1                                            Introduction

The Hongkong Electric Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as HK Electric) is considering the development of a large-scale offshore wind farm in Hong Kong to generate power from renewable sources.  The proposed offshore wind farm with an installed capacity of 100 MW consists tentatively of 35 sets of 2.3 to 3.6 MW class wind turbine units.  Should 3.6MW class wind turbine be selected, the number of wind turbines would be reduced to around 28 to 30 in order to maintain the wind farm capacity of around 100MW.  Cables will be installed between the turbines and one main cable circuit will link the offshore location to the landfall.  In addition, there will be a need to develop an offshore anemometer mast and substation.

Following the ERM Site Selection Study and submission of a report to HK Electric in April 2008, two potential locations for development have been identified, located at Southwest Lamma and Eastern Offshore Waters.  These sites have now been selected for further investigation through an EIA Study in order to evaluate the potential environmental impacts against the legislative standards and guidelines. 

In July 2006, HK Electric submitted a Project Profile ([1]) to the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) in accordance with procedures under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) for the development of the wind farm.  In response to this, an EIAO Study Brief was awarded by EPD to outline the requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ([2]).  This included the requirement to undertake modelling.

This Method Statement presents information on the approach for the water quality assessment and modelling works for the study.  Note that at the time of completion of this Method Statement the engineering information for both construction and operation activities is not complete and therefore a general approach to how modelling will be carried out based on a number of assumptions is provided below.

1.1                                      Objectives of the Modelling Exercise

The main objective of the modelling work is to provide quantitative predictions of impacts to hydrodynamics and water quality that will inform the impact assessment.  The specific objectives of the modelling exercise are:

·            To identify and determine potential changes to the hydrodynamic regime post development of the wind farm;

·            to identify and quantify water pollutant emission sources;

·            to determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected areas;

·            to identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts (i.e. after practicable mitigation); and

·            to assess any cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operation of the Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses.

The construction and operational effects will be studied by means of mathematical modelling using existing models that will be set up by Deltares (formerly named WL |Delft Hydraulics) on behalf of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) or approved by the EPD for use in environmental assessments. 

1.2                                      Model Selection

1.2.1                                Hydrodynamic Model and Water Quality Model

A model has been developed by Deltares.  The Delft 3D hydrodynamic (Delft3D-FLOW) and water quality (Delft3D-WAQ) suite of models were used to simulate effects on hydrodynamics and water quality arising from the Project activities, respectively.  The Delft3D-FLOW model was applied to simulate hydrodynamic regime under the baseline situation, i.e. before construction phase of the Project, and during the operation phase of the Project.  The Delft3D-WAQ model will be used to simulate water quality impacts during construction of the Project facilities. 

These models have been calibrated extensively.  The model covers the entire Hong Kong waters, the Pearl River Estuary and the Sea Area in front of Hong Kong and has the required spatial extent for this study.

The model used calibrated bathymetry at the wind farm sites as shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1       Bathymetry

 

A refined model has been developed in order to accurately model potential water quality and hydrodynamic impacts. The refinement of the grid at was achieved by introducing two additional domains around the farm and the dredging route (Figure 1.2). The finest grid in Lamma (green) has a resolution below 75m (i.e. 72.5m). The second finest grid in Lamma (red) presents cell sizes of about 150 - 250m.  This will cover the landing points where sensitive receivers are present as well as the wind farm site proper. 

The refined models were verified for both the dry and wet season at a location to the south west of Lamma Island (Figure 1.3).  The results for both seasons are presented in Figure 1.4 and 1.5.  These figures show that the refined model resembles well with the original Update model, although some differences in flow can be observed caused by the more detailed model grid, which can resolve smaller scale flow patterns. 

Figure 1.2       Refined Model Grid

 

Figure 1.3       Location of Sites Selected for Model Verification of Update model vs Refined model

 

Figure 1.4       Model verification Update model (blue) vs Refined model (red) − Water levels, depth average current velocities and directions, salinity (West Season)

 

Figure 1.5       Model verification Update model (blue) vs Refined model (red) − Water levels, depth average current velocities and directions, salinity (Dry Season)

1.3                                      Coastline & Bathymetry

Hydrodynamic data will be obtained using coastline and bathymetry for a time horizon representative of the construction and operation of the facility (i.e., 2010 onwards).

