solway energy gateway appendices to final report

Appendix A Study Area Details

1 Existing Sediment Regime ...............................................................................................3 2 Existing Coastal Flood Risk..............................................................................................5

2.1 Economic Assessment .............................................................................................5

- 2 -

1 Existing Sediment Regime

The following text has been extracted from the North Wales and North West Shoreline Management Plan (Halcrow, 2009).

The large shallow estuary was formed thousands of years ago by a number of physical processes including glaciation, sea level change and fluvial erosion, constrained by the inherent resistant geology (English Nature & Scottish Natural Heritage, 2000). Large quantities of predominantly fine sediment accumulated in the estuary as sea levels rose following the end of the last ice age (HR Wallingford (2005).

The Solway Firth is a relatively natural, undeveloped estuary; however there has been considerable land reclamation along the southern shoreline since Roman times, which has effectively moved the shoreline seaward. Earth embankments, locally reinforced with concrete blocks and armour stone in places, have been constructed to protect this land. Along the inner southern shoreline, these defences, designed to protect against erosion and inundation, also anchor the shoreline close to the channel edge.

The construction of the Solway viaduct, between Annan and Bowness, played an important part in the evolution of the estuary over the past century. The structure acted to fix the channels in the middle estuary, and consequently west of the viaduct, the Swatchway Channel moved position closer to the shore, resulting in concentrated erosion along the south-western frontage. Following removal of the structure, the channels were able to move freely. In response, the Swatchway Channel reoriented its path away from the shore, restoring the stability of the shoreline once again.

The presence of the Solway Firth influences the behaviour of the shoreline north of Workington and is considered to play a dominant role in the evolution of the coast north of Allonby to the River Sark. Movement of principal channels within the estuary control the exposure conditions at the shoreline and influence the scale of tidal scour along the frontage.

The inter-tidal channels and banks within the system are highly dynamic. The mobile banks exhibit fluctuating patterns of erosion and accretion, and act as both a sediment source and sink. The position, size and orientation of channels and banks determines the degree to which both the northern and southern shorelines are exposed and play an important role in maintaining the sediment balance within the estuary. Flood channels predominantly run along the southern margins of the estuary mouth with ebb channels to the north. Resistant scars (e.g. High West Scar, Brewing Scar, Howgarth Scar) are present within the estuary and influence the position and orientation of the tidal channels.

The Solway Firth acts as a sink for fine sediment transported northward from St Bees Head and to a lesser extent more coarse material from the west (Bullen Consultants Ltd, 1998). However, the magnitude of supply will depend on both tidal and storm conditions. The Solway Firth is a strong sink for sand and, in the upper reaches, mud. Evidence of coal dust concentrations in the sand suggests that some sediment has been transported northwards into the estuary from the Workington to Whitehaven coast. Futurecoast (Halcrow, 2002) suggests that only limited amounts of sand are transported into the estuary from the west, due to low tidal currents depositing muddy sand at the mouth. Fluvial sediment inputs from the Eden, Esk and Sark are low. Material eroded from marshes is thought to be moved upstream and re-deposited on saltmarshes toward the head of the estuary (Bullen Consultants Ltd, 1998).

- 3 -

Sediment transport within the macro-tidal, flood dominant inner estuary system appears to redistribute material internally rather than transport significant new inputs of material into the system. During a single tidal cycle, large quantities of sand and mud may be moved significant distances within the system (Solway Firth Partnership, 2006). Residual currents transport sand while significant amounts of suspended and bedload silt and clay are transported along the Solway channels. Sediment transport within the wide intertidal zone is variable as local drift reversals occur on a regular basis; however, nearshore sediment transport tends to be in a westerly direction along the southern Bowness frontage, converging with easterly sediment transport along the Cumbrian coast at the mouth of Moricambe Bay.

The inner Solway Firth is a sheltered environment characterised by significant areas of intertidal mudflats, sandflats, and saltmarsh (Cardurnock Flats, Burgh Marsh and Rockliffe Marsh), which has developed on a fine sandy substrate of marine origin (Bullen Consultants Ltd, 1998). The 24 km2 of intertidal banks within the inner Solway Firth and Moricambe Bay, represent one of the largest continuous areas of intertidal habitat in the UK (Bullen Consultants Ltd, 1998). The behaviour of the shoreline between Cardurnock and the River Sark is highly influenced by the mobile nature of the inter-tidal channels rather than by wave exposure or storm events. East of Grune Point there is little evidence of blown sand, although some occurs at Herd Hill and the Cardurnock Peninsula, however, unlike at Grune Point, dunes are absent from these locations (Bullen Consultants Ltd, 1998).

Shoreline erosion and accretion patterns within the estuary are highly influenced by the movement of channels. Changes in channel position occur mainly due to variations in river discharges, however, in the past channel positions have also been affected by human intervention. Construction of the Solway Viaduct in 1868, between Annan and Bowness, resulted in the main Solway channel moving closer towards the southern shore (Bullen Consultants Ltd, 1998). Consequently, erosion dominated the area east of the viaduct and accelerated accretion occurred to the west. Since removal of the structure, the shoreline in this location appears to have stabilised. Contemporary erosion is mainly focussed on the banks of the River Eden and along the shoreline between Bowness-on-Solway and Burgh Marsh (Bullen Consultants Ltd, 1998). Consequently, coastal defence structures have been constructed at Burgh Marsh and Glasson Moss to arrest this erosion and to reduce the risk of flooding.

Along the southern shoreline of the Solway Firth, west of the original viaduct crossing, saltmarsh accretion has been steady since 1936, for example at Anthorn and Cardurnock Marsh. Little accretion has occurred to the east, with the exception of Rockcliffe Marsh (Bullen Consultants Ltd, 1998).

- 4 -

2 Existing Coastal Flood Risk

Figure A.1: Environment Agency Indicative Flood Risk Map, which only

considers England

Coastal flooding has occurred at a number of locations along the coast of the Solway Firth. In addition there are areas which are at risk from flooding due to a combination of high tide levels and high river discharges. In an order of risk, these areas include: Carlisle, The Nith Estuary (particularly at Dumfries), Kingholm Quay, Glencaple; the Annan Estuary, The Dee Estuary, Wigtown, Creetown, Carsluith and the River Sark (Roe, 2007).

Indicative flood risk maps for the Solway Firth have been provided in Figure 1.13. Scottish maps are not available digitally for commercial organisations. Licenses are only currently available to Scottish local authorities due to license restrictions imposed by major IPR holder CEH.

2.1 Economic Assessment

The SMP1s included an economic assessment which identified £40 million assets at risk from coastal erosion and flooding over a 50 year period, see Table 1.3. Note that 50% of these losses are due to loss of road.

- 5 -

Table A.1 – Value of assets at risk from coastal erosion and flooding over a 50

year period (SMP 2001) Value of assets (£)

England Scotland

Loss of property 1,959,570 5,678,688

Loss of Land 772,288 458,738

Flooding 8,187,353 6,987,345

Loss of Road 12 ,020,000 8,764,356

Traffic Disruption 2,203 1,872

Total 22,941,414 16,890,999

- 6 -

Appendix B Technology Long List

1 Algal Biomass

1.1 Description

Algae are a form of biomass with a high oil content that occurs naturally in static bodies of water. It has high growth rate and in comparison to lignin based biomass has a high density. The proposal here would be to isolate an area within the Solway Firth to enable the growth and farming of algae on a large scale. The algae can be used to generate power either through extraction of oil to create biodiesel, through anaerobic digestion or by dewatering and subsequent combustion.

1.2 Brief Appraisal

The technology and methods surrounding algae for power generation are still at concept stage and subject to a high level of initial research currently. A major drawback of its deployment is the need for nutrient rich water during growth; within the context of the Solway this means isolation of the growth area from natural estuarial conditions to prevent leaching of the surrounding habitats and negative environmental impact. Algal biomass does not require estuary conditions and its development in alternative areas would be favoured.

2 Distributed Tidal Stream

2.1 Description

Tidal stream devices capture the kinetic energy of tidal flows and their output is dependent on the velocity of water and not the available operating head. Over recent years there has been significant investment in the development of such devices and a number of prototypes under test or initial deployment.

There is a diverse selection of tidal device designs currently under development and they can broadly be divided into four main categories based on their principle of energy extraction; horizontal-axis turbines, vertical axis turbines, oscillating hydrofoils and devices utilizing the Venturi effect.

2.2 Brief Appraisal

In general, the trend for tidal stream devices (irrespective of the energy capture principle) is for offshore deployment in water depths of up to 100m, with typical depths of approximately 20-50m. On the basis of research into tidal stream energy market, it can be concluded that the cut-in velocity for most tidal devices is in the range 0.5-1ms-1 and rated water velocity is between 2 and 3ms-1.

As far as Solway Firth is concerned, most of the area considered is very shallow, below 20m. Generally speaking, deeper zones of more than 20m depth are located between Kirkcudbright Bay and St Bees Head, and westward from this line, and are associated with very low tidal speeds (0.51 – 0.82ms-1). Also, the only location offering tidal speeds of approximately 2ms-1, between Southerness Point and Maryport, is in a very shallow water zone. This combination of factors excludes efficient tidal stream energy production, and the site is unlikely to attract tidal stream energy developers, who at this point of time are mainly interested in commercial deployment rather than testing in mild tidal stream environment.

- 2 -

3 Tidal Reef

3.1 Description

Tidal reefs generate energy through the creation of a low head differential through impoundment. In principle they require a method of impounding water, an array of turbines and sluicing gates to control water levels.

A number of concepts exist and are being studied under the Severn Tidal Embryonic Technologies Scheme but to date no prototypes or testing has been carried out.

3.2 Brief Appraisal

Reefs have similarities to barrages in construction but the lower head difference they operate under allow the structures to be designed to withstand lower forces; potentially allowing opportunities for savings in cost and complexity.

4 Land Connected Tidal Lagoon

4.1 Description

Tidal range technologies utilise a structure to impound water at a high level, and release it back to the main body of water at a lower level. This can be accomplished whenever there is a change in water level, and so energy can be extracted on both ebb and flood tides, although flood generation typically has lower capacity for generation. The energy potential on any tidal range scheme is fundamentally dependent on the difference between high and low tide, the amount of water that flows past the impounding structure and the area of the impoundment or basin area.

Tidal lagoon schemes adopt a similar principle to tidal barrages in that they comprise a solid structure to impound water which is release through turbines for power generation. The difference is that they impound only part of the water of the channel in contrast to barrages that span the entire channel.

4.2 Brief Appraisal

A number of lagoons have been previously proposed and they utilise proven technology. Their lower impact on the estuary also has potential environmental benefits compared to barrage schemes.

5 Isolated lagoon

5.1 Description

An isolated lagoon is one that constructed with no connection to land. Their operation is as described in item 4 above.

5.2 Brief Appraisal

The technology is well known but the lower levels of access to the structure will have implications both during construction and operation.

- 3 -

6 Water Wheel

6.1 Description

The concept is to install water wheels across the estuary that will operate based on the head and flow applied. They will be enlarged versions of standard hydropower designs.

6.2 Brief Appraisal

There has never been an application of this technology within an estuary and the changing water levels will affect the output dramatically over the tidal cycle. The structure would be visible as at least half the wheel must protrude above the water. A significant amount of work would be needed to prove technical viability.

7 Tidal barrage

7.1 Description

Tidal range technologies utilise a structure to impound water at a high level, and release it back to the main body of water at a lower level. This can be accomplished whenever there is a change in water level, and so energy can be extracted on both ebb and flood tides, although flood generation typically has lower capacity for generation. The energy potential on any tidal range scheme is fundamentally dependent on the difference between high and low tide, the amount of water that flows past the impounding structure and the area if the impoundment or basin area.

Barrages extend from one coast to another to create the impoundment.

7.2 Brief Appraisal

There are operational barrages around the world and a wide range of information available on their design principles. They have a significant impact on the environment by impounding large areas of the estuary and changing the natural tidal range.

8 Wind Power

8.1 Description

This would consist of conventional wind turbines that could be land based or offshore. The increasing wind power capacity within the UK is testament to the readiness of the technology.

8.2 Brief Appraisal

Robin Rigg is operational within the Solway Firth and is not dependent on estuarial features. There is no specific justification for additional wind generation within the Solway, beyond existing plans. Moving further upstream would cause increased environmental impacts due to the designations that exist.

- 4 -

9 Common Turbine

9.1 Description

In principle this is a tidal stream device and wind turbine combined through gearing to produce a single output. There is the potential to produce a more reliable output through the two device acting smooth total generation.

9.2 Brief Appraisal

The same limitations that apply to tidal stream and wind also apply here. The concept is also an unproven design that would require development.

10 Tidal Fence

10.1 Description

This concept is built on the basis of stringing a tidal stream device together across a proportion of the estuary width. There is the advantage of capturing energy that would bypass single stream devices to increase overall efficiency. They operate on tidal velocities and so do not significantly affect the tidal levels in the estuary.

10.2 Brief Appraisal

They do not affect the tidal levels in the estuary but limitations in terms of velocity and water depth exist.

11 Mounsey Tidal Elevator

11.1 Description

The Mounsey tidal elevator is a concept for a novel device which uses an air compression system to hold water until power generation is needed.


In terms of applying this technology to the Solway Firth, this device is only at concept level and has still to be proven or tested. In theory it could work in tandem with a tidal barrage scheme but due to a lack of demonstrable track record it was not considered feasible for use in the Solway Firth at the time of this study.

12 Wave energy conversion

12.1 Description

Wave energy conversion devices are generally categorized by the method used to capture the energy of the waves. They can also be categorized by location and power take-off system. Method types are point absorber or buoy; surfacing following or attenuator; terminator, lining perpendicular to wave propagation; oscillating water column; and overtopping. Locations are shoreline, nearshore and offshore. They involve different types of power take-off including hydraulic ram, elastomeric hose pump, pump-to-shore, hydroelectric turbine, air turbine and linear electrical generator. Some of these designs incorporate parabolic reflectors as a means of increasing the wave energy at the point of capture. These capture systems use the rise and fall motion of waves to capture energy.

- 5 -


Wave energy conversion devices are not considered to be suitable for the Solway Firth due to the lack of sufficient wave energy resource in the estuary compared to further out to sea. There would be far better locations for such devices in other areas of the UK with potentially less environmentally sensitive areas and designations.

13 Tapchan

13.1 Description

Tapchan, or tapered channel systems consist of a tapered channel feeding into a reservoir that is constructed on a cliff. The narrowing of the channel causes the waves to increase their amplitude as they move towards the cliff face. Eventually the waves spill over the walls of the channel and into the reservoir, which is positioned several metres above mean sea level. The kinetic energy of the moving wave is converted into potential energy as the water is stored in the reservoir. The generation of electricity is then similar to a hydroelectric power plant. The stored water is then fed through a Kaplan turbine and to generators which convert the kinetic energy to electrical energy. TAPCHAN systems are not suitable for all coastal regions.


Suitable locations for Tapchan systems must have consistent waves, with good average wave energy and a tidal range of less than 1m, suitable coastal features including deep water near to shore and a suitable location for a reservoir. For this reason a Tapchan scheme would not be considered feasible or justifiable for the Solway Firth.

14 River hydro schemes

14.1 Description

A river hydro power system consisting of a run of river scheme or small barrage to capture the energy of one or more feed rivers to the Solway Firth could be developed.


Although the technology is proven it is on a much smaller scale of energy output that an estuary wide development. There is a case for developing these along any suitable river: challenges are very site specific.

15 PV / Air / Water Heat Pumps

15.1 Description

It would be possible to use the estuary to deploy solar panels or a network of pipes to collect energy in the form of heat or electricity. It was suggested that the technologies be simultaneously deployed to share infrastructure costs and boost total output.


Both options require construction within the estuary and in the case of solar would affect the light conditions with resultant impacts on flora and fauna growth. The generation of heat requires a local user that would limit valuable deployment levels. The lower energy density

- 6 -

of the technologies would necessitate a large coverage area with associated impacts. These technologies could be deployed in other less sensitive locations.

16 Geothermal

16.1 Description

Geothermal power is power extracted from heat stored in the earth. This geothermal energy originates from the original formation of the planet, from radioactive decay of minerals, and from solar energy absorbed at the surface. This heat can be captured to power turbines or as a direct heat source.


Investigation would be necessary to determine if there is a suitable energy source in the location and construction would require extensive drilling operations with negative environmental effects. Geothermal energy also emits carbon dioxide that has been trapped under the earth’s surface. The power station would be constructed on land to avoid excessive costs. This technology does not require an estuarial setting.

17 Chemical Differential

17.1 Description

Chemical differential schemes utilise the chemical difference between salt water from the sea and fresh water from another source in order to generate electricity. The process is called pressure-retarded osmosis and involves saltwater and freshwater being funnelled into separate chambers, divided by an artificial semi-permeable membrane. The salt molecules in the seawater pull the freshwater through the membrane, increasing pressure on the seawater side. This pressure is then used to drive turbines coupled to generators. This type of approach is being pursued by Norwegian utility company Statkraft.

A separate approach is being taken by a Dutch firm called Wetsus. The technology relies on reverse electrodialysis, where a series of fresh and saltwater streams are pushed into underground pipes to opposite sides of two kinds of membranes. These membranes allow the passage of sodium or chloride ions, which builds an electrical current across the membranes.


A chemical differential scheme is unlikely to be suitable for the Solway Firth. Such a scheme relies on freshwater flow which the Solway Firth does have from the various inflowing rivers. However, any chemical differential scheme is unlikely to be of sufficient scale to justify the impact of placing it in the Solway Firth.

18 Tidal Bridge

18.1 Description

A tidal bridge may be used a transport routes across rivers, estuaries or ocean channels whilst consisting below water level of a number of modular turbines. These turbines make use of the kinectic energy of flowing water.

- 7 -


This technology is at an early stage of development and no larger schemes exist. A tidal bridge does not represent a likely choice for the Solway Firth since the turbine need a minimum current velocity which is not reached in most locations.

19 Pumped Storage

19.1 Description

Pumped storage hydro generation is used to store excess or cheap electrical energy or to provide system response and is not generating additional energy. Electrical energy is converted into potential energy by pumping water onto a higher level basin created by a dam. Once water is released via turbines electrical energy is generated.


Pumped storage is a proven technology widely used by utilities for load balancing. This technology is not carbon neutral but would be valuable for storing and making use of excess electricity in the grid. This scheme would also require a suitable storage basin to be located.

20 Electrical Interconnector

20.1 Description

An electrical interconnector is used for transmission of electricity and has the potential to improve the electrical infrastructure by connecting two different electricity networks.


The loading on the current electrical interconnector between England and Scotland is considerable. The load could be eased by an additional interconnector for example in the Solway region providing additional capacity. The technology of interconnectors is well developed. In the case of this specific project an interconnector does not appeal as an option since it would not generate energy as such, although it could enable developments in Scotland.

- 8 -

Appendix C Short-listed option review summaries

Option

B1 Full Name Outer Barrage General

Location Workington to Abbey Head Scheme Type Tidal Barrage Operation Ebb Installed Capacity 5,891 MW

Weightings 15 8 7 5 30 30 5 Technical Financial Environmental

Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 8 10 3 1 8 1 5

Scoring Summary

B1

02468

1012

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion

Technical Financial Environmental

Criteria

Scor

ing

B1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis

The barrage option from Workington to Abbey Head is the largest of the 4 barrage schemes considered, at just over 28 km in constructed length and is likely to be the most costly in terms of grid connection. Hence the capital costs are considerable. In terms of constructability, in addition to the challenges of offshore construction, the build would require a considerable laydown area, concrete batching nearby and would lead to significant construction traffic passing through the surrounding communities; scoring low on constructability and local disruption. Involving a sizable barrage at the outer region of the Solway Firth, B1 impounds a considerable basin area and would have significant environmental effects; leading to increased planning risk and scoring low on environment as a result. These low scores are however offset by high scores for energy output and with such a sizable generation capacity B1 is the most attractive in terms of cost of generation. With tidal barrage schemes already proven technology, this option scores highly for having low technology risk. If the downsides in environmental and local disruption could be overcome, B1 would have the potential to be one of the most economical. However, it is expected that the environmental impacts of implementing the B1 option will be extremely challenging and may even be insurmountable.

- 2 -

Option

B2 Full Name Middle Barrage General

Location Southerness Point to Beckfoot Scheme Type Tidal Barrage Operation Ebb Installed Capacity 2,703 MW


Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 8 7 7 6 9 3 6

Scoring Summary

B2

0123456789

10

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion


Criteria

Scor

ing

B2

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis

The barrage option from Southerness Point to Beckfoot, at 2.7 GW installed capacity is the second largest of the 4 barrages considered and is termed the middle barrage, being located further inland from the B1 “outer barrage” location yet not as far inland as B3. A construction length of 11.5 km means less civil infrastructure and as a result a higher capital cost score relative to B1. Although B2 has half the generating capacity of B1, the grid connection issues are still complex and likely to be costly to resolve. The B2 barrage option, similar to B1, would face low technology risk, good levels of energy output and would score slightly higher in constructability compared with B1 due to its relatively smaller size. In-line with B1, it is expected that B2 will lead to significant environmental impacts although the impounded area is much less than B1.

- 3 -

Option

B3 Full Name Inner Barrage General

Location Bowness to Annan Scheme Type Tidal Barrage

Operation

Ebb Installed Capacity 316 MW Weightings 15 8 7 5 30 30 5


Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 7 1 9 9 5 5 6

Scoring Summary

B3

0123456789

10

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion


Criteria

Scor

ing

B3

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis

The B3 barrage option is proposed from Bowness to Annan, and at 316 MW of installed capacity is significantly smaller in scale compared to the middle and outer barrage options. At a construction length of under 2 km, capital costs are much lower and the constructability score is more favourable than B1 or B2. However, with a much smaller impounded area and greater uncertainty on the bathymetry, scoring on energy output is lower and the cost of generation suffers as a result. The positive spin-off of a smaller barrage scheme is that local disruption and environmental impact will be significantly less; scoring higher in these areas compared to B1 and B2. However, even with expected lower grid connection and lower capital costs, the energy output is not expected to be sufficiently large to overcome the capital costs which are still significant when expressed as a cost per unit of installed capacity and so B3 fails to compete with the economies of scale of B1 which has approximately half the generation costs.

- 4 -

Option

B4 Full Name Moricambe Bay Barrage General

Location Moricambe Bay Scheme Type Tidal Barrage Operation Ebb Installed Capacity 113 MW


Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 8 1 9 10 2 7 6

Scoring Summary

B4

02468

1012

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion


Criteria

Scor

ing

B4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis

The B4 barrage option is proposed from across Moricambe Bay, and at a 113 MW of installed capacity is the smallest of the 4 barrages considered. This options scores highest of all the barrage options for environmental criteria due being the smallest barrage scheme and being located in a bay just off the main estuary. There is significant uncertainty in the bathymetry in this area with shifting sands a key feature and combining this with a smaller impounded area leads to a low score on energy output. As is the case with B3, B4 fails to compete with the economies of scale of the larger B1 and B2 barrage options and indeed B4 has among the poorest levelised cost of generation of all the options being considered, despite expecting to have the lowest grid connection cost. In summary, it is likely that there will not be enough energy output from a tidal barrage option at Moricambe Bay output to justify the capital costs.

