LowOutside13km PotentialRAF
mediumzone
LeucharsPSR

Shipping

Jacketand
Tripod

Jacketand
Tripod

South:firm
Possibleconnection
bearing,North: toTorness,Cockenzie
more
orKintoreTealing
sedimentary

Weakdeposit Added10kmoffshore
unsuitablefor
compoundsissues
foundations
withMontrose
inshoresites
StAndrewsBay Possibleconnection
formationwith
toTorness.
somebedrock
issues

LowyieldWindspeed Jacket,tripod
Quaternary
Possibleconnection
of8.5/7.5ms1below
andsome
depositswitha toKintoreTealing
viability
piling
smallareaof
Routingcomplex
Tertiarysheer
issuewillneed
addressed
GHReport,Mainstream odeReport odeReport,Emu
SKMReport,
specialistknowledge
GeologyStudy
Mainstream
experience

SiteSelectionConstraints

7|P a g e

1.6 Consultation
NnGOWLrecognisethatconsultationisanimportantaspectoftheconsentingprocess,bothtoinformothers
andtogainmoreinformationaboutthelocationandappropriatemethodologiesforassessment.Duringbid
preparation,consultationwasundertakenwithkeystakeholders,giveninTable12withupdatesofmeetings
since.

STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATION

DATEOFMEETING

ChamberofShipping

Meetingpluscorrespondence

31Jul08

FifeCouncil

Meetingspluscorrespondence

13Mar09,20May09

FisheriesResearchServices(FRS)

Meetingpluscorrespondence

26Aug08,11Mar09

HistoricScotland

Correspondence

JointNatureConservationCommittee
(JNCC)
MaritimeCoastguardAgency(MCA)

Correspondence

Meeting

02Sep08

MODCNSHeritage

Correspondence

MODSafeguarding

Correspondenceandformalpro
forma
Meetingpluscorrespondence

22Aug08

Correspondence

Meetingspluscorrespondence

22Juland28Aug08

Correspondence

Meetingpluscorrespondence

26Aug08

ScottishFisheriesProtectionAgency(SFPA)

Correspondence

ScottishGovernment

Meeting

10Mar09

ScottishNaturalHeritage

Informalscopingmeeting

18Jun09

ScottishNaturalHeritage(SNH)

Meetingpluscorrespondence

28Aug08

TheCrownEstate

Meeting

ongoing

UKHydrographicOffice(UKHO)

Correspondence

MontroseHarbourMaster
RoyalCommissionontheAncientand
HistoricMonumentsinScotland(RCAHMS)
RoyalSocietyfortheProtectionofBirds
(RSPB)
ScottishEnvironmentProtectionAgency
(SEPA)
ScottishFisheriesFederation(SFF)

Table12

StakeholderConsultationList

As part of scoping, and continuing throughout the EIA process, further consultation will be undertaken,
particularlywithlocalcommunities,industriessuchasshippingandfishingaswellasstatutoryagencies,The
Crown Estate and the Scottish Government. See 1.4.2 for details on how to get involved in the scoping
process.

8|P a g e

LegislativeFramework

2.1 TheNeedforOffshoreWindinScotland
TheScottishGovernment'sClimateChangeBill,passedbytheScottishParliamentinJune2009,setsatargetof
reducingemissionsby80%by2050,includingemissionsfrominternationalaviationandshipping.Italsosetsa
worldleadinginterimtargetfora42%cutinemissionsby2020.Inadditiontothis,ScottishMinisterswant
50% of the demand for Scottish electricity to be supplied from renewable sources by 2020, with an interim
milestoneof31%by2011(ScottishExecutive,2008).
TheScottishMinisterssupportthefullrangeofrenewablegenerationtechnologies,includingoffshorewind,to
enableScotlandtorealiseitsrenewableenergypotential(GlobalEnergyNetworkInstitute,2007).Currently,
thelargestpotentialresourceavailabletohelpachievethistargetisoffshorewind.
Themainenvironmentalbenefitsofoffshorewindfarmsare:

Verylowcarbondioxideemissionsperunitofelectricitygenerated;

Theimprovementofairquality;

Alargeresource;

Increaseddiversityandsecurityofelectricitysupply;

Eliminationofcostuncertaintiesassociatedwithfuelsupplyfluctuations;and

Increasedlevelsofsustainabilityinenergyresourceuse.

2.2 ScottishOffshoreWindPolicy
Since the introduction of supportive planning policies for renewables in Scotland in 2001, the Scottish
Executivetargetsforrenewableelectricitysetin2003,andthestartoftheRenewablesObligationin2003and
growing commitments by the UK to help tackle climate change, strong signals have been delivered to the
renewableelectricitysectortostartdeveloping.
SinceMarch2007,therenewableplanningframeworkhasbeensetoutinScottishPlanningPolicy6(SPP6),
whichhelpsensurethedeliveryofrenewableenergytargetsaswellassupportingthedevelopmentofaviable
renewables industry in Scotland. Through SPP6 the Scottish Government encourages renewable generation
frommanysourcesincludingoffshorewind,wave,tidalandsolarfacilities,andgreateruseoffuelfromwood
andotherenergycrops.ThemarketforrenewablesisbeingfurtherencouragedbytheRO(Scotland),which
requireselectricitycompaniestobuyrenewableenergyorfaceapenalty.
SPP6requiresthatlocalplanningauthoritiesprovidepositivelyforrenewableenergydevelopmentswherethis
canbeachievedinanenvironmentallyacceptablemanner.However,SPP6doesnotsetregionalproduction
targets.
ScottishNaturalHeritage(SNH)asagovernmentagencyprovidesadviceonhowenergypolicy,development
plan policies, and individual renewable energy development proposals will affect natural heritage interests.
SNHspolicyonoffshorerenewablesissetoutinSNHPolicyStatementNo.01/02"SNH'sPolicyonRenewable
Energy" (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2000). In general, SNH supports the use of renewables to counter the
effectsofclimatechangeandpromotethedevelopmentofmeasures,includingenergyefficiencymeasures,to
reducetheemissionofCO2,inlinewithgovernmentpolicy.
TheEnvironmentalAdvisoryForumforRenewableEnergy(EAFRE)isaScottishbodyappointedtooverseethe
productionofnewplanningpoliciesforrenewablesinScotland.MembersoftheforumincludeRSPBScotland
andScottishEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.

9|P a g e

2.2.1 ScottishTerritorialWindFarms
SinceTheCrownEstateinitiallyinviteddeveloperstoconsideroffshorewindfarmswithinScottishterritorial
waters there has been a positive reaction from the industry. In February 2009, The Crown Estate offered
exclusivity agreements to nine companies and consortia for ten sites within Scottish territorial waters. The
detailsarepresentedbelowinTable21.
PlanID

SiteName

Company/Consortia

Size(MW)

Area(km2)

SolwayFirth

E.ONClimate&RenewablesUK
Developments

300

61.5

WigtownBay

DongWind(UK)Ltd

280

51.1

Kintyre

AirtricityHoldings(UK)Ltd

378

69.4

Islay

AirtricityHoldings(UK)Ltd

680

94.6

ArgyllArray

ScottishPowerRenewables

Beatrice

AirtricityHoldingsUKLtd
SeaEnergyRenewablesLtd

920

121.3

InchCape

NPowerRenewablesLtd
SeaEnergyRenewablesLtd

905

149.9

BellRock

AirtricityHoldingsUKLtd
FluorLtd

700

92.8

Neartna
Gaoithe

MainstreamRenewablePowerLtd

360

105.1

10

ForthArray

FredOlsenRenewablesLtd

415

128.4

Table21

1,500

361

WindFarmsinScottishTerritorialWaters

Thetenexclusivityagreementsaredesignedtoallowdeveloperstobegininitialsurveysandconsultationfor
theirsites.Figure21showstheNnGOWLsiteinrelationtoBellRock,InchCapeandForthArraysites.Under
thetermsofTheCrownEstateexclusivityagreement,developersareobligedtocooperatewitheachotherand
thisismanagedbyTheCrownEstatethroughtheForthandTayDeveloperOffshoreWindGroup.Thisgroupis
already collaborating on issues such as cumulative impacts, survey methodologies and undertaking regional
studies.

10|P a g e

Figure21

NnGOWLsite(9)inrelationtoBellRock(8),InchCape(7)andForthArray(10)sites

2.2.2 StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentinScottishTerritorialWaters
The Scottish government is in the process of conducting a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for
offshore wind within Scottish territorial waters, to establish a clear and consistent approach to future
development. Following completion of the SEA, The Crown Estate will award agreements for lease for
suitablesites.Leaseswhichenablethedeveloperstoprogresswithconstructionworkswillonlybegrantedby
The Crown Estate once the developer has obtained statutory consents and permissions from the Scottish
Government.
NnaGOWL is following the Scottish Territorial Waters SEA process closely through the scoping exercise and
involvementsingroupssuchastheScottishRenewables.Recommendations,dataandreportsfromtheSEA
willcontributetowardstheNnGOWLEIAprocess.

2.3 RegionalPolicy
TheproposedNeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindFarmislocatedoffshorefromtheconstituenciesofEdinburgh
and Lothian, East Lothian and Fife councils. Each of the councils regional renewable policies are reviewed
below.
The Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan 2015 incorporates and supports the development of renewable
energy resources where this can be achieved in an environmentally acceptable manner, and requires local
planstosetoutthecriteriaagainstwhichrenewableenergydevelopmentwillbeassessed.

11|P a g e


The East Lothian Local Plan 2008 Written Statement and Plan, was adopted on 28th October 2008 and is
availableontheEastLothianCouncilwebsite.Theystate:
TheFifeCouncilStructurePlan20062026setsoutthattheyareencouragingtheuseofrenewableenergy
technologies,includingwindpower,asanalternativetofossilfuels(FifeMatters,2006).Althoughtheydonot
specifically mention offshore wind, Fife council has thoroughly considered onshore wind development and
producedsupportingguidancedocuments.

12|P a g e

ProjectDescription

3.1 SiteLocation
Theproposedsiteis15.5kmeastofFifeNessandcoversanareaof105km2.Theproposedsiteislocated
11.5kmsoutheastfromBellRockand16kmeastoftheIsleofMay.ThisisshowninFigure31.

Figure31

IllustrativeLayout&Design

3.2 WindResource
FurthertotheinitialassessmentbyGarradHassan(GH),NnGOWLundertookfurtheranalysisandestimated
thatthesitecouldhaveaninstalledcapacityofupto450MW.
GHestablishedthewindresourcefortheNeartnaGaoithesitefromacombinationofdatasources,including
mesoscale modelling, Earth Observation data and published estimates, all of which have an element of
uncertainty.ThemesoscaleresultswerecomparedtotheAtlasofUKMarineRenewableResources(DTIet
al.,2004).Avalidationofthemesoscalemodelresultswasalsoundertakenusingthreeindependentsources
ofEarthObservation(EO)windspeeddatatocreateawindmapfortheFirthofForth.
The mesoscale model results were considered reliable first estimates of the wind regime, and indicate that
NeartnaGaoitheisarelativelywindysitewithintheFirthofForth,withwindspeedsof8.9to9.1ms1.Inthe
absenceofonsitemeasurementsseveralotheractionswereundertaken:

AreviewofavailablemeteorologicalstationsintheFirthofForth;

Areviewoflongtermwindspeedanddirectionfrequencydistributionfromoneofthesestations;

ScalethedistributiontothemeanwindspeedofNeartnaGaoithe,accordingtomesoscaleresults;
and

13|P a g e

AnalysisofthechangeinthedistributionfromthemeteorologicalstationtoNeartnaGaoitheusing
mesoscalewindclimateresultsforvalidationpurposes.

The wind speed and direction distribution was derived from an onshore meteorological station (Leuchars),
located25kmtothenorthwestoftheproposedNeartnaGaoithesite.Thiswasthenscaledtotheestimated
meanwindspeedatNeartnaGaoithe,toprovideestimatedwindvaluesforuseinapreliminarylayoutand
energyyieldassessments.
ThewinddirectiondatafromthemeasurementsattheLeucharsMeteorologicalStationshowaclearwesterly
predominance,whilstthemesoscalemodelresultsatthesamelocationweregenerallymoreomnidirectional.
The observations are considered more reliable and have therefore been used for defining wind direction
distributionsforNeartnaGaoithe.
Analysisoftheenergycontentofthewindspeedfrequencydistributionsindicatesthatthemeasureddataare
lessenergeticthanthemodelresults.Inaddition,comparisonofthemodelresultsindicatesthattheoffshore
windclimatesmaybemoreenergeticthanatthelocationoftheLeucharsonshoremeasurements.
FollowingtheGHreport,NnGOWLintendtoinstallahighqualityoffshoremeteorologicalmastonthesiteand
collect data for a period of at least 12 months and possibly up to 5 years. These data may then be used to
refine the preliminary wind climate estimates presented in the GH report and to bring the uncertainties
associatedwithsuchestimateswithinaquantifiablerange.

3.3 DevelopmentDetails
ThecoordinatesoftheproposedNeartnaGaoithesite(Figure31)aregivenbelowinTable31:

Table31

Coordinate Longitude
Point

Latitude

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

56.29046
56.32915
56.33848
56.33614
56.25447
56.21197
56.21272
56.26373

2.33719
2.29708
2.27529
2.24848
2.16495
2.15424
2.27154
2.33423

CoordinatesofNeartnaGaoithe(WGS84DecimalDegrees)

Theproposeddevelopmentislikelytoconsistof75turbines,eachhavingacapacityof6MW,givingatotal
installed capacity of 450MW. The capacity factor for the site is estimated to be 4045%, although, a more
accuratefigurewillbecalculatedwiththesitespecificwinddata.Theestimatedhubheightisapproximately
105m with arotor diameter of approximately 137m. The proposed layout is presented in Figure 31. The
layoutisdesignedtomaximisethewindfromthesouthwest,thepredominantwinddirection.
Atthetimeofpublicationofthisdocument,potentialturbinessuppliersRepowerandSiemens(bothmakers
ofstandard3bladeturbines)arebeingconsidered.Howeverthereisflexibilitytousedifferenttechnologyifit
provessuitable.Thedesignlifeoftheturbinesisapproximately20yearsbuttheleasetermisexpectedtobe
in the region of 40 years. This therefore entails repowering 20 years after construction and then
decommissioningafurther20yearslater.
Whilemonopileshavemainlybeenusedasturbinefoundationstodate,theseareconsideredunsuitablefor
theproposedwaterdepths.Similarly,gravitybasefoundationshavenotyetbeenusedforwindturbinesat
this depth. Consequently, alternatives such as jacket foundations are being considered. However, detailed
foundationdesign,basedonthegeotechnicalstudy,isrequiredbeforethefinaldecisionismade.
Thereisaproposedcentraloffshoretransformerplatform,withradialinterarraycables.Thepreferredexport
cablerouteistoTorness,southofNeartnaGaoithe.However,analternativeroutetoCockenzie,locatedto

14|P a g e


the southwest of Neart na Gaoithe, is also being considered. Six potential connection locations have been
reviewedincluding,Tealing,Arbroath,Blyth,andCrystalRig.
Anoffshoremeteorologicalmastorsimilar,willbeinstalledtomeasurethewindspeedandthusestimatethe
energyproducedbyaproposedwindfarm.Themetmastlocationmustberepresentativeoftheturbinesin
order to reduce uncertainties in this energy estimate. A proposed met mast location within the Neart na
Gaoithe site is given inTable 32 below. It should be noted that this location is indicative only and maybe
subjecttochange.

Longitude

Latitude

ProposedMastLocation(UTMZone31NWGS84)

2.263697

56.259061

Table32

MetMastLocation

Astheturbinetechnologyandhubheightoftheproposedwindfarmhavenotyetbeenconfirmed,themast
willmeasureupto100mabovemeansealevel.
Thetypeoffoundationfortheoffshoremetmastdependsonthewaterdepthandgeologicalconditions.The
designwillbeinformedbythegeophysicalsurveyandsubsequentgeotechnicalinvestigationsatthesite.The
mastislikelytobearobustfreestandinglatticetowerdesignedtowithstandoffshoreconditions.Theface
width of the mast will be minimised, within technical constraints, to reduce the influence of the mast on
measurements,especiallyatthelowerlevels.
Instrumentation will consist of an anemometer at 100m above mean sea level and pairs of anemometers
installedatvariousheightsonthemasttoallowmeasurementofthewindspeedshearprofile.Windvanes
will be mounted at various measurement heights to measure wind direction. Pressure, temperature and
humiditysensorswillalsobeinstalledonthemast.Othersensorstomeasurethewaveandtidalclimatemay
beinstalled.

3.4 PlanningandConsentforNeartnaGaoithe
TheconsentingprocessforwindfarmswithinScottishterritorialwatersisaproductofcontinuingdevolution
ofkeyresponsibilitiesthroughouttheUK.Whilstthestatutoryrequirements,consentsandlicencesthemselves
are broadly uniform across the UK, the regulatory bodies, the statutory advisors and stakeholders for the
NeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindFarmaredistinctfromprojectsinEnglishandWelshwatersorthoseoutside
12nauticalmiles.
Duringthebidprocess,MainstreamconsultedandmetwiththeScottishGovernmentandFRSasregulators
and SNH as a critical statutory advisor, to ensure clarity over consent requirements and to agree the
appropriatewayforward.On1April2009,MarineScotlandtookoverthemarineconsentingfunctionsofFRS.
The existing consenting process is due to be overhauled when the Marine (Scotland) Bill is passed. It is
envisagedthat,atthetimeofapplication,theMarine(Scotland)Billwillhavebeenpassedandtheconsenting
procedure will have been clarified through secondary legislation. At present the Bill does not set out the
proposed application procedure in detail but one of the key changes will be the replacement of consents
undertheFoodandEnvironmentProtectionAct1985(FEPA)andtheCoastProtectionAct1949(CPA)witha
MarineLicence.
UnderthecurrentprocedureconsentisrequiredfromtheScottishGovernmentunder:

Section36oftheElectricityAct1989(Section36)toconstructandoperateageneratingstationof
over50MW;

Section5ofFEPAforthedeposit/constructionofinstallationssuchasfoundations,cablesandscour
protectiononorwithintheseabed;

Section34ofCPAforallworksaffectingnavigationrights,includingstructuresorinvestigativeworks
thatmaycreateobstructions;and

Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (TCP(S)A) deemed planning
permissionforonshoreworksifnecessary.

15|P a g e


Additionalconsentsthatmayberequiredinclude:

Workslicencesfromtherelevantportorharbourauthorities;

PermissionundertheProtectionofWrecksAct1973forthedepositofanythingontheseabedthat
coulddamage,destroyorobstructaccesstowreckswithinareasdesignatedunderthisAct;

Approvals from Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) under Section 20 of the Water
Environment & Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 and Water Environment (Controlled Activities)
(Scotland) Regulations 2005 for activities liable to pollute or significantly affect the water
environment.

It is NnGOWL understanding that the regulatory bodies in Scotland propose to offer a onestop shop to
administerthesevariousapplications.AtpresentSection36isconsideredtobetheprimaryconsentandthe
ScottishGovernment(EnergyConsentsUnit)actsastheleadconsentingbody.TheEnergyConsentsUnitis
responsibleforliaisingwiththeScottishgovernmentsTransportDirectorate,Ports&HarboursUnitinrelation
totheCPAapplicationandMarineScotlandfortheFEPAapplication,aswellaswithotherrelevantauthorities
foradditionalconsents.TheEnergyConsentsUnitmanagesallstatutoryconsultations,andprovidesasingle
pointofcontactwithintheScottishGovernment.Bywayofexample,theEnergyConsentsUnitseeksfeedback
fromtheMCAonnavigationalsafetyissuesaccordingtoCPA,FEPAandSection36requirements,feedingback
theresponsetocolleaguesinthePortsandHarboursUnitandMarineScotland. MarineScotlandisexpected
to start advising on applications towards the end of 2009 and to start receiving applications for Marine
LicencesbyApril2010.
NnGOWL is considering the various consenting approaches for the onshore elements of the project in
conjunction with the Scottish Government. The first option is to apply for Section 36 consent for the
developmentasawholewithdeemedplanningconsentunderSection57oftheTownandCountryPlanning
(Scotland)Act1997(TCP(S)A)foranyonshoreancillaryworks.ThesecondoptionistoapplyforSection36
consent for the offshore works and separate permission under Section 37 of the TCP(S)A for the ancillary
onshoreworks.NnGOWLwillcontinuetoliaisewithScottishGovernmentonthisissuewiththefinaldecision
beinginfluencedbyfinaldesignandgridconnectionrequirements.
Theconsentingprocessitselfcanbesplitintofourdistinctphases:
Stage1

Projectplanningandscoping:Effectiveplanningiskeytoanefficientandthoroughassessmentof
theprojectpriortoapplicationforconsent.Followingthesubmissionofthescopingdocument,
NnGOWLwillorganiseastakeholderworkshoptodiscussanyissuesanddetermineanassessment
plan.Initialdiscussionsregardingtheassessmentofcumulativeimpacts(includingthedetailsof
the appropriate methodology for such an assessment), taking into consideration other potential
sitesandRound3proposals,havealreadyhighlightedthisisakeyissuethatwillrequireextensive
discussionandconsiderationgoingforward.

Stage2

Data collection, surveys and analysis: The outcomes of the scoping process and associated
consultationwillinformextensivedatacollectionandsurveys.TheapproachagreedwithSNHand
theregulatorsdescribedabovewillacceleratetheinitiationofcriticalpathsurveysandwillhelp
ensure the associated analysis is robust. NnGOWL has already commenced critical path bird
surveysandotheroffshoredatacollection.

Stage3

Consent Application and Determination: NnGOWLs work with regulators and advisors will
continueafterapplicationshavebeensubmitted.Earlyconsultationwillsupportanosurprises
philosophyandNnGOWLwillretainclosedialoguethroughoutthedeterminationprocess.Acore
EIA element will be to applylessons learned fromprevious projects and propose mitigation and
monitoring measures at an early stage to avoid lengthy negotiations and discussions that could
delaydetermination.

Stage4

PostDetermination:Theimplementationofmonitoringandmitigationprovisionsintheleadupto,
during and following construction are an integral part of the consenting process. Securing
workableconditionsthatdonotexposeconstructionoroperationtounacceptablerisksisacore
objective.Itisimportantthatallmonitoringisdrivenbyclearobjectivesandhypothesestoensure

16|P a g e


it is targeted and produces meaningful results. NnGOWL will work with industry colleagues
throughouttheconsentprocesstomaximiseknowledgetransferandstreamlinerequirements.
Afurtherconsentthatmustbeobtainedpriortoconstructionrelatestodecommissioning.NnGOWLwillbe
issuedwithanoticetoproduceadecommissioningplanuponreceiptofconsent.Responsibilityforapproval
ofdecommissioningmeasuresandaccompanyingfinancialsecurityremainswiththeDepartmentforEnergy
andClimateChange(DECC),withScottishGovernmentbecomingastatutoryconsulteewithothergovernment
bodies.
In addition to the above consents, landowner and other agreements will be required for the project to
progresstoconstruction.InadditiontosecuringaleasewithTheCrownEstate,alicencetocrosstheforeshore
withexportcableswillneedtobesecured.ItmayalsobenecessarytoseekconsentunderSection37ofthe
ElectricityAct1989shouldanyoverheadlineworksberequiredforconnectionintothetransmissionsystem.
TheprojectmayalsorequireanagreementunderSection75oftheTCP(S)A.
Aspartoftheapplicationprocess,anEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA)willbecarriedout.ThisEIAwill
detail the methods used and the outcomes of various surveys, consultations and analysis of the potential
impacts of the project. The EIA has been planned to comply with appropriate legislation and best practise
guidanceandtosupportallnecessaryapplicationsforconsent.NnGOWLwillproduceasingleEIAtocoverall
offshoreandonshoreconsents.

3.4.1 NavigationRights
DuringtheEIAandconsentingprocessitmaybenecessarytoconsiderchangestothenavigationrightswithin
theoffshorewindfarmsite.PublicrightsofnavigationhavebeenrecognisedinScotslawforcenturiesandare
simplyarightofwayacrossnavigablewaters.Numerouspublicrightsofnavigationhavebeenestablishedover
the years throughout Scottish waters, primarily for commercial purposes but also more recently for
recreationalpurposes.
PriortotheEnergyAct2004,itwasonlypossibletoextinguishorinterferewiththeserightsonthepassingof
anActofParliament,forexampletheRobinRiggOffshoreWindFarm(NavigationandFishing)(Scotland)Act
2003. To interfere with these rights without the passing of such an Act was unlawful. The Energy Act 2004
however,introducedsection36AoftheElectricityAct1989.Thissectionallowsanapplicationtobemadefor
adeclarationfromtheScottishMinistersextinguishingtheserights.
Itshouldbenotedthatthedeclarationneednotbetoextinguishtherightsintheirentirety.Thedeclaration
canbetoextinguishtherights,suspendthemforaperiodthatisspecifiedinthedeclaration,suspendthem
untilsuchtimeasmaybedeterminedinaccordancewithprovisioncontainedinthedeclaration,ortoallow
therighttobeexercisablesubjecttosuchrestrictionsorconditions,orboth,asaresetoutinthedeclaration.
In this way the declaration can deal with both the temporary impacts on navigation rights as a result of
construction and also the ongoing / permanent impacts on navigation rights as a result of the operational
development.

3.5 EngineeringConsiderations
Mainstream commissioned ode Ltd. to complete a geotechnical and structural review for Neart na Gaoithe
during the bid phase. Initial geological interpretations were carried out by Emu Ltd., although there was
limitedboreholeinformation.However,abroadoverviewwasprovidedforpreliminaryconsideration.
Fromtheinterpretation,NeartnaGaoitheischaracterisedbyasequenceofweaksiltymuds(StAndrewsBay
andLargoBaymember)overlayingastrongersandgravellytill(WeeBankieFormation),whichinturnoverlies
argillaceousrock.Thethicknessofthesequaternarysedimentsvariesfrom0mtoover30mthick.IntheFirth
of Forth there are areas where the upper weak strata are missing and the stronger Wee Bankie Formation
outcropsattheseabed.Attheselocations,thedepthofsedimentabovebedrockisshallow,from0mto10m.
Constructionwithintheseareasmayrequirethatpileswouldbedrilledandgroutedintotheunderlyingrock
(odeLtd,2008).
Various types of foundation are being considered including monopiles, gravity bases and jacket structures.
Consideringthegeologyandwaterdepth,thepreferredfoundationatthisstageisajacketfoundation.

17|P a g e


Thefinaldecisionontheengineeringconsiderationswillbemadeoncompletionofageotechnicalcampaign.
Thisinvestigationwouldcompriseanintrusivesurveyateachproposedwindturbinelocationandatregular
pointsalongtheexportcable.Thewindfarmlayoutwillbefinalisedfollowingcompletionofthefirstyearof
onsite wind data collection in 2011. This survey will enable detailed design to be optimised and for
procurementtobecompletedin2012withaviewtooffshoreconstructionin2014,dependingonleadtimes
forkeycomponentsatthetime.
Subseanoisemodellingwillincorporateengineeringadviceonthemaximumpilediameter(i.e.theloudest
option)toensureflexibilitytouseoptimumfoundationdesignsisretained.

3.6 GridConnection
InScotland,theNationalGridisconsideringtwooptionsforconnection:
i)

whethertoinvestinmultipleconnectionpoints,withtheindividualdeveloperschargedseparatelyfor
connections;or

i)

whethertooptforonecentralpointtowhichalloffshorewindfarmslocaltoanareawouldconnect
(BusinessGreen,2009).

NnGOWL will be responsible for gaining all the consents and licences required for the transmission
infrastructure.However,itisnottheirresponsibilitytodesign,constructandmaintaintheinfrastructure,as
thisistheresponsibilityoftheOffshoreTransmissionOwner(OFTO).NnGOWLhassubmittedanapplication
toNationalGridElectricityTransmission(NGET)toconnecttotheonshoretransmissionsystem,namingthe
connectionpoint,cablerouteandlandfall.NnGOWLwillbereimbursedforanycostsincurredingainingthe
consentsandlicences.OFTOswillbeappointedbyanannualtenderprocessonafixeddate,whichwillberun
byOfgem.BothNGETandNnGOWLwillhavekeyrolesinthetenderprocess,asthedeveloperwilldetermine
whatkindofelectricitytransmissioninfrastructureismosteconomicandefficient.

3.6.1 OffshoreCableRoute
NnGOWLcommissionedagridconnectionstudybySKMthatidentifiedtwopotentialconnectionsites(SKM,
2008).TheseareatCockenzieontheFirthofForth,wheretherearelinesat275kVand400kVconnectingthe
coalfiredpowerstation,andatTorness,ontheeastcoastsouthofDunbar,wheretwo400kVlinesconverge
to serve the nuclear power station located there. At this stage of the project, specific locations for new
substationshavenotbeenidentified.
Although a connection point at Tealing was also considered, with an offshore cable route landing at
Carnoustie,thiswasdismissedduetolimitedcapacityearlyintheprocess.OnceTealingwasruledout,the
preliminarydesignoftheoffshorecableroutestoTornessandCockenziewasinitiatedandcompleted.
NeartnaGaoithewillrequiretwoorthreeexportcablesoperatingat132kV.Thepotentialroutesthathave
beenidentifiedhavebeensurveyed(geophysicalandecological)tofurtherassessfeasibility,althoughresults
arepending.
The substations at Torness, and Cockenzie were originally chosenas suitable connection pointsdueto their
proximity to Neart na Gaoithe and their coastal locations. NnGOWL commissioned an independent cable
engineeringconsultanttoreviewtheoffshorecableoptionsforNeartnaGaoithe.Theroutesproposedare
showninFigure32.

18|P a g e

Figure32

ProposedCableRoutesfortheNeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindFarm

Export routesto the two landing zones (Cockenzie (1) and Torness (2))are similar over much of their route
lengthsuntilthe50misobathisreached(ConnellyContracting,2009).FromthispointtheCockenzieroute
continues through what is essentially an estuarine environment characterised by shoaling waters, relatively
modernsedimentsandalowrelieflanding.TheTornessroutes(2a&2b)runthroughmoreopenwaterswith
thinner sediment over bedrock before approaching a rocky shoreline. The route length to either landing at
Torness is significantly less than that to Cockenzie. The differences between the Torness Thorntonloch (2a)
andSkateraw(2b)landingsarenotgreatbutnegotiatingtheconfinedSkaterawharbourmaybeconsidered
tobeanunnecessarycomplication.
FurtherdetailsontheeachoftheoffshorecableroutesareprovidedinAppendixA.

3.6.2 OnshoreSubstation
3.6.2.1 PotentialConnection1Cockenzie
Potentialforaconnectionattheexistingsubstationoranewbuildsubstationinthevicinityofthecoalfired
powerstationatCockenziehasbeenidentifiedbySKM.However,itshouldbenotedthatthereispotentialfor
a new gas fired power station at the same location which may reduce the available capacity for the grid
connection.
3.6.2.2 PotentialConnection2aand2b
TherearetwoproposedlandingsthathavebeenconsideredatTornessonthebasisofsuggestionsbySKMand
ConnellyContracting(2008):
i.

Thorntonloch;and

ii.

Skaterawharbour.

Thesewouldbothleadtothesamesubstationforconnection.

19|P a g e


3.6.2.3 PotentialConnection2aTorness(Thorntonloch)
AlandfallhasbeenproposedonthebeachatThorntonloch,whichisapproximately1kmtothesoutheastof
theTornessnuclearpowerstationand400kVsubstationsite.
Thereappearstobeadequatelandinproximitytothepowerstationforasubstationalthoughtheavailability
of this land is unknown. As an alternative, SKM suggest a substation 2.5km southwest of the village of
Innerwick,whichitselfis3kmwestofthelanding.However,thereappearstobeadequatelandclosertothe
beachwithAbnormalIndivisibleLoads(AIL)accessfromtheA1roadorbybargeviathepurposebuiltquay
withinthepowerstationcompound.
3.6.2.4 PotentialConnection2bTorness(Skateraw)
An alternative landfall point has been suggested within the harbour at Skateraw, adjacent to the Torness
nuclear power station site. The harbour is a natural rocky bay that has been heavily modified by structures
builtaspartofthepowerstation,themostsignificantofwhichisthemoleandquaycomplexatthemouthof
thebay.
ThesubstationsitesuggestedbySKMis4.5kmtothesouthwestofthelanding;the400kVlinesealingends
compoundsare2.5kmtothesouth.

3.7 Operation,MaintenanceandMonitoringofPerformance
ThereislikelytobeanOperationsandMaintenancebaseinalocalport,withworkboatstotakepersonnel,
tools,andequipmenttothesiteonschedulesthatrequireeachturbinetobevisitedbetweenoneandfour
timeseachyear.Unscheduledmaintenancewillalsoberequired.

20|P a g e

PhysicalEnvironment

4.1 Metocean
4.1.1 GeneralDescription
WithintheNeartnaGaoitheoffshorearea,fogisrareinwinter,occurringforlessthan1%ofthetime,butthis
increasesto34%ofthetimeinthesummer.Itisusuallyassociatedwithwarmairoverthewater,sowith
windsfromthesoutheastorsouthwest(UKHO,2006).
The currents are relatively low, with spring tides only reaching 1kn(0.514 ms1) in the OuterFirth of Forth.
WithintheFirthofForth,nearRosyth,thecurrentsare0.71.1ms-1ontheebb,and0.40.7ms-1ontheflood.
Ingeneral,thefloodcurrentsarestrongeronthenorthsideoftheFirthandtheebbstrongeronthesouthern
shore.Consequently,thereisadrifttowardsthewestinthenorthernandcentralFirth,withaneastwardflow
alongthesouthernshore.However,ifthewaternearthenortherncoastbecomesstratifiedinlatewinterto
earlyspring,thiscangenerateaseawardflowalongthenortherncoastlineaswell(UKOffshoreEnergySEA,
2009).
NEXT modelling of wind and waves showed that the 1%exceedence level for significant wave height in this
areawas4.5m,i.e.thatwavesremainunder4.5mfor99%ofthetime(OffshoreTechnologyReport,2001).
Thisalsoshowedthatthereweretwopredominantdirections:fromthesouthwestandfromthenorth.This
is due to the dominant wind direction from the southwest creating local waves, but swell waves from the
Atlantic coming from the north. Waves reach 4.5 m from both directions. In addition to this, the Angus
ShorelineManagementPlanlistsa100yearreturnperiodextremewaveheightof11.9matadistanceof9km
offshore from Montrose (Angus Council, 2004). This report also lists the 100year return significant wave
height30kmoffshorefromtheTayEstuaryas8.95m.
MainstreamcommissionedaWindStudy(2008)fromGarradHassanandpartnerswhichcalculatedthelong
term mean wind speed estimates at 80 m AMSL derived from mesoscale modelling and EO data. The
mesoscaleresultsfortheNeartnaGaoithesitehadaminimumof8.9ms-1,andmaximumof9.1ms-1,givingan
averageof9.0ms-1 (GarradHassan,2008).TheEOdatagiveameanof9.2ms-1,andtheMarineRenewables
Atlas 1estimateforthesiteis9ms-1.
As winds tend to funnel along estuaries, such as the Firth of Forth, this can give local increases in winds
offshore.

4.1.2 AvailableData
InearlySeptember2008,CEFASdeployedadirectionalwaveriderintheOuterFirthofForth(5611.33N,002
30.24W,Figure41)aspartoftheirwavenetmonitoringprogramme,whichenablesrealtimewavedirection
andheighttobeviewedviatheinternet 2.

MarineRenewablesAtlashttp://www.renewablesatlas.info/

CefasWaveNetwebsitelinkhttp://www.cefas.co.uk/data/wavenet.aspx

21|P a g e

Figure41

WaveriderLocationinOuterFirthofForth

Otherdatasourcesandmarineinventoriesinclude:

BODC(BritishOceanographicDataCentre);

WaveClimate 3;

BERRAtlasofUKMarineRenewableEnergyResources;

Tidegaugedataavailablefrom1915August2008 4;

BADC(BritishAtmosphericDataCentreatmosphericDAC);

NERCEODC(EarthObservationDataCentre);

UKMarineInformationAlliance;

MEDIN (Marine Environmental Data Information Network) formerly MDIP (Marine Data and
InformationPartnership);

GLOSS(GlobalSeaLevelObservingSystem);

GOOSAGUK(GlobalOceanObservingSystemActionGroup);

UKHO(UKHydrographicOffice);

IODE(InternationalOceanographicDataandInformationExchange);and

OceanNet(MEDIN)(webportaltoMEDAG/MDIP/UKGOOS).

WaveClimateDatawebsitewww.waveclimate.com

ProudmanOceanographicLaboratorywww.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html

22|P a g e

4.1.3 MethodofAssessment
Theassessmentforoceanographicparameterswilluseacombinationoffieldmeasurementsandmodelling.
Significant impacts are difficult to define with regard to waves and currents, and therefore significance is
dependentonwhetherchangesintheseaspectsaltertheecologyorsedimentregimeinasignificantway.
Thefollowingguidancewillbeused:

Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessment in Respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements,
Version2June2004,CEFAS2004.

Asuitablemodel(asdetailedinAppendixB)willbesetuptodeterminethecurrentsandwavesinthearea,
andtheprocessescontrollingthem.Thiswillbevalidatedbytheexistingdatasetsthatareavailableplussite
specificmeasurements.Themodelwillcoveranarealargeenoughtostudybothnearfield(withinthewind
farm)andfarfieldaffects,andwillalsoconsiderchangesoverthelifetimeoftheproject(nominally40years)
thatwouldoccurwithoutthewindfarmpresent.Theoceanographicregimeisexpectedtochangeoverthe
next forty years due to factors such as global warming and therefore these trends will be predicted to
establishwhetheranyobservablechangesareduetotheproposedwindfarmorotherbackgroundchanges.

4.1.4 FurtherRequirements
A data gap analysis study has been undertaken by HR Wallingford to determine exactly what information is
required to inform the baseline study andmodel. Mainstream are working with several other Firth of Forth
developerstoprocureacombinedbuoybaseddeployment.
It is anticipated that these site specific current measurements will be collected for a period of at least four
months, or as otherwise advised, to inform the physical processes model. Longer term wave data will be
acquiredfromthewavenetsystem.Thiswillenableacomparisonofshorttermsitespecificdatawithalonger
termdatasetformorerobustanalysis.

4.1.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Theturbinefoundationstructuresarelikelytoalterthewaveandcurrentregimelocallyaroundeachbase.To
ensure these affects are localised, the turbine spacing in the alignment of the predominant wave and tidal
currentdirectionswillneedtobesufficienttoavoidcumulativeeffects.Thiswillbedeterminedthroughthe
modellingprocess,andincorporatedwithintheproposedwindfarmdesignasappropriate.
Postconstructionmonitoringcanbeundertakenbydeployingasimilarinstrumenttomeasurecurrentsforthe
sameperiod,andatthesametimeofyearasthepreconsentmeasurements.Thesecanthenbecompared
with each other and with the model to establish any noticeable changes. In addition, for long term
monitoring,thewavenetdatacouldcontinuetobestudiedperiodically.

4.1.6 CumulativeImpacts
In the nearfield scale, there is the potential for cumulative impacts between turbines as discussed above,
which may be avoided by appropriate design of the wind farm. On the larger, farfield scale, there are not
consideredtobeanystructuresoractivitieswhicharecurrentlypresenttocausecumulativeorincombination
effects.
However,duetothepotentialforthreeotheroffshorewindfarmsintheOuterFortharea,theinteractions,
particularlywherethetidalexcursionsoverlap,willbestudiedindetail(seeFigure42).Asthetidalalignment
isapproximatelynorth/south(withatendencytonorthnorthwest/southsoutheast)thepotentialinteraction
withtheproposedwindfarmstothenorthandsouthwillneedtobeconsidered.However,tidalcurrentsare
notparticularlystrong(oftheorderof0.6ms1whichwillreducethelikelihoodofcumulativeinteractions.

23|P a g e

Figure42

TidalDiamondInformationfortheOuterFirthofForth

4.2 Bathymetry
4.2.1 GeneralDescription
The seabed directly offshore the Fife Ness headland is the steepest within the Outer Firth of Forth region,
descendingto40mdepthapproximately8kmoffshore(Figure43).TheNeartnaGaoithesiteislocatedona
slightly elevated section of the seabed, where depths range from 44 55m. The deepest water is located
alongtheeasternportionofthesite.

4.2.2 AvailableData
Data from the Hydrographic Office given on Admiralty Chart 190 and SeaZone Hydrospatial data have been
usedtoassessthebathymetry.

4.2.3 MethodofAssessment
A highresolution swath bathymetry (multibeam) geophysical survey was undertaken in June and July 2009,
providing 100% coverage of the survey area. In accordance with the Marine Guidance Note MGN 371, the
swath bathymetry data were collected to comply with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO)
Order1standardmultibeambathymetryrequirements.
Thesedatawillbeincorporatedwiththeoceanographicandsedimentregimemodeltopredictanypotential
changesduetothepresenceoftheproposedwindturbines.Aswithwavesandcurrents,therearelikelytobe
changes that occur over the next 40 years due to backgroundchanges, and thus any predicted or observed
differenceswillbeconsideredwithinthecontextoftheselargerscalepredictedchanges.
Significantimpactswouldbeconsideredtobetheremovalorcreationofidentifiableseabedfeaturessuchas
sandwaves.Particularattentionwillbegiventoanychangespredictedwithinnearbynavigationroutes.

24|P a g e

Figure43

BathymetryoftheSurroundingArea

Figure44showsthebathymetrycontoursat2mdepthintervalsfrom0to60m.Thecontoursarepresented
inatrafficlightcolourschemefromgreen(shallow)tored(deep).

25|P a g e

Figure44

2mIntervalDepthContoursforNeartnaGaoithe

26|P a g e

4.2.4 FurtherRequirements
Thegeophysicalsurveywillbeanalysedacrosstheproposedsiteandalongthecableroute.Thespecifications
forthissurveyaregiveninAppendixC.

4.2.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Thephysicalprocessesmodellingwillpredictanypotentialchangesduetowakeandscoureffectsfromthe
proposedturbines.Similartotheoceanographicmitigation,thespacingoftheturbinesmaybedesignedto
mitigatecumulativeinteractions.Furthermore,scourprotectionmaybeputinplaceinordertoreducescour
associatedsedimentmovement.

4.2.6 CumulativeImpacts
Locally, there is the potential for cumulative impacts between turbines as discussed above, which may be
avoidedbyappropriatewindfarmdesign.Inthewiderregion,thereappeartobenostructuresoractivities
(e.g. aggregate or channel dredging) which are currently undertaken to cause cumulative or incombination
effects.Theresultsfromtheoceanographicstudywillinformwhetherthereispotentialforcumulativeeffects
betweenthefourproposedFirthofForthoffshorewindfarms.

4.3 Geology
4.3.1 GeneralDescription
TheQuaternarygeologyoftheareaismostlydominatedbythe(earlyHolocene)StAndrewsBaymemberof
theForthFormation(variablemuddyandpebblyestuarinesandsandsiltymudstomuddyfluvialmarinesands
andsilts).TherearealsolocalisedareascomposedoftheWeeBankieFormation,whichcomprisesacohesive
sandy and gravelly till. The Neart na Gaoithe site is located mostly ontheWee Bankie Formation,with the
St.AndrewsBaymemberpresentalongthenorthernandsouthernflanksofthesite,asshowninFigure45.

Figure45

BedrockGeology

27|P a g e

4.3.2 AvailableData
Thepreliminaryreviewwasundertakenwiththefollowingdatasources:

BritishGeologicalSurvey(1986)TayForth1:250000SeriesSeaBedSediments;

BritishGeologicalSurvey(1986)TayForth1:250000SeriesSolidGeology;

BritishGeologicalSurvey(1987)TayForth1:250000SeriesQuaternaryGeology;

Gatliff,R.W.,Richards,P.C.,Smith,K.,Graham,C.C.,McCormac,M.,Smith,N.J.P.,Long,D.,Cameron,
T.D.J.,Evans,D.,Stevenson,A.G.,Bulat,J.,andRitchie,J.D.(1994).UnitedKingdomoffshoreregional
report:thegeologyofthecentralNorthSea.London:HMSOfortheBritishGeologicalSurvey;

Golledge,N.R.&Stoker,M.S.(2006).ApalaeoicestreamoftheBritishIceSheetineasternScotland.
Boreas,35,231243;

Pantin, H.M. (1991). The seabed sediments around the United Kingdom: their bathymetric and
physical environment: grain size, mineral composition and associated bedforms. British Geological
SurveyResearchReport,SB/90/1;

British Geological Survey (1984) Marr Bank 1:250.000 Series Seabed Sediments; British Geological
Survey(1984)MarrBank1:250.000SeriesSolidGeology,BritishGeologicalSurvey(1985)MarrBank
1:250.000SeriesQuaternaryGeology;and

BGSboreholeinformation 5.

Otherdatasourcesavailableinclude:

BGSNationalGeosciencesDataCollections(NGDC);and

DECCStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment5.

4.3.3 MethodofAssessment
Ageophysicalsurveyhasbeenundertakentoestablishthesurfaceandsubsurfacegeologyofthesiteandthe
associatedcableroute.Thedatawillbegroundtruthedwithavailableboreholeinformation.Thegeophysical
survey will provide information on the most appropriate foundation design, which will be confirmed by an
additionalsitespecificgeotechnicalsurvey.

4.3.4 FurtherRequirements
To gain a further understanding of the surface and subsurface geology of the site and cable route, the
geophysicalsurvey(asdescribedinAppendixC)includeshighresolutionsidescansonarandseismicreflection
(boomer)data.

4.3.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Asimilarsurveymaybeundertakenpostconstruction.However,specificmitigationandmonitoringarenot
considered necessary for the geology, since it is not anticipated that the proposed wind farm will have an
impactonthegeologyofthearea.

4.3.6 CumulativeImpacts
Noimpactsonthegeologyareanticipatedandthereforenocumulativeimpactsareconsidered.

BGSBoreholeInformation(http://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/bmd.html)

28|P a g e

4.4 SeabedSedimentsandBedforms
4.4.1 GeneralDescription
Figure 46 shows that the seabed sediments are classified as sand (with some areas of gravelly sand) over
muchofthesite,withmuddysandlocatedtothesouthandwest.

Figure46

SeabedSediments

AnexaminationoftheBGSSeabedSedimentsTayForth1:250.000Series(1986)mapindicatesthepresenceof
sinuoussandwaves/megaripples,extendingasanarrowbandacrossthecentralportionofthesite.Thesand
waves/megaripplesareorientedwestsouthwest/eastnortheast,andarelocatedinareasofbothsandyand
muddysediments.Asmallerbandoflinearsandwaves/megaripplesislocatedjusttothesouth,andtheseare
orientedmostlysoutheast/northwest.Nootherlargescalebedformsareapparentinthesite.

4.4.2 AvailableData
Thefollowingchartwasusedtocharacterisetheseabedsedimentsinthisarea:

BritishGeologicalSurvey(1986)TayForth1:250000SeriesSeaBedSediments.

4.4.3 MethodofAssessment
The geophysical survey included sidescan sonar and Acoustic Ground Discrimination System (AGDS)
measurementstodeterminethenatureoftheseabed.Theseweregroundtruthedwithdropdownvideoand
sedimentsamplingwhereappropriate.Inaddition,theswathbathymetrydata(seeSection4.2)willfurther
assistinidentifyingbedforms.
Theoceanographicandsedimentregimemodelwillidentifywhethertherearelikelytobeanychangesdueto
the proposed wind farm, with particular attention to scour holes and any changes in navigation routes.
Significantimpactswouldincludetheremovalorcreationofidentifiable(largescale)seabedfeatures,e.g.the
sandwavesandmegaripples.

29|P a g e


A further postconstruction survey could be used to verify the model predictions. This will be considered
furtherduringtheEIAprocess.

4.4.4 FurtherRequirements
The geophysical survey described in Appendix C will be used to establish and map the range of seabed
sedimentsandbedformsthatarepresentwithinthesiteandalongthecableroute.

4.4.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Themodellingwillpredictanypotentialchangesduetowakeandscoureffectsfromtheproposedturbines.
As with general bathymetry (see Section 4.2), the spacing of the turbines may be designed to mitigate
cumulativeinteractions.Inaddition,scourprotectionmaybeputinplaceinordertoreducescourassociated
sedimentmovement.

4.4.6 CumulativeImpacts
Locally, there is the potential for cumulative impacts between turbines as discussed above, which may be
avoided by appropriate design of the wind farm. In the wider region, there are currently no wind farms or
other structures or activities (such as aggregate or channel dredging) which could cause cumulative or in
combinationeffects.However,thepotentialforcumulativeeffectsonbedformswiththeotherproposedFirth
ofForthoffshorewindfarmswillbeconsidered.

4.5 SedimentTransport
4.5.1 GeneralDescription
In general, sediment is transported when the currents at the seabed are strong enough to entrain the
sediment, and then move it from one location to another. Consequently, the environment described in
Section 4.1 and 4.4 determine the volume and pathways of sediment transport. In addition to this, storm
conditions can alter the usual patterns of sediment transport. The sediment fluxes in the lower Forth have
beenshowntoberelatedtothetidalcycle(ClarkeandElliot,1998).
Around Scotland, SNH have divided the coast into a series of sediment cells based on longshore drift
observations,andothersedimentderivedfeatures.Withinthesecells,sedimentcanmovefreely,butatthe
boundariesofeachcellthereisageomorphologicalconstraintthatlimitsthemovementofsedimentintothe
nextcell.Cellsareusuallyboundedbyprominentheadlands,orcontainedwithinmajorestuaries.Assuch,
under normal conditions the sediment is contained, and only in exceptional circumstances (such as long
periodsofaconsistentwind,orstormconditions)sedimentistransportedfurtheralongthecoast.
These cells are used for shoreline management purposes as activities, which may have an effect on the
sedimentwithinaparticularcellareunlikelytoimpactadjacentcoastalfeatures.
WithintheSNHAdvisoryNote72,thecoastalcellsrelevanttoNeartnaGaoitheare:

CairnbuigPointtoFifeNess;and

FifeNesstoSt.AbbsHead.

4.5.2 AvailableData
Aninitialdeskstudywillbeundertakentoidentifytheavailablesourcesofinformation,including:

Clarke, S., and Elliott, A. J., (1998) Modelling Suspended Sediment Concentrations in the Firth of
Forth.Estuarine,CoastalandShelfScience,47,235250;and

Cooper, B., and Beiboer, F. (2002) Potential effects of offshore wind developments on coastal
processes.

Lambkin,D.O,Harris,J.M,Cooper,W.S,Coates,T(2009)CoastalProcessModellingforOffshoreWind
FarmEnvironmentalImpactAssessment:BestPracticeGuide

30|P a g e


Inadditiontothese,sedimentsampleshavebeentakenduringthebenthicecologysurvey(AppendixD)and
particle size distributions will be determined. There will also be an oceanographic study (see Appendix B)
whichwillincorporatesuspendedsedimentmeasurements.

4.5.3 MethodofAssessment
Asmentionedabove,adeskstudywillbeundertakentoestablishwhatisalreadyknownandavailableabout
thesedimentregimeintheregion.Thiswillbeaugmentedbysitespecificmeasurementsofseabedsediment
particlesizedistributionsandsuspendedsedimentconcentrations.
Thisinformationwillthenbeusedtocalibrateaphysicalprocessesmodellookingatbothnearfieldandfar
field effects. This model will study current, wave, water level and sediment regimes, and the interaction
betweenthem.Themodelwillbecalibratedtoensurethebaselinemodelisrepresentativeoftheconditions
onsite.
The assessment will be undertaken by synthesising structures within the model and comparing the model
resultswithandwithoutthesestructuresinplace.Inparticular,keyconcernswillbestudied;thesewillreflect
stakeholderfeedback,butmayinclude:

Sandbanksandseabedformations,includingsandwaves;

Anyareasofsensitivespecies,andthelikelihoodofalteredsedimentdeposition/turbidity;and

Anychangestoseabedlevels,withparticularnoticetoareasofnavigation.

Bothdirect(e.g.scouraroundafoundation)andindirect(e.g.adecreaseinsuspendedsedimenttransportdue
tolowerwaveheights)impactswillbeassessed.Themodelwillalsoconsidercumulativeimpactswithother
proposed offshore wind farms within the Firth of Forth and any other relevant activities identified through
scoping.
Thesignificanceofanyimpactsonphysicalprocessescannotbeassessedinanabsolutewayasaparticular
changemayormaynotbeimportant(e.g.aslight,temporaryincreaseinsuspendedsedimentmayormaynot
impact the environment dependent on what other features are there, and what the background regime is).
Consequently,theseverityofanimpactisjudgedbywhetherotherfeaturesaremeasurablyaltered,andthe
contextofanychange,basedonexperience.

4.5.4 FurtherRequirements
Adatagapanalysisstudywillbeundertakentoidentifywhatfurtherinformationisrequired.
The oceanographic data collection will include the deployment of an optical backscatter (OBS) sensor to
determinesedimentconcentrations.Thiswillprovideinsitudatatocalibratethesedimenttransportmodel,
whichislinkedtotheoceanographicmodel,asdescribedinAppendixB.
Particlesizedistributionwillbedeterminedfromgrabsamplesduringthebenthicecologysurvey.
Theseinputswillthenbecombinedwithmeasurementsofcurrentsandwavesandincludedinregionaland
site specific model to simulate the environment as it is now, how it will change naturally over the next 40
years,andhowtheintroductionoffoundationscouldpotentiallyalterit.

4.5.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Localised sediment transport can be minimised by using appropriately designed scour protectionto prevent
excessivesedimentbeingreleasedintothewatercolumn.
Duringconstruction,monitoringcanbeundertakenindownstreamlocationsfromtheinstallationworks,this
willdeterminewhetherlevelsaresignificantlyabovebackgroundlevelsduetotheconstructionwork.There
can be similar monitoring with an OBS sensor postconstruction to monitor the suspended sediment levels
oncetheproposedwindfarmisoperational,whichshouldbecomparedwiththeassessmentmodelresults.

31|P a g e

4.5.6 CumulativeImpacts
Locally,thereisthepotentialforcumulativeimpactsbetweenturbinesifnoscourprotectionispresent,but
this may be avoided by appropriate design of the offshore wind farm through turbine location and suitable
scourprotection.
Usingtheresultsfromtheoceanographicassessment,thesedimenttransportwillbeassessedwithregardto
theotherpotentialwindfarmsintheregion.Asthetideisexpectedtobethemaininfluenceonsediment
transportroutesandlevels,itisanticipatedthattheassessmentwillbehighlydependentonthetidalcurrent
results.
There are currently no other activities that have been identified locally to cause other cumulative or in
combinationimpacts,suchasaggregateornavigationchanneldredging.

32|P a g e

BiologicalEnvironment

5.1 MarineEcology
5.1.1 GeneralDescription
There is considerable information on the distribution and abundance of habitats and associated species
(classifiedintobiotopesbysomeauthors)intheForthEstuary,thecoastalandoffshoreregionsoftheFirthof
Forth,andadjacentareas(e.g.ElliottandKingston,1987;ElliotandTaylor,1989;Brazieretal.,1998;Mairet
al., 2000; Posford Haskoning, 2002). They provide sufficient information to undertake a regional level
assessment,althoughthereareanumberofsitespecificdatagaps.
ThebenthicecologyontheeastcoastofScotlandischaracteristicofthosefoundthroughoutmanypartsof
the east coast of the UK. The distinct taxonomic and ecological communities are largely a function of the
variablecoastline.Forexample,westoftheproposedwindfarmsite,theFirthofForthcoastlineiscomposed
of sandy bays and rocky headlands with extensive cliffed rocky shores. Subtidally, sediments are
predominantly sandy, although the more outer parts of the Firth become finer (e.g. either muddy sand or
sandymud).Bycontrast,therearelargepartsoftheinnerFirththathaveextensivegravellydeposits.
ThenearshorebenthiccommunitiesintheregionareinfluencedbytheForthEstuaryandtheoutflowoffine
sediments.Thesesedimentsaretransportedbytheprevailingwesterlycurrentsalongthenorthcoastandout
towards the proposed wind farm site (see Eleftheriou et al., 2004). Anthropogenic activities also have an
influence.TheFirthofForthisimportantintermsofnavigationandcommerce,muchofitassociatedwiththe
petrochemicalandoilrefiningindustries.Consequently,ithasbeenheavilyimpactedbypollutionfromtheoil
industry, general heavy industry and sewage, and through agricultural and urban run off, as well as loss of
habitatthroughlandreclamationandcoastaldefencedevelopment.
Many studies describe the strong association that exists between the biota and the physical conditions of
estuarine system (e.g. Warwick, 1984; Mettam et al., 94; Kirby et al., 2004). Physical drivers such as strong
salinity gradients, tidal range, turbidity, unstable and mobile sediments, and temperature contribute to the
characteristic species found throughout estuarine systems. These strong biophysical associations are
importantasthevulnerabilityoftheestuary'sbiotatochangedependsonit.TheForthEstuaryisnoexception
(see Elliott and Kingston, 1987; Elliot and Taylor, 1989). For example, fine sediments in the intertidal and
subtidalzonesaretypicallydominatedbyspeciestolerantofsalineconditionsatthetopoftheestuary.The
lower estuary is dominated by species typical of intertidal mudflats and so provides an important source of
foodforoverwinteringbirdsandnurserygroundsformanyfishspecies.
Themostsignificantfactorsdrivingbenthichabitatdistributionandspeciescompositionisbottomsubstrate,
andtoalesserextenttidalcurrents.Distinctbenthicspeciesassemblagesthatcharacterisetheregioninclude,
for example, an Abra community, Echinocardiumfiliformis group (Petersen, 1914), Venus community, and a
Modioluscommunity.Abracommunitiesaretypicallyfoundonmuddysandbottomsrichinorganicmaterial
and generally occupy sheltered estuarine conditions. By contrast, the species Modiolus modiolus can form
largebeds,whichifsubstantialcanbedesignatedasabiogenicreefundertheHabitatsDirective.However,no
bedshavebeendesignatedintheFirthofForth(seeMairetal.,2000).
Theseandothercharacteristichabitatsandbiotopesandtheirspecies(recordedusingtheUKMarineHabitat
Classification system of Connor et al., 2004) in the region and within the proposed wind farm site are
summarisedinTable51.NotethattheMarineNatureConservationReviewprogramme(Brazieretal,1998),
and the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) and Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) programmes
identifiedanumberofbenthichabitatsofconservationinterestwithintheFirthofForthandaroundtheIsleof
May(includingdesignationofacSAC,andbroadscalebiotopesaspartoftheForthSpatialStudy).Thisincluded
areastothesouthoftheproposedwindfarmsiteontheSt.Abbsexdumpinggroundsandoffthecoastof
NorthBerwick.

33|P a g e

Location

Generalhabitatdescriptionandkeyspecies

ForthEstuary

Intertidalareas:CharacteristicspeciesincludethecockleCerastodermaedule,BaltictellinMacoma
baltica,polychaetesPygiospioelegans,Scoloplosarmiger,Eteoneflava,Nephtyscaeca,N.incisa,N.
pente, N,. hombergii, Ophelina acuminata, Pholoe inornata and Neoamphitrite figulus with spider
crabs Hyas arenarius and swimming crabs Liocarcinus depurator, L. holsatus, a few brown crab
CancerpagurusandthegreenshorecrabCarcinusmaenas.
Subtidalareas:SpeciesincludethepolychaetewormsNephtyshombergiiandPolydoraciliata,the
echiuranEchiurusechiurus,thebivalveAbraalba,andtheoligochaeteTubificoidesscoticus.
AcharacteristicbiotopeisLS.LMu.MEst(polychaete/bivalvedominatedcommunities)foundwithin
midestuarinemudshores.

FirthofForth

Inchkeith into Largo Bay: Abra community with variants form the largest group, although an
Echinocardiumfiliformisisalsoassociatedwiththiscommunityandisfoundinbroadbands.
NorthandsouthcoastsofthefirthnearLargoandAberladyBays:AVenuscommunityformedin
bandsoffshore.
NorthernandsouthernsidesoftheouterlimitsoftheFirth:ACrenellaassociation(characterised
by the bivalves Crenella decussata and Timoclea ovata, and an amphipod Metaphoxus fultoni
recordedattheselocations.
Westnearthebridges:A classicalModiolusassociationwithalocalbutsubstantialpopulationof
adult horse mussels was found. Community includes bivalves Tapes (Venerupis) rhomboides, the
crabPisidialongicornisandthebrittlestarAmphipholissquamata.