1.4                                      Vector Information

The current patterns under the baseline situation will be generated as an output of the hydrodynamic modelling.  They will be presented as vectors showing the current velocities (i.e. both direction and magnitude).  At the SW Lamma site, the average surface current velocity is 0.35 m s^-1 in the wet season with a maximum of up to 0.61 m s^-1 (2007 data); and an average of 0.15 m s^-1 in the dry season with a maximum of up to 0.26 m s^-1 (2007 data). 

1.5                                      Assessment Scenarios

For the hydrodynamic assessment, three scenarios will be modelled, i.e. one for the baseline situation and one for each of the operational cases for the two proposed sites (each of them covering a complete spring/neap cycle for both the dry and wet seasons).

The modelling will consider the impacts of the development of the offshore wind farm at both sites during construction and operation (see Sections 3 and 4, respectively).  During the construction phase, modelling will consider the impact dredging, jetting and foundation construction works.  During operation, the impact of the wind farm on the hydrodynamic regime will be assessed,

1.6                                      General Assessment Assumptions

In carrying out the assessment, the worst case assumptions have been made in order to provide a conservative assessment of environmental impacts.  These assumptions are as follows:

·            The assessment is based on peak dredging and jetting rates.  In reality these will only occur for a short period of time;

·            The calculations of loss rates of sediment to suspension are based on conservative estimates for the types of plant and methods of working;

·            For foundation construction, the largest potential for sediment disturbance is associated with the construction of monopile foundations with scour; and

·            Construction of a pile and scour protection can occur simultaneously in one working day.

The modelling will not consider the following aspects.  These omissions have been previously agreed with EPD for modelling works for other projects([3]), such as the Hong Kong LNG EIA and are in line with modelling assessments for wind farm developments elsewhere.

·            The movement of marine vessels to and from site, which could have a very localised effect on processes.

·            Scouring of bottom sediment around the turbine foundation during operation.  This is excluded as it is expected that the release of sediment will be minimal.  If engineering design determines that significant scouring will occur, then it is likely that protection to minimise scour will be provided, which means that there should be no seabed disturbance as a result of scour during the operational phase.

·            The impacts in terms of contaminants released (i.e. TIN and NH₃-N) and DO depletion will not be modelled explicitly.  Instead, they will be quantified on the basis of the modelled maximum suspended sediment concentrations.  This method has been used in a recently approved EIA ([1]).

·            The jacking-up operation for turbine foundation emplacement is likely to cause negligible disturbance (far less than foundation construction) to the seabed and hence no adverse water quality impacts arising from these activities are expected.

·            Impacts on hydrodynamics in the construction phase are typically only likely to be associated with the presence of engineering equipment, e.g. jack-up barges, placed temporarily on site.  As such equipment is only likely to be positioned at one site at a time for a relatively short period of time, the effects on the hydrodynamic regime is deemed to be very small in magnitude and localised over both temporal and spatial scales.  Therefore, it is not proposed that these effects be modelled.

1.7                                      Water Sensitive Receivers

The water sensitive receivers (WSRs) have been identified in accordance with Annex 14 of the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO, Cap.499, S.16).  These WSRs are listed in Table 1.1.  In addition to WSRs, modelling points have been added adjacent to the cable route to understand the extent of impacts associated with jetting activities.  EPD routine marine water and sediment monitoring stations (shown in Table 1.2), in addition to the WSRs, were also included as discrete model output points.

Table 1.1        Water Quality Sensitive Receivers (SRs) in the Vicinity of Southwest Lamma Site

