1. Introduction

1.1. Background

  1. Berwick Bank Wind Farm Limited (BBWFL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of SSE Renewables (SSER) Limited and will hereafter be referred to as ‘the Applicant’. The Applicant is developing the Berwick Bank Wind Farm (hereafter referred to as ‘the Project’). The Project will be located in the outer Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay, 47.6 km east of the East Lothian coastline and 37.8 km from the Scottish Borders coastline.
  2. RPS Energy (RPS) has been commissioned to prepare an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation: Outline Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) and Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries (PAD) (hereafter referred to as the Outline WSI (and PAD) for the offshore elements of the Project – those located seaward of Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) (and henceforth referred to as the Proposed Development). The terrestrial/onshore archaeology, including intertidal elements is considered in a separate WSI to be developed before onshore construction activities start (see volume 1 chapter 10 of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Onshore Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (SSER, 2022a).
  3. This Outline WSI and PAD detail the principles to be implemented to ensure the protection of marine archaeological resources through all Proposed Development phases. The measures within this Outline WSI and PAD encompass the wide range of development options under consideration for the Proposed Development to allow post-consent flexibility in the final design. The Outline WSI and PAD will be monitored and updated throughout the post-consent process to ensure that the WSI is appropriate to the final design. This Outline WSI and PAD will be finalised prior to construction and is secured through the Proposed Development’s Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). The Outline WSI and PAD will continue to be developed in consultation with Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and will be submitted to Marine Scotland - Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT; as the licencing authority) for approval, prior to construction.
  4. This Outline WSI (and PAD) has been reviewed and updated since it was last shared with consultees[1] in November 2021. These updates address the selection of Skateraw Landfall option and feedback received from consultation. Updates also account for revisions made to the Proposed Development array area (which has been reduced by approximately 20 percent) in July 2022 and Project Design Envelope (PDE). The marine archaeological baseline has been updated to account for a revised marine archaeology study area that corresponds with the new Proposed Development boundaries (see Figure 1.1   Open ▸ ). The updated baseline described in the Marine Archaeology Technical Report reports no substantial or material changes relative to a revised marine archaeology study area. No additional risks to marine archaeology were identified that could warrant changes to the general methodology and procedures set out in the WSI. No additional mitigation measures or adaptations to the strategy have been made.
  5. The combined Outline WSI (and PAD) and the Marine Archaeology Technical Report are standalone documents. The Outline WSI and PAD are provided with the Proposed Development’s Offshore EIA Report supporting the Application for planning consent (see volume 4, appendix 22 of the Offshore EIA Report). The updated Marine Archaeology Technical Report is provided with the Application as an ‘accompanying document’ to ensure that the archaeological baseline that corresponds to the WSI is available to consultees.
  6. As described in volume 1, chapter 3, the Applicant is developing an additional export cable grid connection to Blyth, Northumberland (the Cambois connection). Applications for necessary consents (including any requirements to protect potential marine archaeology) will be applied for separately.

1.2. Aims and Objectives

  1. The aim of this Outline WSI and PAD is to outline the archaeological mitigation measures to be undertaken by the Applicant prior to and throughout the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development.
  2. The Outline WSI and PAD is informed by pre-application consultation with HES (reported in Table 1.1   Open ▸ ) and the baseline review of known and potential archaeology within the marine archaeology study area outlined in the Marine Archaeology Technical Report).
  3. The objectives of the Outline WSI and PAD are as follows:
  • to fulfil the requirements of the Archaeological Curator (AC) in respect of archaeological monitoring and mitigation of works associated with the Proposed Development;
  • to establish the exact position and extent of any Archaeological Exclusion Zones (AEZs) and Temporary Archaeological Exclusion Zones (TAEZs);
  • to ensure consultation with archaeologists on all elements of the Proposed Development’s design that have the potential to impact archaeological sites and materials;
  • to ensure that any further geophysical and geotechnical investigations associated with the Proposed Development are subject to archaeological input, review, recording and sampling where required;
  • to ensure archaeological involvement in any proposed diver and/or remotely operated vehicles (ROV) obstruction surveys conducted within the Proposed Development;
  • to propose measures for the mitigation of archaeological remains encountered during further geotechnical/geophysical sampling or investigations, or during construction work associated with the Proposed Development; and
  • to establish the reporting and archiving requirements for the archaeological works undertaken during all phases of the Proposed Development and post-construction monitoring.