In the vicinity of the

proposed wind farm
site

Subtidal habitats: To the west of the proposed wind farm site include the biotopes SS.SMu
(sublittoralcohesivemudsandsandymudcommunities).Thisissimilartothemuddyhabitatsand
associatedcommunitiesfoundwithintheForthEstuary.
Tothenorthwestoftheproposedsitecontainsamixtureofcommunities,althoughthedominant
biotope recorded is SS.SSa.CMuSa.AalbNuc (Abra alba and Nucula nitidosa in circalittoral muddy
sandandslightlymixedsediment)andSS.SMu.CSaMu.ThyNten(Thyasiraspp.andNuculomatenuis
incircalittoralsandymud).
To the southwest towards North Berwick, offshore biotopes include SS.SSa.IMuSa.FfabMag
(Fabulina fabula and Magelona mirabilis with venerid bivalves and amphipods in infralittoral
compacted fine muddy sand), SS.SMu.CSaMu.AfilMysAnit (Amphiura filiformis, Mysella bidentata
and Abra nitida in circalittoral sandy mud) and SS.SMx.CMx.MysThyMx (Mysella bidentata and
Thyasiraspp.incircalittoralmuddymixedsediment).
TherosswormSabellariaspinulosaisverycommonintheNorthSeaandhasbeenrecordedinthe
region of the proposed wind farm. The ross worm itself is not a protected animal, although the
biogenic reef structures the worms create under specific environmental conditions are in the
HabitatsDirectiveasanAnnexIhabitatofconservationimportance.

Withinthewindfarm
site

A few samples collected within site recorded the biotopes SS.SMx.CMx (Circalittoral mixed
sediments),althoughitispossiblethatallorsomeofthecommunitieslistedabovewillbepresent
withinthewindfarmsite.
TherearenoknownorpotentialSabellariaspinulosabiogenicreefsreportedwithinthevicinityof
thewindfarmsite.

BellRock

Thisareawasasewagesludgedumpinggroundandwasdescribedin1991asanoffshoreimpacted
muddysandhabitatdominatedby bivalvesandpolychaetesincludingPholoeinornata,Prionospio
fallax, Spio decorata, Spiophanes bombyx, Mediomastus fragilis, Nuculoma tenuis, Mysella
bidentata, Amphiura filiformis. The biotope logged in the vicinity of Bell Rock is
SS.SMx.CMx.MysThyMx (Mysella bidentata and Thyasira spp. in circalittoral muddy mixed
sediment).

34|P a g e

ThecoastfromNorth
Berwick in Lothian to
Flamborough Head
(Yorkshire)

Off North Berwick: Biotopes include CR.MCR.EcCr.FaAlCr.Bri (Brittlestars on faunal and algal
encrusted exposed to moderately waveexposed circalittoral rock), SS.SMx.CMx.MysThyMx,
SS.SMu.CSaMu.AfilMysAnit, SS.SSa.IMuSa.EcorEns (Echinocardium cordatum and Ensis spp. in
lower shore and shallow sublittoral slightly muddy fine sand), SS.SCS.ICS.SLan (Dense Lanice
conchilega and other polychaetes in tideswept infralittoral sand and mixed gravelly sand),
SS.SSa.CMuSa.AalbNuc and further offshore SS.SBR.PoR.SspiMx (Sabellaria spinulosa on stable
circalittoralmixedsediment).
Isle of May: Site specific studies using grab, diver and video data have been used to characterise
kelphabitatsandbiotopes.Thisincludeskelpforestsandencrustingredalgaeonbedrockwithflat
surfacesandcrevicesassociatedwithseaurchins,limpets,musselsandcrabs.
1 km to the east of the island: Mixed shelly gravel (SS.SMx.CMx) with patchy cobbles and small
boulders (SS.SCS.CCS). The habitat contains frequent stands of dead mans fingers Alcyonium
digitatum, erect hydroids, abundant brittlestars including Ophiura albida and Ophiothrix fragilis,
common starfish Asterias rubens, sea urchins Echinus esculentus, sea cucumbers Neopentadactyl
mixta,swimmingcrabsNecorapuberandhermitcrabsPagurusspp.
Silver Sands on the northern end of the island: Small populations of the horse mussel Modiolus
modiolus.
Off the Isle of May and at the St. Abbs exdumping grounds: Biotopes include
SS.SMu.CFiMu.BlyrAchi (Brissopsis lyrifera and Amphiura chiajei in circalittoral mud) and
SS.SMu.CFiMu.SpnMeg(Seapensandburrowingmegafaunaincircalittoralfinemud).Itispossible
thatmoreexamplesofthesebiotopesarewithinthemuddyzonesinthevicinityoftheproposed
windfarmsite.SeapenshavebeenaffordedaUKBiodiversityActionPlan(UKBAP)undertheMud
HabitatsinDeepWaterActionPlan.

Table51

Summaryofthecharacteristichabitats,biotopesandassociatedspecies

5.1.2 AvailableData
Many previous marine ecology studies in the region have been undertaken on the Firth of Forth by the
UniversitiesofStirlingandHeriotWatt,NapierCollege(nowNapierUniversity)andtheForthRiverPurification
Board(FRPB,nowincorporatedintoSEPA).Thisresearchisongoing,althoughthegreatestefforttookplacein
thelate1970sandearly1980s(seeEleftheriouetal.,2004).
Much of the existing data on species present is freely available to view online using the NBN Gateway
website 6. The online mapping facilityMESH webGIS 7 comprises coastline and administrative areas, physical
data(bathymetry,seabedgeology),validationsamples,seabedimages,modelledoutputs,seabedhabitatdata
and biological sample data. The DECC SEA 5 report also provides a summary of the research and the data
availablefortheregion,andmorespecificallyareportcommissionedbySNHprovidesdatafortheintertidal
habitatsforthemajorityoftheFirthofForth(PosfordHaskoning,2002).
Thefollowingdatasourceswereusedtoundertakethereviewonmarineecology:

Elliot,M&Taylor,C.J.L.(1989)JNCCMarineHabitatClassification;.Theproductionecologyofthe
subtidalbenthosoftheForthEstuary,Scotland.ScientiaMarina53:531541;

Hughes,D.J.(1998).SeaPensandBurrowingMegafauna(VolIII)AnOverviewofDynamicsand
SensitivityCharacteristicsforConservationManagementofMarineSACs.ScottishAssociationfor
MarineScience(UKMarineSACsProject).Pp.105.

MESH(MappingEuropeanSeabedHabitats);

NBN(NationalBiodiversityNetwork);

Mair,J.M.,Moore,C.G.,Kingston,P.F.&Harries,D.B.(2000)Areviewofthestatus,ecologyand
conservationofhorsemusselModioulsmodiolusbedsinScotland.ScottishNaturalHeritage
CommissionedReportF99PA08;

NBNGateway(http://data.nbn.org.uk/)

MESH(http://www.searchmesh.net)

35|P a g e

ElliottM&KingstonPF,(1987).ThesublittoralbenthosoftheestuaryandFirthofForth,Scotlandin
TheNaturalEnvironmentoftheEstuaryandFirthofForth,ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyof
Edinburgh93B,449465;

PosfordHaskoning(2002)BroadscaleintertidalsurveyoftheFirthofForth.ScottishNaturalHeritage
CommissionedReportF01AA407;

DECCSEA5Eletheriouetal.,2004 8;

MarLINMarineLifeInformationNetwork;and

DASSH(DataArchiveforSeabedSpeciesandHabitats).

Whilst there is good coverage of data for the Firth of Forth, there are data gaps for the surrounding non
targetedseabedinandaroundtheproposedwindfarmsiteitself,whichwillneedfurtherdescription.Site
specificdatawillberequiredforthesiteapplicationandmonitoringasappropriate,particularlywithrespect
topotentiallyimportanthabitats.

5.1.3 MethodofAssessment
The assessment of impacts generated by the proposed wind farm development will require an overview of
habitats and species (classified into biotopes where appropriate) in and around the development site. This
needstobeassessedinthecontextofthewiderenvironment.DataexistsontheMarLINwebsitetoallowan
assessment of the sensitivities of individual biotopes and species to be included as part of any impact
assessment.
Inaddition,informationacquiredbyAcousticGroundDiscriminationSystems(AGDS)aspartofthegeophysical
survey (Appendix C) will be used to augment and interpolate data collected from the sitespecific benthic
ecology surveys (Appendix D). These datawill be sufficientlydetailedto characterise the ecology of the site
andcableroute,includingtheintertidalareawherethecablecomesashore.
Thesurveysutiliseddropdownvideocameratoassistinidentifyingthestructuralcomponentofkeyhabitats
notcapturedwhenusinggrabsamples.Wheresensitivehabitatsaredetected,nointrusivetechniqueswere
used, elsewhere grab samples were taken to identify the species present. To better understand the more
mobileandsessileepibenticanddemersalfishcommunities,atrawlingprogrammeusinga2metrescientific
beamtrawlwasundertakenalongsidethebenthicecologysurveys.Sizeandsexingmeasurementstoassess
the structure of the fish populations and the benthic sessile and mobile megafaunal communities in and
aroundtheproposedwindfarmsiteandatseverallocationsalongthecableroute,wasalsoundertaken.Data
collectedincludedcommercialfishandshellfishspecieswereprocessedusingCefasprotocols.
The construction of Neart na Gaoithe, including the installation of foundations and scour protection (if
required),noisefrompilingandcablelaying,couldcausephysicaldisturbancetosedimentandbenthos(e.g.
crushing,damage,displacementofindividualsintowatercolumn),habitatalteration,andsuspensionoffine
sediment.Morespecifically,theassessmentofpotentialimpactstothebenthoswillneedtotakeaccountof
thefollowingpotentialimpacts:

Changes to the local hydrodynamic regime following turbine installation, which may affect the
distributionandabundanceofspecies;

Colonisationofhardstructuresbyepifaunalbenthos;and

Interactionwithotheranthropogenicactivities(incombinationimpacts).

The assessment of impacts will be undertaken using internationally recognised assessment protocols and
guidancefromthefollowingsources:

FederalMaritimeandHydrographicAgency(2003)StandardsforEnvironmentalImpactAssessments
ImpactsofoffshorewindturbinesonthemarineenvironmentStatus:25.February2003,Issuedby
BundesamtfrSeeschifffahrtundHydrographieBSH 9;

UKOffshoreSEA(www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_5/SEA5_TR_Benthos_Elef.pdf)

36|P a g e

Davies,J.,Baxter,J.,Bradley,M.,Connor,D.,Khan,J.,Murray,E.,Sanderson,W.,Turnbull,C.&
Vincent,M.,(2001),MarineMonitoringHandbook,405pp,ISBN1857165500;

JNCC,(2004),CommonStandardsMonitoringGuidanceforMarine,VersionAugust2004,ISSN1743
8160;

Styles,P.,Holt,T.,andThorne,P.(2001)AssessmentOfTheEffectsOfNoiseAndVibrationFrom
OffshoreWindFarmsOnMarineWildlife.DepartmentofTradeandIndustry,EnergyTechnology
SupportUnit(DTI/ETSU)reportw/13/00566/REP10.

5.1.4 FurtherRequirements
TheAGDSsurveyswereundertakenaspartofthegeophysicalsurvey(AppendixC)andafurthersurveyforthe
benthicecologyhasbeenundertakenasdescribedinAppendixD.Therelativeimportanceandsensitivityof
habitats or species will be described using classifications such as whether species/habitats would qualify as
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) under the EU Habitats Directive or are considered using Species Action
Plans(SAP)throughUKBiodiversityLegislation.PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Baseline environmental conditions for the proposed wind farm site will be established prior to construction
and installation of the turbines with control sites established away from the impactzones. Thecable route
from the wind farm to the mainland has also been surveyed. The programme of baseline and regular
monitoring postinstallation will be agreed prior to installation and progressed postinstallation to establish
theimmediateandlongtermeffectsoftheconstructionandanyrecovery/evolutionoftheimpactedsite.
To mitigate the immediate disturbance to the communities and reduce impact at the construction stage,
considerationwillbemadeonthetimingoftheinstallationprogramme,Micrositingofturbinesandcabling
mayalsobepossibletoavoidimpactstoanysensitivefeaturesfoundaspartofthesurveysundertaken.

5.1.5 CumulativeImpacts
Thepotentialforcumulativeimpactsexistsbetweenturbines,suchasachangetothelocalcurrentregimeand
newlocalisedphysicalstresses,suchasscouringorchangestolocalsedimentdepositionaroundtheturbines.
Thesemaybelessenedbyappropriatedesignofthewindfarmandscourprotectionasmentionedinprevious
sections.Theturbinesthemselvesmaybecomesurfacesforsettlementofspeciesotherwiseexcludedfromthe
area and thus change the community dynamics of the existing system over the time they are present. The
effect of the cable and any electrical emissions on marine fauna and their migratory routes will need to be
evaluated. In the wider region, cumulative and/or incombination effects from any other structures or
activities currently present are unlikely to be significant. However, the presence of the other proposed
offshorewindfarmswillneedtobeassessedforoverallimpactonbenthichabitatsandtheirspecies.

5.2 FishandShellfishEcology
5.2.1 GeneralDescription
ThefishintheFirthofForthregionfollowatidalandseasonalpatternofdistributionwithmanyspeciesusing
theForthEstuaryandtheFirthofForthasanoverwinteringgroundandforfeeding,breedingandasanursery.
ManyspeciesoffishmigrateinandoutoftheForthEstuaryandmaypassoverorremainforperiodsoftime
within the vicinity of the proposed offshore wind farm site. Fish in the estuary are typical of northeastern
Atlantictemperateestuaries(GreenwoodandHill,2003).Intheestuary,36specieshavebeenidentifiedof
which28weremainlymarineadventitiousspecies(Elliottetal.,1990).Thesespeciesarenotobservedbelow
salinitiesof30o/ooanddiadromuosspecies,whichmigratethroughtheestuarytobreedeitherintheseaor
freshwater,arefoundintheupperreachesoftheestuary.

9
FMHA,2003(http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/reports/report_032.pdf)
10

JNCC,2004(http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20261.pdf)

37|P a g e


MusselsMytilusedulisareplentifulintheMontroseBasin,alongthesouthshoreoftheFirthofTayatTayport,
intheEdenEstuaryandalongthesouthshoreoftheFirthofForth(Doody,1997).StocksoflobsterHomarus
gammarus are found inshore on rocky substrate; juvenile edible crab Cancer pagurus are found on soft
substrateswithintheestuaries,althoughtheadultsoccurfurtheroffshore,andvelvetcrabNecorapuberoccur
throughouttheinshorearea(Doody,1997).OffshorethereisalargepopulationofNephrops(scampi),and
scallops Pecten maximus also occur in a large area offshore (Doody,1997). The Atlantic salmon Salmo salar
andseatroutS.truttaarepresentinlargenumbersinmostriversintheregionandareespeciallyabundantin
theRiverTay(Doody,1997).
The ten most common demersal fish collected during a 19822001 Agassiz trawling programme in the mid/
lower Forth estuary are whiting (Merlangius merlangus), dab (Limanda limanda), pogge (Agonus
cataphractus),Scorpionfish(Myoxocephalusscorpius),gobies(Pomatischstusspp.),seasnail(Liparisliparis),
plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), flounder (Platichthys flesus), eelpout (Zoarces viviparus) and cod (Gadus
morhua) (Greenwood and Hill, 2003). The distributions of all the fish species change with the tidal regime,
monthandlocationalongtheestuary.
Elliottetal.,(1990)assessedtheseasonalandtemporalpatternsintheuseoftheestuarybyseveralspeciesto
describethelongtermchangesintheirpopulations.Themarineteleostspeciesdependingontheestuaryare:

Commondabandplaice(flatfishwhosejuvenilesusetheestuaryasanurseryarea;marinejuvenile
migrants);
Whiting and cod (demersal gadoids which use the estuary as a nursery area although adults are
presentinlownumbers;marinejuvenilemigrants);and
Spratandherring(pelagicclupeidswhichoverwinterintheestuary;marineseasonalmigrants).

Small numbers of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), sea trout (Salmo trutta), smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) and
European eel (Anguilla anguilla) are also found within the estuary. Monkfish or Angelshark (Squatina
squatina)arereportedaroundtheIsleofMayatthemouthoftheestuary.
ManyfishfeedonthebrownshrimpCrangoncrangon,themysidNeomysisintegerandpinkshrimpPandulus
montagui.However,somefishhavemorespecificfeedingpreferencessuchasjuvenilecodandwhiting,which
feedonepibenthiccrustaceans(Crossan,1985;unpubl.data),althoughthesevaryacrosssitesandbetween
seasonsduetopreyavailability.
5.2.1.1 SpawningandNurseryAreas
TheFirthofForthhasasmallnurseryareaforjuvenileherring(originatingfromthespawninggroundsoffthe
westcoastofScotland)and,incommonwiththeothershallowinletsintheregion,isanoverwinteringground
for sprat Sprattus sprattus (Doody, 1997). A number of fish species spawn or have nursery grounds
overlapping the study area. The proposed site is at the southerly edge of the lesser sandeel (Ammodytes
marinus)spawninggrounds,whichspawnfromNovembertoFebruary.Table52detailsthespawningperiods
forthespeciesthatarepresentintheFirthofForthneartoNeartnaGaoithe.
Species

Jan

Feb

Whiting
Plaice
LemonSole
Sandeel
Nephrops

X
X

X
X

X
X

Table52

Mar Apr May

X
X

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

X
X

X
X

SpawningPeriodsforSpeciesintheFirthofForth

Source:Coulletal.,1998
Figure51showsthespawningandnurseryareasinthevicinityofNeartnaGaoithe.

38|P a g e

Figure51

FishSpawningandNurseryAreas

SandeelnurserygroundsrangeoverthewholestudyareafromWeeBankieandMarrBank,northtoMontrose
andatleast30kmoffshore.WeeBankieandMarrBankhavebeenextensivelyfishedforsandeel;however,
thereisatemporaryexclusionzoneinplaceforsandeelsalongtheeastcoasttoallowthefishpopulationto
recover. This has been in place since 2000 and is regularly reviewed. Lemon sole (Microstomus kitt) have
extensivespawningandnurserygroundsallalongtheeastcoastofScotlandincludingthestudyareaitselfwith
spawningoccurringfromApriltoSeptember.PlaicespawnfromDecembertoMarchongroundslocatedjust
totheeastoftheproposedsite;however,theplaicehavetheirnurserygroundswithinandaroundtheForth
Estuaryrangingintoandoverthestudyarea.Aherring(Clupeaharengis)nurserygroundislocatedwithinthe
ForthEstuary,howeveritsestimatedlimitsdonotreachasfaroffshoreastheNeartnaGaoithesite.Other
fishwhosenurserygroundsareextensivealongtheeastcoastofScotlandandthusoverlapthestudyareaare
cod,whiting,saithe(Pollachiusvirens)andsprat(Sprattussprattus).Cod,herring,plaiceandlemonsoleareall
listedintheNorthSeaundertheUKBiodiversityActionPlanGroupedPlanforCommercialMarineFishas
stockshavebeeningeneraldeclineinthewholeNorthSeasincetheirmaximuminthe1970sand1980s.The
bonyfish,Atlanticsalmon,seatrout,Europeaneel,smeltandthelessersandeelarealsolistedasUKPriority
Species

39|P a g e

.
Figure52

ThedistributionofNephrops.Source:SOAEFD(inRobson,C.F.1997).

5.2.1.2 Shellfish
DublinBayprawns(orlangoustine)NephropsnorvegicusarefoundaroundSt.AbbsHeadandwithintheForth
Estuary,andareoftenassociatedwithseapenpopulationsinmuds(Figure52).Thenephropsspawningand
nurserygroundsarewithintheregion,insuitablesoftmuddyhabitats.Theirextendedspawningperiodlasts
allyear,peakingfromApriltoJune.
Lobster and edible crab are present in rocky reef habitat with crevices for protection (Robson, 1997). This
habitatoccursofftheeastcoastoftheFirthofForth,includingaroundBellRock.
Comparedtolobsters,ediblecrabsareoftenfoundonsoftersubstrates(sand/graveltorock).Juvenilestend
to be found inshore and adults further offshore (Rees & Dare, 1993 in Robson, 1997). Velvet crabs can be
foundinthesameareasaslobsterandediblecrabs.
MusselsarefoundaroundmostoftheeastScottishcoast,fromthemidshoretothesubtidalzoneinwaterof
normalorvariablesalinityandinareasexposedtowatercurrents.ThesouthshoreoftheFirthofForthisan
important area for mussels. Cockles are found in the intertidal mud and sandflats of the estuaries in this
region.Periwinklesarefoundonrockyshorelines,whereversuitablehabitatispresent.Scallopsandqueen
scallopsliveonsandy/gravellyareasofseabed.Importantpopulationsofscallopsarepresentinalargearea
offthecoastoftheregionandaroundtheIsleofMay.Whelksarewidelydistributedthroughouttheregion,
with Neptunea being rather more common in the more offshore areas. Concentrations of squid occur
seasonallyandoctopusisalsopresentintheregion.RazorshellsoccurintheinshoreareasoftheFirthswhere
theseabediscleansand.

5.2.2 AvailableData
Thepreliminaryreviewwasundertakenwiththefollowingdataandliteraturesources:

Callaway,R.,Alsvg,J.,deBoois,I.,Cotter,J.,Ford,A.,Hinz,H.,Jennings,S.,Krncke,I.,Lancaster,J.,
Piet, G., Prince, P. & Ehrich, S. (2002). Diversity and Community Structure of the Epibenthic
InvertebratesandFishintheNorthSea.ICESJ.Mar.Sci.59:11991214;

Coull, K.A., Johnstone, R., and S.I. Rogers. 1998. Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters.
PublishedanddistributedbyUKOOALtd.;

Daan,N.,Bromley,P.J.,Hislop,J.R.GandNielsen,N.A.(1990).EcologyofNorthSeaFish.Neth.J.Sea.
Res.26(24):343386;

40|P a g e

EcologicalinformationandconservationstatusofUKspeciesisalsoontheMarLINwebsite 11andon
theUKBiodiversityActionPlanwebsite 12;

Elliott,M.,OReilly,M.G.,andTaylor,C.J.L.,TheForthEstuary:anurseryandoverwinteringareafor
NorthSeafishes.Hydrobiologia195:89103,1990.KluwerAcademicPublishers;

FisheriesResearchServices(FRS)dedicatedwebpagesonfishandshellfish 13;

GreenwoodM.F.D.;HILLA.S.;(2003).Temporal,spatialandtidalinfluencesonbenthicanddemersal
fish abundance in the Forth estuary. Estuarine, coastal and shelf science ISSN 02727714 CODEN
ECSSD3.2003,vol.58,no2,pp.211225[15page(s)(article)](1p.1/4).Elsevier,London,ROYAUME
UNI(1981)(Revue)

iSEAMaps 14;

Fishbaseonlinedatabase 15;

CEFASwebpages 16;

Aquariumproject 17;

Robson,C.F.1997.Chapter5.5ExploitedSeaBedSpecies.In:CoastsandseasoftheUnitedKingdom.
Region4SoutheastScotland:MontrosetoEyemouth,ed.byJ.H.Barne,C.F.Robson,S.S.Kaznowska,
J.P.Doody,N.C.Davidson&A.L.Buck,6164.Peterborough,JointNatureConservationCommittee.
(CoastalDirectoriesSeries.);and

Wanless, S., Harris, M.P. & Greenstreet, S.P.R. (1998). Summer sandeel consumption by seabirds
breedingintheFirthofForth,southeastScotland.ICESJ.Mar.Sci.55:11411151.

Otheravailabledatasourcesandliteratureinclude:

CMACS (2003) A baseline assessment of electromagnetic fields generated by offshore wind farm
cables.COWRIEReportEMF01200266;

DECCSEA5andotherDECCstudies(MarineRenewableResearchAdvisoryGroup);

European Review of Environmental Research on Offshore Wind Energy (2006). Offshore Wind
Energy, published by Springer Berlin Heidelberg, ISBN 9783540346760(Print) Part 9, Pages 331
341;

Gill,A.B.,Taylor,H.,(2001)ThepotentialeffectsofEMfieldsgeneratedbycablingbetweenoffshore
windturbinesuponelasmobranches.

Gill,A.B.,GloynePhillips,I.,Neal,K.J.&Kimber,J.A.(2005)Thepotentialeffectsofelectromagnetic
fields generated by subsea power cables associated with offshore wind farm developments on
electrically and magnetically sensitive marine organisms a review. COWRIEEM FIELD 2062004,
COWRIE1.5;

11
MARLINwebsitewww.marlin.ac.uk
12

UKBAPwebsitewww.ukbap.org.uk

13

FRSScotlandwebsitehttp://www.frsscotland.gov.uk

14

ICESMapsavailablefromwww.cefas.co.uk

15

FishBasewww.fishbase.org

16

Cefaswww.cefas.co.uk

17

Aquariumprojectwww.web.ukonline.co.uk/aquarium

41|P a g e

Greenwood,M.F.D.,Hill,A.S.,andMcLusky,D.S.,Trendsinabundanceofbenthicanddemersalfish
populations of the Lower Forth Estuary, East Scotland, from 1982 2001. Journal of Fish Biology
(2002)61(SupplementA),90104;

FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNationswebsiteonfishbiology/ecology 18;

Marlab/FRSLeafletonnephropsintheFirthofForth 19;

Mathieson S.; Berry A. J.; Spatial, temporal and tidal variation in crab populations in the Forth
Estuary,Scotland.JournaloftheMarineBiologicalAssociationoftheUnitedKingdomISSN0025
3154CODENJMBAAK.1997,vol.77,no1,pp.1158(155p.)(1p.1/2),pp.167183;

NationalBiodiversityNetwork(NBN)Gateway;

Wheeler,A(1969).ThefishesoftheBritishIslesandNorthwestEurope.MichiganStateUniversity
Press,613pp.;and

Whitehead,P.J.P.,Bauchot,M.L/.Hureau,J.C.,Neilsen,J.andTortonese,E.(Eds.)(1984).Fishesof
theNortheasternAtlanticandtheMediterranean,Vol.13.UNESCO,Paris,1473pp.

5.2.3 MethodofAssessment
ThefishandshellfishecologyelementoftheEIAwillbeapproachedinthreeways:1)datacollation,2)field
surveysand3)consultation.
Thedatacollationstagewillbuildonthedescriptionaboveanddrawontheinformationonfishandshellfish
for the UK coastal zone, namely, in published documents, scientific reports and commercial fisheries
information. This will be augmented through 2m beam trawl measurements during the benthic ecology
survey,asdescribedinAppendixD.
The EIA will assess this information to determine the presence, distribution and seasonality of the fish and
shellfish resources. Species of fish in the area that are of conservation importance will be considered.
Elasmobranchfishintheareaandcableroutewillbeidentifiedandpotentialimpactsconsidered.Inaddition,
speciesthathavearestrictedgeographicaldistributionandarelocallyabundantintheareawillbeassessed.
When the important fish and shellfish species present at or near the wind farm site have been identified,
aspectsoftheirecologythatmaybeaffectedbyconstructionwillbedetermined.Forfishandshellfish,the
followingaspectsoftheirecologywillbeassessedwhererelevant:

Spawninggrounds;

Nurserygrounds;

Feedinggrounds;and

Migrationroutes.

Modellingtechniqueswillbeusedtoassessnoiseimpactonhearingspecialists,asdescribedinSection5.4.
Inparallel,NnGOWLwillundertakeconsultationwithMarineScotland(FRSandSFPA)toensurethatalldata
sourcesareidentified,andthattheassessmentaddressestherelevantconcernsforthisarea.

5.2.4 FurtherRequirements
IfajointeffortfordatacollationintheFirthofForthisagreedbetweenthedevelopers,thenastandardised
approachtofishandfisheriesdatacollectionwillbeemployedtofacilitatecomparisonbetweenareas.This
approachwillenableassessmentofcumulativeimpactsfromnearbyproposedwindfarms.

18

FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNationshttp://www.fao.org/fishery/en

19

http://www.marlab.ac.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Documents/FM18Nephrop%20North%20Sea.pdf,http://www.frs
scotland.gov.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Documents/FM19NephropBiology.pdf

42|P a g e


The cables of an offshore wind farm will generate an electromagnetic field. Studies to date have not
demonstratedanyimpactonfishandshellfish,howeverthereremainsatheoreticalpossibilitythatanimpact
couldoccur.Theremaybetherequirementforfurtherstudiestoensureimpactislimited.

5.2.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Changesinlocalfishpopulationswithintheareaandassociatedmegafaunacanbeassessedthroughscientific
beamtrawlingaspartoftheecologicalmonitoringprogramme.
For some previous projects, a buffer zone has been placed around herring spawning grounds to minimise
impacts.However,bufferzoneshavenotbeenemployedaroundnurseryareas,asitisassumedthatjuvenile
herringwillmoveawayfromthesoundsourceandspawningbehaviourwillnotbeaffected.Otherspecies,
such as cod, spawn in the water column or over a wide area encompassing a number of substrate types,
reducingtheirpotentialtobeaffectedbywindfarmorotherlocaliseddevelopments.
The use of a buffer zone has large impacts on the viability of many projects and its use may not always be
necessary. For example, the precise location of herring spawning grounds can change over time, the
mechanismofwhichisnotfullyunderstood.Consequently,thenatureoftheimpactwillbefullydetermined
beforemitigationmeasuresareproposed.
Potentialmitigationmeasuresinclude:

Designingtherouteofthecabletoavoidsensitivehabitats;

Avoidanceofriverlamprey,sealampreyandAtlanticsalmonmigrationseasons;and

Softstartpilingduringconstruction.

5.2.6 CumulativeImpacts
ThecoordinationofdatacollectionactivitieswithotherdevelopersoperatingintheFirthofForthisstrongly
encouraged. This will ensure a more standardised approach to fish and fisheries data collection, facilitate
comparison between sites, allow easier cumulative impact assessment, and contribute to any coordinated
postconstructionmonitoringprogrammes.

5.3 MarineMammals
5.3.1 GeneralDescription
Marine mammals, which include pinnipeds (seals) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins), are present in the
Firth of Forth throughout the year. There is a good general knowledge of the cetacean species likely to be
presentinthearea.However,informationastodensityanddistributionandhowcetaceansmayusetheFirth
of Forth, whether it is for feeding or breeding for instance, is more limited. In terms of pinnipeds, there is
extensiveinformationonthedistributionandabundanceofgreyandharboursealsaroundBritainfromannual
aerial surveys of breeding colonies and from satellite telemetry studies (Hammond et al., 2004). When
consideringmarinemammalsforEIApurposes,itisessentialtoconsiderthewiderNorthSeaenvironmentas
manymarinemammalspeciesarelikelytobewiderangingandhighlymobile.
ThespeciesofcetaceanmostlylikelytobeseenintheFirthofForthincludeminkewhales,harbourporpoise,
whitebeakeddolphin,Atlantic whitesided dolphin, killer whale, Rissodolphin andbottlenosedolphin(Cork
Ecology,2008)..Figure53showsthesightingsoffiveofthekeyspecieslistedintheFirthofFortharea.There
havealsobeenoccasionalrecordsofsightingofspeciessuchassperm,humpbackandfinwhalesintheForth.
MinkewhalesoccurthroughoutthenorthernNorthSeaespeciallyinsummermonths,harbourporpoisesare
widespreadthroughtheseasaroundBritainwiththeareatothenorthandeastofScotlandhavingsomeofthe
highest densities of porpoises sighted (Hammond et al., 2004). Whitebeaked dolphins have a wide
distributionroundtheeastandwestcoastsofScotland,withRissos,Atlanticwhitesideddolphinsandkiller
whaleshavingamorelimiteddistributionontheScottisheastcoastbutmorewidespreadonthewestcoast.

43|P a g e


ThebottlenosedolphinsobservedinSt.AndrewsBayareprobablyindividualswhoalsousethewatersofthe
Moray Firth SAC. It is thought that the bottlenose dolphins are likely to stay closer to the coast than the
proposed offshore wind farm site however this will be investigated as part of the marine mammal survey
programmeand,ifnecessary,throughphotoidentificationwork.

Figure53

MarineMammalsightingsinFirthofForth(KeySpecies)

The Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), with common seal an Annex II
qualifying species (Figure 53). The Isle of May, at the entrance to the Firth of Forth, supports a breeding
colony of grey seals Halichoerus grypus. The site is the largest east coast breeding colony of grey seals in
ScotlandandthefourthlargestbreedingcolonyintheUK,contributingapproximately4.5%ofannualUKpup
production(JNCC,2009a)(Figure53).Theproposedsiteisapproximately16kmfromtheIsleofMay.The
FirthofTayandEdenEstuarysupportsanationallyimportantbreedingcolonyofcommonsealPhocavitulina,
partoftheeastcoastpopulationofcommonsealsthattypicallyusesandbanks.Around600adultshauloutat
thesitetorest,pupandmoult,representingaround2%oftheUKpopulationofthisspecies(JNCC,2009b).
AnypotentialtoimpactupontheseSACswillneedtobeassessedundertheEUHabitatsDirectiveAppropriate
Assessmentprocess.
Inrecentyears,knowledgeonthemovementofsealsoutwithbreedingcolonieshasbeenimprovingandnow,
extensiveinformationonthedistributionofgreysealsatseaisavailablefromstudiesofanimalsfittedwith
satellite relay data loggers. Figure 54 shows the tracks of grey seals fitted with satelliterelay data loggers
overaperiodofabout10yearsandharboursealdistributioninthenorthwesternNorthSea.
DuringbaselinedatacollectionfortheEIA,thedistributionofsharkspeciessuchasbaskingsharkswillalsobe
considered.

44|P a g e

Figure54

LeftHandSideTracksof108greysealsfittedwithsatelliterelaydataloggersoveraperiodof
about10years(McConnelletal.1999;SMRUunpublisheddata).RightHandSideHarbourseal
distributioninthenorthwesternNorthSeaafterReijndersetal.(1997).Alsoshownarehaulout
sitesduringthemoult(SMRUunpublisheddata)andatseasightingsfromJNCCsurveys(Pollock
etal.2000).Source:Hammondetal.,2004

5.3.2 AvailableData
Aninitialreviewofmarinemammaldistributionanddensitieshasbeenundertakenusingthefollowingdata
and literature sources. Data and Literature associated with the assessment of noise impacts on marine
mammalscanbefoundinSection5.4.2.

Reid, J.B., Evans, P.G.H., & Northridge, S.P., (2003) Atlas of Cetacean distribution in northwest
Europeanwaters 20

Hammond, P.S., Northridge, S.P., Thompson, D., Gordon, J.C.D., Hall, A.J., Sharples, R.J., Grellier K.
and Matthiopoulos, J. 2004. Background information on marine mammals relevant to Strategic
EnvironmentalAssessment5.SMRU.

Hammond, P.S., Northridge, S.P., Thompson, D., Gordon, J.C.D., Hall, A.J., Aarts, G. and
Matthiopoulos,J.BackgroundinformationonmarinemammalsrelevanttoStrategicEnvironmental
Assessment6.SMRU.

SCANSIandIISmallCetaceansintheEuropean,AtlanticandNorthSea 21

20
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page2713
21

http://biology.stand.ac.uk/scans2/index.html

45|P a g e


Thereareanumberofreportsonlocaldistributionofmarinemammalstakenfromshorebygroupssuchas
The Sea Watch Foundation 22 as well as information available from local academic organisations such as St
AndrewsUniversity,SealMammalResearchUnit 23orAberdeenUniversityLighthouseFieldStation 24andthese
willbefurtherassessedduringtheEIAprocess.

5.3.3 MethodofAssessment
Themainpotentialimpactsformarinemammalsthatwillbeassessedareasfollows:

Potentialnoiseimpactsoncetaceansandsealsarisingfrom:
o

constructionofwindfarmandcableroute(i.e.pilingandtrenchingcableroute);

windfarmoperationsofwindfarmandcableroute;

windfarmdecommissioning(i.e.removalofturbinebases)

Potentialimpactsonsealhauloutareasnoise,presenceofvessels,maintenanceroutes(boatsor
helicoptersetc);

Potentialeffectsoncetaceansthroughlossofprey(i.e.fishorinvertebrates)duetodisturbanceor
habitatsloss;

Potentialbehaviouralimpactssuchaseffectsonbreeding,nurseryorfeedingbehaviours,useofhaul
outs,interruptionofmigratoryroutesasaresultofdisturbancegeneratedbydevelopmentactivities
e.g.noise,visualdisturbance,vesselactivity;

Potential for direct injury to marine mammals during the construction, operation and
decommissioningofthewindfarmthroughvesselstrike.

ForassessmentmethodsonimpactsfromnoisepleaserefertoSection5.4.3.Inordertoassessthepotential
forvesselstrike,localrecordssuchasinvestigationsintoanystrandedmarinemammalswillberesearchedto
judgethecurrentriskofmarinemammaltovesselstrike.Inparallelwiththiswork,globalpublicationsonthe
risktomarinemammalsfromdifferentvesseltypeswillbeinvestigatedtoallowanassessmentofriskfrom
thespreadofvesselsusedduringconstructionandoperation.

5.3.4 FurtherRequirements
If bottlenose dolphins from the Moray Firth SAC are using the area of the proposed wind farm, under the
terms of the EU Habitats Directive as translated in Scottish Law, it may be necessary for the Scottish
GovernmenttoundertakeanAppropriateAssessmenttoensureactivitiesintheFirthofForthdonotadversely
affect the conservation objectives of the Moray Firth SAC. During the EIA process, this will be discussed in
greaterdetailwithSNHandtheScottishGovernmenttoensureinformationisprovidedwithintheEStoallow
suchanassessmenttobeundertaken.
It will also be necessary to consider whether the proposed activities will lead to deliberate disturbance of
EuropeanProtectedSpecies(EPS)asdescribedinRegulation39and43ofTheConservation(NaturalHabitats
&c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations) as well as The Offshore Marine Conservation
(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations2007(asamended),whichapplybeyondScottishterritorialwaters.IfEPS
specieshavethepotentialtobeimpacted,considerationwillalsobegivenastohowFavourableConservation
Statuswillbeaddressed.DraftguidanceondeliberatedisturbanceiscurrentlyavailablefromJNCCforthose
waters beyond territorial limits; however, this is not fully applicable inside Scottish territorial waters due to
differencesinthelegalinstruments.ItwillbenecessarytoworkwithSNHandtheScottishGovernmenton
howtheseissuesshouldbeaddressedthroughtheEIAprocessandsubsequentES.

22

http://www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk/index.php

23

http://www.smru.co.uk

24

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/lighthouse/

46|P a g e


The marine mammal monitoring programme will gather site specific data, which will inform the EIA with
regardtothepresenceorabsenceofmarinemammals.Themonitoringprogrammeisinformedby,andbuilds
upon, existing information about the distribution of marine mammals in the Firth of Forth. Monitoring will
involve visual observations combined with the seabird surveys (see Appendix E for further details) plus
acousticmonitoringfromtheseabird/marinemammalsurveyvessel.Thiswillinvolvetowingahydrophoneto
recordacousticsignalsfrommarinemammals,namelyminkewhales,harbourporpoiseanddolphinspecies.
These data will then be processed by SMRU Ltd. to provide presence and absence information on species.
MethodsarecurrentlybeingdevelopedfollowingworkonSCANS(SmallCetaceansoftheEuropean,Atlantic
and North Sea) to use acoustic information to estimate abundance of cetaceans. During the EIA process, if
observationsshowthatbottlenosedolphinsareusingtheareaoftheproposedwindfarmorvicinity,photo
identification of individuals may also be undertaken to assist with the Appropriate Assessment process as
describedabove.

5.3.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
In order to minimise risk of vessel strike, a bespoke Code of Conduct for interactions between marine
mammals vessels associated with the proposed wind farm and operating in the Firth of Forth will be
commissionedandactivelycommunicatedtoallvesselsandcrew.ThiswillbebasedupontheSNHWildlife
WatchingCodeofConduct,previouswindfarmoperationsandagreedwithallinterestedparties.
MitigationfornoiseissuedisconsideredinSection5.4.5.

5.3.6 CumulativeImpacts
There is potential for cumulative and incombination impacts to marine mammals from the activities
associatedwithbuildingoneormorewindfarmsintheForthandTayareas.TheForthandTayOffshoreWind
Farm Developers are working together on how these cumulative impacts can be best addressed. This will
probably involve some form of both a spatial and temporal assessment of the noise likely to be produced
duringoperationacrossallsitesusingthesameassessmenttechniques.

5.4 Noise
5.4.1 GeneralDescription
There are a variety of noise sources that are present within UK territorial waters, both natural and
anthropogenic. Natural noise sources include wind and wave action, fish and marine mammal species and
geological events such as earthquakes. Anthropogenic sources range from land based construction noise
transmittedthroughtheseabed,tovesselnoise,atseaseismicsurveysortheuseoffishingandnavysonar.
Thenatureoftheseabedtopographyandsedimentwillaffecthowquicklyandeasilyanynoisegeneratedin
theareawilltravel.
Noisesourcesrelevanttothisprojectincludethosegeneratedbytheconstructiontechniquessuchaspilingor
drillingwhichmayberequiredtoinstalltheturbinebaseandtower,constructionoftheoffshoresubstation,
dredging/cable trenching and project related vessel movements. Details of howthese noise sources will be
determinedaregiveninAppendixF.

5.4.2 AvailableData
Theliteraturesourcesforthevariousaspectsofnoisesourcesareshownbelow.ThroughCOWRIEthereisa
largeresourceofreportsonmarinemammalsandwindfarmsofwhichaselectionisincludedhere.
PilingNoise

Robinson,S.P.,Lepper,P.A.andAblitt,J.,(2007)Themeasurementoftheunderwaterradiatednoise
frommarinepilingincludingcharacterisationofa"softstart"period,Oceans2007Europe,1821
June2007.

47|P a g e

Blackwell,S.B.,J.W.Lawson,andM.T.Williams(2004),Tolerancebyringedseals(Phocahispida)to
impactpipedrivingandconstructionsoundsatanoilproductionisland,J.Acoust.Soc.Am.Volume
115,Issue5,pp.23462357(May2004).

De Jong, C.A.F. & Ainslie, M.A. (2008), Underwater radiated noise due to the piling for the Q7
OffshoreWindPark,Acoustics08,June29July42008,Paris.

Nedwell,J.R.,Langworthy,J.,andHowell,(2003),Assessmentofsubseaacousticnoiseandvibration
from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; initial measurements of underwater
noise during construction of offshore wind farms, and comparison with background noise,
SubacoustechReportNo.544R0424(fortheCrownEstate),May2003.

Thomson, F., Ldemann , K., Kafemann,R., Piper, W (2006) Effects of offshore wind farm noise on
marinemammalsandfish.TranslationforCOWRIELtd

Diederichs, A., Nehls, G., Dhne, M., Adler, S., Koschinski, S., Verfu, U., (2008) Methodologies for
measuringandassessingpotentialchangesinmarinemammalbehaviour,abundanceordistribution
arisingfromtheconstruction,operationanddecommissioningofoffshorewindfarmsCOWRIEENG
012007

DredgingandDrilling

Greene,C.R.Jr.(1987)CharacteristicsofoilindustrydredgeanddrillingsoundsintheBeaufortSea,J.
Acoust.Soc.Am.Volume82,Issue4,pp.13151324(October1987).

Nedwelletal,seeabove.

ShippingandAmbientNoise

AHolden,(2004)Measuredandpredictedarrayresponsetotheverticaldirectivityofambientnoise,
J.Acoust.Soc.Am.Volume116,Issue4,pp.26502650(October2004)

MitigationandMonitoring

Diederichs, A., Nehls, G., Dhne, M., Adler, S., Koschinski, S., Verfu, U., (2008) Methodologies for
measuringandassessingpotentialchangesinmarinemammalbehaviour,abundanceordistribution
arisingfromtheconstruction,operationanddecommissioningofoffshorewindfarmsCOWRIEENG
012007

Nehls. G., Betke, K., Eckelmann, S., Ros, M., (2007) Assessment and costs of potential engineering
solutions for the mitigation of the impacts of underwater noise arising from the construction of
offshorewindfarmsCOWRIEENG012007

5.4.3 MethodofAssessment
The EIA will assess the potential zones of acoustic effect from the installation operations, in particular any
pilingoperations.Theassessmentwillreviewpublishedinformationonpilingandvesselnoisesourcelevels,
which will feed into a model of noise levels at various distances from the offshore installation operations.
Thesedatawillthenbeassessedagainstthedistributionandabundanceofmarinemammalsintheareato
estimatethelikelihoodthattheymaybeexposedtonoiselevelsthatcouldresultinbehaviouralorphysical
impacts.Thiswillincludeanassessmentofpotentialimpactstopreyspecies.
PotentialnoiseimpactsaresummarisedinNedwelletal.,(2007),areportcommissionedbyCOWRIE,which
consideredtheeffectsofnoisegeneratedbyoffshorewindfarmsonvariousmarinespecies.Thisincludedan
analysisofthepotentialnegativeimpactsonmarinemammals(bothpinnipedsandcetaceans).
When assessing potential impacts on marine mammals it is important to understand the level (dB) and
frequency (Hz) of sound that the marine mammals will encounter and the biological significance of this, for
instancedoesthissoundeithercausedirectinjuryorindirecteffectssuchasmodifiedbehaviour?Onetool
availableforassessmentofpotentialnoiseimpactsonmarinemammals,andpossiblyfish,isEnvironmental
RiskManagementCapability(ERMC),asoftwarepackagedevelopedbyBAESystemsincollaborationwiththe

48|P a g e


SeaMammalResearchUnit(SMRU)andtheCentreforResearchintoEcologicalandEnvironmentalModelling
(CREEM)attheUniversityofStAndrews.
ERMC has previously been used to assess sonar impact (as detailed in Appendix F) but the software can be
modifiedtobemadeapplicabletooffshorewindfarms.Theprogressionfromsonarmodellingtobroadband
noise modelling is well understood, and BAE already have a well defined process by which to estimate the
propagation and subsequent impact on marine organisms. The model consists of various databases that
includethemarinemammaldensitywithinthearea,thebackgroundnoise,thehearingresponsesfordifferent
species(includingPermanentThresholdShift(PTS)andTemporaryThresholdShift(TTS)),andthefrequencies
ofthenoisegeneratedbytheactivityunderconsideration.Themodelisthenabletocalculatethelikelyriskto
particularspecies,and,withmultiplerunsofthemodel,thedosagetoatheoreticalindividualovertime.
The output from the ERMC, typically consists of the quantitative findings from the computerised system
coupledwithanexpertqualitativeanalysisfromSMRU,creatinganassessmentthatprovidesaninterpretation
oftherisktomarinemammals,intermsofpotentialnoiseimpacts,fromagivenactivityorsetofactivities.
ThiscanbeusedtoinformtheEIAprocessthroughoutthedesignoftheproject.

5.4.4 FurtherRequirements
As the details of the project are confirmed it will be possible to build a database of sound profiles of the
expectedactivitiesthatcanbeusedtoinformanynoisemodelling.Itisplannedtocollectinformationsuchas
ambientnoisemeasurementsintheareasurroundingtheplannedwindfarm,noisemeasurementsduringany
test construction work while using the information from the geophysical surveys to describe depth and
sedimenttype.
The EIA team will work with SNH and the Scottish Government to ensure a thorough assessment of the
potentialforactivitiestodisturbEuropeanProtectedSpeciesasdescribedinSection5.3.4.

5.4.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Mitigatingnoisedproducedduringanymarineactivityisbaseduponeitherminimisingthenoiseatsourceor
ensuringamarinemammalisnotinthevicinityofoperationsandexposedtothenoise.Forexample:

AtdesignstagesandintegratedwiththeEIAprocess,theassessmentofengineeringoptionswillinclude
considerationofthenoiseproducedduringconstructionandoperationofthewindfarm.

If piling is used it may be possible to mask the piling noise using bubble curtains or other devices as
describedinCOWRIEReportENG012007.

Depending upon the foundation design chosen, it may be necessary to use a soft start methodology to
minimiseriskofnoiseimpactstomarinemammals.Sitespecificguidancesuchasthatdescribedinthe
Statutorynatureconservationagencyprotocolforminimisingtheriskofdisturbanceandinjurytomarine
mammalsfrompilingnoise 25wouldbedevelopedontheuseofMarineMammalObserversandPassive
Acousticmonitoring.

AllmeasurestominimisenoisewillbeexploredbyNnGOWLaspartoftheEIAprocess.Itisplannedtocollect
bothvisualandacousticsurveyinformationtoimprovethedatasetonmarinemammalsusingthewindfarm
area.ThesesurveysarecombinedwiththeseabirdsurveysasdescribedinAppendixE.Thesesurveyshave
beendesignedinsuchawayastobeusefulintermsofpostconsentmonitoring.

5.4.6 CumulativeImpacts
ThroughworkingwiththeotherForthandTayEstuaryOffshoreDeveloperGroup,andathoroughknowledge
of current and planned activities in the Firth of Forth, the EIA process will assess the cumulative and in
combinationimpactofnoiseonmarinemammalsbothtemporallyandspatially.Theprojectteamplantouse
theERMCtooltoaidcumulativeandincombinationassessment.
During the development of the EIA it is also expected that the UK Government will take forward
recommendationsfortheOffshoreEnergySEAPostConsultationReportwhichmayprovidefurthertoolsto

25
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/Piling%20Protocol%20June%202009.pdf

49|P a g e


aid the cumulative impact assessment. One of the Final Recommendations is that The effects of noise on
marinemammalsparticularlyfrompilingandseismicsurveyremainanissueofdebate.Arangeofmitigation
measuresareavailableandtheiradoptionisnormallyrequiredthroughconsenting.However,thereisaneed
for cross industry coordination of what noisy activities are planned, where and when, to facilitate the
assessment of cumulative effects and implementation of temporal/spatial mitigation actions. The approach
wouldrequireamechanismtofacilitatetheexchangeofinformation,forexamplethroughawebbasedforum
hostedbyDECC,JNCCorthefutureMMO.TheSEAforScottishterritorialwindfarmsiscurrentlyongoingand
fullconsiderationofanyrecommendationsfromthisSEAwillbetakenintoaccountduringtheEIAprocess.

5.5 Ornithology
5.5.1 GeneralDescription
In the summer months the most abundant seabird species likely to occur in the area are gannet, kittiwake,
puffin, fulmar, guillemot and razorbill. There will also be smaller numbers of large gulls and possibly tern
species.Allthesespeciesbreedincoloniesalongtheadjacentcoastandareknowntorangelargedistancesto
feed.OfparticularrelevancetothedevelopmentwillbebirdsfromcoloniesontheIsleofMayandBassRock.
Thesearesituatedtothesouthwest,approximately20kmand30kmawayrespectively.Inaddition,birds
breedingattheStAbbsHeadcolonies,approximately40kmtothesouth,mayalsorangeasfarasNeartna
Gaoitheduringfeedingtrips.ThesecoloniesareincludedineithertheForthIslandsortheStAbbsHeadto
FastCastleSPAs.TheboundariesoftheseseabirdSPAsareintheprocessofbeingextendedto4kmoffshore
fromthecoast.
Manyseabirdsfromthesecoloniesareknowntobeparticularlydependentonsandeels(Camphuysen2005).
Theseoccurthroughouttheregionbutnotuniformlyorconsistently,withtheresultthatthemostprofitable
feedingareasforseabirdschangebothseasonallyandbetweenyears.Highlymobilepelagicpreyspeciessuch
as clupeids can also be important, resulting in rapid changes in feeding areas even within a season (e.g.
guillemotchicks,Wilsonetal2005).Ofparticularrelevancetothedevelopmentisthattherelativelyshallow
sandbanks(e.g.theWeeBankie)lyingbroadlytotheeastofthesiteareknowntobefavouredseabirdfeeding
groundswithpreyspeciessuchassandeels,herringandspratavailable.Thedevelopmentsitehasalsobeen
shown to be important for feeding seabirds at times, for example, high densities of gannet, kittiwake and
guillemotwereregularlyrecordedinJuneandJuly(Camphuysen2005).
Given the proximity of the development to European designated sites and the possibility that birds forming
partofthequalifyinginterestsofthesesitescouldbeadverselyaffectedbytheproposals,itisreasonableto
assumethatanappropriateassessmentundertheHabitatsRegulations1994willberequired.Thiswouldbein
addition to assessment under the EIA Regulations. The tests under the Habitats Regulations are far more
stringent than those of the EIA Regulations and therefore baseline studies will give particular emphasis to
gatheringdetailedinformationontheSPAqualifyingspeciesthatoccurwithinthedevelopmentsite.These
includegannet,shag,puffin,guillemot,razorbill,kittiwake,lesserblackbackedgull,herringgull,arcticternand
commontern.Figure55showsthesensitivityofthesespeciesinrelationtoNeartnaGaoithe.

50|P a g e

Figure55

BirdsensitivityintheregionofNeartnaGaoithe

ThefollowingFiguresshowtheaveragedensityforeachofthespeciesmentionedabove.Figure56shows
thepotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringinnationallyimportantnumbersintheFirthofForth(redthroated
diver,commonscoterandlittlegull).Figure57to59showsthepotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithin
theForth(guillemot,razorbill,puffin,blackthroateddiver,greatnortherndiver,gannet,shag,eider,sandwich
tern,commonternandarctictern.

51|P a g e

Figure56

PotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithintheForthinNationallyimportantnumbers

Figure57

PotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithintheForth(1)

52|P a g e

Figure58

PotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithintheForth(2)

Figure59

PotentiallysensitivespeciesoccurringwithintheForth(3)

53|P a g e


Forbirds,potentialimpactsassessedwillinclude:

Collisionwiththeproposedturbines,leadingtodeathorinjury;
Disturbance,includingdisplacementandbarriereffects;
Habitatloss;
Indirecteffects,e.g.causedbychangestocurrents,sediments,fish;
Thecumulativeeffectsofmorethanonedevelopmentintheregion.

Particularattentionwillbepaidtotheissueofcumulativeandincombinationimpactsinrelationtobirds.
Appendix E of this scoping document is the Bird and Sea Mammal Scoping Report produced by Natural
Research(Projects)Ltd(NRP),CorkEcology(CE)andCraigtonEcologicalServices.Thisdocumentincludesafull
speciesaccountanddetailsofproposedsurveymethodologies.

5.5.2 AvailableData
AgapanalysisofexistingdataonbirdswillbeundertakenasdescribedinAppendixE.Thereisanextensive
amount of literature now available on offshore wind farms, their potential impacts on birds and survey
protocolsasdescribedinAppendixE.Belowisanexampleofkeyreferences:

Camphuysen,C.J.,Fox,T.,Leopold,M.F.&Petersen,I.K.2004.Towardsstandardisedseabirdsatsea
censustechniquesinconnectionwithenvironmentalimpactassessmentsforoffshorewindfarmsin
theUK.AreportforCOWRIE.

Maclean, I.M.D, Wright, L.J., Showler, D.A. and Rehfisch, M.M. (2009) A Review of Assessment
Methodologies for Offshore Windfarms. British Trust for Ornithology Report Commissioned by
CowrieLtd.

Barton,C.andPollock,C.2004.Reviewofdivers,grebesandseaduckdistributionandabundancein
theSEA5area.ReporttotheDTIaspartofSEA5fromCorkEcology

King, S., Maclean, I.M.D., Norman, T., and Prior, A. (2009) Developing Guidance on Ornithological
CumulativeImpactAssessmentforOffshoreWindFarmDevelopers.COWRIE.

Maclean, I.M.D., Frederikson, M and Rehfisch, M.M. (2007) Potential use of population viability
analysistoassesstheimpactofoffshorewindfarmsonbirdpopulations.BTOResearchReportNo.
480toCOWRIE.BTO,Thetford.

Camphuysen,C.J.(ed.),2005.Understandingmarinefoodwebprocesses:anecosystemapproachto
sustainablesandeelfisheriesintheNorthSea.IMPRESSFinalReport.RoyalNetherlandsInstitutefor
SeaResearch,Texel.

5.5.3 MethodofAssessment
AnalysisofthedatacollectedwillprovidethefollowinginformationrequiredfortheEIA:

Estimates of the numbers of seabirds and marine mammals using the development area and its
surroundingwatersthroughouttheyear.Thiswillallowthesite,anditssurroundingwaters,tobe
assessed for each species with respect to its conservation importance in the context of regional,
nationalandinternationalpopulations.Thiswillallowkeyspeciestobeidentified.

Maps showing the seasonal distributions of seabirds and marine mammals within the site and the
surrounding8kmbuffer.Thiswillallowthedevelopmentsitetobecomparedwithinthecontextof
thesurroundingarea.Furthermore,shouldsignificantadverseimpactsbeidentifiedthensuchdata
wouldpotentiallyallowthedevelopmentofpotentialmitigationmeasuresbaseduponthesitingof
individualturbinesorschedulingofoperations.

Estimatesofcollisionriskforflyingbirds.

54|P a g e

Estimatesofthepotentialeffectsduetohabitatlossanddisplacementundervariousscenarioswith
respecttothedistancesucheffectsextendfromthedevelopment,andtheavailabilityofalternative
suitablehabitats.

An assessment of the potential cumulative assessment of the development along with others
proposedintheregion.

TheimpactassessmentofbirdswillbeundertakenusingbothquantitativetoolssuchasPVAandqualitative
reports.Thiswillincludeassessmentof:

Collisionrisktobirdmovementssuchasdailyflightsbetweenroostingandforagingareasorannual
migrations The subject of collision is reviewed in the Offshore Energy SEA (DECC 2009). Various
techniqueshavebeendevelopedtostudytheproblemandpredictitsaffects(Bandetal2007

Disturbance concerns behavioural response to either specific events associated with the
development(suchasnoiseoramovingvessel)ortheirresponseingeneraltothepresenceofwind
turbines. Disturbance can lead to displacement. This occurs when birds no longer make use of an
area,oruseitlessfrequentlythantheywouldotherwisebecauseofthedevelopment.Thismaybea
temporaryeffectorapermanentone.Inecologicalterms,itisequivalenttohabitatloss.

Lossoffeedinghabitatbecauseofthefootprintofturbinefoundations,scouring,powercables,and
zonesofavoidanceabouteachturbine;

Barriereffectspreventingbirdsmovinginachosendirection;

Indirecteffects,e.g.causedbychangestocurrents,sediments,fish;

Thecumulativeeffectsofmorethanonedevelopmentintheregion.

Theassessmentwillestablishabaselinethroughpublisheddataandvesselsurveys,whichcanbecompared
with historical data. Details of the proposed vessel surveys are given in Appendix E. The Crown Estate has
beenundertakingaerialsurveysovertheproposedScottishterritorialwaterswindfarmswhichwillprovidea
valuabledatasetforassessmentpurposes.
Aliteraturereviewwillbeundertakentodeterminethelikelyresponseofspeciestotheoffshorewindfarm.A
collisionriskassessmentforkittiwakesandgannetswhichflythroughtheareawillbeundertakenaspartof
theEIA.Inaddition,theimplicationsforbirdsflyingtoWeeBankietofeedwillbeconsidered.

5.5.4 FurtherRequirements
AppendixEdetailsthesurveystrategyforbirdsandmarinemammals.NnGOWLplanstosurveytheareaof
the proposed wind farm plus a 4km buffer for baseline description as well as an additional 4km to provide
furthercontextfortheEIAprocess.The8kmbufferwillallowNnGOWLtoexaminedisplacementandhabitat
loss effects along a distance gradient from the development site. This is consistent with the surveys and
analysesconductedfortheHornsRevandNystedwindfarmsinDenmark(Petersenetal.2006).

5.5.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Thereisarangeofstandardmitigationwhichcanbeincorporatedintoanywindfarmdevelopmentincluding
thelayoutandsitingofturbines(toavoidkeyareasforbirds),thetimingofconstruction(toavoidkeyperiods
forcertainbirdspecies),theroutestakenbyconstructionvessels(includingfollowingexistingshippinglanes)
andtakingprecautionstoavoidraftsofmoultingflightlessbirds(byusingdedicatedobserversonthevessels).
This mitigation would be informed by the baseline survey. NnGOWL plan to wait until the first years bird
surveysarecompletepriortodecidingwhichfurthersurveysmayberequiredsuchasradarorotherremote
sensingtechniques.

5.5.6 CumulativeImpacts
TheFirthofForthandadjacentcoastlineisaveryimportantareaforbirds.TheWeeBankieandMarrBank
areaisparticularlysensitiveasitisanimportantfeedingareaforcoloniesbasedontheIsleofMayandother
Forthislands.Whileitmaybepossibleforbirdstoavoidonewindfarm,andstilleasilyreachtheirfeeding

55|P a g e


grounds, multiple obstacles may introduce significantly further flight times and therefore use too much
energy.Itiscommonlystatedthatallofthesepotentialimpactsonbirdsmaybecomemoresignificantwhere
severalwindfarmsoccurincloseproximity.
Thepotentialeffectsonanygivenspeciesmustbeconsideredinrelationtothewiderpopulation,particularly
wheretheseareofconservationinterest.