Sensitive Receiver	Name	ID
Fisheries and Marine Ecological Sensitive Receivers
Fisheries Resources
Spawning / Nursery Grounds	Spawning / Nursery Grounds to the West	SR22
	Spawning / Nursery Grounds to the East	SR21 SR14
	Spawning / Nursery Grounds to the North	SM6
	Spawning / Nursery Grounds to the South	SM18
Fish Culture Zone	Lo Tik Wan	SR2
	Sok Kwu Wan	SR3
Marine Ecological Resources
Potential Coral Communities	Nam Tsui to Tai Kok hard coral communities	SR4 SR23 SR9 SR10 SR19 SR24 SR20 SR21
Coral Communities	Lamma Power Station Extension Seawall	SR15
Horseshoe Crab Nursery Grounds	Sok Kwu Wan	SR3
Marine Mammal Habitat	Southwest Lamma Waters	SR1 SM5
Green Turtle Habitat	Sham Wan	SR6
Potential Marine Park	South Lamma	SR1 SR6 SR13 SR14
Water Quality Sensitive Receivers
Gazetted Beaches	Cheung Chau Tung Wan	SR7
	Kwun Yam	SR8
	Hung Shing Yeh	SR9
	Lo So Shing	SR10
Seawater Intakes	Cheung Chau	SR11
	Lamma Power Station	SR12
	Yuen Kok	SR13
Jetting Mixing Zone
Mixing zone	Cable Route	SR16 SR17 SR18

 

Table 1.2        EPD Routine Marine Water and Sediment Monitoring Stations in the Vicinity to the Wind Farm Site and Cable Route

EPD Monitoring Stations	Respective WCZ
Marine Water
SM5, SM6, SM7, SM18	Southern WCZ
Marine Sediment
SS3, SS4	Southern WCZ

 

2                                            Construction Phase

For the construction phase the WAQ model will be used to directly simulate the following parameters:

·            suspended sediments; and

·            sediment deposition.

It is assumed that the worst-case construction impacts will be at the commencement of dredging, when there is no depression formed to trap sediments disturbed during works.

2.1                                      Working Time

The assumptions on working time in the model are summarised in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1        A Summary of Working Time Assumed in the Model for Various Construction Activities

Construction Activity	Location	Assumption of Working Time
Foundation Construction	Open sea water	24 hours per day over 7 working days
Submarine Cable Circuit	Open sea water - jetting	12 hours per day over 7 working days per week
	Landing point – grab dredging	12 hours per day ([4])

2.2                                      Dredging Works

Grab dredgers will be utilised in the nearshore cable landing area for both sites to construct a short underwater trench.  The trench will be trapezium shape with bottom width of 5 m.  The upper width shall be 8 to 12 m and the trench depth of 1.5 – 3.5 m deep.  It is assumed that the trench length will be a maximum of 100 m.  Grab dredgers may release sediment into suspension by the following mechanisms:

·            Impact of the grab on the seabed as it is lowered;

·            Washing of sediment off the outside of the grab as it is raised through the water column and when it is lowered again after being emptied;

·            Leakage of water from the grab as it is hauled above the water surface;

·            Spillage of sediment from over-full grabs;

·            Loss from grabs which cannot be fully closed due to the presence of debris;

·            Release by splashing when loading barges by careless, inaccurate methods; and

·            Disturbance of the seabed as the closed grab is removed.

In the transport of dredging materials, sediment may be lost through leakage from barges.  However, dredging permits in Hong Kong include requirements that barges used for the transport of dredging materials have bottom-doors that are properly maintained and have tight-fitting seals in order to prevent leakage.  Given this requirement, sediment release during transport is not proposed for modelling and its impact on water quality is not addressed under this Study.

Sediment is also lost to the water column when discharging material at disposal sites.  The amount that is lost depends on a large number of factors including material characteristics, the speed and manner in which it is discharged from the vessel, and the characteristics of the disposal sites.  It is not necessary to address water quality issues at the intended disposal site as these areas have already been permitted by EPD and CEDD and the environmental acceptability proven.  Hence modelling of impacts at disposal sites does not need to be addressed and reference will be provided with respect to these studies in the EIA Report for this Project. 

Loss rates have been taken from previously accepted EIAs in Hong Kong ([5]) ([6]) ([7]) and have been based on a review of world wide data on loss rates from dredging operations undertaken as part of assessing the impacts of dredging areas of Kellett Bank for mooring buoys ([8]).  The assessment concluded that for 8 m³ (minimum) grab dredgers working in areas with significant amounts of debris on the seabed (such as in the vicinity of existing mooring buoys) that the loss rates would be 25 kg m-³ dredged, while the loss rate in areas where debris is less likely to hinder operations would be 17 kg m-³ dredged.  It is assumed at this site from previous information collected for the area, as well as the results of the geophysical surveys undertaken from the present study, that there should be minimal debris ([9]) ([10]).  The value of 17 kg m-³ will therefore be used for this study.  This takes into account the occasional failure of the grab.