- 5 -

Option

L1 Full Name Scottish Waters Lagoon General

Location Rascarrel to Southerness Scheme Type Tidal Barrage Operation Ebb Installed Capacity 692 MW


Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 8 2 4 7 2 6 7

Scoring Summary

L1

0123456789

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion


Criteria

Scor

ing

L1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis

Lagoons have comparable capital costs with similarly sized barrages. However, notably, they generate significantly less energy per unit of civil infrastructure. The result of this is a high cost of generation, reflected in the poor scoring of L1. One key advantage is that environmental impacts will be significantly less than any of the barrage options since only part of the basin in the Firth is being impounded. Consequently, L1 scores among the highest for environment. Technology risk is lower than in the case of tidal barrage schemes, since to date no tidal lagoon schemes have been built, although proposals have been made for Swansea Bay and the Severn Estuary and the technology risk is not expected to be as low as tidal reef. Financially, the economics of L1 are poor, with levelised cost of generation relatively high. One of the key drawbacks of lagoons is that significant civil infrastructure is still required in return for a lower energy output due to only part of the basin being impounded.

- 6 -

Option

L2 Full Name English Waters Lagoon General

Location Maryport to Beckfoot Scheme Type Tidal Barrage Operation Ebb Installed Capacity 435 MW


Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 8 2 4 8 1 7 7

Scoring Summary

L2

0123456789

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion


Criteria

Scor

ing

L2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis

Lagoons have comparable capital costs with similarly sized barrages. However, notably, they generate significantly less energy per unit of civil infrastructure. The result of this is a high cost of generation, reflected in the poor scoring of L2. Environmental impacts will be significantly less than any of the barrage options since only part of the basin in the Firth is being impounded. As with L1, the environmental impact will be lower but with relatively low energy output and high estimated capital costs the levelised cost of generation is high.

- 7 -

Option

R1 Full Name Outer Reef General

Location Workington to Abbey Head Scheme Type Tidal Barrage Operation Ebb Installed Capacity 1,318 MW


Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 3 5 3 3 3 3 5

Scoring Summary

R1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion


Criteria

Scor

ing

R1

2.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.6


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis

R1 is a tidal reef stretching from Workington on the Cumbrian side to Abbey Head on the Scottish side at the same location as the outer barrage, B1. Tidal reefs are often described as low head barrages. They are intended to operate on a lower head differential, with the objective of mimicking the tidal cycle more closely than a conventional barrage to minimise the environmental impact. The amount of construction material required for the impoundment is less than in case of a barrage, leading to higher scoring on environmental criteria compared to a similarly sized barrage (B2). A key drawback of tidal reef schemes lies in the fact that they are a new and unproven concept.Therefore, R1 scores low on constructability and technology risk. Tidal reefs operate in 2-way generation mode, during both flood and ebb. Compared to tidal barrages, they generate less power, but stretched over much longer periods of time. This is one of the most important advantages of this technology.

- 8 -

Option

R2 Full Name Middle Reef General

Location Southerness Point to Beckfoot Scheme Type Tidal Barrage Operation Ebb Installed Capacity 535 MW


Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 3 3 7 7 5 5 6

Scoring Summary

R2

012345678

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion


Criteria

Scor

ing

R2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis R2 is a tidal reef scheme stretching from Southerness Point to Beckfoot at the same location as the middle barrage, B2. As with R1, this scheme scores low on constructability and technology risk but scores reasonably on financial criteria, where cost of generation may be comparable to the inner barrage option.

- 9 -

Option

R3 Full Name Inner Reef General

Location Bowness to Annan Scheme Type Tidal Barrage Operation Ebb Installed Capacity 88.4 MW


Crit

eria

Tech

nolo

gy ri

sk

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

Loca

l dis

rupt

ion

Scoring 2 1 9 9 2 6 6

Scoring Summary

R3

0123456789

10

Tech

nolo

gyris

k

Ene

rgy

outp

ut

Con

stru

ctab

ility

Cap

ital c

ost

Cos

t of

gene

ratio

n

Env

ironm

enta

lim

pact

Loca

ldi

srup

tion


Criteria

Scor

ing

R3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0


Criteria

Scor

ing

Synopsis R3 is a tidal reef scheme stretching from Bowness to Annan at the same location as the inner barrage, B3. As with R1, this scheme scores low on constructability and technology risk but scores reasonably on financial criteria, where cost of generation may be comparable to the inner barrage option.

- 10 -

Appendix D Methodologies for Calculating Energy Outputs

1 Tidal Barrage/ Lagoon......................................................................................................3

1.1 Estimation methodology ...........................................................................................3 1.1.1 Tidal data ..........................................................................................................3 1.1.2 Bathymetry of the barrage location and of the enclosed basin(s).....................4 1.1.3 Installed Turbine discharge capacity. ...............................................................4 1.1.4 Installed Sluice discharge capacity...................................................................5 1.1.5 Estimation of Energy Output.............................................................................5 1.1.6 Other Modes of Operation ................................................................................5

2 Tidal Reef .........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Estimation Methodology ...........................................................................................6

2.1.1 Definition of basis of operation .........................................................................6 2.1.2 Choice of turbine...............................................................................................7 2.1.3 Analysis of tidal cycles and possible generation times .....................................7 2.1.4 Calculation of reef energy output......................................................................8

- 2 -

1 Tidal Barrage/ Lagoon

1.1 Estimation methodology

For the high-level assessment of the tidal barrages and lagoons considered in this study the fundamental output from the schemes is the total electrical energy delivered to the grid. Impacts related to the timing of power delivery with respect to grid demand are considered secondary and evidence from recent studies of tidal power schemes is that the most economical schemes are based on the premise of optimising scheme design and operation to maximise energy production from a given level of investment. Accordingly, our base case assessments have been based upon ebb-generation only schemes at each option location; the objective being to establish a reliable first estimate of average annual energy production for each option.

The fundamental parameters influencing outputs from a particular option location are: • Tidal range • Areas and volumes of enclosed tidal basin • Depth of water at barrage site. • Installed turbine discharge capacity. • Installed sluice discharge capacity

These parameters and the data sourced for this study are discussed below:

1.1.1 Tidal data

Due to the variability of the tides in order to determine an average annual energy production for a particular option location it is necessary to consider an appropriate period of tidal level predictions to incorporate variation between springs and neaps and to allow for the long-term tidal constituents. To do this a base tidal year of 2010 has been selected as this is known to be near the mean of the 18.6 year constituent, and to establish the predicted high water and low water levels and hence tidal ranges occurring in this base year. The Admiralty predictions of tide levels at the secondary port locations of Workington, Maryport, Silouth, Annan, Hestan Is and Kirkcudbright Bay have been accessed as levels with respect to Ordnance datum (m AOD).

Average tidal range is a fundamental indicator of tidal energy potential which generally increases towards the inner estuary; being 5.76m at Workington, 6.10m at Maryport and 6.86m at Silouth. Further upstream at Annan tidal predictions are not available for low waters due to the shallow bed depth and the drying out of the bed.

Tidal predictions for levels based upon astronomical forces are believed to be within +/- 0.1m but it should be recognised that weather conditions can have a significant impact upon absolute levels; depressing these in high pressure barometric conditions and elevating them during low pressure storm surge conditions. These later effects are not considered at this stage and their net effect is believed to be small. Construction and operation of a tidal power barrage (and to a lesser extent a tidal power lagoon) will have some effect upon the natural tidal regime. The effect is likely to reduce the tidal range; but for the Solway from numerical hydraulic modelling this effect has been suggested to be small and has been ignored in this high-level appraisal. Accordingly, for each option location the tidal regime of the nearest secondary port has been assumed to occur to seaward of the barrage.

- 3 -

1.1.2 Bathymetry of the barrage location and of the enclosed basin(s)

Information of bed levels within the Solway Firth has been found to be surprisingly limited; particularly upstream from Robin Rigg. The usual source of such data are the shipping charts published by the Admiralty; however in the Solway Firth large areas upstream of Barrage Line 1 are apparently not surveyed due to the frequent changes in the positions of channels and banks. To supplement the Admiralty charts reference has been made to previously reported data for the areas of the enclosed basin at various elevations, as follows: • For Barrage Line 1; Reference Binnie and Partners Study 1987 [28] • For Barrage Line 3; Reference Babtie 1966 [1]

For each location the enclosed basin area has been measured from Ordnance survey mapping at the land boundary as a check on other data or where none is available as the primary basin area data for use in the energy assessment.

Depth of water at the barrage sites is of significance to the sizing of turbines (to ensure adequate submergence to avoid the damaging effects of cavitation) and to the volumes of materials for the barrage construction (caissons, embankments and lock structures). Data is available from the Admiralty chart for Barrage Line 1 and for parts of Barrage Line 2 and parts of Lagoons 1 and 2 but there is no Admiralty data for Barrages 3 and 4 because these effectively dry out at low tide. For Barrage Line 3 the above referenced Babtie report provides a long section along the barrage alignment; based it is understood from local survey but the accuracy and current validity is unknown. The latter survey indicates that at Line 3 the lowest level of the bed is at approximately -2m AOD.

We have not located any information relating to levels of rockhead or materials of superficial deposits so we have assumed that founding levels for structures will be achievable whether by excavation in superficial deposits or in rock.

1.1.3 Installed Turbine discharge capacity

The amount of generating equipment that is appropriate for a particular barrage location is a function of the tidal regime (as typified by the average tidal range) and the area of the enclosed basin (as typified by the area at say Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) tide). Because the volume of stored water in the basin is replenished on each tide the amount of equipment can be progressively increased but with a diminishing energy gain as the average generating head is reduced and the basin volume reduces at lower elevations. Ultimately the final selection of the amount of generating equipment is based on an economic assessment of the incremental costs against the incremental benefits. From experience of previous studies (principally the Severn and Mersey) a generic ‘most economic’ level of installation has been established based on the key parameters of average tidal range and basin area at high water level. This condition has been applied to each location in turn to establish a first estimate of the number of turbines of the largest turbine diameter appropriate to the water depth available at the site.

The largest turbine diameter appropriate at a particular site has been determined based upon the available water depth and consequently the depth of submergence of the turbines. As previously established axial flow turbines with bulb generators are the ‘base case’ generating equipment for which a 9m diameter runner is considered to be the largest practicable based upon a small extrapolation of current production capability. This diameter is only applied at Barrage Line 1 due to water depth restrictions at the other sites. A 7.6m diameter has been selected for Barrage Line 2 and Lagoons 1 and 2 and a 4m diameter is applied to the shallow barrage sites on Lines 3 and 4. Since for equivalent operating conditions turbine discharge

- 4 -

is proportional to the square of the diameter the numbers of machines required are adjusted accordingly.

1.1.4 Installed Sluice discharge capacity

The requirements for sluice discharge capacity have been established in the same way as for the turbine discharge capacity. The base case type of sluice for tidal power barrages and lagoons is the submerged venture sluice with either a radial or vertical lifting gate. The number of sluices required has been established for all barrage locations based on a standard sluice arrangement giving a throat area of 144m2 ( 12m wide by 12m tall). Further refinement of the sluice configurations to suit the bathymetry at the individual sites will be required at a later stage; particularly for Barrage Lines 3 and 4 where the water depth is too shallow for the standard arrangement.

1.1.5 Estimation of Energy Output

Our estimation of energy output has been based upon outputs from 0-D numerical modelling of the operation of a tidal barrage. This approach assumes that a particular tidal regime is applied seaward of the barrage and the water level in the enclosed basin varies as a flat plane dictated by the discharges through the turbines and sluices. This modelling is clearly a simplification of the hydrodynamic system but one that has been shown to be reasonable. More complex 1-D and 2-D models are more representative of the hydrodynamics but have in-built simplifications in relation to the barrage operation. Within the 0-D model the plant operation is modelled in a series of short time steps; whereby at each moment the hydraulic head across the barrage is available and turbine and sluice discharge calculated. Turbine discharge at any time this is a function of the head, the turbine diameter, rotational speed, turbine and generator efficiency and the maximum capacity of the generator; optimisation routines being incorporated to determine the conditions to achieve maximum energy production over a particular tidal cycle.

Energy productions for a single tidal cycle of specific tidal range and have previously been established for the Severn (notably the Cardiff to Weston scheme) and these have been reduced down to an equivalent output per square kilometre of enclosed basin area. Our energy production estimates for each barrage location are derived from these figures multiplied by the appropriate basin area. Figure 7.1 indicates the estimated energy outputs for Barrage Line 1 over the range of tidal range experienced. To establish the average annual energy production the output per tide is multiplied by the number of occurrences of particular tidal ranges occurring at the site.

Accordingly, implicit within our estimated energy productions are the following: • Real turbine efficiencies over the full range of operating conditions of head and power

output. • An assumed generator efficiency of 97.5% • Assumed machine outages of 2.5% (i.e. 97.5% availability)

1.1.6 Other Modes of Operation

As described earlier, this study has focussed on the assessment of ebb-generation schemes at each option location; based on previous studies of the alternative modes of operation the following general conclusions have been established:

For a given number of turbines and with adequate sluice provision, two-way generation results in less energy than ebb-generation (because average generating head is reduced

- 5 -

and average turbine efficiency is reduced by the poorer performance of the turbines in the reverse direction).

Flood generation inevitably produces less energy from an equivalent installation due to the reduction in volume of the basin at the operating levels.

Ebb-generation with flood pumping at high water on every tide can yield up to 10% more net energy than ebb-generation alone (but the plant has to be designed to do this; for which there are some cost additions). The La Rance scheme effectively operates in this way although pumping is not utilised on every tide.

It is considered that the option to add pumping to the base-case ebb-generation scheme would be considered at a later stage of scheme development and is not material to the ranking of the barrage and lagoon options under consideration.

2 Tidal Reef

2.1 Estimation Methodology

The underlying data for bathymetry and tidal ranges used for the barrage estimation was applied once again to the reefs to ensure consistency.

2.1.1 Definition of basis of operation

The impounded area (which will be referred to as “basin” in the following paragraphs) tidal behaviour mimics the natural sea tidal cycle but is slightly delayed in relation to it. This is to ensure creation of a constant low head, which serves as a starting point for reef design. However, water levels of the basin and sea are allowed to equalize at certain point. Subsequently, the basin is “trapped” by shutting the sluices and held constant at 1m below maximum water depth of the sea and 1m above minimum water level of the sea, until the sea level rises or drops enough to create a 2m head difference. Water level of the basin never falls down to minimum level of the sea and never reaches its maximum. This basis of operation is simplified, but should provide a good representation of potential output from the scheme.

A simplified graph below (Figure D.1) presents the basis of operation of a tidal reef (generation times indicated with bright green arrows):

Figure D.1 – Basis of operation of a tidal reef

- 6 -

• During “peak” ebb (low water, LW), the sea level reaches its minimum, sluices are open and the basin level keeps falling. Generation ceases. (A)

• Flood starts, sluices are open allowing basin and sea water levels to equalize at 1m above minimum sea level. No generation.

• Flood continues, sea level is rising. Sluices are closed and basin water level is held constant 1m above minimum sea level. No generation. (B)

• Flood continues, water in the sea is rising, sluices open when sea water level is 2m above basin level. Generation starts. (C)

• Flood continues, water in the sea is rising, water in the basin is rising as well, mimicking tidal behaviour of the sea but delayed in relation to it. Generation continues.

• During “peak” flood (high water, HW), sea reaches maximum water level, sluices are open and level in the basin keeps rising. Generation ceases. (A)

• Ebb starts, gates are open allowing basin and sea water levels to equalize at 1m below maximum sea level. No generation.

• Ebb continues, sea level is falling. Sluices are closed and basin water level is held constant 1m below maximum sea level. No generation. (B)

• Ebb continues, water in the sea is falling, sluices open when sea water level is 2m below basin level. Generation starts. (C)

• Ebb continues, water in the sea is falling, water in the basin is falling as well, mimicking tidal behaviour of the sea but delayed in relation to it. Generation continues.

The whole cycle repeats twice during a day, as two high tides and two low tides are encountered during one tidal cycle.

2.1.2 Choice of turbine

In order to assess installed capacity, a suitable hydrokinetic turbine was selected after some research into what’s available on the market. ECOBulb turbine manufactured by Andritz was chosen, supported by the fact that Andritz belongs to a group of largest and most well known turbine manufacturers, and their technology was used on significant tidal projects, such as Annapolis in Canada and the Shiwa scheme in Korea1.

Specifications for 2m head for the runner diameter of 3.35m are readily available on the website. However, for a reef structure to produce energy efficiently, output of individual turbines that is considered feasible would be in a MW-range, and suitable turbine diameters are of a bigger magnitude. Taking linear behaviour as an assumption, values were extrapolated for 9m, 7.3m and 4.5m turbines, bringing forward the following maximum discharge and output values:

Table D.1 – Specifications of turbines

Reef Reef 1 Reef 2 Reef 3

Turbine Diameter [m] 9 7.3 4.5

Max Discharge [m3/s] 148 120 74

Max Output [MW] 2.69 2.18 1.34

2.1.3 Analysis of tidal cycles and possible generation times

1 http://www.andritz.com/hydro-media-media-center-compact-hydro-ecobulb_1_.pdf

- 7 -

http://www.andritz.com/hydro-media-media-center-compact-hydro-ecobulb_1_.pdf

In order to evaluate how many hours of generation are possible per a tidal cycle, predicted tidal data for 2010 were analysed. It was necessary to assess when 3m above LW and below HW are encountered. The data available is limited to up to 4 values a day, for two “lows” and two “highs”, and it was decided to use "rule of 12ths" to assess when 3m of required head are created. Generally speaking, the rule implies that in case of a tidal range H, one hour after a low tide, the water level will be equal to:

Water level after 1h = mean low tide + (1/12)H

As far as rising tides are concerned, in case of a tidal range H, one hour after a high tide, the water level will be equal to:

Water level after 1h = mean low tide + tidal range – (1/12)H

A pattern used for evaluation of water level between one and six hours after low or high tide is shown in Table 7.1 below.

Table D.2 – Rule of 12ths Tidal Range H

1h 1/12H 2h 1/4H 3h 1/2H 4h 3/4H 5h 11/12H 6h H

It should be borne in mind that it is just an approximate rule and the tidal behaviour is not linear, and so also other approximations were inevitable in the calculations. Tidal cycle repeats every 28 days, and so a sample 28-day cycle was chosen and then projected to obtain values for the whole year.

2.1.4 Calculation of reef energy output

The first stage involved assessment of volume flow rates passing the reefs during both spring and neap tides. Volume flow rate is a function of a basin area and operating tidal range, which in turn is defined as a tidal range (neap and spring respectively) minus 2 meters (for the particular low head conditions required for reef operation).

To quantify energy output of a reef, equation used to calculate hydropower is used:

P = ρ x ŋ x Q x g x H

Where:

P [W] – Power

ρ [kgm-3] – Sea water density

ŋ [-] – Coefficient of efficiency

Q [m3s-1] – Flow rate

- 8 -

g [ms-2] – Gravitational acceleration

H [m] – Available Head

Assumed ŋ value of 0.6 is believed to be a sensible and safe choice. The values of sea water density (1,025kgm-3) and gravitational acceleration (9.81ms-2) are constant, head of 2m is also assumed to be constant for the reef calculations.

The equation above allows for calculation of theoretical power output from a reef during spring and neap tides, bearing in mind that the utilized discharge values represent volume flow rates in the basin (theoretical maximum). However, in reality there is a constraint due to a maximum flow which can pass through the turbines incorporated into a reef structure, which have their limitations. Taking this constraint into account, maximum installed power can be estimated, which is more realistic.

It was observed that volume flow rates for neap tides are lower than maximum flow which can pass through the turbines, which is to be expected as neap flows are low.

Accordingly, implicit within our estimated energy productions are the following: • Predicted turbine efficiencies • An assumed generator efficiency of 97.5% • Assumed machine outages of 2.5% (i.e. 97.5% availability)

The following values were obtained for the theoretical and maximum installed power:

Table D.3 – Theoretical and maximum installed power


P [MW] Theoretical

Spring tides 2,592 1,030 98

Neap tides 955 450 45

P [MW] Max Installed

Spring tides 1,070 651 62

Neap tides 955 450 45

To assess energy output of the whole reef, it was necessary to evaluate what spacing would be required and how many turbines can be incorporated into a reef structure. This was done taking into consideration factors, such as minimum spacing required to prevent one turbine hydraulically affecting the neighbouring ones or space required for the caisson wall

- 9 -

thickness. It was decided that appropriate turbine spacing would equal twice the turbine diameter plus 5m allowance for wall thickness. It was also decided that every caisson would incorporate three turbines. In order to estimate maximum number of turbines that can be fitted into the reef structure, it was also necessary to estimate number of sluices and spacing between them, which was taken as constant for all the reefs. Table below presents the resulting values:

Table D.4 – Number of turbines/sluices, and spacing requirements


Number of sluices 226 80 11

Sluices spacing [m] 21 21 21

Number of turbines 600 450 70

Turbine spacing [m] 23 19.6 14

Knowing number of turbines per reef, and their maximum capacity characteristics, it was possible to evaluate installed capacities, which for reefs 1-3 are 1,612MW, 981MW and 94MW respectively.

As the last stage of calculations, knowing values of maximum installed power and generation hours in a year, annual energy output could be assessed. The outputs were calculated separately for spring and neap tides, and added afterwards to obtain total annual energy output per reef:

Table D.5 – Annual energy output


Annual Energy Output [TWh]

Spring tides 2.53 1.63 0.13

Neap tides 1.86 1.06 0.06

Total 4.39 2.70 0.20

The values, as expected, are lower than in case of corresponding tidal barrages.

- 10 -

Appendix E

Grid Connectivity

1 Grid infrastructure.............................................................................................................3

1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................3 1.2 Potential Connection Locations ................................................................................3 1.3 Grid Connection – Technical Considerations ...........................................................6

1.3.1 Steady State Thermal Ratings and Power Flows .............................................6 1.3.2 Short Circuit Levels...........................................................................................8

1.4 High Level Feasibility of Generation Capacity Connection based upon Break Short Circuit Levels......................................................................................................................11

2 Conclusions....................................................................................................................12 3 Rationale for Adopted Approach ....................................................................................12

- 2 -

1 Grid infrastructure

1.1 Introduction

This section of the report includes a preliminary investigation of the feasibility of exporting power from the various tidal generation projects considered for the Solway Firth into the GB National Grid electricity system. The review has involved a high level consideration of steady state continuous thermal and short circuit constraints only across the present wide range of export capacity ranges. The rationale for this approach is given is Section 3. As the project progresses, a more detailed analysis should be undertaken once the preferred project export capacity is known.

Information on both the existing GB national grid electrical system in 2009-2010 and also the anticipated electrical system up to 2015-2016 is made available on National Grid’s Seven Year Statement website [17] as part of their operating license. The published information includes known changes to the system at present. However, existing stations may close and relinquish connection capacity and other generation projects are in development but may not yet have a confirmed connection. Therefore, engagement with the requisite distribution network operator (DNO) or transmission system operator (TSO) is recommended once a preferred project capacity is known to allow any constraints on connection to be determined more accurately.

In England and Wales 132kV is considered a distribution voltage, owned operated by the local DNO, with 275kV and 400kV considered as transmission voltages with these assets owned and operated by the TSO - National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET). In Scotland 132kV, 275kV and 400kV are all considered as transmission level voltages. In the South of Scotland, these assets are owned by Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) although they are operated by National Grid.

1.2 Potential Connection Locations

Various tidal technology projects are under consideration throughout the Solway Firth.

From information presented in National Grid’s Seven Year Statement documentation and also United Utilities Long Term Development Statement (LTDS) [18], the existing substations at Chapelcross and Gretna in Scotland and Harker in England have been identified as possible locations for entry to the national grid electricity system. Relevant sections of the existing network are shown in Figure E.1 and E.2 courtesy of National Grid and United Utilities

- 3 -

Figure E.1 – Extract of NGET GB Transmission System at 2009 / 10

Figure E.2 – NGET Transmission System Key

- 4 -

Figure E.3 – United Utilities 132kV Distribution System at 2008

A simplified schematic version of the local transmission and distribution system is shown in Figure . This includes projected winter and summer ratings on the 400 kV system for 2015/2016.