5.6 TerrestrialEcology
5.6.1 GeneralDescription
Thepotentialonshoresubstationsitesarebothlocatednearexistingpowerstations:CockenzieandTorness
however,limitedbaselineecologicaldataareavailable.Informationonprotectedspecieshasbeensourced
from the NBN Gateway 26 and for designated sites from the MAGIC 27 website. Ordnance Survey maps and
aerialphotographshavebeenusedtoassessthepotentialhabitatandinterestofthesites.
5.6.1.1 Option1Cockenzie
Theproposedlocationforthelandingpoint,associatedsubstationandconnectiontoCockenziepowerstation
isonanareaoflandimmediatelyadjoiningthepowerstationsitetothesouthwest.Thesiteisboundedby
theFirthofForthtothenorth,andtheentirenorthshoreofthesiteisdesignatedaspartoftheFirthofForth
SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI (Figure 510). This site is designated as an SPA and Ramsar site due to the
importance of its bird populations including internationally important assemblages of waterfowl, individual
populations of wintering wading species and its importance for passage species, specifically sandwich tern.
TheSSSIwhichcoversthesameareaisdesignatedforawidernumberoffeaturesincludingcoastalhabitats
(saltmarsh, sand dune, fen and saline lagoon, dune and maritime grassland), mussel beds, eelgrass beds,
nationallyscarceinvertebrateandplantspeciesandwadingandwildfowlbirdspecies.

www.nbn.org.uk

26
27

www.magic.gov.uk

56|P a g e

Figure510

NatureConservationDesignationsAssociationwiththeNeartnaGaoitheCableRoutes

Beyond the shoreline, the site may have potential to support anumber of faunal species. At this stage the
mostlikelyecologicalreceptorspresentincludereptilespecies(commonlizard,adderandslowworm)which
areknowntofavourcoastalembankmentsandwasteground;andbatspecieswhichmayforageorrooston
thesite.Thereareonlyalimitednumberofspeciesrecordsforthearea.Theonlyrelevantrecordsareof
DaubentonsbatsandPipistrellebatswhichhavebeenrecordedintheMusselburgharea.
A cable route here is likely to result in the loss of habitats in the designated area and disturbance of bird
speciesforwhichthesiteisdesignated.Theintegrityofthispartofthesitemaybeadverselyaffectedandan
AppropriateAssessmentwouldberequiredundertheHabitatRegulationstodetermineimpacts.Thereisa
presumption against developments that will have an adverse impact on internationally designated sites.
Limited impacts may also result from loss of habitats and construction disturbance on land adjoining the
shoreline.
5.6.1.2 Option2aTornessThortonloch
The proposed location for the landing point at Thortonloch is a sandy beach, sloping away from soft sea
defences,coastalscrubanddunehabitat.Thesiteisnotcoveredbyanyconservationdesignations.Thereis
anSSSIonthecoast,approximately1.5kmsouthofthesite(PeaseBayCoastSSSI,designatedforitsgeological
features).
This would require construction of a landing point on shoreline habitats at Thortonloch. There would be a
permanentlossofanunknowntypeandextentofcoastalhabitats.Nodesignatedsitesareexpectedtobe
affectedbyconstruction.
5.6.1.3 Option2bTornessSkaterawHarbour
The proposed location for the landing point at Skateraw Harbour falls directly in the Barns Ness Coast SSSI.
Thissiteisdesignatedonthebasisofthecoastalhabitatsthatitsupportsincludingsaltmarsh,rockystacks,
limestonegrasslandandalargeareaofmineralenricheddunegrassland.Thesitesupportsanumberoflocally
rareplantspeciesandisalsoofconsiderableimportancegeologically.

57|P a g e


This option would require construction of a landing point within the Barns Ness Coast SSSI. It is likely that
there would be damage to, and loss of, habitats for which this site is designated. There is a presumption
againstdevelopmentsthatwillhaveanadverseimpactonnationallydesignatedsites.
5.6.1.4 ConnectionRouteforOption2aand2b
Aconnectionwouldberequiredfromeitherofthetwoproposedlandingroutestoalocation2.5kmsouth
west of Innerwick. No specific route has been proposed at this stage. However, the general area through
whichtheconnectionwouldpassisarolling,pastorallandscapelyingbetween,andwestof,Thurston,Thorton
and Innerwick. Habitats here are likely to include enclosed, improved farmland, and some areas of open
moorland potentially supporting bog and heath land habitats. These areas are separated by steep sided
valleysformedbyriversandburnsincludingtheThortonBurn,ThurstonMainsBurn,ElmscleughWaterand
AikengallWater.Thesewatercoursesmayprovidepotentiallysuitablehabitatforotterandwatervole,anda
networkofpondsthroughouttheareamayalsohavethepotentialtosupportgreatcrestednewt.Wooded
cleuchs have developed on a number of the burnsides and this habitat mosaic offers a number of
opportunitiesforbatspecies,redsquirrelandbadger.
Therearethreedesignatedsitesinthevicinityofthesearcharea.TheRiverTweedSACandSSSIislocated
approximately 4km away and is designated for its internationally important populations of Atlantic salmon,
otter,lamprey(brook,seaandriver)anditswatercrowfootplantcommunities.Afurthertwositesliewithin
1kmofthewesternendofthesearcharea.TheseareWoodhallDeanSSSI,asitedesignatedforitsoakand
yew woodlands, and, Lammermuir Dean SSSI and SWT Reserve which supports a number of woodland and
grassland habitats as well as designated Ancient Woodland. Several other blocks of ancient woodland,
recordedontheAncientWoodlandInventoryarefoundwithintheconnectionroutesearcharea.
Anumberofrecordsofrelevantprotectedspeciesareavailableforthe10kmsquareinwhichthesearcharea
lies.Thisincludesrecordsofbadger,redsquirrel,commonpipistrellebatandgreatcrestednewt.
ConstructionoftheconnectionrouteforOption2aand2bwouldresultinatemporarylossanddisturbanceof
various habitats. Following the completion of trenching or overhead line works, most habitats would be
allowedtoreverttotheiroriginalstateorwouldberestoredwherepossible.Theareaofpermanenthabitat
lossisexpectedtobesmallscale.Anumberofprotectedspeciesandtheirsheltersmaybedisturbedbyshort
termconstructionactivities.Onlyintheworstcasescenariowouldtherebeaclosureorlossofsetts,holts,
dreys or burrows or accidental harm to species. It is anticipated that early consideration of species during
design of the scheme will allow a flexibility to avoid damage to these structures or populations. The most
likelyeffectswouldthereforebeshorttermdisturbance,fragmentationordisruptiontoforaginghabitatand
movementcorridorsofthespeciesusingthesite.

5.6.2 AvailableData
The following data sources will be used in the ecological impact assessment to inform the assessment of
ecologicaleffects:

NBN(NationalBiodiversityNetwork)records;

BiologicalrecordsfromtheLothianWildlifeInformationCentre;

SNHAncientWoodlandInventory;

MAGIC(webbasedinteractivemapofsiteswithdesignatedconservationinterest);

OrdnanceSurveymapdata;

Aerialphotographywhereavailable;

National, local and regional planning policy, in terms of policies which are relevant to ecological
effects.

58|P a g e

5.6.3 MethodofAssessment
5.6.3.1 Overview
Theproposedapproachtotheecologicalimpactassessmentwouldcomprise:

A desk review of development plans and additional policy documents to identify the policy
background and any potentially important ecological receptors within, and adjacent to, the sites,
includingtherelevantNationalandLocalBiodiversityActionPlans(LBAP);

Confirmation of sites designated for nature conservation, including statutory and nonstatutory
designationswithinandsurroundingthesite;

AnExtendedPhase1HabitatSurveyofthesitesandanappropriatebufferzone;

NationalVegetationClassification(NVC)surveyforhabitatsofparticularnatureconservationinterest;

Followingconsultation,protectedanimalandplantspeciessurveyswhererequired;

Inputtothedesign,andconstructionmethods/programme,ofthedevelopmenttoavoid/minimise
potentialadverseecologicalimpacts;

AnassessmentofresidualimpactsonecologyfollowingmitigationfollowingIEEMGuidelines,andan
evaluationofecologicalmitigationrequirements;

Considerationoftheneedfor,andscopeandfeasibilityof,furthernatureconservationcompensation
andenhancementopportunities.

5.6.3.2 Consultation
Aformalconsultationresponsewillbesoughtfromthefollowingorganisations:

EastLothianCouncilBiodiversityOfficer;

ScottishNaturalHeritage;

TheScottishWildlifeTrust.

5.6.3.3 Survey
AnExtendedPhaseIHabitatSurveywillbecarriedouton:

Thethreeproposedlandingpoints(andassociatedworksareasandconnections),plusa50mbuffer;

Theproposedconnectionroute(s)forOption2(Tornessoptions),witha200msurveybuffereither
sideoftheroute(s),orthepotentialsearchareafortheconnectionroutes,plusa50mbufferofthat
area;

Thefootprintofadditionalsubstations,plusa50mbufferwherethesedonotfallunderthesurvey
areasdescribedabove.

A Phase I Habitat Survey will be carried out to assess the type and area of habitats in the survey areas
described. This is a standard ecological survey technique developed by the JNCC (1990) for the audit of
ecologicalresourceswithinasite.Habitatswouldbeclassifiedandmappedona1:10,000scalebasemap(or
equivalent CAD plan if provided) in accordance with standard mapping codes, and then transferred to a
GeographicalInformationSystem(GIS).
ThePhaseIHabitatSurveywillbeextendedtoincludeanassessmentforthepotentialforspeciesprotected
byEuropeanandUKlaw,orspeciesincludedinnationalandlocalBiodiversityActionPlanstobepresenton
site.
A Phase I Habitat Survey can be carried out at any time of year but the optimal time is between April and
October. If habitats which are included in the Annexes of the Habitat Regulations are found, or habitats
covered by relevant Biodiversity Action Plans, these shall be subject to a National Vegetation Classification

59|P a g e


(NVC) survey (Rodwell, 1993). NVC classification will be carried out between May and August, though the
earliestpartofthisperiodisbestforcoastalhabitats.
Preliminary data searches have indicated that the survey areas may have the potential to support the
followingfaunalspecies:

Otter;

Watervole;

Badger;

Bats;

Redsquirrel;

Reptiles;and

Greatcrestednewt.

Surveyswillberequiredifanypartofthedevelopmentmayaffectareaswherethesespeciesarepotentially
present.ThesurveymethodsthatwouldbeusedarepresentedinAppendixG.
5.6.3.4 EcologicalImpactAssessment
EcologicalImpactAssessment(EcIA)isbasedonanumberoffactors,primarilyconsiderationofthevalueofa
site or feature being assessed, and the anticipated magnitude of the resulting impacts. The Institute of
EcologicalandEnvironmentalManagement(IEEM)hasproducedguidelinestoassistwithecologicalevaluation
andimpactassessment(IEEM,2006)thesewillbeusedasageneralguideintheassessment.Theseguidelines
have no legal standing and are not a substitute for professional judgement and interpretation, particularly
wheretheecologicalvalueofasiteand/orthemagnitudeofimpactsarenotclearorareborderlinebetween
twocategoriesofvalue/magnitude.
5.6.3.4.1

Sensitivity/ValueofEcologicalReceptors

A summary of the approach that will be used to value ecological receptors can be found in Table 53. The
table shows how ecological value or level of sensitivity can be ascertained using a combination of statutory
measures(legallyprotectedsitesandspecies)andnonstatutorybutwidelyacceptedmeasures,suchasthe
presence of notable habitats and species listed in Biodiversity Action Plans. Use can also be made of the
Ratcliffeassessmentcriteriafortheselectionofsiteswithnatureconservationvalue(Ratcliffe,1977).
Levelofsensitivityor
value
International

Examples
Aninternationallydesignatedsiteorcandidatesite(SPA 28,pSPA 29,SAC 30,
cSAC 31,pSAC 32,Ramsarsite 33,BiogeneticReserve 34)oranareawhichScottish
NaturalHeritagehasdeterminedmeetsthepublishedselectioncriteriafor
suchdesignations,irrespectiveofwhetherornotithasyetbeennotified.
AviableareaofahabitattypelistedinAnnex1oftheHabitatsDirective,or
smallerareasofsuchhabitatthatisessentialtomaintaintheviabilityofthat
ecologicalresource.
Anyregularlyoccurringpopulationofaninternationallyimportantspecies,i.e.
thoselistedinAnnex1,2or4oftheHabitatsDirective.

28

SpecialProtectionAreaclassifiedundertheEUBirdsDirectivefortheirimportancetobirds.

29

PotentialSpecialProtectionArea

30

SpecialAreaofConservationAreaclassifiedundertheEUHabitatsDirectiveforimportanthabitatornonbirdspecies.

60|P a g e

National

Anationallydesignatedsite(SSSI 35,NNR 36,andMarineNatureReserve 37)ora

discreteareawhichSNHhasdeterminedmeetsthepublishedselectioncriteria
fornationaldesignationirrespectiveofwhetherornotithasyetbeennotified.
AviableareaofaPriorityHabitatidentifiedintheUKBAP 38,orsmallerareas
ofsuchhabitatwhichareessentialtomaintaintheviabilityofthatecological
resource.
Aregularlyoccurringpopulationofanationallyimportantspeciesi.e.apriority
specieslistedintheUKBAPand/orSchedules1,5(S9(1,4a,4b))or8ofthe
WildlifeandCountrysideAct.
AregularlyoccurringandviablepopulationofaUKRedDataBookspecies.

Council

ViableareasofkeyhabitatidentifiedinCouncilBAPsand/ortheNatural
HeritageZoneprofileorsmallerareasofsuchhabitatsthatareessentialto
maintaintheviabilityofthatecologicalresource.
Anyregularlyoccurring,locallysignificantpopulationofaspecieslistedas
beingnationallyscarce(occurringin1610010kmsquaresintheUK)orina
relevantCouncilBAPorNaturalHeritageZoneprofileonaccountofitsrarityor
localisation.
Nonstatutorydesignatedwildlifesites(e.g.SNCIs 39,SINCs 40),includingsemi
naturalancientwoodlandgreaterthan0.25ha.
Networksofspeciesrichhedgerows.

31
CandidateSpecialAreaofConservation
32

PotentialSpecialAreaofConservation

33

WetlandofinternationalimportancedesignatedundertheRamsarConvention.

34

SitesdeemedrepresentativeexamplesofparticularhabitatsinEurope.

35

SiteofSpecialScientificInterestdesignatedunderUKlawasbeingthebestexamplesoftheUKsflora,fauna,geological
orphysiographicalfeatures.

36

NationalNatureReservedesignatedunderUKlawascontainingthebestexamplesofnaturalorseminaturalecosystems
inBritain.

37

MarineNatureReservedesignatedunderUKlawtoconservemarineflora,faunaandgeologicalfeatures.

38

BiodiversityActionPlanidentifiestargetsforimprovingandprotectingbiodiversityinanareatomeettheUKs
commitmentsundertheRioConvention.

39

SiteofNatureConservationImportanceLocallyimportantsitesofnatureconservationadoptedbylocalauthoritiesfor
planningpurposes

40

SitesofImportanceforNatureConservationLocallyimportantsitesofnatureconservationadoptedbylocalauthorities
forplanningpurposes

61|P a g e

District

Districtsitesandothersiteswhichthedesignatingauthorityhasdetermined
meetthepublishedecologicalselectioncriteriafordesignation,e.g.Local
NatureReserves.
Seminaturalancientwoodlandsmallerthan0.25ha.
Sites/featuresthatarescarcewithinthedistrictorwhichappreciablyenrich
thedistricthabitatresource.

Neighbourhood

Commonplaceandwidespreadseminaturalhabitatse.g.scrub,poorsemi
improvedgrassland,coniferousplantationwoodland,intensivearable
farmlandetc.

Lessthan
Neighbourhood

Habitatsoflittleornoecologicalvaluee.g.amenitygrasslandorhard
standing.

Table53

5.6.3.4.2

AnApproachforAssessingtheValueorSensitivityofEcologicalReceptorsinScotland

Impactmagnitude

Impact magnitude seeks to characterise the degree of change in an ecological receptor. It will take into
consideration the fact that different sources of change can result in permanent or temporary impacts, that
differentimpactshavedifferentprobabilitiesofoccurring,andthatsomechangesmaybepositive(beneficial).
Themagnitudeofimpactsisalsodependentontheirtimingand/orfrequencyofoccurrence,andwhetherthey
canbereversed.Thesefactorsareallcomponentsofecologicalimpactmagnitude.
Impactmagnitudecanbehigh,medium,low,orneutral.AsummaryofthisapproachisprovidedinTable54.
Impactmagnitude

Description

High

Highimpactsmayincludethosethatresultinlargescale,permanentchangesin
anecologicalreceptor,andarelikelytochangeitsecologicalintegrity.These
impactsarethereforelikelytoresultinoverallchangesintheconservationstatus
ofaspeciespopulationorhabitattypeatthelocation(s)underconsideration.

Medium

Mediumimpactsmayincludemoderatescalepermanentchangesinan
ecologicalreceptor,orlargerscaletemporarychanges,buttheintegrityofthe
featureisnotimpacted.Thismaymeanthattherearetemporarychangesinthe
conservationstatusofaspeciespopulationorhabitattypeatthelocation(s)
underconsideration,buttheseareunlikelytobelongterm.

Low

Lowimpactsmayincludethosethataresmallinmagnitude,havesmallscale
temporarychanges,andwhereintegrityisnotaffected.Theseimpactsare
unlikelytoresultinoverallchangesintheconservationstatusofaspecies
populationorhabitattypeatthelocation(s)underconsideration,butitdoesnot
excludethepossibilitythatmitigationorcompensationwillberequired.

Neutral

Thereisnochangeintheecologicalreceptor.

Positive

Thechangesintheecologicalreceptorareconsideredtobebeneficial.

Table54

CriteriaforDescribingImpactMagnitude

Combiningecologicalvalue/sensitivityandimpactmagnitudegivesecologicalimpactsignificance(Table55).
Ecological receptors with impacts of moderate or major significance will be priorities for mitigation and/or
enhancement.Insomecases,suchasprotectedspecies,theremayalsobealegalobligationtoprovidesuch
mitigation. Impacts judged to be of major or moderate significance will be considered to be significant

62|P a g e


impactsinaccordancewiththeEIARegulations.However,thematrixisnotintendedtobeappliedwithout
professionaljudgementtotestandrefineratingsofsignificance.

Value/sensitivityofecologicalreceptor

ImpactSignificanceLevel

MagnitudeofImpact
High

Medium

Low

Neutral

Positive

International

Major

Major

Moderate

No
impact

National

Major

Moderate

Moderate

No
impact

Council

Moderate

Moderate

Minor

No
impact

District

Moderate

Minor

Minor

No
impact

CanbeMinor,
Moderateor
Major.
Moderateand
Majorpositive
impactsareof
material
considerationto
theplanning
application

Neighbourhood

Minor

Minor

Negligible

No
impact

Lessthan
Neighbourhood

Minor

Negligible

Negligible

No
impact

Table55

MatrixforDeterminingSignificanceofEcologicalImpacts

5.6.3.5 RelevantLegislation,StandardsandGuidance
The ecological impact assessment would be carried out in line with the relevant legislation, standards and
guidance,notably:

TheWildlifeandCountrysideAct1981,(asamended);

The1994HabitatRegulations(1992ECHabitatsDirective);

TheNatureConservation(Scotland)Act2004;

TheProtectionofBadgersAct(1992);

NPPG14:NaturalHeritage;

InstituteofEnvironmentalAssessment(1995)GuidelinesforBaselineEcologicalAssessment;

Institute ofEcology andEnvironmental Management (IEEM) (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact
AssessmentintheUnitedKingdom(version7);

JNCC (2004) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: a technique for environmental audit (revised
reprint2003);

Scottish Executive Interim Guidance on European Protected Species, Development Sites and the
PlanningSystem(2001);

SNH (2005) Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Guidance for Competent
Authorities, Consultees and others involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in
Scotland.

5.6.4 FurtherRequirements
Onceadevelopmentboundaryhasbeensetfortheproposedlandingpoints,andproposedroutesorasearch
areahasbeenconfirmedforconnections,furtherconsultationwithlocalauthoritiesandSNHwillseektoagree
theassessmentmethodology,includingtherequirementforspecificfaunalsurveys.Thisconsultation,aswell

63|P a g e


as the findings of the Extended Phase I Habitat Survey may result in the requirement for species specific
surveys which have not been identified in this assessment for example fisheries surveys or terrestrial
invertebrate surveys,depending on the habitats that will be affectedby the development and the potential
constructionmethodsthatwillbeused.

5.6.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Itisexpectedthatmostpotentialimpactscanbeavoidedoreffectsreducedatthedesignstageofthescheme
throughearlyconsiderationofecologicalconstraints,whichalongwithconsiderationofotherenvironmental
features will be used to refine scheme layout, siting and design. Further avoidance of impacts may also be
possibleattheconstructionstagebymicrositinginfrastructure.
A range of standard mitigation measures are likely to be required throughout construction to protect
ecologicalfeatures,aswellasthewiderenvironment.Thesemayinclude:

Preconstructionchecksforprotectedspecies,andthepotentialrequirementforanEcologicalClerk
ofWorkstosuperviseallorpartoftheconstructionworks;

Strict pollution prevention measures built into Construction Method Statements, following SEPA
guidance;

Restrictionsonthetiminganddesignofwatercoursecrossingstoavoidimpactsonfishcommunities
at sensitive periods and to ensure the passage of fish and aquatic mammals is facilitated and
maintainedduringandafterconstruction;

Specificonsiterulessuchasspeedlimits,storageofmaterialsandchemicalshazardoustowildlife,
cappingandrampingoftrenches;and,

Methods for site (habitat) clearance, to reduce impacts on faunal species, reduce habitat damage,
and to maintain turfs for potential reuse in habitat restoration schemes or for restoring
infrastructureedges.

Onlyinexceptionalcircumstanceswherefeaturessuchasgreatcrestednewtpondsandterrestrialhabitat,bat
roosts,badgersetts,ottershelters,squirreldreysandwatervoleburrowscannotbeavoidedorwhereworks
encroachintoanareawhichwillcausedisturbancetothesefeatures,wouldmorespecificmitigationmeasures
berequired.Thismayincludespecifyingtimingofworks,methodsofworkingandsupervisionofworks,or,at
its most extreme, the need to exclude and destroy features (though we would aim to design out these
impacts) and the requirement to implement habitat creation and animal translocation schemes or other
ecological compensation methods. Any such mitigation would require a licence from the relevant licensing
authority.
Onlywhereworkwouldneedtobecarriedoutundertheremitofaprotectedspecieslicence,wouldtherebe
aspecificneedtocarryoutmonitoringofspeciesorhabitats.Thismonitoring,itstypeandfrequencywould
beaconditiononanylicencegrantedbySNHortheScottishgovernment(asappropriate).

5.6.6 CumulativeImpacts
Itisnotanticipatedthattheimpactsassociatedwiththerelativelysmallscaleterrestrial(onshore)workswill
besufficientastorequirecumulativeassessment.NnGOWLisworkingwithTheCrownEstateandtheother
Forth and Tay Offshore Wind Farm Developers to ensure cumulative impacts are assessed across the sites.
ConsultationwouldbecarriedoutwithSNHtoagreetheapproachtotheindividualschemeandcumulative
assessment.

5.7 NatureDesignations
5.7.1 GeneralDescription
This section provides an overview of the statutory protected sites that are designated under European
Directivesand/orimplementedthroughBritishlegislationbyastatutorybody,therebyhavingrecognisedlegal
protection.

64|P a g e


TheregionaroundtheFirthofForthisknownasanimportantareaforbothbirdsandmarinemammals,with
severalSpecialProtectedAreas(SPAs)andSpecialAreasofConservation(SACs).Figure511showstheSites
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Important Bird Areas (IBAs), RAMSAR sites, marine conservation areas,
localnaturereserves,SPAsandSACs.TheSPAshavea5kmand10kmbufferappliedaroundthem.Neartna
Gaoitheislocatedbeyondtheextentofthesebuffers.

Figure511

NatureConservationDesignationsOnshorefromNeartnaGaoithe

5.7.1.1 SpecialAreasofConservation
Member states are required to identify for designation fauna and flora that represent outstanding areas of
selected habitat type of importance to nonbird species, known as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).
Protectionisbasedaroundaseriesofsixannexesconsideringdesignatedhabitatsandspecies.IntheUK,the
Directive is implemented through the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 (subsequently
amendedin2000and2007),whichagainrequiresthatallsitesarefirstdesignatedasSSSIs.PotentialSACs
becomecandidateSACorcSACwhensubmittedtotheEC,therebyactivatingthoseprovisionsoftheHabitats
RegulationsrelatingtoAppropriateAssessment.OnceacceptedbytheEC,cSACbecomeEuropeanSitesand
areknownasSAC.
TheSACsinthisregionare:

FirthofTay&EdenEstuary;

IsleofMay;

RiverSouthEsk;

StAbbsHeadtoFastCastle.

DetailsofthesesitesareprovidedinAppendixH.

65|P a g e


5.7.1.2 SpecialProtectedAreas
The1979ECDirectiveontheConservationofWildBirds(theBirdsDirective)requiresmemberstatestotake
special measures to protect migrating and wintering birds, and those birds listed in Annex 1 of the Birds
Directive.ThesemeasuresinvolvethedesignationofSPAs.Adevelopmentwhichwouldaffectadesignated
featureofanSPA(i.e.aparticularspecies)mustassesstheimplicationsfortheSPA.
TherelevantSPAsare:

MontroseBasin;

FirthofTay&EdenEstuary;

FirthofForth;

CameronReservoir;

ForthIslands;

StAbbsHeadtoFastCastle.

DetailsofthesesitesareprovidedinAppendixH.
5.7.1.3 RamsarSites
The International Ramsar convention requires contracting parties, including the UK, to identify and protect
significant wetland for wildlife, in particular waterfowl. Sites are designated following agreed criteria and
shouldbeconsideredforinternationaldesignationifitregularlysupportsover20,000waterbirdsand/orifit
supports1%oftheindividualsinapopulationofonespeciesorsubspeciesofwaterbird.
TheRAMSARsiteswithintheregionare:

MontroseBasin;

FirthofTay&EdenEstuary;

CameronReservoir.

DetailsofthesesitesareprovidedinAppendixH.
5.7.1.4 ImportantBirdArea
AnImportantBirdArea(IBA)isanarearecognisedasbeingagloballyimportanthabitatfortheconservationof
bird populations. The programme was developed by BirdLife International. IBAs are determined by an
internationallyagreed set of criteria. Specific IBA thresholds are set by regional and national governing
organisations(BirdLifeInternational,2009).
TheImportantBirdAreas(IBAs)withintheregionare:

EdenEstuary,TentsmuirPointandAbertaySands;

FirthofForth;

FirthofTay;

ForthIslands;

MontroseBasin;

StAbbsHeadtoFastCastle.

FurtherdetailsontheseIBAsareprovidedinAppendixH.

5.7.2 AvailableData
TheMarineBill(Scotland)aimstodesignatemoreareasofnatureconservationimportanceaspartofNatura
2000. At the end of July 2008, a total of 385 Natura 2000 sites had been identified in Scotland. These

66|P a g e


comprise a total of 239 SACs and 145 SPAs, accounting for approximately 10% of Scotland's land surface.
Thesesitesprotect79birdspecies,suchasGoldenEagleandCapercaillie,18othertypesofanimalspecies,
includingseal,dolphin,wildAtlanticsalmon,and56typesofhabitat,includingreefs,Scotlandsruggedupland
habitats and machair (grassy plains). It will be necessary to continue consultation with the Scottish
governmentandSNHtoensurethatanyconservationupdatesareconsideredthroughoutthisprocess.
Otherdatasourcesandliteraturereferencesinclude:

Barne,J.H.,Robson,C.F.,Kaznowska,S.S.,Doody,J.P.,Davidson,N.C.,&Buck,A.L.,eds.(1997).
CoastsandseasoftheUnitedKingdom.Region4SoutheastScotland:MontrosetoEyemouth.
Peterborough,JointNatureConservationCommittee.(CoastalDirectoriesSeries.)

BirdLifeInternational.TowardstheidentificationofmarineIBAsintheEU:anexplorationbythe
BirdsandHabitatsDirectivesTaskForce 41

CCW,EN,JNCC,SNH(2004).NatureConservationAgencyGuidanceonOffshoreWindFarm
Development.Aguidancenotefordevelopersundertakingoffshorewindfarmdevelopments.

Christensen,Per&Lund,Henrik,(1998),Conflictingviewsofsustainability:thecaseforwindpower
andnatureconservationinDenmark,EuropeanEnvironment8(1),January/February

Davidson,N.C.,Laffoley,D.,Doody,J.P.,Way,L.S.,Key,R.,Drake,C.M.,Pienkowski,M.W.,Mitchell,
R.andDuff,K.L.(1991)NatureConservationandEstuariesinGreatBritain.NatureConservancy
Council

DEFRA(2005)NatureConservationGuidanceonOffshoreWindFarmDevelopment.VersionR1.9

DECCSEA5;andOffshoreEnergySEAandScottishTerritorialWatersSEA(ifavailable)

EnglishNature,(1994),Natureconservationguidelinesforrenewableenergyprojects,EN,
Peterborough

FosterSmith,R.L.andHendrick,V.J.(2003).SabellariaspinulosaintheWashandNorfolkcSACandits
approaches:PartIII,Summaryofknowledge,recommendedmonitoringstrategiesandoutstanding
researchrequirements.AreportfortheEasternSeaFisheriesJointCommitteeandEnglishNatureby
EnvisionMapping

Harrison,P.A.,Berry,P.M.,andDawson,T.P.(2000)ClimateChangeandNatureConservationin
BritainandIreland.MONARCHModellingNaturalResourceResponsestoClimateChange.TheUK
ClimateImpactsProgramme

ScottishExecutive(1995)ImplementationinScotlandofECDirectivesontheConservationofNatural
HabitatsandofWildFloraandFaunaandtheConservationofWildBirds("TheHabitatsandBirds
Directive").RevisedGuidanceUpdatingScottishOfficecircularNo6.1995

Langston,R.H.W.andPullan,J.D.,(2003)WindfarmsandBirds:Ananalysisoftheeffectsofwind
farmsonbirds,guidanceonenvironmentalassessment

Power,B.,Girling,A.,Fisk,P.(2003).GuidelinesformanagingwaterqualityimpactswithinUK
Europeanmarinesites.Version2,editedbyNHailey,ABurn,JBurt&MCoyle,EnglishNature.ISBN
857167473

RoyalSocietyfortheProtectionofBirds(RSPB),EnglishNature,WWFUKandBWEA,(2001)Wind
FarmDevelopmentandNatureConservation:AGuidanceDocumentforNatureConservation
OrganisationsandDeveloperswhenconsultingoverwindfarmproposalsinEngland,March2001

ScottishExecutiveDevelopmentDepartment(2006),AssessingDevelopmentPlansintermsofthe
needforAppropriateAssessment.InterimGuidance,May2006CrownCopyright

Soker,HolgerOffshorewindenergyintheNorthSeaTechnicalpossibilitiesandecological
considerations

41
http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sites/marine_ibas/birdlife_marine_iba_id.pdf

67|P a g e

StandardsforEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentsofOffshoreWindTurbinesintheMarine
Environment

Stone,C.J.,Webb,A.,Barton,C.,Ratcliffe,N.,Reed,T.C.,Tasker,M.L.,Camphuysen,C.J.&
Pienkowski,M.W.(1995)AnatlasofseabirddistributioninnorthwestEuropeanwaters.JointNature
ConservationCommitteeandNederlandsInstituutvoorOnderzoekderZee,Peterborough

Pluswebsitesforthefollowingnationalbodies:

CEFAS(CentreforEnvironment,FisheriesandAquacultureScience);

JNCC(JointNatureConservationCommittee);

SEPA(ScottishEnvironmentProtectionAgency);

ICESInternationalCouncilfortheExplorationoftheSea;

OSPARInternationalConventionontheprotectionofthemarineenvironment;

SNH(ScottishNaturalHeritage'sInformationservice);

ScottishExecutive;

FRSFisheriesResearchServices.

5.7.3 MethodofAssessment
AdetailedconservationreviewwillbeundertakenintheEIA,utilisingbothsurveydataandconsultation.
Alongwiththeliteraturesourcesreferencedabovethefollowingguidancedocumentswillbeconsidered:

NatureConservationGuidanceonOffshoreWindfarmDevelopmentAguidancenoteonthe
implicationsoftheECWildBirdsandHabitatsDirectivesfordevelopersundertakingoffshorewind
farmdevelopments.March2005.Defra(UK) 42

BWEAconsultationresponse 43:

Thesesourceswillbeconsultedupon,alongwithstatutorynatureconservationadvisorstomakesurethatthe
developmentofNeartnaGaoithedoesnothaveanyimplicationsfornaturedesignations.
With regard to Annex I habitats, such as reefs, it is important to survey Neart na Gaoithe to establish the
presence or absence of the following main reef types that may be sensitive to offshore wind farm
development:

HorsemusselModiolusmodiolus;

RosswormSabellariaspinulosa;

HoneycombwormSabellariaalveolata;

Stony/cobble/bedrockreefs.

Thiswillbeundertakenaspartofthebenthicecologysurveyandinterpretation(AppendixD).

5.7.4 FurtherRequirements
PendingtheimplementationofnewNatura2000sitesinthevicinityofNeartnaGaoithe,sensitivehabitatsor
speciesthatareidentifiedasPrimaryfeatureselsewherewillneedtobeidentifiedneartheproposedsite,
andanypotentialimpactsdetermined.

42

Defra2005:http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifecountryside/ewd/windfarms/windfarmguidance.pdf

43

BWEAConsultationResponse:http://www.bwea.com/pdf/defra_guidance_consult.pdf

68|P a g e


SAC status does not necessarily preclude wind farm development. However, development can only be
undertakenifitisshownthattherewillnotbeasignificantimpactonthefeaturesthatarelistedintheSAC
citation.

5.7.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
AstherearenodesignatedareasinthevicinityofNeartnaGaoithe,nomitigationormonitoringisexpected.
However, if survey results later reveal potential Annex I habitat and interest features, then these will be
reportedtoSNHandmonitoredaccordingly.

5.7.6 CumulativeImpacts
The location of Neart na Gaoithe is not expected to cause any impacts on designated areas. Further
investigationisneededastowhethertheinstallationofthefoundationsinconjunctionwithotheractivities
mayimpactonmarinemammalsdesignatedasAnnexIIspecies.

69|P a g e

HumanEnvironment

6.1 Landscape,SeascapeandVisualAssessment
6.1.1 GeneralDescription
ThecoastlineofFifeextendsintotheNorthSeaandconsistsofcoastalflats,lowrollinghills,cliffsandterraces.
The landscape has a generally large scale and open character which allows extensive seaward views from
certainlocations(LandUseConsultants,2008).Scatteredcoastalvillages,localattractionsandholidayresorts
liealongthiscoastline;connectedbycoastaltrails,makingtheareaapopularvisitordestination.Someofthe
keysensitivelocationsandfeaturesalongtheFifecoastinclude:

StCyrusBay;

StAndrews,andtheassociatedgolfcourse(TheLinks);

ThevillagesofArbroath,Boarhills,Kingsbarns,Crail,KilrennyandAnstruther;

CamboGardenandDesignedLandscape(opentothepublic);

FifeNessNatureReserve;

Smallbutprominenthills(formervolcanicplugs)suchasKellieLawandLargoLawwhichareusedby
recreationalwalkers;

TheFifeCoastalpath 44;

TheFifeCoastalRoute(A917) 45;

TheIsleofMay;

BellRocklighthouse;

StAbbsHead.

Further inland sloping arable fields, which dominate the flatter coastal strip, gradually reduce in scale as
plantations and shelterbelts become more frequent. Large areas of this coastal landscape are locally
designatedasAreasofGreatLandscapeValue.Assuch,theseareasarerecognisedasbeingvaluedlocally,for
thecharacterandscenicqualitiesoftheirlandscapes.
Theexposedcoastallandscapeswiththeiropenviewsacrossthesea(StAndrewsBay,theoutermostextentof
the Firth of Forth) are considered to be of medium sensitivity, although there are localised pockets where
landscapesensitivityishigher(e.g.areaaroundCamboSands),orlower(e.g.thedisusedairfieldatFifeNess).
MoredetailedlandscapeandseascapesensitivitywillbeidentifiedaspartofEIAstudies.
As the proposed distance offshore is greater than 15 km for the closest turbines, the effects of any wind
development at Neart na Gaoithe on the coastal landscape are likely to be limited. These will be strongly
influencedbyweatherconditions,particularlytheoccurrenceofseafogacrosstheeastcoast.Whenweather
conditions are clear, wind turbines are likely to be apparent on the horizon in views from coastal and
hinterlandlocationsnearFifeNess.
Although visible from the coast, it is unlikely that the proposed development will significantly affect the
characterofthelandscapeitself.Itmayhoweveraltertheexperientialqualitiesofthelandscape,suchasthe
perception of the undeveloped horizon. Other activity, such as shipping, will need to be considered in
examiningtheexistingseascapecharacter.

44

Fifecoastalpathwww.fifecoastalpath.co.uk

45

Fifecoastalrouteperfectday.visitscotland.com/perfectdays/bythesea/takethefifecoastalroute.aspx

70|P a g e


VerylongdistanceviewsmaybeobtainedinclearweatherconditionsfromtheAngus,EastLothianorBorders
coastlines,howeverduetothedistancetotheproposedsite,nosignificanteffectsareexpected.
The coastal area which will potentially be affected by a wind farm at Neart na Gaoithe extends from
StAndrewstoElie.TheclosestturbinesatNeartnaGaoithewilllie15.5kmfromthenearestcoastallocation
atFifeNess(Figure61).Theclosestrelevantdesignatedareasandlandmarksare:

StAndrewsAreaofGreatLandscapeValue(15.5km);

CamboGardenandDesignedLandscape(18km);

JohnMuirCountryPark(30km).

SNH in their Policy Statement recognises that offshore renewable developments, and especially those at a
distancefromtheshore,arelesslikelytohavesignificantvisualeffects(ScottishNaturalHeritage,2000).In
SNHslongtermplan,theystatethatthevisualimpactoflargescalerenewablegenerationmeansthatfuture
bulkelectricitysupplyislikelytobeservedbestbyencouragingatleastaproportionofsuchgenerationtotake
placeoffshore.

Figure61

SiteLocationinRelationtotheFifeandEastLothianCoasts

6.1.2 AvailableData
Thefollowingdatasourceswillbeusetoinformtheassessmentoflandscape,seascapeandvisualeffects.

OrdnanceSurveymapdata(includingthelocationofkeytouristdestinations,andconcentrationsof
visualreceptors);

Chartdata;

Landscape/seascapedesignationsacrossthearea;

Informationaboutweatherconditionsfromthelocalmeteorologicaloffice;

71|P a g e

Airphotography;

ScottishNaturalHeritagesLandscapeCharacterAssessmentseries;

SNH Commissioned Report/University of Newcastle (Final Report July 2004) An Assessment of the
SensitivityandCapacityoftheScottishSeascapeinRelationtoOffshoreWindFarms;

Zoneoftheoreticalvisibility(ZTV)mapsplottedfortheproposeddevelopment,andforothersitesin
termsofexaminingcumulativeeffects;

National, regional and local planning policy, in terms of policies which are relevant to landscape,
seascapeorvisualeffects.

6.1.3 MethodofAssessment
Toassesstheeffectoftheoffshorewindfarmonlandscapes,seascapes,areasdesignatedfortheirlandscape
importance, and views, including from potentially sensitive visitor destinations, a study area with a radius
whichextendstoadistanceofupto35kmfromtheedgeoftheproposedsitewillbeconsidered.Forthe
cumulativeassessmentthiswillbeextendedtoupto60kmfromtheproposedsiteboundary,asadvisedby
ScottishNaturalHeritage(2005) 46.
Locations within this study area will be assessed to examine effects upon landscape, seascape and visual
amenity as a result of offshore wind development at the proposed location. The ability of areas to
accommodate change will be considered in the assessment. Examination of the likely effects of wind
generationontheseascape,thecoastallandscapesandhinterlandswithinthisstudyareawillbeundertaken.
Effectscouldextendupto20kminlandfromtheshore(i.e.extendingamaximumdistanceof35kmfromthe
developmentedge,itselflocated15kmoffshore).
Popularareasformarineandcoastalrecreation,aswellasferryroutes(e.g.Rosythferry)andotheroffshore
users, will be taken into consideration in identifying potentially sensitive receptors. Potential sequential
effectsonviewersusingshippinglanes,aswellaspeoplemovingalonglinearroutessuchastheFifeCoastal
Route,andFifeCoastalPath,willalsobeincluded.
Climatic and atmospheric conditions will be included in the assessment of the likely visual effects of the
proposedoffshorewinddevelopment.TheeastcoastofScotlandisfrequentlysubjecttoseafog,particularly
inthesummermonths,andfurtherresearchwillbeneededtoassesshowvisibilityconditionswillaffectthe
frequency and significance of visual effects. The approach will consider the visual significance limits
recommended to apply to offshore wind farms as set out in SNH (2004). This document suggests that
seascapevisualrangeislikelytobegreaterinScotlandthanEngland,allowingclarityofviewatdistancesofup
to35kmfromthenearestturbine.
The distances quoted in DTI (2005a) Guidance on the Assessment of the Impact of Offshore Wind Farms:
SeascapeandVisualImpactReport,togetherwiththepredictedlevelofsignificanceofvisualimpacts,are:

08kmhighvisualimpact;

813kmmoderatevisualimpact;

1324kmlowvisualimpact;

>24kmnotsignificant.

Itisrecognisedthatthisvariesaccordingtothenatureoftheproposedsite,theweatherconditions,andthe
technologyproposed,inparticulartheheightandsizeoftheturbines.
The significance (major, moderate minor) of landscape, seascape and visual effects will be judged by
consideringthenatureandsensitivity(high,medium,low)oftheexistinglandscapesandseascapes,andvisual
receptors,againsttheproposedmagnitudeofchange(high,medium,low),whichwillreflectthenature,scale,
layout and proximity of the proposed project. Effects will be assessed in accordance with the Landscape

46

SNH,2005http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/Cumulativeeffectsonwindfarms.pdf

72|P a g e


InstituteandtheInstituteofEnvironmentalManagementandAssessment(SecondEdition2002)Guidelinesfor
LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment.
Theworkwillbeinformedandillustratedthroughthepreparationofzoneoftheoreticalvisibility(ZTV)maps.
ZTVswillbemodelledtoshowtheextentoftheoreticalvisibilityoftipsandhubs(twoseparatemaps)ofthe
proposedturbines,acrossthe35kmradiusstudyarea.ThesewillbeproducedinaccordancewithScottish
NaturalHeritage(2006)VisualRepresentationofWindFarmsGoodPracticeGuidance.Effectsacrossthestudy
areawillbereported,focusinguponsignificanteffects.
InadditiontotheZTVs,aseriesofmapswillbeproducedshowingthedistributionofdesignatedlandscapes,
landscape and seascape character areas, and the location of viewpoints and other sensitive receptors in
relationtotheZTV.Thesemapswillinformtheassessmentofpotentialeffectsupontheseareas.
AseriesofviewpointswillbeagreedwiththelocalauthoritiesandSNH.Thesewillbeillustratedbygenerating
wireframesand/orphotomontagesoftheproposedwindfarm.Photomontages(andmatchingwireframesfor
all locations) will be produced from the closer land based locations, where the view will be clearest, for
examplefromthecoastlinestothenorth,westandcouthoftheproposedsite,andfromareaswherethereis
an elevated open view from near to the coast. Wireframes will be used to illustrate the view from more
distant locations. These viewpoints will be used as an assessment tool in order to inform examination and
descriptionofeffectsuponvisualamenityandviews.Typically,about1520locationswillbeexamined,with
around810ofthesebeingillustratedwithphotomontages,andtherestbeingillustratedwithwirelines.
Potentialviewpointlocationsinclude:

StCyrusBay;

StAndrews,andtheassociatedgolfcourse(TheLinks);

ThevillagesofArbroath,Boarhills,Kingsbarns,Crail,KilrennyandAnstruther;

CamboGardenandDesignedLandscape(opentothepublic);

FifeNessNatureReserve;

SmallbutprominenthillssuchasKellieLawandLargoLawwhichareusedbyrecreationalwalkers;

TheFifeCoastalpath;

TheFifeCoastalRoute(A917);

TheIsleofMay;

BellRocklighthouse;

StAbbsHead.

Therelevantguidancewillbefollowed,andislistedbelow.
LandscapeInstitute

Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/09 Use of Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and
VisualAssessment;

LandscapeInstituteandtheInstituteofEnvironmentalManagementandAssessment(SecondEdition
2002)GuidelinesforLandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment;

TheLandscapeInstitute(1999)UseoftheGuidelinesforLandscapeandVisualAssessment;Practical
AdviceNote.

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (former department for Business, Enterprise and
RegulatoryReform(BERR)andDepartmentofTradeandIndustry(DTI))

DTI(2000)CumulativeEffectsofWindTurbines;AGuidetoAssessingtheCumulativeEffectsofWind
EnergyDevelopment;

73|P a g e

DTI(2005)GuidanceontheAssessmentoftheImpactofOffshoreWindFarms:SeascapeandVisual
ImpactReport.

NaturalEngland

TheCountrysideAgency/ScottishNaturalHeritage(2004)Topicpaper6:TechniquesandCriteriafor
JudgingCapacityandSensitivity;

The Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage (2003) Landscape Character Assessment Series
TopicPaper9:Climatechangeandnaturalforces,theconsequencesforlandscapecharacter;

Countryside Agency and SNH (2002) Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and
Scotland;

CountrysideCommission(1991)WindEnergyDevelopmentandtheLandscape,CCP357.

ScottishNaturalHeritage

ScottishNaturalHeritage(2001)GuidelinesontheEnvironmentalImpactsofWindFarmsandSmall
ScaleHydroelectricSchemes;

University of Newcastle (2002) Visual Assessment of Wind Farms Best Practice. Scottish Natural
HeritageCommissionedReportF01AA303A;

ScottishNaturalHeritage(2005)CumulativeEffectsofWindFarms;

ScottishNaturalHeritage(2006)VisualRepresentationofWindFarmsGoodPracticeGuidance;

ScottishNaturalHeritage(2008)DesigningWindFarmsintheLandscape(ConsultationDraft);

SNH Commissioned Report/University of Newcastle (Final Report July 2004) An Assessment of the
SensitivityandCapacityoftheScottishSeascapeinRelationtoOffshoreWindFarms.

CountrysideCouncilforWales

Countryside Council for Wales, Hill, Briggs, Minto, Bagnall, Foley, Williams (2001) Guide to Best
PracticeinSeascapeAssessment.

6.1.4 FurtherRequirements
ConsultationwithlocalauthoritiesandSNHwillincludeseekingagreementfortheassessmentmethodology,
andtheuseofappropriateguidance,aswellasobtainingfurtherinformationthatisrelevanttothearea,and
agreeinglocationsforviewpoints,asdiscussedabove.

6.1.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Themainformofmitigationavailableisthelayoutoftheturbineswithintheproposedwindfarm,aswellas
theextentofthewindturbinesacrossthepotentialdevelopmentarea.Theorientationandordereddesignof
thelayoutmayreducethelevelofsignificanceofeffects,althoughitisrecognisedthatseabedconditionsand
currentswillbeakeyconsiderationindeterminingthelayout.
Itwillalsobeimportant,wherepossible,thatthedesignandlayoutofthesite,includingsuchissuesasarray
orientationandturbinesize,appearsrelativelyconsistentwithothernearbyproposeddevelopmentssothat
potentially discordant relationships between adjacent wind farms are avoided. The feasibility of this will
depend upon technical issues, as well as upon timeframes, but it will be beneficial to have this overall
objectiveinmind.
Mitigation will also be achieved by the proposed colour of the turbines and any ancillary structures (a light
greyisfavoured).ThelocationanddesignoflightingormarkerswillbedeterminedbyNorthernLighthouse
Board.Fromavisualperspective,mitigationmeasureswillaimtomakethedevelopmentappearasdiscreteas
possiblewhenseenfromlandbasedreceptors,whileremainingclearatseaforsafetyofnavigation.

74|P a g e


Mitigationmeasureswillbeofrelevancetolandbasedinfrastructure(i.e.wherecablescomeashoreandthe
route of the grid connection) in terms of avoidance of sensitive features through siting and design, and
considerationofplantingtoreplaceanyvegetationwhichmayneedtoberemoved.Typicalgoodconstruction
practicetoreduceadverseeffects(e.g.hoarding,maintainingatidysite,topsoilstrippingandstorage)willalso
be expected. This will be set out in the ES and should be monitored on site by an environmental clerk of
works.

6.1.6 CumulativeEffects
TherearefourproposedsiteslocatedtotheeastoftheFirthofForth,FifeandStAndrews,aswellaspotential
sites within the Round 3 zone, for which details are as yet unknown. Consequently, cumulative effects
betweenthesiteswillneedtobeexamined,inordertosetouttheadditionaleffectswhichwillariseaspartof
developmentatNeartnaGaoithe.
Itwillbenecessarytomapandconsiderlandbasedwindfarmstowithin60kmoftheedgeofthesite,which
mayincludeonshorewindfarmsintheLammermuirHills.
ZTV maps will be prepared to examine the proposed site together with each of the cumulative sites. A
combined ZTV map will also be producedso that the number of wind farms which are seen from the areas
acrossitcanbedetermined.
Cumulativeviewpointlocationswillbeselectedfromwhichtoillustratethecombinedeffects,coveringa360
degreeradiusofviewwhereappropriate.
Typically34cumulativewirelineswillbeproduced.Suggestedlocationsinclude:

FifeNess;

IsleofMay;

Anstruther;

Dunbar/StAbbsHead.

Cumulativeeffectsuponseabasedrecreationalreceptorswillalsobeconsidered.
In line with Scottish Natural Heritage (2005) Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms, combined, successive and
sequentialeffectswillbeexamined,consideringtheseascape,landscapeandbothstaticandmoving(i.e.Fife
CoastalRoute,FifeCoastalpath)visualreceptors.
Relevantguidanceoncumulativeeffectsincludes:

ScottishNaturalHeritage(2005)CumulativeEffectsofWindFarms.

DepartmentofTradeandIndustry(2000)CumulativeEffectsofWindTurbines;AGuidetoAssessing
theCumulativeEffectsofWindEnergyDevelopment.

Entec Ltd (2008) Review of Guidance on the Assessment of Cumulative Impacts of Onshore Wind
Farms.

6.2 ArchaeologyandCulturalHeritage
6.2.1 GeneralDescription
Thestudyareacomprisestheproposedoffshoredevelopmentareaanda1kmbufferzoneextendingfrom
thesiteboundary(Figure62).Thisareaextendsbeyondtheproposeddevelopmentfootprinttoensurethat
peripheralactivitiesassociatedwiththedevelopmentdonotimpactonculturalheritageassets,andtoensure
thattheculturalheritageaspectsnotedwithinthedevelopmentareplacedintheirwidercontext.

75|P a g e


6.2.1.1 MaritimeLosses
A preliminary assessment has identified six recorded wrecks within Neart na Gaoithe. Two sites are
designatedasProtectedPlaces(K4andK17),bothsubmarineswhichsankin1918andprotectedunderthe
ProtectionofMilitaryRemainsAct,1986.Consequently,theremustbenodisturbancetothesesites.
ThefourremainingrecordedwreckslocatedwithinNeartnaGaoithearewellprovenancedchartedwrecks
(notprotectedbylegislation).Onefurtherrecordedwreckislocatedinthe1kmbufferzoneimmediately
adjacent to the proposed development site. These sites will be assessed as to their sensitivity to potential
impacts(Figure62)withintheEIA.

Figure62

ProtectedWrecksandChartedWreckswithintheStudyArea

6.2.1.2 Prehistoriclandscapes
Applying current models of relative sea level (RSL) it is likely that theproposed development area has been
submergedsinceatleast9300BP(Shennanetal.,2000).Consequently,archaeologicalissuesareexclusively
maritime from this time onwards, as has been discussed above. Prior to this date there would have been
periods when the area was above sea level. For much of this period the area would have been under ice
sheets, the eastern limit of which is marked by the Wee Bankie Moraine. There would have been periods,
particularly in the late Pleistocene, when the ice sheets would have retreated but sea level had not
significantlyrisen(Fleming,2004).Formostofthisperiodtheareawouldstillhavebeencoastalinnature,an
environment of great value to late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures due to the relatively rich resources
theseprovide(Smith,1992).
The nature of the seabed sediments and substrata in the area of the proposed development site has been
identifiedascomprisingmainlysandandmudsediments(seeSection4.4).
Large scale mapping of the area suggests that deposits are not deep and have been reworked, but have
considerable potential for lithic remains to be present. In addition it should be noted that survival of
archaeologicalsitesandpalaeolandscapeelementsisreliantonlocaltopographicvariation.Examplesmight
include depressions and channels indicative of relict landscape topography overlain by more recent marine

76|P a g e


deposits.Therefore,thereisthepotentialforcurrentlyunknownareasofbetterpreserveddepositsoccurring
within the proposed development area (Fleming, 2004). Similar to the maritime losses, the nature of the
seabedtopographyandsedimentswillhavetobeassessedinordertoestablishareasofpalaeolandscapeand
prehistoricpotentialandconsequentsensitivitytopotentialimpactsfromtheproposeddevelopment.

6.2.2 AvailableData
Aspartoftheassessmentasystematicsearchwillbeundertakenofallreadilyavailableandrelevanthistoric
environmentsourcesandarchives.Thiswillinclude:

UKHydrographicOffice(UKHO)WrecksDatabase(recordofwrecksandobstructions),andreviewof
cartography,historicchartsandsailingdirections;

InformationheldbyHistoricScotland(HS)onDesignatedWrecks;

Marine archaeological records held in the National Monuments Record for Scotland (RCAHMS
CanmoreandPastmapdatabase);

RecordsheldintheHistoricEnvironmentRecords(HER)forEastLothian,Angus(Aberdeenshire)and
Fife;

NationalArchiveofScotland(NAS);

NationalLibraryofScotland(forcartographicsourcesandhistoriccharts);

MinistryofDefence(MOD)informationonprotectedwreckremainsandmilitarylosses;

RecordsheldwiththeReceiverofWreck(RoW)(MaritimeandCoastguardAgency);

RelevantStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment(SEA)reports(UKContinentalShelfSEAArchaeological
Baseline;SEA5);

Informationandcollectionsheldinnationalandlocalmuseums(NationalMuseumofScotland);

RecordsheldwiththeArchaeologyDataService(ADS);

MarineEnvironmentDatainformationNetwork(MEDIN).

Other sources will include accessible published sources and grey literature, external marine historic
environment specialists, and local dive groups in the area. Data collected in site specific geophysical and
geotechnicalstudieswillalsobeused.
Inadditiontothedatasourcesabove,thefollowingstakeholders/bodieswillalsobeconsulted:

HistoricScotland(SeniorInspectorforMarineArchaeology);

FifeCouncilArchaeologyService;

EastLothianCouncilArchaeologyService;

AberdeenshireCouncilonbehalfofAngusCouncil;

MOD(protectedremainsandmilitarylosses);

ReceiverofWreck(MCA);

BGSregionalguideandpreviousworkinthearea.

Theassessmentwillbeconductedinlinewithindustrybestpracticeandtherelevantoffshorerenewablesand
marinehistoricenvironmentguidance.Thisincludes:

Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC) (2006) Code of Practice for Seabed
Development;

COWRIE Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector (2007)
(COWRIE/WessexArchaeology);

77|P a g e

COWRIEGuidanceforAssessmentofCumulativeImpactsontheHistoricEnvironmentfromOffshore
renewableEnergy(2007)(COWRIE/OxfordArchaeology).

ReferenceisalsomadetotheHistoricScotlandPolicydocument(HP6):ConservingtheUnderwaterHeritage
(1999),andHistoricScotlandsEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(Scoping)ofWindFarmProposals(Historic
Scotland,2007)andHistoricScotlandsScottishHistoryEnvironmentPolicy1ScotlandsHistoricEnvironment
(HistoricScotland2008).
AlistoftherelevantCharters,Conventions,LegislationandPolicyisgiveninAppendixI.

6.2.3 MethodofAssessment
Theassessmentofpotentialimpactsonthemarinehistoricenvironmentresultingfromthedevelopmentof
NeartnaGaoithewillreflectbestpracticeandbecarriedoutinaccordancewiththeguidancenotedabove,
andincarryingoutarchaeologicaldeskbasedassessments,ascodifiedbytheInstituteforArchaeologists(IfA)
StandardandGuidanceforArchaeologicalDeskbasedAssessment(IfA2008).Theassessmentwillbecarried
outinaccordancewiththeEIA(Scotland)Regulations1999andtheconsiderationsregardingsettingoutlined
in Historic Scotlands Scoping of development proposals Assessment of Impact on Setting of the Historic
EnvironmentResource(HistoricScotland,2009).
6.2.3.1 Baseline
The baseline aims to identify all known sites and features of cultural heritage interest within the specified
study area associated with the proposed development. In addition, the assessment will consider sites and
features of cultural heritage interest within the broader local and regional maritime landscape to help
establishthepotentialforthediscoveryofunrecordedculturalheritageassetswithintheareaoftheproposed
development. A baseline review will be undertaken which consists of a literature review, including
interrogationof the available archaeological data sources. In addition, the geophysical survey andavailable
geotechnicaldatawillbesubjecttoarchaeologicalreviewinordertoidentifyanypreviouslyunknownsites,
featuresandartefactsofculturalheritageinterest.Theresultsofadropdownvideosurveymayalsoprovide
information about the nature and extent of targets of cultural heritage interest identified during the
geophysicalmarinesurveyandreviewofgeotechnicaldata.Thebaselinereviewwillalsoincludeconsultation
withthestakeholdersnotedabove.
6.2.3.2 Assessmentofimpacts
After the baseline review has beencompleted the known andpotential impacts ofthe development will be
assessed. This will include categorisation of known sites, features and artefacts to assess their importance,
andthussensitivity.Themagnitudeofanimpactonsitesandfeaturesofculturalheritageinterestwillalsobe
assessed. The sensitivity of a site and magnitude of the impact will then indicate the significance of any
potentialimpacts.Theimpactswillalsobeassessedwithintheregionalcontext.Wherethedateandtypeofa
wreckisunknownitwillbedifficulttoascribealevelofimportanceorsensitivitytothesite,and,evenwhen
somedetailsareknown,moredetailedresearchwillberequiredtogaugetheimportance.Thereareseveral
typesofimportancethatcanbeattachedtoanysinglewreck.Theseareasfollows:

Wreckincidentsinwhichthevesseland/orsomeorallofthecrewwereinvolved;

Vesselslostintimesofwaroranyvesselassociatedwithlossoflifeatthetimeofsinking;

Vesselswithararityvaluethatcanadddegreesofimportance;

Vesselcargoesmayalsobeconsideredimportantduetotheirraritywithinthearchaeologicalrecord.

TheconstructionoftheNeartnaGaoitheoffshorewindfarmhasthepotentialforanumberoftypesofimpact
uponsites,featuresandartefactsofculturalheritageinterest:
6.2.3.2.1

Directimpact

Theassessmentwilldeterminethedirectimpactsonarchaeologicalsites,featuresandartefactsthatmaybe
affected by the development. These might include the introduction of foundations for turbines, the

78|P a g e


meteorologicalmastandtheoffshoresubstation;theintroductionofscourprotection;andthelayingofinter
arraycablesandexportcables.
6.2.3.2.2

Indirectimpact

Indirectimpactsassessedwillincludearangeofactivitiesincludingscouraroundturbinefoundations;scour
around cables, and changes to the sediment regime within the area of the development. Some indirect
impactsmaybebeneficial,forinstancetheburialofsitesandfeaturesbyincreasedsedimentation.
While it is unlikely that there will be significant impacts upon the setting of cultural heritage features, the
potentialforsuchimpactswillbeconsidered,andassessedintheeventthatsuchimpactsareidentified.
6.2.3.2.3

Secondaryimpact

The assessment will also determine the potential secondary impacts which might include the effects of the
anchoringofmaintenancevessels,ortheimpactsofjackuporsheerlegs;andtheassociatedactivitiesduring
theconstruction,operationanddecommissioningofascheme.
6.2.3.2.4

Potentialforunrecordedculturalheritageassets

The assessment will establish the potential for unrecorded archaeological remains to be discovered in the
proposed development area; including the remains of relict submerged landscapes and associated deposits,
andproduceguidelinestobefollowedshouldthesebefound.