 

Generally, a split-bottom barge could have a capacity of 900 m³. A bulk factor of 1.3 would normally be applied, giving a dredging rate of 700 m³ per barge. The hopper dry density for an 800 to 1,000 m³ capacity barge is around 0.75 to 1.24 ton m-³. 

The average release rates will, in fact, be somewhat less than those indicated above. The instantaneous dredging (and loss) rates will also decrease as the depth increases. This is because the assumed dredging production rates are instantaneous rates that will not be maintained due to delays for breakdowns, maintenance, crew changes and time spent relocating the dredgers. The release rates that are to be modelled area, therefore, considered to represent conservative conditions that will not prevail for any great length of time. 

The hourly production rate for sediment dredging using a grab dredger of 8m³ adopted in the Kellett Bank Study was 208.3 m³ hour^-1 ([11]) using medium sized grabs (8 m³) that will be used for this Project.  Its expected at this stage that dredging will be undertaken 12 hours per day during daylight hours.  Therefore in a single day of activity 2499.6 m³ of sediment will be dredged, which equates a release of 42,493.2 kg of sediment.  The sediment release rate would therefore equate to 0.984 kg s^-1 with the assumption that only one dredger will be utilised.  The leakage from grab dredgers can be throughout the water column as the dredger lifts sediments from the seabed to the barge.

The use of cage-type silt curtains would be expected to reduce the rate of suspended sediment levels typically between 76% and 81%. However, for the purpose of this assessment, dredging without silt curtains will be taken forward to provide a worst case scenario approach.  If levels are seen to be unacceptable then calculations can be made associated with a reduction expected with the adoption of this mitigation.

2.3                                      Jetting Works

It is assumed that cable installation, will be largely undertaken using jetting methods.  This method provides the greatest potential for sediment release and therefore presents the worst case scenario.

Jetting speeds have been taken as 360 m hr-¹ for cable circuit installation ([12]). This rate relates to typical practices by contractors in Hong Kong that would be involved in these works.

The maximum burial depth for each installation will be 5 m and have a cross-sectional area of 0.75 m² (0.5 x 5 m x 0.3 m).  

It will require one pass of the jetting machine to reach the required burial depth.  This will be temporary and instantaneous disturbance to the seabed since the disturbed sediment is expected to settle on the seabed in a short period after the jetting machine has passed.  The rate of disturbance for the cable installation will be 0.075 m³ s^{-1 ([13])}. 

It is conservatively assumed that 20% of the disturbed sediment enters suspension and this would give a loss rate.  The loss rate used here has been used in previous projects for submarine utility installations under the EIAO that have been installed using jetting methods and have obtained Environmental Permits:

·           Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Receiving Terminal and Associated Facilities (AEIAR-106/2007).  EP granted on 3 April 2007 (EP-257/2007).

·           The Proposed Submarine Gas Pipelines from Cheng Tou Jiao Liquefied Natural Gas Receiving Terminal, Shenzhen to Tai Po Gas Production Plant, Hong Kong – EIA Study (AEIAR-071/2003). EP granted on 23 April 2003 (EP-167/2003).

·           132kV Submarine Cable Installation for Wong Chuk Hang - Chung Hom Kok 132kV Circuits (AEP-126/2002).  EP granted on 2 April 2002 (EP-126/2002).

·           FLAG North Asian Loop (AEP-099/2001).  EP granted on 18 June 2001 (EP-099/2001).

·           East Asian Crossing (EAC) Cable System (TKO), Asia Global Crossing (AEP-081/2000).  EP granted on 4 October 2000 (EP-081/2000).

·           East Asian Crossing (EAC) Cable System, Asia Global Crossing (AEP-079/2000).  EP granted on 6 September 2000 (EP-079/2000).

·           Submarine Cable Landing Installation in Tong Fuk Lantau for Asia Pacific Cable Network 2 (APCN 2) Fibre Optic Submarine Cable System, EGS.   EP granted on 26 July 2000 (EP-069/2000).

·           Telecommunication Installation at Lot 591SA in DD 328, Tong Fuk, South Lantau Coast and the Associated Cable Landing Work in Tong Fuk, South Lantau for the North Asia Cable (NAC) Fibre Optic Submarine Cable System (AEP-064/2000).  EP granted in June 2000 (EP-064/2000).