Figure E.4 – Solway Firth Transmission & Distribution Schematic

- 5 -

1.3 Grid Connection – Technical Considerations

For a generation connection application to the GB transmission system, a full consideration of steady state and transient stability issues against the requirements of UK standards as well as the GB Security and Quality of Supply Standards (SQSS). For the present wide range of project capacities considered for the Solway Firth tidal generation project, a higher level consideration of the generation constraints has been undertaken to give an indication of the likely capacity thresholds for the respective system voltage levels.

1.3.1 Steady State Thermal Ratings and Power Flows

A high level review of the capacity of the transmission system to evacuate power from the Solway Firth Tidal Barrage project has been undertaken. At present power predominantly flows from north to south since there is a generation surplus in Scotland. The future network power flows are subject to some uncertainty due to the date of the future retirement of existing coal and nuclear generating stations and the likely connection dates of future generation projects such as onshore and offshore wind farms as well as new conventional generation projects.

There are a total of four 400 kV and two 132 kV circuits linking England and Scotland. Of the 400 kV circuits, two are on the western side of the England – Scotland border, and two on the eastern side. As there is only a limited connection capacity between these two groups of circuits the eastern circuits have not been considered further in this review.

To give an indication of the ability of the transmission system to evacuate power from the project, the forecast 2015/16 power flows and circuit ratings contained in the SYS have been reviewed. It is understood that there are also projects in development which do not feature in the SYS and are not in the public domain. Therefore these projects have not been considered in this study. However, as a result, there is presently a queue for generation connections, possibly extending up to 2018. Any new applications for generation connections, such as for the Solway Firth tidal generation project will be considered behind these projects.

GB Security and Quality of Supply Standards (GB SQSS) govern the development and operation of the transmission system. For the purposes of this study, the most significant requirement being that system must survive a 400 kV double circuit fault (N-2 criteria), which in effect limits any 400 kV circuit to carrying 1320 MW. A detailed study would be required to take into account all of the GB SQSS criteria.

As power export from the project will be to the south, there may be restrictions due to circuit thermal capacities or GB SQSS requirements and these could be some distance south from the project connection point. A full system study would be required to accurately determine the extent of the network upgrades required to allow for the project. Table shows the SYScircuit ratings and loadings for winter 2015/16 of the most significant circuits in the vicinitthe project.

y of

- 6 -

Table E.1 – SYS Circuit Ratings and Loadings for Winter 2015 / 16

Node 1 Node 2 Winter Rating (MVA)

2015/16 Power Flow (MW)

Flow Direction % Loading

Gretna 400 Harker 400 2010 1263 S 63% Moffat 400 Harker 400 2010 1317 S 66% Harker 275 Stella West 275 775 85 W 11% Harker 400 Hutton 400 1390 1285 S 92% Harker 400 Hutton 400 1390 1285 S 92% Fourstones Harker 275 855 86 W 10% Chapelcross 132 Dumfries 132 171 18.5 W 11% Chapelcross 132 Dumfries 132 171 18.4 W 11% Chapelcross 132 Gretna 132 132 16.1 W 12% Chapelcross 132 Gretna 132 132 16.1 W 12%

Circuit loading can then be considered with the addition of the various project sizes. Three substation connection points were initially identified at Chapelcross, Gretna and Harker. However, as there is insufficient fault level capacity at Chapelcross to permit connection of even an additional 100 MW of generation, a review of the thermal circuit ratings has not been made here.

In general, connections at 132 kV will only be suitable up to 500 MW due to conductor ratings. Furthermore, the demand shown for the Scottish 132 kV system indicates that there is insufficient demand on the 132 kV circuits for a significant generation connection and that any connection at Gretna 132 kV would require that power be evacuated via the Gretna 400 kV substation over the two 400 kV circuits to Harker. Similarly, in response to a query to United Utilities, initial indications are that a generation connection at Harker 132 kV would similarly require that power be evacuated via the higher voltage National Grid system. This is contrary to the normal system power flows where power flows from the higher transmission system voltage levels down to the distribution system. Therefore any such proposals would need to be carefully considered by NGET as well as the local DNO.

Connection at either 275 kV or 400 kV at the Harker substation would therefore involve power transfer across the two 275 kV circuits to Stella West or the two 400 kV circuits to the south. There is a requirement within NG’s SQSS document that there are no transmission circuits with a capacity of more than 1,320 MW. This figure has been selected to limit the impact on the system of sudden disconnection of transmission circuits. Connection of any of studied project sizes, without a significant local load will require additional transmission capacity as the 2015/16 predicted power flows are already very close to the 1,320 MW limit.

The results are presented in Table in the form of a traffic light code with green signifying the potential to carry the necessary level of power away from the project taking into account existing power flows. However, SQSS requirements and any other restrictions requiring detailed studies have not been considered including acceptable operation of the system under planned and forced circuit outages. Such an investigation is likely to reduce the anticipated possible generation connection capacity.

- 7 -

Table E.2 – Load Potential

Substation Point of Connection Project Size (MW)

Chapelcross 132 kV

Gretna132 kV

Gretna400 kV

Harker132 kV

Harker 275 kV

Harker 400 kV

100 200 300 500 1000 6000

At present, there is insufficient installed capacity in the existing circuits to facilitate connection of 6 GW of generation at a single substation. Furthermore, connection to Gretna or Harker would involve export south over the same 400 kV circuits and the connection to Stella West is not a practical option since it would require a dedicated connection across the length of the Scotland – England border. Therefore connection of a 6 GW tidal barrage project to more than one substation is not considered practical.

The challenges in either installing new transmission lines or even upgrading existing transmission lines in the UK are well documented. Although not indicated in the NG SYS, various studies have been carried out considering the possibility of installing new transmission circuits by means of subsea HVDC transmission circuits. The largest tidal barrage projects presently considered would rely on a transmission project to facilitate export of the power generated.

1.3.2 Short Circuit Levels

Short circuit levels published on the NG Seven Year Statement website [17] provide information on the present and predicted short circuit levels at their transmission system substations both in 2009/2010 and also 2015/2016. Information on the present installed switchgear ratings is also provided. The short circuit current information provided indicates the calculated current flowing at the identified system nodal point under fault conditions. Relevant 2015/2016 short circuit levels and switchgear information is detailed in Table . Four letter acronyms are used to describe each substation including HARK (HaCHAP.

rker),

Table E.3 – Short Circuit Levels and

Location

Three-Phase Initial Peak Current (kA)

Three-Three- Three-Phase Peak Phase

RMS Break Phase DC Break Break Current Current Current (kA) (kA) (kA)

HARK11 35.26 11.32 24.18 8.17 HARK12 32.35 10.98 23.57 8.05 HARK13 26.06 10.92 20.81 5.37 HARK21 45.94 17 35.38 11.34 HARK22 47.78 17.75 36.6 11.5 HARK40 61.96 23.26 44.03 11.13 CHAP1- 30.49 12.82 19.13 1.01 GRNA1- 39.49 15.27 29.49 7.9 GRNA4- 51.41 20.01 36.95 8.65

Location


Three-Phase RMS Break Current (kA)

Three-Phase Peak Break Current (kA)

Three-Phase DC Break Current (kA)


- 8 -

Switchgear Information

(Chapelcross) and GRNA (Gretna). Subsequent numbers indicate consideration of either 132kV (1-), 275kV (2-) or 400kV (4-) switchgear respectively. Where more than one node is

Both symm well as the dc current level. This represents the calculated short cir uit current conditions for either circuit breaker equipment opening to clear a fault (i.e. “break”), or clo to a fault (i.e. “make”).

Table E.4 – NGET SYS Extract - Short Circuit Levels 2015 / 16

represented in the SYS extract, this indicates that the switchgear at the substation is operated in more than one section. This operating practice is often selected to prevent the switchgear short circuit capacity being exceeded at a particular substation.

etrical rms (break) and asymmetrical peak (make) levels are provided asc

sing on

Location

Three-Phase Initial Peak Current

)

Three

(kA

-Phase RMS Break Current (kA)

Three-Phase Peak Break Current

)

Three-Phase DC Break Current (kA(kA )


- 9 -

Table E.5 – NGET SYS Extract - Switch gear Ratings

Substation Three Phase Initial Peak

Three Phase RMS Break

Three-Phase Peak Break

HARK1 50 20 40 HARK1 50 20 40 HARK1 72.5 20 40 HARK1 100 40 75 HARK1 56 21.9 44 HARK1 39 15.3 31 HARK1 39 15.3 31 HARK1 39 15.3 31 HARK1 39 15.3 31 HARK1 39 15.3 31 HARK1 39 15.3 31 HARK2 100 40 74 HARK2 100 40 84 HARK2 100 40 75 HARK4 157.5 50 101

CHAP1- 38.3 15.3 26.2 GRNA1- 62.5 25 42.8 GRNA4- 126.3 50.5 95

Table E.6, extracted from the NGET SYS, indicates that circuit breakers with several different ratings are installed at the Harker 132kV substation. As a worst case, the minimum circuit breaker rating indicated has been considered when assessing the capacity to connect additional generation at this substation.

The connection of tidal project capacities between 100 MW and 6000 MW (6 GW) has been considered. Detailed electrical designs have not yet been developed for these options. Therefore, the fault contribution from a typical 100 MW generator with a saturated sub-transient reactance of 15% and a standard sized step-up transformer with parameters taken from the NGET SYS has been considered with multiple generators assumed connected in parallel for the larger projects considered. Considering “break” fault levels only, the impact of connecting the additional generation for the various Solway Firth tidal projects is shown in Table E.6.

The present analysis has been performed considering the present switchgear ‘break’ ratings and an increased fault contribution up to approximately 100% of the switchgear capacity. If the project progresses then a more comprehensive investigation should be undertaken considering both different system operating conditions and ‘make’ as well as ‘break’ short circuit levels As with the power flow analysis, a traffic light coding system has been adopted to describe the potential to connect additional generation:

- 10 -

Table E.6 – T & D System Fault Levels Expressed as a Percentage of Rating

Location


Three Phase Initial Peak Rating (kA)

Three Phase Initial Peak (%)

Three-Phase RMS Break Current (kA)

Three Phase RMS Break Rating (kA)

Three Phase RMS Break (%)

HARK11 35.26 39 90% 11.32 15.3 74% HARK12 32.35 39 83% 10.98 15.3 72% HARK13 26.06 39 67% 10.92 15.3 71% HARK21 45.94 100 46% 17.00 40 43% HARK22 47.78 100 48% 17.75 40 44% HARK40 61.96 157.5 39% 23.26 50 47% CHAP1- 30.49 38.3 80% 12.82 15.3 84% GRNA1- 39.49 62.5 63% 15.27 25 61% GRNA4- 51.41 126.3 41% 20.01 50.5 40%

Table E.7 – High Level Feasibility of Generation Capacity Connection based

upon Break Short Circuit Levels Typical

Project Feasibility of Substation Connection Location - Break Short Circuit Levels

Capacity (MW)

Chapelcross 132kV

Gretna132kV

Gretna 400kV

Harker 132kV

Harker 275kV

Harker 400kV

100 200 300 500 1000 3000 6000

As with the power flow analysis, a traffic light coding system has been adopted to describe the potential to connect additional generation based on existing infrastructure.

1.4 High Level Feasibility of Generation Capacity Connection based upon Break Short Circuit Levels

Based upon consideration of ‘break’ short circuit levels, at most 100 MW to 300 MW could possibly be connected at 132kV at either Gretna or Harker. It is not possible to connect even 100 MW of additional generation at Chapelcross without exceeding the existing switchgear capacity. This will also constrain the generation capacity which could be connected at Gretna although this has not been evaluated under the present review. Between 1 GW and 3 GW of generation could potentially be connected at either the 275 kV or 400 kV voltage levels at Harker or Gretna. Connection of the largest 6 GW project capacities under consideration cannot be achieved within the capacity of the existing installed switchgear.

- 11 -

If the project progresses then a more comprehensive investigation should be undertaken considering both different system operating conditions and ‘make’ as well as ‘break’ short circuit levels.

2 Conclusions

It is difficult to identify with certainty the magnitude of generation that can be connected at any single point on GB transmission system, although an indication of the likely generation level that can be connected can be obtained by the present high level review which has considered thermal power flows on the intact system and break fault levels only. A full study considering all the requirements of the GB SQSS should be undertaken once there is greater certainty on the preferred tidal generation project capacity.

At most, some 300 MW of generation can feasibly be connected at 132 kV in either England or Scotland. In practice, the level of generation that can be connected is likely to be much lower unless reverse power flows across National Grid’s supergrid transformers and power export via the higher voltage level transmission system is considered. Any such proposal would require review by National Grid as well as the local DNO.

Connection of up to the single circuit SQSS capacity of 1,320 MW is likely to be feasible at either 275 kV or 400 kV although more detailed analysis should be undertaken should the project progress to investigate the connection constraints in more detail. Connection of the largest tidal generation projects proposed on the basis of current infrastructure but could be feasible if additional transmission circuits are installed to evacuate the power generated. Due to the challenges in installing new transmission circuits in the UK, such circuits are more likely to involve subsea cables using HVDC technology which would add to the cost..

3 Rationale for Adopted Approach Justification for Present Study Methodology

Ultimately, a detailed analysis of the electrical implications of the connection of a generation project to the UK grid is required including consideration of steady state and transient conditions for both normal and abnormal operating conditions as well as the system operation during and after faults. In the UK, key requirements are detailed in either the Distribution Code or "Grid" Code depending upon the connection level, although the Distribution Code requires that large generation projects connected at distribution level also need to meet the Grid Code Compliance requirements for connection. Large projects are defined as being 100 MW in England and Wales and 30 MW in SP's area in central Scotland. Another key document is the Security and Quality of Supply Standard (SQSS).

For the present high level study, approximate generation connection thresholds have been considered by reviewing steady state aspects only. Further, the review has been restricted to consideration of thermal power flows for the intact network and 'break' short circuit levels only. A view has been taken on the impact of circuit outages (since this reduces the allowable thermal flow in circuits, although full contingency analysis has not been performed). This approach is typical for the present high level review.

The review has been based upon information made available in the public domain by National Grid in their Seven Year Statement (SYS) document and has been restricted to evaluation of the impact at the point of connection. The latest available SYS data has been used in the present analysis since the projects under consideration are not likely to be implemented any earlier than the future 7 year horizon considered in the SYS for the UK grid network.

- 12 -

The present study work has not considered connection of generation capacity in excess of that which can approximately be connected based upon the existing equipment - i.e. the proposed projects need to feasibly be connected within the capacity constraints of the existing installed equipment at each connection location considered. This is an acceptable means of performing such initial investigation work. Once the project connection capacity requirements have been refined, a more accurate evaluation should be performed to review connection feasibility in more detail. Such an undertaking is complex and this would require the use of a power system model of the local electrical system to enable the desired project capacity to be refined and determine the impact of selecting a project capacity in excess of the present equipment capacity. For example, a generation connection proposal which exceeds the existing short circuit capacity at the connection substation may require equipment upgrades at other substations across the grid system as well as at the connection substation itself. Rationale Behind Estimated Grid Costs Costs have been developed based upon connection to the Harker substation. All of the voltage levels considered for connection are available at this location. This approach was considered reasonable since in general the connection lengths for the projects considered are relatively long in comparision with the difference in length when considering connection to either Harker or Gretna. Therefore consideration of different connection locations would have relatively little impact on the estimated cost. Furthermore, there is no revenue benefit from locating in Scotland (e.g. due to increased ROC value) which might otherwise result in a connection at Gretna being preferred over Harker.

- 13 -

Appendix F Environmental Considerations

1

1 Environmental Significance ................................................................................. 3

1.1 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) .......................................................... 3 1.1.1 Solway Firth SAC.................................................................................. 4 1.1.2 River Eden SAC.................................................................................... 4

1.2 Special Protection Areas (SPA) ................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA ................................................. 4

1.3 Ramsar Sites................................................................................................ 5 1.3.1 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Ramsar site ..................................... 5

1.4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (England) .......................................... 6 1.4.1 Solway Coast AONB ............................................................................. 6

1.5 National Scenic Areas (Scotland)................................................................. 7 1.5.1 The Nith Estuary National Scenic Area ................................................. 7

1.6 Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) .................................................... 7 1.6.1 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes ......................................................... 8 1.6.2 Silloth Dunes and Mawbray Bank ......................................................... 9 1.6.3 Royal Ordnance, Powfoot ..................................................................... 9 1.6.4 Port O Warren ....................................................................................... 9 1.6.5 Auchencairn and Orchardtown.............................................................. 9 1.6.6 Abbey Burn Foot to Balcary Point ......................................................... 9

1.7 National Nature Reserves ............................................................................ 9 1.7.1 Caerlaverock NNR .............................................................................. 10

1.8 RSPB Reserves ......................................................................................... 10 1.8.1 Mersehead .......................................................................................... 10 1.8.2 Kirkconnell Merse................................................................................ 10 1.8.3 Campfield Marsh ................................................................................. 10

1.9 Wildfowl & Wetland Trust Reserves ........................................................... 11 1.9.1 Caerlaverock ....................................................................................... 11

1.10 Key Environmental Sensitivities ................................................................. 11 1.10.1 Subtidal Habitats ................................................................................. 11 1.10.2 Intertidal Habitats ................................................................................ 12 1.10.3 Amphibians ......................................................................................... 12 1.10.4 Fish and Fisheries............................................................................... 13 1.10.5 Birds.................................................................................................... 16 1.10.6 The avifauna of the Solway................................................................. 18 1.10.7 Mammals ............................................................................................ 22

2 Environmental considerations ........................................................................... 24 2.1 General considerations .............................................................................. 24

2.1.1 Barrages ............................................................................................. 24 2.1.2 Reefs................................................................................................... 26

2.2 Specific considerations............................................................................... 27 2.2.1 Barrages B1 to B3............................................................................... 27 2.2.2 Lagoons L1 – L2 ................................................................................. 30 2.2.3 Reefs R1 to R3.................................................................................... 32

2.3 Potential for mitigation................................................................................ 32 2.3.1 Intertidal exposure............................................................................... 32 2.3.2 Barrier effect & entrainment ................................................................ 33 2.3.3 Salinity regime & other factors ............................................................ 33

2

1 Environmental Significance

Figure F.1 shows the extent of the European designated sites in the study area that could be affected by a tidal power generation project. The key features of these sites are described in more detail below.

Figure F.1: Extent of the European Conservation Designations in the study area

1.1 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are designated under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC); on the basis of particular habitats that they support, and/or on the species that are present. There are two SACs that could be affected by a tidal energy scheme in the Solway (Figure F.2): the Solway Firth SAC and the River Eden SAC (situated upstream of the Solway, but supporting fish species which migrate through the Solway).

Figure F.2: The Solway Firth and River Eden Special Areas of Conservation

3

1.1.1 Solway Firth SAC

The Solway Firth SAC covers a range of habitats, the vast majority of which are attributed to the following types in the designation of the site: tidal river, estuaries, mud flats, sand flats and lagoons (including saltwork basins), with the remainder comprising saltmarsh, salt pasture and salt steppe.

The SAC has been primarily designated due to the presence of the following Annex I habitats: • Sandbanks, which are slightly covered by seawater at all times; • Estuarine environment; • Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tides; • Salicornia and other annual plants colonising mud and sand; and • Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

A number of other Annex I habitats are also present within the SAC, though they are not included as primary qualifying features in the site citation: • Reefs; • Perennial vegetation on stony banks; and • Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes)

The habitats within the overall area of study are described in the Habitats section of this Appendix.

In addition to the habitats present in the Solway, the SAC is also designated due to the presence of the Annex II listed species sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis).

1.1.2 River Eden SAC

The Eden SAC is designated because of the following terrestrial Annex I habitats: oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea type, Water courses of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation and alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae). It also supports a number of Annex II species; the white-clawed crayfish, sea lamprey, river lamprey, brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), bullhead (Cottus gobio), and the European otter (Lutra lutra).

1.2 Special Protection Areas (SPA)

The EC Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) requires all member states to identify areas to be given special protection for the rare or vulnerable bird species listed in Annex I, and for regularly occurring migrating species and paying particular attention to the protection of wetlands of international importance.

1.2.1 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) provided guidelines for the selection of SPAs in the UK and, under those criteria, the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes (see Figure 3.9) qualifies as an SPA due to the following features: • Regularly supporting internationally important overwintering bird populations, including

the following Annex I species: 100% of the total British population of barnacle geese

4

(Branta leucopsis) of the distinct Svalbard breeding population; 2.1% of the British population of whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus); 4.5% of the British population of bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica) and 2.4% of the British population of golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria).

• In addition to Annex I listed species the SPA supports internationally important assemblages of overwintering birds, particularly waterfowl (133,400 individuals (averaged over a 5 year period)). It also supports significant wintering populations of pintail (Anas acuta), shoveler (Anas clypeata), teal (Anas crecca), pink-footed goose, (Anser brachyrhynchus), turnstone (Arenaria interpres), greater scaup (Aythya marila), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), sanderling (Calidris alba), dunlin (Calidris alpina alpina), knot (Calidris canutus), oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), curlew (Numenius arquata), Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), and redshank (Tringa totanus).

• The Upper Solway Flats and Marshes also support important assemblages of breeding birds characteristic of saltmarshes. Breeding birds include oystercatcher, lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), redshank, black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus), lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus), herring gull (Larus argentatus), common tern (Sterna hirundo) and arctic tern (S. paradisaea).

Figure F.3: The Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Special Protection Area

1.3 Ramsar Sites

The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) - called the "Ramsar Convention". This treaty embodies the commitments of its member countries to maintain the ecological character of their Wetlands of International Importance and to plan for the "wise use", or sustainable use, of all of the wetlands in their territories.

1.3.1 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Ramsar site

The Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Ramsar Site covers the same area as the SPA (see Figure F.3). It is designated on the basis that it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life and provides refuge for these during adverse conditions. This Ramsar site regularly supports >135,000 overwintering waterbirds. In addition to the overall large numbers, the large spring/autumn populations of oystercatchers and the breeding populations of lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus graellsii) and herring gull (Larus argentatus) are also primary qualifying features of the Ramsar site.

5

Spring/autumn populations of ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) and wintering populations of dunlin have also been identified as potential designating features for future consideration.

A further qualifying feature is that the site supports more than 10% of the British population of natterjack toad (Epidalea calamita) a Habitats Directive Annex IV species.

1.4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (England)

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are designated because of their fragile natural beauty, and the primary purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. Secondary aims which complement the main purpose include meeting the need for quiet enjoyment of the countryside and to have regard for the interests of those who live and work there. They are designated under the provisions of the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, in order to secure their permanent protection against development that would damage their special qualities, thus conserving a number of the finest landscapes in England for the nation’s benefit.

1.4.1 Solway Coast AONB

The Solway Coast became an AONB in 1964 and covers an area of 115 sq km, following 59km of the Cumbrian coast between Maryport and Rockcliffe. The designated area is split into two separate sectors by the exclusion of the town of Silloth (Figure F.4) Both sectors are primarily agricultural in character and are remote from large towns and conurbations. The area’s international importance for bird life, its value for plant and animal habitats and natural features, together with its wealth of important archaeological and historical features, underpin its international, national, regional and local importance.

Figure F.4: The Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

6

1.5 National Scenic Areas (Scotland)

The Countryside Commission for Scotland, the predecessor of SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage), identified National Scenic Areas as landscapes that were highly valued and needed special care, and in 1980 the Secretary of State established the designation. The National Scenic Area designation is the only Scottish designation that is based solely on the scenic quality of the landscape rather than its nature conservation or cultural value. The areas are subject to special landscape conservation measures, including enhanced protection through statutory plans and policies. Town and Country Planning controls are extended, with planning consent required for more minor forms of development than elsewhere.