6.2.4 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Therearevariouswaysthatimpactscanbemitigatedoncethesehavebeenidentified.Mitigationmeasures
usually involve avoidance (the implementation of exclusion zones and design alterations), reduction (the
introduction of measures to deal with unexpected discoveries during works), or offsetting (excavation and
recordingofasitebeforeanimpactoccurs).
Ideally, sites and features of cultural heritage interest should be subject to as little disturbance as possible,
wherenationalpolicydictatesapresumptioninfavourofpreservationinsitu(ScottishExecutive,SPP23p.11,
2008).Overalltheaimistominimisetheimpactonculturalheritageassetsthroughtheappropriatesitingof
infrastructureandworks.Assuch,thepreferredmitigationforthedisturbanceofawreckorsiteofcultural
heritageinterestwouldbeavoidance,sothattheturbinesandassociatedcomponentsaremicrositedtoavoid
wrecks or identified sites and features of cultural heritage interest. Consequently, exclusion zones will be
markedonprojectchartstoavoidpotentialwrecksorsitesandfeatures.Thesizeoftheexclusionzonewould
bedependentonthecertaintythetargetrepresentsawreckorsiteandthepotentialimportanceofthatasset
(historicallysignificantornot).Thus,allvesselsworkingontheprojectwillavoidtheseareas.Adherenceto
theimplementationoftheexclusionzonesduringschemeoperationscanbecheckedthroughproceduresand
protocolssetoutintheWrittenSchemeofInvestigation(seebelow).Forburiedlandscapes,themitigation
mayincludetheanalysisofboreholecoresbyasuitablyqualifiedgeoarchaeologistandarchaeobotanistso
thatanynewinformationaboutpalaeoclimatesorprehistoriclandscapescanbeobtained.
Asitespecific'WrittenSchemeofInvestigation'willbedeveloped,whichoutlinesallproceduressuchas:input
intosurveystrategiesdesignedtoassesstheeffectivenessofmitigationmeasures;moredetailedgeophysical
survey designed to assess assets that lie within those areas of the seabed that could be impacted by the
development;archaeologicalassessmentofdatagatheredfromfurthergeophysicalandgeotechnicalsurveys
(i.e. postconsent); details of exclusion zones and any alteration or removal of such in light of further
investigations; providing for input and involvement in any diver/ROV investigations undertaken for the
scheme;establishingthereporting,conservationandarchivingrequirementsofanyarchaeologicalworks..
Protocolswillbeestablishedbeforethestartofschemeoperationsdetailinginstructionstofollowintheevent
ofunexpecteddiscoveries,withcontactdetailsoftherelevantstakeholders.Therewillbeanarchaeological
representativenominatedinthedevelopmentcompanytoensurethecorrectproceduresarefollowedandthe
relevantarchaeologicalcuratorsandcontractorsarekeptuptodate.
TheWSIwouldbesubjecttotheapprovalofHistoricScotlandsSeniorInspectorofMarineArchaeologyand
therelevantLocalAuthorityArchaeologist.

79|P a g e

6.2.5 CumulativeImpacts
The assessment will consider the potential for the effects of cumulative impacts on sites, features and
artefacts of cultural heritage interest associated with the proposed development. Possible impacts may
includeeffectswithintheproposeddevelopmentsuchastheeffectofmultiplepilesthrougharelictlandscape
surfaceordeposit.Impactsoutsidethedevelopmentareamayincludetheeffectsofseveraldevelopments
within the same locality on thecultural heritage resource. There may alsobecumulative impacts upon the
settingoffeatures,althoughthisisconsideredunlikely.

6.3 Navigation
6.3.1 GeneralDescription
TherearetwomainshippingroutesoutoftheFirthofForthestuary,butnoIMOroutesintheregion.TheIsle
ofMayactsasanaturaldiversionfortheshipsandNeartnaGaoitheislocatedintheshadowzonecreatedby
theisland,asshowninFigure63.DensitydatafromAnatec(December2008c)indicatethatfewerthan60
vesselseachyeararefoundineach1kmblockwithintheproposedwindfarmarea.
With regard to sailing, the Royal Yachting Associations UK Coastal Atlas of Recreational Boating shows one
routewhichcrossestheproposedsiteinanorthwest/southeastdirection.Thisisclassedasamediumuse
route.

Figure63

ShippingDensity

6.3.2 AvailableData
Fortheinitialdescription,datahavebeensourcedfrom:

BERRonlineGIS 47;

47

BERRonlineGISwww.maritimedata.co.uk

80|P a g e

AnatecLtd;

AdmiraltyCharts.

Additionalinformationcanbeobtainedfrom:

MCAMGN371 48,MGN372(2007);

BWEAGuidelinesforHealth&SafetyintheWindEnergyIndustry;

Localportandharbourauthorities;

NorthernLighthouseBoard;

RYACruisingAuthority;

DECCSEA5;

UKDeal(BERROffshoreOilandGas/SEAdata);

SeaZone(UKHOMarinedata);

MCA(MaritimeandCoastguardAgency);

OSPARInternationalConventionontheprotectionofthemarineenvironment;

OWEOffshoreWindEnergyEurope.

6.3.3 MethodofAssessment
Navigationsafetyisofparamountimportancewhenconsideringthedevelopmentofawindfarm.Guidance
notespublishedbyDefra,CefasandDTLR(OffshoreWindfarms:GuidanceNoteforEIAinrespectofFEPAand
CPArequirements,2004) 49,MCA,TrinityHouse/NorthernLighthouseBoardandotherrelevantauthoritieswill
betakenintoaccount.
Aspreviouslymentioned,thesiteswereoriginallydeterminedfromthedistributionofshippingdensitydata,in
areas where relative shipping densities were low. The navigation assessment will refine this by using
AutomaticIdentificationSystem(AIS)andradardatafortheareatoidentifytheexactroutesofvessels,the
typesofvessels,andthetimings(e.g.whethertherearemorevesselsseenintheareaduringhightide,orhow
longtransittimesareandthereforehowlongaspecificvesselwouldbeaffectedbytheproposedwindfarm).
The assessment will also consider nonroutine vessels such as fishing vessels and leisure craft, through
consultationwiththeSFF,theRoyalYachtingAssociation(RYA)andtheCruisingAssociation(CA).
Factorstobeconsideredwillincludethosedescribedbelow.
6.3.3.1 Trafficsurvey
The traffic survey will incorporate AIS and radar data covering at least 28 days in the 12 months before
submission(oradjustedaccordingtoMGN371),overmorethanoneoccasion.Thiswillhelpdefine:

DistancefromshippingrouteasidentifiedfromtheAISdata(applicationofMCAshippingtemplate);

Typeoftrafficusingtheproposedarea/surroundingarea;

Nontransitusesoftheareae.g.fishing,diving,recreation;

Prescribedrouteingschemesorprecautionaryareas;

Proximityofthezonetoareasusedforanchorage,safehaven,portapproachesandpilotboardingor
landingareas;

48

MCAMGN371:http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcgamnotice.htm?textobjid=0BD60265A97A9E76

49

Defra,CefasandDTLR,2004http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/windfarmguidance.pdf

81|P a g e

Proximity of the zone to offshore firing/bombing ranges and areas used for any maritime military
purposes;

ProximityofthezonetoexistingorproposedOREIs,offshoreoil/gasplatformandmarineaggregate
dredging,marinearchaeologicalsitesorwrecks,orotherexploration/exploitationsites;

Proximityofthezonerelativetoanydesignatedareasforthedisposalofdredgingspoil;

Proximityofthezonetoaidstonavigationand/orVesselTrafficServices(VTS)inoradjacenttothe
areaandanyimpactsthereon;

Assessment of where the existing traffic could be displaced to and whether there is potential for
chokepoints/conflictstobecreated.

6.3.3.2 EffectsonnavigationofauxiliaryOREIstructures
Thiswilldescribe:

Theimplicationoftidalregimesinandaroundtheproposedzone;

Whethercurrentmaritimetrafficflowsandoperationsingeneralareaareaffectedbythedepthof
water;

Thesetandrateofthetidalstream,atanystateofthetide;

Whetherenginefailureorothercircumstancecouldcausevesselstobesetintodangerbythetidal
stream;

Theimplicationofadverseweatherconditionsinandaroundtheproposedzone;

Whetherthezoneinbadweatherrestrictedvisibilityconditionscouldpresentdifficultiesordangers
tocraftincludingsailingvessels.

6.3.3.3 Visualnavigationandcollisionavoidance
Anassessmentwillstudywhether:

Structurescouldblockorhindestheviewofothervesselsunderwayonanyroute;

Structurescouldblockorhindertheviewofthecoastline.

6.3.3.4 Communication,radarandpositioningsystems
Thefollowingwillbeidentified:

Potential for the structures to produce radar reflections, blind spots, shadow areas or adverse
effects;

Potentialforcommunicationstobeadverselyaffected;

Whethersoundsignalscouldbemaskedbythestructures.

6.3.3.5 Emergencyresponse
Thiswillconsiderwhethertherewouldbepotentialnavigationalorcommunicationdifficultiescausedtoany
marinersoremergencyservicesusingthearea.
6.3.3.6 Cableroutes
Thestudywillalsoconsiderthepotentialeffectofthecablerouteonnavigationormaritimestructures.
Aspartoftheimpactassessment,aNavigationalRiskAssessmentwillbeundertaken.Thiswillmakecertain
assumptionsasthefinaldetailsoftheprojectandconstructionschedulewillnotbeknownpreconsent.Itwill
follow the BERR guidance for navigational risk assessments (DTI 2005b, Guidance on the assessment of the

82|P a g e


impactofoffshorewindfarms:Methodologyforassessingthemarinenavigationalsafetyrisksofoffshorewind
farms).

6.3.4 FurtherRequirements
Asdescribedinsection6.3.3.1,aradarandAISsurveywillberequired.Thiswillcover28daysandbecollected
within12monthsoftheapplication.
Inaddition,therewillberegularconsultationwiththeNorthernLighthouseBoard,theMCAandlocalportsto
keeptheminformedofprogressandenableappropriatefeedback.

6.3.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
The appropriate use of marking and lighting will be compliant with advice from the Northern Lighthouse
Board.Mitigationforpotentialradarinterferencecouldincludemeasuressuchasareferencebuoylocated
outsidetheboundaryofthewindfarm.
Offshore operations with vessels will be broadcast in Admiralty Notices to Mariners, and good
communicationsmaintainedwithlocalports.

6.3.6 CumulativeImpacts
Thepotentialforcumulativeimpactsonshippingfrommultiplewindfarmsiteswillbeassessedandabuilding
blockapproachadopted,wheretheimpactofanewprojectshouldconsidertheincombinationeffectsofall
previousorexistingprojects.Giventhepotentialforfouroffshorewindfarmswithinterritorialwaters,plus
the Round 3 zone further offshore, the cumulative displacement of shipping will be a key issue that is
considered.

6.4 CommercialFishing
6.4.1 GeneralDescription
The waters of the Outer Firth of Forth are known to support various types of commercial species, including
herring, mackerel, haddock, whiting, dab, lemon sole, dogfish, nephrops and plaice (Murison and Robson,
1997).Consequently,thereareseverallocalportswithintheregionwhichsupportfishing.
The Neart na Gaoithe site falls within ICES square 41E7 which had 2,0004,000 tonnes landed in 2006/7.
However,SFPAdata,collectedbyitspatrolaircraftintheFirthofForthduringthesameperiod,showthatthe
area is not heavily used relative the areas around it (Figure 64). These data included the position of each
sighting,andthenationality,activity,andfishinggearofeachvesselsighted.Thisfigurealsoshowsthatcreel
fishingoccursnorthoftheproposedsite.

83|P a g e

Figure64

CreelAreaandFishLandingsandSurveillanceData

Totheeastoftheproposedsitethebankssupportsandeels.Since2000,anareafromAlnwicktothenorthof
Peterhead,extendingeastwardsto1Whasbeenclosedtosandeelfishing.Thisclosurewastosupportthe
local bird population as the depletion of sandeel stocks coincided with poor bird breeding years (European
Commission, 2003) 50. However, the closure is regularly reviewed and the area may be opened once stocks
fullyrecover.
Thereisalsoarestrictiononspratfishing.ThisisprohibitedintheinnerwatersoftheFirthofForthwestof
longitude3o00W,from1Januaryto31Marchandfrom1Octoberto31December(Defra,2008) 51.Thisbanis
designedtoprotectthecommercialNorthSeaherringstocksaslargenumbersofjuvenileherringaretaken
withsprats.
In the outer Firth of Forth region, there is trawling for nephrops. From the Firth of Forth northwards, the
wholeareaisusedforscallopfishing;thisiscyclicalandcanbeheavilyfishedforacoupleofyears,thenleft
foracoupleofyearstoletthestocksrecover.
Under the European Community Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923/EEC) there are 115 coastal waters in
Scotland designated as shellfish growing waters. Along the coastal fringe onshore from Neart na Gaoithe
there are shellfish growing waters and SEPA monitoringsites. To develop fish or shellfish farms The Crown
Estate Commission (CEC) must issue a lease for development. No such leases have been issued for the
StAndrewstoFifeNesscoastlineareawestofNeartnaGaoithe,althoughthereareknowntobelobstersand
razorfish in the area (SEPA, 1998a) 52. From Fife Ness to Elie directly west of Neart na Gaoithe, there are
winkles,prawns,razorfish,lobsters,crabsandclams(Spisulasp.),butagainnoCECleaseshavebeengranted

50

EuropeanCommission,2003http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/sec_2003_550_en.pdf

51

Defrafishingban,2008http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/pdf/fisheries/techpelagic.pdf

52

SEPA,1998http://apps.sepa.org.uk/shellfish/pdf/3.pdf

84|P a g e


(SEPA, 1998b) 53. Along the North Berwick to Dunbar stretch of the coast, southwest of Neart na Gaoithe,
therearenoknowncommercialinterestsintheshellfishwaters(SEPA,1998c) 54.

6.4.2 AvailableData
Informationanddatathatwillbeusedforthebaselineinclude:

DepartmentofEnergyandClimateChange(DECC)SEA5;

ScottishFisheriesProtectionAgency(SFPA)/MarineandFisheriesAgency(MFA),effort,valueand
landingsdata;

Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) / Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) overflight and
patrolvesselsurveillancerecords(includingVMS);

Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) / Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) vessel satellite
monitoringdata;

TheNavigationriskassessment;

ScottishFisheriesFederation(SFF);

NationalFederationFishermen'sOrganisation(NFFO;

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) have detailed and dedicated webpages for
commercialshellfishwaters 55;

FisheriesResearchServices(FRS)alsohavededicatedwebpagesonScottishcommercialfishspecies
andshellfisheries 56;

CentreforEnvironmentFisheriesandAquacultureScience,(Cefas)Lowestoft;

Barrett,C.&Irwin,C.eds(2008).UKSeaFisheriesStatistics2007.DefraPublications;

ICESfishlandingsdata 57;

CurrentandproposedrelevantnationalandEUfisheriescontrolsandlegislation;

Gearmanufacturersandagents.

6.4.2.1 Consultation
ConsultationwillbeundertakenincollaborationwiththeSFF,andwillinclude:

AngloScottishFishermensAssociation;

ScottishPelagicFishermensAssociation;

TherelevantbranchesoftheScottishWhitefishProducersAssociation;

Localfishermensassociations;

Arepresentativesampleofownersandskippersfishingthegeneralareaofthewindfarmsite;

SFPADistrictInspectors.

53

SEPA1998http://apps.sepa.org.uk/shellfish/pdf/4.pdf

54

SEPA1998http://apps.sepa.org.uk/shellfish/pdf/5.pdf

55

SEPAhttp://www.sepa.org.uk

56

FRShttp://www.frsscotland.gov.uk

57

ICEShttp://www.ices.dk/advice/fishstocks.asp

85|P a g e

6.4.3 MethodofAssessment
Theguidancetobefollowedfortheassessmentincludesthefollowingsources:

ABPmerLtd(2009)Developmentofspatialinformationlayersforcommercialfishingandshellfishing
in UK waters to support strategic siting of offshore wind farms. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd
(projectreferenceFISHVALUE0708);

BWEABestPracticeGuidelinesforConsultationandRecommendationsforFisheriesLiaison;

OSPAR (2008). Guidance on Environmental Considerations for Offshore Wind Farm Development.
Referencenumber:20083;

OffshoreWindFarms(2004),GuidancenoteforEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentinrespectofFEPA
andCPArequirements,version2June2004.

Detailsofthelocalfishandshellfishresourceswillbeassessed,including:

Themajorspeciesoffishandshellfishintheareathatareofsignificantimportanceincommercial
andrecreationalfisheries;

Thosespeciesoffishintheareathatareofconservationimportance;

Elasmobranchfish(whichareoftenalsoofcommercialandrecreationalimportance);

Speciesthathavearestrictedgeographicaldistributionandarelocallyabundantinthearea.

Thereispotentialfortheconstruction,developmentandoperationofwindfarmstoadverselyaffectfishand
shellfish resources, including spawning, overwintering, nursery and feeding grounds, and migratory
pathways 58. Both direct and indirect effects can occur on commercial fisheries operating in or close to a
proposedoffshorewindfarmareaoralongtheexportcableroute.Consequently,theassessmentwilldrawon
studiesthathavealreadybeenundertakentoestablishsuitablefishingtechniqueswithinwindfarmsandapply
theconclusionstoNeartnaGaoitheandthelocalfishingfraternity.ThepotentialeffectscitedbyCefaswhich
willneedassessmentaresummarisedas:

Lossorrestrictedaccesstotraditionalfishinggrounds;

Safetyissuesforfishingvessels;

Increasedsteamingtimestofishinggrounds;

Seabedobstacleswhichcouldrepresentahazardtovesselsandgears;

Anyotherconcernsraisedbyfishermenortheirrepresentatives.

Theassessmentwillconsiderhowtheeffectslistedabovewilloccurintermsofsitespecific,cumulativeand
incombination impacts for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases. The effects will be
identified by studying each of the commercial fisheries components in turn. Desk studies, field studies and
consultation will be carried out to gather information. On completion of the data gathering exercise, the
followingwillbeassessed:

Themagnitude(size)ofchangethatislikelytoresult;

Thesensitivitytochange(forexample,whetherthecomponentisconsideredtobeoflocal,regional,
nationalorinternationalimportance).

Thefindingsofthisimpactassessmentwillgiveanimpactdescription,significancestatement,assignalevelof
uncertaintyandsuggestpossiblemitigationandmonitoringrequirements.
Theassessmentadoptstheconceptualmodelsourcepathwayreceptortoaddressimpactsoftheproposed
activitiesonthereceivingenvironment.Thetermsourcedescribestheoriginofthepotentialimpacts(e.g.
theeffectsofinstallingturbines,noisecreation)andthetermpathwayasthemeans(e.g.turbineinstallation

58

CefasOffshoreWindFarmGuidancehttp://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/windfarmguidance.pdf

86|P a g e


causing scour effects and sediment transport) by which the effect reaches the receiving sensitive receptor
(e.g.fisheries).

6.4.4 FurtherRequirements
Based on the findings and recommendations , from the desk based review, a trawling programme may be
necessary using commercial gear to assess the commercial fish stocks within the impact zones of the wind
farm and the cable route prior to and postinstallation. The involvement of local fishermen in the survey
design and data collection would be considered. Scientific advice on the survey design would also be
incorporatedtoensurethatdataandanalysesareadequatetomeetregulatoryrequirementsandprovidea
robustenvironmentalimpactassessment.
Analternativetospecificsurveysmaybetoundertakeobservertripswithfishermenactiveinthearea,asthis
will provide a better understanding of the methods employed in the area, and the range of fish caught.
FurtheradviceonthisissoughtfromFRS.
Followingtheanalysisoflandingsandsurveillancedata(includingVMS),therewillfurtherconsultationwith
theSFFandtheFifeFishermensAssociation.

6.4.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Appropriatemitigationmeasureswillbeidentifiedaspartoftheassessment.Realisticmeasuresmayinclude
setting up exclusion zones to prohibit fishing during construction for the safety of the fishermen. Future
discussionswiththeSFFandlocalfishermenwillhelpformsuitablemitigation.

6.4.6 CumulativeImpacts
The effects on fish stocks need to beconsidered with regard to the existing constraints caused byfisheries,
pollution, existing cables and other disturbances (European Commission, 2005) 59. While the exclusion of a
fishery in a wind farm area can have a positive effect on fish stocks, the overall economic impact must be
considered.
Thephysicalpresenceoftheturbinesandthebehaviourandpossibledisplacementoffishandshellfishover
time will be assessed. The presence of the turbines may change the local fish and shellfish population
dynamicsbutthiscouldbeeithernegative(e.g.fishtemporarilyavoidingthearea)orpositive(e.g.creating
artificial reef which provides more food). The effect of the export cable and its electrical emissions on fish
suchaselasmobranchsandmigratoryspecieswillbeconsidered.Inthewiderregion,therearenotknownto
beanystructuresoractivitieswhichcouldcausecumulativeeffects,butthiswillbeinvestigatedinmoredetail
withintheassessment.

6.5 MilitaryandAviation
6.5.1 GeneralDescription
ThemajorityofNeartnaGaoitheislocatedwithinasubmarineexercisearea,asshowninFigure65.Thereis
alsoafiringpracticeareatotheeastofthesite,butthisisnolongerinuse.TherearetwoMilitaryProtected
Placeswithinthesite:K4andK17,asdescribedinSection6.2.

59

http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/cod/COD_Env_Issues%20Report_17_11.pdf

87|P a g e

Figure65

MilitaryPracticeAreasandRAFLeuchars

IntheFirthofForthregion,thereareseveralradarinstallationsthatmaybeaffectedbythedevelopmentof
NeartnaGaoithe.Theseinclude:
RAFLeucharsPrimarySurveillanceRadar;
RAFLeucharsPrecisionApproachRadar;
EdinburghAirportPrimarySurveillanceRadar;
NERLPerwinnesPrimarySurveillanceRadar;
RAFBuchanPrimarySurveillanceRadar.
Pager Power (2009) has initiated consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), MOD and Edinburgh
Airport(viathesafeguardingsectionofBAAplcformerlyBritishAirportsAuthority).MODSafeguardingwas
consultedduringTheCrownEstatebidphaseandraisedaconcernwithregardtoAviationRadarinterference
atRAFLeuchars:
AirTrafficControl(ATC)radartheturbineswillbe33kmfrom,inlineofsightto;andwillcauseunacceptable
interferencetotheATCradaratRAFLeuchars.Followingtrialscarriedoutin2005,ithasbeenconcludedthat
windturbinescanaffecttheprobabilityofdetectionofaircraftflyingoverorinthevicinityofwindturbines.
Duetothis,theRAFwouldbeunabletoprovideafullAirTrafficRadarserviceintheareaoftheproposedwind
farm.
In addition, they stated that the navy representative had been consulted, and there were no concerns
regardingthesubmarineexercisezones.
Responses from the consultation to date are given in Appendix J, together with details of specific potential
radarinteraction.TheresponsesshowedthattheproposedsitecouldnotbeseenbytheradaratEdinburgh
airport,andthattheCAADirectoratehadnoobservations.

88|P a g e


WithregardtoUnexplodedOrdnance(UXO),NeartnaGaoithehasalowtomoderateriskassociatedwithit.
During the Second World War, the German Air Force targeted Edinburgh and in particular the Forth Road
Bridge.IftheGermanAirwereunabletodropalltheirbombsontheClyde,theywouldoffloadtheirunused
bombs by aiming for the ships in the Firth of Forth. Many small islands and peninsulas were fortified to
protectinletsandotherstrategictargets.
RecentevidenceofUXOsinthevicinityofNeartnaGaoitheisavailable.InDecember2008,afishermanreeled
inaliveWorldWarIIbomb.MembersoftheRoyalNavybombdisposalunitsubsequentlyhadtocarryouta
controlledexplosion.ARoyalNavyspokespersoncommentedthattherearestilltensofthousandsofthese
intheForthfromthewar...(McLeod,2008) 60.TheNorthernRoyalNavyDivingGroupalsoblewupaminein
the Firth of Forth area in April 2007 (BBC News Scotland, 2006) 61. In 2006, Royal Navy explosives disposal
expertsexaminedaWorldWar2minefoundinTheFirthofForth,byacrewoffishermenoffMethilinFife
(ClippedNews,2006) 62.In1998,anunexplodedminewasreportedtotheCoastguard 63whenafishingvessel
pulled up a 2,000lb unexploded mine dating from the Second World War. The vessel `Shalimar' reported
trawlingtheunexplodedordnanceinLargoBay,intheFirthofForth(BNETUK,1998) 64.

6.5.2 AvailableData
Thestudiesandguidelinesthatareavailableinclude:

DepartmentofEnergyandClimateChangeSEA5;

ZeticaRegionalUnexplodedBombRiskMaps;

WindEnergyandAviationInterestsInterimGuidelines,ReportETSUW/14/00626/REP,2002;

NATS/NERL/MODonlineselfassessmenttool;

TheEffectsofWindTurbineFarmsonATCRadar,(5October2005);

CivilAviationAuthorityPublication(CAP)764,CAAPolicyandGuidelinesonWindTurbines.

6.5.3 MethodofAssessment
Theassessmentwillcovervariousconcernsasdiscussedbelow.
Themainconcernsregardingoffshorewindfarmsfocusontheincreasedclutterinterferencecausedbywind
turbines, which affects both Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Air Defence (AD) primary surveillance radars,
reducingtheirabilitytofulfiltheiroperationaldutiesinthevicinityofwindfarms.
There are a number of different types of radar in operation; Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR), Secondary
Surveillance Radar (SSR), Precision Approach Radar (PAR), Instrumented Landing System (ILS), Maritime
NavigationRadarsandWeatherRadars.Eachperformsaspecificfunction,andmuchoftheresearchtodate
has been on the effects of wind turbines on PSR (Air Defence and Air Traffic Control). There is increasing
interestintheeffectsofwindturbinesonSSR,althoughtheeffectsofwindturbinesonSSRandothertypesof
radararelessunderstood.
Althoughmodernradarscanfilteroutstationaryobjects,theycannotfilterouttherotatingbladesofawind
turbine.WindturbinesalsohaveaverylargeRadarCrossSection(RCS),bothduetotheirphysicalsizeandthe
materialsusedinconstruction.Rotatingturbinebladesarethereforeeasilydetectedbytheradarandappear

60

NewsArticle2008http://deadlinescotland.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/franciswwiicatchhasanexplosiveending/

61

NewsArticle,2006http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5378234.stm

62

NewsArticle,2006http://clippednews.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/ww2unexplodedbombfound/

63

(c)199498m2communicationsltdrdate:100698

64

NewsArticle,1998http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5243/is_199806/ai_n19782401/

89|P a g e


orpaintonaradardisplay,inasimilarmannerasradarreturnsfromanaircraft.Thesefalseradarreturnsare
referredtoasclutter.
Theeffectisthreefold;thereisanincreaseinthenumberoffalsereturns(clutter)ontheradardisplay;there
is an area of desensitisation of the radar around the wind turbine (the size of this area will depend on the
radarperformancecharacteristics);andthepossiblelossoftrackidentityortrackseductionofarealaircraft
returninoverflyingthewindfarm.
TheprimaryconcernfromtheATCcommunityisthatoperationalsafetywillbeimpaired.Theprimaryconcern
fromtheADcommunityisthatnationalsecuritywillbecompromised.
A safeguarding assessment will be undertaken, to ensure the protection of civil aviation interests and will
preventthepositioningofturbinestructuresuchthattheywouldimpactonthesafetyofairnavigation.There
are two elements of Air Traffic Safeguarding which need to be taken into account: radar interference as an
issueforAirTrafficControlandphysicalobstructionasahazardtolowflying.
6.5.3.1 AirTrafficControl
Offshore, the primary safeguarding concern encountered relates to the effects of turbines on civil radar
eitherfromNATSEnRouteprovidingenroutesurveillanceservices,orfromTerminalAirNavigationService
providers(ANSPs),providingairfieldAirTrafficControl(ATC)services.
Windturbineswillappearaspaintsonaradardisplay,verysimilartothatofanunknownaircraft.Known
aircraftmayalsohaveSSRinformationassociatedwiththeprimaryradarreturn,whichwoulddifferentiatethe
windturbinefromanaircraft,butthatwouldrelyupontheaircraftcarryingatransponder.Itispossibletofly
inuncontrolledairspacewithoutatransponder,andcontrolledairspacedoesnotextendtoground/sealevel;
therefore,evenoffshore,anairtrafficcontrollercouldseearadarreturnfromawindturbineasthatofanon
transpondingaircraft.
6.5.3.2 PhysicalObstruction
Theconcernsforlowflyingaircraftaremostcommonlyregardinghelicoptertransitandapproachroutesfor
helicoptersservicingoffshoreoilandgasinstallations;however,nohelicopterroutesarefoundinthevicinity
oftheproposedsite.

6.5.4 FurtherRequirements
FurtherconsultationwillberequiredwithRAFLeucharstodeterminesuitablemitigationmeasuresforthePAR
interference.AUXOdeskstudywillbeundertakenduetothelowtomoderateriskofunexplodedbombsand
thelegacyfromWWII.

6.5.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Aviationstakeholders(DfT,CAA,NATSEnRouteandMOD)signedaMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)in
June2008withBERRandBWEAinordertoprogresssolutionstothewindturbineissueforradar.
Under this MOU, an Aviation Plan identifies key workstreams which are being sponsored by the aviation
stakeholders to develop technical mitigation to the wind farm/radar issue. It is also important to identify
operationalorproceduralmitigationwhichmayalsobeemployedtoallowwindfarmsandradartocoexist.
TheuseofMandatoryTransponderZonesisonesuchmitigation,wherebyaircraftarenotallowedtotransita
definedareawithoutcarryingatransponder,andthereforebeingdetectedbySSR.Therefore,itispossibleto
blank out the Primary radar returns from the wind turbines. This is not however, a solution that would be
appropriateforAirDefence,asakeynationalsecurityrequirementistodetectnontranspondingtraffic.
Asummaryofmitigationtechniqueswhicharebeinglookedatincludes:

RCSreductiontechniquesfortheturbines(stealthblades,stealthcloakingoftheturbinetowers);

MandatoryTransponderZones(MTZs);

GapFillRadar;

90|P a g e

HolographicRadar(staringradartechnologyasagapfill);

Upgradingofexistingradartechnology.

The suitability of mitigation solutions depends upon the size of the wind farm, proximity to the radar, and
implementationtimescalesandeconomicconsiderations.
FurtherspecificmitigationmethodsarediscussedinAppendixJ.

6.5.6 CumulativeImpacts
TheRAFLeucharsradarcoversthewholeregionfromMontrosetotheFirthofForth.Itmaybepossibleto
mitigatetheeffectofonesitebyinstallingadditionalradar,orusingasoftwaremodificationtocombineradar
signals from other existing sites. However, with more than one site this form of mitigation would become
muchmorecomplex.

6.6 Socioeconomics
6.6.1 GeneralDescription
ResearchundertakenfortheScottishgovernmenthasfoundthatwindfarmswillhavelittleornoimpacton
Scotlands tourism industry (Scottish Renewables Forum, 2007) 65. There are relatively few direct socio
economiceffectsfromoffshorewindfarms,mainlyrelatedtotourismpotential;however,thereareindirect
effectsthroughthecreatedofjobswithinthesupplychain.Someofthepotentialeffectsarelistedbelow:

Job creation: direct, indirect and through induced economic multiplier effects (e.g. recirculating
incomeinlocalarea);

TheopportunityforUKinnovators/academicinstitutionstodevelopexpertiseinmanufacturing,and
potentiallyresearchanddevelopment;

Increasedsecurityandreliabilityofsupply:throughmoredistributedgeneration,closertothepoint
of use. In addition, localised generation means less power is wasted in transmission over long
distances;

Cheaper fuel bills: integrating renewable energy generation offers the double benefit of supplying
sitegenerated power which will recoup installation costs before the lifetime of the equipment
expires,thusreducingtherequirementtobuypowerfromcommercialutilitycompanies;

Tourismpotential:manyboatoperatorsoffertoursofwindfarmssuchasKentishFlats;

Possibilities of indirect benefit through marketing of the local area as forwardlooking and green
(e.g.inwardinvestmentbyrelatedtechnologies,orthoseattractedbyimprovedimageofarea);

Revitalisationofportsandlocalindustrydiversification;

Theuseoflocallymanufacturedcontentwherepossible;

The use of local contractors during construction for onshore infrastructure and potential offshore
constructionwork.

6.6.2 AvailableData
Although there are no specific guidance documents for assessing the socioeconomics of an offshore wind
farm,thereareexistingdatasourcesandliteratureincluding:

Europeanexperience;

DECCSEA5;

65

ScottishRenewablesForum,2007http://www.scottishrenewables.com//Default.aspx?DocumentID=909554bef7f8
49cf95b0a7ae02908f7c

91|P a g e

ESRC(EconomicandSocialResearchCentreDataarchive);

GlasgowCaledonianUniversity,(2007).EconomicImpactofWindFarmsonScottishTourism
(commissionedbytheTourismUnitoftheScottishGovernment);

ScottishRenewablesEconomicImpactReport,(2007);

TouristAttitudesTowardsWindFarms,ScottishRenewablesandBritishWindEnergyAssociation;

TheCrownEstate,(2008)SocioeconomicindicatorsofmarinerelatedactivitiesintheUKeconomy.
ProjectOSR0704;

FoodandResourceEconomicInstitute,(2005),EconomicValuationoftheVisualExternalitiesof
OffshoreWindFarmsReportNo.179;

SociologicalInvestigationofTheReceptionofHornsRevandNystedOffshoreWindFarmsIntheLocal
Communities,(2005);

Theneedforintegratedassessmentoflargescaleoffshorewindfarmdevelopment,Environmental
Science,ManagingEuropeanCoasts,PublishedbySpringerBerlinHeidelberg,(2005),Pages365378;

ANEMOSIDSS(2007)AninteractiveGameforOffshoreWindEnergy:Apowerfultoolforinforming
thebroadpublic,improvingplanningprocessesandsocietaldecisionmaking(Information&Decision
SupportSystem(IDSS)).ICBM,UniversityOldenburg;Germany;June2007;

ScottishTouristBoard;

HMTreasury;

GovernmentRegionalSnapshot;

RenewableSupplyChainGapAnalysisReport,DTI,ScottishExecutive(2004);

EnergyforSustainableDevelopmentLtd(2004)Offshorewind,onshorejobs,Anewindustryfor
Britain,ReportforGreenpeaceUK.

6.6.3 MethodofAssessment
Adeskstudyandconsultationwillbeundertakentoestablishthesocioeconomicclimatewithintheregion,
andidentifyareaswheretheoffshorewindfarmmightbenefitthelocalcommunityandeconomy.Thiscould
include tourism opportunities, or increased recreational fishing. The facilities in the local ports will also be
assessed to judge their suitability as a base during the construction activities or for operation and
maintenance.Interviewswillbeundertakenwithkeyindustries,organisationsandindividualsintheregion.
Theassessmentwillfocusonfourelements,withtheaimofanalysingtheextentofwhichthelocalindustry
and ports can provide support for offshore wind energy in the Firth of Forth during establishment and
operationofNeartnaGaoithe:
1) Economicvitalityinthegeneralregion;
2) Portactivities;
3) Characteristicsoftheindustry;
4) Recreationalactivities.
The ES will set out the potential impacts from each phase of the offshore wind farm on the hinterland
associatedwiththedevelopment.Afulldescriptionofthelocationandthenational,regionalandlocalsocio
economiccontextwillbereported.Thiswillincludethepopulationstructureandchange;employment(i.e.
employers, income/outcome, earnings, unemployment, change and wealth creation); transport, deprivation,
socialandhumanissues;tourism,recreationandleisureandeducationandtheskillspool.

92|P a g e

6.6.4 FurtherRequirements
Consultationwiththelocalcouncilsandtheestuaryforumwillbeimportantinestablishinghowthewindfarm
canintegratewiththelocaleconomy.

6.6.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Thereisthepotentialforvisitorcentresandtouristfacilitieswhichwouldsupporteducationalvisitsandschool
groups.Othermitigationincludes:

Theuseoflocallymanufacturedcontentwherepossible;

The use of local contractors during construction for onshore infrastructure and potential offshore
constructionwork;

Potential involvement in the development process by local landowners, groups or individuals of

onshoreinfrastructure;

Possibilityoflocalcommunityfacilityimprovements;

Employmentandtrainingpossibilitiesforlocalpeopleontheoperationandmaintenanceofawind
farm;

Potentialimprovementstolocalenvironmentandwildlifehabitats;

Supportingthecommunitythroughsponsorshipoflocalgroupsandteams.

6.6.6 CumulativeImpacts
Ifseveralwindfarmsaresuccessfullydevelopedintheareaitisanopportunityforthelocalports,research
establishments and engineering facilities to become centres of excellence for offshore wind requirements.
TheopportunityforpotentialcollaborationandcooperationforthedevelopersintheFirthofForthshouldbe
considered.

6.7 OtherHumanActivities
6.7.1 GeneralDescription
Figure66showstheotherhumanusersandactivitiesthattakeplaceintheFirthofForthregion.Thissection
describeseachuserandactivityingreaterdetailbelow.

93|P a g e

Figure66

OtherMarineUsersandActivities

6.7.1.1 Pipelinescables
TherearenocablesorpipelinesinthevicinityofNeartnaGaoithe,asshowninFigure66.
6.7.1.2 OilandGas
TheFirthofForthformsafocusforoilandgasactivitieswiththeGrangemouthrefinery,oilstorageandtanker
terminals.Nooilandgasactivityhasbeenidentifiedneartheproposedsite.
6.7.1.3 MarineAggregateExtraction
Therearetwoaggregatedredgingsites,onelocatedintheTayEstuary(nowredundant)andtheotherinthe
InnerForth(licensed).ThesearebothlocatedinshorefromtheproposedNeartnaGaoithedevelopmentand
associatedinfrastructure(Figure66).
6.7.1.4 WasteDisposal
AlthoughtherearenodisposalsitesordumpinggroundswithinNeartnaGaoithe,therearedisposalsitesto
thenortheastandsouthwestofthesite.Thenearestdisposalsiteis7.5kmnortheastofNeartnaGaoithe.
Allofthedisposalsitesareclosed.Considerableamountsofdredgespoilweredisposedofatsitescloseto
Aberdeen,Montrose,andwithintheFirthsofTayandForth(Pers.comm.PHayes,FRS,inUKOffshoreEnergy
SEA, 2009) 66. There is a dumping ground for ammunitions and boom gear, located 11.5km southwest of
Neart na Gaoithe that is not in use (Figure 66). Given the industrial past of the Firth of Forth, during the
benthicecologysurvey,contaminantswillbeassessed.

66

OffshoreSEA5http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_5/SEA5_TR_Users_UOA.pdf

94|P a g e


6.7.1.5 Recreation
ThereisonemediumuseRYArouterunninginanorthwesttosoutheastdirectioninthemiddleofthearea
(Figure66).Birdandmarinemammalwatching,golfcourses,bathingwatersalongthecoastoftheFirthof
Forthareofexcellentquality.
There is also a surf school in Berwick, and therefore the assessment of any potential impacts on waves will
extendtothisarea.
6.7.1.6 Mariculture
IntheFirthofForth,onshorefromNeartnaGaoithe,therearefourproductionareasformariculture.Threeof
theseareforsurfclamsandoneisforthecommonmussel.
6.7.1.7 OtherWindFarms
The nearest operational wind farms to Neart na Gaoithe are The Michelin Tyre Factory, which has two
turbines, to the east of Dundee and 41km from Neart na Gaoithe, and Crystal Rig which has a capacity of
50MW, located 39km fromNeart na Gaoithe. Table61 below showsthe operational, under construction,
consented and submitted wind farms onshore with, the nearest onshore wind farm located approximately
40kmfromNeartnaGaoithe.
WindFarm

Status

MichelinTyreFactory
Aikengall
CrystalRig
CrystalRig1a
DunLaw
BlackHill
Bowbeat
CrystalRig2a
DunLawExtension
Toddleburn
ArkHill
LittleRaith
Carcant
Tormywheel
Tullo
StJohnsHill
Clochnahill
HerschaHill
MidHill1a
MinchMoor
AuchencorthMoss
FallagoRig
MeikleCareweResubmission
Moorsyde

Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
UnderConstruction
UnderConstruction
UnderConstruction
Consented
Consented
Consented
Consented
Consented
Consented
Consented
Consented
Consented
Submitted
Submitted
Submitted
Submitted
Submitted

Table61

Online/Date
May2006
May2009
May2004
May2007
July2000
February2007
September2002
August2008
January2008

June2006
February2007
September2006
June2007
July2005
December2007

April2007
January2008
April2003
August2008
August2007
October2006
June2006

MW
4
48
50
12.5
17.6
28.6
31.2
117.3
29.75
27.6
7
27
4.5
30
12
13
6
0
62.5
28
45
144
10.2
20

OnshoreWindFarmsintheregion

6.7.2 AvailableData
InformationwillbegainedfromtheDECCSEA5,aswellaslocalwebsiteswhichpromoteactivitiesinthearea,
and national websites, such as The Crown Estate and Kingfisher charts, which detail aggregate proposals,
cablesandpipelines.OilandgasdevelopmentswillbemonitoredthroughtheBERRoilandgaswebsiteand
consultation.

95|P a g e

6.7.3 MethodofAssessment
ToassesstheimpactonotherhumanactivitiesfromthedevelopmentofNeartnaGaoithe,itisnecessaryto
determinewhatotheractivitiesthereareinthearea.Acomprehensivedeskstudywillbeundertaken,plus
localconsultation.

6.7.4 FurtherRequirements
Consultationonfutureplansintheareawillberequired.Nositespecificsurveysareanticipated.

6.7.5 PotentialMitigationandMonitoring
Duringconstruction,safetyexclusionzoneswillbenecessarytoensureotherusersarenotadverselyaffected.
Good communication of the activities through Notices to Mariners and directly to local ports will ensure
impactsareminimisedthroughoutthelifeoftheproject.
TheuseofMarineSpatialPlanningshouldavoidorminimiseoverlapswithrecreationandotherusers.

6.7.6 CumulativeImpacts
It is considered unlikely that there will be impacts on other marine users caused by the proposed Neart na
Gaoithe. The impacts with the other proposed offshore wind farms will be assessed when more detail is
knownofthoseschemes.

96|P a g e

ConclusionsandRecommendations

BasedontheinformationthathasbeensetoutinthisScopingreport,clearworkareasfortheEIAhavebeen
established,particularlyforthekeyissues:birds,marinemammalsandaviation.Methodsofassessmenthave
beenproposedforthoseandotherpotentialconcerns.ThescopesofworkforthefullEIAwillbeinformedby
the stakeholder responses, and prepared through consultation with experienced offshore wind farm
consultants and topic specialists. This ensures that important issues are dealt with by appropriate sub
consultantsandmanagedfromthestartoftheproject.
Consultationwiththeappropriatebodieswillbeundertaken.
As The CrownEstate have issued exclusivity rights to four developers in theFirth ofForth region, there is a
goodbasisforcumulativeassessmentsfollowingmatchingmethodologiesandsharingdataanddatacollection
costs.Severalcollaborativestudieshavebeensuggested,includingbirdsandmammalsurveys,navigationand
metoceanmeasurements.RegularmeetingsareheldbetweenthedevelopersandTheCrownEstatetoensure
effectivecommunicationandthemostefficientassessmentofpotentialissues.
Itisconsideredthatcumulativeassessmentsarenotrequiredforlowimpactandlowincidenceaspectswithin
theregion,suchasarchaeologyandnatureconservation.

97|P a g e

References
Anatec(2008a).ShipDensityforEastCoastofScotland,June2008,ReportreferenceA2029
Anatec(2008b).ShipDensityforEastCoastofScotland,August2008,ReportreferenceA2086
Anatec(2008c),ShipDensityDataforEastCoastofScotland,December2008.
AngusCouncil,(2004)AngusShorelineManagementPlan
http://www.angus.gov.uk/ac/documents/roads/SMP/default.html
BBCNewsScotland,(2006)0925.WarminefoundinFirthofForth
BirdlifeInternational(2009)Introductionwebpagehttp://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sites/index.html
BNETUKFindArticlesNewsPublications(1998)MaritimeandCoastguardAgency:Hugeunexplodedmine
reportedtoCoastguard
Brazier,D.P.,Davies,J.,Holt,R.H.F.,&Murray,E.(1998).MarineNatureConservationReviewSector5.South
eastScotlandandnortheastEngland:areasummaries.Peterborough,JointNatureConservationCommittee.
(CoastsandseasoftheUnitedKingdom.MNCRseries).
BusinessGreenWebsite(2009)OffshorewinddevelopersgivengreenlighttosizeupScottishsites,Tom
Young,27Feb2009http://www.businessgreen.com/businessgreen/news/2237457/windfirmssizescottish
sites
Clarke,S.,andElliott,A.J.,(1998)ModellingSuspendedSedimentConcentrationsintheFirthofForth
Estuarine,CoastalandShelfScience,47,235250
ClippedNews,(2006)0925WW2UnexplodedBombFound!
CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,(2003).15threportoftheScientific,TechnicalandEconomic
CommitteeforFisheries,Brussels,12.05.2003SEC(2003)550.CommissionStaffWorkingPaper,Brussels,0408
November2002
ConnellyContracting.(2009)SubmarineCableEngineer,NeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindFarm,ExportCable
RouteReportforMainstreamRenewablePower(CC/MRE/001/250509)May2009
Connor,D.W.,Allen,J.H.,Golding,N.,Howell,K.L.,Lieberknecht,L.M.,Northen,K.O.&Reker,J.B.,(2004).The
MarineHabitatClassificationforBritainandIreland.Version04.05.JointNatureConservationCommittee,
Peterborough.
CorkEcology,(2008).Synopsisofbirdsandmarinemammalsinareasunderconsiderationforoffshorewind
farmsinScottishwaters,August2008.
Coull,K.A.,Johnstone,R.,andS.I.Rogers.(1998).FisheriesSensitivityMapsinBritishWaters.Publishedand
distributedbyUKOOALtd.
Crossan,R.,(1985).Observationsontheabundance,growthandfeedingofwhitingandcodintheForth
Estuary.UnpublishedHons.Thesis.UniversityofStirling.
D.Murison&C.F.Robson.(1997).Chapter9.1Fisheries.In:CoastsandseasoftheUnitedKingdom.Region4
SoutheastScotland:MontrosetoEyemouth,ed.byJ.H.Barne,C.F.Robson,S.S.Kaznowska,J.P.Doody,N.C.
Davidson&A.L.Buck,6164.Peterborough,JointNatureConservationCommittee.(CoastalDirectoriesSeries.)
DeJongC.A.F.&AinslieM.A.,(2008)UnderwaterradiatednoiseduetothepilingfortheQ7OffshoreWind
Park,Acoustics08,June29July42008,Paris.
DECC,(2009a).DECCEuropeanEnergyandClimateChangewebpages(2009)
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/european/european.aspx
DECC,(2009b).DECCRenewableEnergywebpages(2009)
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/renewable.aspx
Defra,(2008),NonpaperSpecificTechnicalMeasuresforthePelagicStocks.

98|P a g e


Defra,CefasandDTLR,(2004).OffshoreWindFarms:GuidanceNoteforEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentin
RespectofFEPAandCPARequirements,Version2,June2004
Doody,J.P.1997.Chapter1.2Overview.In:CoastsandseasoftheUnitedKingdom.Region4Southeast
Scotland:MontrosetoEyemouth,ed.byJ.H.Barne,C.F.Robson,S.S.Kaznowska,J.P.Doody,N.C.Davidson&
A.L.Buck,6164.Peterborough,JointNatureConservationCommittee.(CoastalDirectoriesSeries.)
DTI(2005a),GuidanceontheAssessmentoftheImpactofOffshoreWindFarms:SeascapeandVisualImpact
Report
DTI(2005b),GuidanceontheassessmentoftheImpactofOffshoreWindFarms:Methodologyforassessingthe
marinenavigationalsafetyrisksofoffshorewindfarms.
DTI,ABPmer,UKMetOffice,ProudmanLaboratoryandGarradHassan,(2004)AtlasofUKMarineRenewable
EnergyResources,AStrategicAssessmentReport,December2004.
EastLothianCouncilwebpage,(2008).
http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=286&pageNumber=8
Eleftheriou,A.,BasfordD.,andMoore.D.C.,(2004)inOffshoreSEA5Benthos.SynthesisofInformationonthe
BenthosofAreaSEA5FinalDraft1May2004ReportfortheDepartmentofTradeandIndustry
http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_5/SEA5_TR_Benthos_Elef.pdf
Elliot,M&Taylor,C.J.L.(1989).TheproductionecologyofthesubtidalbenthosoftheForthEstuary,Scotland.
ScientiaMarina53:531541
ElliottM&KingstonPF,(1987).ThesublittoralbenthosoftheestuaryandFirthofForth,ScotlandinThe
NaturalEnvironmentoftheEstuaryandFirthofForth,ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofEdinburgh93B,449
465.
Elliott,M.,OReilly,M.G.,andTaylor,C.J.L.,(1990)TheForthEstuary:anurseryandoverwinteringareafor
NorthSeafishes.Hydrobiologia195:89103,1990.KluwerAcademicPublishers
EuropeanCommission,(2005).ConcertedActionforOffshoreWindEnergyDeployment(COD):WorkPackage
4:EnvironmentalIssues
EuropeanUnionLawwebpages(2008),ProposalforaDirectiveoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncil
onthepromotionoftheuseofenergyfromrenewablesources{COM(2008)30final}{SEC(2008)57}{SEC(2008)
85}http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0019:EN:NOT
FifeMatters,(2006).FinalisedFifeStructurePlan,20062026,WrittenStatement
http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/uploadfiles/publications/c64_Structv2.pdf
Finneran,J.J.,Carder,D.A.,Schlundt,C.,&Ridgway,S.H.(2005)Temporarythresholdshiftinbottlenose
dolphins(Tursiopstruncatus)exposedtomidfrequencytones.JournaloftheAcousticsSocietyofAmerica,118,
26962705
FlemmingN.C.,(2004);ThescopeofStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentofNorthSeaAreaSEA5inregardto
prehistoricarchaeologicalremains.UKDepartmentofTradeandIndustryoffshoreenergyStrategic
EnvironmentalAssessmentprogramme
GarradHassanandPartnersLtd,(2008).ReviewoftheWindResourceforEasternScottishTerritorialWaters,
101112/BR/01,A,Draft.
GlobalEnergyNetworkInstitute(2007).TheHerald,Glasgow(UK)NewsArticleNovember282007Mather
Aimsfor50%ofElectricityFromRenewableSourcesBy2020
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technicalarticles/generation/generalrenewableenergy/energy
central/matheraimsfor50percentofelectricityfromrenewablesourcesby2020/index.shtml
GreeneC.R.Jr.(1987)CharacteristicsofoilindustrydredgeanddrillingsoundsintheBeaufortSea,J.Acoust.
Soc.Am.Volume82,Issue4,pp.13151324(October1987).

99|P a g e


GreenwoodM.F.D.;HillA.S.;(2003).Temporal,spatialandtidalinfluencesonbenthicanddemersalfish
abundanceintheForthestuary.Estuarine,coastalandshelfscienceISSN02727714CODENECSSD3.2003,
vol.58,no2,pp.211225[15page(s)(article)](1p.1/4).Elsevier,London,ROYAUMEUNI(1981)(Revue)
HammondP.S.,NorthridgeS.P.,ThompsonD.,GordonJ.C.D.,HallA.J.,SharplesR.J.,GrellierK.,&
MatthiopoulosJ.(2004)BackgroundinformationonmarinemammalsrelevanttoStrategicEnvironmental
Assessment5UKDepartmentofTradeandIndustryoffshoreenergyStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment
programmehttp://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_5/SEA5_TR_Mammals_SMRU.pdf
HistoricScotland,(2009).AnnexScopingOfDevelopmentProposalsAssessmentOfImpactOnTheSettingOf
TheHistoricEnvironmentResourceSomeGeneralConsiderationshttp://www.historic
scotland.gov.uk/scoping_of_development_proposals_2009.pdf
IEEM,(2006).GuidelinesforEcologicalImpactAssessmentintheUnitedKingdom.IEEM,Winchester.
InstituteForArchaeologists(2005)Standardsandguidance:deskbasedassessment.Lastupdated:05
November2008http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/codes/dba2.pdf
JNCC,(2009b),Protectedsites,SACsitewebpage:
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/SACselection/SAC.asp?EUCode=UK0030311
JNCC,(2009a).Protectedsites,SACsitewebpage
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0030172
JNCC,(2009c).Protectedsites,SPAsiteswebpage(FirthofForthIslands)
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=1970
LandUseConsultants,(2008).EastcoastScotlandandoffshorewinddevelopmentsitereview,
LandscapeInstituteandtheInstituteofEnvironmentalManagementandAssessment(SecondEdition2002)
GuidelinesforLandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment.
Mair,J.M.,Moore,C.G.,Kingston,P.F.&Harries,D.B.(2000)Areviewofthestatus,ecologyandconservation
ofhorsemusselModioulsmodiolusbedsinScotland.ScottishNaturalHeritageCommissionedReport
F99PA08.
MarineGuidanceNoteMGN371(2007)(M+F)OffshoreRenewableEnergyInstallations(OREIs)Guidanceon
UKNavigationalPractice,SafetyandEmergencyResponseIssues.(http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga
mnotice.htm?textobjid=0BD60265A97A9E76)
McLeod,(2008).DeadlinePressandPicturesAgency,FrancisWWIIcatchhasanexplosiveending.
Monaghan,P.(1992).Seabirdsandsandeels:theconflictbetweenexploitationandconservationinthe
northernNorthSea.BiodiversityandConservation1:98111
NaturalResearchProjectsLtd,(2008).Reportontheornithologicalsensitivitytowindfarmdevelopmentofthe
SoutheastScotlandoffshorearea
Nedwell,J.R.,Langworthy,J.,andHowell,(2003)Assessmentofsubseaacousticnoiseandvibrationfrom
offshorewindturbinesanditsimpactonmarinewildlife;initialmeasurementsofunderwaternoiseduring
constructionofoffshorewindfarms,andcomparisonwithbackgroundnoise,SubacoustechReportNo.544R
0424(fortheCrownEstate),May2003.
OdeLtd(2008)ScotlandTerritorialWaterssiteselection,Geotechnical/StructuralReviewDocumentNumber:
8031ASM0001
OffshoreTechnologyReport(2001).WindandwavefrequencydistributionsforsitesaroundtheBritishIsles,
2001/030.PreparedbyFugroGEOSfortheHealthandSafetyExecutive
PagerPowerAviationStudies,(2009).NeartnaGaoitheOffshoreWindLtdDevelopmentScopingOpinion.
ReportReference6185A
Petersen,C.G.J.(1914):ValuationoftheseaII.Theanimalcommunitiesontheseabottomandtheir
importanceformarinezoogeography.Rep.Dan.Biol.Sfn.21:144.

100|P a g e


PosfordHaskoning(2002)BroadscaleintertidalsurveyoftheFirthofForth.ScottishNaturalHeritage
CommissionedReportF01AA407.
Ratcliffe,D.A.(1977).ANatureConservationReview.Volumes1and2.CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge.
Robson,C.F.(1997).Chapter5.5ExploitedSeaBedSpecies.In:CoastsandseasoftheUnitedKingdom.Region
4SoutheastScotland:MontrosetoEyemouth,ed.byJ.H.Barne,C.F.Robson,S.S.Kaznowska,J.P.Doody,N.C.
Davidson&A.L.Buck,6164.Peterborough,JointNatureConservationCommittee.(CoastalDirectoriesSeries.)
Rodwell,J.S.(ed.)(1991).BritishPlantCommunitiesVolume2:MiresandHeaths.CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge.
ScottishExecutive(2008).ScottishgovernmentandforumforrenewableenergydevelopmentinScotland
(FREDS),FrameworkforthedevelopmentanddeploymentofrenewablesinScotland(2008)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/243461/0067751.pdf
ScottishNaturalHeritage,(2000).SNHsPolicyonRenewableEnergy,PolicyStatementNumber:01/02(2000)
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/polstat/renewenergy.pdf
ScottishNaturalHeritage,(2004).AnAssessmentoftheSensitivityandCapacityoftheScottishSeascapein
RelationtoOffshoreWindFarms.CommissionedReport/UniversityofNewcastle(FinalReportJuly2004)
ScottishNaturalHeritage,(2005)Guidance:CumulativeEffectsofwindfarms
(http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/Cumulativeeffectsonwindfarms.pdf)
ScottishNaturalHeritage,(2006).VisualRepresentationofWindFarmsGoodPracticeGuidance
ScottishNaturalHeritage,(2009).WebpagesIsleofMayConservationInformation
http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/online/designatedareas/nnrs/IsleofMay/IsleofMay2.asp
ScottishExecutivePlanningDepartment(2007)ScottishPlanningPolicy(SPP6)RenewableEnergy.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/171491/0047957.pdf
ScottishExecutivePlanningDepartment(2008)ScottishPlanningPolicySPP23:PlanningandtheHistoric
Environment,2008(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/02/13134354/0)
ScottishRenewablesForum,(2007):EconomicImpactofWindFarmsonScottishTourism
SEPA,(1998a)ShellfishGrowingandMonitoringSitesInformationforStAndrewstoFifeNess
SEPA,(1998b)ShellfishGrowingandMonitoringSitesInformationforFifeNesstoElie
SEPA,(1998c)ShellfishGrowingandMonitoringSitesInformationforNorthBerwicktoDunbar
ShennanI.&AndrewsJ.,(2000)AnintroductiontoHolocenelandoceaninteractionandenvironmentalchange
aroundthewesternNorthSeainGeologicalSocietySpecialPublicationNo.166.TheGeologicalSociety.
London
SKM,(2008),PossibleGridConnectionSitesintheFirthofForth,AreporttoMainstreamRenewablePowerLtd
Smith,C.(1992);ThePopulationofLateUpperPaleolithicandMesolithicBritain.inProceedingsofthe
PrehistoricSociety58,pp.3740
Sohle,I.,McSorley,C.,Dean,B.J,Webb,AandReid,J.B,(2007),ThenumbersofinshorewaterbirdsusingTay
Bayduringthenonbreedingseason,andanassessmentofthearea'spotentialforqualificationasamarine
SPA,JNCCReport401,ISSN09638901
UKOffshoreEnergyStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment,(2009).FutureLeasingforOffshoreWindFarmsand
LicensingforOffshoreOil&GasandGasStorage,Appendix3dWaterEnvironment,January2009
http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/Offshore_Energy_SEA/OES_A3d_Water.pdf
UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,(2006),AdmiraltySailingDirectionNorthSea(West)Pilot,NP54,East
coastsofScotlandandEnglandfromRattryHeadtoSouthwold.SeventhEdition.UKHydrographicOffice,
Taunton.

101|P a g e

Neart na Gaoithe
Proposed Offshore
Wind Farm
Scoping Report Appendices
November 2009

TableofContents

AppendixA .................................................................................................................................................. 0
A.

CableRouteDescriptions(fromConnelly,2009) ................................................................................... 1
PotentialLandfallPoints .......................................................................................................................... 1
A.1.1

PotentialConnection1Cockenzie ............................................................................................... 1

A.1.2

PotentialConnection2aTorness(Thorntonloch)........................................................................ 2

A.1.3

PotentialConnection2bTorness(Skateraw)............................................................................... 3

OnshoreCableRoute ............................................................................................................................... 3
Tealing......................................................................................................................................................... 4
AlternativeCockenzieRoute ........................................................................................................................ 4
AppendixB .................................................................................................................................................. 1
B.

ProposedSpecificationforOceanographicMeasurementsandModelling ............................................ 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 2
OceanographicParameters ...................................................................................................................... 2
ProgrammeDesign................................................................................................................................... 3
PhysicalProcessesModel......................................................................................................................... 4

AppendixC .................................................................................................................................................. 1
C.

SpecificationforGeophysicalSurvey .................................................................................................... 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 2
SurveyMethodologies ............................................................................................................................. 2
C.1.1

BathymetryandSurfaceGeophysicalSurvey ................................................................................. 3

C.1.2

SeismicSurvey ................................................................................................................................ 3

AppendixD .................................................................................................................................................. 1
D.