 

To calculate the mass entrainment rate it is necessary to apply a dry density for the material, which is conservatively assumed to be 600 kg m^-3.  As this dry density has been assumed in a number of the assessments listed above and approved under the EIAO it is considered appropriate for use in the present study.

 

Using the above assumptions, it is therefore determined that the maximum sediment loss rate would be:

 

0.075 m³ s^-1 x 20% x 600 kg/m³ = 9 kg s^-1

 

The sediment will be entered into the model in the model layer closest to the seabed because this will represent the entrainment of sediment to suspension from the layer of fluid mud flowing over the existing seabed.  This approach is considered valid as the jetting machine is fluidising the seabed sediments and not excavating the sediments, consequently there will be little vertical entrainment of sediment into the water column.

The sediment release rate can be lowered by reducing the jetting speed.  However, the above figure will be assumed for the modelling as this present the maximum jetting speed and therefore the maximum release rate.

The sediment will be entered into the model within a series of grid cells to represent the jetting machine moving along the cable route.  Thus each grid cell will represent a section of the cable route and sediment will be entered into that grid cell for the length of time it takes the jetting machine to pass the length of that cell, based on the jetting machine speeds given above.  Once the jetting machine has passed that grid cell, sediment will then be entered in the next grid cell on the route.  The sediment release in the bed layer (constitute 10 %) of the water column will be assumed in the model.

It should be noted that theses assumptions have been adopted in the previous approved EIAs and a number of jetting contractors have confirmed that these assumptions are reasonable and practical. 

2.4                                      Turbine Foundation Construction

The foundation options for the wind farm are as follows:

·            multi-pile (tripod); and

·            monopile

The monopile structure is anticipated to have a diameter of 5 to 7 m which will lead to a physical footprint of approximately 38.5 m² with a pile wall thickness of approximately 80 mm.  For tripods, the diameter of each tripod pile is estimated to be 1.3 m with a 7 m separation distance between each tripod pile.  The subsequent physical footprint will be in the order of 22 m² for each tripod group (worse case triangular area).  The below seabed pile wall thickness of tripod foundations will be approximately 50 mm.

For modelling purposes it is assumed that foundation scour protection will be constructed as this would provide opportunity for greatest sediment disturbance.  It is assumed that this scour protection will have an overall width of 30m and length of 30m and overall area of 900 m². 

The area of scour revetment would therefore encompass the area of turbine foundation disturbance.

Foundations can be constructed using percussive pile or boring techniques.  The piles would be comprised of tubular steel.  If percussive driving is taken forward the large majority of sediment will be collected within the pile and not released into the water column.  For boring works, it is normal practice for casing to be driven into the seabed before drilling.  The purpose of this drill sleeve is to contain fine material and to prevent the excavated hole from collapsing.  Therefore there should be a very small release of fines associated with piling activity.

It is not common practice to model the release of sediment associated with piling activity and construction of scour revetment.  However, given the potential for sediment release the following assumptions are made:

·            Only surface sediment (taken as material up to 1m below the surface of the seabed) agitated by piling and/or construction of scour protection could be released into the water column;

·            Modelling will only consider the area of disturbance associated with the construction of scour protection as the area of turbine foundation is enclosed within this area.  Calculations can be made on the potential impact of constructing turbine foundations, which have a much lower footprint of impact;

·            The whole area in the footprint of the pile will be disturbed.  In reality this is unlikely as pile walls are relatively thin and these would provide the area that causes any agitation;

·            Only 20% of the sediment agitated will be released into suspension as per standard calculations agreed for jetting techniques; and

·            The release of sediment will be instant and will only occur as a single event in any day of working.  In reality, this is unlikely. However, it presents the worst case event for sediment release.

For scour protection works in a 24 hour working day the maximum volume of sediment released would be 180 m³ (20% of the area of disturbance for one pile foundation).  Using the dry density value of 600 kg m^-3, this equates to an overall release of 108,000kg of sediment per turbine in a single working day.  If this sediment were to be released as a constant through the working day, this would relate to a loss rate of 1.25 kg s^-1.

The sediment will be entered into the model in the model layer closest to the seabed.