1.5.1 The Nith Estuary National Scenic Area

The Dumfries and Galloway Landscape Assessment identifies the distinct patterns and combination of elements that create the different landscape character types within the Nith Estuary National Scenic Area (Figure 3.11). Landscape types include Inner Solway coastal flats (including merse, coastal moss and plain, estuarine flats and coastal parkland), coastal granite uplands and the lower valley of the Nith. The varied character of these landscape types are reinforced by the smaller scale differences within them that combine to provide a wide range of colours and textures within the landscape.

Figure F.5: The Nith Estuary National Scenic Area

1.6 Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI)

At a national level, Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) are designated by the national nature conservation agencies. In the case of the Solway Firth area, these statutory bodies are Natural England (NE) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). SSSIs are designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981.

7

There are a number of coastal SSSIs of varying size and designation located within the study area as shown in Figure F.6

Figure F.6: Coastal Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the Study Area

1.6.1 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes

The Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SSSI is administered by both Natural England (NE) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), with the extent of the SSSI boundary being different according to each agency. The SNH boundaries of the SSSI are much the same as the SPA/SAC and Ramsar site, whilst the NE boundaries are limited primarily to the intertidal area, including the drying mud and sand flats, and saltmarsh.

The SNH SSSI designated area covers an area of 43,637ha and includes all the sub-tidal areas within the boundary, whilst the NE boundary encompasses an area of 2,436ha. The SSSI is recognised as an internationally important site for wintering wildfowl and wading birds and the large areas of intertidal sand and mudflats and marsh form one of the largest areas of continuous intertidal habitat in Britain.

The site is also noted for its populations of breeding birds, natterjack toads and invertebrates, whilst the geomorphology and vegetation of the estuarine saltmarshes are also of significance with broad transitions to mature ‘upper-marsh’ being particularly well represented. A number of rare plant species and notable geological exposures also occur within the site.

The NE citation for the SSSI also describes the important intertidal habitat of rocky scar grounds and honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata) reefs.

Overall, the estuarine system of flats and marshes in the Solway Firth is a dynamic one with shifting channels and phases of erosion and accretion. Sand is the predominant sediment and substrate of the intertidal flats and marshes although there are areas of mud and silt as well as a number of boulder-strewn mussel (Mytilus edulis) beds. The flats contain a number of main river channels, and numerous creeks divide the marshes that are only fully inundated at exceptionally high tides. Areas of shingle and sand dune occur on both sides of the Solway, at Grune Point and along Preston Merse.

8

1.6.2 Silloth Dunes and Mawbray Bank

The Silloth Dunes and Mawbray Bank SSSI is on the coast near the village of Mawbray. The site is approximately 89ha in area and lies on the periphery of the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SSSI. The site covers an area of shoreline from the strandline, through embryonic and mobile sand dunes to coastal heathland community. Throughout the site the primary habitat is supralittoral sediments. As with the Solway Flats and Marshes SSSI, the Annex IV species natterjack toad is present.

1.6.3 Royal Ordnance, Powfoot

The Royal Ordnance site is adjacent to the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SSSI, located to the south west of Annan. The site has been designated because it supports two protected amphibian species (natterjack toad Epidalea calamita, and great crested newt Triturus cristatus) as well as three of the other four native UK amphibians.

1.6.4 Port O Warren

The Port O’ Warren SSSI lies south southeast of Dalbeattie covering an area of 5.9ha, and is has designated as a result of its population of breeding cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo), having the largest rookery in the Stewartry. The steep cliffs support this successful population, producing good clutch and brood sizes and containing almost 2% of the UK breeding population (3.5% of the Scottish breeding population).

1.6.5 Auchencairn and Orchardtown

The Auchencairn and Orchardtown site is the largest area of saltmarsh within the Stewartry District, covering an area of 178.7ha and being inhabited by a wide variety of saltmarsh plant communities. These include species such as lax-flowered sea lavender (Limonium humile), sea purslane (Halimione portulacoides) and greater sea-spurrey (Spergularia media). The site is also locally important for its concentrations of wildfowl (mallard, wigeon and shelduck) and waders (oystercatcher, curlew and redshank) outside of the breeding season.

1.6.6 Abbey Burn Foot to Balcary Point

The Abbey Burn Foot to Balcary Point SSSI is one of the richest and most varied maritime sites in the Stewartry District, largely as a result of the local geology. The site covers an area of 186ha and the wide range of habitats supports a large number of rare plant species including sea kale (Crambe maritima), sea radish (Raphanus maritimus), western gorse (Ulex gallii), sea campion (Silene maritima) and sea spleenwort (Asplenium marinum). The cliffs around Balcary support a breeding seabird colony, including the largest numbers of guillemot and razorbill in the District. There is also rich fauna of invertebrate species, particularly around Balcary Point and Rascarrel Bay.

1.7 National Nature Reserves

National Nature Reserves (NNRs) are designated by the national nature conservation agencies (NE and SNH) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). There is one NNR within, or in close proximity to the general area of study.

9

1.7.1 Caerlaverock NNR

Figure F.7: Caerlaverock National Nature Reserve

The Caerlaverock NNR covers an area of approximately 8000ha and forms a constituent part of the much larger Upper Solway Flats and Marshes designated area (Figure F.7). The reserve is approximately 10km south of Dumfries on the northern shore of the Solway Firth. The reserve covers areas of saltmarsh and grassland, and large areas of intertidal sand and mudflats extending seaward to include Blackshaw Bank and parts of Priestside Bank and Carse Bay.

The NNR is designated due to its geomorphology, large areas of saltmarsh, and subtidal and intertidal sand flat habitats, as well as wintering wildfowl, breeding bird populations, natterjack toads, terrestrial invertebrates and rare flowering plants.

1.8 RSPB Reserves

1.8.1 Mersehead

Located in Scotland near Southwick, the reserve features both onshore and intertidal habitat. Features of particular interest include large numbers of the Svalbard population of barnacle geese and pink-footed geese overwintering.

1.8.2 Kirkconnell Merse

Located along the western bank of the Nith estuary near Kirkconnell, the reserve is one of the largest expanses of saltmarsh in south Scotland. The site is particularly important for waterfowl, with internationally important numbers (up to 5,000) of wintering Svalbard geese present in addition to large numbers of other waterfowl and waders, and peregrine, merlin and hen harrier. Saltmarsh habitats are important for large numbers of breeding skylarks and meadow pipits, and goldeneye and goosander feed in the river.

1.8.3 Campfield Marsh

Located in England near Bowness-on-Solway, the reserve comprises both intertidal frontage and terrestrial environments, encompassing saltmarsh, peat bog, farmland and wet

10

grassland habitats. Waders including redshank, snipe and lapwing breed in summer, and waterfowl overwinter.

1.9 Wildfowl & Wetland Trust Reserves

1.9.1 Caerlaverock

The Caerlaverock WWT reserve includes some land within the NNR as above, but also includes adjacent land. Features of interest include breeding natterjack toads, overwintering waterfowl (including Svalbard barnacle geese and whooper swans) and short-eared owl, peregrine, merlin and hen harrier hunting over the saltmarsh. In addition, a single pond on the reserve was recently found to be the only known Scottish site (and only one of two in the UK) where the tadpole shrimp (Triops cancriformis) occurs; this species is classified as Endangered and protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

1.10 Key Environmental Sensitivities

1.10.1 Subtidal Habitats

One of the Annex I features upon which the Solway SAC is designated is “Sandbanks, which are slightly covered by seawater at all times”. In the Solway the sandbanks comprise mainly gravelly and clean sands, owing in part to the very dynamic nature of the estuary. The central Solway Firth is characterised by deep, shifting channels and intertidal and subtidal sand banks. Where the tides are strongest the banks and channels move over repetitive tidal cycles and overall this section of the Firth is considered to be unusually dynamic in nature. With increasing distance to seaward in the outer Firth, less extreme conditions predominate. The inner estuary contains constantly changing channels, and a predominance of sand is characteristic of such high-energy systems. There is a transition to less extreme conditions in the outer estuary resulting in more varied substrate and richer communities. The dominant species of the infaunal communities comprise different annelid worms, crustaceans, molluscs and echinoderms, depending on the nature of the substrate. For example, the bivalve molluscs Fabulina fabula and Spisula subtruncata occur at the edge of sandbanks in fine and medium sand respectively. These communities are richer in the less extreme conditions of the outer estuary.

Subtidal biotopes recorded in the Solway Firth (and classified according to the JNCC Marine Nature Classification Review) include Nephtys cirrosa and Bathyporeia spp. in infralittoral sand (SS.SSA.IFiSa.NcirBat) .), Nephtys cirrosa and Macoma balthica in variable salinity infralittoral mobile sand (SS.SSA.SSaVS.NcirMac), Sublittoral sand in variable salinity (estuaries)(SS.SSA.SsaVS), Sabellaria alveolata on variable salinity sublittoral mixed sediment) (SS.SBR.PoR.SalvMx), and Mytilus edulis beds on sublittoral sediment (SS.SBR.SMus.MytSS. The survey also noted the presence of honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata) reef with high abundances of both Sabellaria and Mytilus edulis in the Silloth Channel.

Scar grounds exist both intertidally and subtidally in the Solway. These are patches of coarser substrate (pebbles, cobbles, or boulders) that are raised above the surrounding dominant mobile sandy sediments. Scar grounds are widespread and patchy in their distribution throughout the Solway, occurring more on the Cumbrian than Scottish coasts. They are important as they can be associated with reef habitats such as Sabellaria alveolata and provide a similar habitat to that found on rocky shores, where they would not otherwise be present. They are also important feeding areas for breeding and wintering wading birds.

11

1.10.2 Intertidal Habitats

Three Habitats Directive Annex I habitats exist within the Solway Firth which are intertidal, as listed in section F1.1.1. Further descriptions of these habitats within the Solway are presented below.

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

The Solway Firth is representative of highly mobile, predominantly sandy intertidal flats on the west coast. It contains the third-largest area of continuous littoral mudflats and sandflats in the UK. These occur within a natural estuary system substantially unaffected by human activities, such as industrial development and dredging. The Solway is an unusually dynamic estuarine system, with mobile channels and banks. Fine sandy sediments occur in the inner estuary, and more stable and diverse conditions in the outer reaches. Salinity ranges from fully marine to estuarine in character, and these gradients in physical conditions add to the ecological diversity within the site. The presence of intertidal sediment flats of fine sands, rather than muds, in conditions of estuarine salinity is a notable feature.

Dominant infaunal communities on the intertidal and shallow subtidal flats comprise annelid worms; including lugworm (Arenicola marina) and ragworm (Hediste diversicolor), crustaceans, molluscs (e.g. large beds of cockle Cerastroderma edule), and echinoderms (Echinocardium cordatum) depending on the nature of the sediments.

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand

The pioneer glasswort Salicornia spp. saltmarsh in the Solway is part of a complete sequence of saltmarsh types, from pioneer communities through extensive mid-to high saltmarsh and transitions to tidal grazing marsh. It represents Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand in north-west England and south-west Scotland. The pioneer marshes in this site develop in response to changing river channels and erosion of existing marsh and form part of a dynamic suite of maritime habitat types.

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

The Solway Firth has been little affected by enclosure, with the result that it demonstrates unusually large areas of upper marsh and transitions to freshwater grassland communities. There is a greater proportion of sand in the substrate than is found in more southern saltmarshes. The mid-upper marsh is heavily dominated by saltmarsh rush Juncus gerardii community with smaller areas of the saltmarsh-grass/fescue Puccinellia/Festuca communities. The site has been selected because of its large size and uninterrupted transitions. Some of the species present, for example sea-purslane Atriplex portulacoides, common sea-lavender Limonium vulgare and lax-flowered sea-lavender Limonium humile, are at their northern limit in the UK.

1.10.3 Amphibians

The natterjack toad Epidalea calamita is found in coastal habitats of sand dunes, saltmarsh and lowland heath, and needs shallow (often ephemeral), pools for breeding. As a result of highly significant habitat loss and subsequent population declines in the 20th century, the natterjack is highly protected under both UK (Wildlife and Countryside Act) and European (Habitats Directive) legislation, making it an offence to damage or destroy breeding sites.

12

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H1140

The Solway represents both the north-westernmost limit of its range and one of the strongholds of its UK population. The northern Solway population alone has been estimated as representing between 11-23% of total UK abundance. On the Scottish side, breeding sites include Caerlaverock, Southerness, Priestside Bank, and Royal Ordnance, Powfoot, which is designated an SSSI based on its natterjack (and great crested newt) populations. Reintroductions have been performed successfully at Mersehead, and proposed for Southerness Golf course, although the status of the latter project is unknown. On the English coast, breeding sites are located at Allonby, Mawbray, Silloth/Wolsty, Grune Point, and Anthorn.

The great crested newt Triturus cristatus is, like the natterjack, highly protected (Wildlife and Countryside Act; Habitats Directive). However, this species is only found in freshwater ponds, and is known from a few sites around the Solway such as in the Royal Ordnance Powfoot SSSI.

1.10.4 Fish and Fisheries

The Solway SAC is partially designated because of the presence of the Annex II listed species sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis); these are anadromous species, i.e. spawning in freshwater but spending the majority of their life at sea. The Rivers Derwent and Eden are thought to be of significance for these two species. The salmon (Salmo salar), which has a similar life history and is also on Annex II also migrates through the Firth, though the SAC is not designated due to its presence. Salmon and sea trout (Salmo trutta) migrate into the rivers of Nith, Annan, Sark, Kirtle Water, Esk, Eden and Derwent.

Shad are herring-like anadromous fish; both UK species are listed on Annex II although the Solway is not primarily designated based on their presence. The allis (Alosa alosa) and twaite shad (A. fallax), aswell as hybrids of the two, are present in the Solway area. Patterns of distribution, abundance and habitat use throughout the Solway area are poorly understood, although they have been recorded all along the north Solway coast. Spawning has been suspected, although not confirmed, in the River Cree; the Galloway Fisheries Trust is embarking on a three-year project to provide further information on these species in the north Solway area. (J. Ribbens, Senior Biologist, Galloway Fisheries Trust, pers. comm.).

The smelt or sparling (Osmerus eperlanus) is an anadromous UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species that declined dramatically in the 20th century. It is found in the Solway and breeds in the upper Cree estuary . Smelt eggs from the Cree have recently been introduced into the Water of Fleet River as part of a re-introduction program.

Another fish species frequently present in the Solway which has a high conservation status is the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). The eel has a catadromous life cycle, i.e. spending most of its time in freshwater before migrating seaward to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. . Due to alarming declines in recent years the eel has recently been made a UK BAP species, and EC Regulation 1100/2007 addresses measures to establish recovery of stocks, including reducing as far as possible impacts of non-fisheries human activities that affect the species. The Regulation requires member States to have an eel management plan for river basin districts to reduce mortality; as part of this, Scotland has prohibited all fishing for eels (under the Freshwater Fish Conservation (Prohibition on Fishing for Eels)(Scotland) Regulations 2008).

Basking sharks have also been recorded in the Solway Firth during the summer months. This, the second largest fish in the world is protected under CITES Appendix II, CMS

13

Appendix I and II and Annex I of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They are also protected from capture and disturbance in British waters (up to 12 miles offshore) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Over 130 species of fish have been recorded in the waters of the Solway, and a full list of those recorded from sampling trawls in the Solway (north east of a line drawn from Heston Island to Maryport) between 1995 and 1997 is presented in Lancaster (1999). Of the commercial species, those most commonly recorded are plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), dab (Limanda limanda), whiting (Merlangius merlangus) and flounder (Platichthys flesus).

A number of commercially important species are also known to spawn in the Solway Firth and the estuary approaches. The majority of spawning by fish occurs between late winter and early summer, which enables the larvae to take advantage of the spring phytoplankton bloom, and allow growing time for juveniles before the following winter, when the abundance of prey species is reduced.

Coull et al., (1998) recorded that sprat are commonly known to spawn in the Solway and throughout the Irish Sea between May and August.

Fish such as herring, whiting, plaice and sole, some of which may not have spawned in the Solway, use the Firth as a nursery area as a result of the quality and range of habitats available and the food provided within this. Figure F.8 shows the distribution of fish and nursery areas in coastal areas of the eastern Irish Sea.

Herring

Plaice & Sole

Plaice & Sole

Plaice &Sole

Plaice &Sole

Herring

Herring

HerringHerring

Cod & Whiting

Cod & Whiting

Bass

Bass

Bass

Figure F.8: Distribution of Juvenile Fish and Nursery Area in Irish Sea (Hillis &

Grainger, 1990 and Coull et al., 1998)

1.10.4.1 Fisheries

The fisheries sector is important for a number of coastal towns and villages around the Solway Firth as they have a historical dependence upon it. Including seasonal employment, it is estimated that 4,000 people in Dumfries and Galloway are employed by the industry, and it is also particularly important to the West Cumbria economy.

14

Table F.1 shows the wide variety of commercially caught species by the Solway fisheries sector (The Solway Firth Fisheries Initiative, Public Consultation – 2004).

Table F.1 Commercially Caught Fish and Shellfish in the Solway

Demersal fish Pelagic fish Shellfish Plaice (Pleuronectes

platessa)

Herring (Clupea

harengus)

Scallops (Pecten maximus)

Whiting (Merlangius

merlangus)

Mackerel (Scomber

scombrus)

Queen Scallops (Aequipecten

opercularis)

Cod (Gadus morhua) Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) Cockle (Cerastoderma edule)

Dover sole (Solea solea) Whelk (Buccinum undatum)

Haddock (Melanogrammus

aeglefinus)

Mussels (Mytilus edulis)

Pollack (Pollachius

pollachius)

Brown shrimp (Crangon crangon)

Lemon Sole (Microstomus

kitt)

Nephrops or Scampi (Nephrops

norvegicus)

Brill (Scophthalmus

rhombus)

Lobsters (Hommarus gammarus)

Turbot (Psetta maxima) Edible crab (Cancer pagurus)

Thornback Ray (Raja

clavata)

Dab (Limanda limanda)

Flounder (Platichthys

flesus)

Grey Mullet (Chelon

labrosus)

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.)

Spurdog (Squalus

acanthias)

Cockles (Cerastoderma edule) are widespread on the large areas of intertidal flats in the Firth, and populations have previously been overexploited by commercial harvesting. On the English side, grounds were completely closed from 1993 to 2001. Annual surveys of intertidal beds on the English side by Cumbria Sea Fisheries Committee (CSFC) recorded increasing stock from here and in 2003, some limited exploitation was permitted. However, from 2007, the only beds surveyed (Beckfoot Flats, south of Silloth) showed significant declines from previous years, and it was recommended that grounds remain closed again. In the subtidal part of the mid Solway however, a considerable stock of mussels has been recorded, and some harvesting was permitted in 2006.

On the Scottish side, increasing exploitation by boat, tractor and hand-gathered fisheries led to complete closure from 2002. Some harvesting was permitted in 2006, although based on surveys performed in summer 2008 the Solway Shellfish Management Association confirmed that no fishing should be allowed over the winter of 2008/9.

Stocks of edible mussels (Mytilus edulis) along the north Cumbrian coast vary significantly in biomass between years. For example, a high abundance of juveniles (spat) and low

15

commercial biomass in the 2006-7 season led to no commercial fisheries taking place, while some limited harvesting was recommended at the end of 2008.

In addition to commercial shellfish harvesting in the intertidal, rag- and lugworm are dug up for bait by anglers.

1.10.5 Birds

1.10.5.1 Species for which the area is designated

The UK’s estuaries are vitally important international staging posts and winter quarters for an enormous number of ducks, geese and wading birds which migrate southwards from the Arctic for the winter. Each individual estuary has its own special attraction for wildlife but together they form links in a huge international chain along which millions of birds pass each spring and autumn. Due to its size and location, the Solway is a vital resting and wintering area for such birds migrating along the eastern Atlantic seaboard. The intertidal sediments and saltmarshes provide sources of food for birds, which roost in the saltmarsh, inter-tidal and freshwater areas (English Nature, 2001). As the Solway is on the west coast, it can also increase in importance for birds during periods of severe cold weather to the east in Britain or Europe.

Luce Bay, Wigtown Bay, Kirkcudbright Bay, Auchencairn/Orchardton Bays and Rough Firth also provide important estuarine habitat for birds and need to be considered as an integral part of the Solway Firth. Wigtown is of international importance in its own right for wintering whooper swans (Cygnus cygnus) and pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus) and is a Special Protection Area/Ramsar site, as is Torrs Warren/Luce Sands.

The Solway is of particular importance to birds and each year it is home to an average of 110,000 overwintering waterfowl. Of the thousands of birds that either permanently or temporarily inhabit the Firth, many fit into one or more groups of special conservation status, or areas of concern. These include:

Natural England High priority species = Knot (Calidris canutus), grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), dunlin (Calidris alpina), pink-footed goose, barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria), bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica), curlew (Numenius arquata), redshank (Tringa totanus) and barn owl (Tyto alba).

Other notable species = Breeding oystercatcher, lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), redshank, herring gull (Larus argentatus), common tern (Sterna hirundo). Notable numbers of wintering wigeon (Anas penelope), lapwing and turnstone (Arenaria interpres). Wintering birds on farmland near the coast include Bewick’s swan (Cygnus columbianus), whooper swan, barnacle goose, pink-footed goose, wigeon, merlin (Falco columbarius), peregrine (Falco peregrinus) and twite (Carduelis flavirostris).

‘Core Area’ species (These are natural areas which support at least 5% of the British population of a breeding or wintering species which are considered to form a core area for that species and so play a vital role in safeguarding their populations) = Pink-footed goose, barnacle goose, oystercatcher and curlew.

Extinct/very rare breeding species are defined as: • Species that no longer breed in the natural area since initially recorded in the first atlas of

breeding birds (1968-72), as shown by the ‘Change maps’ in Gibbons and others 1993,

16

or those for which there is good historical evidence for their widespread occurrence in habitats that apparently remain suitable.

• Species that breed in very small numbers within the natural area. • Species which breed occasionally or irregularly within the natural area

The following examples exist in the region: • Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) • Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) • Dunlin (Solway Firth, Natural Area Profile, 1997) • Sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) should also be included in this category as it formerly

bred in the area, existing habitat is ideal and as a result of re-introduction it is likely to re-colonise the area

The importance of the Solway to birds has resulted in its designation under several levels of protection. The species specifically identified in the 3 main designations are listed in Table F1.2

17

Table F1.2 Bird Species Listed in Conservation Designations for the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes European Marine Site

Species Upper Solway

Flats and Marshes SPA

Upper Solway Flats and Marshes

Ramsar site

SSSI Citation

Barnacle Goose Wintering Wintering Wintering Bar-tailed Godwit Wintering Wintering Wintering

Golden Plover Wintering - Wintering Whooper Swan Wintering Wintering Wintering

Pink-footed Goose Wintering Wintering Wintering Curlew Wintering Wintering Wintering Dunlin Wintering - Wintering Knot Wintering Wintering Wintering

Oystercatcher Wintering Wintering Wintering/ Breeding* Pintail Wintering Wintering Wintering

Redshank Wintering Wintering Wintering/ Breeding* Ringed Plover Migrating - Wintering

Scaup - Wintering Wintering Sanderling - - Wintering Turnstone - - Wintering

Grey Plover - - Wintering Bewick’s Swan - - Wintering

Wigeon - - Wintering Goldeneye - - Wintering

Lesser Black-backed Gull

- - Breeding*

Herring Gull - - Breeding* Common Tern - - Breeding*

Arctic Tern - - Breeding* Black-headed Gull - - Breeding*

Lapwing - - Breeding*

* The small number of cited breeding species are listed for the “more extensive and least disturbed marshes, such as Rockcliffe and Caerlaverock”.