SpecificationforBenthicEcologySurvey .............................................................................................. 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 2
DesignofBenthicArray............................................................................................................................ 2
D.1.1

TypeofImpact ................................................................................................................................ 2

SurveyMethodologies ............................................................................................................................. 5
SeabedVideo........................................................................................................................................... 5
GrabSampling ......................................................................................................................................... 5
EpibenthicBeamTrawling........................................................................................................................ 6
IntertidalSurvey ...................................................................................................................................... 6
DataPresentation.................................................................................................................................. 10
DataAnalysis ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Reporting............................................................................................................................................... 10
AppendixE................................................................................................................................................... 1

2|P a g e


E. Bird and Marine Mammal Scoping Report (Cork Ecology, NRP and Craigton Ecological Services, June
2009) ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
E.1

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 2

E.2

Scopeofbirdandmarinemammalstudies ................................................................................. 2

E.3

Potentialeffectsandissues ........................................................................................................ 5

E.3.1

Collisioneffects............................................................................................................................... 5

E.3.2

Disturbanceeffects......................................................................................................................... 6

E.3.3

HabitatLoss .................................................................................................................................... 7

E.3.4

Indirecteffects................................................................................................................................ 7

E.3.5

Cumulativeeffects .......................................................................................................................... 7

E.3.6

Keyissues........................................................................................................................................ 8

E.4

Keyspeciesanddesignatedsites ................................................................................................ 8

E.4.1

SEAreviews..................................................................................................................................... 8

E.4.2

Seabirdsoverview........................................................................................................................... 8

E.4.3

Marinemammalsoverview .......................................................................................................... 14

E.5

Informationrequirements........................................................................................................ 16

E.5.1

Acquisitionofexistingsurveyinformation ................................................................................... 16

E.5.2

ESASdatabasegapanalysis .......................................................................................................... 16

E.6

Surveystrategy ........................................................................................................................ 19

E.6.1

Distributionandabundance ......................................................................................................... 20

E.6.2

Marinemammalacousticsurveys ................................................................................................ 20

E.6.3

Surveyphases ............................................................................................................................... 21

E.6.4

Consultation.................................................................................................................................. 22

E.7

ProposedFieldMethods........................................................................................................... 22

E.7.1

Surveyvessel................................................................................................................................. 22

E.7.2

Surveydesign................................................................................................................................ 22

E.7.3

EuropeanSeabirdsAtSea(ESAS)method .................................................................................... 23

E.7.4

ESASsurveyors.............................................................................................................................. 23

E.7.5

MarineMammalvisualsurveymethod ........................................................................................ 23

E.7.6

Marinemammalacousticsurveys ................................................................................................ 24

E.7.7

Aerialsurveys................................................................................................................................ 24

E.7.8

Additionalstudies ......................................................................................................................... 24

E.8

Datamanagement.................................................................................................................... 25

E.9

Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 25

E.9.1

Outputs ......................................................................................................................................... 25

E.9.2

FurtherdetailsofanalysestoprovideoutputsforEIA ................................................................. 26

E.9.3

Studydesignandanalysestoallowsubsequentmonitoringofimpacts ...................................... 27

E.10

Reporting&Assessment .......................................................................................................... 29

3|P a g e


References ................................................................................................................................................... 29
AppendixF................................................................................................................................................... 1
F.

ERMCNoiseAssessment(BAESystems)............................................................................................. 2
F.1
F.1.1

PotentialNoiseSources.............................................................................................................. 2
NoiseSourcesDuetoConstruction ................................................................................................ 2

F.2

ERMCApproachtoQuantifyingtheEffectsofSonaronMarineMammals .................................. 3

F.3

ERMCApproachtoQuantifyingtheEffectsofSonaronFish........................................................ 7

F.4

ERMCLimitationsandAssumptions............................................................................................ 8

AppendixG .................................................................................................................................................. 1
G.

TerrestrialEcology(LandUseConsultants) ........................................................................................... 2
G.1

SurveyTechniques ..................................................................................................................... 2

G.1.1

OtterandWaterVoleSurveys ........................................................................................................ 2

G.1.2

BadgerSurveys ............................................................................................................................... 2

G.1.3

BatSurveys ..................................................................................................................................... 2

G.1.4

RedSquirrelSurveys ....................................................................................................................... 2

G.1.5

GreatCrestedNewtSurveys........................................................................................................... 3

G.1.6

ReptilesSurveys .............................................................................................................................. 3

AppendixH .................................................................................................................................................. 1
H.

NatureConservation............................................................................................................................ 2
H.1

DesignatedAreas ....................................................................................................................... 2

H.1.1

SpecialAreasofConservation ........................................................................................................ 2

H.1.2

SpecialProtectionAreas ................................................................................................................. 2

H.1.3

TheRamsarConvention.................................................................................................................. 4

H.1.4

ImportantBirdAreas ...................................................................................................................... 6

AppendixI ................................................................................................................................................... 1
I.

ArchaeologicalAnalysisTechniques(HeadlandArchaeology) ............................................................... 2
I.1
Methodology for the Archaeological Review, Assessment, Interpretation and Reporting of
GeophysicalMarineSurveyData.............................................................................................................. 2
I.1.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2

I.1.2

Aims&objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2

I.1.3

Archaeologicalreviewofthesurveydata....................................................................................... 2

I.1.4

Archaeologicalassessmentofidentifiedanomalies ....................................................................... 3

I.1.5

Reporting ........................................................................................................................................ 3

I.2

MethodologyfortheGeoarchaeologicalReviewandAssessmentofGeotechnicalData .............. 3
I.2.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

I.2.2

Assessmentofexistingdata............................................................................................................ 4

I.2.3

Furthergeotechnicalwork.............................................................................................................. 4

I.2.4

Coringandlogging .......................................................................................................................... 4

4|P a g e


I.2.5

Subsamplingandassessment ........................................................................................................ 4

I.2.6

Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 4

I.3

RelevantLegislation ................................................................................................................... 4

AppendixJ ................................................................................................................................................... 6
J.

MilitaryandAviation(PagerPower)..................................................................................................... 7
J.1

ConsultationResponses ............................................................................................................. 7

J.1.1

CivilAviationAuthority ................................................................................................................... 7

J.1.2

BAAEdinburghAirport................................................................................................................. 8

J.2

SpecificDetailsforNeartnaGaoithe .......................................................................................... 9

J.2.1

RAFLeucharsPrimarySurveillanceRadar ...................................................................................... 9

J.2.2

RAFLeucharsPrecisionApproachRadar ........................................................................................ 9

J.2.3

EdinburghAirportPrimarySurveillanceRadar ............................................................................. 10

J.2.4

NERLPerwinnesPrimarySurveillanceRadar ................................................................................ 10

J.2.5

RAFBuchanPrimarySurveillanceRadar....................................................................................... 11

J.2.6

Summary....................................................................................................................................... 11

J.2.7

RAFLeucharsPSR.......................................................................................................................... 11

J.2.8

RAFLeucharsPAR ......................................................................................................................... 12

J.2.9

EdinburghAirportPSR .................................................................................................................. 12

J.2.10

NERLPerwinnesPSR ..................................................................................................................... 12

J.2.11

SubmarineExerciseArea .............................................................................................................. 12

J.2.12

OtherIssues .................................................................................................................................. 12

5|P a g e

AppendixA

A0|P a g e

A. CableRouteDescriptions(fromConnelly,2009)
PotentialLandfallPoints
A.1.1 PotentialConnection1Cockenzie
Thelocationofthenominallandingpointontheundevelopedareaadjacenttothepowerstationisprovided
inError!Referencesourcenotfound.(maindocument).Fromthelandingpointthemarinerouterunsnorth
westforashortdistancebeforeturningtothenortheastandthenthenorththroughCockenzieRoadtoskirt
anareaoffoulground.Theroutereachesthe5misobathapproximately500mfromthelanding.Upon
attaining10mCDdepthatabout5kmfromthelanding,therouteturnstothenortheastandskirtsthe10m
isobathuntilinthevicinityoftheislandofFidra,wheretherouteturnsmoretotheeastandrunsacrossthe
RathGroundstowardsNeartnaGaoithe.OnefurtheralterationofcourseismadesoutheastoftheIsleofMay
wheretheroutehastonegotiateaclusterofchartedwrecks.Thereaftertherouterunsstraighttothenominal
NeartnaGaoithesiteentrypointagreedwithNnGOWLmidwaybetweenthe4thand5thperimeter
coordinatepointsoftheNeartnaGaoithesiteboundary.
AsummaryofpointsconsideredagainsttheroutingcriteriaiscontainedinTableA1Considerationsagainst
Criteria:Cockenzie
andtheroutepositionisshowninError!Referencesourcenotfound..
Criteria

Comment

RouteLength
Bathymetry
andTides

59.39km
Bathymetrygraduallyincreasesalongtheroutelengthtoamaximumofc.50mCD;Approx
500mofroute>5m;cablesarecommonlyfloatedashorefromsimilardistances.Approx5km
route<10mCDsuggestinguseofcablebargeratherthanDPvesselinthisarea.
Maximumtidalcurrent0.7kt(TidaldiamondP)

Geology

OilandGas
Infrastructure
Wrecks

Navigational
infrastructure

TheroutecrossesareasofmudswithintheFirththatcanhavelocalisedthicknessesofseveral
metresovertheQuaternarymaterial.Effectivecableburiallikelyalthoughwillpossiblybein
(difficult)glacialtillthefurtheroffshoretherouteis.
GaspipelinecrossesrouteatapproxKP15in18mofwater;crossingstructurewillbeneeded.
Nootherlinearinfrastructurenoted.
Numerouswrecksarechartedandhavebeenavoidedbyrouting.Manyunchartedwrecks
mayberevealedbysurvey.
Constrainedatwesternendofroutebyfoulgrounddesignationandproximityofdesignated
anchorages,someofwhichareimpossibletoavoid.Anchorageusagepatternsnotknown.
EstablishmentofaTSSpossibleinfuture;noroutingimplicationatthistime.
DiscussionswithPortAuthorityrecommendedidc.

Environmental
ThecableroutecrossesbothanSPAandSSSIdesignationatthelanding.Designationofthe
designations
SSSIismixedinnaturepertainingtogeologicalandbiologicalreasons.TheSPAisdesignated
forwinteringandmigratingbirdswhichmayresultinseasonalrestrictionstoinstallation.
Shallowwaterfeaturesmaybesubjecttodesignationinthefuture.
Commercial
Shipping

ThesmallportsofCockenzie,andPortSetonarelocatedincloseproximitytothecableroute
butcableinstallationactivitiesareunlikelytobeaffected.Shippingdensityontheroute
increaseseastofFidrabutisonlyconsideredsignificantforoperations,notrouting.

A1|P a g e


DiscussionwithForthPilotsrecommendedidc.
Commercial
Fishing

Military
exerciseareas

Trawlingfornephrops(prawns)maytakeplaceinthevicinityofthecablerouteinshore.MCA
dataindicatesfishingactivitywestofIsleofMay;routeskirtsdensestactivity.Consultation
withlocalfishingorganisationsandtheFisheriesResearchServiceisrecommendedto
determineanyissuesinrelationtoinshorefisheries.
MuchofrouteinouterFirthdesignatedasasubmarineexercisearea;impactsoninstallation
unlikely.

TableA1ConsiderationsagainstCriteria:Cockenzie

A.1.2 PotentialConnection2aTorness(Thorntonloch)
Fromthelanding,therouterunstotheeasttoattain10mCDwaterdepthatapproximately1kmfromthe
landing.Atthe10misobaththerouteturnstothenorthandrunsdirectlytotheperimeterofNeartna
Gaoitheattheagreedpointmidwaybetweenperimetercoordinates4and5.Therouteisalmostfeatureless
althoughalargenumberofchartedwrecksarepassedenroute.Asummaryofpointsconsideredagainstthe
routingcriteriaiscontainedinTableA2andtheroutepositionisshowninError!Referencesourcenot
found..
Criteria

Comment

RouteLength
Bathymetry
andTides

32.22km

Geology

OilandGas
Infrastructure
Wrecks

Bathymetrygraduallyincreasesalongtheroutelengthtoamaximumofc.50mCD;lessthan
500mofrouteis5morless.The10mCDcontouris1kmoffshore;cableshavebeenfloated
ashorefromsimilardistances.UseofaDPvesselforthewholerouteshouldbepossible.
Maximumtidalcurrent0.9kt(TidaldiamondN)
Bedrockextendsoffshorefromthelanding(fullextentofbeachunknown)foradistanceof
some1.1km.Theroutecrossesareassandsgravelsandmudsthanmaybelocallyseveral
metresthickovertheQuaternarymaterial.Effectivecableburiallikelyalthoughwillpossibly
bein(difficult)glacialtillthefurtheroffshoretherouteis.Doloritedykesmaysubcropinthe
first15kmfromthelandingwhichwouldinhibitburial.
Noinfrastructurepresentonroute.
Numerouswrecksarechartedandhavebeenavoidedbyrouting(closest89m).Many
unchartedwrecksmayberevealedbysurvey.Dynamicroutedevelopmentmayberequired
duringsurvey.

Navigational
Nonenoted
infrastructure
Environmental
Thecableroutedoesnotcrossanydesignatedorcandidatefeatures.
designations
Commercial
Therearenoportsincloseproximity.Shippingdensityrelativelyhighovermostoftheroute
Shipping
butisonlyconsideredsignificantforoperations,notrouting.EstablishmentofaForthTSS
possibleinfuture;noimplicationsforthisroute.
Commercial
Fishing

Noinformationsourcedforfisheries.Consultationwithlocalfishingorganisationsandthe
FisheriesResearchServiceisrecommendedtodetermineanyissuesinrelationtofisheries.
Mostofrouteisinside6milefishingboundary.

Military
exerciseareas

Muchofroutedesignatedasasubmarineexercisearea;impactsoninstallationunlikely.

TableA2

RoutingConsiderationsagainstCriteria:Torness2a

A2|P a g e

A.1.3 PotentialConnection2bTorness(Skateraw)
Themarinerouterunseastnortheastfromthelandingbetweenalowreliefrockyshoretothenorthandthe
powerstationmoletothesouth.Continuingoffshoreforadistanceofapproximately2.5kmtheroutejoins
thealignmentoftheThorntonlochroutedescribedabove.
AsummaryofpointsconsideredagainsttheroutingcriteriaiscontainedinTableA3andtheroutepositionis
showninError!Referencesourcenotfound..
Criteria

Comment

RouteLength
Bathymetry
andTides

31.6km

Geology

OilandGas
Infrastructure
Wrecks

Navigational
infrastructure

Bathymetrygraduallyincreasesalongtheroutelengthtoamaximumofc.50mCD;lessthan
500mofrouteis5morless;harbourdepthsareunknown.The10mCDcontouris1km
offshore;cableshavebeenfloatedashorefromsimilardistancesalthoughtheconfined
harbourcouldprovedifficult.UseofaDPvesselforthewholerouteshouldbepossible.
Maximumtidalcurrent0.9kt(TidaldiamondN)
Bedrockextendsoffshorefromthelanding(fullextentofbeachunknown)foradistanceof
some1.2km.Theroutecrossesareassandsgravelsandmudsthanmaybelocallyseveral
metresthickovertheQuaternarymaterial.Effectivecableburiallikelyalthoughwillpossibly
bein(difficult)glacialtillthefurtheroffshoretherouteis.Doloritedykesmaysubcropinthe
first15kmfromthelandingwhichwouldinhibitburial.
Noinfrastructurepresentonroute.
Numerouswrecksarechartedandhavebeenavoidedbyrouting(closest89m).Many
unchartedwrecksmayberevealedbysurvey.Dynamicroutedevelopmentmayberequired
duringsurvey.
Powerstationmoleincloseproximitytoroute;subseaextentofstructureunknown.
EstablishmentofaForthTSSpossibleinfuture;noroutingimplications.

Environmental
Thecableroutedoesnotcrossanydesignatedorcandidatefeatures.
designations
Commercial
Therearenoportsincloseproximity.Shippingdensityrelativelyhighovermostoftheroute
Shipping
butisonlyconsideredsignificantforoperations,notrouting.
Commercial
Fishing

Noinformationsourcedforfisheries.Consultationwithlocalfishingorganisationsandthe
FisheriesResearchServiceisrecommendedtodetermineanyissuesinrelationtofisheries.
Mostofrouteisinside6milefishingboundary.

Military
exerciseareas

Muchofroutedesignatedasasubmarineexercisearea;impactsoninstallationunlikely.

TableA3

RoutingConsiderationsagainstCriteria:Torness2b

Thechosenpreliminarycablerouteswerechosenbecauseoftheminimisedlengthofcablerequiredwhile
avoidingareasvariousconstraints.

OnshoreCableRoute
Varousonshoregridconnectionpointswereoriginallyconsidered,includingTealing,CockenzieandTorness.
TheTealingroute,andoneoftheoptionsforCockenzie(whichhadalandfallnearDunbarandthencontinued
onshore)wereeliminatedfromthepossiblecablerouteplanningprocessforthefollowingreasons:

A3|P a g e


Tealing

ThereportproducedforNnGOWLbySKM(2008)inAugustindicatedthatcapacityconstraintsreduce
themaximumconnectablecapacityatTealingto800MW;
o Thislimitedcapacityalongwiththefactthattwolargecompetingsitesexist(totalcapacityof
1.6GW)betweenNeartnaGaoitheandTealing,whichsuggeststhatthissubstationis
unlikelytohavesufficientforcapacitytoconnectNeartnaGaoithe;
o BothTornessandCockenziehavegreateravailablecapacityandNeartnaGaoitheiscloserto
thesethantheotherwindfarmsintheFirthofForth.
ConnectingNeartnaGaoithetoTealingwouldrequireacablerouteofover65km(25kmofthis
beingonshore);
o Thelongonshoresegmentcouldmakegainingallnecessarypermissionsandwayleaves
problematic;
o Advicefromelectricalexpertsindicatesthatcablerouteslongerthatapproximately60km
causetechnicalproblemsmakingACtechnologysolutionsinadequate,promptingmore
expensiveHVDCsolutions;
o TornessandCockenziewouldrequireshorterroutes,withshortsectionsoverland.
ByconnectingatTealing,theenvironmentalconstraintsthataffectconnectionsolutionstoCockenzie
andTorness(suchasshipping,sensitivehabitats,seabedgeology)wouldnotbeavoided.

AlternativeCockenzieRoute

TheoffshorecableroutetoCockenziecouldhavebeenalteredtocomeashoreeastoftheheadland
totheeastofCockenzie,therebyavoidingenteringthemouthoftheForthharbour.Thisoptionwas
dismissedbecauseofthelongoverlandportionofthisroute,whichwouldcauseunduecomplication
whencomparedtotheoffshoreroutestotheCockenziesubstation.

Basedonthisassessment,thereisverylittleonshorecableroutingproposedforNeartnaGaoithe.

A4|P a g e

AppendixB

B1|P a g e

B. ProposedSpecificationforOceanographicMeasurementsandModelling
Overview
Tounderstandthephysicalprocesseswithintheregion,andthepotentialimpactsanoffshorewindfarmcould
have,thewave,currentandsedimentregimeswillneedtobemodelled.Toinformthismodelonbothasite
specificandregionalscale,measurementswillbetaken.Astheseprocessesaredrivenonaregionalscale,the
measurementstoinformthemodelarebeingconsideredasacollaborativeprojectbetweentheFirthofForth
developers.
Thephysicalprocessesmodellingwillinvestigatewhethertheproposedwindfarmandcableroutesarelikely
toaffectthewave,currentandsedimentregimesinanyway.Inparticular,thereisconcernwhetherthe
structurescouldcauseincreasederosionatthecoast,oralternavigationchannels.Inaddition,thestudywill
investigatewhetheranychangestosuspendedsedimentconcentrationsarelikelytoaffectsensitivespeciesin
keyareas,oralterthebiodiversitywhichwillthenaffectthedependentfoodchain.Ultimately,themodelcan
beusedforengineeringparameterstostudythetypeofscourexpected,predictextremevalues(waveheights
andcurrentspeeds)andthustheforceslikelytoaffectthefoundationsoverthelifetimeoftheproject.
Inorderforthemodellingtoberealisticandprovideatrueindicationoflikelyconsequences,themodelmust
becalibratedandvalidatedwithrobustdata.Theoceanographicmeasurementswillbeusedinconjunction
withdatathatarealreadyavailable,particularlyanylongtermdatasetswhichcanidentifychangesover
periodsofyears.Consequently,agapanalysisexercisewillneedtobeundertakeninitiallytoinformthedesign
ofthemonitoringprogramme.
Oncethedatahavebeencollectedtheywillbeusedtounderstandtheprocesseswithintheregion.Thiswill
includeanalysisofstormevents,winddrivenevents,andtheinfluenceofdischargefromtheFirthofForthand
theTay.Theywillthenbeusedtosetupasuitablemodelorsuiteofmodelswhichcanaccuratelydescribethe
currents,wavesandsedimenttransportbaseline,andthenbeusedtopredictimpactswiththewindfarmin
place.Theimpactswillneedtobeconsideredatbothanearfieldscale(withinthewindfarmsitesuchas
scouraroundaturbine,andwhetherthisinteractswithscourfromanadjacentturbine),andafarfieldscale
(consideringthewiderregionincludingneighbouringcoastlines).

OceanographicParameters
Thephysicalprocessesmodelsmentionedaboveconsideranumberofoceanographicparameters:

Waveregime;

Currentregime;

Waterlevel(includingtidesandsurges);

Sedimenttransport(concentrationsandpathways).

Measurementsusedtoinformthemodelwillneedtoencompasstheaboveaspects,overnearandfarfield
scales.Consequently,observationsareneededtowardstheperipheryofthebroadscale,regionalmodel,and
withineachproposedsite.Ateachoftheselocations,thefollowingwillbeobserved:

Waveheightandperiod;

Wavedirectionandspread;

Currentprofile(velocitiesthroughoutthewatercolumn);

Watersurfacelevels;

Suspendedsedimentvalues(nearbed).

ApotentialsolutionistodeployanAWAC(AcousticWaveAndCurrentmeter)orequivalentontheseabed,
collectingdatathroughthewatercolumn.Inaddition,thereshouldalsobeaturbiditysensormountedonthe

B2|P a g e


framewithwatersamplescollectedthroughthewatercolumnondeploymentandrecoverytorelatethe
turbiditytosuspendedsedimentconcentrations.
Themooringwillincludeabespokeseabedframe,surfacemarkerwithlightandradarreflector,groundline
suitableforgrapplingandacousticlocatorbeacon(FigureB1).Theacousticlocatorbeaconwillbeattachedto
theframetoaidrecoveryintheeventthatthemooringbuoybecomesdetachedfromtheframe.Theframeis
designedtobothkeepthesensorsabovetheseabedsedimentsandtobetrawlresistant.
TheAcousticWaveandCurrentMeterwillbeconfiguredtorecordcurrent,tide,waveandacoustic
backscatter(ABS).TheABSdatawillbeusedtomonitorcoarser,sandsizedparticlesinthewatercolumn.The
opticalbackscatter(OBS)sensorthatwillbeattachedtotheframeismoresensitivetovariationsin
concentrationsoffineparticlesandwillmonitorthesedimentloadinthenearseabedregion.
Waveactionwithintheagreedsiteswillbecalculatedusingthepressuresignalat1Hzandtheacoustic
surfacetrack(AST)at2Hz,bothdatatypeswillbeusedtocalculatewaveparametersindependentlytoallowa
higherdegreeofcertaintyovertheresultingvalues.
Afterinitialdeploymentandpriortorecovery,watersampleswillbetakenattheseabedlevelinadditionto
samplesthroughoutthewatercolumn,atatimethatcorrespondswiththeinstrumentsampling.Samples
wouldbecollectedusingCasellasamplerorequivalent.Thewatersampleswillthenbeanalysedinthe
laboratorytodeterminetotalsuspendedsolids(TSS).Calibrationcurvescanthenbedrawnuptoconvert
NephelometricTurbidityUnits(NTU)andtheAcousticBackscatterintensityintomilligramsperlitre.

OpticalBackscattersensor

FigureB1

SeabedFrameDeploymentDiagram

ProgrammeDesign
Toverifyboththefarfieldandnearfieldmodelsatleastthreemooringsshouldbedeployednearthe
boundariesoftheregional(farfield)model,andonemooringoneachsite.Theexactlocationsofthese
shouldbedeterminedafteradeskstudyhasbeenundertakentoidentifyanyimportantlocalcurrents,aswell
asidentifyingwherethegapsinknowledgeare.TheproposedlocationswillthenbediscussedwithFRSto
ensuretheyareacceptable,andanyrecommendedchangesincorporatedasappropriate.
Inordertosupportthemodelforextremeanalysis,themeasurementsneedtocoverthefullrangeof
conditions,andmustthereforebeinplaceduringstormperiods,i.e.overwinter.Thedurationofthe

B3|P a g e


deploymentwillbeagreedinconsultationwithFRS.Thedatacollectionisplannedoverthe2009/2010winter
toallowtimefortheanalysisandmodellingofthephysicalprocesses,whichcantakeseveralmonthsto
complete.

PhysicalProcessesModel
ThemodelitselfwillfollowtheGuidanceNoteforEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentinRespectofFEPAand
CPARequirements,Version2June2004,CEFAS2004,ortheequivalentmostuptodateguidancedocuments.
Themodelshallconsider,asaminimum:

scoureffects;
waveinterferenceandinteraction;
currentregime;
sedimentmobilityandturbidity;
thefunctionofthesandbanks;
differentinstallationandcablelayingmethods;
differenttypesoffoundation,includingdrivenpiles,drilledpiles,tripodandgravityfoundations;
theimpactofpotentialsedimentmovementonnavigationchannelsintheareashallbedetermined.

Inaddition,considerationshallbegiventocoastaldefences,identifyingthedifferenttypesalongthecoastand
assessinganypotentialimpactsthattheNeartnaGaoithedevelopmentmayhave.
Thecumulativeimpactsshallincludetheimpactthatotherusershaveatpresent(e.g.dredging),aswellas
otherpotentialwindfarms,andhowNeartnaGaoithewillinteractwiththeseusersthroughoutitslifecycle.
Thestudywillbeundertakenintwophases,detailedbelow.
i)Phase1shallconsistof:

Baseline model of an area sufficient to competently model the processes at the wind farm site
and any affects to nearby coasts. The baseline model shall incorporate expected changes
over the next 50 years (until 2060);
Verification of the baseline model;
A report describing the baseline model and giving advice on the sensitivity of the different
processes and seabed, and how this varies over the development area.

Thisinformationwillbeused,inconjunctionwithotherbaselines,toinformthelayoutdesigntobeusedfor
assessment.
ii)Phase2shallconsistof:

Assessmentofanydirectandindirectimpactsoftheproject,includingturbines,substationsand
cablesthroughoutconstruction,operationanddecommissioning;
Assessmentofcumulativeeffectswithotheroffshorewindfarmsandwithothermarineandseabed
users;
Suggestionsformitigationmeasuresthatmayberequiredtoaddressanypotentialsignificant
impacts.

Themodelwillalsobesuitabletoinformengineeringrequirements,suchas:

Assessmentofscour(requiredandinclusivetomainEIAstudies);
Assessmentofnaturalseabedvariations(supportedbyconsiderationofhistoriccharts,inclusiveto
mainEIAstudies),tosupportriskassessmentofcableburial;
Peakmetoceanparameterstospecifiedreturnperiods(e.g.1:50and1:100yearevents)including
currents,surges,waves,waterlevels;
Jointprobabilityofextremeevents(waterlevelsandwaves),ifnecessary.

B4|P a g e

AppendixC

C1|P a g e

C. SpecificationforGeophysicalSurvey
Overview
AgeophysicalsurveywasundertakenintheinitialstagesoftheinvestigationsfortheNeartnaGaoithe
offshorewindfarm.Geophysicaldatawerecollectedacrossthesiteitselfwithanappropriatebuffer,plus
alongthreepotentialcablesroutes,twoofwhichconnecttoTorness,andonetoCockenzie.Theaimsofthe
surveywereto:

Determineaccuratedepths,givingfullcoverageacrossthesiteandcollectedtoIHOOrder1standards;
Determinethenatureoftheseabedsediments;
Determineseabedhabitats;
Identifyanyseabedsurfacefeatures,suchassandwaves,andpotentialmobility;
Identifyanywrecksorsurfaceobstructions;
Identifysubsurfacestrataandrelatethesetoexistingknowngeology.

ThemethodsdescribedinTableC1wereused.
Geophysicalsurveyrequirement

Implementation

100%multibeambathymetrycoverage

Swathbathymetrywithlinespacingoptimizedto
ensure100%seabedcoverage.

Sidescansonarsurveytodepictseabedfeatures,
seabedclassificationandseabeddebris

High(400KHz)andLow(100KHz)resolution
sidescansonarwithlinespacingoptimizedto
ensure100%seabedcoverage.

Highresolutionseismicsurveytodetermine
subsurfacelayerswhichwillinformthefoundation
design

Seismicboomerwithsurveylinesspacedat100m
andcrosslinesat1000m.

Ultrahighresolutionseismicsurveytodetermine
thenatureofthesurfacelayersoftheseabed,
informingthesuitabilityforcableinstallation

Seismicpingersurveywithsurveylinesspacedat
100mandcrosslinesat1000m.

Magnetometersurveytoidentifymajoritemsof
debris,wreckorchangesinnearsurfacebedrock

Marinemagnetometersurveywithsurveylines
spacedat100mandcrosslinesat1000m.

TableC1

GeophysicalSurveyMethods

Moredetailedbenthichabitatinformationwasobtainedthroughasubsequentbenthicecologysurvey.
GroundtruthingfortheAGDSwascompletedduringtheecologysurvey(seeAppendixD).
FRSpreviouslyadvisedthatAGDSisconsideredtobeausefultoolinthisarea.

SurveyMethodologies
Throughoutthesurveyscomprehensivelogswerekeptincludingdailylogswhichdetailedsurveyactivities,
weatherconditions,navigationandsafetyissues.Thevesselhadananemometerlinkedtothenavigation
softwarewhichloggedwindspeedanddirectionregularlythroughoutthesurveyoperations.
Priortothesurvey,aNoticetoMariners(NtM)wasissuedandthefollowingorganisationswereinformedof
theintendedsiteoperations:

Localfisheriesorganisations;
Localharbourmasters;
Coastguards;

C2|P a g e

VesselTrafficAuthorities.

ThisNtMwasupdatedwhenadditionalworkwascompletedalongthecableroutes.

C.1.1 BathymetryandSurfaceGeophysicalSurvey
Theinitiallineplanwasbasedon100mlinespacingthroughouttheproposedwindfarmandcablecorridors.
Onsite,waterdepthsaregenerallygreaterthan40m,thisspacingprovidedexcellentoverlapforthe
multibeambathymetrydata.Inshore,inshallowerwater,additionallineswererunat50mspacing,withextra
infillwhererequiredtoensure100%datacoveragewasobtaineduptoLowWaterMarkforthemultibeam
bathymetry.Inaddition,toensureswathdatawerecollectedinthemostefficientway,theswathsystemwas
changedfromaSeabat7125systemindeeperwatertoaKongsbergEM3002.
Outcropsofvolcanicdykeswereidentifiedatthesurfaceinseveralplacesalongthecableroutes,and
additionallineswereruntoinvestigatetheextentofthesefeatures.

C.1.2 SeismicSurvey
Alldatawerecollectedonthelinespacingdetailedabove.Inadditiontothe100mlinespacing,therewere
alsocrosslinesat1000mintervals,toaidinqualityassurancefortheseismicdata.Thisprovidedveryhigh
resolutiondataforalldatasets.
Thelineplansforthesiteandcableroutes,plusthesummarymethodsthatwereusedforeachtechniqueare
presentedinthefollowingpages.

FigureC1

SummaryGeophysicalLinePlan

C3|P a g e

FigureC2

GeophysicalLinePlanforCableRoutes

C4|P a g e

VesselNavigation
Requirement

Equipment

DataCollection

Deliverables

TableC2

Accuratevesselpositioningforallaspectsofthemarinesurvey.Vesselpositionaccuracytobe
betterthan3mRMS.Within3kmofthecoastRTKGPScorrectionscanbeobtainedenablingan
accuracyofbetterthan20cm,wherethereissufficientLeicaSMARTNETcoverage.
CSIMinimaxDifferentialGPSreceiver
QINSy8.0DataAcquisitionandDataProcessingsoftware
Leica1200RTKreceiver
NavigationdatawillbecollectedinaccordancewithEmuLtdStandardProcedures(ISO
9001:2000,EmuMet06/008/009).Furtherdetailscanbeprovidedonrequest.
Atthestartofthesurveythenavigationsystemwillbecheckedagainstatleastoneknown
referencepointandascatterplotofpositionqualityforboththeDGPSandRTKGPSsystem
obtained.
DGPSpositionswillbeloggedbytheQINSysoftwareat1secondintervalsforthegeophysical
andhydrographicsurvey.Dataqualitywillbecontinuallymonitoredandthesystemwillbeset
torejectpositionsolutionswhichdonotmeettheaccuracyrequirementsofthiscontract.
AlldatawillbeprocessedandreportedaccordingtoEmuLtdStandardProcedures(ISO9002,
EmuMet008/009).Theoutputswillincludeavesseltrackplotbothinpaperanddigitalformat.
Therewillalsobeabriefwrittenreportdetailingmethodsusedandresultsobtained,whichwill
includeinformationsuchasdailyprogressreports,navigationchecksandoffsetsandequipment
calibrationchecks.
VesselNavigation

MultibeamBathymetrySurvey
Requirement
Equipment

DataCollection

Deliverables

TableC3

Todetermineseabedlevelsandtopographythroughoutthesurveyarea.
Reson8101multibeamsystem
CrescentR120DGPSsystem
ResonSVP14profiler
CODAF180MRU
Leica1200RTKreceiver
Knudsen320Msinglebeamechosounder
SwathdatawillbecollectedinaccordancewithEmuLtdStandardProcedures(ISO9002,Emu
Met008/009),ensuringthatdataiscollectedinaccordancewithIHOOrder1vertical
standards.
PostProcessedKinematic(PPK)tideswillbeusedfortidalreduction.Thesedatawillbe
comparedagainstanylocalsourcesoftidaldatacotidallycorrectedtothesite.
SVPdipsshallbemadepriortocommencementofsurveyoperationsateachcornerofthesite
andateachturninthetide.Priortocommencementofthesurveyacompletecalibration
procedurewillbeundertakenatthefollowingvariables:i)latency,ii)pitch,iii)roll,iv)yaw,v)
pitch/rollcorrelation,vi)determinationofoptimumheaveperiodfortheMRUandvii)
stabilisationperiodoftheMRUafterrapidmanoeuvres.Thecalibrationdatawillbeprocessed
onlinebeforethestartofthesurvey.
ExpecteddataaccuracywillexceedtherequirementsofIHOOrder1.
AlldatawillbeprocessedandreportedaccordingtoEmuLtdStandardProcedures(ISO9002,
EmuMet008/009).
Briefsectioninfactualreportdetailingequipmentused,positioning,acquisitionprocedures,
andoperationparameters.
Shadedcolourchartsofbathymetry
Contourchartsofbathymetry
DataindigitalformatsuitableforimportingintotheclientsGIS
Rawdataindigitalformat
MultibeamBathymetrySurvey

C5|P a g e

SidescanSonarSurvey
Requirement

Collecthighqualitysidescansonardatathroughoutthesurveyareatodeterminevariationsin
seabedtypeandnatureandlocationofanyseabedfeaturessuchasdebrisandrockoutcrop.

Equipment

Edgetech4200dualfrequencysidescansonarsystem(100KHzor400KHz)
CSIMinimaxDifferentialGPSreceiver
Electricwinchwith300mofarmouredcable
SidescansonardatawillbecollectedinaccordancewithEmuLtdStandardProcedures(ISO
9002,EmuMet008/009).Thesidescansonarwillbeoperatedat100mperchannel,
providing200%seabedcoverageandveryhighresolutiondata.
BothhighandlowfrequencydatawillberecordedsimultaneouslyindigitalXTFformatand
printedonpaperrecords.
Surveylogslistingthedatacollectionparameterswillbemaintainedthroughoutthesurvey.
SidescansonardatawillbeofveryhighresolutionandexceedIHOOrder1specification.
AlldatawillbeprocessedandreportedaccordingtoEmuLtdStandardProcedures(ISO9002,
EmuMet008/009).
Briefsectioninfactualreportdetailingequipmentused,positioning,acquisitionprocedures,
andoperationparameters.
Sidescansonarmosaics.
Detailedimagesoffeaturesofinterestwithdescriptionanddimensions
DataindigitalformatsuitableforimportingintotheclientsGIS
Rawdataindigitalformat

DataCollection

Deliverables

TableC4

SidesacnSonarSurvey

SeismicProfilingSurvey
Requirement
Equipment

DataCollection

Tocollecthighresolutionandultrahighresolutionseismicdatasuitablefordeterminingsub
seabedgeologyforturbinefoundationsandpowerexportcabletrenching.
AppliedAcousticsboomersystemincludingspareplate
AACSP1500powersupply
CBoomhighresolutionhydrophone+spare
CODAdigitalacquisitionandprocessingsystem
GeoAcousticsGeoPulsePingersystem/Edgetech3200ChirpSystem
2xUltra120ThermalPrinter.
SeismicdatawillbecollectedinaccordancewithEmuLtdStandardProcedures(ISO
9001:2000,EmuMet008/009).Furtherdetailscanbeprovidedonrequest.
AnAppliedAcousticsboomersystemwithCboomhydrophonewillbesuppliedforhigh
resolutionseismicdatacollection.TheBoomersystemwillprovideresolutionofupto0.5m
andpenetrationthroughunconsolidatedsedimentsofupto3050m.Idealfordetermining
subseabedgeologyforturbineconstruction.
AGeoAcousticsPingersystemorEdgetech3200Chirpsystem(conditionsdependant)willbe
suppliedfortheultrahighresolutionsurvey.Thesesystemswillprovidearesolutionofupto
0.2mandapenetrationthroughthesurfacesedimentsof0.510m.Idealfordeterminingsub
seabedgeologyforcabletrenching.
Atestwillbeundertakenatthestartofthesurveytodeterminetheoptimumsettingsto
achievethebestrecordswiththesystem.Asthesurveyprogressesthesystemwillbeadjust
toobtainthebestrecords.Eachchangewillbeloggedonthesurveylogs.Alldatawillbe
recordeddigitallyontheCODAsystemalongwithpositionaldatafromtheDGPSsystem.
Datawillalsobeprintedrealtimeonathermalprinter.

C6|P a g e


Deliverables

TableC5

AlldatawillbeprocessedandreportedaccordingtoEmuLtdStandardProcedures(ISO9002,
EmuMet008/009).
Briefsectioninfactualreportdetailingequipmentused,positioning,acquisitionprocedures,
andoperationparameters.
Isopachsofupto2significantreflectors.
Upto10crosssectionprofiles.
Detailedimagesoffeaturesofinterestwithdescriptionanddimensions
DataindigitalformatsuitableforimportingintotheclientsGIS
RawdataindigitalformatandRawdatainPaperformat
SeismicProfilingSurvey

C7|P a g e

AppendixD

D1|P a g e

D. SpecificationforBenthicEcologySurvey
Overview
AbenthicecologysurveywasundertakenintheinitialstagesoftheproposedNeartnaGaoitheoffshorewind
farmdevelopment.Thissectionpresentsthespecificationsforthebenthicandintertidalcharacterisation
survey.Itincludesthedesignandrationaleofthesamplingarray,anddescriptionsofthesurveytechniques,
plusmethodsforthesubsequentlaboratoryanalysesanddatatreatments.
Informationfromthegeophysicalsurvey,theAcousticGroundDiscriminationSystem(AGDS)measurements
andsubsequentdatafromsitespecificecologysurveyswereusedtocharacterisetheecologyofthesiteand
potentialcableroutes,includingtheintertidalarea.Theaimsoftheecologicalsurveywereto:

Groundtruththegeophysicaldata;
Determinethephysicalnatureoftheseabedsedimentsincludingcontaminants;
Defineseabedhabitats;
Determineboththebenthicandepibenthicfaunaassociatedwiththeseabedhabitatsandenable
biotopedefinition;
IdentifyanyAnnexIhabitats.

ThemethodsaregiveninTableD1.:
Ecologicalsurvey
requirement

Implementation

Grabswillacquirequantitativeinformationonseabedsedimentsandassociated
benthicfauna.
Thebenthicsurveywillutilisedropdownvideotoidentifythefullrangeofhabitats,
includinghardseabedareas,whereepifaunalcommunitiesmaybedescribed.In
DropDownVideo
areaswheresensitivehabitatsarenotedtheuseofvideowillinformthesurvey
design,suchthatintrusivetechniqueswillbeavoidedwherepossible.
Biotopeswillbemappedintheintertidalzonewithcorescollectedwhererelevant.
Intertidalbiotope
mappingandcoring Optionsforshallowwatersnorkellinginrockyareasexistwherevideoaccessis
restricted.
Atrawlingprogrammeusinga2metrescientificbeamtrawlwillbeundertaken
2mBeamtrawl
alongsidethebenthicecologicalsurveytoassessthebenthicsessileandmobile
megafaunalcommunitiesinandaroundtheproposedwindfarmsiteandatseveral
locationsalongthecableroute.
MiniHamongrab

TableD1

EcologicalSurveyRequirementsMethodology

DesignofBenthicArray
D.1.1 TypeofImpact
Thereisthepotentialforanumberofconstructionandoperationalrelatedimpactsonthebenthoswhichmay
becategorisedintermsofzonesasshowninTableD2below.Thearraywasdesignedtoprovideadequate
coverageofeachareaofpossibleimpact.TableD2referstothemainsitesurveyarray.
Typeofimpact

Characterofimpact

Numberofsites

PrimaryImpactZone
(PIZ)

Comprisingtheentireapplicationsiteand
boundary,subjecttodirectphysical
constructionandoperationalimpacts.

27grabanddropdownvideo
sitesprovidingcoverageof
seabedhabitattypesbasedon
acousticdata.

4videotowstocollectdataon

D2|P a g e


cobblehabitatswheregrab
samplingwasnotappropriate
SecondaryImpactZone
(SIZ)

Cableroutes(PIZ)

Outsidetheconstructionandoperational
boundarybutsubjecttoperipheraland
indirectimpactsasaresultofmovementsof
disturbedsediments,includingpotential
contaminants,alongthetidalaxes.
Comprisingtheentirelengthofbothcable
routeoptions,subjecttodirectconstruction
effectsofcablelaying.

Cableroutes(SIZ)

Areasadjacenttothecableroutebutwithin
theinfluenceofmobilizedfinesedimentsas
aresultofcablelayingoperations.

ReferenceZone(RZ)

Theseencompassseabedtypesthatare
similarintermsoftheirphysicaland
biologicalattributestothosefoundwithin
thePIZandSIZbutwhicharelocatedbeyond
thepredictedinfluenceofconstructionand
operationimpacts,i.e.outsideoftheSIZ.

TableD2

42grabanddropdownvideo
sitesbasedonAdmiraltyChart
data.

2videotows.
13grabanddropdownvideo
sitesprovidingcoverageof
seabedhabitattypesbasedon
acousticdata.

6videotows.

2longvideotransectsinshore
alongtheSkaterawand
Thorntonlochoptions.
20grabanddropdownvideo
sites.
7grabanddropdownvideo
sitestargetingcomparable
habitatsintermsofdepthand
substratetypebasedon
AdmiraltyChartdata.

ImpactZonesandNumbersofGrabSamples

ThegrabsamplearraywasbasedonthegeophysicaldataresultsandisshowninFiguresD1andD2.
Grabsiteslocatedoutsideoftheprimaryimpactzone(PIZ,directlyimpactedbyturbine/cableplacement)and
secondaryimpactzones(SIZ,potentiallyimpactedbysecondaryeffects)providecontexttothe
characterisationsurveyandassistwiththeidentificationoffuturereferenceareasthatwillberequiredforthe
baselineandoperationalmonitoring.
SpecificsensitivitieswereidentifiedinrelationtotwoAnnex1habitats;reefandshallowwatersand(<20m),
whichneededtobespecificallyaddressed.Theshallowwatersandfeatureoccursalongthelineofthe
Cockenziecableroute,whilethereefhabitatsarefoundincloseproximitytoallthreecableoptions.The
surveyswerestructuredtoaddressthesespecificissues,withgrabsamplinginthevicinityofthesandsand
videoacrossareasthatborderonreefhabitat.ConsiderationwasalsogiventothetransitoftheCockenzie
cablerouteincloseproximitytoaformerammunitiondisposalground.

D3|P a g e

FigureD1

SampleLocationswithintheMainSurveyArea,TidalExcursionsandPossibleControlAreas

FigureD2

SampleLocationsalongthePotentialCableRoutes

D4|P a g e

SurveyMethodologies
Throughoutthesurveys,comprehensivelogswerekept,detailingsurveyactivities,weatherconditions,
navigationandsafetyissues.
ANoticetoMariners(NtM)wasissuedbeforethesurveyandthefollowingorganisationswereinformedofthe
intendedsiteoperations:

Localfisheriesorganisations;
Localharbourmasters;
Coastguards;
VesselTrafficAuthorities.

ThesurveywasundertakenovertwoperiodsinJulyandOctober.NtMswereissuedonbothoccasions.

SeabedVideo
Seabedimagerysurveys(includingvideofootageandstillsimagery)provideanonintrusivesurveymethodfor
physicalandecologicalassessmentoftheseabed.Atallsiteswheregrabbingwasplanned,thevideosystem
wasdeployed,withapproximatelythreeminutesoffootagecollectedpersite.Duringthedeployment,the
videosignalwasmonitoredonboardthevesseltoassessthequalityofthefootageandmakeadjustmentsas
necessary.Thevideofootagewasgeoreferencedandtheimageareareferencedforeachdeployment.Video
footagewasrecordedsimultaneouslyonbothminiDVtapeandHDD,withbackupprovidedonDVDR.Survey
logslistingthedatacollectionparametersweremaintainedthroughoutthesurvey.

GrabSampling
Sampleswerecollectedwiththeuseofa0.1m2miniHamongrab.Thisdeviceistypicallymoresuccessfulthan
othergrabsatobtainingacceptablefaunalsamplesoverawiderangeofsubstratetypes.Additionalsamples
(1020%oftotal)werealsocollectedinappropriatesedimentsusingeitherastainlesssteelDayGrabor
Shipecktoobtainundisturbedcontaminantsamples.
UponrecoveryoftheHamongrabsample,thesedimentwasreleasedintoasamplehopper.Anassessmentof
samplevolume(expressedinlitres)wasthenmadeandavisualdescriptioncompleted.Theminimum
acceptablesamplevolumewas5litres.Repeatedattempts(upto3times)weremadewithina50mtarget
area.Iftheseattemptsfailedtoachievethisvolume,thesamplewasacceptedasalowvolumesample.Low
samplesvolumes(<4litres)werecollectedatsites35,36and86.Aphotographofthesedimentwastaken
priortoanysampleprocessing.Anyconspicuoussedimentfeaturesandobviousfaunawererecorded.
Asubsampleforparticlesizedistribution(PSD)analysiswasthentaken.Dependentonsedimenttypethis
volumewouldhavebeenbetween300and500ml.ThePSDsubsamplewastransferredintoaprelabelled
heavydutyplasticbag,andsealedtoensurenolossoffines.
Theremainingsamplewassievedona1mmaperturemeshsievetoremovethefinersedimentfractions
(usinganonboardsedimentchute).Thecontentsofthesieveweretransferredintoaprelabelledbucketwith
internallabelandfixedonsiteusing4%bufferedsalineformaldehydesolution.
TheDayGraborShipecksampleswereusedtoobtainundisturbedsedimentsforcontaminantanalysis.This
sedimentwasscrapedfromthetopfewcentimetresofthesampleandwasretainedinpentanewashed
glasswarefororganiccontaminantsandplasticbagsformetals.Allsampleswerestoredinappropriate
conditionspriortotransfertoaUKASaccreditedlaboratoryforanalysis.
Thecontaminantsanalysisconsistedof:

Asuiteofmetals(As,Cd,Cu,Pb,Zn,Ni,Cr,Hg,plusOrganotins)
PAHs
Organochlorinepesticides
TotalPetroleumHydrocarbons

D5|P a g e

EpibenthicBeamTrawling
Dataonepibenthiccommunitieswerecollectedwithanindustrystandard(Lowestoftdesign)2mscientific
beamtrawlfittedwithaknotless5mmcodendliner.Nopositionswereidentifiedonthefiguresatpresentas
thesewerebasedontheoutcomesofthegeophysicalsurveyandvideo/grabbingsurveys.Thesplitbetween
differentsurveyareaswasasfollows:
MainsitePIZ

5sites

MainsiteSIZ

3sites

Cableroutes

8total

Referenceareas

3sites

RecentCEFASadvicesuggeststhatatowofapproximately500m(510minutestow)issufficienttodescribe
theepibenthiccommunityatmostsitesalthoughtheexactlengthoftowwasdeterminedbytheground
conditions.Alltrawlsconductedovercoarsegroundwerefittedwithachainmeshtopreventcobblesand
bouldersenteringthetrawl.Theseabedwaspredominatelyflatmuddysandandsandymudwithoccasional
cobblepatches.MixedsandygravelsedimentsoccurredinshorealongtheCockenziecableroute.
Thepositionofthetrawlwasloggedat5or10secondintervalsthroughoutthedurationofthetowwiththe
useofHydroProsoftwaretorecordanaccuratepathforthetrawlsample.Attheendofeachtrawltowthe
catchwasbroughtonboardthevesselandinitiallywashedovera5mmaperturemeshandsortedintofish
boxes.Recordsofthecatch,togetherwithphotographsweretaken.Thisincludednotesonanysubstrate
material.
Themajorityofthecatchwasprocessedonsiteincludingtheidentificationandenumerationoffish,prawns
andcrabs,priortoitsreturntothesea.Wheretheonsiteidentificationwasuncertain,arepresentativeof
thatspecieswasreturnedtothelaboratoryforconfirmation.
Fishspeciesweremeasured(totallengthcm)andenumerated.Commercialshellfishweremeasured(mm)
andenumerated.Colonialencrustingfaunaonstonesandcobblesweredescribedandrecordedaspresence
only.Foliosespecies(e.g.hydrozoa)wereweighed.

IntertidalSurvey
Mappingofhabitatsandbiotopeswasconductedintheintertidalzone,fromthesplash/lichenzone(supra
littoral)tothesublittoralfringe,withanareaextending250meithersideoftheproposedcableroutes.The
surveywasconductedoveralowspringtidetoallowaccesstothelowestreachesoftheshoreandto
maximizeworkingtime.MethodsfollowedtheJNCCProceduralGuideline31 1.Basemapsderivedfrom
aerialsurveywereannotatedinthefield,withtotalspeciesinventoriesobtainedwherepossible.
Itwasproposedthatinadditiontothebiotopemapping,quantitativesamplingwillbeconductedontransects
perpendiculartotheshore,whereparticulatesedimentsdominate(e.g.Skateraw).Samplingwasconsistent
withthemethodsprovidedintheJNCCProceduralGuideline361.Samplesweretakenatthelower,midand
uppershoreusinga11.3cmdiametercore.Ateachintertidalsamplelocation,between35replicateswere
collected.Duetotheverycoarsenatureofthesurfacesedimentsitwasnotpossibletotakecoresatsomeof
theproposedsamplesites.Intheseinstances,aknownareawasdugover.Allcoreanddigoversampleswere
sievedonsiteviaa1mmaperturemeshfortheidentificationofinfaunalspecies.Aseparatesamplewas
collectedforparticlesizedistributionanalysisateachcoresite.
Thebiotopemapswereaugmentedbytargetnotes.Thesearevitalinbiotopesurveystorecordunmappable
information.Targetnoteswerealsousedtodescribehumanactivities,suchasoutfalls,coastalprotection
measuresandothermanmadefeaturesthatwereconsideredtobepotentialhabitatmodifiers.
Furtherdetailsoftheproceduresandequipmentinvolvedaregiveninthefollowingpages.

1
JNCCGuidance:www.jncc.gov.uk.PDF.MMH

D6|P a g e

BenthicSampling
Benthic(seabed)samplingisundertakentoacquirequantitativeandsemiquantitativemarine
biologicalcommunitydataforaparticularsite.ThesesamplesarethentransferredtoEmuLtd.s
marinebiologicallaboratoriesfortaxonomicanalysis.Allsurveyworkadherestotherelevant
Requirement
Emumethodstatements(EmuMet/05forinfaunalandepifaunalsampling;EmuMet/06for
sedimentsamplingandprocessing),eachofwhichcomprisesacomponentofourQA
procedures.
0.1m2Hamongrabs,
Lowestoftdesign2mbeamtrawls
Equipment
HemisphereDGPSpositioningsystems
HydroPronavigationalsoftware
Grabswillacquirequantitativeinformationonseabedsedimenthabitatsandassociated
biologicalcommunities.Trawlsareusedtoobtainadditionalinformationoncommunitiesof
larger,moremobilespeciessuchasfish,shrimpsandprawnswhichliveclosetotheseabed
surface.Bothtypesofsamplingmethodaretypicallyundertakenduringasinglesurvey
campaign.
Data
TaxonomicanalysisisundertakeninaccordancewithinhousemethodEmuMet07.A1mm
Collection
sievemeshwillbeemployedforallsamples.Emusmarinebiologicallaboratoriesare

participantswithintheNationalMarineBiologicalassociationQualityControlschemeforquality
assurance.Outputsofthelaboratoryanalysesincludeafullenumeratedspecieslist,withphyla
levelbiomass.
Theparticlesizedistribution(PSD)willbeundertakenwithinEmussedimentlaboratoryunder
EmuMet/01.EmuhasUKASaccreditationforPSDanalysisviadrysieving.Contaminantswillbe
analysedonasubsetofsedimentsamples,byaUKASaccreditedlaboratory.
Afulltechnical,interpretativereportwillbeprovideddetailingmethodsforthefieldsurvey,
laboratoryanddataanalyses.Afullspeciesabundancelistwillbeprovidedwiththereport.
Deliverables
AppropriateunivariateandmultivariatestatisticalanalyseswillbeemployedviathePRIMER
&Reporting
v6.0packagetoinvestigatecommunitydata.ReportingisundertakenaccordingtoEMUISO
9001:2000procedures(Met009).

2mBeamTrawlSampling
Processing

GrabFaunalProcessing

TaxonomicAnalysis

D7|P a g e

SeabedImagery

Requirement

Equipment

DataCollection

Deliverables&
Reporting

Seabedimagerysurveys(includingvideofootageandstillsimagery)provideanon
intrusivesurveymethodforphysicalandecologicalassessmentoftheseabed.In
addition,EmuLtd.hasthecapabilitytohousethesubseavideosysteminabespoke
clearwaterboxsystem,ELViS(ExtremeLowVisibilitySystem),allowingvideofootageto
beobtainedinareasoflowvisibilityorinturbidwaters.
KongsbergOE14208newgenerationdigitalstillscolourcamera.Stillsimagesare
framedusingrealtimevideo.
ELViS(ExtremeLowVisibilitySystem)
Dropdown/towedvideoframewithadjustableweightsystem
Subseacameratelemetrycablesystem(200m)
Bespoketopsidecontrolunit(comprisinga400GBHardDiskDrive(HDD)
incorporatingaDVDrecorderforuseastheprimaryvideorecordingsystem,15
LCDmonitor,withGPSOverlay)
MiniDVplayerandfullscreencolourmonitorforsimultaneousbackup.
DifferentialGPSaccurateto5m.
ThemethodfortheconductofdropdownvideosurveyingwillbebasedonJNCC
ProceduralGuidelineNo.35Identifyingbiotopesusingvideorecordings(Holt,R.&
Sandersen,B.,2001).
Atselectedsites,thevideosystemwillbedeployed,withapproximatelythreeminutes
offootagecollected.Extendedsurveywillbeundertakeninareasofconservation
interest.Duringthedeployment,thevideosignalwillbemonitoredonboardthevessel
toassessthequalityofthefootageandadjustmentsmadeifappropriateThevideo
footagewillbegeoreferencedforeachdeployment.Videofootagewillberecorded
simultaneouslyonbothminiDVtapeandHDD,withbackupprovidedonDVDR.
Surveylogslistingthedatacollectionparameterswillbemaintainedthroughoutthe
survey.
Asurveyreportwillbeproducedwhichwillpresenttheresultsofthedropdownvideo
survey,includingdefinitionofbiotopeswherepossible.Withintheappendicesthe
reportwillpresentthefieldlogs,thestaticimagesandthestaticimageanalysisresults.
Dependingontherequirements,videofootagecanbeproducedfortheclientonDVD
R,withaccompanyingstillsimagesonCD.

Deploymentofdropdownvideo
systemhousedwithinELViS

Examplestillsimageofgravel
habitat

ExamplevideocapturefromELViS

D8|P a g e

IntertidalSurvey

Requirement

Equipment

DataCollection

Deliverables&
Reporting

IntertidalhabitatmappingsurveyswillbeconsistentwithJNCCProceduralguidelines
andMNCRmethods(Hiscock,1996 2;Wynetal.,2000 3).Mappingofhabitatsand
biotopeswillincludethesplash/lichenzone(supralittoral)tothesublittoralfringe.
SamplingofsedimentswilladheretoJNCCProceduralGuideline36.Thesurveywillbe
conductedoveralowspringtidetoallowaccesstothelowestreachesoftheshoreand
tomaximizeworkingtime.
11.3diameterstainlesssteelcore
HandheldGarmin48GPS
ClassificationofbiotopeswillbeconsistentwithConnoretal(2004) 4.Thebiotope
mappingwillextend250meithersideoftheproposedcableroute.Featureslessthan
25m2inareawillbesubjecttotargetnotesandnotmapped.Conspicuousspecies
(faunalandflora)willbeidentifiedonsite.Representativespecimensmaybereturned
toEmusmarinelaboratoriesforconfirmationofthefieldidentification.Photographsof
allhabitatsandbiotopeswillbetaken.
Representativecoresamplesofsedimentwillbetakenandanalysedformacrofaunal
content(1mmmesh)andparticlesizedistributiontoquantifythefaunapresentandto
aidbiotopeclassification.Proposedsamplingwillbebasedontransects,tobemodified
bytheoutcomeoftheinitialhabitat/biotopeassessment.Thedatawillbesufficientto
characterisetheintertidalareaintermsofitshabitats,invertebratecommunitiesand
componentspecies.
TaxonomicanalysisandPSDanalysiswillbeundertakenasdescribedpreviouslyfor
Benthicsamplingwithbiomassofkeyspecies/speciesgroupsrequiredtosupport
assessmentofthebirdpreyvalueofthearea.
Afulltechnical,interpretativereportwillbeprovideddetailingmethodsforthefield
survey,laboratoryanddataanalyses.Adescriptionofthehabitatsandintertidal
communitieswillbegivenanddiscussedinthecontextofthewiderarea.Afullspecies
abundancelistandsiteplans(biotope/habitatmap)willbeprovidedwiththereport.

Exampleoftransectsurvey

Baseofchalkcliff

ockyshore

2
Hiscock, K (ed.) (1996) Marine Nature Conservation Review: rational and methods. Coasts and seas of the
UnitedKingdom.MNCRSeries.JointNatureConservationCommittee,Peterborough.
Wyn, G, Brazier, D P and McMath, A J (2000) CCW handbook for marine intertidal Phase 1 survey and
mapping.CCWMarineSciencesReport:00/06/01.
3

Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding,N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. & Reker, J.B., (2004).
TheMarineHabitatClassificationforBritainandIreland.Version04.05.JointNatureConservationCommittee,
Peterborough.

D9|P a g e

DataPresentation
Thedataderivedfromthesurveyscomprisedthefollowing:

SitebyspeciesmatricesderivedfromgrabsamplesandcoresamplesforinclusioninPRIMER;
SitebysedimenttypematricesderivedfromgrabsamplesandcoresforinclusioninPRIMER;
Sitebycontaminantmatrices;
Sitebyspeciesandphysicaldescriptionmatricesderivedfromvideo/stillsurveysforderivationofsub
tidalbiotopes;
Sitebyspeciesmatricesderivedfrom2mBeamTrawlsurveysforinclusioninPRIMER;
Annotateddraftintertidalbiotopemapswithassociatedspeciesinventoriesandhabitatdescriptions.

DataAnalysis
Grabsampledatahavebeensubjecttoapreliminaryclassificationanalysis.Thishasrevealedthepresenceof
2principalsediment/faunalassociations.Theseincludedamuddysandassemblagecharacterisedbyseapens
andinfaunalbrittlestarsatthemainarrayandasandymudassemblagetypifiedbyNephropsprawnalongthe
proposedcableroutes.Anumberofsmallsandyandgravelassemblagessupportinghydrozoansand
tunicateswererecordedatinshorealongtheCockenziecableroute.
Furtherdataanalysisisongoingandwillincludethelinkingofabioticvariableswiththedistributionof
macrofauna.Videodatashallalsobeanalysedfortheassessmentofcobbleareaswhichhostdense
populationsofbrittlestarsandcoloniesofsoftcorals.Trawldatawillprovidedataonthepresenceoflarger,
mobileepibenthos.Finally,speciesandhabitatdatawillbetaggedwithbiotopedescriptionsandabiotope
mapproduced.Extentsofbiotopeswillbeinferredfrominterpretedacousticdata.
Contaminantsdatawillbediscussedinthecontextofcurrentguidelinesfortheassessmentofseabed
sediments.

Reporting
Reportwillincludedescriptionsofmethods,includingexplanationofvariationfromproposedmethods(main
text),allrawdataplusmodifieddataemployedintheanalyses(appendices),outcomesoftheanalyses(main
text,figures,chartsandappendices),withinterpretationexpressedinthetextandillustratedwithcharts
whereappropriate.InallpossiblecasesGISbasedmapsweregeneratedofthedataoutputs,suchthatclear
linkstothepotentialimpactsoftheproposeddevelopmentcanbevisualised.