2.5                                      Indicative Construction Programme and Sequence

The provisional timeframe for the completion of construction activities is provided below.  More detailed information on the activity schedule will be obtained prior to commencement of modelling, including a daily programme.

·            Foundation construction -             June 2011 to December 2012

·            Cabling and offshore substation - June 2012 to June 2013

·            Wind turbine installation -              January 2013 to September 2013

2.6                                      Sediment Parameters

For simulating sediment impacts the following general parameters has been used for suspended sediments once disturbed:

·            Settling velocity – 0.5 mm s^-1

·            Critical shear stress for deposition – 0.2 N m^-2

·            Critical shear stress for erosion – 0.3 N m^-2

·            Minimum depth where deposition allowed – 1 m

·            Resuspension rate – 30 g m^-2 d^-1

·            Wave calculation method – Tamminga

·            Chezy calculation method – White/Colebrook

·            Bottom roughness – 0.001 m ([14])

·            Fetch for wave driven erosion – 35 km

·            Depth gradient effect on waves – absent

The above parameters have been used to simulate the impacts from sediment plumes in Hong Kong associated with uncontaminated mud disposal into the Brothers MBA ([15]) and dredging for the Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility at Sha Chau ([16]).  The critical shear stress values for erosion and deposition were determined by laboratory testing of a large sample of marine mud from Hong Kong as part of the original WAHMO studies associated with the new airport at Chek Lap Kok.

 

3                                            Operation Phase

3.1                                      Hydrodynamics

Delft3D-FLOW will be carried out to simulate the operational hydrodynamic conditions for both proposed sites.  Three scenarios will be modelled, i.e. one for the baseline situation and one for each of the operational cases for the two proposed sites (each of them covering a complete spring/neap cycle for both the dry and wet seasons).

It is presently assumed that the turbines will be rated 2.3 – 3.6MW and the total number installed will be no greater than 35 units.  At the SW Lamma site is it preliminarily proposed that there will be a separation between turbines of 360 m on the north / south axis and 650 m on the east / west axis.  Should 3.6MW class wind turbine be selected, the number of wind turbines would be reduced to around 28 to 30 in order to maintain the wind farm capacity of around 100MW

As discussed, monopile foundations have the greatest potential physical blockage to the physical environment and therefore have the most potential to cause changes to processes.  The dimensions of these foundations will therefore be used for modelling as part of a worst case scenario approach.

Since the 50 – 75m resolution in the most detailed model domains is insufficient to resolve the individual piles, the hydraulic structure option was used to include the effects of the sub-grid piles on the flow in the model.  This option is commonly used to include piles, such as bridge piles, in hydrodynamic modelling and is based on an additional quadratic friction term to the momentum equations. The energy loss term for this friction is derived by the following equation, which includes pile diameter and number relative to the grid dimensions:

Since the wet and dry seasons result in entirely different flow conditions, the model simulations are (commonly) carried out for both seasons separately. This results in the following scenarios:

1. West site, base case, dry season

2. West site, base case, wet season

3. West site, including wind farm, dry season

4. West site, including wind farm, wet season

4                                            Cumulative Impacts

At present the identified potential concurrent projects are the marine dumping activities near Ninepins Islands, East of Tung Lung Chau and South Cheung Chau, proposed Hong Kong Offshore Wind Farm in South-eastern Waters (EIAO Ref: EIA Study Brief No. ESB-146/2006), potential sand reserves in the eastern waters.  However, there are not sufficient details of these projects at this preliminary stage to determine the possible concurrent construction/operational activities.  Therefore, modelling works for cumulative water quality impacts during the construction phase and/or operational phase arising from the concurrent projects with the proposed Project will be decided, if necessary, upon collection of adequate information on the potential concurrent projects.

5                                            Outputs from the Modelling Work

The modelling work will provide quantified information on the potential impact of construction works on water quality.  This information will inform the assessment of potential effects of construction on water sensitive receivers with reference to Hong Kong Water Quality Objectives.  In addition, the modelling will identify the impact of the operation of the wind farm on hydrodynamic processes.

The modelling results will be provided as a Technical Appendix to the EIA Report and information summarised as appropriate in the water quality and hydrodynamic processes assessment sections of the EIA Report.