1.10.6 The avifauna of the Solway

1.10.6.1 Wildfowl

The entire Svalbard population of barnacle goose winters in the Solway Firth (having spent their summer in the Norwegian Arctic on the island of Svalbard (part of Spitzbergen)). Large numbers of pink-footed goose are also dependent on the estuary and neighbouring farmland and in periods of hard weather this population may be supplemented by birds from further north. Greylag goose (Anser anser) use the estuary in smaller numbers and stragglers of several species may be found amongst the flocks of barnacle and pink-footed geese.

- 18 -

Six species of wildfowl (shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), scaup (Aythya marila), pintail (Anas acuta), common scoter (Melanitta nigra), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) and goldeneye (Bucephala clangula)) are numerically important consumers on the intertidal/marine areas of the Solway and are present in nationally important numbers. Scaup are particularly important, with the winter peak of over 3,000 birds, representing around 63% of the British wintering population.

Wigeon and Shelduck are present in nationally significant numbers, with the Solway being the most important site in the UK for Shelduck in the summer. Other species that contribute to the significant waterfowl assemblage include Teal, Mallard and Shoveler.

1.10.6.2 Waders

Large numbers of dunlin, turnstone, golden plover, knot, curlew, bar-tailed godwit, oystercatcher, redshank, grey plover, lapwing and ringed plover use the estuary outside of the breeding season. Numbers of some of the species present in spring greatly exceed the populations present during the winter. Rapid turnover of individuals during migration suggests that the total number of birds visiting the Solway may be far greater than indicated by peak counts. The importance of the Solway as a staging post for shorebirds on spring migration has been highlighted by Clark et al. (1992) who recorded up to 15,000 sanderling during passage at one site.

For waders, the most important feeding areas are Mersehead Sands, Blackshaw and Priestside Banks, Cardurnock and the mouth of Moricambe Bay. Different areas of the Solway support different species assemblages depending on local conditions e.g. species preferring muddy substrates are most numerous on the inner sheltered parts of the estuary.

In addition to use by passage and wintering waders, areas of saltmarsh associated with the estuary, notably at Caerlaverock and Rockcliffe, support very high densities of breeding waders. These include oystercatcher, lapwing and redshank as well as small numbers of dunlin (a species not usually found breeding in this habitat so far South). Black-tailed godwit and Ruff have also nested on the saltmarshes and may do so again in the future. Areas of shingle, even small areas within saltmarsh communities, support breeding ringed plover.

1.10.6.3 Seabirds

Seabird colonies are found at a number of sites within the Solway Firth. Five of these colonies support nationally or internationally important numbers of breeding birds. The seabird colony at St. Bees Head is the only such colony in the northwest of England and is the only English breeding site of black guillemot (Cepphus grylle). Scare Rocks is also of national importance for gannet (Morus bassanus). Rockcliffe Marsh has large numbers of breeding herring and lesser black-backed gulls (Larus fuscus), with small numbers of common tern (Sterna hirundo) and, sometimes, arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea). On shingle beaches from Grune Point to Workington, little terns (Sterna albifrons) breed in scattered small colonies.

Large numbers of cormorants use the Solway and nearby waterbodies. There is large breeding colony in Moricambe Bay on an old military target. This also hosts a significant roost as does Rockcliffe Marsh and sandbanks close to the favoured feeding areas of the rivers Eden, Esk, Annan and Nith.

Observations during the late summer suggest that the outer Solway may be an important feeding area for storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus). The area is also renowned among birdwatchers for the large numbers of pomarine (Stercorarius pomarinus) and, to a lesser

- 19 -

extent, long-tailed skuas (Stercorarius longicaudus) that enter the estuary before crossing overland to the North Sea.

The Seabirds at Sea Team of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) have recorded large numbers of guillemot (Uria aalge) congregating in the outer Solway in winter.

1.10.6.4 Other species

Red-throated divers (Gavia stellata) and Great crested grebes (Podiceps cristatus) are relatively abundant in the estuary.

During the winter season, short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) hunt over the saltmarshes together with barn owl, peregrine falcons, merlins and the rare hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) (the upper intertidal/supralittoral environment).

Other specialties of the Firth include significant winter flocks of twite on Salicornia beds, saltmarshes and adjoining farmland.

1.10.6.5 Food requirements of birds

The invertebrates of the estuary are a vitally important feature of the food chain and the reason why the high numbers of wading birds can be supported. Relatively few species are well adapted to the extreme conditions of the intertidal mud flats but those species that do occur are found in vast numbers, thriving in the fertile estuarine situation. The main species include ragworm (Nereis diversicolor), lugworm (Arenicola marina), various shelled bivalves Macoma balthica etc. snails (eg Hydrobia ulvae), and the shrimp-like species Corophium volutator, with mussel scars in places. A similarly specialised invertebrate fauna occurs on the salt marshes and includes rare and notable species of crane-fly and beetle and, on dune heath, a rare species of psyllid bug.

The shrimps, worms and shellfish that live on and under the estuary mud can be present in very dense populations. A single square metre of mud might be home to 5,000 small pink bivalve called the Baltic tellin, while as many as 20,000 of the small mollusc Hydrobia may live on the surface (http://www.snh.org.uk/scottish/dumfries/solwayfirth.asp).

Because the Solway offers a relatively sheltered and undisturbed environment with an abundant food source, wading birds such as redshank, curlew and oystercatcher gather here in large numbers during the wintertime. Different bird species tend to feed on different prey species, which are variably distributed in the intertidal zone. The following paragraphs summarise preferences in general terms.

Shelduck feed principally on prey items on or close to the surface of muddy substrates, especially the small mollusc Hydrobia ulvae. Where also present in this surface zone, other molluscs including small Cerastoderma, Macoma and Mytilus and crustacea (including Corophium) and annelid worms are also taken with minor amounts of plant material.

Scaup feed nocturnally by diving for mussels and a wide range of estuarine invertebrates. Historically, large numbers have gathered at sewer outfalls where spent grain from distilleries was thought to have led to a super-abundance of small worms. Goldeneye were also recorded in large numbers at these sites, however, it is thought that these relied more on vegetable matter for food.

Teal are omnivorous and on estuarine sites seeds are taken on saltmarsh and small invertebrates such as Hydrobia are also important. The surface of soft exposed mud is sifted

- 20 -

http://www.snh.org.uk/scottish/dumfries/solwayfirth.asp

and the birds also feed in shallow water. Pintail also feed on small molluscs such as Hydrobia, crustaceans and seeds by dabbling and upending in shallow water.

The remaining significant wildfowl species are grazers, feeding mostly on plant material. The diet of the wigeon is usually eel grass (although availability has plummeted in recent years), algae and grasses gathered on mudflats and saltings. With decreases in natural food, this species has resorted to feeding more on agricultural crops including stubbles and winter wheat. Bewicks’s and whooper swans also feed on stubble and winter wheat, but also rely on grazing on pastureland. Whooper swans also feed on eel grass and emergent vegetation in ponds and lakes.

Barnacle goose and pink-footed goose graze extensively on saltmarsh and farmland and may also forage in stubbles for split grain. The barnacle goose is heavily reliant on well-managed saltmarsh where it feeds on grasses, clover stolons and the seeds and leaves of saltmarsh plants.

Golden plover feed principally on farmland at night, many only roost on the estuary. However, they utilise saltmarsh and mudflats in hard weather. Prey is mainly located visually and thus they are restricted to species that occur on or very close to the surface of the substrate, such as Hydrobia and small Mytilus. Grey plover do not feed inland and take a wide range of polychaete worms including Arenicola and Hediste and molluscs including Hydrobia and Macoma.

Oystercatcher feed mostly on relatively high-energy bivalve molluscs that they are able to open with their strong bills and strong musculature. Cockles and mussels are commonly taken, but other species such as Macoma balthica and Scobicularia plana may also be significant. Away from the most favoured sites, Oystercatchers will take a wider range of prey, including polychaete worms, crabs and limpets.

Knot feed on molluscs, principally Macoma and Hydrobia, both of which favour muds and muddy sands, and small Cerastoderma and on amphipods such as Corophium. Dunlin feed on small invertebrates including Hydrobia and Macoma as well as crustacea and polychaetes.

Bar-tailed godwits may take principally the large annelid worms Arenicola marina and Hediste diversicolor. Curlew also feed on the larger polychaete worms, especially Hediste, and molluscs, notably Scrobicularia. In addition, much of the feeding is on rocky shores where the curved bill can probe crevices efficiently. Curlews also take small species such as Bathyporeia but these form a minor part of the diet.

Redshank feed on a wide range of invertebrate species, with the amphipod Corophium often a major component of the diet though Hediste is also an important prey species.

Turnstone has large wintering populations within the Firth, frequenting the estuary flats, sandy beaches and rocky shores, where they typically forage for small shrimp, winkles, barnacles and amphipods. As their name suggests they are often observed turning small stones and pushing algae and flotsam aside along the strandline in search or food. Turnstone congregate above the high tide mark to roost on exposed rocks, sand bars and saltmarsh.

Sanderling feed at the water’s edge on relatively coarse sediments. Here, they feed on small polychaete worms such as Nerine cirratulus in wet sand at high tide. At other stages of the tidal cycle, they feed on shrimp-like crustaceans e.g. Bathyporeia spp., sandflies and

- 21 -

sandhoppers. At low tide they may visit mussel scars to feed on recently settles spat. As with sanderling, ringed plover’s hunt visually, but instead of running after prey as each wave recedes, they stand still scanning to detect motion that indicates the presence of their small invertebrate prey, especially small worms and crustaceans.

Herring gull and Lesser black-backed gulls are both highly adaptable and exploit a very wide range of prey. Undoubtedly the main source of food has been landfills, allowing population expansion for both species, but their ability to learn has resulted in the exploitation of many food sources, both animal and vegetable. Populations using the Solway commute long distances from the estuary to feed on human refuse and farmland. Those using the estuary to feed, exploit a wide range of invertebrate prey, especially from mussels scars at low tide or from stealing prey from other species. They will also take the eggs and young of other bird species.

Common, arctic and little terns all feed predominantly on small fish which they catch by hovering and then plunge diving on detection of prey. Little terns tend to feed mostly inshore, often immediately behind the surf zone. Arctic and common terns will feed offshore although the latter will also venture inland, feeding along rivers and even over lakes and flooded gravel pits.

1.10.7 Mammals

1.10.7.1 Seals

The eastern Irish Sea (including the Solway Firth) as a whole only supports small numbers of both common (Phoca vitulina) and grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and does not make any significant contribution to the UK populations of either species. Occasionally, common seals are recorded using rock or shingle haul-out sites on the Cumbrian coast and on sand banks in the Solway Firth but numbers recorded are minimal.

There are no major grey seal breeding sites within the eastern Irish Sea. Grey seal numbers increase in the summer months and up to 150 seals haul out east of Kirkcudbright Bay at Mullock Bay and Little Scares in the outer Firth.

Common and grey seals are included on Annexes II and V of the Habitats Directive, as species whose conservation requires the designation of special areas.

1.10.7.2 Cetaceans

The cetacean fauna within the eastern Irish Sea is not abundant or diverse. Within the Solway Firth, only three species are regularly recorded : harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena, bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus and common dolphin Delphinus delphis.

Harbour porpoises are seen in small numbers off St. Bees Head, mainly between July and September. Occasionally bottlenose dolphins are seen also during late summer. Common dolphins are an offshore species most commonly observed in the central and western parts of the Irish Sea but have also been recorded in the North Channel and occasionally eastwards into the Solway Firth. Small numbers of common and bottlenose dolphins have been recorded occasionally in the vicinity of Maryport, at the same time of year. Harbour porpoises are seen in small numbers off the Mull of Galloway.

The harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin are listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive as species whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). All cetacean species are included on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

- 22 -

1.10.7.3 Otters

Otters are widely distributed in Scotland and Dumfries and Galloway has a ubiquitous population. Breeding is known to occur at Wigtown Bay, Luce Bay and the Mull of Galloway as well as at a variety of freshwater habitats in the coastal zone. Otters have increased in the inner Solway over the past 20 years but have always been widespread in the west.

On the south side of the Firth otters are recorded on the lower reaches of the Sark and the Esk and down to the mouths of the Lyne, Eden, Powburgh Beck, Wampool and Waver and also on the coastal strip between Rockliffe Marsh and Skinburness.

While the Solway coast’s otter population is not exceptional in the Scottish context, the Dumfries and Galloway population is equal to the best in mainland Scotland and is important strategically, given the depleted nature of the population in England. The Scottish Solway otter population is an important resource for the re-colonisation of northern England. The River Eden SAC is also partially designated due to the presence of otters.

- 23 -

2 Environmental considerations

2.1 General considerations

2.1.1 Barrages

2.1.1.1 Intertidal exposure

Intertidal areas are known to be highly significant ecologically both when exposed (e.g. for wading birds) and when immersed (e.g. as shallow nursery areas for commercial fish species). The extent and integrity of intertidal habitat is a key feature in the national, European and international nature conservation designations of the Solway, and therefore any consideration of any impacts to it are of key importance.

Any artificial alteration of the tidal regime could affect a) the amount of time that an intertidal area is exposed (i.e. uncovered), and/or b) the extent of surface area that is exposed. Anthropogenic influences to these two factors will therefore be greatest where the tops of existing intertidal areas are raised relatively little above low water mark (i.e. are exposed only close to low tide), and they are gently sloping (i.e. for a relatively small decrease in water levels, wide areas are exposed). Environmental effects considered throughout the remainder of this chapter are focussed more on the loss of potential feeding grounds for birds than they are on the potential changes to the invertebrate assemblages that are present. Depending upon the changes to the tidal regime which would result from the installation and operation of a barrage, the invertebrate species present at different tidal heights may change, and this may present an additional effect on the feeding areas.

In the situation where an ebb generation barrage was installed, it is likely that the water level upstream of the barrage would never fall below the natural mid-tide mark, otherwise generating capacity would be lost. The effect of this type of barrage on intertidal areas would basically be to turn the area from mid-tide level to low tide level into a subtidal area, reducing significantly the area available to feeding birds. In addition to this effect on the lower shore, there would be a prolonged period of immersion of upper shore intertidal areas too, as the waters are held back for some time after high water to allow a hydraulic head to develop, the upper shore areas would be immersed at a natural rate by the flood tide.

Steeply sloping tidal areas, such as those often found banking deeper channels, naturally have less surface area for the tidal range over which they extend and less aerial exposure. Any alterations to the existing regime would therefore impact these environments to a relatively lesser extent than for those flat or gently sloping areas, although impacts will still occur.

While the above paragraphs describe the most significant effects on the intertidal environment from an ebb tide generation barrage (single direction), the magnitude of these can be reduced by the use of two way generation. While the two way generation system still holds back the ebbing tide, it also generates power on the flooding tide, holding that back too. This delays the immersion of the areas upstream of the barrage, effectively producing an almost natural tidal regime which is delayed by comparison with the natural time that it would occur.

Other effects from the location and operation of a barrage could include loss of intertidal habitat which is directly underneath the structure itself, and this would be significant if the habitat lost was of nature conservation value in itself, and changes to the hydrodynamic

- 24 -

regime (caused by flows being restricted to close to turbines) could also affect the position and shape of intertidal banks.

2.1.1.2 Barrier effects & entrainment

As a linear structure spanning an estuary, a barrage would form a significant modification of the existing environment. This, and any associated changes in the sediment or hydrodynamic regime, may present a physical impediment to movements of fish. Of particular concern would be impacts to protected and/or migratory species, especially during vulnerable periods prior to spawning.

For impact consideration purposes movements of fish can largely be grouped into the following: • Seasonal upstream movement by spawning anadromous species that have statutory

protection (e.g. lampreys, salmon, shad) • Seasonal downstream movement of spawning catadromous species (eel) and seaward

return of anadromous species • Within-estuary movement by resident or seasonally abundant species, including

commercially important species (e.g. Dover sole, plaice)

In order to reduce the effects on fish movement, passage systems would need to be incorporated into a barrage design, which allow movement of the protected species as a minimum.

2.1.1.3 Salinity regime & other factors

Retention of water by a barrage may result in an alteration of the salinity regime around any structure. An ebb tide generation barrage could create a water body of reducing salinity, which also effectively increases the time taken for riverine water to reach the sea. This increased retention time, if the riverine discharges contain higher levels of nutrients, could result in the water body upstream of the barrage becoming eutrophic. This could lead in turn to changes in benthic productivity, distribution and abundance of wading birds and commercial fisheries (such as shellfish). Alterations of sediment dynamics may also alter the distribution of anthropogenic contaminants, the levels of suspended sediment may be also be changed which could result in primary production increases. However, any such effects are likely to be complex, and in order to fully understand any potential impacts it may be necessary to perform detailed numerical modelling studies.

Effects on the salinity regime would be minimised if a two way generation barrage was selected, as this type of generation effectively enables an almost natural freshwater discharge rate to be retained.

2.1.1.4 Lagoons

Intertidal Exposure

Artificial lagoons within which lie intertidal areas create very similar impacts on these areas to those which a tidal barrage produces. The area inside a lagoon is subject to the same effects on the tidal regime as the area upstream of a barrage, with low lying intertidal areas unlikely to be exposed in an ebb generating system. If such areas are important as feeding sites for birds, then such effects can be significant. Additionally, if the type of habitat over which the lagoon is constructed is of conservation designation value, effects could also be considered significant

- 25 -

Offshore lagoons, which cover only areas where the seabed is below the lowest tide levels would not reduce the immersion/emersion periods for intertidal areas. However, they will produce an effect on the seabed upon which they are built, and if the habitats within this area have conservation designations, then effects could be considered significant.

Barrier Effect

By comparison with a barrage, a lagoon would be likely to have more limited barrier effects. However, s effects on fish from the construction and operation of a coastal lagoon may still occur. As the coastline may represent an important feature along which migratory fish navigate, any physical alterations to this may impede their progress. For example, a lagoon that artificially lengthens the extent of coast may require additional energetic resources of spawning fish that are already under natural physiological stress. Additional time and energy spent on migration may also expose fish to other sources of mortality (predation, disease, fisheries).

Coastally connected lagoons could also “trap” migratory species if they manage to move through any fish passes which are intended for different species, they may then be unable to transit the passes to leave the lagoon.

An offshore lagoon would create less of a barrier effect, though it could still trap some migratory species.

Salinity Regime & Other Factors

Changes to the salinity regime inside a lagoon would be less marked that those in a water body upstream of an ebb generation barrage. Water flows into the lagoon as a result of the tide rising, and assuming that there is no river flowing into the landward side of the lagoon, it is water of the same salinity, which flows back out through the turbines.

On the outer side of a lagoon, there would be effects on the hydrodynamic regime close to the location of the turbines, as these tend to channel flows and would probably affect the local distribution of channels and banks (turbines would probably all be located in areas which are below lowest tide).

2.1.2 Reefs

2.1.2.1 Intertidal exposure

The Tidal reef works in a similar way to a barrage, which generates on both flood and ebb tides, however the turbines are able to generate power utilising a much lower head of water. In terms of the effects on the intertidal areas upstream of a reef, the requirement for a smaller head of water, and the two way generation mode should mean that more intertidal areas can be exposed than would be the case with a traditional ebb generation barrage, as the water levels would be allowed to fall to a level much closer to natural low water. The reef system does not allow the levels upstream to reach their natural high water level, and therefore there may be impacts to the saltmarsh habitat which exist upstream of a reef. However, as with a barrage the full extent of exposure could only be calculated at a more advanced stage of the study once the required head for the turbines had been ascertained.

2.1.2.2 Barrier effect

The designers of the Tidal reef have suggested that specially designed turbines, coupled with the lower head difference between up and downstream of the reef will facilitate the safe

- 26 -

passage of migratory fish species. In the event that additional (non power generating) sluicing takes place late on the flood and ebb tides, this may help to enable movement of migratory species, and those which spend various life stages in the estuary itself.

2.1.2.3 Salinity regime & other factors

The lower head requirement for Tidal reefs, and the two way generation mode will allow a more complete flow of water from the upstream side of the structure to the downstream side, and will therefore provide a reduced effect on salinities than would an ebb generation barrage.

2.2 Specific considerations

2.2.1 Barrages B1 to B3

2.2.1.1 Inner Barrage (Barrage 3)

The location of the inner barrage is slightly upstream of the mouth of the River Annan, but it would form a barrier to the discharge of the Rivers Eden and Esk. The site of the barrage is within the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA and the Solway SAC, and the southern shore lies within the Solway coast AONB.

Habitats upon which the Solway SAC is designated (mud and sand flats, Salicornia and Atlantic salt meadows) lie upstream of the barrage, and it is likely that the route of the barrage lies across the intertidal flats too. Changes to the tidal regime upstream of the barrage will result in changes to the mud and sand flats, particularly those which are located lower down the shore. Salicornia and salt meadows, located on at upper shore levels would also be affected by the new tidal regime upstream of a barrage, which would result in a longer time of immersion for this zone (and would affect rates and time available for photosynthesis). Such changes may affect the viability of Salicornia and the other species which contribute to the structure of the salt marsh, in the event that the salt marsh plants die, it is quite likely that the stability of the ground upon which they grow will become less stable and may erode.

Changes to the water flows created by the insertion of a barrage and the restriction of ebb tide movements to flows which come via the turbines will result in changes to the location and shape of the sand and mud flats in the area.

The retention of water for longer will result in the loss of access to low inter-tidal feeding areas including mudflats and scars. This will have a negative impact on shelduck, oystercatcher, ringed plover, golden plover, grey plover, lapwing, knot, sanderling, dunlin, bar-tailed godwit, curlew, redshank, turnstone, lesser black-backed gull and herring gull. Increased water levels may have a negative impact on sandbank roost sites for barnacle goose and pink-footed goose. More detailed information on potential effects to bird species is provided elsewhere in this report.

Changes to saltmarsh communities, especially the habitat zonation could have a negative impact on barnacle goose, pink-footed goose, hen harrier, merlin, barn owl, short-eared owl and twite.

The physical barrier presented by the barrage may prevent/reduce access to feeding areas for red-throated diver and great crested grebe.

- 27 -

The increased areas of open water may prove attractive to species that feed in the water or use the water for roosting, including cormorant, goldeneye, common tern and arctic tern.

The River Eden is designated as an SAC partially because it supports salmon, sea and river lamprey which migrate through the Solway Firth. The Esk also supports salmon and Eels, which are Biodiversity Action Species also migrate through the Solway into the Eden and Esk. The movement of these species between the Eden and Esk and the Solway would be impeded by the construction of a barrage on the Annan to Bowness line.

2.2.1.2 Moricambe Bay barrage (Barrage 4)

This relatively short barrage would enclose the flows of the rivers Wampool and Waver, together with the intertidal flats of Moricambe Bay. The whole area lies within the Solway SAC and the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SP, and contains intertidal mudflats which is one of the features upon which the Solway SAC is designated. The shoreline sections of the site also lie within the Solway Coast AONB.

In terms of impacts to birds from this option, the impacts would be similar to those the Inner barrage proposal as similar habitats/species are present with the site containing extensive mudflats, scar ground and saltmarsh. More detailed information on potential effects to bird species is provided elsewhere in this report.

The main differences between the proposals is that Moricambe has less “main” channel bird species such as red-throated diver and great crested grebe and a lesser breeding seabird assemblage i.e. common tern, arctic tern, lesser black-backed gull and herring gull. It is however, close to a little tern colony and the presence of more open water for longer could potentially benefit this species.

With respect to migratory fish species, the rivers Wampool and Waver have populations of sea trout and eels; the presence of other migratory fish species in these rivers is currently unknown.

In addition, it is understood that natterjack toads are found on the upper shore areas close to Anthorn in the north east corner of Moricambe Bay, this is a species which is on annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Changes to the tidal regime within Moricambe Bay could affect the suitability of the upper shore habitat for the natterjack.