D10|P a g e

AppendixE

E1|P a g e

E. BirdandMarineMammalScopingReport(CorkEcology,NRPandCraigton
EcologicalServices,June2009)
E.1 Introduction
MainstreamRenewableshasrecentlysuccessfullybidforthewindfarmdevelopmentrightsforanareaofsea
bedlyingapproximately15kmofftheFifecoast.ThedevelopmentwillbeknownasNeartnaGaoithe.
MainstreamhavecommissionedNaturalResearch(Projects)Ltd(NRP)CorkEcology(CE)andCraigton
EcologicalServicestoundertakestudiesofbirdsandmarinemammalstoinformanassessmentoftheeffects
duetotheproposal.Thisscopingdocumentsetsouttheinformationrequirementsoftheassessmentprocess,
andaworkplanforgatheringandanalysingthisinformation.
OffshorewindpowerisarelativelynewtechnologyinScotlandandassessmentprotocolsarecurrentlyless
standardisedthanthoseusedinrespectofterrestrialwindfarms.Thissituationofferssomescopefor
flexibilitywithregardtodatagatheringandanalysis,providedthatitcanbedemonstratedthatassessmentis
basedonreasonableanddefendableexpectationsoftheeffectscausedbythedevelopment.Conversely,
thereisperhapsagreaterlikelihoodofnovelorunexpectedsituationsarisinginthecaseofoffshore
developments,andincreasedlikelihoodofchangesinassessmentproceduresasourunderstandingofthe
potentialeffectsofoffshorewindfarmsimproves.Recognisingthissituation,itisimportantthatthestudy
designisabletoaccommodatechangingcircumstances.
EIAhastoconsidertheeffectsofadevelopmentactingonitsownandincombinationwithotherpotential
developments.Therefore,itisimportantthatthedatacollectedatNeartnaGaoitheiseasytointegratewith
datacollectedinadjacentareasbyotherdevelopers.
Finally,thestudiesmustperformrepeatablemeasuresofthebaselineconditionsinorderthatfuturechanges
canbeevaluated.Forexample,ideally,thedatashouldallowallchangesintheabundance,distributionand
behaviourofspeciestobequantified,followingtheconstructionofthedevelopment.
Thisreportconsidersthefollowingissues:

Scopeofbirdandmarinemammalwork

PotentialeffectsoftheDevelopment

Keyspeciesanddesignatedsites

Informationrequirements

Surveystrategy

Proposedfieldworkmethods

Datamanagement

Dataanalysis

Reporting

E.2 Scopeofbirdandmarinemammalstudies
Theassessmentofeffectswillprimarilyconsiderthedirecteffectsoftheproposedoffshorewindfarmonbirds
andmarinemammals.However,marineecosystemsarehighlycomplexandtherearepotentiallymanyways
thatoffshorewindfarmscouldcauseindirecteffectsonspecies.Forexample,theremaybeeffectson
currents,turbidity,temperatureprofilesetc,allofwhichmightaffectthedistributionandavailabilityofphyto
andzooplankton,whichcouldinturnaffectanimalshigherupthefoodchain,inparticularfish,uponwhich
seabirdsandmarinemammalsfeed.Thereforetheassessmentofeffectswillalsoneedtoconsiderindirect
effects(forexamplechangestofishpreyandavailability)asmuchasthesecanbeinferredthroughexisting
studiesortheworkoftheotherspecialistsinvolved(e.g.fishecologists,oceanographersetc).Whileitis
beyondthescopeofthebirdandmarinemammalspecialiststocollectnewdataonotheraspectsofthe

E2|P a g e


ecologyofthesite(e.g.planktonorfishsurveys)itispertinenttodrawattentiontothoseaspectsthathave
particularrelevancetoseabirdsandmarinemammals,andwhererelevant,toworkincollaborationwith
otherspecialists.
Giventhestronglinksbetweenthevariouscomponentsofthemarineenvironmentand,inthiscase,the
likelihoodofindirecteffectsonbirdsandmarinemammals,itisrecommendedthatanecologicalreviewgroup
issetupcomprisingthevariousspecialistadvisersandtheclientand,perhaps,keystatutoryandnonstatutory
organisationstoo.Thecomplexityofmarineecosystemsmeanstherewillinevitablybesomegreyareasas
regardingwhoisresponsibleforwhatandthereforeadangerofconfusion.Anecologicalreviewgroupwould
haveabrieftolookattheenvironmentalaspectsofthedevelopmentasawholeandwouldfoster
communicationandcollaborationbetweenthespecialistsinvolved.Itwouldalsoreducethelikelihoodof
duplicationofeffortand,mostimportantly,helpensureallrelevantsubjectsarecovered.
LargeoffshorewindturbinesarearelativelynoveltechnologyinScotland,
althoughthereisnow
moderateexperiencefromconstructedsiteselsewhere,forexampleoffEnglandandDenmark.Considerable
insightregardingthelikelyimpactsonbirdsandmarinemammalscanbegainedfromtheseexisting
installations.However,theproposedNeartnaGaoithesitehascircumstancesthatdifferintwoimportant
respectstothoseofmostoftheexistingoffshorewindfarmaroundtheUK.Firstlyitissituatedinanareaof
relativelydeepwater(around50m)andalthoughstillincoastalwaters,thismeansthattherangeofspecies
potentiallyaffectedislikelytobesomewhatdifferent.Secondly,theadjacentcoastofScotlandcontains
severallargebreedingseabirdandsealcolonies,mostofwhicharedesignatedasSpecialProtectionAreas
(SPAs)orSpecialAreasofConservation(SACs)(TablesE.1and2).Manyofthequalifyingseabirdspeciesand
boththequalifyingsealspeciesareknowntorangefaroffshoretofeed,includingthevicinityoftheNeartna
Gaoithesite.

Name

AnnexIIspeciesthatareaprimary
reasonforsiteselection

OtherAnnexIIspeciespresent
asaqualifyingfeature

IsleofMay

Greyseal,ca4.5%UKpup
production

none

FirthofTayandEdenEstuary

Harbourseal,ca2%UKpop.
Breed/moult

none

MorayFirth

Bottlenosedolphin,ca130
individuals

none

BerwickshireandNorth
NorthumberlandCoast

none

Greyseal,ca2.5%UKpup
production

TableE1

SpecialAreasofConservation(SACs)withqualifyingAnnexIIspeciesthatcouldpotentially
beaffectedbythedevelopment.DatafromJNCCwebsite.

Name

QualifyingInterest

Likelyuseof
developmentsite

FirthofForthIslands

ArcticTern(c540pairsbreed)

Low

Commontern(c800pairsbreed)

Low

Roseatetern(wasc9pairsbreed,recent
declines)

Low

Sandwichtern(c22pairsbreed)

Low

Gannet(34,400pairsbreedBassRock)

High

Lesserblackbackedgull(2920pairsbreed)

Low

E3|P a g e


Puffin(21,000pairsbreed)

High

Shag(2,887pairsbreed)

Low

Seabirdassemblageofinternationalimportance
(90,000individualsbreed).Above
speciesplusguillemot,razorbill,kittiwake,fulmar,
cormorantandherringgull.

Highaukspecies.,
kittiwakeandfulmar.
Mediumherringgull
Negligiblecormorant

FirthofForth

SandwichTern(1611birdspassage)

Low

(notislands)

Bartailedgodwit(2,600birdswinter)

Negligible

Goldenplover(2,970birdswinter)

Negligible

Redthroateddiver(88birdswinter

Low

Slavoniangrebe(71birdswinter)

Negligible

Knot(8,013birdswinter)

Negligible

Pinkfootedgoose(12,400birdswinter)

Negligible

Redshank(3,700birdswinter)

Negligible

Shelduck(3,586birdswinter)

Negligible

Wetlandbirdassemblageofinternational
Lowseaduckspecies
importance(over86,000waterfowl).Numerous Negligibleallother
speciesinadditiontothoselistedabove,
species.
includingseaduck.
StAbbsHeadtoFastCastle

Seabirdassemblageofinternationalimportance.
(79,560individualsbreed).Speciesinclude:
guillemot,razorbill,kittiwake,shagandherring
gull.

Mediumauksspecies.
andkittiwakeLow
herringgull.Negligible
shag

FirthofTayandEdenEstuary

Littletern(44pairsbreed)

Negligible

Marshharrier(4pairsbreed)

Negligible

Bartailedgodwit(2,400birdswinter)

Negligible

Greylaggoose(1,355birdswinter)

Negligible

Pinkfootedgoose(3,769birdswinter)

Negligible

Redshank(1,800birdswinter)

Negligible

Wetlandbirdassemblageofinternational
importance(34,074waterfowl)
Numerousspeciesinadditiontothoselisted
above,includingseaduck.

Lowseaduckspecies
Negligibleallother
species.

Guillemot(40,140pairsbreed)

Medium

Kittiwake(34,870pairsbreed)

Medium

Seabirdassemblageofinternationalimportance
(170,000individualsbreed).Above
speciesplusrazorbill,herringgullandfulmar

Medium

Pinkfootedgoose(31,622winter)

Unknown

Greylaggoose(1080winter)

Unknown

Fowlsheugh

MontroseBasin

E4|P a g e

TableE2

Knot(4,500winter)

Negligible

Oystercatcher(2,368winter)

Negligible

Redshank(2259winter)

Negligible

SPAs with qualifying species and assemblages that could potentially be affected by the
development.DataonqualifyinginterestaretakenfromJNCCwebsite(Note,thedataare
for the numbers at the time of designation, more recent survey work has shown that in
manycasesnumbershavesincechanged.)

E.3 Potentialeffectsandissues
Beforeassessingwhatinformationisrequireditisusefultobrieflyconsiderthenatureandlikelystrengthof
thepotentialeffectsoftheproposeddevelopmentonbirdsandmarinemammals.Thesekeypotentialeffects
are:

Collisionwiththeproposedturbines,leadingtodeathorinjury;

Disturbance,includingdisplacementandbarriereffects;

HabitatLoss

Indirecteffects,e.g.causedbychangestocurrents,sediments,fishetc;

Thecumulativeeffectsofmorethanonedevelopmentintheregion.

TherangeofpotentialeffectsonbirdsandlinksbetweenthemarereviewedinFoxetal(2006)andthe
OffshoreEnergySEA(DECC2009).TheDepartmentofTradeandIndustryOffshoreWindRound2SEA(DTI
2003)alsohasusefulreviewinformationonpotentialeffectsofoffshorewinddevelopmentsonseabirdsand
marinemammals.

E.3.1 Collisioneffects
Themostobviousriskinvolvingcollisionisthatofflyingbirdsbeingkilledorinjuredthroughstrikingrotors
(Desholmetal2006,DrewittandLangston2006).ThesubjectofcollisionisreviewedintheOffshoreEnergy
SEA(DECC2009).Varioustechniqueshavebeendevelopedtostudytheproblemandpredictitsaffects(Band
etal2007).Oneofthemainlimitationsofthisworkisthelackofknowledgeonbirdsabilitiestoavoid
turbines,particularlyformarinespecies.Therehavebeensomerecenteffortstocalculatespeciesvulnerability
towindturbines,althoughthishasbeenmainlysubjectivee.g.Garthe&Hppop(2004).
Therehaveonlybeenafewpostconstructionstudiesofcollisionratesbetweenbirdsandoffshorewind
turbinespublished.Althoughnotbasedonpostconstructionradarstudies,assessmentsofcollisionrisksfor
otheroffshorewindfarmshavegenerallyconcludedthatcollisionrisksarenotlikelytobesignificant.This
maybeforavarietyoffactors.Forexample,theKentishFlatsoffshorewindfarmEIAconcludedthat
disturbanceorcollisioneffectsonfeeding,roosting,breedingormigratorybehaviourofallbirdspecieswould
notbesignificantdueprincipallytothesmallnumbersofbirdsrecordedatthesite(GlobalRenewableEnergy
Partners2002).OtheroffshorewindfarmEIAshaveconcludedthatpossiblecollisionriskswouldbereduced
bydisplacementeffects(i.e.birdsavoidingthewindfarmareaduetothepresenceofturbines)(e.g.AMEC
2002).
Overallbirdsaregenerallyabletoavoidcollisionsanddonottendtoflyintowindturbines.Collisionratesare
typicallyintherangeofonly1in1,00010,000birdflightsthroughawindfarm(Percival2003).Forsome
speciescollisionratesmaybeconsiderablylower,forexampleatUtgrundenoffshorewindfarm,whereover
500,000Eiderflightsthroughthewindfarmstudyareahavebeenrecordedwithoutasinglecollisionbeing
seen(PetterssonandStalin2003).Studiesusingradaratseveraloffshorewindfarmindicatethatmigrating
birds,mostlyseabirdsandwaterfowl,showstrongavoidanceofwindturbines(DesholmandKahlert2005,
ChristensenandHounisen2005).Therearehoweverconcernsoverhowwellbirdscanavoidturbinesinlow
visibilityconditionsandthedifficultiesofquantifyingcollisionratesbyfindingcarcassesinthemarine
environment(Hppopetal2006).ScottishNaturalHeritagecurrentlyrecommendtheapplicationofan
avoidancefactorof95%,i.e.95%offlightswhichmightintheorygiverisetocollisionwillinfactresultin

E5|P a g e


successfulavoidance,althoughmorerefinedfactorsofupto99%arerecommendedforsomespecies(SNH
2009a).
Migratingbirds,especiallypasserines,canbeattractedtolightsfixedtomarinestructuressuchasoilrigs,
leadingtofatalcollisions,particularlyinmistyconditions(Wieseetal2001).Theeffectsofnavigationlightson
offshorewindturbinesonmigratingbirdsarepoorlyunderstood(Hppopetal2006).

E.3.2 Disturbanceeffects
Disturbanceconcernsbirdsandmarinemammalsbehaviouralresponsetoeitherspecificeventsassociated
withthedevelopment(suchasnoiseoramovingvessel)ortheirresponseingeneraltothepresenceofwind
turbines.Disturbancecanleadtodisplacement.Thisoccurswhenanimalsnolongermakeuseofanarea,or
useitlessfrequentlythantheywouldotherwisebecauseofthedevelopment.Thismaybeatemporaryeffect
orapermanentone.Inecologicalterms,itisequivalenttohabitatloss.Thepotentialforoffshorewindfarms
tocausedisplacementandbarriereffectstobirdsiswidelyrecognised(DrewiitandLangston2006,Foxetal
2006)thoughtheactualimportanceofsucheffectsispoorlyunderstood.Ifbirdsandmarinemammalsare
reluctanttocloselyapproachwindturbinesthenthismaycausethemtodeviatefromthemostefficientroute
oftravel,perhapscausingthemtotakelongertocompletetheirjourneyorpreventthenfromeasilyaccessing
criticalresources.StudiesusingradarinDenmark(Christensen&Hounisen2005)showedthatsomeflying
birdspeciesalmostcompletelyavoidedawindfarm,causingthemtodeviatefromtheirintendedflightroute.
Barriereffectissuesarepotentiallyhighlyrelevanttooffshorewindfarmassessments,particularlywhere
severalwindfarmsareproposedincloseproximity,asisthecaseforthisdevelopment.Understandingbirdand
marinemammalmovementpatternsandtheirtoleranceofwindturbineshasimplicationsforwindfarm
locationanddesign.Intheory,evenifbirdsandmarinemammalsaredisplacedfromthevicinityofwind
turbines,itispossibletodesignlayoutsthatallowtheirfreemovementthroughthewindfarmasawhole,for
examplebyprovidingturbinefreecorridors.
Attractionistheoppositeofdisplacement.Itoccurswhenbirdsandmarinemammalsuseanareamorethan
theydidbeforethedevelopmentwasconstructed.Itisanalogoustohabitatgainandinmostcaseswouldbe
consideredtobenefitaspecies.However,thismaynotalwaysbethecasebecauseattractionmayexposethe
speciestoelevatedrisk.Forexample,flyingbirdsattractedtofishaggregatedaroundawindturbinemaybeat
increasedriskofcollisionwithturbineblades.
Theaffectsofdisturbanceonmarinemammals,especiallycetaceans,arenotwellunderstoodandthisislikely
tobeanimportantissue.Ofparticularconcernwillbedisturbancecausedbyloudnoisesduringconstruction,
forexamplepiledrivingoperations.ThisissueisreviewedindetailintheOffshoreEnergySEA(DECC2009).
Themainrecommendationwasthatwithinthekeyareasofmarinemammalsensitivityidentified,[which
includedtheMorayFirthandcoastalwaterssouthtotheForth(bottlenosedolphin);includingSmithBank
(greyandharbourseals),innerFirths(harbourseal),StAndrewsBayandouterForth(greyseals)]operational
criteriaareestablishedtolimitthecumulativepulsenoisedose(resultingfromseismicsurveyandoffshore
piledriving)towhichtheseareasaresubjected.
Disturbancefrompilingoperationsandotherconstructionprocesseshasbeenrecognisedasamajorpotential
impactonmarinemammalsinthearea.Intensesoundsduringpiledrivingofmonopilesintheconstruction
phaseofawindfarmareatlevelsthatcouldcausehearinglossorphysicaldamagetomarinemammals.
Modellinghasshownthatthehearingofmarinemammalspeciescouldbeaffectedatrangesofseveral
kilometresinsomecases(Gordonetal2008).
PreandpostconstructionstudiesofHarbourPorpoiseattheNystedOffshoreWindfarminDenmark
recordedadecreaseinHarbourPorpoiseactivityintheareaduringconstructionandinthefirsttwoyearsof
operationcomparedtobaselinedata(Tougaardetal2006).
ThereissomeevidenceoftheimpactsofoffshorewindfarmsonthetwospeciesofsealsfoundregularlyinUK
waters.PostconstructionstudiesfromScrobySandsOffshoreWindFarmwhichisapproximately2kmfroma
CommonSealbreedingareaandhauloutsiteandaGreySealhauloutsite,showedthatwhilenumbersof
GreySealsweresimilarpreandpostconstruction,numbersofCommonSealsdeclinedinrelationtobaseline
figures(Skeate2008).ConclusionsfromtheScrobySandsstudystatedthatfuturesitesclosetosealcolonies
shouldbeassessedwithcaution,asresponsetopiledrivingnoiseislikelyatdistancesupto20km.The
nationallyimportantbreedingcolonyofHarbourSealsintheFirthofTayandEdenEstuarySACis

E6|P a g e


approximately30kmfromtheproposedNeartnaGaoithesite.Sealsmayalsobevulnerabletocumulative
impactsifconstructioniscarriedoutseveralsitesatthesametimewithintheirhomerange.

E.3.3 HabitatLoss
Offshorewindfarmdevelopmentislikelytocauserelativelylimiteddirecthabitatloss.Thismaybecausedby
destructionorchangetoexistingmarinehabitatsinparticulartheseabedinthevicinityofturbinesandalong
cableroutes.Anyeffectsonthisonbirdsarelikelytobesmall.Themostlikelymechanismsleadingtohabitat
changearephysicaldisturbanceoftheseabedduringconstructionandtidalscourofsedimentsupstreamfrom
turbinebases.TheseissuesarereviewedintheOffshoreEnergySEA(DECC2009).Thepotentialforindirect
habitatlosscausedbydisturbanceeffects(discussedabove)islikelytobeofmuchgreaterimportancetobirds
andmarinemammals.

E.3.4 Indirecteffects
Thecomplexityofmarineecosystemsandtheconsequentialscopefornumerousindirecteffectsthatan
offshorewindfarmmayhaveonseabirdsandmarinemammalshasalreadybeenoutlinedabove.Ofparticular
relevanceareanychangestotheabundanceoravailabilityoffishspeciesthatformthemainpreyofseabirds
andmarinemammalsinthearea,e.g.sandeel,mackerelandherring.Themanypotentialeffectsthat
offshorewindfarmscouldhaveonthemarineecologyofanareaarereviewedindetailintheOffshoreEnergy
SEA(DECC2009)andinclude:

Physicaldamagetobiotopesfromconstruction;

Potentialbehaviouralandphysiologicaleffectsonmarinemammals,birdsandfishassociatedwith
constructionandoperationnoise;

Behaviouraldisturbancetofish,birdsandmarinemammalsfromphysicalpresenceofinfrastructure
andsupportactivities;

Collisionriskstobirds;

Barrierstomovementofbirds(e.g.foraging,migration);

Electromagneticfieldeffectsonfish;

E.3.5 Cumulativeeffects
Existingeffectsonbirdsandmammalsarepartofthebaselineconditionsandthereforedonotneedtobe
consideredinanassessmentofcumulativeeffectsundertheEIARegulations.EcologicalCumulativeImpact
Assessment(eCIA)shouldbeideallyundertakenatthepopulationscale.However,thisisrarelypossibledueto
datalimitations(e.g.lackofinformationontherangingbehaviourofindividualanimalsmeanthatitisnot
possibletoknowhowmanyproposeddevelopmentstheymightbeaffectedby,orwithwhatfrequency).To
datetherefore,eCIAhasbeendrivenbypragmaticdecisionsconcerningthesourcesofeffectthatneedtobe
considered.Giventheartificialityofsuchdecisions,theyareinvariablytakenbythestatutoryagenciesanditis
beyondthescopeofthisdocumenttopredictwhichdevelopmentsmightneedtobeincluded.Thereforethe
principalrelevanceofeCIAatthisstageistheneedtoensuredataisgatheredthatiscompatiblewithdata
gatheredattheadjacentdevelopmentsites.IdeallyasingleeCIAwouldbeundertakenonbehalfofallthe
stakeholdersinvolved.
COWRIE(CollaborativeOffshoreWindResearchintotheEnvironment)haverecentlypublishedguidanceon
howdevelopersshouldassessornithologicalcumulativeimpactforoffshorewindfarms(Kingetal2009).The
keypointsinclude:

TheprocessofscopingisessentialtotheprovisionofrobustCumulativeImpactAssessment(CIA),
requiringregularcommunicationanditerativeinformationexchangebetweendevelopers,statutory
bodiesandstakeholders;

Datagatheringandanalysismethodsshouldfollowguidelinescoveringselectionofspeciesfor
consideration,projectstobeincludedintheassessmentandthespatialscaleofthebirdreference
populationtobeused;

E7|P a g e

Quantitativedataonrawnumbers,densitiesandpopulationestimatesforallspeciesmustbe
included,andimpactsshouldbeassessedinaquantitativeratherthanaqualitativeway;

Cumulativeeffectsofcollisionriskanddisplacementshouldbeassessedbysummingtheimpacts
fromeachcomponentproject;

Disturbanceandbarriereffectsshouldbeconsideredinaqualitativemannerand,ifthoughtlikelyto
besignificant,thenamoredetailedquantitativestudyofbirdbioenergeticsinrelationtotheeffect
shouldbecarriedout.

E.3.6 Keyissues
StakeholderconsultationsthattookplaceaspartoftheDECCOffshoreEnergySEAidentifiedanumberofkey
issuesforoffshorewindfarmdevelopment(DECC2009Appendix1).Thosethathaveparticularrelevanceto
birdsandmarinemammalsareasfollows:

Impactsondesignatedsites,

Birddisplacement(whatisbiologicallysignificant?),

Noiseeffects,particularlymarinemammalsandfishspawning(whatisbiologicallysignificant?),

Assessmentofcumulativeeffects,

Ongoingstudiestofilldatagaps,

Adoptingaprecautionaryapproachtounknownimpacts,

Identificationofareassuitableandnotsuitableforoffshorewindfarmdevelopment.

E.4 Keyspeciesanddesignatedsites
Itisusefulatthispresurveyscopingstagetoidentifywhatspeciesaremostlikelytobeaffectedbyawind
farmdevelopmentatNeartnaGaoitheandwhethertheindividualsinvolvedarelikelytobelongto
populationsdesignatedasqualifyinginterestsforsitesprotectedunderinternationallegislation(SPAsand
SACs)ordesignatedasnotifiedfeaturesforsitesprotectedundernationallegislation(SitesofSpecialScientific
Interest).
ThesensitivityanalysesforsoutheastScotlandundertakenforMainstreamRenewablesbyNRPandCE(NRP
2008,CorkEcology2008a)examinedtherangeofseabirdsusingtheregionandtheirsensitivitytooffshore
windfarmdevelopments.TheseassessmentscannowberefinedforthemorerestrictedareaoftheNeartna
Gaoithesite.

E.4.1 SEAreviews
ThesitelieswithinRegionalSea1,asdescribedintheOffshoreEnergySEA(DECC2009).Thisextendsovera
hugeareafromeasternShetlandtoFlamboroughHead,Yorkshire.Thebaselinedescriptionsofseabirdand
marinemammalsoccurringinthisarea,andaroundtheUKingeneral,havebeenreviewedinvariousreports
aspartoftheDepartmentofEnergyandClimateChange's(DECC)offshoreenergyStrategicEnvironmental
Assessmentprogramme.Mostrecentlytheseabirdandmarinemammalsoccurringinthisareahavebeen
reviewedintheOffshoreEnergySEA(DECC2009Appendices3a.6and3a.7).Themarinemammalsusingthe
areaarealsoreviewedinHammondetal(2004).ThereisalsorelevantreviewinformationintheScottish
MarineRenewablesSEA2007(ScottishExecutive2007)althoughthisisprimarilyconcernedwithtideand
waveenergydevelopments.Thecoastalandmarineconservationsitesintheareahavebeenreviewedin
detailinfortheSEA5Area(DTI2004).

E.4.2 Seabirdsoverview
TheNeartnaGaoithesitelies15kmeastofthenearestcoast(FifeNess,Fife)andhasawaterdepthof
approximately50mthroughout.Inthesummermonthsthemostabundantseabirdspecieslikelytooccurin
theareaaregannet,kittiwake,puffin,fulmar,guillemotandrazorbill(TableE.3).Therewillalsobesmaller

E8|P a g e


numbersoflargegullsandpossiblyternspecies(TableE.3).Allthesespeciesbreedincoloniesalongthe
adjacentcoastandareknowntorangelargedistancestofeed.OfparticularrelevancetoNeartnaGaoithewill
bebirdsfromcoloniesontheIsleofMayandBassRock(TableE.2).Thesearesituatedtothesouthwest,
approximately20kmand30kmawayrespectively.Inaddition,birdsbreedingattheStAbbsHeadcolonies,
approximately40kmtothesouth,mayalsorangeasfarasNeartnaGaoitheduringfeedingtrips.These
coloniesareincludedineithertheForthIslandsortheStAbbsHeadtoFastCastleSPAs(TableE.2).The
boundariesoftheseseabirdSPAsareintheprocessofbeingextendedto4kmseawardfromthecoast.

Species

SEScotland
population

SEScotlandas%of
Britishpopulation*

SEScotlandas%ofW
Europeanpopulation**

Gannet

44,110

19.2%

14.1%

Guillemot

109,175

12.3%

3.8%

Razorbill

18,874

17.2%

3.6%

Kittiwake

65,314

17.7%

2.9%

Herringgull

21,181

15.0%

2.8%

Shag

1,781

6.1%

2.6%

Lesserblackbackedgull***

7,888

8.9%

2.5%

Roseatetern****

14

26.9%

1.6%

Puffin

73,169

12.2%

1.3%

Cormorant(carbosubsp.)

528

7.7%

1.2%

Commontern

1,390

13.5%

0.6%

Sandwichtern

300

2.7%

0.4%

Fulmar

8,335

1.7%

0.3%

Arctictern

992

1.9%

0.2%

Greatblackbackedgull

80

0.5%

0.1%

Littletern

0.4%

0.1%

TableE3

Thesizeofseabirdbreedingpopulations(pairs)insoutheastScotland(AberdeentoEnglish
border)andtheirnationalandinternationalimportance.BasedonfiguresinMitchelletal
(2004).SeabirdspeciesnotlisteddonotbreedinsoutheastScotland.

*IncludesIsleofManandChannelIslandsbutexcludesIreland,
**IncludesIcelandandScandinaviabutexcludesRussia
***Coastalbreedingcoloniesonly,largenumbersalsobreedinland.
****TheScottishpopulationofroseateternhassincedeclinedto<5pairs

Manyseabirdsfromthesecoloniesareknowntobeparticularlydependentonsandeels(Camphuysen2005).
Theseoccurthroughouttheregionbutnotuniformlyorconsistently,withtheresultthatthemostprofitable
feedingareasforseabirdschangebothseasonallyandbetweenyears.Highlymobilepelagicpreyspeciessuch
asclupeidscanalsobeimportant,resultinginrapidchangesinfeedingareasevenwithinaseason(e.g.
guillemotchicks,Wilsonetal2005).Althoughthistopicishighlyrelevanttoassessmentoftheeffectsofthe
developmentitisalsohighlycomplexandbeyondthescopeofthisreporttoexamineindetail.Fortunately,it
hasreceivedconsiderablestudy(e.g.IMPRESSstudy,Camphuysen2005).Ofparticularrelevancetothe
developmentisthattherelativelyshallowsandbanks(e.g.theWeeBankie)lyingbroadlytotheeastofthesite

E9|P a g e


areknowntobefavouredseabirdfeedinggroundswithpreyspeciessuchassandeels,herringandsprat
available.Thedevelopmentsitehasalsobeenshowntobeimportantforfeedingseabirdsattimes,for
example,highdensitiesofgannet,kittiwakeandguillemotwereregularlyrecordedinJuneandJuly
(Camphuysen2005).
GiventheproximityofthedevelopmenttoEuropeandesignatedsites(Map1)(i.e.theSPAsnotedabove),and
thepossibilitythatbirdsformingpartofthequalifyinginterestsofthesesitescouldbeadverselyaffectedby
theproposals,itisreasonabletoassumethatanappropriateassessmentundertheHabitatsRegulations1994
willberequired.ThiswouldbeinadditiontoassessmentundertheEIARegulations.Thetestsunderthe
HabitatsRegulationsarefarmorestringentthanthoseoftheEIARegulationsandthereforebaselinestudies
willgiveparticularemphasistogatheringdetailedinformationontheSPAqualifyingspeciesthatoccurwithin
thedevelopmentsite.Theseincludegannet,shag,puffin,guillemot,razorbill,kittiwake,lesserblackbacked
gull,herringgull,arcticternandcommontern(TableE.2,TableE.4).

Species

NatureConservation
Importancelistings

Speciesaqualifyinginterest
foraregionalSPA*(see
TableE.2)

Redthroateddiver

A1,S1

Yes

Shag

Yes

Commoneider

No

Sandwichtern

A1

Yes

Greatblackbackedgull

No

Longtailedduck

S1

No

Commonscoter

S1,UKBAP,RL

No

Gannet

Yes

Razorbill

Yes

Arctictern

S1

Yes

Commontern

S1

Yes

Roseatetern

A1,S1,UKBAP,RL

Yes

Lesserblackbackedgull

Yes

Greatskua

No

Guillemot

Yes

Herringgull

UKBAP

Yes

Littleauk

A1,S1

No

Atlanticpuffin

Yes

Arcticskua

UKBAP

No

Littlegull

A1,S1

No

Kittiwake

Yes

Fulmar

No

Sootyshearwater

No

E10|P a g e


Manxshearwater

No

StormPetrel

A1

No

TableE4

ListofseabirdspeciesoccurringinsoutheastScotland,theirnatureconservationlistings
andwhethertheyarequalifyingspeciesforSpecialProtectionAreas(SPAs)intheregion.
Theconservationlistingsareasfollows:A1=Annex1ofEUBirdsDirective,S1=Schedule1
ofWildlifeandCountrysideAct,UKBAP=UKBiodiversityActionPlanspecies,RL=Birdsof
ConservationConcernredlisted.

*excludesspeciesthatonlyqualifyaspartofassemblages.

E.4.2.1 Gannet
Gannetbreedinafew,typicallyverylarge,coloniesaroundtheUK.ThesecondlargestUKcolonyisatBass
RocksituatedintheouterFirthofForth,indeed,thespecies,Morusbassanus,isnamedafterthissite.The
BassRockispartoftheForthIslandsSPAandsupportsapproximately44,000breedingpairs,representing
19.2%oftheUKpopulation(TableE.3).Gannetsfeedbyplungedivingforfish,oftenfromaconsiderable
heightabovethesurface.BreedingbirdsfromtheBassRockcolonyhavebeenshownbysatellitetaggingto
rangewidelyacrosstheNorthSea,attimestravellingasfarastheNorwegiancoast(Hameretal2007).The
NeartnaGaoithesitelieswithinthecoreareaoftheforagingrangeofBassRockgannets.
GannetswereratedbyGartheandHppop(2004)tohaveahighpotentialvulnerabilitytocollisionriskfrom
offshorewindfarms,butonlymoderatevulnerabilitytohelicopterandshipdisturbance(TableE.5).Preliminary
resultsfromHornsRevwindfarminDenmarkindicatethatgannetsaredisplacedfromoffshorewindfarms,but
thisisbasedonasmallsampleofobservations(ChristensenandHounisen2005).

Species

Collisionvulnerability
score.

Aircraft/shipdisturbance
vulnerabilityscore.

Likelydisplacementfrom
windfarm

Redthroateddiver

10

(High)

Shag

(10)

(Low)

Commoneider

10

Unknown

Sandwichtern

10

Low

Greatblackbackedgull

10

Unknown

Longtailedduck

(9)

Unknown

Unknown

Commonscoter

High

Gannet

11

(High)

Razorbill

Unknown

Arctictern

Low

Commontern

Low

Roseatetern

(8)

Unknown

Unknown

Lesserblackbackedgull

10

Unknown

Greatskua

Unknown

Guillemot

Unknown

E11|P a g e


Herringgull

11

Low

Littleauk

(6)

Unknown

Unknown

Atlanticpuffin

Unknown

Arcticskua

10

Unknown

Littlegull

Medium

Kittiwake

Medium

Fulmar

10

Unknown

Sootyshearwater

(10)

Unknown

Unknown

Manxshearwater

(10)

Unknown

Unknown

StormPetrel

(low)

Unknown

Unknown

TableE5

List of seabird species occurring in southeast Scotland their indicative vulnerability to

collision with wind turbines, disturbance from helicopters and ships and to wind farm
displacement effects. The collision and disturbance vulnerability are from Garthe and
Hppop2004,scoresinparenthesesindicatethatthevalueshownisforacloselyrelated
species. Likely displacement ratings are based on the results from Horns Rev windfarm
Denmark(variousreportsincludingChristensenandHounisen2005),parenthesesindicate
ratingsthatarebasedonsmallsamples.

ThecombinationofthecloseproximitytoalargeSPAcolonyandtheapparenthighpotentialforcollisionand
displacementeffectswillmeanthatgannetwillbeakeyspeciesthattheassessmentprocesswillneedto
scrutiniseparticularlyclosely.Thepotentialforcollisionstrikesduringfoggyconditionsisanissueofparticular
concernthatwillneedtobeaddressed(seesectionE.7.8).
E.4.2.2 Auks
Threespeciesofauksbreedintheregion,puffin,guillemotandrazorbill.Afourthspecies,thelittleauk,
occursinthewintermonths.Breedingauksareconcentratedatafewlargebreedingcoloniesintheregion,in
particulartheIsleofMay,FowlsheughandStAbbsHead,allofwhicharepartofSPAs(TableE.2).Allthese
breedingaukspeciescommonlyflyuptoseveraltensofkilometresfrombreedingcoloniestoforage.They
feedbysurfacedivingandswimmingdowntoawiderangeofdepthstocatchsmallfish,inparticularsandeels.
Inthelatesummerguillemotsandrazorbillscongregateinlargenumbersawayfromthecoasttomoult,during
whichtimetheyareflightless.
Auksarestrongfliersandtendtoflyrelativelyclosetotheseasurface.Asaconsequencetheywereratedby
GartheandHppop(2004)ashavingonlymoderatevulnerabilitytopotentialcollisioneffectswithwind
turbines(TableE.5).TheywerealsoratedbyGartheandHppopashavingmoderatevulnerabilityto
helicopterandshipdisturbance.StudiesatHornsRevshowedlowernumbersofguillemotsandrazorbillsused
thewindfarmareaanditsvicinityafterthewindfarmwasconstructed(Petersonetal2007).
Auksarethecommonestgroupofseabirdsintheregion,togethernumberingover200,000breedingpairs.
ThesesoutheastScotlandpopulationsareveryimportant,representingapproximately1217%ofthenational
populations(TableE.3).Becauseofthehighimportanceoftheregionalpopulationsandthelikely
displacementeffects,thethreebreedingaukspecieswillbekeyspeciesintheassessmentofeffectsofthe
development.
E.4.2.3 Gullsandskuas
Sixspeciesofgullbreedintheregion,ofthese,kittiwake,herringgullandlesserblackbackedgullallmake
extensiveuseofthemarineenvironmentandoccurinlargenumbers.Kittiwakeandlesserblackbackedgull
arequalifyingspeciesofinterestforlocalSPAs(TableE.2).Thesespecies,andgreatblackbackedgull,forage

E12|P a g e


widelyouttosea.Severalothergullspeciesoccurintheregioninsmallnumbersoutsidethebreedingseason,
theregulargatheringoflittlegulls(anEUBirdsDirectiveAnnexIspecies)intheouterTayestuarybeing
notable(Shleetal2007).
Noskuasbreedintheregionbutfourspeciesoccuraspassagemigrantsinspringandautumn,inparticular
arcticskuaandgreatskua.Publishedinformationonthedistributionofseabirdsintheregion(Stoneetal
1995)indicatethatthewatersoftheForthandTay,includingtheareaaroundNeartnaGaoithe,mayhave
highimportanceinaUKcontextforarcticskuainthelatesummerandautumn.
ThegullandskuaspeciesconsideredbyGartheandHppop(2004)wereallratedashavingmoderatetohigh
vulnerabilitytocollisionriskandlowvulnerabilitytohelicopterandshipdisturbance(TableE.5).Resultson
displacementfromHornsRevindicatethatherringgullswerelessaffectedbydisplacementthanmostother
species,withbirdsregularlymakinguseoftheareainsidethewindfarm(ChristensenandHounisen2005).
Kittiwakewillbeoneofthekeyspeciesintheassessmentofeffectsofthedevelopmentonaccountofthe
largeSPApopulationsthatusethearea(TableE.2)andthisspeciescurrentpoorUKconservationstatus
(Mitchelletal2004).
E.4.2.4 Terns
FivespeciesofternbreedintheregionandallofthesearelistedonAnnex1oftheEUBirdsDirective.Mostof
thebreedingsiteswithintheregionarepartofSPAs(TableE.2).Ternstypicallyforagecloseinshore,atleastin
thebreedingseason.Thedevelopmentsiteisexpectedtohaverelativelylowimportanceforternsduetoits
distancefromtheshore,althoughthiswillneedtobeconfirmedbysurveywork.Thisissupportedby
publishedresultsonseabirddistributionsatsea(e.g.Stoneetal1995).GartheandHppop(2004)considered
ternspeciestohavehighvulnerabilitytocollisionanddisturbanceeffects(TableE.5).Resultsondisplacement
fromHornsRevindicatedthatternspecieswerelittleaffectedbydisplacementfromthewindfarmarea
(ChristensenandHounisen2005).
E.4.2.5 Seaduck
SmallnonbreedingaggregationsofseaduckspeciesoccurintheFirthofForthandFirthofTayandEden
Estuaries,inparticularcommonscoterandeider(Deanetal2004,Shleetal2007).Thesebirdsprimarily
feedonbenthicinvertebratesinareaswithadepthof<30mdepth.TheNeartnaGaoithesiteislikelytobe
toodeepforthesespeciestofeedprofitably.Thisissupportedbypublishedresultsonseabirddistributionsin
theregion(BartonandPollock2004,Shleetal2007,Stoneetal1995).However,seaduckmovingbetween
sitesaroundtheUKcoastarelikelytoflythroughthearea.GartheandHppop(2004)ratedseaduckspecies
ashavingrelativelyhighpotentialvulnerabilitytocollisionanddisturbance.InitialresultsfromHornsRevfor
commonscoterindicatedaveryhighlevelofdisplacementfromthewindfarm(ChristensenandHounisen
2005).LaterresultsfromHornsRevshowedlessseveredisplacementofcommonscoterandindicatedthat
overtimesscotercanhabituatetooffshorewindfarms(Petersenetal2007).Resultsofstudiesoneiderfrom
TunKnobwindfarminDenmarkfoundmixedevidenceofdisplacementeffects(GuillemetteandLarsen2002,
LarsenandGuillemette2007).
E.4.2.6 Diversandgrebes
Redthroateddiverswinterinsmallnumbersintheregion(Deanetal2004,BartonandPollock2004,Shleet
al2007)andareaqualifyinginterestspeciesfortheFirthofForthSPA(Deanetal2004,Shleetal2007).
GreatcrestedandSlavoniangrebesalsowinterinmoderatenumbersintheregion,mainlyintheinnerpartsof
theFirthofForthandFirthofTay(Deanetal2004,BartonandPollock2004,Shleetal2007).Wintering
diversandgrebesmainlyuseshelteredwatersof<30mdepth.TheNeartnaGaoithesiteislikelytobetoo
deeptobeattractivetofeedingdiversorgrebes.Thisissupportedbypublishedresultsonseabird
distributionsintheregion(BartonandPollock2004,Shleetal2007,Stoneetal1995).However,large
numbersofredthroateddivers)areknowntocongregateinlargeflocksalongtheeastcoastofScotlandin
latespringandsomeofthesearelikelytopassthroughthesiteonmigration.
Diverswereconsideredby(GartheandHppop(2004)tohavehighvulnerabilitytopotentialcollisionand
disturbanceeffects.ObservationsatHornsRevwindfarmshowedthatredthroateddiversalmostcompletely
avoidedthewindfarmareaduringthethreeyearspostconstructionperiod,despitebeingpresentinaverage

E13|P a g e


densitiespriortoconstruction.(ChristensenandHounisen2005,Petersonetal2007).Similaravoidancewas
reportedforredthroateddiversattheArklowBankOffshoreWindFarmfollowingconstructionofseven
turbines(Bartonetal2008).
E.4.2.7 Cormorantandshag
Shagbreedinmoderatenumbersintheregion,inparticularontheIsleofMaySPA,whereitisaqualifying
interestspecies(TablesE.2andE.3).Shagsaresurfacedivingbottomforagingspeciesthatgenerallyfindit
unprofitabletoforageinareasgreaterthanabout30mdepthandlocatedmanykilometresfromthecoast
(Wanlessetal1991,Wanlessetal1997,Wanlessetal1998).ForthisreasontheNeartnaGaoithesiteisnot
expectedtobeimportantasafeedingareaforbreedingshags.Thisissupportedbypublishedresultson
seabirddistributionsintheregion(Stoneetal1995,Camphuysen2005).Smallnumbersofcormorantbreedin
theregion,mainlyonislandsintheFirthofForth(TableE.3).Thisspeciesisrestrictedtocoastal,estuarineand
inlandwatersandisnotexpectedtousetheNeartnaGaoithesite.
GartheandHppop(2004)didnotassessshagintheirreviewofoffshorewindfarmsensitivity,butcormorant
wasratedashavingpotentiallyhighvulnerabilitytobothcollisionanddisturbance(TableE.5).Limited
observationsofshagattheHornsRevwindfarmsuggestthatthisspeciesmaybelittleaffectedby
displacementfromwindfarms,indeednotonlywerebirdsnotedfeedingwithinthewindfarmbuttheyalso
perchedonpartsofthewindfarminfrastructure(ChristensenandHounisen2005).
E.4.2.8 Shearwatersandpetrels
Fulmarsaretheonlymemberofthetubenosefamilythatbreedintheregion(TableE.3).Severalother
species(includingManxshearwater,sootyshearwater,stormpetrelandLeachspetrel)alsooccurregularly
thoughgenerallyinsmallernumbersthanfoundoffwesternScotland(Stoneetal1995).GartheandHppop
(2004)consideredfulmartobeathighpotentialriskofcollisionandlowriskofdisturbance(TableE.5).No
informationisavailableonthesespeciesvulnerabilitytowindfarmdisplacementeffects.
E.4.2.9 Terrestrialbirds
MillionsofterrestrialbirdsmigrateacrosstheNorthSea,theseincludewaders,ducks,geese,andpasserines
(Hppop2007).ThemigrationroutesofsomeofthesebirdswillalmostcertainlypassovertheNeartna
Gaoithesite,thoughexistingpublisheddataaretoocoursetoidentifywhichspeciesmaybeatgreatestrisk.
Mostofthismigrationisexpectedtooccurataltitudestoohightobeaffectedbywindturbines,butsomewill
beatloweraltitudes(especiallyduringinclementweather)andcouldthereforebepotentiallyaffectedby
collision.Migrationactivitybyterrestrialspeciesoftenoccursatnight,makingitdifficulttoobserve.Radar
studiesarethemosteffectivemeansforquantifyingbirdmigrationatnight,althoughidentificationtospecies
isusuallynotpossible.

E.4.3 Marinemammalsoverview
Basedonexistinginformation,thethreespeciesofmarinemammalmostlikelytooccurregularlyinthe
vicinityoftheNeartnaGaoithesiteareharbourporpoise,minkewhaleandgreyseal.Bottlenosedolphin,
whitebeakeddolphinandcommonsealmayalsooccur(Reidetal2003).
FourSpecialAreasofConservation(SACs)alongtheeastcoastofScotlandhavequalifyingmarinemammal
specieswhosepopulationsmaymakeuseofthedevelopmentsite.TheseareIsleofMay(greyseal),Firthof
TayandEdenEstuary(harbourseal),MorayFirth(bottlenosedolphin)andBerwickshireandNorth
NorthumberlandCoast(greyseal)(TableE.2).
Itisanticipatedthatharbourporpoise,bottlenosedolphin,greyandharboursealsarelikelytobethekey
speciesfortheassessmentprocess,withparticularfocusonimpactsarisingfromconstructionactivitiessuch
aspiledriving.
ThefollowingspeciessummariesarebasedlargelyoninformationforRegionalSea1containedinAppendix
3a.7oftherecentOffshoreEnergySEA(DECC2009).RegionalSea1coversthenorthernandcentralNorth
Sea.

E14|P a g e


E.4.3.1 Harbourporpoise
HarbourPorpoiseisthemostcommoncetaceanspeciesinUKwaters.Whilepresentthroughouttheyear,
peaknumbersaregenerallyrecordedinsummermonthsfromJunetoOctober.
The1994SCANSsurveyshowedRegionalSea1tobeoneofthemostimportantforharbourporpoiseinthe
NorthSea,withhighdensitiespredictedthroughoutthearea(Hammondetal.2002b).Whileamoresoutherly
distributionintheNorthSeawasobservedinthe2005repeatsurvey,highacousticdetectionratesforharbour
porpoisewererecordedinwatersoffnortheastScotlandandtheouterMorayFirth(SCANSII2008).
E.4.3.2 BottlenoseDolphin
AsmallpopulationofbottlenosedolphinsisresidentofftheeastcoastofScotland,rangingfromtheinner
MorayFirthtotheFirthofForth,withoccasionalobservationsfromfurtheroffshoreintheNorthSea.The
speciesislikelytooccurinwatersinshoreofthedevelopmentsite,mostofteninthesummermonths,aspeak
sightingsofbottlenosedolphininStAndrewsBayoccurbetweenJuneandAugust(Hammondetal.2004).
E.4.3.3 WhitebeakedDolphin
Alongwithharbourporpoise,whitebeakeddolphinisthemostcommonlyoccurringcetaceaninthecentral
andnorthernNorthSea,andisregularlyencounteredincoastalandoffshorewatersintheregionthroughout
theyear,withmorefrequentsightingsbetweenJulytoOctober.
E.4.3.4 MinkeWhale
MinkewhalesarepredominantlyasummervisitortothewatersofftheeastcoastofScotland,withanimals
welldistributed(bothcoastallyandoffshore)throughoutthecentralandnorthernNorthSeaduringthe
summermonths.TheyarefrequentlysightedinsmallnumbersofftheScottisheastcoastbetweenJulyand
October,andarelikelytooccurinthevicinityoftheNeartnaGaoithesiteatthistimeofyear.
E.4.3.5 GreySeal
GreysealsareimportantmarinepredatorsinUKwaters,takingprimarilysandeelsbutincludingavarietyof
otherspeciesincludingcod,haddock,whiting,lingandflatfish.Theirdietvariesseasonallyandfromregionto
region(Hammond&Grellier2006).
Greysealshauloutonlandbetweenforagingtripsandforpuppingandmoulting,whentheycanformlarge
coloniesoraggregations.Timingofpuppingdiffersthroughouttherangeofthespecies.InNorthernBritain
puppingoccursfromOctobertolateNovember,whilemoultingoccursbetweenFebruaryandApril.Many
animalsremainonlandduringtheseperiods,andtheatseadensitiesmaybeloweratthesetimes,asa
consequence(Hammondetal2004).
Greysealsforageinareasthatareuptoatleast100mdeepandthattendtohavegravel/sandseabed
sediments,whichisthepreferredburrowinghabitatoftheirprimaryprey,sandeels.Greysealforaging
movementsareontwogeographicalscales:longanddistanttripsfromonehauloutsitetoanother;andlocal
repeatedtripstospecificoffshoreareas.Longtermtelemetrystudiesshowthatgreysealswilloccurregularly
inthewatersaroundtheNeartnaGaoithesite(Hammondetal2004).
MajorgreysealcoloniesontheeastcoastofScotland/EnglandincludetheIsleofMay,FastCastleandthe
FarneIslands,someofwhichareSACsforthespecies(TableE.1).
E.4.3.6 HarbourSeal
HarboursealsarealsoimportantpredatorsinUKwaters,eatingavarietyofpreyspeciesincludingsandeels,
gadoids,herringandsprat,flatfish,octopusandsquid,althoughtheirdietvariesbothseasonallyand
regionally.
HarboursealsarewidelydistributedalongtheeastcoastofScotland.Therearemanyimportanthauloutand
breedingsitesonthesecoastlines,severalofwhichcontaininternationallyimportantnumbers.Harbourseals
areabundantinthecoastalwaterssurroundingthesesites.Modellingstudieshaveshownthatharbourseals
haveforagingareasoffmuchoftheeastcoastofScotland,includinghotspotsnorthofStAndrewsandinthe

E15|P a g e


MorayFirth,(DECC2009).Continuingdeclineshavebeenobservedatmajorharboursealcoloniesthroughout
Britain(Lonerganetal.2007).

E.5 Informationrequirements
ThescopingandsensitivityanalysesundertakenbyNRPandCEin2008havebeenusedasthestartingpointto
guidebirdandmarinemammalsurveyrequirements(seeSurveyStrategyandProposedFieldMethods
sections).However,additionalworkwillberequiredtogatherrelevantinformationfromothersourcesand
incorporatethisintoastrategicassessmentofinformationrequirementsfortheEIAprocess.Themainareas
thatneedtobeaddressedarerecentEIAsforotheroffshorewindfarms,acquisitionofkeyecologicaldatasets
(especiallyESASdata)fortheareaandkeepinguptodatewithnewinformationasitoccurs,forexample
scientificstudiesandstatutoryguidelines.Itwillalsobevaluabletokeepabreastofhowstatutoryagencies
andotherorganisationsarerespondingtootheroffshoredevelopments.
Relevantorganisationswillbeconsultedovertheinformationneededforthisassessment,inparticularSNH.It
isalreadyclearfromscopingworktodateandpreliminarydiscussionswithSNHandRSPB(August2008)
broadlywhatthemainsurveyrequirementsare.ThesearedescribedintheSurveyStrategyandProposed
FieldMethodssectionsbelow.
Althoughsuchdatawillnotbecollectedaspartofthisproject,datafrompopulationmonitoringatbreeding
seabirdandsealcolonieswillbeofcrucialimportanceinallowinganyactualeffectsofimpactsonsuch
populationstobedetected.Thereareexistingprogrammesthatperiodicallymonitorthenumbersofseabirds
andsealsbreedingincoastalcoloniesintheregionorganisedbyJNCCandSMRUrespectively.These
monitoringdatawillbeobtainedfromtheseorganisations.Thefrequencyofthismonitoringvariesandthe
organisationsinvolvedwillneedtobeconsultedatanearlystagetoensurethatthedatatheyplantocollect
willbeadequatetoinformtheassessment.

E.5.1 Acquisitionofexistingsurveyinformation
KeydatasetsareknowntobeheldbytheJointNatureConservationCouncil(JNCC),CentreforEcologyand
Hydrology(CEH)andtheSeaMammalResearchUnit(SMRU).Itisunderstoodthatthesecanbemade
availableforamodestcharge.Existingdatawillbeparticularlyvaluableforputtingsurveyresultsintoawider
contextandassessingtheextenttowhichanimalsusingtheareaarefromSPA/SACpopulations.

E.5.2 ESASdatabasegapanalysis
AnanalysisofgapsinseabirdandmarinemammalsurveycoverageinUKwaterswasconductedrecentlyon
theEuropeanSeabirdsatSea(ESAS)database(CorkEcology2006).Relevantinformationfromthisreportwas
usedtoassessthequalityofsurveyeffortinthevicinityoftheproposedNeartnaGaoithedevelopmentsite.
TheESASGapAnalysisreviewedtheextentofESASsurveycoverageinUKwatersfordatacollectedbetween
1984and2003.Inshorewatersweremappedatascaleof15'Nx10'W(anareaofapproximately288km2).
ThreeoftheserectanglesmakeupaInternationalCouncilfortheExplorationoftheSeas(ICES)rectangle,
whichisthescaletypicallyusedbyJNCCfordataanalysis(e.g.Stoneetal1995).Sixofthese15'Nx10'W
rectanglessurroundtheproposedNeartnaGaoithesiteplusa5kmbuffer.Thesesixrectanglescorrespondto
twoICESrectangles(FiguresE.1a&E.1b).InpreviousJNCCstudies,thelevelofdesiredsurveycoverage
withinaICESrectanglewas20km2(e.g.Pollocketal2000).However,theESASGapAnalysisconsidered10
km2ofcoveragepermonthwouldbeadequatecoverageforinshorewaters,wherethesmallerscalewasused
(15'Nx10'Wrectangles)(CorkEcology2006).
April

May

E16|P a g e

56.6N

56.6N

56.4N

56.4N

56.2N

56.2N

56.0N

56.0N
Survey Effort (km2)
Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

3.5W

3.0W

Survey Effort (km2)

Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

2.5W

2.0W

3.5W

3.0W

June

2.5W

2.0W

July

56.6N

56.6N

56.4N

56.4N

56.2N

56.2N

56.0N

56.0N
Survey Effort (km2)
Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

3.5W

3.0W

Survey Effort (km2)

Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

2.5W

2.0W

3.5W

3.0W

August

2.5W

2.0W

September

56.6N

56.6N

56.4N

56.4N

56.2N

56.2N

56.0N

56.0N
Survey Effort (km2)
Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

3.5W

FigureE1a

3.0W

Survey Effort (km2)

Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

2.5W

2.0W

3.5W

3.0W

2.5W

2.0W

Summary of monthly ESAS survey coverage around the proposed site in summer (April to
September)Summer(ApriltoSeptember)

October

November

E17|P a g e

56.6N

56.6N

56.4N

56.4N

56.2N

56.2N

56.0N

56.0N
Survey Effort (km2)
Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

3.5W

3.0W

Survey Effort (km2)

Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

2.5W

2.0W

3.5W

3.0W

December

2.5W

2.0W

January

56.6N

56.6N

56.4N

56.4N

56.2N

56.2N

56.0N

56.0N
Survey Effort (km2)
Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

3.5W

3.0W

Survey Effort (km2)

Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

2.5W

2.0W

3.5W

3.0W

February

2.5W

2.0W

March

56.6N

56.6N

56.4N

56.4N

56.2N

56.2N

56.0N

56.0N
Survey Effort (km2)
Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

3.5W

FigureE1b

3.0W

Survey Effort (km2)

Blank = not surveyed
Inadequate effort (< 10km2)
Adequate effort (> 10km2)

2.5W

2.0W

3.5W

3.0W

2.5W

2.0W

Summary of monthly ESAS survey coverage around the proposed site in winter (October to
March)

TheESASGapAnalysissuggestedthatfourmonthscoverageduringbothsummer(ApriltoSeptember)and
winter(OctobertoMarch)wouldbeadequate.Thesesuggestionsareinthecontextoflargescalesurveysin
UKwaters,andarenotapplicabletotherecommendedsurveycoverageatoffshorewindfarmsites,wherea
muchgreaterlevelofdetailisnecessary.MapsshowninthisreportsummarisetheESASGapAnalysisdata
andarepurelytoputexistingsurveyeffortdataincontext.
Overall,surveycoveragewasnotadequateforallsixrectanglesinallmonthsoftheyear(FiguresE.1aand
E.1b).Insummer,JulyandAugusthadthebestcoverage,whileAprilandSeptemberhadtheleastcoverage.
Inwinter,coverageinOctober,NovemberandMarchwasverylow,withslightlybettercoveragebetween
DecemberandFebruary.

E18|P a g e


However,itshouldbenotedthatsomerecentseabirdandmarinemammalsurveyworkwasconductedinthe
vicinityofthedevelopmentsiteinSeptember2008,aspartoftheUKDepartmentofEnergyandClimate
Change's(DECC)offshoreenergyStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentprogramme(Cronin2008).Theareas
coveredin2008aremappedinDECC2009(FigA3a.6.6).ThesedatahaveyettobeaddedtotheESAS
database.

E.6 Surveystrategy
TheOffshoreEnergySEA(DECC2009)states:
Althoughtherehasrecentlybeensignificantsurveyeffortincoastalwaters,thelackofmoderndataon
waterbirdsinoffshoreareasisnoted.Developersneedtobeawarethataccesstoadequatedataonwaterbird
distributionandabundanceisaprerequisitetoeffectiveenvironmentalmanagementofactivitiesforexample
intimingofoperations.
Italsoidentifiesthatthecurrentunderstandingofcertainaspectsoftheecologyofseabirdsandmarine
mammalsislimitedandneedstobeenhanced.Inparticular:

Detailofbirdmigrationpatterns,andvariabilityinspaceandtimeincludingflightheightsindifferent
weatherconditions,

Anunderstandingofthemarineareasroutinelyusedbybreedingbirdsforforaging,inparticular
thoseadjacenttoSPAs,

Ecologyofmostmarinemammalspeciesandinparticularimportantareasorbreeding,foragingand
resting.

TableE.6providesasummaryofthesurveymethodswewillusetomeettheinformationrequirementsfor
thisproject,identifyingthetargettaxonandobjectivesforeachelementofthesurveyworkproposed.Further
detailsforeachofthesurveymethodologiesareprovidedbelow.
Method

Aims

ESASvisual
transect
surveys

Cetaceans

Seals

Seabirds

Seaduck&
divers

Terrestrial
migrantbirds

Distributionand Secondary
abundance
throughthe
year.Diurnal
flightactivityof
birds

Secondary

Primary

Primary

Secondary

Marine
mammals
visualtransect
surveys

Distributionand Primary
abundance
throughthe
year

Primary

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

Aerial
visual/HD
videosurveys

Distributionand Secondary
abundance
throughthe
year

Secondary

Primary

Primary

N.A.

Hydrophone
transect
acoustic
surveys

Distributionand
abundance
throughthe
year

Primary,
esp.
harbour
porpoise

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

CPodArray
acoustic
monitoring

Distributionand
abundance
throughthe
year

Primary,
esp.
harbour
porpoise

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

E19|P a g e


Radarstudies

Quantifythe
diurnaland
nocturnalflight
activityby
birds.

N.A.

N.A.

Primary

Primary

Primary

Breeding
colony
monitoring*

Regional
populationsize
andtrends

N.A.

Primary

Primary

N.A.

N.A.

Photo
identification
ofbottlenose
dolphin

Individual
recognitionof
SACbottlenose
dolphin

Primary,
esp.
bottlenose
dolphin

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

Primary

N.A.

N.A.

Telemetrytags Rangingareas
N.A.
*
ofSPAbreeding
seabirds
TableE6

Summaryofsurveymethods,theiraimandthetaxonomicgroupstheyapplyto.'Primary'
indicatestaxonthataretheprimaryobjectiveofamethod.'Secondary'indicatestaxonthat
are not the primary objective but will be recorded. 'N.A.'indicates methods that are not
appropriateforthetaxon.

* indicates methods that are not included in the current fieldwork proposal but may be required following
discussionwithstatutoryauthorities

E.6.1 Distributionandabundance
Yearroundinformationondistributionandabundanceofregularlyoccurringbirdandmarinemammalspecies
thatcouldbeaffectedwillberequired.BirdsandmarinemammalsusetheseaofftheeastofScotlandyear
round,however,therearelikelytobelargernumberspresentinthespringandsummermonths(thiswillbe
quantifiedfromexistingdata).Forthisreason,surveyworkneedstobeyearroundthoughitmaybe
appropriatetospendmoreeffortatcertaintimesofyearthanothers.Springandsummer(approximately
MarchtoAugust)correspondstothebreedingseasonofmostseabirds,atimewhenahighproportionof
seabirdswillbetiedtocoastalbreedingcolonies,manyofwhicharedesignatedSPAs.TheJulytoSeptember
periodisatimewhenlargenumbersofmoultingauksmayusethearea.
Duringseabirdsurveys,detailsofflyingandfeedingactivitywillberecorded.Suchinformationwillinform
particularaspectsoftheassessmentprocess.