2.2.1.3 Mid length Barrage (Barrage 2)

Effects on the intertidal habitats along the route of the barrage and upstream of it will be similar in nature to those described for the inner Barrage, however the areal extent will be greater, and there may also be effects on subtidal habitats which are within the reasons for designation of the Solway SAC. The whole area affected lies within the Solway SAC and the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA, and the coastal sections of the Caerlaverock NNR also lie within the area upstream of the barrage. The northern shoreline which would be affected also encompasses the coastal reaches of the Nith National Scenic Area, and the southern shore includes the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The area upstream of the mid length barrage also includes the Moricambe Bay area, and effects on that site would be very similar to those described above for a barrage across the entrance of that Bay.

In terms of bird feeding areas, the intertidal flats which would lie upstream of the barrage, and therefore be affected by an ebb only generation scheme would include Beckfoot Flats,

- 28 -

Silloth Bank, Moricambe Bay, Cardurnock Flats, Powfoot Bank, Powfoot Sands, Blackfoot Flats and possibly Middle Bank. These are similar habitats as present upstream of the Inner barrage and therefore has the same issues with respect to feeding birds. In addition, within the mid-barrage area are little tern breeding colonies although common and arctic terns are not known to nest. The area supports larger populations of marine species such as scaup and red-throated diver, than the inner estuary, and very large populations of many species of wildfowl and waders. More detailed information on potential effects to bird species is provided elsewhere in this report.

By locating Barrage 2 in its current position, in addition to causing impediments to migration of Annex II species to the Eden and Esk, migration to and from the Nith, Annan, Lochar, Wampool and Waver would also be affected, though non of these rivers are designated specifically because they support these species.

Natterjack toads are present along most of the Scottish coastline which would be upstream of the barrage, and on the English side between where the barrage touches the shore and Grune point (in addition, they have also been recorded from Anthorn, in Moricambe Bay), the species is on annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The tadpole shrimp (Triops cancriformis) has recently been recorded from Caerlaverock NNR, this species has been recorded from only one other location in the British Isles, and is classified as Endangered and protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

The area encompassed within the barrage 2 is used as feeding grounds by the harbour porpoise, the presence of the barrage would preclude the usage of this feeding resource to the porpoises.

2.2.1.4 Outer Barrage – Barrage 1

In addition to the effects on the various designated sites described for Barrages 1-3, the outer barrage would also affect the designated sites identified within Lagoons 1, 2 and 3. An outline assessment of the potential impacts on bird species indicates that the coarser substrates of the outer firth are unlikely to support high densities of smaller waders. Species such as oystercatcher, curlew, redshank and possibly bar-tailed godwit are likely to commute between roosts and the extensive banks and would be negatively affected through loss of lower intertidal areas. The area supports significant populations of seaduck including scaup and common scoter as well as large numbers of red-throated diver, great crested grebe and cormorant. The increased water levels would be likely to be beneficial to these species, however the presence of a barrage and changes to benthic communities may have a negative impact on them.

In addition to the rivers affected by the smaller barrages and lagoons, the outer barrage would also hold the flows of the River Ellen, which enters the sea at Maryport.

While details of barrage operation would not be developed until the next stage of feasibility studies, it is likely that the impacts on salinities upstream of Barrage 1 would be less than those related to the shorter barrages. The volumes of freshwater, which are restricted by a shorter barrage are of larger percentages by comparison with the volumes of fully saline water which transit the barrage, than are those volumes associated with the outer barrage. Hence the majority of any water which remains held back by the ebb generating barrage on the outer line will not be freshwater in origin, and it is unlikely that there will be an overall reduction in salinity in this area.

- 29 -

The area encompassed within the Outer barrage is frequented by harbour porpoise which use the area to feed, the presence of the barrage would preclude the usage of this feeding resource to the porpoises.

2.2.2 Lagoons L1 – L2

2.2.2.1 Lagoon 1

Chart data indicate that the vast majority of the area encompassed by the Lagoon would be of 10m depth or less, with some slightly deeper areas in the westernmost third of the Lagoon, lying in water depths of between 10 and 20m. A large proportion of the area is intertidal in nature, and impacts resulting from non-exposure (due to an ebb-generating system) could be significant. The Lagoon would effectively form a barrage of the estuary of the River Urr too (known to contain salmon and sea trout), including the intertidal flats at Rough Firth and Auchencairn Bay.

The site of Lagoon 1 is partially within the Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA and the Solway SAC, and it encompasses the coastal extents of the Port O Warren, Auchencairn and Orchardton SSSIs, and part of the coastal section of the Abbey Burn to Balcary Point SSSI.

Habitats upon which the Solway SAC is designated (mud and sand flats, Salicornia and Atlantic salt meadows) lie within the lagoon, and it is likely that the walls of the lagoon lie across the intertidal flats too. Changes to the tidal regime inside the lagoon will result in changes to the mud and sand flats, particularly those which are located lower down the shore. Any saltmarsh located on at upper shore levels would also be affected by the new tidal regime inside the lagoon, which would result in a longer time of immersion for this zone (and would affect rates and time available for photosynthesis). Such changes may affect the viability of the species which contribute to the structure of the salt marsh, in the event that the saltmarsh plants die, it is quite likely that the stability of the ground upon which they grow will become less stable and may erode.

The SSSIs which would be affected by the lagoon are designated for their saltmarsh and mudflat areas (Auchencairn and Orchardton) and their coastal habitats (Abbey Burn Foot to Balcary Point), and bird populations (Port O Warren and Abbey Burn Foot to Balcary Point). Port O Warren is designated because it supports a large colony of cormorants, while the breeding species present at Abbey Burn Foot to Balcary Point include guillemot and razorbill – all three of these species feed in the water, and the extended immersion period within the lagoon may actually be a positive effect for them.Other designated areas which would be affected by the creation of Lagoon 1 include the following: • Saltmarsh sites greater than 10ha (Southwick, Rough Firth and Auchencairn) • East Stewartry Coast National Scenic Area; and • Mersehead RSPB Reserve; Southwick Coast Scottish Wildlife Trust Reserve, and

Rockcliffe National Trust Reserve (entire sites)

The loss of intertidal feeding areas would have a negative impact on waders, including oystercatcher, ringed plover, golden plover, grey plover, lapwing, knot, sanderling, dunlin, bar-tailed godwit, curlew, redshank and turnstone.

The sandbanks off Mersehead RSPB reserve are likely to be important for roosting barnacle goose and pink-footed goose. The prolonged period at which water levels will remain close to the high tide mark may reduce the use of these areas by roosting geese, however, they may present increased foraging opportunities for diving species including cormorant and

- 30 -

goldeneye, and local-breeding little terns. More detailed information on potential effects to bird species is provided elsewhere in this report.

The River Urr would be the only catchment directly impacted by the construction of the Lagoon. The Urr is not designated on the basis of migratory fish (e.g. shad, lamprey), although it has populations of Atlantic salmon (which are protected) as well as sea trout and eels, which are of conservation interest. As such, it will be necessary to incorporate mitigation measures for these species into the design. However, the construction of Lagoon 1 along a large section of shoreline on the Solway could impact the habitat and/or migration of other populations of fish, including protected migratory species.

Natterjack toads are known to inhabit the upper littoral area at Southerness Point, and this species may be affected by the proposed Lagoon, which would create an extended period of immersion of the upper shore areas, which may make them less favourable habitats for the natterjacks.

The lagoon also affects a large part of the Scottish section of the Solway cockle fishery, the area is also fished for brown shrimp. Fishing for both species would be restricted by the construction of the lagoon.

2.2.2.2 Lagoon 2

Chart data indicate that all of the area covered by the Lagoon would be of less than 10m water depth, with the deepest areas in the southwestern corner. Large areas of the Lagoon are intertidal, including a broad band adjacent to the coast and offshore banks in the northwest and western corners of the area. A reduction in the levels of exposure of the intertidal area within the Lagoon is likely to affect its value for feeding bird species.

Lagoon 2 lies partially within the Solway SAC and Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA, and covers intertidal and subtidal sand and mud flats, which are included in the reasons for designation of the site. At Dubmill Point, also within the lagoon intertidal rocky scar habitat of high biodiversity is present, including growths of Sabellaria, a BAP & OSPAR species/habitat. The lagoon also lies within the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Within Allonby Bay, which is inside the Lagoon but outside the Solway SAC, there are hard-ground habitats of tides-swept gravel, pebbles and cobbles with moderately rich faunal communities, including horse mussel Modiolus modiolus. Changes in the patterns of tidal inundation are likely to affect the suitability of the area for these species.

Natterjack toads are also present in the Silloth Dunes and Mawbray Bank SSSI, which also includes some breeding areas at Allonby, Mawbray and Silloth/Wolsty.

The lagoon also includes Beckfoot Flats which are part of the Solway cockle fishery (depending upon which banks are open in particular years), and supports some mussel scars.

Lagoon 2 does not enclose any rivers, and therefore would not act as a complete barrier to the movements of migratory species, though if individuals did gain access into the lagoon they may have difficulties leaving it.

This area does not support goose roosts so the main negative impact is the loss of intertidal wader feeding grounds. The substrates here are coarser than further up the estuary and are

- 31 -

therefore less attractive to smaller species however there would be negative impact on a wide range of other species including oystercatcher, ringed plover, golden plover, grey plover, lapwing, knot, sanderling, dunlin, bar-tailed godwit, curlew, redshank and turnstone. More detailed information on potential effects to bird species is provided elsewhere in this section.

2.2.3 Reefs R1 to R3

Three reefs have been included in the options list, located at the same position a barrages 1, 2 and 3. Reefs at these locations would have a smaller effect on the tidal range and regime than the ebb generation barrages, and as such, while there would be effects on the various designated sites and species which are found upstream of the reefs, these would be comparatively reduced. However, there may be greater effects on the upper intertidal areas from a reef than there would be from a barrage, as the operation of a reef may not allow the tides to reach their natural heights.

The use of two way generation reefs would present a more environmentally friendly option than ebb generation barrages in the same position, and in addition to the increased levels of intertidal exposure presented by a reef, the specially designed turbines will also enable the easier passage of migratory fish.

Effects on birds which feed on exposed intertidal mud and sand flats will be reduced as the flats stay exposed for a longer period, and a greater area is exposed, while effects on species which roost on the upper shore will also be reduced by comparison with the ebb generation barrage, as the period of inundation is more natural.

Species such as the natterjack toad and the tadpole shrimp may have their habitats more affected by a reef than a barrage as they tend to inhabit areas at the top of the shoreline, and these areas are likely to be less frequently inundated behind an operating reef than they are behind a barrage.

2.3 Potential for mitigation

2.3.1 Intertidal exposure

The greatest effect from the operation of a barrage, lagoon or reef is upon the intertidal area upstream of the installation, changes to the tidal regime will affect the value of the habitat to various species, and the value of the habitat itself (given that the Solway SAC designation is based on several intertidal habitats). The most effective mitigation measures are therefore those which enable the tidal height and inundation periods to be as close as possible to their natural regime.

Ebb generation barrages present the greatest effects to the intertidal areas upstream, and these effects can be reduced by use of a two-way generating barrage, which enables the flooding tide to be held back, increasing exposure time of the areas upstream, and which may enable a greater tidal range to be maintained.

Effects on the tidal regime could be further reduced by the use of a two-way generating reef. As these systems operate on a lower hydraulic head, they enable the modified tidal regime upstream to be close to its natural situation.

Such changes to the basic ebb generation barrage (which also includes Lagoons) will reduce the power, which can be drawn from the estuary. Further work will be required to establish whether there are opportunities for sluicing water through the structure close to low and high

- 32 -

water mark which will not reduce the power levels significantly. Such sluicing can further enable the tidal regime upstream of the structure to be close to its natural levels.

Operation of a two-way generation device has the effect of delaying the tides upstream of the installation. Tidal movements are delayed to produce the hydraulic head required, by delaying the movement, the period at which water behind the structure is retained at its highest levels are increased (while the water downstream of the structure falls), as are those at lowest water level (while the levels on the outside of the structure increase). Therefore while operation of the turbines can be optimised in terms of tidal range, the periods of inundation and exposure of the intertidal areas are not the same as those downstream of the structure.

2.3.2 Barrier effect & entrainment

Barrier effects of permanent structures could be mitigated by incorporating designs that allowed unhindered passage of fish through any structure. These devices should be designed to enable movement of the species which are of highest conservation value (such as lamprey, salmon and eels), although it is recognised that the Solway acts as a nursery area for many other species and their movements should also be considered in the designs.

As different fish swim at different heights in the water column (surface, midwater and near-seabed), and different positions in the channels (Coastline-hugging or using deeper channels), and at different times of the year, the design of any passes would need to take such factors into consideration, such that restrictions to movement were minimised.

The potential effects of entrainment of the larger species also need to be considered in the design of turbines, and/or in the channelling of water towards them. Although it is understood that for the operating barrage at La Rance, physical damage to fish which pass through the turbines is not a major issue.

2.3.3 Salinity regime & other factors

There is a potential for effects on the salinity regime to occur upstream of barrages, however the extent of such changes are unclear and will require further study. What can be concluded is that the closer the upstream tidal regime is to that downstream of the barrage, the smaller the effect on water quality parameters will be. Whilst salinity may be the first factor that is considered, other such as levels of suspended solids (which may reduce in a more quiescent environment) may also be affected, and turbid water in the Solway may be a limiting factor in phytoplankton growth (as is the case in the Mersey, P. Jones, pers. Comm.). The water upstream of an ebb generation barrage may therefore suffer from algal blooms, and allowing greater flux of water between both sides of the barrage (ie. by employing two way generation or using a reef), will reduce the potential for such effects to occur.

- 33 -

Appendix G

Financial Model

1 Funding sources.................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Fully Private Finance.................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 On-balance sheet financing .................................................................. 4 1.1.2 Project finance ...................................................................................... 4 1.1.3 Security Package .................................................................................. 5 1.1.4 Changes to the Revenue Stream.......................................................... 6

1.2 Part-public Finance ...................................................................................... 6 2 Revenue Streams for Tidal Generators............................................................... 7

2.1 Renewables Obligation - workings ............................................................... 7 2.2 ROC price outlook ........................................................................................ 9 2.3 Climate Change Levy - Levy Exemption Certificates.................................... 9 2.4 GB Wholesale Electricity Prices Outlook.................................................... 10 2.5 Implications for Tidal Generation in the Solway Firth ................................. 13

3 Financial model ................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Project Capital Costs.................................................................................. 14 3.3 Project Operating Costs ............................................................................. 15 3.4 Results ....................................................................................................... 15

- 2 -

1 Funding sources

When considering the feasibility or otherwise of any proposed energy project in the Solway Firth, financing considerations will play a crucial role in influencing the shape of the whole project. It is therefore vital that, at an early stage, due consideration is given to the available financing options so that the project as a whole is structured accordingly. Although every project is different, there are generally four possible routes for financing a UK power project:

1. Use of internal company reserves

2. Co-development of the project with a financially strong joint-venture partner who is more readily able to raise the necessary finance

3. Use of bank loans secured against other parts of the developer’s business or major assets (“on balance sheet finance”)

4. Limited recourse project financing, whereby bank loans are secured largely against future cash flows rather than just physical assets, and involving a series of complex contractual arrangements.

Leasing is another source of finance often discussed, and although potentially it offers benefits to a renewable energy project, in practice it is a route rarely available.

In the case of extremely large projects, there is unlikely to be a willingness in the private sector to fund the projects in their entirety given the combination of long construction periods, high capex and volatility in revenues. Therefore some form of public sector involvement and the possibility of a fixed unit price would also be options to explore. These have been explored in the case of Severn Estuary Tidal Power (reference “Severn Estuary Tidal Power – Financing and ownership – Report on the financing and ownership options for developing a project to generate tidal power from the Severn Estuary” by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, dated December 2008.

Introducing public finance also introduces the need to put in place new market or regulatory measures and potentially also to negotiate complex commercial agreements. However for very large capital intensive generation projects, this is likely to be a sensible option. This is discussed in brief in section 1.2 below.

1.1 Fully Private Finance

The challenge of raising finance on acceptable terms for a renewable energy project is significant. Developers who recognise that they have a potentially viable project, but which they will not be able to exploit under their own resources, could consider co-developing the project with a stronger partner better able to raise the required finance.

Where the developer aims to finance a renewable generation project the two most likely financing routes are on-balance sheet finance or limited recourse project finance. Both typically use bank loans to provide the majority of the required capital, but it is the lender’s security arrangements which differ significantly between the two routes. With limited recourse project financing, the project borrows on a stand-alone basis. While some guarantees may be required, the lender’s repayments are secured primarily by the project’s assets and cash flows with limited recourse to the developer. In an on-balance sheet financing, lenders look to general corporate assets as security for the loan as well as external

- 3 -

guarantees (often parent company guarantees) and other related external collateral if the project’s cash flow is insufficient to repay the debt.

On balance sheet finance and limited recourse finance are discussed in more detail in the next section, indicating how the answers to these questions effectively point towards the desired financing route.

1.1.1 On-balance sheet financing

A financially strong sponsor is able to draw upon on-balance sheet financing. Such financing is unlikely to be a practical alternative for a developer with limited financial resources, however it is often used by stand-alone, first-time developers for very small projects.

An on balance sheet financing has the following characteristics: Simplicity - it is relatively easy and quick to arrange Cost - it is usually cheaper in terms of arrangement and legal fees and the annual cost of

borrowing may be lower Structure - it will normally reflect a looser, more flexible financing structure. The tight

network of contracts, which create the risk transference in a limited recourse project financing, is less critical to the lender, since it has recourse to the company balance sheet.

Risk acceptance - the sponsors are generally content to accept the majority of the project risks; although on balance sheet financing structures obviously can also allow for risk transfer, the degree of risk transfer is much less than in a limited recourse project financing.

A typical example of this approach would be a water company that decided to develop a sewerage energy-from-waste project where the project, in effect, became an integral part of the business to treat sewerage economically.

On balance sheet finance may be the only option for small projects with a capital cost less than about £15 million. Limited recourse project financing techniques are difficult to implement on small projects due to the high level of initial arrangement and development costs.

1.1.2 Project finance

A developer is likely to be able to use project finance if the capital cost of the project is at least £5-10 million. However, firm contracts must be available from all major project participants - equipment supplier, construction contractor, project operator and power purchaser. Reasons for choosing project finance include the desire to reduce the risk to the sponsors or to increase the debt funding in the project. Project finance may also be suitable for multi-sponsor projects or when the project is a non-core business.

Figure G.1 shows a typical limited recourse project financing structure. The principal parties likely to be involved in a project are: Shareholders Lenders Contracting parties Turnkey construction contractor Subcontractors, equipment suppliers Power purchaser Network operator Operator.

- 4 -

SINGLE PURPOSE PROJECT COMPANY

SHAREHOLDER

A

SHAREHOLDER

B

CONTRACTORSENIOR

LENDERS

NETWORK OPERATOR

FUEL SUPPLIER

POWER PURCHASER

OPERATOR

NOMINATED SUBCONTRACTORS

Shareholders (or Joint-Venture) Agreement

Subordinate lenders

Loan Agreement

Electricity Connection Agreement

Fuel Supply Contract Power Purchase

Agreement Operating and Maintenance Agreement

Engineering Procurement and

Construction Agreement

Figure G.1: Typical Security Package

1.1.3 Security Package

In limited recourse project financing, the lenders are not able to rely on the balance sheet of the sponsor for repayment, but rather on the project to generate a stable and predictable stream of cash flow necessary to ensure repayment of their loans. In order for the lenders to be assured that they have the project cash dedicated to repay their loans, the lenders will “take security.” Taking security over the project assets and contracts gives the lenders the ability to control the project cash and even step in and operate the project in adverse situations (for example, where the project is in default and not repaying its debt). The most common ways of taking security - or collateral - are: Assignment of priority rights to the project cash flow Mortgage/fixed and floating charge over the physical assets Assignment of the project contracts Contractual undertakings Shareholder undertakings Insurance Bonding.

While lenders will take security over the project assets, cash flow from the project is considered to be the primary source of repayment of the project debt, not sale of assets.

For the range of options being considered for the Solway Firth, it is possible that a PPP scheme would be used for funding the larger projects such as barrage 1 (6 GW) where one or more generation companies may need to share the risk and considerable costs. Given it unlikely that commercial lenders will be willing to invest in a project with such a long payback period, the private part of the funding would need to be structured to make a return in say the

- 5 -

first 15 years, with the government secured debt being repaid mainly in the second half of the project's operation.

A comprehensive evaluation of the risks should indicate which risks the private sector is best placed to handle; the remaining risks will need to be taken on by government or others. These should include, amongst other things: Planning risk for the barrage and the necessary grid interconnection Risks relating to the pricing and continuity of renewables obligation or other carbon pricing

mechanisms; electricity wholesale market prices Risks of future political or public opposition to higher power prices arising from the

inclusion of intermittent low-carbon generation into the UK power market Rewards to other generators for providing flexible standby capacity to make up for cyclical

nature of barrage generation Incentives for increased interconnection to accommodate spill into the Continental grid

system Risks to turbine manufacturers in gearing up for a one-off largest ever low-head turbine

order

1.1.4 Changes to the Revenue Stream

Power projects are subject to highly uncertain and volatile prices as a result of the character of the UK power market, which is dependent on other volatile commodities such as gas and carbon as well as changes in the supply demand balance. This is discussed further in Section 2 below.

If large tidal projects were entitled to a fixed feed in tariff, then one of the sources of uncertainty would be removed and some of the smaller of these large schemes, all other things remaining equal, would become more attractive to funders.

Some renewable generators with a capacity below 5 MW will be eligible for feed in tariffs. Achieving such a change would require significant measures including legislation. If introduced for large generators it would be seen as a significant change in the market arrangements and could potentially act as a deterrent to investment in general as investors perceived the risk that other rule changes might follow.

1.2 Part-public Finance

As noted above, direct involvement of the public sector in power generation in the UK is not the norm. However the challenges faced in raising finance for very large capital intensive projects have led to exploration of some of the options for public sector involvement.

All options rely on the assumption that a fixed power price is achieved to remove the risk associated with power price volatility.

Options proposed in recent studies include: Single or multiple Public Private Partnerships under which the private sector constructs,

finances and operates the project under contract to the government for a fixed period. Public finance for construction followed by either privatisation (sale of the asset),

privatisation as a regulated concession or franchise (sale of the right to operate and collect revenues),

Establishment of a stand-alone regulated company, supported in certain ways by the government

- 6 -

At this stage it is not likely to be useful to explore in depth the advantages and disadvantages of these options. Introducing public support could be the enabler for a scheme which is economic from a public perspective, but not when private sector perceptions of risk and opportunity cost are applied. Such support would however require significant effort as it would be necessary for key stakeholders to consider that the benefits of such market intervention outweighed the costs associated with private investors fearing further changes to market arrangements in future.

2 Revenue Streams for Tidal Generators

There are there main sources of revenue for tidal generators: Sale of Renewable Obligation Certificates provided under the Renewables Obligation Sale of Levy Exemption Certificates provided under the Climate Change Levy

arrangements Sale of electrical energy in the wholesale power market

The former are two regulatory derived instruments, which effectively provide targeted public support for renewables, while energy sales are genuine commodity business. Each is discussed in more detail in the sections below.

2.1 Renewables Obligation - workings

The Renewables Obligation (RO) was introduced by the UK Government in 2002 as a policy instrument to achieve the target of 10% renewables in the UK power generation mix by 2010. The original RO set mandatory caps for suppliers to provide a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. According to the original scheme, Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are issued by Ofgem (The UK’s Energy Regulator) to renewable energy generators and are sold in the market for suppliers to fulfil their obligation. If the obligation can not be fulfilled with ROCs, then the supplier must pay the ‘buy-out’ price, and this penalty is fed to the ‘buy-out fund’, which is then recycled to ROC holders. Currently the ‘buy-out’ price is around £37/MWh. This means that the ‘buy-out’ price constitutes almost three quarters of the ROC price (currently of the order of £50/MWh). The rest of the price is driven by the ‘buy-out fund’ and is often called the “recycle premium”. The size of this recycle premium is inversely related to the size of the shortfall in of RE generation versus the RO target. If there was no shortfall the recycle premium would fall to nothing and ROCs would have the same value as the buyout price.

ROCs can be claimed for all renewable electricity generation, including electricity sold under a licensing agreement, electricity used by third parties through a ‘private wire’ arrangement, and electricity used on-site by the generator for purposes other than to operate the generating station.

The original RO was not technology specific; therefore it only encouraged renewable forms of energy with low capital and unit costs. This implies a ‘least cost favouritism’ among renewable energy technologies. Indeed, after five years of operation, the RO has only significantly encouraged the deployment of biomass co-firing (in coal plants), wind and landfill gas.

In 2007, BERR (Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) decided to proceed to a ‘banding’ mechanism in order to provide enough support to emerging and not well established technologies. After consultation the final banding levels were implemented on 1st April 2009 and these are summarised in Table G.1

- 7 -

Table G.1: Proposed Banding from April 2009

Band Technologies Level of Support ROCs/MWh

Established 1 Landfill gas. 0.25 Established 2 Sewage gas; co-firing of non-energy crop (regular)

biomass. 0.5

Reference Onshore wind; hydro-electric; co-firing of energy crops; EfW with combined heat and power; geopressure; other not specified.

1

Post- Demonstration

Offshore wind; dedicated regular biomass. 1.5

Emerging Technologies

Wave; tidal stream; advanced conversion technologies (anaerobic digestion, gasification and pyrolysis); dedicated biomass burning energy crops (with or without CHP), dedicated regular biomass with CHP; solar photovoltaics; geothermal; tidal impoundment (e.g. tidal lagoons and tidal barrages (<1GW)); Microgeneration.(<50kW)

2

The banding arrangements in Scotland are different, as the Scottish Executive has decided to apply multiples of three for tidal stream and five for wave power. Tidal barrages in Scotland are eligible to two ROC as in England and Wales. In order to qualify the generation must be from sites in Scottish waters, rather than brought ashore in Scotland.

The first subsequent banding review is scheduled for 2013 after which some technologies may change band. The Government has committed to retain the two ROC/MWh support level for micro-generation following this review, but the two ROC banding for anaerobic digestion, for example, will be closely examined to see if it should be reduced. It is possible that certain bands/ technologies could be reviewed earlier, but only in extreme circumstances such as those below: Significant change in grid connection/transmission regime; New technology eligible under the RO emerges with potential to deploy on large scale; Other major support scheme with impact on renewables market starts, ends or is subject

to significant changes; Demonstrated significant variation in net costs (for an individual technology) changing the

economic case from that assumed in the setting of banding levels; ROCs from co-firing (regular) contribute to more than 10% of the obligation; Over-compliance of obligation; and Other unforeseen event with significant effect on operation of the RO.

Where technologies are banded up during a review, existing schemes will be granted the new higher level of support. If technologies are banded down, grandfathering will secure the ROC level for generation existing at the time. However, new generation installed after revised 2013 banding review will not be eligible for grandfathering benefits should the technology be banded down. This could be the case for anaerobic digestion or large-scale onshore wind, for example.

To be eligible for grandfathering, a project must have secured preliminary accreditation with Ofgem. An application for this can be submitted up to 2 years prior to commissioning. The basic prerequisite for the application is planning permission (so a wind farm for example

- 8 -

would at a minimum have to have achieved planning permission). After preliminary accreditation is granted a plant is able to apply for full RO accreditation around 2 months prior to commissioning, but the preliminary status is enough to secure grandfathering rights.

2.2 ROC price outlook

Historically ROC prices have been much more stable than the underlying electricity prices, with prices generally in the £40/MWh to £52/MWh band, although in general downward trend between 2002 and 2006 and a slight upward one since that time.

Projecting ROC prices is largely a matter of second guessing the balance of ROCable generation and the RO target. The RO target, as published percentage of sales from registered suppliers can be forecast to the extent that sales can be projected.

Projecting the ROCable generation is considerably harder since one needs to make a projection of the amount of generation from each banding category. Particular attention needs to be taken to assessing dedicated biomass generation and also offshore wind, both of which are now being vigorously developed at the plus 50MW scale and are eligible for 1.5 ROCs. The reduction in allocation for biomass co-fired generation has partly offset the banding up effects, however on balance our assessment is that the shortfall will fall over the coming years, partly assisted by a more sluggish sales growth, which will make the RO target easier. The implication is that ROC prices should weaken during the next five years. What happens in the long term will depend on the extent to which the offshore wind capacity will saturate and also on the possible adjustments that the regulator decides to make in the RO target under the so-called “head-room” adjustments.

Our base case projection is that ROC prices will fall from the current level of £49/MWh to around £40/MWh in real 2009 terms by 2015, and then more slowly to £37/MWh by 2020.

Figure G.2: Historic ROC Prices

2.3 Climate Change Levy - Levy Exemption Certificates

Under the Climate Change Levy, industrial and commercial customers are required to pay a tax on their electricity, gas and coal purchases. The power generators are exempted. However, customers who can demonstrate that they have bought electricity which comes from certain approved renewables are exempt from the levy for this portion. This is arranged by these customers buying so-called Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs) from approved

- 9 -

generators, which are then surrendered against their electricity sales. The list of levy exempt generation is slightly different from that for the RO: for instance co-fired biomass is not approved, which cogeneration is allowed. Tidal energy generation is levy exempt. The Levy has a fixed price, currently set at £4.70/MWh and customers are able to capture the greater bulk (say 85%) of this value in the wholesale market, or potentially 100% in the rare care where they are self supplying. The prices for the levy are set by Customs and Excise and appear to be revised on an ad hoc basis having been kept at £4.30/MWh for the first nine years, before being revised to £4.70 last year (2008). There is also a question over the continuation of this levy arrangement given the introduction of the Carbon Reduction Commitment next year (2010). Our prudent case project would be to exclude the value from sale of LECs.

2.4 GB Wholesale Electricity Prices Outlook

This section provides some general points about the driver of wholesale power prices in the UK and the base case, high and low price projection for baseload electricity to 2030. These scenarios have been developed on a simple judgemental basis based on our understanding of fundamental drivers from more than a decade of detailed modelling of the UK power market.

The main drivers of wholesale power prices are natural gas prices and carbon prices. Since 2005 these two variables have accounted for a large amount (72%) of the price movement in monthly average day ahead prices. The other main factors are the plant margin and the level of unplanned plant outages.

Effectively the power price can be built up of the gas generation cost, carbon cost on gas plant and the margin that a gas fired plant can make under the ruling supply/demand balance. This margin is normally called the clean spark spread. It has been conventional wisdom among power analysts that if one takes a long view the power price should converge to the fully built up costs of a new CCGT. In this case the clean spark spread would just meet the capital costs and the annual operating costs and provide a normal return on equity. On current capex costs the clean spark spread is around £16/MWh. When the market is tight, spark spread often exceeds this level in some months averaging well over £30/MWh, while when there is a surplus, it can fall to near zero.

Both gas and carbon prices have seen substantial variations since 2005. Gas prices have tended to track oil with occasional deviations due to bottlenecks in the gas supply chain, or fears of disruption to European supplies. Currently, (October 2009) year ahead gas prices at the National Balancing Point are around 46 pence a therm (ppt), which gives a fuel generation cost of about £35/MWh. The high and the low seen since 2005 were 109ppt and 25ppt respectively.

Assuming that gas tracks oil, and that oil prices move as projected by the IEA, reaching $120/barrel in 2020, then gas would be around 108ppt, assuming an 85% indexation to oil. This would imply a fuel generation cost of about £81/MWh.

Carbon prices have ranged from close to zero to just over €30/tCO2 since 2005 and now stand at about €14/t. This is equivalent to about £5/MWh on a modern CCGT. Taking a reasonable central view, in this case from PointCarbon, of a long run price of around €35/t by 2020, would imply a carbon cost of £12/MWh. Adding the fuel generation cost and the carbon cost gives a short run variable cost of £93/MWh.

- 10 -

There are no clear comparable drivers of the clean spark spread, at least in terms of direct linkages between supply margins and spark spreads. Our view is that in the medium term, say during 2013-2020, GB capacity margins will be comparatively tight. This is the result of the decommissioning of 11GW of old coal and oil fired plant under the Large Combustion Plant Directive and several GW of old nuclear plant. A number of the older CCGTs will also need major refurbishment or re-powering during this period. Looking longer term, depending on what is agreed under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) a further 5-10GW of coal fired plant could be shut by 2025.

Table G.2 Estimated Linkage between Gas Generation Cost and Oil Price

Crude price: $/barrel

Gas price: $/GJ net

Gas price: ppt

Gas price: £/GJ net

Gas generation cost: £/MWh

50 8.1 48.4 5.1 33.8 70 11.3 67.7 7.1 47.3

100 16.2 96.8 10.1 67.5 120 19.5 116.1 12.2 81.1 150 24.3 145.1 15.2 101.3 200 32.4 193.5 20.3 135.1

- 11 -

Table G.3 Estimated Electricity Price £/MWh at different oil and CO2 prices Carbon price: €/tCO2 (@1.1 €/£) and equivalent £/MWh

Crude price: $/barrel

20 €/tCO2 (7 £/MWh) 35 €/tCO2 (12 £/MWh)

50 €/tCO2 (17 £/MWh)

With zero spark spread 50 40.6 45.7 50.8 70 54.1 59.2 64.3

100 74.3 79.4 84.5 120 87.9 93.0 98.1 150 108.1 113.2 118.3 200 141.9 147.0 152.1

With £5 clean spark spread 50 45.6 50.7 55.8 70 59.1 64.2 69.3

100 79.3 84.4 89.5 120 92.9 98.0 103.1 150 113.1 118.2 123.3 200 146.9 152.0 157.1


100 90.3 95.4 100.5 120 103.9 109.0 114.1 150 124.1 129.2 134.3 200 157.9 163.0 168.1


100 104.3 109.4 114.5 120 117.9 123.0 128.1 150 138.1 143.2 148.3 200 171.9 177.0 182.1

Note: Assumes $/£ of 1.6, 85% gas to oil indexation and CCGT with efficiency of 54%. Non- fuel variable Opex excluded. Source: Mott MacDonald Offsetting these closures there will be a certain amount of new CCGT build, however the prospects for clean coal and nuclear look less certain given the long lead times and huge uncertainty regarding costs. While huge amounts of offshore wind capacity is likely to be added in the next 10-15 years, this is non-firm capacity and will leave the GB system seriously exposed during times of low wind, especially in the winter season. These extended low wind periods will not be able to e met by demand side measures or pumped storage as these lack the ability to provide over lengthy periods, without “re-charging”. So along with the tight capacity margins we are likely to see much greater volatility in prices than ever before.

- 12 -

Our view is that the clean spark spread should be at least £16/MWh during this period. Bringing these central estimates together gives us a figure of £109/MWh, more than double the current year ahead price.

Of course, this projection depends on a number of hugely uncertain variables, particularly oil and carbon. Table G.2 provides a set of scenarios generated from varying oil and carbon prices and spark spreads. We have identified two cases which define our subjective 90% confidence band, which give a low and high price in 2020 of £70/MWh and £148/MWh.

2.5 Implications for Tidal Generation in the Solway Firth

On the basis that tidal barrages and simlar technologies will be eligible for 2 ROCs per MWh produced, then under our base case projection the total revenues available should be £189/MWh in 2009 money in 2020. The ROC element accounts for £80/MWh of this, with electricity sales making up £109/MWh. LECs (valued at £4.2/MWh) are excluded on grounds that this instrument is likely to be phased out. There is however considerable uncertainty regarding the electricity sales value, given the extreme volatility of oil prices and to a lesser extent carbon prices and the clean spark spread achieved by generators. Our assessment indicates roughly a +/- £40/MWh uncertainty here, giving an adjusted sales revenue of £150-229/MWh. In contrast, there is probably not a huge amount of uncertainty regarding the ROC income, certainly in terms of ROCs received (due to developers “grandfathering” rights) and the Government’s interest in keeping a significant RO shortfall will mean that ROC prices should exceed buyout prices. The upside of ROCs is harder to call, however are view is that it is unlikely that ROC prices will sustain a level above £50/MWh (in 2009 money terms) again.

This analysis has focused on the key drivers of revenue. There are however some second order impacts, which will affect the revenues available to tidal generation projects, depending on their energy production profile and the point at which they are connected. For the most part though since tidal energy is predictable and has a broadly flat energy production profile taken over the long run, it should be able to capture a price near the baseload price. Schemes which offer an element of storage may be able to earn a small premium, while projects that are connected to the DNO networks and whose output can be absorbed by customers connected within the DNO area, should be able to capture an element of embedded benefits. However, in the scheme of the price uncertainties mentioned here, these benefits would represent a typically less than 1% of the base case revenues.

3 Financial model

3.1 Introduction

A financial model has been developed as part of this feasibility study, with the aim of assessing and comparing the cost of electricity generation for each of the proposed options. The model has been developed using Microsoft Excel, and is essentially in the form of a discounted cash flow model.

The model takes the capital and operating costs estimated by Halcrow and Mott MacDonald and the estimated electricity generation for each option and calculates the average lifetime cost of electricity generation for each of these options. This analysis has informed the ranking of the options with respect to electricity generation cost.

These average electricity costs are assessed in relation to the revenue potential discussed in Section 2, which provides an indication as to the viability of each option. In the event that the

- 13 -

generation cost for a given option exceed the revenue potential, the resulting funding gap is shown. This indicated the degree to which additional government support would be required for the option to be financially feasible.

3.2 Project Capital Costs

The estimated capital costs of each option have been discussed elsewhere in this report, and are summarised in Table G.3.

Table G.3: Capital cost estimates

B1 B2 B3 B4 L1 L2 R1 R2 R3

Civil Costs (£m) 7,728 3,108 732 428 2,749 2,369 9,195 5,353 761

Mechanical & Electrical (£m)

5,564 1,826 223 90 510 311 721 430 60

Compensatory Habitats (£m)

891 468 78 26 91 52 0 0 0

Design & Supervision (£m)

491 197 47 27 175 150 584 340 48

Contingency (£m)

1,233 496 117 68 439 378 1,467 854 121

Total Cost (£m)

15,906 6,095 1,196 640 3,963 3,260 11,966 6,977 991

Construction Period (years)

7 3 2 2 5 5 7 3 2

Note: The costs shown in the above table are indicative only and based on a brief appraisal of the main drivers and not on any detailed site specific data. As a result they come with a high level of uncertainty and are intended for comparison only rather than as a prediction of actual costs for each project given the level of assumptions made. Cost uncertainty obviously reduces as the project details become better known and

understood.

The capital costs have been assumed to be spent in line with a typical ‘S-curve payment profile, based on the experience on other major construction and engineering projects. Project construction times are also shown in Table G.3

- 14 -

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61

Month from construction start

Cum

ulat

ive

Cap

ital E

xpen

ditu

re %

Figure G.3: Typical capital costs payment schedule

3.3 Project Operating Costs

Operating costs for each of the options have been estimated in relation to the capital costs. Given the stage of the project development, a fully detailed analysis of estimated operating costs has not been undertaken. The approach taken has been to estimate operating costs as a percentage of the total cost of each major capital cost item, which has proved to be a reliable method of estimating operating costs at a relatively high level. The operating cost percentages include our experience of similar types of construction and equipment, as data relating to tidal projects is limited.

The percentages are summarised in Table G.4.

Table G-1: Operating cost percentages Yearly Operating Costs

Civil Costs 0.5% of Civil Capital Costs

Mechanical & Electrical 2.0% of M&E Capital Costs

Insurance 0.5% of Total Capital Cost

In addition, insurance costs of 0.5% of the total capital costs per annum have been assumed. This is based on our experience of large power projects, but has not been referred to a specialist insurance advisor at this stage.

3.4 Results

The primary output from the financial model for the assessment and comparison of project viability is the levelised cost of electricity. This can be considered to be the average

- 15 -

electricity tariff over the life of the project required to generate a given Internal Rate of Return (IRR). A real post tax IRR of 8% has been assumed. A more specific IRR can be calculated once financing structures and risks have been more closely defined, but MML considers the rate chosen to be appropriate at this stage. The levelised cost of electricity can be compared with the expected average market electricity tariff, plus other sources of revenue, when assessing project viability.

The levelised costs of electricity for each of the options are summarised in Table G.5, along with a summary of the costs and generation assumptions used to derive them.

Table G.5: Project results

B1 B2 B3 B4 L1 L2 R1 R2 R3

Total Capital Costs (£m) 15,906 6,095 1,196 640 3,963 3,260 11,966 6,977 991

Total Operating Costs/yr (£m) 238 86 15 8 47 37 130 76 11

Total Generation/yr (GWh)

11,500 3,800 320 120 900 600 3,800 2,070 170

Levelised Electricity Cost (£/MWh)

184 175 389 553 519 639 406 358 598

Note: The values for CAPEX and AEP shown in the table above table are indicative only and based on a brief appraisal of the main drivers and not on any material information or detailed site specific data. As a result they come with a high level of uncertainty and are intended for comparison only and should not be interpreted as actual values for each pro

ject.

These indicate the two largest barrage options have the lowest levelised cost by some margin. The smaller barrages increase the unit cost substantially, as the level of generation falls at a greater rate than capital costs. The lagoon options are more expensive per unit still, as are the reef options, due to the lower generation when compared with the barrage options.

The results indicate substantial economies of scale for the project, offset for the very large schemes by the lengthy construction periods during which capital expenditure is incurred before generation starts. These costs include incurred costs due to the requirement for compensatory habitats. Costs vary depending on the option and are based on an assumed flat rate of £65K/ hectare applied to the affected area for each option.

The levelised cost of electricity can be compared with the forecasts for electricity and ROC prices discussed in Section 5.3.3, to give an indication for project viability. As a high-level comparison, the forecast real price of £109/MWh by 2020 and £37 per ROC can be combined with the levelised cost to illustrate the potential funding gap.

- 16 -

Appendix G

Stakeholder Engagement Records

Halcrow Group Limited 304 Bridgewater Place, Birchwood Park Warrington, WA3 6XG Tel +44 (0)1925 867 500 www.halcrow.com

Record of meeting

Project Solway Firth Feasibility Study Date 30th September 2009 Ref

Subject National Stakeholder Meeting Page 1 of 4

Venue Halcrow Offices, Bridgewater Place, Birchwood Park Date held 30th September 2009 Present Tim Melling (RSPB)

Jim Robinson (Natural England) Chris Miles (Scottish Natural Heritage) David Ruczkowski (SEPA) Nigel Nuttall (Infrastructure Planning Committee )

Sean Matthews (Halcrow) Andrew Welsh (Halcrow) Dave Watson (RSK Environment)

A number of targeted national stakeholders had been identified prior to the meeting and were invited to attend. Nigel Nuttall, Chris Miles and David Ruczkowski joined the meeting via video conference, they had been given copies of Halcrow presentation, for display locally, before the meeting.

Presentation

Presentation on the Feasibility Study

Sean Matthews, project manager for Halcrow gave a presentation on the methodology with which the feasibility study was being undertaken. Sean outlined the scope of the study:

To identify available options for energy extraction in the Solway Firth, assessing their feasibility in environmental, socioeconomic and technical terms.

Halcrow gave a potted history of the project, stating that work by an organisation called nb21c had identified the opportunity for energy generation within the Solway Firth, and had been proposing a tidal barrage stretching between Bowness and Annan. Halcrow, partnered with Mott Macdonald and RSK Environment, have consequently been engaged by the Envirolink Northwest, to perform a feasibility study to consider the means of generation and consequent environmental and socioeconomic benefits and impacts. The study has been funded by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, Scottish Enterprise and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Halcrow outlined the methodology that the project team were following in undertaking the study: Initially the project team collated and reviewed all relevant information from previous investigative work within the Solway and all resources that aid in determining the available energy resource and bathymetry of the Estuary.

Record of meeting about National Stakeholder Meeting Page 2

In tandem with this work an investigation of the existing and emerging technology for energy capture was performed. Whilst this work was being completed by Halcrow and Mott Macdonald RSK environment mapped of the environmental designations within the estuary.

Halcrow described the recent two day workshop that had taken place on the 18th and 19th August to the stakeholder. The first day of the workshop was focused on the technical challenges of energy generation in the Solway, whilst the second consider the environmental and socio-economic impacts.

A summary of the 2 day workshop is available separately to this document.

Halcrow explained that the output of the technical day of the study had been a list of 26 options for energy extraction (although some of these options were essentially a different implementation of a similar means of energy capture) and a number of filtering and scoring criteria with which to assess each of the options. Filtering the options had enabled a short list of feasible options for further review and assessment to be produced.

Halcrow described that in parallel to the assessment and construction of the report the project team had developed a separate project route map looking at the development of a project going forward, specifically stakeholder engagement activities of which this meeting was the first step in the process.

Halcrow outlined the technical issues faced by the project. These included: the bathymetry and tidal velocity relationship; the variation between proven and emerging technologies; the readiness of the supply chain; the availability of the national grid infrastructure; the availability of infrastructure and land to support construction of the development; the lack of surveys and admiralty data in the region given the shifting pattern of the channels within the estuary and the problems the large quantities of mobile sediment would produce.

The different environmental designations within the estuary were shown and the species that formed the basis for the designations were outlined. Designation within the Solway included: Special areas of conservation (SACs); Special protection areas (SPAs); National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Scenic Areas; RSPB conservation areas.

Halcrow suggested potential socio-economic benefits resulting from future development as: survey and research and development projects for the academic presence in the local area (Joule centre universities, University of Cumbria, Crichton centre and University of the West of Scotland); Use of local port facilities, such as the ports at Workington and Historic port at Silloth as per the roll on, roll off docks in Annan which are being used for work on the Robin Rigg wind farm; An increase in the range of industrial development in the region with the industrial estate growth at Gretna, Carlisle and Dumfries; The history and legacy of heavy industry in the area, at Corus and Chapelcross, providing a technically competent, skilled workforce who could be available given the timeline for the decommissioning of Chapelcross. There are a potential for infrastructure upgrades as a by-product of the development in some locations the existing road infrastructure is inadequate to support construction.


Other major benefits would be exploitation of the potential for community benefit/ownership which is under consideration and the potential for mitigating the local flood risk with a structure that spanned the Solway preventing incoming high tides, and controlling the level within the Solway upstream of such a structure.

Following the presentation the stakeholders were asked for their views and the discussion centred on the following points:

• RSPB were concerned that the previously presented barrage between Bowness and Annan would require access through an RSPB reserve on the English side, with only a narrow strip of land along the rail embankment not owned by the RSPB.

• RSPB also pointed out that should it be required, a compulsory land purchase of land on an RSPB reserve for development has never been attempted before.

• The difference in Legal codes north and south of the border was highlighted, with a potential to cause complications in any planning and consent process.

• It was pointed out that any development over 100MW would be forced down an IPC planning route.

• There was discussion of sediment transit within the Solway Firth, and the risk of disturbing contaminated sediment from Chapelcross and Sellafield nuclear sites during construction. In addition there is an anecdotal history of unexploded ordinance / munitions being washed into the estuary from disposal sites further out in the Irish Sea.

• All the stakeholders felt that without significant further detail of the short list or a proposed scheme it would be difficult to accurately determine the implications of a development within the Solway.