E.6.2 Marinemammalacousticsurveys
Cetaceansmaybedifficulttoobserveatseaforanumberofreasonssuchasseaconditions,thechancethat
observerswillbewatchingwhenthemarinemammalssurfacesandweatherconditions.Anotherwayto
surveyformarinemammalsistolistenforthemusingPassiveAcousticMonitoring(PAM).PAMconsistsofa
hydrophonebasicallyanunderwatermicrophone,beingtowedbehindthesurveyvessel.Softwarewill
interpretandrecordthevocalisationsfrommarinemammalsandfromthisdata,presenceorabsenceof
certainspeciescanbeconcluded.Usingahydrophonefromavesselcanbechallengingduetotheamountof
boatnoisesoMainstreammayalsoneedtoconsidertheuseoffixedpassiveacousticmonitoring.
Thehydrophonesystemconsistsofa4elementhydrophonearraywhichiscapableofrecordingsoundsmade
bycetaceansincludingbottlenosedolphinsandharbourporpoises..Soundsaredigitisedandcetacean
soundsdetectedbyautomatedclickandwhistledetectionsoftware.Thesystemisavailableinrealtimeso
thatobserverscanlistenatseabutalsorecordedforfurtheranalysis.
Analysisofthedatacanbecarriedoutataseriesoflevelssuchassimpleplotsofthenumberofporpoiseclicks
anddolphinwhistlesdetectedandtheirlocationstoprovideaspatialrepresentationofanimalsduringthe
survey.Furtheranalysisofacousticdatacanprovideinformationsuchasrangefromthetracklineof

E20|P a g e


individualcetaceangroups.Itmaybeusefultocomparesightingsandacousticcontactsformarinemammal
andthiswillbefurtherexploredasthesurveyprogresses.

E.6.3 Surveyphases
Toensureadequatepreandpostconstructioncontroldataareavailable,thedevelopmentareaand8km
bufferwillneedtobesurveyedthroughoutthevariousphasesoftheproject(FigureE.2).Thiswillallow
comparisonbetweendatacollectedduringthepreconstruction,constructionandoperationalphasesofthe
project.

FigureE2

ShowinglocationofNeartnaGaoitheoffshorewindfarmsitealongwithotherpotential
offshorewinddevelopmentsites,andprotectedareasThegreenlinerepresentstheedgeof
thesurveyareaat8kmfromwindfarmboundary.

Althoughfortheactualassessmentofeffects,twoyearspreconstructiondataistheabsolutebareminimum
necessaryforcomparisonwithpostconstructiondata,anyincreaseonthisgreatlyincreasesthepowerofthe
surveystodetectpotentialimpacts.Furthermore,thepreconstructionbaselinedatamustbecollectedover
theperiodimmediatelypreconstruction.Therefore,followingsubmissionoftheassessmentsafter2years,
sitespecificsurveysshouldcontinueduringtheconsents&procurementphases,uptothestartof
construction.Thiswillensuredataisavailablefortheperiodimmediatelypreconstruction,andwillincrease
thenumberofyearsforwhichbaselinedataisavailable,resultingin3yearsdetailedbaselinedata.
Sitespecificsurveysshouldcontinueduringtheconstructionphase(estimated1year).Twoyears(immediate)
postconstructionsurveyistheminimumrecommendedsamplingperiodforavalidcomparison,threeormore
wouldbepreferable.Inordertodetectlongertermimpacts,2yearsofpostconstructionsitespecificsurveys
shouldberepeatedafterperiodsof5,10,and20yearsetcuntiltheendoftheproject.

E21|P a g e

E.6.4 Consultation
Relevantorganisations(forexample,ScottishNaturalHeritage(SNH),JointNatureConservationCommittee
(JNCC),SeaMammalResearchUnit(SMRU)andtheCentreEcologyandHydrology(CEH))willneedtobe
consultedovertheproposedprogrammeofsurveyworkandinformationtheyholdintheirdatabases.Theaim
ofthiswouldbetoopenadialoguethroughwhichbroadagreementcanbereachedthatthesurvey
programmeisadequate,existingdatasetsidentified(andlateracquired)andthatissuesthatmightcausea
problemtotheproposeddevelopmentarediscussedattheearliestopportunity.Theseorganisationsarealso
expectedtoplayawiderroleindecidinghowtheoverallprogrammeofsurveyworkrelatedtooffshore
windfarmsintheregionshouldbecoordinatedandinformationshared(ifatall),andhowcumulativeimpacts
shouldbeassessed.ThisshouldincludetheregularmonitoringofregionalSPAseabirdbreedingpopulations.
Relevantnonstatutoryorganisations,inparticularRSPB,shouldalsobeconsulted.Itwillalsoberelevantto
consultwithuniversityacademicswithspecialistknowledgeofseabirdandmarinemammalecology.

E.7 ProposedFieldMethods
Aseriesofmonthlyboatbasedtransectsurveysofbirdsandmarinemammalswillbeconductedoveratwo
yearperiod,overthedevelopmentarea,plusan8kmbufferareaaroundthesite(FigureE.2).Giventhegreat
variabilityinseabirdandmarinemammalnumbersanddistributionatsea,twoyearssurveyworkisthe
absoluteminimumrequiredtoprovidetheinformationneededforanadequateassessment.Boatbased
transectsurveysarethestandardapproachforoffshorewindfarmsurveyworkandstandard,internationally
recognisedsurveytechniques(Camphuysenetal.2004)willbefollowedthroughout.
Detailsofthestandardmethodsforthetransectsurveysaredescribedbelowtogetherwithbriefdetailsof
othermethodsthatmaybeusedtocollectadditionaldata.Allaspectsofthemethodsandfieldwork
programmewillberegularlyreviewedinlightofthenewdatacollectedandotherinformation,sothatthe
workcanfocusonissuesofgreatestrelevanceandtakeadvantageofmethodimprovementsandrespondto
newinformationorregulations.

E.7.1 Surveyvessel
Vesselsandoperatorswillneedtobeinspectedforsuitability,andmustconformtoCOWRIE
recommendations(Camphuysenetal2004).
Duetothehighcostsofsurveyvessels,itwouldbemostcosteffectivetoconductbothseabirdandmarine
mammalsurveysfromthesamevesselconcurrently.Thesemethodsareexplainedingreaterdetaillater.In
ordertoachievethis,thesurveyvesselwouldneedtohavespaceonthesurveyplatformtoaccommodate
fourpersons.
Surveyworkwillberestrictedtosuitableweatherconditions(seastate4orlessforESASsurveys,per
Camphuysenetal2004).Thesurveyvesselwillbeavailableforextendedperiodseachmonthtotake
advantageofsuitableweatherconditionswhentheyoccur.

E.7.2 Surveydesign
Allareaswithin8kmoftheproposeddevelopmentarea(FigureE.2)willbesurveyed,usingparalleltransects
spaced2kmapart.ThisisconsistentwithCamphuysenetal(2004)srecommendationthattransectsshouldbe
0.52nauticalmiles(0.93.7km)apart,andalsowiththetransectspacingusedinpreviousstudies(e.g.
Petersenetal.2006).Transectswillrunparalleltothesurveyareassouthwesternboundary,inanorthwest
tosoutheasterlydirection,yieldingtransectsrunningroughlyperpendiculartothemajorenvironmental
gradientsassociatedwithwaterdepthanddistancefromthecoast(asrecommendedinCamphuysenetal.
2004).Transectswouldalsoberoughlyperpendiculartothemajorexpectedflightpathofseabirdsmoving
betweentheclosestbreedingcoloniesandfeedinggroundstotheeast,increasingtheirlikelihoodof
detection.Weatherconditionspermitting,thesurveyprogrammewillaimtocompletefullcoverageofthe
studyareaeachmonthintheminimumtimepossible,toprovideamonthlypictureofthedistributionofbirds
andmarinemammalspresentoverthetwoyearperiod.

E22|P a g e


Thesamesurveyrouteswillbeusedonalltripstominimisethevarianceinthenumberofbirdsrecorded,
increasingthepotentialpowerofsubsequentanalysestodetectgenuinechangesinnumbers.Thiswillalso
eliminatethepossibilityofbiasinadvertentlycreepingintoresultsifsurveyrouteschangeslightlywithoutthis
changebeingnoticed.Anysuchchangeswouldconstrainthestatisticalanalyseswhicharepossibleand
complicatetheactualprocessofanalysis.Surveyrouteswillbeadheredtobycontinuallymonitoringthe
positionofthevessel(asrevealedbyGPS)duringsurveysandadjustingcourseaccordingly.Carefulroute
planningwillminimisedistancetravelled&surveyduration.
Theuseof2kmspacingbetweentransectsforthesitesurveysisareasonable,conservative,choice,onthe
basisofwhathasbeenrecordedduringotherstudies,elsewhere.However,ideallythespacingbetween
transectswouldbedeterminedbytheobservedscaleofseabirdaggregationsfortargetspeciesinthearea.All
availablehistoricaldataforthevicinityofNeartnaGaoithewillbeexaminedtogetherwiththeinitialdata
collectedusingvariography(Cressie1993)todeterminethescaleofseabirdaggregations,andthusthe
optimumspacingbetweentransects.Thiswillallowthespacingbetweentransectstobemodified,toensure
surveyworkissufficientlydetailedtoensureimportantaggregationsofkeyspeciesarenotmissed,whilstnot
expendingunnecessarysurveyeffort
Asseabirdandmarinemammalnumbersatseaarehighlyvariable,theinitialassessmentoflikelyimpacts
requiredfortheEIAwillbebasedonaminimumoftwoyearsdata.
Itisestimatedthatitwilltaketwodaystosurveythedevelopmentsiteandthe8kmbufferinsummer
months,andthreedaysinwinter,whendaysareshorter.

E.7.3 EuropeanSeabirdsAtSea(ESAS)method
ThesurveymethodtoquantifythedistributionandabundanceofbirdandmarinemammalswillfollowESAS
surveymethods(Webb&Durink1992),andwillcomplywithCOWRIErecommendations(Camphuysenetal
2004),withmodificationsforrecordingheightofflyingbirds.Inaddition,allterrestrialbirdspeciesseenwill
berecorded.TheESASsurveymethodincludesrecordingofmarinemammalsandthesedatacanbeusedto
augmentthatfromdedicatedmarinemammalsurveys.Anyturtles,sharksandsunfishseenwillalsobe
recorded.

E.7.4 ESASsurveyors
Ideally,allsurveyorswillbeexperiencedinsurveyingbothbirdsandmarinemammals,andwillbeESAS
accredited.ThreeESASsurveyorswillbeonboard,withtwosurveyorsonwatchatanyonetime,andthethird
onabreak.Surveyorswillberotatedregularly.Regularbreakswillreducefatigueandimprovesurveyor
performance.
AllsurveyorswillbeESASaccredited.Itisanticipatedthattherewillbearequirementtotrainadditional
suitablyexperiencedobservers.ColinBartonandClairePollockofCorkEcologyareaccreditedESAStrainers.

E.7.5 MarineMammalvisualsurveymethod
MonthlyESASsurveyswithinthedevelopmentareaand8kmbufferzonewillrecordallmarinemammals
encountered,atthesametimeasrecordingseabirds.Inaddition,angleanddistanceoftheanimalsfromthe
transectlinewillalsoberecordedusingangleboardandrangefinder.Onlymarinemammaldatainsuitablesea
state(i.e.seastate3orless)willbeusedforanalysis.
Whereweatherforecastsindicatethatweatherconditionswillbegood(i.e.seastate3orless),afourth
surveyorwilljointhesurveyteamtoconductdedicatedmarinemammalobservations.Surveyorswillrotate
dutiesthroughoutthesurveyday,withthreesurveyorsonwatch,andoneonabreak.
Inothermonths,ifareasofhighdensitiesofmarinemammalsorbirdsareencounteredinseastatelessthan
threewithonlythreesurveyorsonboard,thethirdsurveyorwouldbeusedtorecordmarinemammals.Inthis
situation,surveyorswouldcontinuetorotateduties,tokeepconcentrationup.Surveyeffortwouldbe
stoppedatintervalsduringthesurveyday,sothatallsurveyorscouldhaveabreak.

E23|P a g e


Additionaldedicatedmarinemammalsurveyswillalsobeconductedasweatherconditions/vesseltimeallows,
i.e.ifbirdsurveyshavebeencompleted,butaspellofgoodweatherisavailable,thenadditionaldedicated
marinemammalsurveyswouldbeconducted.
Ifsurveydatafrominitialsurveysindicatesthatthestudyareaisahighdensityareaformarinemammals,then
marinemammalsurveyeffortwouldbeincreasedaccordingly.
Datafromthesurveyswillbeusedtoestimaterelativespeciesabundance.Iftherearesufficientsightingsofa
marinemammalspecies,distanceanalysiswillbeusedtocalculatetotalnumbersofthatspeciesinthestudy
areaharbourporpoiseisthemostlikelyspeciesthatthiswouldbepossiblefor.

E.7.6 Marinemammalacousticsurveys
Cetaceansareeasilyoverlookedduringconventionalvisualsurveywork,especiallywhenseaconditionsare
otherthancalm.Therefore,thevisualmarinemammalsurveydatawillbeaugmentedbyacousticdatafroma
hydrophonetowedfromthesurveyvessel.Thehydrophonewillbelinkedtoacomputertorecordcetacean
vocalisations,inparticularthosemadebyharbourporpoisesandotherdolphinspecies.Dependingonthe
vessel,itispossibletooperateahydrophonesuccessfullyuptoseastate6(Scheidatetal2007).Given
suitableweatherconditions,thehydrophonewillbedeployedandthecomputerrecordingsystemsoftware
setrunningatthestartofeachsurveyday,byoneofthesurveyors.Trainingwillbeprovidedforthis,as
required.Thehydrophonewillrecordthroughoutasurveydayandthenberetrieved.Suchasystemwas
successfullyoperatedonrecentsurveysovertheDoggerBankforDECC,andonothersurveys(CorkEcology
2008b,Scheidatetal2007).
Additionalhydrophonesurveyswillalsobeconductedatnight(iffeasible),toinvestigateanydifferencesin
harbourporpoiseactivityinthestudyareacomparedtodaytime.

E.7.7 Aerialsurveys
Aerialsurveysmayalsobeusedtosurveyseabirdsandmarinemammals.Forexampletheyhaveproved
particularlyeffectiveforsurveysofseaduckanddiversininshorewaters.Therewasanaerialsurvey
componentformarinemammalsinSCANSII(Desportes2005),andIMARESarecurrentlyconsideringthe
feasibilityofconductingaerialmarinemammalsurveyworkovertheDoggerBank(MSchiedatperscomm.)
FortheScottishTerritorialWaterswindfarms,TheCrownEstatehasundertakenaseriesofaerialsurveys
throughout2009andinto2010inordertoinformtheexistingaerialdatasets.Thissurveyprogrammewas
primarilyfocussedonRound3windfarmsandundertakenbyWWTonbehalfofTheCrownEstate.
Mainstreamhavenotyetbeengivenaccesstotheaerialsurveydatacollectedbutoncereceivedthisdatawill
bereviewedandtakenintoaccountduringanygapanalysisprocess.Mainstreamwill,alongwiththeother
developers,considerwhetheradditionalaerialsurveysarerequiredfollowingcompletionofoneyearofaerial
surveysandboatbasedsurveys.
Mainstreamshouldalsoconsidertheuseofhidefsurveysasthistechnologydevelops.

E.7.8 Additionalstudies
Priortoundertakinganyadditionalstudiesitisrecommendedthatatleastoneyearsbirddataiscollectedto
ensurestudiesarefocussedinthecorrectareas.
E.7.8.1 Radarandthermalimagingstudies
Radarandthermalimagingtechnologycouldbeusedtosurveynocturnalflightactivitybybirds,andpost
construction,toquantifyturbineavoidance.
E.7.8.2 SPAspecies
Inadditiontodistributionandabundancedata,moredetailedinformationwillberequiredforqualifying
speciesofnearbySPAs,otherspeciesofhighconservationimportance,andthosethatappeartobeat
particularriskfromthedevelopment(Tables4and5).Suchadditionalinformationmayincludeknowledgeof

E24|P a g e


wherebirdsarenestinganddataonflyingandfeedingactivitythatisrequiredtoinformparticularaspectsof
theassessmentprocess.Thereislikelytobeastrongcase,althoughperhapsnotinitially,fordeployinghigh
techmethodstoaddressspecificinformationgaps.Forexample,telemetrytagsmountedonindividualbirds
tobetterunderstandthewhereaboutsoffeedingareasusedbyqualifyingspeciesofnearbySPAs.
Conductingtelemetrystudiesonbreedingseabirdsisnotinitiallyrecommended.Thisisamattertodecide
afterinitialdatacollectionandanalysisofexistingdatasetshaveidentifiedspecificissuesandknowledgegaps.
Giventhatseveralseabirdswithlargebreedingconcentrationsinthearearangelargedistances(>50km)from
breedingcoloniestofeed,thisapproachisanotherareathatmightbenefitfromrenewableenergycompanies
workingincollaboration.Therehavebeenlargetechnologicaladvancesintagtechnologyinrecentyearsanda
decreaseincosts.Potentiallyitisnowpossibletoattachtagstoasampleofbirdsandobtainlargequantities
ofrangingdataformoderatecosts.Anexampleofthesortofinformationtelemetrycanobtainaretheresults
ofthesatellitetaggingstudiesofgannetsbreedingontheBassRock(Hameretal2007).
E.7.8.3 Photoidentificationofbottlenosedolphins
Ifbottlenosedolphinareencounteredregularly,itwouldbevaluabletoobtainphotographsoftheirdorsal
fins.Thesecouldthenbecomparedtothephotodatabaseofindividualsthathasbeenbuiltupforthe
AberdeenHarbourandMorayFirthSACpopulations.

E.8 Datamanagement
Itwillbenecessarytosetupamasterdatabaseforalltransectsurveydata.Surveydatawillbeenteredintoa
relationaldatabaseusingtheJNCCdataentrysystem,checkedandthenincorporatedintothemaster
database.Ultimately,itisintendedthatthedatawillbepassedontoJNCCforinclusionintheESASdatabase,
inlinewiththerecommendationofFoxetal(2006).
Datafromadditionalsurveyswillbeenteredintocustomdesigneddatabasesorspreadsheetsasappropriate.

E.9 Analysis
Forassessmentpurposes,allaspectsofthedataanalyseswillbeunderpinnedbyappropriatestatistical
analyses.Thesearerequiredtoensurethatanyconclusionsdrawnarescientificallyvalidandthatsurveydata
areusedtotheirmaximumvalue.
Allaspectsofthemethodsandfieldworkprogrammewillberegularlyreviewedinlightofthenewdata
collectedandotherinformation,sothattheworkcanfocusonissuesofgreatestrelevanceandtakeadvantage
ofmethodimprovementsandrespondtonewinformationorregulations.

E.9.1 Outputs
E.9.1.1 OutputsforpreconstructionEIA
AnalysisofthedatacollectedwillprovidethefollowinginformationrequiredfortheEIA:
1. Estimatesofthenumbersofseabirdsandmarinemammalsusingthedevelopmentareaandits
surroundingwatersthroughouttheyear.Thiswillallowthesite,anditssurroundingwaters,tobe
assessedforeachspecieswithrespecttoitsconservationimportanceinthecontextofregional,
nationalandinternationalpopulations.Thiswillallowkeyspeciestobeidentified.
2. Mapsshowingtheseasonaldistributionsofseabirdsandmarinemammalswithinthesiteandthe
surrounding8kmbuffer.Thiswillallowthedevelopmentsitetobecomparedwithinthecontextof
thesurroundingarea.Furthermore,shouldsignificantadverseimpactsbeidentifiedthensuchdata
wouldpotentiallyallowthedevelopmentofpotentialmitigationmeasuresbaseduponthesitingof
individualturbinesorschedulingofoperations.
3. Estimatesofcollisionriskforflyingbirds

E25|P a g e


4. Estimatesofthepotentialeffectsduetohabitatlossanddisplacementundervariousscenarioswith
respecttothedistancesucheffectsextendfromthedevelopment,andtheavailabilityofalternative
suitablehabitats.
5. Anassessmentofthepotentialcumulativeassessmentofthedevelopmentalongwithothers
proposedintheregion.
E.9.1.2 OutputsforImpactMonitoring
Withrespecttothemonitoringofeffectsonbirdsandmarinemammalsthatmaybelinkedtotheconstruction
andoperationalphasesofthedevelopmentthistwoyearprojectwillprovidethefollowingoutputs:
1. Twoyearsdataonthebaselineconditionsagainstwhichsubsequentdatamonitoringanyeffectsof
thedevelopmentcanbecompared
2. Thesophisticatedstatisticaltools(programs)requiredtoanalysesuchdata.
3. Poweranalyses(DECC2009,Macleanetal.2007b)determiningtheabilityofoursurveyand
statisticalmethodologiestodetectanyeffectswhichdooccur.Suchanalyseswill:
a. Allowanappraisalofwhatcanrealisticallybeachieved,facilitatingdebatewithstatutory
agencies;
b. Potentiallyallowsurveymethodstobemodified(e.g.concentratingsurveyeffortatcertain
timesofyearratherthanothers)soastoensuresignificanteffectsonkeyspeciesdonot
goundetected;
c. Allowimpactassessmentstoconsiderthepotentialeffectsofimpactstoosmalltobe
detectedreliably.

E.9.2 FurtherdetailsofanalysestoprovideoutputsforEIA
E.9.2.1 Abundance
Foreachspecies,monthlypopulationestimates,withaccompanyingconfidencelimits,willbeestimatedfor
thedevelopmentareaanditssurroundingwatersusingdistancesampling(Bucklandetal.2001,2007),a
statisticallyrobustmethodologyfortheanalysisoflinetransectdatawhichexplicitlytakesintoaccountthe
effectsofdistancefromtheobserverondetectability.Thismethodcanalsobeextendedsoastotakeinto
accountotherfactorsinfluencingdetectability,suchasweatherconditions,andvariationbetweenobservers,
providingaveryflexibleandrobustframeworkinwhichtocalculateaccuratepopulationestimates,alongwith
confidencelimits.
E.9.2.2 PredictivemodellingandDistributionmaps
Surveyswillyieldalargedatasetoverseveralyears,atasuitablespatialscaleforconstructingpredictive
modelsrelatingseabirdnumberstophysicalandbiologicalparameterssuchaswaterdepth,temperature,
salinity,phytoplanktonproductivity,seabedsubstrate,distancefromthecoastanddistancefrombreeding
colonies.ArecentCOWRIEreviewadvocatedapplyingsuchmodellingtotemporalvariation,tohelpexplain
yeartoyearchangesinnumbers,thusincreasingthepowerof(aerial)surveystodetectthepotential
displacementofbirdsbyoffshorewindfarms(Macleanetal2007b).
Suchmodellingappliedtospatialvariation,incombinationwithotherspatialstatisticaltechniquessuchas
krigingwillpotentiallyallowmoreaccuratemapsofseabirddistributionacrossthesite,andtotalpopulation
estimatesforthesitetobederived.Thismodellingwillalsohelpidentifypatternsinseabirddistributionwithin
thesitewithrespectto(simple)explanatoryvariables,whichcouldpotentiallygeneratehypothesessuitable
fortestingbymoredetailedstudies.
Forkeyspeciesdistributionmapswillbecreatedusingacombinationofgeneralisedlinearoradditivemixed
modelsandkrigingwithinadistancesamplingframework(distancesampling:Bucklandetal.2001,2007;
kriging:Pebesma,etal.2005,Pebesmaetal.2000,Zuuretal.(inprep.);generalisedlinearandadditivemixed

E26|P a g e


modelling:Zuuretal.2009).Thisshouldprovidemapsofthedistributionofseabirdsacrossthestudyarea
throughouttheyear,whichareasaccurateandstatisticallyrobustaspossible,giventhedataavailable.
Theaccuracyofsuchmapsiscriticallydependentonthereliabilityoftheinevitableinterpolationbetween
surveytransects.Surveytransectscanonlyaccuratelycapturethedistributionofaspeciesacrossanareaifthe
spacingbetweenthemissmallcomparedtothetypicalspatialscaleofaggregationsofthatspecies.Therefore,
usingbothhistoricaldataanddatacollectedinthisstudywewillusevariography(Cressie1993)todetermine
thescaleofseabirdaggregationsinthearea,andthusthespatialscaleatwhichwecanassumeourmapsare
accurate.Suchanalyseswouldalsopotentiallyallowtransectspacingtobeadjustedifnecessaryinpartsof
thestudyareatoaccuratelycapturethedistributionofkeyspecies.
E.9.2.3 CollisionRiskModelling
ThepotentialmortalityofbirdsduetocollisionwiththeturbineswillbequantifiedusingCollisionRisk
Modelling(Bandetal.2007).Duringsurveywork,thealtitudeofbirdsinflightwillberecorded,toallowthe
numberofbirdtransitsthroughrotorsweptspaceperyeartobeestimated,asrequiredunderBandetals
model.CollisionRiskModellingwillaimtoquantifymeasuresoflikelybirdmortalityfromthesurveydata
basedonvariousassumptionsonavoidanceratesanddisplacement.Itwillexaminehowcollisionriskvaries
betweenspeciesandseasonsandspatiallyacrossthesite.
E.9.2.4 CumulativeImpactAssessment
COWRIEhasrecentlypublishedguidelinesontheprocesses,methodsandtechniquestobeutilisedfor
cumulativeimpactassessmentforbirdsandoffshorewindfarms(Kingetal.2009).Akeyrecommendationof
theseguidelineswasthatquantitativedatashouldbeprovidedonrawnumbers,densitiesandpopulation
estimatesforallspeciesandthat,whereverpossible,impactsshouldbeassessedinaquantitativeratherthan
aqualitativeway.Datagatheringandanalysisshouldfollowstandardisedmethods.
Theapproachestodatagatheringandanalysisproposedinthisdocumentwillallowfullcompliancewiththe
recommendationsoftheseguidelines,providingsimilardataisavailablefromotherdevelopmentsinthearea.
Thiswillallowthecumulativeimpactsparticularlyasmediatedviacollisionrisk,displacementandbarrier
effectstobeassessed.
Inlinewiththeseguidelines,andtherecommendationsoftherecentlypublishedSEA(DECC2009),population
modelling,inparticularPopulationViabilityAnalysis(DECC2009,Macleanetal.2007a),willbeusedtoassess
whethercumulativeimpacts,particularlyfromcollisionrisk,arelikelytoadverselyaffectregionalpopulations.

E.9.3 Studydesignandanalysestoallowsubsequentmonitoringofimpacts
E.9.3.1 BeforeAfterGradientStudyDesign
Aseriousconstraintonthedesignofanyschemetomonitortheeffectsofanoffshorewindfarm,isthehigh
mobilityofseabirdsandmarinemammals,whichmakesidentifyingtrulyindependentbutcomparablecontrol
areaspracticallyimpossible.Forexample,breedinggannetsfromtheBassRockcolonyhavebeenshownby
satellitetaggingtorangeacrosstheNorthSea,attimestravellingasfarastheNorwegiancoast(Hameretal
2007).Breedingkittiwakesandaukscommonlyforageupto70kmfromtheircolonies(Dauntetal.2002,
Camphuysen2005).Ifsuchseabirdsweredisplacedfromthedevelopmentarea,theycouldpotentiallyshift
theirfeedinggroundsbytensofkilometres,forexample.Thus,tobetrulyindependent,controlareashaveto
beconsiderabledistancesfromthedevelopmentsites,butthiswouldresultinotherproblemse.g.concerning
thewidercomparabilityoftheenvironmentanddynamicsofanimalpopulationsthatlivethere.
Therefore,ratherthanpursuetheunobtainableidealofabsolutelyindependent,butcomparable,control
areasthedesignweproposetakesthemuchmorepracticalandstatisticallynolesspowerfulapproachof
examiningdisplacementandhabitatlosseffectsalongadistancegradientfromthedevelopmentsite.Wehave
chosentocollectsurveyinformationinallareasuptoadistanceof8kmfromtheproposeddevelopmentsite.
ThisisconsistentwiththesurveysandanalysesconductedfortheHornsRevandNystedwindfarmsin

E27|P a g e


Denmark(Petersenetal.2006).Toavoidunderestimationofeffectsoperatingatscalesgreaterthan8km,
additionalmodellingmayalsobenecessaryforsomespecies.
TheBeforeAfter/ControlImpact(BACI)designfirstdescribedbyGreen(1979)isroutinelyusedfor
determiningtheeffectsofwindfarmsonbirds(SNH2009b,DrewittandLangston2006,Foxetal2006).This
studyispremisedonaBeforeAfterGradientstudydesign,whichisavariantoftheBACIdesign,which
assumesthatimpactsdeclinewithincreasingdistancefromthesourceoftheimpact(EllisandSchneider1997,
Morrisonetal.2008,Manly2009,Smith2002).Thereareseveralreasonsforchoosingthistypeofdesign:

Itislikelythatanyeffectsofthewindfarmwilldeclinewithincreasingdistancefromtheturbines.

Agradientdesigncanbemorepowerfulthanacontrolimpactdesignindetectingimpactswhen
impactsdodeclinewithdistancefromtheirsource(EllisandSchneider1997).

Astatisticallysignificanttrendinbird/marinemammalnumberswithdistancefromthewindfarm
appearingafterturbineinstallationwouldprovidestrongerevidencethatthewindfarmisresponsible
thanasimplecomparisonofimpactedandnonimpactedareasbeforeandafterturbine
installation,reducingthechancesofmistakingothereffectsasanimpactofthedevelopment(Manly
2009).

Itavoidstheintractableproblemoffindingdiscretecontrolsites,whichareatasufficientdistanceto
beindependentoftheimpactsatthedevelopmentsite,butarecomparableinotheraspects(Ellisand
Schneider1997).

Theresultsofthegradientmodelareeasytointerpretandpresenttostatutoryandnonstatutory
consultees(EllisandSchneider1997).

WhilstdevelopingthisdesignweconsideredaBACItypedesign,withcontrolareasofasimilarsizetothe
developmentarea.Allthecandidatecontrolareasweidentifiedonthebasisthattheywerecomparabletothe
developmentareaintermsofdistancefromtheshore,waterdepthsanddistancefromlargeseabirdcolonies
allfellwithin8kmofthedevelopmentarea,i.e.insidetheboundaryoftheareaweproposesurveyingforthis
study.
TheanalysesoftheornithologicalimpactsoftheHornsRev,NystedandArklowBankoffshorewindfarms(e.g.
Petersenetal.2006,Barton,PollockandHarding2008)haveallemployedaBAGtypedesign.Thisapproach
hasalsobeenadvocatedasgoodpracticebyFoxetal.2006forassessingtheimpactofoffshorewindfarmson
birds.
E.9.3.2 Proposedstatisticalmethodologyforimpactassessment
Weproposecarryingoutsuchanalysesbyincludingcovariateswithindetectionfunctionmodelling(Buckland
etal.2004),usingmixedmodelstocontrolforspatialandtemporalautocorrelation,whichmightotherwise
falselyinflateestimatesofstatisticalsignificance.Usingsuchstateoftheartstatisticaltechniqueswillprovide
thegreatestprobabilityofidentifyingagenuineimpactifitdoesoccur,whilstminimisingthechancesof
spuriouslyconcludingthereisanimpactwherenoneexists.
E.9.3.3 PowerAnalyses
Thestatisticalmethodsdescribedabovewillbedevelopedwithinthecontextofpoweranalyseswhichwill
evaluatethepowerofoursurveyandstatisticalmethodologiestodetectimpactsonkeyspecies(DECC2009,
Macleanetal.2007b).Forexample,suchanalysesmightallowustosaythatourmethodologieshavean80%
chanceofdetectinga50%declineinakeyspeciesat10%statisticalsignificance.Thiswillallowustorobustly
defendourmethodologiesandmodifythemifnecessarytoensuresignificantimpactsonkeyspeciesdonotgo
undetected(e.g.Innogy2003).
Thiswillbeachievedbyapplyingthestatisticaltoolsdescribedabovetodatasetswhichincludetherealdata
collectedtodate,plussimulateddatamodellingthedataexpectedtobecollectedsubsequently.The
simulateddatawillhavesimilarcharacteristicstotherealdata(inparticularitsvariability),but,fordata
simulatingthepostturbineinstallationperiod,willhaveknownchangesinabundanceanddistribution
associatedwiththedevelopmentsbuiltin.Subsequently,asmoredataiscollected,simulateddatawillbe
replacedwithrealdata.

E28|P a g e

E.10 Reporting&Assessment
Quarterlyreportswillbeproducedsummarisingprogressonthesurveyprogramme.Thiswouldincludebasic
resultsfromthemonthlysurveys.
Shortlyaftertheendofeach12monthperiodofsurveywork,anAnnualTechnicalReportwillbeproduced.
Thiswillassesshowwelltheobjectiveshavebeenmet,whetheranychangestothesurveyprogrammeare
requiredandprovideanopportunitytobenchmarkthesurveyprogrammeagainstchangesinguidance/best
practiceand/orresultsofnewresearchthatmayhaveoccurred.
TheAnnualTechnicalReportwillalsoincludedetailsofsurveyresults.Forthemonthlysurveysthiswould
includesummaryaccountsandmapsofspeciesdistributionandabundanceforeachseasonormonthas
appropriate.Otherresultswillalsobepresented,forexampleontheheightanddirectionofflyingbirdsand
acousticmonitoringofcetaceans.Attentionwillalsobedrawntowhatareconsideredtobekeyfindingsand
potentialissues.
Itisenvisagedthatassessmentofthelikelyeffectsofthedevelopmentwillbeundertakenattheendofthe
secondyearofsurvey,basedontheinformationcontainedinthetwoTechnicalReports.Thiswouldinclude
modellingworktopredictthenumbersofflyingbirdsthatmightbekilledbyturbinestrikes.
Theproposeddevelopmentisinalocationwhereitmayinfluencethequalifyinginterestofoneormore
SPAs/SACs.ThereforetheproposalsmayrequireanassessmentundertheHabitatsRegulations1994(referto
SERAD2000).Insuchcasesitisgoodpracticeforadevelopertoprovidesufficientenvironmentalinformation
toenablethecompetentauthoritytoundertakesuchanassessment,andtoenablethenatureconservation
body(SNH)toadvisethecompetentauthority.Theinformationprovidedmaybecongruentwiththatprovided
forassessmentundertheEIARegulationsoritmaybesomewhatdifferentinscopeandcontent.Inthecurrent
caseitislikelythatseparateassessmentswillberequired.Thesewillbewrittenintheformofachapteror
chapterswithintheEnvironmentalStatementthataccompaniestheplanningapplication.

References
AMEC.2002.LynnOffshoreWindFarmNonTechnicalSummary.
Band,W,Madders,M,&Whitfield,DP.2007.Developingfieldandanalyticalmethodstoassessaviancollision
riskatwindfarms.In:deLucas,M,Janss,GFE&Ferrer,M(eds.)BirdsandWindFarms:RiskAssessmentand
Mitigation,pp.259275.Quercus,Madrid.
Barton,C.andPollock,C.2004.Reviewofdivers,grebesandseaduckdistributionandabundanceintheSEA5
area.ReporttotheDTIaspartofSEA5fromCorkEcology.
Barton,C.,Pollock,C.,&Harding,N.2008.AnalysesofseabirdandmarinemammalmonitoringfortheArklow
BankOffshoreWindFarm.PosteratInternationalScientificMeetingonMarineRenewableEnergyandthe
Environment(MAREE).
Buckland,S.T.,D.R.Anderson,K.P.Burnham,J.L.Laake,D.L.BorchersandL.Thomas2001.Introductionto
DistanceSampling:EstimatingAbundanceofBiologicalPopulations.OxfordUniversityPress.
Buckland,S.T.,Anderson,K.P.Burnham,J.L.Laake,D.L.Borchers,andL.Thomas.2007.Advanceddistance
sampling.OxfordUniversityPress.
Camphuysen,C.J.(ed.),2005.Understandingmarinefoodwebprocesses:anecosystemapproachto
sustainablesandeelfisheriesintheNorthSea.IMPRESSFinalReport.RoyalNetherlandsInstituteforSea
Research,Texel.
Camphuysen,C.J.,Fox,T.,Leopold,M.F.&Petersen,I.K.2004.Towardsstandardisedseabirdsatseacensus
techniquesinconnectionwithenvironmentalimpactassessmentsforoffshorewindfarmsintheUK.Areport
forCOWRIE.
Christensen,T.J.andHounisen,J.P.2005.InvestigationsofmigratorybirdsduringoperationofHornsRev
offshorewindfarm2004:AnnualStatusReport2004.NationalEnvironmentResearchInstitute,Denmark.

E29|P a g e


CorkEcology.2006.AnanalysisofESASseabirdsurveysinUKwaterstohighlightgapsincoverage.Areport
totheDTI.
CorkEcology.2008a.Synopsisofbirdsandmarinemammalsinareasunderconsiderationforoffshorewind
farmsinScottishwaters.AreportforMainstreamRenewablePowerLtd.
CorkEcology.2008b.SeabirdandmarinemammalsurveysintheNorthSeainFebruaryandMarch2008.A
reporttoDECC.
Cressie,N.1993.StatisticsforSpatialData.Wiley,NY,1993(900pp.)
Cronin,C.SeabirdandMarineMammalSurveyonM.V.Englishman17thto30thSeptember2008.Areport
forDECC.Availableonlineat:www.offshore
sea.org.uk/site/scripts/consultation_download_info.php?downloadID=235
Daunt,F.,Benvenuti,S.,Harris,M.P.,Dall'Antonia,L.,Elston,D.A.&Wanless,S.2002.Foragingstrategiesof
theblackleggedkittiwakeRissatrydactylaataNorthseacolony:evidenceforamaximumforagingrange.
MarineEcologyProgressSeries245:239247.
Dean,B.J.,Webb,A.,McSorley,C.A.,Schofield,R.A.andReid,J.B.2004.Surveillanceofwinteringseaducks,
diversandgrebesinUKinshoreareas:Aerialsurveysandshorebasedcounts2003/04.JNCCReportNo.357.
JNCC,Peterborough.
DepartmentofEnergyandClimateChange2009.UKOffshoreEnergyStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment.
FutureLeasingforOffshoreWindFarmsandLicensingforOffshoreOil&GasandGasStorage.Environmental
Report.
DepartmentofTradeandIndustry.2003.OffshoreWindEnergyGeneration:Phase1Proposalsand
EnvironmentalReport(WindRound2SEA).ReporttoDTIpreparedbyBMTCordah.
DepartmentofTradeandIndustry.2004.ConservationSitesintheSEA5Area:ReporttotheDepartmentof
TradeandIndustry.Preparedby:AberdeenInstituteofCoastalScienceandManagementUniversityof
AberdeenwithHartleyAndersonLimited.
Desholm,M.,Fox,T.andBeasley,P.,2005.Bestpracticeguidancefortheuseofremotetechniquesfor
observingbirdbehaviourinrelationtooffshorewindfarms.AreportcommissionedbyCOWRIE.COWRIELtd.
Desholm,M.&Kahlert,J.2005.Aviancollisionriskatanoffshorewindfarm.BiologyLetters13:14
Desholm,M.,Fox,A.D.,Beasley,P.&Kahlert,J.2006.Remotetechniquesforcountingandestimatingthe
numberofbirdwindturbinecollisionsatsea:areview.InWind,FireandWater:RenewableEnergyandBirds.
Ibis148(Suppl.1):7689.
Desportes,G.2005.SCANSIINorthernNorthSeaCruiseReport.Onlineat:
www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/content/download/7792/63634/version/1/file/050620b(3).pdf
Drewitt,A.&Langston,R.H.W.2006.Assessingtheimpactsofwindfarmsonbirds.Ibis,148,2942.
Ellis,J.I.&SchneiderD.C.1997.Evaluationofagradientsamplingdesignforenvironmentalimpact
assessment.EnvironmentalMonitoringandAssessment48:157172.
Fox,A.D.,Desholm,M.,Kahlert,J.,Christensen,T.K.&KragPetersen,I.B.2006.Informationneedstosupport
environmentalimpactassessmentsoftheeffectsofEuropeanmarineoffshorewindfarmsonbirds.Ibis
(2006),148,129144.
Garthe,S.andHppop,O.2004.Scalingpossibleadverseeffectsofmarinewindfarmsonseabirds:developing
andapplyingavulnerabilityindex.J.Ap.Ecol.41:724734.
GlobalRenewableEnergyPartners.2002.KentishFlatsOffshoreWindFarmNonTechnicalSummary.
Gordon,J.,Thompson,D.,Gillespie,D.,Lonergan,M.,Calderan,S.,Jaffey,B.,Todd,V.andHastie,G.2008.
Acuteriskstomarinemammalsfrompiledriving:anassessmentofmitigationprocedures,knowledgegaps
andresearchrequirements.Maree2008,bookofabstracts.

E30|P a g e


Guillemette,M.andLarsen,J.K.,2002.Postdevelopmentexperimentstodetectanthropogenicdisturbances:
thecaseofseaducksandwindparks.EcologicalApplications,12(3),2002,pp.868877
Green,R.H.1979.SamplingDesignandStatisticalMethodsforEnvironmentalBiologists.Wiley,NewYork,NY.
Hamer,K.C.,Humphreys,E.M.,Garthe,S.,Hennicke,J.,Peters,G.,Grmillet,D.,Phillips,R.A.,Harris,M.P.
andWanless,S.,2007.Annualvariationindiets,feedinglocationsandforagingbehaviourofgannetsinthe
NorthSea:flexibility,consistencyandconstraint.MarineEcologyProgressSeries338:295305.
Hammond,P.S.,Berggren,P.,Benke,H.,Borchers,D.L.,Collet,A.,HeideJrgensen,M.P.,HeimlichS.,Hirby,
A.R.,Leopold,M.F.&ien,N.2002b.AbundanceofharbourporpoiseandothercetaceansintheNorthSea
andadjacentwaters.JournalofAppliedEcology39:361376.
Hammond,P.S.,Northridge,S.P.,Thompson,D.,Gordon,J.C.D.,Hall,A.J.,Sharples,R.J.,Grellier,K.&
Matthiopoulos,J.2004.BackgroundinformationonmarinemammalsrelevanttoStrategicEnvironmental
Assessment5.ReporttoDTIpreparedbySeaMammalResearchUnit,StAndrews.
Hammond,P.S.&Grellier,K.2006.GreysealdietcompositionandpreyconsumptionintheNorthSea.Report
toDepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs,projectref.MF0319.SeaMammalResearchUnit,
UniversityofSt.Andrews,UK,18pp.plusappendices.
Hammond,P.S.,Northridge,S.P.,Thompson,D.,Gordon,J.C.D.,Hall,A.J.,Murphy,S.N.&Embling,C.B.2008.
BackgroundinformationonmarinemammalsforStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment8.Reporttothe
DepartmentforBusiness,EnterpriseandRegulatoryReform.SeaMammalResearchUnit,St.Andrews,
Scotland,UK,52pp.
Hppop,O.,Dierschke,J.,Exo,KM.,Fredrich,E.&Hill,R.2006a.Birdmigrationstudiesandpotentialcollision
riskwithoffshorewindturbines.InWind,FireandWater:RenewableEnergyandBirds.Ibis148:(Suppl.1):90
109.
Hppop,O.2007.Howtoseetheinvisible:RemoteTechniquesforStudyofOffshoreBirdMigration.In:
PNWWRPMVI.2007.ProceedingsoftheNWCCWildlifeWorkgroupResearchPlanningMeetingVI.San
Antonio,TXNovember1415,2006.PreparedfortheWildlifeWorkgroupoftheNationalWindCoordinating
CollaborativebyRESOLVE,Inc.,Washington,DC,SusanSavittSchwartz,ed.138pp.
Innogy2003.NorthHoyleOffshoreWindFarmBaselineMonitoringReportJune2003.
King,S.,Maclean,I.M.D.,Norman,T.,andPrior,A..2009.DevelopingGuidanceonOrnithologicalCumulative
ImpactAssessmentforOffshoreWindFarmDevelopers.COWRIE.
Larsen,J.K.&Guillemette,M.2007.Effectsofwindturbinesonflightbehaviourofwinteringcommoneiders:
implicationsforhabitatuseandcollisionrisk.JournalofAppliedEcology44:465702.
Lonergan,M.,Duck,C.D.,Thompson,D.,Mackey,B.L.,Cunningham,L.&Boyd,I.L.2007.Usingsparsesurvey
datatoinvestigatethedecliningabundanceofBritishharbourseals.JournalofZoology271:261269.
MacleanIMD,FrederiksenM&RehfischMM(2007a).Potentialuseofpopulationviabilityanalysistoassess
theimpactofoffshorewindfarmsonbirdpopulations.BritishTrustforOrnithologyResearchReportNo.480to
COWRIE.BTO,Thetford.
MacleanIMD,SkovH&RehfischMM(2007b).Furtheruseofaerialsurveystodetectbirddisplacementby
windfarms.BTOResearchReportNo.482toCOWRIE.BTO,Thetford.
Maclead,K.,Schiedat,M.&Hammond,P.2006.TakingstockofEuropeanCetaceans:theSCANSIISurveys.
Proceedingsofthe20thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanCetaceanSociety.
Manly,B.F.J.2009.StatisticsforEnvironmentalScienceandManagement,SecondEdition.Chapman&
Hall/CRC.
Mellor,M.&Maher,M.,2008.FullScaleTrialofHighDefinitionVideoSurveyforOffshoreWindfarmSites.A
reportcommissionedbyCOWRIELtd.
Mitchell,P.I.,S.F.Newton,N.Ratcliffe&T.E.Dunn2004.SeabirdpopulationsinBritainandIreland.T.&A.D.
Poyser,London.

E31|P a g e


Morrison,M.L.,Block,W.M.,Strickland,M.D.,Collier,B.A.&Peterson,M.J.2008.WildlifeStudyDesign2nd
Edition.Springer.386p.
Norman,T.B.,Buisson,R.S.K.,&Askew,N.P.2007.ReportontheCOWRIEworkshoponthecumulativeimpact
ofoffshorewindfarmsonbirds.ReportpreparedbyRPSforCOWRIE.COWRIECIBIRD012007.
NRP,2008.ReportontheornithologicalsensitivitytowindfarmdevelopmentofthesoutheastScotland
offshorearea.UnpublishedreportcommissionedbyMainstreamRenewablePowerLtd.NaturalResearch
ProjectsReportLtd.
Pebesma,E.J.,Duin,R.N.M.,Bio,A.M.F.2000.SpatialInterpolationofSeaBirdDensitiesontheDutchPartof
theNorthSea.ICGreport00/10,UtrechtUniversity.
Pebesma,E.J.,Duin,R.N.M.,Burrough,P.A.2005.MappingseabirddensitiesovertheNorthSea:spatially
aggregatedestimatesandtemporalchanges.Environmetrics16:573587.
Percival,S.M.2003.BirdsandWindFarmsinIreland:Areviewofpotentialissuesandimpactassessment.
Petersen,I.K.,Christensen,T.K.,Kahlert,J.,Desholm,M.andFox,A.D.2006.Finalresultsofbirdstudiesatthe
offshorewindfarmsatNystedandHornsRev,Denmark.CommissionedbyDONGEnergyandVattenfallA/S.
NationalEnvironmentalResearchInstitute.166pp.
Pettersson,J.andStalin,T.2003.Influenceofoffshorewindmillsonmigrationbirdsinsoutheastcoastof
Sweden.ReporttoGEWindEnergy.
Pollock,C.M.,MavorR.,Weir,C.R.,Reid,A.,White,R.W.,Tasker,M.L.,Webb,A.&Reid,J.B.2000.The
distributionofseabirdsandmarinemammalsintheAtlanticFrontier,northandwestofScotland.JointNature
ConservationCommittee.
Reid,J.,Evans,P.G.H.andNorthridge,S.P.,2003.CetaceanDistributionAtlas.JointNatureConservation
Committee,Peterborough.
SCANSII2008.SmallCetaceansintheEuropeanAtlanticandNorthSea.FinalReporttotheEuropean
CommissionunderprojectLIFE04NAT/GB/000245.AvailablefromSeaMammalResearchUnit,UniversityofSt.
Andrews,54pp.plusappendices.
Scheidat,M.,Verdaat,H.,Leopold,M.,Caillat,M.,Gillespie,D.&Swift,R.2007.Pilotstudytoinvestigatethe
useofatowedhydrophonearrayformonitoringofporpoisesinDutchwaters.IMARES.
ScottishExecutive.2007.ScottishMarineRenewablesSEA2007EnvironmentalReportSectionCSEA
Assessment:ChapterC8:MarineBirds.
SNH(ScottishNaturalHeritage).2009a.Onlineguidanceandinformationspecifictobirdinterests.Available
at:http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/renewable/srwe00a2.asp
SNH(ScottishNaturalHeritage)2009b.GuidanceonMethodsforMonitoringBirdPopulationsatOnshore
WindFarms.January2009.
Skeate,E.andPerrow,M.2008.Assessingtheimpactsofoffshorewindfarmsonsealsexperiencesfrom
ScrobySands.Maree2008bookofabstracts.
SERAD(ScottishExecutiveRuralAffairsDepartment)2000.HabitatsandBirdsDirectives,NatureConservation:
ImplementationinScotlandofECDirectivesontheConservationofNaturalHabitatsandofWildFloraand
FaunaandtheConservationofWildBirds(TheHabitatsandBirdsDirectives).RevisedGuidanceUpdating
ScottishOfficeCircularNo6/1995.
Stone,C.J.,Webb,A.,Barton,C.,Ratcliffe,N.,Reed,T.C.,Tasker,M.L.,Camphuysen,C.J.&Pienkowski,M.W.
1995.AnatlasofseabirddistributioninnorthwestEuropeanwaters.Peterborough,JointNature
ConservationCommittee.
Smith.E.P.2002.BACIdesign.pp141148InEncyclopediaofEnvironmetricsVolume1.AbdelH.ElShaarawi
andWalterW.Piegorsch(eds).JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd,Chichester,2002

E32|P a g e


Shle,I.,McSorley,C.A.,Dean,B.J.,Webb,A.andReid,J.B.2007.Thenumbersofinshorewaterbirdsusing
TayBayduringthenonbreedingseason,andanassessmentoftheareaspotentialqualificationasamarine
SPA.JNCCReportNo.401.
Stone,C.J.,WebbA.,BartonC.,RatcliffeN.,ReedT.C.,TaskerM.L.,CamphuysenC.J.&PienkowskiM.W.1995.
AnatlasofseabirddistributioninnorthwestEuropeanwaters.JNCC,Peterborough.
Teilmann,J.,Henriksen,O.D.andCartensen,J.,2001.Porpoisedetectors(PODs)asatooltostudypotential
effectsofoffshorewindfarmonharbourporpoisesatRdsand.NationalEnvironmentalResearchInstitute,
Denmark.
Tougaard,J.,Carstensen,J.,Bech,N.I.andTeilmann,J.2005.FinalreportontheeffectofNystedOffshore
WindFarmonharbourporpoises.TechnicalreporttoEnergiE2A/S.
Wanless,S.,Harris,M.P.,Morris,J.A.1991.ForagingrangeandfeedinglocationsofshagsPhalacrocorax
aristotelisduringchickrearing.Ibis,133(1).3036
Wanless,S.,Bacon,P.J.,Harris,M.P.,Webb,A.D.,Greenstreet,S.P.R.andWebb,A..1997.Modelling
environmentalandenergeticeffectsonfeedingperformanceanddistributionofshags(Phalacrocorax
aristotelis):integratingtelemetry,geographicalinformationsystems,andmodellingtechniques.ICESJournalof
MarineScience,54:524544.
Wanless,S.,Harris,M.P.,Burger,A.E.andBuckland,S.T.Useoftimeatdepthrecordersforestimatingdepth
anddivingperformanceofEuropeanshags.J.FieldOrnithol.,68(4):547561
Webb,A.&DurinckJ.1992.Countingbirdsfromships.In:Manualforaeroplaneandshipsurveysofwaterfowl
andseabirds,eds,.J.Komdeur,J.Bertelsen&G.Cracknell,2437.Slimbridge,IWRBSpecialPublicationNo.19.
Wilson,L.J.,Wanless,S.,Harris,M.P.&Jones,G.2005.JNCCReportNo.362IsleofMayseabirdstudiesin
2003.JNCCPeterborough/CEHBanchory.
Wiese,F.K.,Montevecchi,W.A.,Davoren,G.K.,Huettmann,F.,Diamond,A.W.&Linke,J.2001.Seabirdsatrisk
aroundoffshoreoilplatformsinthenorthwestAtlantic.MarinePollutionBulletin42:12851290.
Zuur,A.Ieno,E.,Saveliev,A.&Jolliffe,I.(inprep).PoissonkrigingappliedtoJNCCbirddata.ReporttoJNCC
fromHighlandStatistics.
Zuur,A.F.,Ieno,E.N.,Walker,N.J.,Saveliev,A.A.,Smith,G.M.2009.MixedEffectsModelsandExtensionsin
EcologywithR.Springer,NewYork.Series:

E33|P a g e

AppendixF

F1|P a g e

F. ERMCNoiseAssessment(BAESystems)
F.1 PotentialNoiseSources
F.1.1 NoiseSourcesDuetoConstruction
F.1.1.1 Piling
Marinepilingwillprobablybethemostintrusivesourceofunderwatersoundduringconstruction.Anumber
ofpapersdescribingmeasurementsofpilingnoiseareavailableinthepublishedliterature.Mostagreethat
theacousticenergyislargelyconfinedtobelow~1kHzandthatpulsedurationsaretypicallybetween100ms
and200ms.Thereisfarmoreuncertaintyregardingestimatedsourcelevelsthatwouldbeneededfor
modellingimpactonmarinespecies.Inthemain,thisisbecausetheacousticenergyradiateddependsupon
theenergyofthehammer,thediameterofthepileandthesubstratecomposition.Estimationofthesource
levelalsorequiresworkingbackenergy/pressurelevelsatthemeasurementrangestothevirtuallevel1m
fromapointsource.Comparisonofmeasurementsbetweenpapersisalsocomplicatedbydifferentmeasures
ofacousticlevelsbeingreported;peaktopeakpressure,rootmeansquare(rms)pressureandsound
exposurelevel(energyfluxdensity)areallcommonlyusedmeasures.
Abriefsurveyofreportedenergysourcelevelsat1mvaryfrom172dBre1Pa2m2sfora0.51mdiameter
pipedrivenbya224kJhammerto209dBre1Pa2m2sfora2mdiameterpiledrivenbya800kJhammer.
Nedwelletal.,(2003)havereportedpeaktopeaksourcelevelsashighas261dBre1Pafora4mdiameter
pileanda450kJhammer,buttheformofthetransmissionlossasafunctionofrangeusedisnotphysically
realisticandconsequentlytheinferredsourcelevelistoohigh.DeJong&Ainslie(2008)havecalculatedfora
800kJhammerthemaximumenergysourcelevelis230dBre1Pa2m2sassumingallthehammerenergyis
transferredtoacousticenergy,notethoughthatNedwelletal.,arereportingpeaktopeaksourcelevelsnot
pulseenergy.
Theliteraturesuggeststhatsourcelevelsarehigherasthepilediameterincreasesandthatdifferencein
bottomsubstrateandincreasingresistancetothepilecancausevariabilityofupto18dB.Sourcelevelsseem
toincreaselinearlywiththehammerenergy.
F.1.1.2 Dredging/CableTrenching
Greene(1987)hasreportedmeasurementsofoilindustrydrillinganddredgingnoiseintheBeaufortSea.For
bothsourcesmostoftheenergywasatfrequenciesbelow1kHz.Forcuttersuctiondredgersenergysource
levelsintheband201000Hzofbetween157to165dBre1Pa2m2swerereported.Forhopperdredgers,
measurementswereonlymadeforasinglerangesonoestimateofsourcelevelwasmade.Reportedlevelsin
theband201000Hzwereapproximately140dBre1Pa2m2satrangesof0.43to0.93km.
NedwelletalmeasurednoiselevelsduringcabletrenchingfortheNorthHoyleWindFarm.Theyreported
inferredsourcelevelsof178dBre1Pa,butagaintherearequestionsoverthetransmissionlossassumed.
F.1.1.3 Drilling
ThemeasurementsreportedbyGreene(1987)intheBeaufortSeagiveinferredsourcelevelsduringdrillingof
between159to170dBre1Pa2m2sacrossthebandwidth201000Hz.Thesemeasurementsincluded
drillingfromaconventionaldrillship,aspeciallyconstructeddrillshipandonacaissonretainedisland.Levels
fromaconventionaldrillshipwhilstwellloggingweresignificantlylowerat146dBre1Pa2m2sacrossthe
bandwidth201000Hz.Allofthesemeasurementsincludedthecontributionsfromstandbyvesselsinclose
vicinity.
NedwelletalalsomeasuredrocksocketdrillingintosandstoneatNorthHoyleWindFarm.Therewere
significanttonals20dBormoreabovethebackgroundnoise,mostsignificantlybetween100Hzand1kHz.
Thesourcelevelscouldnotbeestablishedbuttheyconcludedthatthereislittlelikelihoodofthenoisefrom
thedrillingcausinganenvironmentaleffect.

F2|P a g e


F.1.1.4 Shipping
Atthisstageshippingassociatedwithconstructionisconsideredtoconsistofvesselsinvolvedinsurveying,
transportofmaterialsorcrew,orgeneralsupportships.Noisefromvesselsinvolvedinoperationssuchas
dredgingordrillingwouldnormallybeincludedaspartofthoseactivities.
Thespectrumofindividualshipsconsistsofabroadbandbackgroundwithmostoftheenergybelow1kHz
withtonalssuperimposed.Thebroadbandspectrumisusuallydominatedbypropellercavitationnoiseorby
hullvibration.Thetonalsarecausedbyrotatingpropulsionmachinery,thoughsingingfromabadlydesigned
ordamagedpropellercanbeloud.
Noisefromindividualshipscannoteasilybepredictedbutempiricalformulaethatrepresentoveralllevels,
typicallyasfunctionsoffrequency,shiplengthandspeed,exist.Theseformulaearebasedonvessels
underwayandwouldnotbevalidduringmanoeuvringorholdingpositionforexample.
F.1.1.5 PreexistingBackgroundNoiseSources
Themostsignificantpreexistingbackgroundnoisesourcesarelikelytobeotherlocalshipping,longdistance
shippingnoiseandwindnoise.OthernoisesourcesthatmayneedconsiderationaremilitaryactivitiesandOil
andGasExplorationorProduction.
TheFirthofForthisahighdensityshippingareaandconsequentlytheambientnoiselevelswillberelatively
high.Aswasthecaseforshippingassociatedwiththewindfarmconstruction,predictingsourcelevelsof
individualshipsisnotfeasible,butpredictinggenerallevelsis.Noiselevelestimatesforaveragedlocal
shipping,distanceshippingandwindnoisecanbeestimatedusingambientnoisepredictionmodelssuchas
CANARY.
TheextentofmilitaryactivitiesintheFirthofForthwillneedfurtherinvestigation.NeartnaGaoitheisvery
closetoaminecountermeasuresexerciseareabutitiscurrentlyunknownhowoftenthisareaisused.

F.2 ERMCApproachtoQuantifyingtheEffectsofSonaronMarineMammals
ERMCprovidesaflexibleapproachtothemanagementofriskandgenerationoftherequiredEnvironmental
ImpactAssessment(EIA)duringsonaroperations.Thesystemisunderpinnedbyacombinationofglobal
scientificresearchanddata,statisticalmodellingandopensystemsdesignandimplementation.
ERMCprovidesfivekeyelementstosupportariskassessment:

RiskAssessmentMethodologydevelopedbySMRUandCREEM,whichprovidesafullyquantitative
EIAprocess.Thealgorithms,calledSAFESIMM(StatisticalAlgorithmsForEstimatingtheSonar
InfluenceonMarineMegafauna),provideaquantitativeevaluationoftheriskstomarinemammals
posedbysonar,whilstaccountingforuncertaintiesinourknowledgeofbothmarinemammal
densitiesandthelikelybiologicalconsequencesofexposuretosound;

RiskMitigationthroughwhichalternativescenariooptionsareassessedtoallowtradesbetween
desiredoperationalperformanceandrisktobemanaged;

ApprovalandAuditingProcessmakesdecisionmakingandresponsibilityclear,andrecordstherisk
assessmentinputsandoutputsonwhichtheywerebased;

CumulativeSoundExposurecatersforextendeddurationsbyaccumulatingexposureoverlonger
periodsofnoiseemittingactivities.Thisprocessensuresthecumulativeeffectsofexposuretomultiple
sequentialelementsofascenarioareconsidered;

DataisatthecoreoftheERMCsystemandtheadaptabilityandmaintenanceofitisfundamentalto
thequalityoftheoutputasdiscussedbelow.

ThepredictivepowerofthealgorithmsandmodelsintheERMCsystemultimatelydependonthequality,
quantity,variabilityandbreadthofthedatathatareavailable.Thefollowingcategoriesofdataarestored
withinthesystemandcanbeaccessedandupdatedasrequired:

Acousticdeviceparameters;

F3|P a g e

Environmentaldescriptorswaterdepth,sedimentcharacteristics,soundspeedprofiles;

MarineSpeciesmapsforspeciesdensity;andspecies(orgroup)specificinformationonbehaviour
(e.g.divepatterns)andsensitivitytosound(audiograms);

AreasandLimitscoastlines,marineprotectedareas,fishingareas,legalboundaries,etc.

ThemajorityoftheabovedatasetsareloadedfromanextensiontotheIHOsS57ElectronicChartTransfer
FormatcalledAdditionalMilitaryLayers(AML).Oneexampleofsuchanextensionisthedatasetthatmaps
speciesdensitiestoworldlocationsprovidedaspartoftheUnitedKingdomHydrographicOfficesIntegrated
WaterColumnproduct.ThedatahavebeenderivedfromtheRelativeEnvironmentalSuitabilitymodelsof
Kaschner(2006) 5,andcalibratedbytheUniversityofStAndrewsusingpublishedsurveydataforeachspecies.
Thedataisglobal,storedathalfdegreeresolutionandgivesbothadensityestimateandanuncertainty
measurefor115marinemammalspecies.Duetotheavailabilityofinformation,46marinemammalspecies
(includingallspeciesoccurringinUKwaters)haveadditionalestimatesfortheseasonsoftheyear.FigureF
1Error!Referencesourcenotfound.showsthecombinedpredictedmarinemammaldensitydataforall
marinemammalsaroundtheScottishcoastinJuly.

5
Kaschner, K., Watson, R., Trites, A.W. and Pauly, D. (2006). Mapping worldwide distributions of
marine mammal species using a relative environmental suitability (RES) model. Marine Ecology
ProgressSeries,316:285310.

F4|P a g e

FigureF1
CoastinJuly

CombinedPredictedMarineMammalDensityDataforallMarineMammalsaroundtheScottish

Tocalculatethepotentialrisktomarinefaunaofnoise,thecomponentwithinERMCcalledSAFESIMMhas
beendeveloped.TheSAFESIMMcomponent(asdepictedinFigureF2)comprisesasoundpropagationmodel,
asimulationmodelanddatabasesofmarinemammaldata.Outputfromthesoundpropagationmodelis
combinedwithprobabilisticinformationonthelocationofmarinemammalsthroughtimetogivesound
exposurehistoriesforindividualsimulatedanimals.Thesesoundexposurehistoriesareusedtodeterminethe
probabilityforeachindividualofitsufferingaPermanentThresholdShift(PTS)orTemporaryThresholdShift
(TTS)inhearingormodificationofitsnaturalbehaviours(suchasfeedinghabitsormaternalcharacteristics).
SAFESIMMusesadoseresponsecurvebasedontheresultsofFinneranetal(2005)tolinktheprobabilityof
experiencingTTStoSoundExposureLevel(SEL)accumulatedovertheperiodofasurvey.Duetothelackof
dataondoseresponseparametersforPTS,SAFESIMMassumesthatthedoseresponsecurveforPTShasthe

F5|P a g e


sameshapeasforTTSwithanoffsetby+20dB;followingtheapproachadoptedbyHeathershaw(2001) 6and
ChiefofNavalOperations(2006) 7.Thesedoseresponsecurvespredicttheprobabilitythatanindividualwill
experienceTTSorPTSasaresultofaparticularSEL.Uncertaintyinthesebiologicalconsequencesiscaptured
bysamplingfromaBinomialdistributionwiththisprobability,todeterminewhetherornotanindividualdoes
actuallyexperienceeitherofthesethresholdshifts.

FigureF2

BroadOverviewoftheERMCRiskAssessmentFramework

SELiscalculatedrelativetothehearingsensitivityofeachspeciesdeterminedfromanaudiogramfollowing
theapproachsuggestedbyHeathershaw(2001).Thefollowingdecisionframeworkisusedtoassignan
audiogramtoeachspecies:

Ifspeciesspecificinformationisavailablethenitisused;

Ifnospeciesspecificinformationisavailablebutinformationfromasimilarspecies(i.e.withinthe
sameguildandthussharingsimilarecological,behavioural,physiologicalortaxonomiccharacteristics)
isavailablethentherelatedspeciesinformationisused;

Ifnoguildspecificinformationisavailable,agenericfunction(e.g.theGlobalEIAaudiogramin
Heathershaw(2001))isused(seeFigureF3).

6
Heathershaw, A.D., Ward, P.D., & David, A.M. (2001) The environmental impact of underwater
sound.ProceedingsoftheInstituteofAcoustics,23,5164.
7

Chief of Naval Operations (2006) Midfrequency active sonar effects analysis interim policy. In
Memorandumforcirculation.USDepartmentoftheNavy.

F6|P a g e

AudiograminHeathershaw(2001)isusedinERMCifnoSpeciesorGuildSpecific
AudiogramInformationisAvailable

FigureF3

InformationonthepredicteddensityandbehaviourofmarinemammalsfromtheERMCdatabasesisusedby
SAFESIMMtogiverepeatedrealisationsofmarinemammallocationsandmovementsduringasonarscenario.
Simulatedmovementincludesrepresentativedivingbehaviourandhorizontaltravel.Theinformation
necessarytocarryoutsuchmovementsisheldinacomprehensivedatabaseofmarinemammaldiving
behaviour,mostlyderivedfromtaggingsurveys.Thisisused,togetherwithinformationonlocalbathymetry,
tomodelthedurationanddepthofindividualdives
Totakeintoaccounttheeffectthatnoisewillhaveonspeciesmovementcharacteristics,bothhorizontaland
verticalmovementscanbemodifiedwhenasimulatedanimalexperiencesaSELabovetheirhearingthreshold
ifthereisscientificevidencethataspeciesorguildsmovementisaffectedbyexposuretosound,suchaswith
beakedwhales,.
Tomodelthestochasticnatureofreallife,SAFESIMMsamplesfromthestatisticaldistributionofdensity
valuesforeachgridcellduringeverysimulationrun,ratherthanusingmeanvalues.Thisallowsittotake
accountoftheuncertaintyassociatedwiththesedensityestimates.Thisuncertaintyisnotcurrentlydisplayed
withinthesystemduetotheconfusionthatcouldarisefromdisplayingconfidenceintervalstotheuser,
particularlyaroundthresholds,howeverthereisscopeforthistobeincludedwithanintuitivevisualisationto
enablebetterunderstandingoftheriskassessmentoutput.
Thesimulationresultscanbeusedtoestimateavarietyofriskmetricsderivedfromthestatisticaldistribution
ofSELsthatcouldbeexpectedataparticulargeographiclocationwhichcanthenbevisualisedthroughthe
systemsHumanComputerInterface.Thecurrentsystemconfigurationdisplaystheprobabilitythatany
marinemammalwillsufferPTSduringascenarioandtheexpectednumberofanimalsthatmightsufferTTS.

F.3 ERMCApproachtoQuantifyingtheEffectsofSonaronFish
ERMCcurrentlyusesthepeerreviewedStandoffRangealgorithmsfromHeathershaw(2001)toassessthe
impactofsonaroperationsonfish.Thesealgorithmscalculatetheinsitustandoffrangesbasedonacoustic
thresholdlevels(PermanentandTemporaryThresholdShift(PTS/TTS)),thesonarparametersandthelocal
environmentalconditions.Thestandoffrangescanthenbecomparedvisuallyagainstalllocalknownmarine
protectedareasforfishtodetermineifanyadverseeffectswilloccurandusedinmonitoringthelocalregion.
TheSAFESIMMalgorithmshavebeendevelopedinsuchawayastomaximisegeneralityandtoallowfor
futuredevelopmentsanddataavailability.OnewayinwhichthecapabilityofERMCcouldincreaseisthrough
theavailabilityofanalogousdataformarinefaunaotherthanmarinemammals,forexamplefish,seabirdsor

F7|P a g e


marinereptiles.Quantitativeriskassessmentsforsuchspeciescouldthenbemade,providedtheAML
IntegratedWaterColumn(IWC)productwasextendedtocontainappropriateencyclopaedicandspatial
densityinformation.
TheinclusionoffishwouldrequiresomeminorchangestothecurrentERMCVerticalMovementmodule
becausethesespeciesdonotreturnperiodicallytothewatersurface.However,theverticaldistributionof
manyfishspeciescouldbemodelledbyassumingthattheyaredistributedoverafavoureddepthrangeandit
maybeunnecessarytoexplicitlysimulatetheirmovement.Somefishspeciesmakemarkeddiurnalmigrations
throughthewatercolumnwhichcouldbemodelledstochastically.AllotherERMCmodulescouldbedirectly
appliedtofishwithoutmodification.

F.4 ERMCLimitationsandAssumptions
Thefollowingpointsareknownlimitationsofthesystematthepresenttime.However,theseissueswillbe
workedoninthecomingmonthsandthesystemadaptedtoensurethemodelresultsareappropriateforthe
proposedwindfarmenvironmentalassessment.
1)

MarineMammalSensitivitytoSoundThesensitivity(physiological,behavioural)ofmarinemammals
tosoundisbasedonthedataavailablewithinERMC.Theaudiogramdataislimitedtoafewspecies
anditshouldbenotedthatthisdataisbasedonafewindividualanimals.Moreinformationisneeded
toadequatelyquantifythepotentialbehaviouralandphysiologicaleffects.

2)

BiologicalEnvironmentTheknowndensitiesofmarinemammalsintheEIAareaarebasedonthe
informationprovidedbytheERMCsystem.Thedensitiesarebasedonhabitatsuitabilityanditis
possiblethatothermarinemammalsmaybelocatedintheEIAareaasmanyspeciesaremobileand
populationsmaymoveovertime.

3)

PhysicalEnvironmentTheclimatological,sedimentandbathymetryenvironmentsarebasedonthe
dataavailableinERMC.Theseenvironmentswillnotexactlyreplicatetheoceanographicconditions
whichwillbeencounteredwhenthevariousdevicesproducinganthropogenicnoisearedeployed,
andsocannotprovideaforecastofallpossibleconditions.Greaterprecisioninthecalculationof
SORsandRiskLevelswillresultfromcollectinglocaliseddata.

4)

AnthropogenicNoisegeneratedbyOffshoreWindFarmsTheoperatingcharacteristicsandmanner
ofdeploymentofthevariousdevicesproducinganthropogenicnoisewillhavetobecorrectatthe
timetheEIAisgeneratedbyERMC.

5)

AcousticpropagationlossmodellingAcousticpropagationlossmodellingwillbecarriedoutinERMC
usingtheRAM/INSTANTmodels.Thesemodelsareconsideredsufficientlyaccuratetoundertakethe
modellingrequired.

6)

JNCCsguidelinesforTheProtectionofmarineEuropeanProtectedSpeciesfrominjurySAFESIMM
providesanestimateoftheriskthatanyanimalwillexperiencePTS,whichistheJNCCdefinitionof
injury,asastandardoutput.

7)

JNCCsguidelinesforTheProtectionofmarineEuropeanProtectedSpeciesfromdisturbance
SAFESIMMdoesnotcurrentlyproduceanoutputwhichmeetstheJNCCdefinitionofdisturbance.

F8|P a g e

AppendixG

G1|P a g e

G. TerrestrialEcology(LandUseConsultants)
G.1 SurveyTechniques
G.1.1 OtterandWaterVoleSurveys
Ottersurveywouldbecarriedoutonallsectionsofwatercourseandcoastlinefallingwithinthepotentialzone
ofimpactandwithin200mofthisarea.Somesectionsofthesewatercourseswillalsoprovidesuitabilityfor
watervolewherethestreamgradientislessthan3degreesandonthesesectionsawatervolesurveywillalso
becarriedout.
Surveyswillinvolvestandardtechniquesincludingsearchesforspraints/latrines,shelters/burrowsand
evidenceofrunsandfeeding.Thesurveymustbecarriedoutinsuitableweatherandflowconditions.
Surveyforottercanbeundertakenthroughouttheyearinsuitableconditions.Surveyforwatervolemustbe
undertakenbetweenAprilandSeptember.

G.1.2 BadgerSurveys
Badgersurveywouldbecarriedoutonallpotentiallysuitableareasofhabitatwithintheproposed
developmentfootprint(s)plusa50mbuffer.Surveyswouldinvolvestandardsurveytechniquesincluding
searchesforsetts,latrines,pathsandruns,prints,hairandfeedingsigns.Surveycanbecarriedoutatany
timeofyearbutwouldideallybetimedforlateautumn,winterorearlyspring,whendiebackofvegetation
assistslocatingsetts.

G.1.3 BatSurveys
Batsurveywillonlyberequirediffeaturessuitableforroostingbatswillbeaffectedbythedevelopment.A
BatRoostPotential(BRP)assessmentwillbecarriedoutonanytreesthatwillbefelledbythedevelopment.
Surveyswillfollowcurrentbatsurveyguidance(BatConservationTrust,2007) 8.Thissurveywillexaminethe
treesforfeatureswhichcouldproveattractivetosummerroostingbatssuchasholes,splits,ivycoverand
loosebark.Thesurveywillconsistofaphysicalexaminationofthetreesfromrootstocrownusingbinoculars
andapowerfulhandlamptoexaminefeaturesatheight.Ifsafetodoso,potentialroostsiteswillbeexamined
usinganendoscope.ThisworkwouldbecarriedoutbyanSNHlicensedbatworker.Thisassessmentcanbe
carriedoutatanytimeoftheyear.
Wherepotentialroosttreesareidentifiedbutcannotbeconfirmedbyuseofanendoscope,emergenceand
returnsurveysusingultrasonicbatdetectorswouldberequired.Twodusksurveysandonedawnsurveywill
becarriedouttoassessbatuseofthetreesforroosting.Bestpracticestipulatesthreesurveyvisitsbetween
MayandAugust,withatleastoneofthesurveyscomprisingbothaduskanddawnsurveywithinone24hour
period.

G.1.4 RedSquirrelSurveys
Iftreesorareasofwoodlandwillbeaffectedbytheschemeinitialsurveyswillbecarriedouttoidentify
potentialdreysinthecaseofindividualtrees,orfeedingsignsofsquirrel(chewedcones)inthecaseofblocks
oftreesorwoodland.ThesesurveysshouldbeundertakenbetweenMarchandSeptember.
Wheresquirrelsignsareidentifiedorpotentialdreysarefound,hairtubetransectsurveysmayberequiredto
establishwhetherthesquirrelspresentinthetrees/dreysareredorgreysquirrel.Surveyworkcanbecarried
outatanytimeofyear.

8
BatConservationTrust(2007).BatSurveysGoodPracticeGuidelines.BTC,London.

G2|P a g e

G.1.5 GreatCrestedNewtSurveys
Anypondsfallingwithin500moftheproposeddevelopmentfootprintwouldbesubjecttoaHabitat
SuitabilityAppraisal(Oldhametal.2000) 9toassesstheirpotentialtosupportapopulationofbreedinggreat
crestednewts.Ifanyofthepondsexceedathresholdscoretheywillbesubjecttofullgreatcrestednewt
surveys.
SurveyswouldfollowguidanceprovidedbyNaturalEngland(EnglishNature,2001)10asnoequivalentguidance
isavailablespecificallyforScotland.Fourvisitswouldbeundertakentoestablishpresenceorabsenceofthe
speciesusingeggsearch,torchandbottlesurvey.Ifthespeciesisfound,twofurthersurveyswouldbe
requiredtoestablishpopulationestimates.
SurveywouldbeundertakenbetweenAprilandJune.

G.1.6 ReptilesSurveys
WheretheExtendedPhaseIHabitatSurveyidentifieshabitatsuitableforreptiles,andwherelossofthat
habitataspartoftheschememayresultinthedeathofreptiles,ormayreducetheabilityofthepopulationto
maintainitself,reptilesurveywillbecarriedout.Surveyswillinvolvesettingandcheckingofartificialrefugia
onatotalofsevenoccasions,insuitableweatherconditionsbetweenlateMarchandearlyJune.Guidancein
theHerpetofaunaWorkersManual(JNCC,1998)willbefollowed.

9
Oldham,R.S.,Keeble,J.,Swan,M.J.S.,Jeffcote,M.(2000).Evaluatingthesuitabilityofhabitatfor
thegreatcrestednewt(Trituruscristatus).HerpetologicalJournal10:pp143155.
10

EnglishNature(2001).Greatcrestednewtmitigationguidelines.EnglishNature,Peterborough

G3|P a g e

AppendixH

H1|P a g e

H. NatureConservation
H.1 DesignatedAreas
H.1.1 SpecialAreasofConservation
TheSpecialAreasofConservationthathavebeendesignatedalongthecoastlineadjacenttoNeartnaGaoithe
aregiveninthetablebelow.Thefeaturesthatareimportantwithregardtothepotentialdevelopmentofan
offshorewindfarmincludethepresenceofsealsandthedesignationsnearthepotentialcablelandfallpoints,
suchastheFirthofForthSPA,BarnsNessSSSIandPeaseBaySSSI.
Site

Statutory
Designation

Remarks

ReasonforDesignation

FirthofTay&
EdenEstuary

SAC

Thisisamarineareawith
seainlets,tidalrivers,
estuaries,mudflats,
sandflats,lagoons,
saltmarshes,coastalsand
dunes,sandbeachesand
seacliffs.

AnnexIhabitatsthatareaprimaryreasonfor
selectionofthissiteestuaries.AnnexIhabitats
presentasaqualifyingfeature,butnotaprimary
reasonforselectionofthissitesandbanks
whichareslightlycoveredbyseawaterallthe
time,mudflatsandsandflatsnotcoveredby
seawateratlowtide.
AnnexIIspeciesthatareaprimaryreasonfor
selectionofthesiteCommonseal.

IsleofMay

SAC

Marineareawithsea
inlets,saltmarshes,salt
pastures,saltsteppes,
shingleandseacliffs.

AnnexIhabitatspresentasaqualifyingfeature,
butnotasaprimaryreasonforselectionofsite
reefs.
AnnexIIspeciesthatareaprimaryreasonfor
selectionofthissitegreyseal

RiverSouth
Esk

SAC

Tidalrivers,estuaries.
mudflats,sandflats,
lagoons,inlandwater
bodies,bogs,and
terrestrialelements.

AnnexIIspeciesthatareaprimaryreasonfor
selectionofthissitefreshwaterpearlmussel
andAtlanticsalmon.

St.Abbs
HeadtoFast
Castle

SAC

Shingle,seacliffsand
islets.

AnnexIhabitatsthatareaprimaryreasonfor
selectionofthissitevegetatedseacliffsofthe
AtlanticandBalticcoasts.

TableH1

SACsintheVicinityofNeartnaGaoithe

H.1.2 SpecialProtectionAreas
TableH2showstheSPAdesignationsandimportantspeciesinthevicinityofNeartnaGaoithe.

H2|P a g e

Site

Statutory
Designation

Remarks

ReasonforDesignation

Montrose
Basin

SPA

Tidalriver,estuaries,mud
flats,sandflatsandlagoons,
inlandwaterbodiesand
arableland.

Article4.2qualification:Overthewinterthearea
regularlysupportsAnseranser(1.1%ofthe
population),Anserbrachyrhynchus(16.5%ofthe
population)Calidriscanutus(1.5%ofthe
population)Haematopusostralegus(0.7%ofthe
population)andTringatetanus(1.3%ofthe
population).
Thereareinternationallyimportantassemblages
ofoverwinteringwaterfowl(54,930).

FirthofTay
&Eden
Estuary

SPA

Tidalrivers,estuaries,mud
flats,sandflats,lagoons,salt
marshes,coastalsand
dunes,seacliffs,bogsand
marshes.

Article4.1qualification:Duringthebreeding
seasonthearearegularlysupportsCircus
aeruginosus(2.5%oftheGBbreedingpopulation)
andSternaalbifrons(1%ofthepopulationinGB).
OverwinterthearearegularlysupportsLimosa
lapponica(4.6%oftheGBpopulation).
Article4.2qualification:Overthewinterthearea
regularlysupportsAnseranser(1.2%ofthe
population),Anserbrachyrhynchus(1.2%ofthe
population)andTringatetanus(1%ofthe
population).
Theinternationallyimportantassemblagesofbirds
thatthearearegularlysupportsoverwinter
include48,000waterfowl.

Firthof
Forth

SPA

Tidalrivers,estuaries,mud
flats,sandflats,lagoons,salt
marshes,saltpastures,slat
steppes,coastalsanddunes,
sandbeaches,machair,
shingle,seacliffsandislets.

Article4.1qualification:Overthewinterthearea
regularlysupportsPodicepsauritus(21%oftheGB
population)Haematopusostralegus(2%oftheGB
population)Limosalapponica(4%oftheGB
populations)Gaviastellata(2%oftheGB
populations)andPluvialisapricaria(1%oftheGB
populations).Onpassagetheareregularly
supportsSternasandvicensis(6%oftheGB
population).
Article4.2qualification:overthewinterthearea
regularlysupportsAnserbrachyrhynchus(6%of
thepopulation)Arenariainterpres(1%ofthe
population),Calidriscantus(3%ofthepopulation)
Tadornatadorna(2%ofthepopulation)and
Tringatetanus(3%ofthepopulation).

Cameron
Reservoir

SPA

Inlandwaterbodieswith
bogs,marshes,water
fringedvegetationandfens,
withmixedwoodland.

Overwinterthearearegularlysupports7.2%of
theAnserbrachyrhynchuspopulation.

H3|P a g e

Site

Statutory
Designation

Remarks

ReasonforDesignation

Forth
Islands

SPA

Marineareas,seainlets,
coastalsanddunes,sand
beaches,shingle,seacliffs,
islets,inlandwaterbodies,
heath,scrub,drygrassland
andsteppes.

Article4.1qualification:Duringthebreeding
seasonthearearegularlysupportsSternadougallii
(12.5%oftheGBbreedingpopulation)Sterna
hirundo(2.7%oftheGBbreedingpopulation)and
Sternasandvicensis.

Marineareas,seainlets,
heath,scrub,humid
grassland.

Article4.2qualification:duringthebreeding
seasonthearearegularlysupportsUriaaalge
(9.3%ofthepopulation).

St.Abbs
Headto
FastCastle

SPA

Article4.2qualification:Overthewinterthearea
regularlysupportsAlcatordaFraterculaarctica,
Larusfuscus,Morusbassanus,Phalacrocorax
aristotelis,Phalacrocoraxcarbo,Rissatridactyla
andUriaaalge.

Thereisalsoaninternationallyimportant
assemblageof79,560seabirdsduringthebreeding
season.
TableH2

SPAsintheVicinityofNeartnaGaoithe

H.1.3 TheRamsarConvention
TheRamsarsitesinthevicinityofNeartnaGaoithethatconformtothisdescriptionarepresentedinTable
H3.

H4|P a g e

Site

Statutory
Designation

Remarks

ReasonforDesignation

Montrose
Basin

Ramsar

Situatedontheeastcoastof
Scotland,onthewesternsideof
thetownofMontrose,withina
predominantlyagricultural
catchment.Enclosedestuaryofthe
SouthEskcontainingareasof
mudflat,marshandagricultural
land,andDun'sDish,asmall
eutrophicfreshwaterloch.Itisa
goodnaturalexampleofan
estuary,relativelyunimpactedby
development,ahighspecies
diversityintheintertidalzoneand
supportingalargepopulationof
winteringwaterfowl.

Thesiteisalsoimportantinternationally
forwinteringpopulationsofpinkfooted
gooseAnserbrachyrhynchus,greylag
gooseAnseranserandcommon
redshankTringatotanus.
Aparticularlygoodexampleofan
estuary,beingrelativelyunaffectedby
landclaim,industrialdevelopmentor
pollution.MontroseBasinhasa
remarkablyhighspeciesdiversityinthe
intertidalzonewhencomparedwith
othersites.Thesitehydrologyis
unusual,althoughthemainmudflatis
exposedforalongperiodduringeach
tidalcycle,itremainswet,andtherefore
supportsthishighdiversity.The
completeexchangeofwaterintheBasin
witheachtidegivesthesiteahigh
overallwaterquality.
Assemblagesofinternational
importance:Specieswithpeakcountsin
winter:29116waterfowl(5yearpeak
mean1998/992002/2003)and
species/populationsoccurringatlevels
ofinternationalimportance.

FirthofTay
&Eden
Estuary

Ramsar

OntheeastcoastofScotland,
immediatelyadjacenttoDundee,
BroughtyFerry,StAndrewsand
10kmeastofPerth.
TheFirthofTayandEdenEstuaryis
acomplexofestuarineandcoastal
habitatsineasternScotland.
Thesiteincludesextensive
invertebraterichintertidal
mudflatsandsandflatscreatedby
themassivesedimentload
depositedbytheRiverTay.Also
presentarelargeareasofreedbed
andsandduneandasmallamount
ofsaltmarsh.

Cameron
Reservoir

TableH3

Ramsar

CameronReservoirlies6kmsouth
westofStAndrews,ineast
Scotland.CameronReservoirisan
artificialmesotrophiclochwith
bedsofaquaticandmarginal
vegetation.

Thesitesupportsaninternationally
importantassemblageofwintering
waterfowlincludinginternationally
importantpopulationsofseveral
species.Fourteenspeciesofbirdbreed
innationallyimportantnumbers.
AbertaySandsarealsoimportantasa
majorhauloutsiteforbothgreyseals
Halichoerusgrypusandbreeding
commonsealsPhocavitulina.

Theopenwaterisusedasaroostbyan
internationallyimportantwintering
populationofpinkfootedgeesethat
feedonthesurroundingfarmland.

RamsarSitesintheVicinityofNeartnaGaoithe

H5|P a g e

H.1.4 ImportantBirdAreas
TheseasoncodesbelowareusedinthefollowingindividualImportantBirdAreas(IBA)descriptiontables:

B=Breeding
P=Passage
W=Wintering

EdenEstuaryTentsmuirPoint&AbertaySands
Species

Season

Year

Population

Bartailedgodwit

1995

1650

Littletern

1994

40

ProtectionStatus
TheIBApartlyorwhollyoverlapswiththefollowingnationaldesignatedareas:BarryLinks,EarlshallMuir,
EdenEstuary,MortonLochsandTayportTentsmuirCoastSitesofSpecialScientificInterest(SSSI).Italso
overlapswiththeFirthofTayandEdenEstuarySpecialProtectionAreas(SPA).
FirthofForth
Species

Season Year

Population

Pinkfootedgoose

1995 12800

Shelduck

1995 3560

Scaup

1995 195

Goldenplover

1995 3130

Goldenplover

1995 3340

Knot

1995 7550

Dunlin

1995 8650

Bartailedgodwit

1995 2380

Bartailedgodwit

1995 1530

Curlew

1995 2220

Redshank

1995 4190

Redshank

1995 4150

Turnstone

1995 1080

Lesserblacktailedgull B

1990 865

Commontern

1996 690

H6|P a g e


ProtectionStatus
TheIBApartlyorwhollyoverlapswiththefollowingnationaldesignatedareas:LocalNatureReserves
AberladyBay,CambusPool,Skinflats,TorryBay;SitesofSpecialScientificInterest(SSSI)AbbeyCraig,
AberladyBay,AlloaInches,BarnsmuirCoast,BlacknessBay,BurntislandKirkcaldyCoast,Carlingnose,
DumbarnieLinks,DunbarCoast,EastWemyssAnstrutherCoast,FifeNessCoast,ForthBridgeGranton
Shore,GosfordBaytoPortSeton,GullanetoBroadSands,KinneilKerse,LeithtoPrestonpans,NorthBerwick
Coast,RuddonsPoint,Skinflats,TorryBay,TyninghameShoreandWardieShore.
FirthofTay
Species

Season Year

Bartailedgodwit W

Population

1996 1500

ProtectionStatus
TheIBApartlyorwhollyoverlapswiththefollowingnationaldesignatedareas:BalmerinoWormitShore,
BarryLinks,FliskWood,InnerTayEstuaryandMonifiethBaySitesofSpecialScientificInterest(SSSI).This
overlapswithFirthofTayandEdenEstuarySpecialProtectionAreas(SPA).
ForthIslands
Species

Season Year

Population

Gannet

1994 39800

Cormorant

1995 470

Shag

1995 885

Lesserblackbackedgull B

1995 7200

Herringgull

1995 13000

Sandwichtern

1994 130

Roseatetern

1995 17

Commontern

1994 305

Guillemot

1995 20700

Razorbill

1994 2480

Puffin

1995 20000

ProtectionStatus
TheIBApartlyorwhollyoverlapswiththefollowingnationaldesignatedareas:IsleofMayNationalNature
Reserve(NNR);FidraIslands,Inchmickery,LongCraigLocalNatureReserves(LNR);BassRock,ForthIslands,
GullanetoBroadSands,Inchmickery,IsleofMay,LongCraigSitesofSpecialScientificInterest(SSSI).TheForth
IslandsIBAispartlycovered(105ha)bytheFirthofForthIslandsSpecialProtectionArea(SPA).

H7|P a g e


MontroseBasin
Species

Season Year

Whooperswan

Population

1995 105

Pinkfootedgoose W

1995 26000

Knot

1995 3120

Redshank

1995 2450

Redshank

1995 2320

ProtectionStatus
TheIBApartlyorwhollyoverlapswiththefollowingnationaldesignatedareas:DunsDishandMontroseBasin
SiteofSpecialScientificInterest(SSSI).984haoftheIBAiscoveredbyMontroseBasinSpecialProtectionArea
(SPA)andRamsar.
StAbbsHeadtoFastCastle
Species

Season Year

Shag

Population

1995 430

Guillemot B

1993 20800

Razorbill

1993 1470

ProtectionStatus
TheIBApartlyorwhollyoverlapswiththefollowingnationaldesignatedareas:StAbbsHeadNationalNature
Reserve(NNR),BerwickshireCoastIntertidal,ColdinghamLoch,StAbbsHeadFastCastleSitesofSpecial
ScientificInterest(SSSI).247haoftheIBAiscoveredbySTAbbsHeadFastCastleSpecialProtectionArea
(SPA).

H8|P a g e

AppendixI

J1|P a g e

I. ArchaeologicalAnalysisTechniques(HeadlandArchaeology)
I.1

MethodologyfortheArchaeologicalReview,Assessment,Interpretationand
ReportingofGeophysicalMarineSurveyData

I.1.1

Introduction

Themarinesurveydatatobeassessedwillincludetheresultsfromsidescansonar,magnetometersurvey,
seismicprofilingsurveyandbathymetry.Thismethodologyispresentedinconcertwiththatprovidedbythe
EMULtd.surveyteam.Headlandsmarinearchaeologistwillliaisewiththesurveyteamonaregularbasisto
optimisetheresultsofthearchaeologicalassessment.
Thearchaeologicalbenefitsofthetechniquesemployedduringthesurveyinclude:
Sidescansurveymayidentifywrecksandotherrelateddebrisofallperiodsthatlieeitherpartlyorwhollyon
thesurfaceoftheseabed;
Magnetometersurveymayidentifywrecksandotherrelateddebrisofallperiodsbothonthesurfaceofthe
seabedandwithintheseabedsubstrata;
Seismicprofilingsurveymayidentifyfeaturesanddepositsthatrelatetothetopographyofanareapriortoits
burialandinundationduringtheprehistoricperiod,andburiedobjectssuchaswrecks;
Bathymetrymaybeusedtocharacterisewrecksandotherrelateddebrisofallperiodsthatlie(atleastinpart)
onthesurfaceoftheseabed.

I.1.2

Aims&objectives

Thespecificaimsandobjectivesoftheassessmentare:

I.1.3

toconfirmthepresenceofpreviouslyidentifiedmarinehistoricassetsandtocommentontheir
characteristics;
toidentify,locateandcharacteriseunrecordedmarinehistoricassets;
toassessavailabledatainrespectofseabedandsubseabeddepositslikelytobeofarchaeological
interest;
torecommendmitigationmeasures,suchastemporaryexclusionzonesforthosemarinehistoric
assetspotentiallysubjecttoimpactsfromtheproposeddevelopment.

Archaeologicalreviewofthesurveydata

Thedatawillbereviewedinitsrawdigitalstatewithappropriatesoftware.Thiswillallowthedatatobe
replayedandinterrogatedinordertoeffectivelyassestheposition,extentandnatureofpotentialtargets.All
informationwithregardtothesurveyconditionswillbeprovidedbytheEMUsurveyteaminordertogauge
thequalityofthedatafortheeffectiveidentificationofculturalheritageassets.
Thedatawillbesubjecttoaninitialscanforanyobjectsofculturalheritageinterestinorderto:

familiarisetheassessorwiththesurveyarea;
checkthepositionoftargetsinrelationtoknownmaritimelosses;
checktheaccuracyoftheposition,extentandnatureofknownmaritimelosses;
locateandassessunrecordedtargetsidentifiedbytheEMUsurveyteam.
Locateandassessanyfurthertargetsidentifiedbythemarinearchaeologistthatmaybeof
archaeologicalinterest
identifydepositsonandwithintheseabedsubstratathatmaybeofarchaeologicalinterest

Thepositionanddimensionsofthesetargetsalongwithanyadditionalanomalieswillberecordedintoa
gazetteerandalabelledimageofeachanomalyacquired.Themarinearchaeologistwillliaisewiththesurvey
teamonaregularbasistocrossreferenceandverifythetargetinformationinordertoensuretheaccuracyof

J2|P a g e


thefindingsofthearchaeologicalassessmentwithinthewidermarinesurveyobjectivesandintegrationinto
GIS.

I.1.4

Archaeologicalassessmentofidentifiedanomalies

Alltargetswillbeflaggedandthenassessedastotheirarchaeologicalpotential.Thesize,form,natureand
extentofananomalycanoftendictatethelikelyarchaeologicalpotential.Assuch,theinitialpotentialof
identifiedtargetswillbegaugedusingarankingsystem(seetablebelow)asameansofprioritisingpotential
assetsinordertoinformuponsubsequentinterpretation.Itmustbestressedthattherankingsystemisonly
seenasaguideandisnotusedasasubstituteforprofessionaljudgment,whereconsequentinvestigationmay
confirm(ornot)theinitialrankingofanasset.

Potentialofculturalheritageasset

Characterofanomaly

HIGH

Ananomalythatisidentifiedasaknownarchaeologicalasset
orinthevicinityofsuch;orananomalythatisclearly
recognisableasawellpreservedfeaturesuchasarelict
prehistoricsurfaceordeposit;ormaritimelosssuchasavessel
oraircraft(orpartsof)andanyassociateddebris
Ananomalythatexhibitscharacteristicslikelytorepresentthe
remainsofanarchaeologicalassetsuchasarelictprehistoric
surfaceordeposit;ormaritimelosssuchasavesseloraircraft
includinganyassociateddebris;orfragmentsofthesame
Anisolatedorfragmentaryanomalythatisrecognisedtobeof
somearchaeologicalinterestbutmayrepresentanatural
feature

MEDIUM

LOW

TableI1

TableShowingthePrioritisationofIdentifiedTargets

Inaddition,themagnitudeofimpactsofthedevelopmentonpotentialtargetswillalsobeassessedbasedon
theirarchaeologicalpotentialandproximitytoproposedimpacts.Themagnitudeofanimpactonanassetwill
alsohelpdeterminetherequirementfortheintroductionoftemporaryexclusionzonespriortofurther
investigation.Thearchaeologicalpotential(andifknown,likelysensitivity)andcharacteristicsofamarine
historicassetorassetswillnormallydictatethesizeofthetemporaryexclusionzone.

I.1.5

Reporting

Thearchaeologicalresultsofthegeophysicalsurveywillbecompiledasatechnicalreport,andwillbe
presentedasanAppendixtotheCulturalHeritageChapteroftheEnvironmentalImpactAssessment.The
resultswillbepresentedinsuchawayastoensureaccuratecrossreferencingandintegrationintothemain
text.Ifappropriate,thereportwillalsoincludelikelyrequirementsforfurtherarchaeologicalwork.

I.2
I.2.1

MethodologyfortheGeoarchaeologicalReviewandAssessmentof
GeotechnicalData
Introduction

Thefollowingpresentsthemethodologyfortheinitialassessmentofgeotechnicaldataassociatedwiththe
EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentandanysubsequentphasesofwork.Analysisofgeotechnicalboreholeand
vibrocoredatawillenabletherecoveryofevidencerelatingtosubmergedterrestrialarchaeologywithinthe
proposeddevelopmentarea.Inparticular,evidencerelatingtotheformationprocessesandenvironmentsof
depositswillbeobtained.

J3|P a g e

I.2.2

Assessmentofexistingdata

Aninitialarchaeologicaldeskbasedassessmentofcorelogsgeneratedbygeotechnicalcontractorswillbe
undertakenbyHeadlandsgeoarchaeologist.Thisassessmentwillseektoestablishthepresenceofdepositsof
archaeologicalpotentialandcharacterisethemintermsofcompositionandprobablemodeofdeposition.The
resultsofthisassessmentwillbeincludedintheinitialbaselineandimpactassessment.Fromthisassessment
itwillbedecidedwhatfurtherworkwillberequired,includingtherecordingandsubsamplingofanyretained
coresfrompreviousgeotechnicalwork.Theresults,anassessmentofpotentialandaproposalforconsequent
workwillbeformallyreportedatthispoint.

I.2.3

Furthergeotechnicalwork

Furthergeotechnicalworkwillincludearchaeologicalinputfromthemaritimeandgeoarchaeological
specialiststoadviseontheplacingofboreholesformaximisingarchaeologicalinformationoravoiding
potentialdamagetoarchaeologicalfeaturesanddepositsasaresultofdevelopmentimpacts.

I.2.4

Coringandlogging

Coreswitharchaeologicalpotential,bothretainedandnewlytaken,willbecleanedandlogged.Areportfrom
theloggingresultswillbepreparedgivingthearchaeologicalresultsandaproposalforanysubsamplingand
consequentassessmentthatisappropriate.

I.2.5

Subsamplingandassessment

Whereappropriatedepositssuitableforgeoarchaeologicalassessmenthavebeenidentified,subsamplesof
theagreedanalysistype[s]willbetakenfromthecores.Suchanalysesmayinclude:pollen,diatoms,
foraminifera,plantmacrofossilandmicroscopiccharcoalanalysis.Thelocationofallsubsamplestakenfrom
thecoreswillberecordedandthecoreswillberetainedintheeventofanyfurthersubsamplingbeing
required.
Laboratoryassessmentwillbeundertakentoallowthepalaeoenvironmentalanddatingpotentialofthesub
sampledmaterialtobeidentified.Theassessmentreportwillsetouttheresultsofeachtypeofclassof
evidence,anyemergentarchaeologicalinterpretationandaproposalforanyappropriatefurther,detailed
analyticalwork.

I.2.6

Analysis

Fullanalysisoftheappropriateclassesofevidencewillbeundertaken,includingradiocarbondatingofsuitable
material.Iffullanalysisisundertakentheresultswillbeintegratedintothefinalarchaeologicalreport
coveringallaspectsoftheculturalheritageofthedevelopmentarea.Theresultsoftheanalysiswillbe
combinedwiththeresultsofthepreviousphasesofworktoproduceadepositmodelandenvironmental
historyofthedevelopmentarea.

I.3

RelevantLegislation

RelevantCharters,ConventionsandLegislationandPolicytobereferencedinclude:
International:

UNConventionontheLawoftheSea(1982)Articles149and303;

UNESCOConventionontheProtectionoftheUnderwaterCulturalHeritage(UNPUNCH)(2001)the
UK has not signed the Convention but has adopted its guidelines as best practice (in line with the
ICOMOSCharterbelow);

ICOMOSCharterontheProtectionandManagementofUnderwaterCulturalHeritage(1996);

VallettaConvention(1992)ArchaeologicalHeritage;

GranadaConvention(1985)ArchitecturalHeritage;

J4|P a g e

AarhusConvention(1996)Environmentalinformation:SEA,EIA;

FlorenceConvention(2000)EuropeanLandscape.

UKLegislationandPolicy:
DevolvedresponsibilitiesandassociatedlegislaturesinScotlandprovideforseparatemeasuresinclusiveofthe
territorialseaadjacenttotheScottishcoast.HistoricScotlandactasstatutoryadvisorsonbehalfofScottish
Ministers for heritage matters concerned with marine development. Historic Scotland offers advice on the
management, protection and investigation of the marine historic environment within Scottish territorial
waters.
LegislationandPoliciesinclude:

AncientMonumentsandArchaeologicalAreasAct(1979)(asamended);

ProtectionofWrecksAct(1973);

ProtectionofMilitaryRemainsAct(1986);

MerchantShippingAct(1995);

ScottishPlanningPolicy23(SPP23)HistoricEnvironment;

Planning(ListedBuildingsandConservationAreas)Act1990;

NPPG5 Archaeology and Planning Advice Note: Archaeology the Planning Process and Scheduled
MonumentProcedures(PAN42);

HistoricScotlandOperationalPolicyPaperHP6ConservingtheUnderwaterHeritage(1999);

ScottishHistoricEnvironmentPolicy:ConsultationTheMarineHistoricEnvironment(2008);

AdoptedLocalDevelopmentPlans;

EmergingLocalDevelopmentFrameworksandrelevantSupplementaryPlanningGuidance.

ReferenceisalsomadetocurrentdraftlegislationinScotland;

DraftScottishMarineBill(April2009).

J5|P a g e

AppendixJ

J6|P a g e

J. MilitaryandAviation(PagerPower)
J.1
J.1.1

ConsultationResponses
CivilAviationAuthority

The following was received in an email on 30 June 2009.

Our Ref: DAP/Wind/Neart Na Gaoithe Offshore\961
Your Ref: 6185A
Dear Mr Stuteley
Wind Farm Proposal Neart Na Gasithe Offshore
Thank you for notification of the title proposal. This Directorate has no observations.
There may however be issues related to en route navigational facilities. Accordingly details of your
proposal have been copied to National Air Traffic Services for any comment. If you do not hear from
NATS or wish to contact them, they can be contacted at:
National Air Traffic Services Ltd
Navigation Spectrum & Surveillance
Corporate and Technical Centre
4000 Parkway, Whiteley
Fareham
Hampshire
PO15 7FL
For completeness it would also be sensible to establish the related viewpoint of local emergency
services air support units. This is because of the unique nature of their operations in respect of
operating altitudes and potentially unusual landing sites.
You should be aware that there will be a need to install aviation obstruction lighting to some or all of
the associated wind turbines should this development be progressed; The UK statutory requirement
for aviation warning lighting on offshore wind turbines is set out at Article 134 of the UK Air Navigation
Order (available at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf - Section 1, Part 13, Page 5). In
essence, the Article requires that each turbine is fitted with medium intensity (minimum 2000 candela)
steady red lighting on the top of the nacelle such that the light or lights are visible from all directions
and that such lighting is displayed at night. With the permission of the Civil Aviation Authority, only
those turbines on the perimeter of a windfarm need such lighting. Such aviation warning lighting has
the potential to cause difficulty to the maritime community. The Article describes a number of
provisions aimed specifically at mitigating against such impact. With this in mind, your attention is
drawn to several portions of text taken from Article 134:

When displayed:
a.
the angle of the plane of the beam peak intensity emitted by the light shall be elevated to
between 3 and 4 degrees above the horizontal plane;
b.
not more than 45% or less than 20% of the minimum peak intensity specified.shall be visible
at the horizontal plane;
c.
not more than 10% of the minimum peak intensity.shall be visible at a depression of 1.5
degrees or more below the horizontal.
Note that the above requirements are just that, requirements as opposed to a recommendation of

J7|P a g e


allowance.

When the visibility in all directions from every wind turbine generator. is more than 5km, the light
intensity required.may be reduced to not less than 10% of the minimum peak intensity.
Note that this is not a mandated requirement, but more of a standing permission to reduce lighting
intensity under certain conditions. At the risk of repetition, before the lighting intensity may be
reduced the visibility in all directions from every wind turbine generator needs to be more than 5km.
It is possible that strict adherence to the requirements detailed at the first bullet and the subsequence
employment of the allowance to reduce lighting intensity subject to visibility criteria will go some way
to mitigating maritime concerns related to aviation lighting requirement. Should you wish to discuss
this issue further, you should contact my colleague Mr Mark Smailes on 0207 453 6545.
All parties should be aware that international aviation regulatory documentation requires that the rotor
blades, nacelle and upper 2/3 of the supporting mast of wind turbines that are deemed to be an
aviation obstruction should be painted white, unless otherwise indicated by an aeronautical study. It
follows that the CAA advice on the colour of wind turbines would align with these international criteria.
The number of pre-planning enquiries associated with windfarm developments has been significant. It
is possible that the proliferation of wind turbines in any particular area might potentially result in
difficulties for aviation that a single development would not have generated. It is, therefore, not
necessarily the case that, because a generic area was not objected to by the aviation industry, future,
similarly located potential developments would receive the same positive response.
Developers are advised that there is a civil aviation requirement in the UK for all structures over 300
feet high to be charted on civil aviation maps (I understand that the ministry of defence utilises a lower
threshold height). Should this proposed wind turbine development progress and the 300 feet height
be breached, to achieve this civil aviation charting requirement, developers will need to provide details
of the development to:
Defence Geographic Centre, AIS Information Centre, Jervis Building, Elmwood Avenue, Feltham,
Middlesex,TW13 7AHTelephone: 020 8818 2708 (This number is for Defence Geographic, not the
CAA.)
An amendable version of the proforma is available electronically at
http://www.bwea.com/docs/developers_proforma.doc and can be E-mailed to windfarms@caa.co.uk
when submitting preplanning information.
Please be aware that due to the rationalisation of CAA Email addresses the windfarms Email address
is now windfarms@caa.co.uk, the previous address windfarms@dap.caa.co.uk will no longer work.
Regards
Delpha

J.1.2

BAAEdinburghAirport

Lettersenton25July2009
DearCharles
Re:Proposalfor75WindTurbines173.5mhightobladetipatNeartnaGaoithe
OurRef:EDI1635
Inresponsetotherequestforadvicecontainedinyouremailof28/05/2009,receivedinthisofficeon29May
2009,wewouldadviseasfollows:

J8|P a g e


Thesitelies74.3KminanortheasterlydirectionfromtheAerodromeReferencePointforEdinburghAirport.
ThissiteisoutsideoftheObstacleLimitationSurfacesfortheairport.
Anassessmentwasarrangedwithrespecttotheradarsutilisedbytheairportanditwasfoundthatnoneofthe
turbineswouldbevisitbletotheairportradarortheradrlocatedatLowtherHill.
ThereforeiftheproposalweretobesubmittedforPlanningApproval,EdinburghAirportwouldnotraisean
objection.
Pleasebeadvisedthttheadvicegivenisinformalandwithoutprejudicetotheconsiderationofanyplanning
applicationwhichmaybereferredtouspursuanttoPlanningCircular02/2003inconsultationunderthe
safeguardingprocedure.ItcannotbeassumedthatanyresponsetoconsultationunderPlanningCircular
02/2003willnecessarilycoincidewiththeinformaladvicenowgiven.Wewillnothaveanyliabilitytoyouor
thirdpartieswhomayfollowthisadvice.
Itshouldalsobemadeclearthatprovisionofhtisadvicedoesnotconstitutesupportforthedevelopmentnor
anopinionthatthedevelopmentisacceptableunderlocalplanningpolicy.
Yourssincerely
LesleyDuggan(Mrs)
ForandonbehalfofEdinburghAirportLimited

J.2
J.2.1

SpecificDetailsforNeartnaGaoithe
RAFLeucharsPrimarySurveillanceRadar

NeartnaGaoitheislikelytounacceptablyaffectthePrimarySurveillanceRadaratRAFLeuchars,androbust
mitigationisananticipatedrequirementforthesitetobedeveloped.Suchmitigationislikelytoinvolveanew
infillradarinstalledatasuitablelocationandassociatedequipmentattheATCfacilitiesatRAFLeuchars.
ThesemitigationoptionswillprovideadequatecoveragewithoutbeingaffectedbyNeartnaGaoithe,although
itispossiblethatanexistingradarmaybesuitable.Althoughprovisionofanewradarmaybeexpensive(5
10mislikelytobetheupperboundsofthecost),experienceatGlasgowAirportshowsthatitisfeasible,sothe
technicalriskislow.Alternatively,windfarmtolerantradartechnologymaybecomeavailableasanupgrade
totheradar.

J.2.2

RAFLeucharsPrecisionApproachRadar

NeartnaGaoithemayunacceptablyaffectthePrecisionApproachRadaratRAFLeuchars.Thismaysimplybe
aconstrainttothewindfarmlayout,oritmayrequirerobustmitigation.Mitigationoptionsincluderadar
beamsteering,blankingoutofwindturbinereturns,orbuildingaradarfence(araisedareaofground)to
shieldthewindturbines.
FigureJ1showsthelineofsightareaanalysisforNeartnaGaoithe.Theredlinesshowthesafeguardingzones
forthePARsystem(thetruesafeguardingcriteriaareunknown).Withinallthreearcs,windturbinesofless
than100mtipheightwillbewithintheradarslineofsight(andasfortheRAFLeucharsPSR,thisalsoapplies
toturbinesoflessthan60mtallwithineacharc):

J9|P a g e

thesolidredlineindicatesthe
minimumsafeguardingcriteria
thatmaybeapplied:15nm
(27.8km)rangefromtheradar,
andwithin20oftherunways
extendedcentrelineattheradar;

thedashedredlinerepresents
thecurrentMoDpolicy:to
safeguardPARSystemsto20nm
(37.0km)range,within20ofthe
runwaysextendedcentreline;

thedottedredlineindicatesthe
moststringentsafeguarding
criteria,asdescribedinareport
publishedin2005,but
understoodnottohavebeen
implemented,is25nm(46.3km)
range,within25oftherunways
extendedcentreline.

IfPARmitigationprovestobe
necessary,althoughradarend
modificationsshouldbetechnically
FigureJ1
RAFLeucharsPARAnalysis
feasible,thismitigationcarriesthe
mostrisk,asitisnotknowntohave
beenconductedbefore.DiscussionswiththeMoDwillbeconductedtoconfirmPARconstraintsand
mitigationoptions.

J.2.3

EdinburghAirportPrimarySurveillanceRadar

EdinburghAirportoperatesaPSRandanSSRsystem.NeartnaGaoithemayhaveaminorimpactonthe
EdinburghAirportPSR,althoughduetothedistancefromtheairport,noconcernsareexpected.Ifmitigation
isrequired,theselectedmitigationoptionfortheRAFLeucharsPrimarySurveillanceRadarissueislikelytobe
suitable.Intermsoffuturedevelopment,BAAGlasgowAirportmaybereplacingitsPSRbytheendof2010.
Whenthisiscomplete,itisunderstoodthatEdinburghAirportmayalsoreplaceitsPSRsoastominimise
disruptiontoradarcoverage,thisisunlikelytooccurbeforetheGlasgowAirportradarisoperationalagain.A
newradarmayormaynotbeinthesamelocationastheexistingradar.However,duetotherange,itis
consideredunlikelythatEdinburghAirportwillobjecttotheproposal,sothischangeisunlikelytobe
significant.However,EdinburghAirportradarmaybeidentifiedasasuitablelocationforaninfillradarfor
RAFLeuchars.

J.2.4

NERLPerwinnesPrimarySurveillanceRadar

NERLoperatesaPSRandanSSRsystematitsPerwinnessite.NeartnaGaoithemayhaveaminorimpacton
theNERLPerwinnesPSR,althoughduetothelocalairspacestructure,itisexpectedtobeoperationally
acceptable.ItshouldbenotedthatNERLandtheMoDarelikelytousedifferenttechnicalspecificationsforAir
TrafficControlradar,soifanewradarisinstalled,itshouldaccommodateNERLrequirementsaswellasthose
oftheMoD.Intermsoffuturedevelopment,thePSRisscheduledforreplacementin201011,whichwill
involveshuttingdownforseveralmonths.Thenewradarisexpectedtobeinthesamelocation,andwillbea
RaytheonASR23.Raytheonareknowntobeconsideringdevelopmentofwindfarmtolerantradartechnology
whichmaybecomeavailableasanupgradetothisradarinthefuture.Evenwithoutsuchtechnology,the
ASR23islikelytobemoreadaptabletowindturbineeffects(throughadjustmentofradaroperating
parameters),especiallywherewindfarmeffectsareminor(asisexpectedatNeartnaGaoithe).Anychange
duetothisnewradaristhereforelikelytobepositiveforNeartnaGaoithe.

J10|P a g e


ConsultationhasnotbeenundertakenwithNERLtodate,howeverminortechnicalconcernsmayberaisedin
thefuture.Operationally,anyminortechnicalimpactislikelytobeacceptable,sincetheairspaceofmost
concerntoNERLisexpectedtobetheP18airway,andthisisapproximately10kmeastofNeartnaGaoithe.
Technicalmitigationmayberequired.

J.2.5

RAFBuchanPrimarySurveillanceRadar

RAFBuchanisalongrangeairdefenceradarsite,utilisingbothPrimarySurveillanceRadar(PSR)and
SecondarySurveillanceRadar(SSRalsoreferredtobymilitarysourcesasIFFIdentificationFriendorFoe).
TheradaridentifiedofpossibleconcernistheType92PSR.Duetotherangetothewindfarms,onlythePSR
maybeaffected.Overall,therearenoissueswiththeRAFBuchanradaratNearthnaGaoithe.

J.2.6

Summary

TableI1belowsummarisesthedistanceandbearingfromeachradarinthevicinityofNeartnaGaoitheand
theresultingimpacttotheradar.
Radar

Distance/Bearing

DistancebetweentheRAFBuchanPSRandwindfarmcentre
BearingofwindfarmcentrerelativetotheRAFBuchanPSR
DistancebetweentheEdinburghAirportPSRandwindfarmcentre
BearingofwindfarmcentrerelativetotheEdinburghAirportPSR
DistancebetweentheRAFLeucharsPSRandwindfarmcentre
BearingofwindfarmcentrerelativetoRAFLeucharsPSR
DistancebetweentheRAFLeucharsPARandwindfarmcentre
BearingofwindfarmcentrerelativetotheRAFLeucharsPAR
DistancebetweentheRAFLeucharsSSRandwindfarmcentre
BearingofwindfarmcentrerelativetotheRAFLeucharsSSR
DistancebetweentheNERLPerwinnesPSRandwindfarmcentre
BearingofwindfarmcentrerelativetotheNERLPerwinnesPSR

135km/73nm
191(G)/195(M)
79km/42nm
063(G)/067(M)
40km/22nm
108(G)/112(M)
40km/22nm
107(G)/111(M)
39km/21nm
106(G)/111(M)
105km/57nm
183(G)/187(M)

TableJ1

ImpactResult
Nil
Negligible
Major
NilModerate
Nil
NilModerate

RadarDistance,BearingandImpactinrelationtoNeartnaGaoithe

InadditiontoPagerPowersassessment,NERLsonlineselfassessmenttoolwasconsultedandshowsthatfora
turbinebladeheightof140mthereisthepotentialtointerferewithcivilaviationontheeasternedgeofNeart
naGaoithe.However,thePagerPowerreportrecognisestheseconcernsandconsidersthattheycanbe
mitigated.
ForNeartnaGaoithe,thefollowingmitigationoptionsaretobeconsidered:
Astheconsultationprocessisalreadyinitiatedandseriousissueshavebeenpredicted,acceptablemitigation
optionswillbeidentifiedearlyandpursuedaggressively.Initialdiscussionswillbestructuredasthefollowing:

J.2.7

RAFLeucharsPSR

TheRAFLeucharsPSRishighlylikelytorequirerobustmitigationtoallowNeartnaGaoithetobebuilt.Atthis
time,themostlikelyoptionisexpectedtobeprovisionofanewinfillradarthatwillnotbeaffectedbythe
windturbines,butthatprovidesadequatecoverageabovethewindfarms.Thiscouldbeachievedbyterrain
shielding,orperhapsbytiltingtheradarantenna.
Ifconcernsareraisedregardingvariationsinatmosphericconditionsthatwouldaffecteitherthecoverageor
causetemporarywindturbineeffects,itmaybepossibletobuildineasilyadaptableradarparameters(suchas
antennatilt)tomaintainnearoptimumcoveragethroughalllikelyatmosphericconditions.EitherRAF
LeucharsitselforEdinburghAirportarepossiblyideallocationsforsucharadarfromapractical,thoughnot
necessarilyfromatechnical,perspective,asservicingandsecurityprovisionswillalreadybeinplace,and
planningpermissionmaynotberequired.Ifterrainshieldingisrequiredtoavoidwindturbineeffects,itmay
bedesirabletoinitiatesiteidentificationworkearlyinthesitedevelopment;however,itmaybepreferableto

J11|P a g e


ascertainwhetheraradaratRAFLeucharsorEdinburghAirportmaybeacceptablefirst.Thisoptionisalso
likelytorequireanupgradetotheinfrastructureanddisplayequipmentatRAFLeuchars.Itispossiblethat
usingmorethanoneinfillradarmaynotbeacceptableasthismaycauseexcessivetechnicalcomplications.
Analternativemitigationoptionistoidentifyanexistingradarthatmeetsthecoveragerequirements.Evenifa
technicalupgradewererequiredforthespecifictask,thisislikelytobelessexpensiveandsimplerthan
installingandintegratinganewradar.PossibleradarsthatmaybesuitableincludeEdinburghAirportPSR,
PerwinnesPSR,andpossiblyeventheRAFBuchanPSR.FurtheranalysisandengagementwiththeMoDis
requiredtoconfirmthis.

J.2.8

RAFLeucharsPAR

ThePARsystememployedbytheMoDisa3dimensionalradar(showingaircraftlocationandlevelmostATC
radarsonlyshowaircraftlocation),andisparticularlysensitiveasitisusedtoguideaircrafttoverylowlevels
onapproachtolandinbadweather.Anyimpactisunlikelytobeacceptablymitigatedbyprovisionofaninfill
radar.However,severalfactorsshouldbeconsidered.Astheradarprovidesa3dimensionalpicture,itshould
bepossibletoblankoutvolumesofspaceaffectedbywindturbineswithoutdeletingcoverageofthe
approachpath.Theradarhasanadvancedantennawhichallowselectronicbeamsteering.Softwaremaybe
available,ormayfeasiblybedeveloped,toallowtheradarbeamtobesteeredawayfromthewindturbines,
avoidinganyeffects.Finally,astheradarantennaisonly5mabovegroundlevel,iftheaboveoptionsarenot
feasible,itmaybepossibletobuildaradarfence,perhapsasmallareaofraisedground,toshieldthe
turbines.Suchanideaisnotknownevertohavebeenacceptedforasurveillanceradar,butitmaybe
acceptableforaPARsystemwhichdoesnotneedlongrangelowlevelcoveragethatmaybedesirablefora
surveillancesystem.
TheMoDisunderstoodtobecurrentlyinvestigatingmitigationoptionswiththeradarsupplier,promptedby
onshorewinddevelopments.

J.2.9

EdinburghAirportPSR

Duetothedistancefromtheairport,noconcernsregardingtheproposalareexpected.However,ifconcerns
areraised,themitigationappliedtotheRAFLeucharsPSRislikelytobeapplicable.

J.2.10 NERLPerwinnesPSR
IfaconcernisraisedduetothetechnicalimpactonthePerwinnesradar,itislikelythatitwillbedeemed
operationallyacceptable.However,ifthisisnotthecase,themitigationappliedtotheRAFLeucharsPSRis
likelytobeapplicable.

J.2.11 SubmarineExerciseArea
Concernsarenotexpectedtoberaisedwithrespecttothesubmarineexercisearea.Ifthisisnotthecase,it
seemsreasonablethatthattheareamayberelocated.

J.2.12 OtherIssues
Nootherissuesinthescopeofthisreportareexpectedtorequiremitigation.
Afurtheroptionthatmaybecomeavailableisdevelopmentofwindturbinetolerantradartechnology.This
couldenablearadarupgrade,orperhapsanewradartoreplacetheexistingradar(insteadofprovidinganin
fillsystem).Areplacementradarislikelytobesimplerandcheaperthananinfillsystemasitwouldbemore
easilyintegratedintotheexistinginfrastructureatRAFLeuchars.
Therehavebeenseveralfalsestartsinthedevelopmentofsuchtechnology:itmayormaynotbecome
availablewithinrequiredtimeframesrequiredforNeartnaGaoithe.

J12|P a g e