• Discussion was made over whether there was a preference of ebb and flood generation as opposed to ebb only generation.

• The existing coastal erosion processes was discussed and how these would likely be altered if development went ahead. Stakeholders considered that without a fundamental understanding of how the Solway was likely to change by natural processes the implications of development would be incomplete.

• The largest environmental impact that the stakeholders could see was the potential for a significant loss of inter-tidal habitat as a result of impounding water behind a barrage / lagoon. The increased water level behind an impounding structure would alter the upstream tidal range leading to a reduction in the time and the quantity of the inter-tidal area that becomes exposed at low tide. Since the inter-tidal habitat is used as both a feeding and nesting ground for a number of the species within the Solway and loss of this area has the potential to cause species decimation.


• Loss of the inter-tidal habitat could potentially be mitigated by locating and providing compensatory habitats for those species adversely affected by any future development.

• Stakeholders raised the issue that sufficient land may not necessarily be available locally in order to fully compensate affected habitats. RSK stated that significant further work to determine the fully environmental impact of potential options would only be possible at a later stage of the process when specific options were being considered at a much greater level of detail.

• There amount of data available on bird species within the Solway was questioned with suggestions that at a bare minimum 2 years worth of low tide counts would be required before any progression down a planning or consenting route would be made.

• A number of the stakeholders questioned why the feasibility study was being performed with as they had already heard similar information from the nb21c proposal. Halcrow highlighted that the scope of the current feasibility study was to consider all methods for generation within the Solway.

• It was questioned why development within the Solway was being considered given the large number of environmental designation covering the area, but the project team pointed out that renewable generation was only possible in areas with sufficient resource. The tidal range within the Solway makes it a good candidate for development. It was also stated that the entire coast of the UK is protected by similar designations, particular estuarine environments where tidal ranges and the potential for energy capture is strongest.

• Stakeholders could see the benefit in the current approach, by considering the issue with a clean sheet, but warned that the current feasibility study would form an underpinning for any future development in the Solway.

The meeting concluded with stakeholders happy to have been engaged but eager to see further work and details of proposed scheme, together with the evidence supporting the environmental impacts and what mitigation had been performed to mitigate the impacts.


Record of meeting

Project Solway Firth Feasibility Study Date 28th October 2009 Ref

Subject Stakeholder Workshop Page 1 of 14

Venue Mackie Room, Smith’s Hotel, Gretna Green Date held 21st September 2009 Present Attendance list within main workshop minutes

Delegates at the workshop were presented with a questionnaire in order to ascertain the level of their knowledge about the project prior to the workshop and to gauge how confident they were in the process by which the feasibility study had been undertaken after the workshop. A summary of the response to this questionnaire has been issued separately.

All presentations will be made available via the Solway Energy Gateway website.

Introductory Presentation

Peter Hughes of Halcrow opened the Workshop, giving a brief run through of the scope of the project: To identify available options for energy extraction in the Solway Firth, assessing their feasibility in environmental, socio-economic and technical terms.

Peter Hughes also highlighted the client, Envirolink Northwest, and the funding bodies: the Northwest Regional Development Agency, Scottish Enterprise and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, responsible for commissioning the study.

Peter highlighted the objective for the workshop as being to inform the present stakeholders of the feasibility study methodology and also to capture important local knowledge and stakeholder input to the feasibility study. He pointed out that the day was a working session and in order to gain maximum benefit from the workshop input from the attendees would be required.

Peter invited Nigel Catterson of nb21c and Solway Energy Gateway to give a brief overview of the project’s history and the original drivers behind it. Nigel outlined that the original plan for a barrage in the Solway had been proposed in the late 1966 as a means of storing fresh water, but that a team of academics believed that a barrage could potentially use the large tidal bore in the Solway to generate electricity via turbines. Historically a rail crossing over the Solway operated between 1869 and 1921. Nigel described that a key driver for nb21c and latterly Solway Energy Gateway had been to ensure that the project was a local project with majority benefit to the local communities, and in their previous consultations nb21c have championed a tidal barrage between Bowness and Annan.


Record of meeting

Technology Review Presentation

Follow Nigel’s potted history of the project and the motivations for the current feasibility study Malcolm Balls of Mott Macdonald give a review of the various means of tidal power generation. Malcolm’s presentation focused on tidal generation devices as early on in the study it was demonstrated that insufficient wave resource were available for wave generation technologies to be deployed efficiently within the Solway Firth. Malcolm’s summary of tidal technologies covered: tidal Barrages; tidal lagoons; tidal reef; tidal stream and tidal fences and compared potential implementations of these technologies within the Solway to the suggested implementations within the Severn estuary, and the actual implementation at La Rance in Brittany.

Malcolm’s information on tidal barrage technology focused on the Arrangement of a tidal barrage, the equipment involved: shipping locks; turbines and sluices and the mode of operation for tidal barrage, with a comparison of ebb generation, ebb generation backed up by pumping and 2 way generation and a slide demonstrating the effects that the different types of generation would have on the water level behind the barrage.

Malcolm presented a slide showing the locations that have been highlighted for lagoons within the Severn estuary scheme, and described the mode of operation of tidal lagoons with references to their similarities and differences with tidal barrages.

Malcolm then outlined proposals for a Tidal reef, essentially a specific implementation of a tidal barrage, with a large number of low head turbines, which generate over an extended window (when compared with a standard barrage). The large number of turbines and the longer generating window make up for the comparatively lower output of the individual turbines. Tidal reefs also allow for natural overtopping in the event of high tides. Malcolm highlighted technical issues with tidal reefs, these include: the relative immaturity of the technology, a tidal reef solution has never been proven commercially and the large number of turbines required for the solution. It was suggested that the operational effects of tidal reefs appear to be more environmentally acceptable since a larger part of tidal range is retained.

Tidal stream devices were also described and Malcolm focused on the requirments for functional tidal stream generation. The chief requirement is for a current velocity that surpasses 4m/s and that a Significant depth of water to submerge turbine at low water. Given the shallow bathymetry of the Solway this reduces the number locations that tidal stream devices could be located, coupled with the requirements for a minimum flow suggest that there is insufficient resource for this means of generation. In his summary Malcolm also pointed up the advantages and disadvantages of using such a technology.


Record of meeting

The final slides of Malcolm’s presentation considered the use of tidal fence technology. Tidal fences are relatively unproven and reliable estimates for energy yield not available. Akin to tidal reefs a tidal fence would require large turbines in large numbers, with a lower environmental impact than a barrage solution.

Following Malcolm’s presentation a number of attendees questioned tidal reefs and how they differed from a more conventional tidal barrage. Of note was that a number of attendees saw a transport link over a barrage or reef as being a key local benefit.

Presentation on the Feasibility Study

Malcolm’s presentation on the underlying technologies for tidal generation was followed up by a presentation by Andrew Welsh of Halcrow on the methodology with which the current feasibility study had been undertaken. Andrew reiterated the scope of the study as outlined by Peter Hughes.

Andrew outlined the methodology followed by the project team in undertaking the study: Initially the project team performed a lot of data collection, reviewing all relevant information from previous investigative work within the Solway and a collection and review of all resources that aided in determining the energy resource data and bathymetry of the Estuary.

In tandem with this work an investigation of the existing and emerging technology for energy capture was completed. Whilst this work was being completed by Halcrow and Mott Macdonald RSK environment mapped of the environmental designations within the estuary.

Andrew described the two day workshop that had taken place on the 18th and 19th August. Andrew stated that the first day of the workshop was focused on the technical challenges of energy generation in the Solway, whilst the second consider the environmental and socio-economic impacts.

A complete summary of the 2 day workshop are available separately to this document.

Andrew summarised the two day workshop as follows:

1. Essentially, the technical day considered all forms of energy generation from the Solway Firth, coming up with 24 individual options (this is a rationalised number, as some solutions suggested on the day considered using more than one of the individual solutions in parallel). A number of both filtering and scoring criteria were discussed and agreed. Filtering criteria were high level filters that all options would be expected to attain before they could be deemed feasible. Scoring criteria were a means of assessing the feasible options against each other.


Record of meeting

2. The second day of the study looked in greater depth at the environmental designations covering the estuary and the species that formed the basis for these designations. A review of local communities was also completed, considering each of the population centres surrounding the estuary in terms of their industrial capacity, academic establishments, infrastructure and the technical kill of the workforce.

Following this Andrew explained that the output of the technical day of the study had undergone the filtering described and that further investigation of options had enabled production of a short list of feasible options for further review and assessment.

Andrew also described that in parallel to the assessment and construction of the report the project team had developed a separate project route map looking at the development of a project going forward, specifically: Stakeholder engagement activities; Potential construction periods; Required design and feasibility work; An overview of planning and consenting process to determine a likely means of advancing any future development.

Andrew gave an overview and brief description of all the options that had been suggested as a part of the summary and the filtering and scoring criteria that the workshop had produced and the need for fair comparison of options, where a relative immature technology was being considered the risk and unknowns would be appropriately highlighted within the report.

Andrew also described the technical issues faced by the project particular to the Solway. He described these as including: the bathymetry and tidal velocity relationship; the variation between proven and emerging technologies; the readiness of the supply chain; the availability of the national grid infrastructure; the availability of infrastructure and land to support construction of the development; the lack of surveys and admiralty data in the region given the shifting pattern of the channels within the estuary and the problems the large quantities of mobile sediment would produce.

Andrew stated that Dave Watson of RSK would consider the environmental designations and issues within a separate presentation.

Andrew illustrated the socio-economic issues faced by the project in the face of the potential development. He highlighted that feedback from a community meeting attended by Northwest Regional Development Agency and nb21c in Anthorn suggested that there was an express desire for the rural communities to retain the status quo. Feedback from the attendees demonstrated that this wasn’t a view shared by all and some expressed support for the potential development.

Andrew cited potential socio-economic benefits resulting from future development as: survey and research and development projects for the academic presence in the local area (Joule centre universities,


Record of meeting

Crichton centre and University of the West of Scotland); Use of local port facilities, such as the ports at Workington and Historic port at Silloth as per the roll on, roll off docks in Annan which are being used for work on the Robin Rigg wind farm; An increase in the range of industrial development in the region with the industrial estate growth at Gretna, Carlisle and Dumfries; The history and legacy of heavy industry in the area, at Corus and Chapelcross, providing a technically competent, skilled workforce who could be available given the timeline for the decommissioning of Chapelcross. There are a potential for infrastructure upgrades as a by-product of the development, as in some locations the existing road infrastructure is inadequate to support construction.

Other major benefits would be exploitation of the Potential for community benefit/ownership which is under consideration and the potential for mitigating the local flood risk with a structure that spanned the Solway preventing incoming high tides, and controlling the level within the Solway upstream of such a structure.

One attendee suggested that, dependent on future government policy, in time the development may be forced on the local community anyway, and that it would be pragmatic to maximise the community benefits as early as possible.

Andrew’s presentation concluded by outlining the pending report from the study, and stated that it would include: a technology appraisal; Option identification and selection process with shortlisted options; Overview of environmental, coastal process and socio-economic issues; A financial model of feasible solutions

Environmental Presentation

Dave Watson of RSK environment followed Andrew’s presentation of the report and its methodology with a presentation on the environmental issues within the Solway. Dave’s slides demonstrated the different environmental designations within the estuary whilst he outlined the various species that formed the basis for the designations. Dave covered: the International designations, Special areas of conservation (SACs); Special protection areas (SPAs); National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Scenic Areas; RSPB conservation areas.

Dave also talked through Coastal erosion processes and how these occur naturally but would likely be altered if development went ahead.

Dave’s presentation highlighted the largest environmental impact that would potentially result from the development of an energy capture scheme would be a significant loss of inter-tidal habitat as a result of impounding water behind a barrage. Dave explained how the increased water level behind an


Record of meeting

impounding structure would alter the upstream tidal range leading to a reduction in the time and the quantity of the inter-tidal area that becomes exposed at low tide. The inter-tidal habitat is used as both a feeding and nesting ground for a number of the species within the Solway, and loss of this area has the potential to cause species decimation.

Dave pin-pointed that loss of the inter-tidal habitat could potentially be mitigated by locating and providing compensatory habitats for those adversely affected by any future development. He also raised the issue that sufficient land may not necessarily be available locally in order to fully compensate affected habitats. Dave stated that significant further work to determine the fully environmental impact of potential options would only be possible at a later stage of the process when a specific options were being considered at a much greater level of detail.

Dave also touched on the historic contamination risk from ordinance and nuclear industries.

Following the presentations questions and answers were before a break in the workshop for lunch.

Afternoon Exercise

The afternoon session was conducted as a group exercise, with a number of pre-prepared questions being provided to the delegates. Delegates attempted to answer these questions on their individual tables with members of the project team joining tables to help stimulate conversation and raise issues that had been considered within the study. Each of the tables nominated a chairperson who reported on the tables findings to the wider group at the end of the exercise.

The following is a summary of the group responses to the questions:

1. Is climate change a good enough reason for renewable energy generation? How do we respond to the legal commitments – are there any preferred technologies?

The consensus was that climate change is the driver although it was acknowledged that there were also other reasons to pursue renewable energy generation. A number of delegates questioned the accuracy of climate change predictions in light of significant sources of conflicting evidence.

The difference between renewable and sustainable energy generation was highlighted, along with the difficulty of attaining truly sustainable generation.

Support for the use and pursuit of renewable energy production was also seen to be a response to the shortage and cost of fossil fuels and an over-reliance on imported supplies


Record of meeting

Deelgates seemed to agree that there was no preferred technology and that a variety of technology would give a better solution. Delegates were also in favour of an increase in the proliferation of renewable energy technologies in addition to implementation of other energy saving / carbon reducing measures.

A potential resurgence of nuclear energy generation was also suggested as a potential part of the future energy mix, however it was pointed out that currently Scottish political policy does not allow for construction of new nuclear power plants within Scotland.

Cost of generation was seen as a factor in determining the route forward, though this was seen as both the financial cost in energy unit production and also the cost on the environment.

A conclusion was that the delegates gave general support for development of renewables energy within the Solway Firth, though a number of delegates pointed out that this should not come ‘at any cost’.

2. The feasibility study has presented some of the options – what sort of development would you want to see and why?

The delegates had suggested some principles for a future development to adopt, that a development should maximise power generation whilst minimising environmental impact and not compromising other users of the Solway or the potential for future renewables energy generation within the Solway.

Another, more pragmatic suggestion, was that any development should offer maximum long-term, community benefits. Delgates made it clear that their notion of community benefits this went beyond simply the idea of energy generation.

The delegates suggested that a future development should also build on the existing infrastructure.

It was suggested that a development should also seek to trial emerging technologies alongside more mature technologies, and that a scheme should make use of various technologies rather than a single solution.

Incorporation of a transport link across the Solway and improved infrastructure was also seen as desirable, though there were also suggestions of potential opposition to this.

Delegates also mentioned the potential use of a development for flood defence, fresh water storage and stated that they would expect a potential development to be designed against the influence of future climate change.


Record of meeting

3. Any project will bring benefits and impacts. What benefits would you want to see and what impacts are acceptable?

Benefits

Delegates suggested the following as desirable community benefits: increased employment during construction and through eventual tourism to the area, potential improvements to the infrastructure including the dual benefit a potential road link across the Solway would bring. Delegates also favoured the formation of a community trust from proceeds of the development for funding of local community projects.

Some delegates pointed out that the contribution to governmental renewable targets was a benefit.

There was a suggestion that, dependent on the implementation of the development, the recreational use of the Solway could be improved.

A number of delegates believed that there were possible environmental benefits to the development, reasoning that although the environment would be altered in the short time, following a period of recovery the resultant environment would be better protected against future alteration as a result of climate change.

Impacts

Delegates were fairly clear on the impacts of the development, but slightly less so on which impacts could be deemed acceptable, with delegates disagreeing about the acceptability of various impacts.

The main impacts were listed as:

• Ecology

• Environment

• Flooding

• Visual

• Surrounding Land use

• Fisheries and Fish Stocks


Record of meeting

As stated previously the most often repeated message was that the development should not come ‘at any cost’. A number of delegates questioned why an increased level of energy capture was seen to come at the greater cost of the environment, suggesting that the two weren’t necessarily at odds.

A number of delegates seemed unwilling to agree to a compromise or provide a level of impact that they would find acceptable, stating instead that further investigation and accuracy would be required and that if designations were adversely affected the habitats directive would be brought into effect.

4. At what stage does the generation of renewable energy take precedence over conservation issues in the Solway Firth? Nature conservation Vs security of supply

A number of the delegates felt the question was inappropriate and stated that the decision should not be a choice of nature conservatism against energy. As per discussion of impacts in the previous questions a large number of opinions were given, but little compromise between conflicting opinions was sought. Delegate responses ranged from, “when no other options exist”, through “finding the balance” to the “dependent on the national importance attached to renewable energy generation”.

A number of delegates reiterated why an increased level of energy capture was seen to come at the greater cost of the environment, again suggesting that the viable solution should not play one off against the other.

Other delegates suggested that the NIMBY issue had a bearing on the response.

5. At what stage does the ‘national interest’ in renewable energy generation in Solway Firth take precedence over the local ‘burden’?

It was suggested that given the likely size and complexity of the project it would likely become a national project, especially due to the potential for environmental impact, where national interest would take precedence. The pragmatic answer delegates suggested was that the community should look to optimise their benefit from the project.

Another delegate comment was that the delegates risked viewing both the naturally changing geographic landscape and the human population as static, when questioned Murray Bainbridge of Scottish Enterprise pointed out that the local population distribution on the Scottish side was aging, with the younger generation leaving the area to find employment, and that future generations may not feel that a potential development was such a burden.

6. How can we make sure that the community benefits the most from a scheme?


Record of meeting

A community ownership model was discussed, with the community benefitting financially from the sale of energy.

Diversifying in the community benefits was also suggested as a means of optimising the benefits.

Local land ownership was seen as a limited means of benefit with the potential requirement to purchase the land to form compensatory habitats being of benefit to the land owners.

7. If a large structure is to be built and it requires infrastructure upgrade – what would you upgrade and why?

The most common response to this question was “whatever infrastructure needed upgraded”, including the national grid connection in the area.

Delegates suggested that the road infrastructure would need upgrading for movement of heavy machinery, describing long standing plans to dual sections of road along the A75 on the Scottish side.

Rail infrastructure upgrades were considered inline with development of the UK’s energy coast. However, the limited number of passengers using the West Cumbrian rail line for was stated.

The manufacturing industries in the area would also benefit from road upgrades and require refitting to cope with the potential development.

8. In terms of the UK energy strategy – is the Solway Firth the right place for a barrage / reef / lagoon? Are other options more suitable – eg Mersey, Severn, Thames…….? What would make it more / less competitive?

A number of Delegates suggested that the lower number of people in proximity to the Solway compared to both the Severn and the Mersey meant that there were fewer people to object to development which made it more suitable.

The existing national grid connection in the area was seen as a risk when compared with better grid connections in other locations, however other delegates pointed out that the expansion of a number of renewable energy generation technologies in the are, including wind farms, meant that national grid upgrades were becoming overdue anyway. Delegate also suggested that a generation of nuclear plants at Sellafield would also require major grid national grid upgrades independent of any work on tidal generation within the Solway.


Record of meeting

The relatively smaller scale of the project when compared with the Severn was deemed by delegates to make it competitive.

The industrialised nature of both the Mersey and the Severn were considered by delegates to give them both a greater level of acceptance than potential development within the Solway.

Delegates also stated that the Solway was relatively remote from the end users of the electricity which decreased its competitiveness from the Severn and Mersey.

9. Is this a local project or a national project?

Delegates felt that given the international designations on the estuary the project was international. It was also of national interest given governmental targets on renewable energy generation and in terms of investment in the development going forward. It was also pointed out that benefits from the development needed to be retained locally.

10. Does this feasibility study represent a reasonable approach and methodology? Are the assumptions right – e.g. selecting mature technology over waiting for emerging technology

The majority of delegates seemed to be happy with the adopted methodology and requested further information including the day’s presentations and summaries of the progress meetings. A number were concerned that the environmental impacts hadn’t been considered fully and that these needed to be fully reflected in the report. Dave Watson stated that given the lack of detail with this early level of the process it would be difficult to accurately gauge the level of environmental impact associated. But that this information would be need to built upon current work and refined in future work following the conclusion of the current study.

Suggestion on technology were that use of technology was dependent on the drivers for the project, if the driver was to meet government targets by 2020 then only use of mature technologies would be viable, if this date / targets changes then delegated felt further development of immature technologies would be beneficial.

Delegates were happy with the study returning to the grass roots to consider development within the Solway with a blank sheet of paper, although some felt that the study needed to provide a definitive answer rather than a slew of shortlisted options so as not to derail the process.

Any Other Business & Close out


Record of meeting

Delegates gave numerous answers, some feeling that they ought to have been contacted earlier in the process. Peter Hughes iterated that this workshop was only one of the first in the process should the decision for a more detailed feasibility study based on the outputs of the current study be taken. Given the interest amongst the stakeholders on the options likely to be shortlisted as a result of the feasibility study and the lack of definitive answers at this stage it was suggested that earlier engagement with the stakeholders would have been of little use.

Chris Brown of Dumfries and Galloways County Council felt that the elected members would have benefited from attending the meeting, though due to short notice and prior engagements this was not possible.

Other comments focused on the incorporation of the environmental impact on the study, with concerns that with the draft report already issued the environmental impact was being overlooked.

Record of meeting about Stakeholder Workshop Page 13

`Appendix 1: Attendees List

Name Organisation Alison Harris Scottish Government - Renewables Team Andy Gowans Environment Agency Bill Thomson Ruthwell & Clarencefield Community Council Caroline Salthouse 4NW Catriona Gall Scottish Natural Heritage Chris Brown (Economic Regeneration Officer) Dumfries & Galloway CC Chris Miles Scottish Natural Heritage David Howard Centre for Ecology & Hydrology David Ruczkowski SEPA Dr Gary White The Crichton Carbon Centre Dr Larry Griffin Wildfowl & Wetland Trust George Aggidis Lancaster University Greg Allan Scottish Government - Economic Development Harry Barrett Gretna & Rigg Community Council Ian Cooper (Council Infrastructure & Commissioning)

Dumfries & Galloway CC

James Grubb Annan Salmon Fisheries Board Jamie Ribbens Galloway Fisheries Trust Jim Robinson Natural England John Gilbert Ruthwell & Clarencefield Community Council John Turner Lonsdale Estates Liam Fisher Natural England Louisa Humm Historic Scotland Lynne Parvin (Regeneration Strategy Manager) Allerdale Borough Council Mark Johnston Natural England Michael Forsyth Annan Community council Mr Leonard Moore Eastriggs, Dornock & Creca Community Council

Mr Nick Chisholm Annan Salmon Fisheries Board Mrs Jessie Parry Chairman of Eastriggs, Dornock & Creca Community

Council Murray Bainbridge Scottish Enterprise Neil Harnott Cumbrian Wildlife Trust Nigel Catterson Solway Energy Gateway Norman Holton (site manager Solway reserves) RSPB Pauline goodridge Carlisle City Council Richard Moore Cumbria CC Sharon Ledger Annan Initiative Simon Fieldhouse Dumfries & Galloway CC Simon Sjentizer Cumbria Vision Wilf Morgan Solway Marine Oysters Project Team George Milne Halcrow Group Limited Andrew Welsh Halcrow Group Limited Peter Hughes Halcrow Group Limited Nick Corne Halcrow Group Limited Dave Watson RSK Environment Scott Love Mott Macdonald Malcolm Balls Mott Macdonald

Record of meeting about Stakeholder Workshop Page 14

solway energy gateway appendices to final report

Documents

estuary mouth

undeveloped estuary

orientation of channels

middle estuary

flood channels

shoreline north of workington

shoreline close

ebb channels