Figure 1.1:
Location of the Proposed Development and Marine Archaeology Study Area (Revised July 2022)

Figure 1.1: Location of the Proposed Development and Marine Archaeology Study Area (Revised July 2022)

Table 1.1:
Summary of Key Consultation and How This Was Considered in the Marine Archaeological Technical Report, Written Scheme of Investigation and Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries

Table 1.1: Summary of Key Consultation and How This Was Considered in the Marine Archaeological Technical Report, Written Scheme of Investigation and Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries

2. Berwick Bank Wind Farm

  1. The offshore elements of the Proposed Development of relevance to this Outline WSI and PAD relate to:

2.2. Project Design Envelope

  1. The PDE of relevance to marine archaeology concerns the parameters that define the maximum possible disturbance of the seabed, which are detailed below.
  2. Seabed disturbance during the construction phase as a result of:

3. Baseline

3.1. Overview

  1. A baseline review of known and potential archaeology assets within the marine archaeology study area defined for the Proposed Development has been undertaken (as reported in the Marine Archaeology Technical Report). The following archaeological assets were identified within the marine archaeology study area:
  • near shore potential for submerged prehistoric land surfaces and sites;
  • known wrecks and seabed obstructions;
  • documented shipping losses;
  • possible unknown and undocumented wrecks from various periods;
  • possible stray finds of shipborne debris from various periods; and
  • geophysical anomalies that appear to be wreck sites or wreck debris.
    1. A summary of the baseline environment is outlined in the following sections (for more detail please see the Marine Archaeology Technical Report).

3.2. Submerged prehistoric archaeology

  1. Analysis of geophysical survey data collected within the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor identified potential palaeo-landscape features within the marine archaeology study area (within the Geophysical Survey Area (GSA))[2]. These include palaeo-channels, incised valleys, and relict glacial lakes. However, the proglacial environments in which they are likely to have been formed are not likely to have been attractive locations for human habitation. In other areas, such features would have formed foci for human activity following climatic amelioration. However, with respect to the marine archaeology study area, sea level rises are likely to have submerged these features relatively rapidly, further demonstrating the limited archaeological potential of the area.
  2. As a result, it is considered unlikely that evidence of in situ Palaeolithic and Mesolithic activity will be found within the marine archaeology study area because of repeated glaciations, marine transgressions and associated fluvial activity. There is, however, some paleo-environmental potential within the Aberdeen Ground Formation. Within the Proposed Development export cable corridor there is some potential for late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic deposits in the near-shore area. However, because of erosion, redeposited material is more likely than in situ evidence. In addition, the potential for the localised presence of peat buried in the Quaternary deposits within the Proposed Development export cable corridor could suggest good palaeo-environmental potential. Where these sediments are present, there is good potential for the preservation of organic matter such as wooden fish traps and other buried organic materials associated with prehistoric exploitation of the coastal margins.

3.3. Maritime archaeology

  1. No designated wrecks are recorded within the Proposed Development site.
  2. A total of 244 anomalies of potential anthropogenic origin have been recorded by geophysical survey within the Proposed Development site. Of these, 197 were identified within the Proposed Development array area (eleven were identified as wrecks and therefore as having a ‘high archaeological potential’ and 20 to have ‘medium potential’). Of the 47 anomalies identified within the Proposed Development export cable corridor, five were considered to have ‘medium potential’ to represent remains of archaeological significance. The remaining anomalies were assessed against all available evidence to have ‘low potential’ and considered unlikely to have any archaeological significance.
  3. The geophysical survey was not undertaken across the full extent of the Proposed Development export cable corridor and as such, eight wrecks recorded on the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) database were not verified by the survey. Of these, three are recorded as ‘live wrecks’ and potentially indicative of material on the seabed. The positions of these contacts are shown in Figure 3.1   Open ▸ and listed in the Marine Archaeology Technical Report.
  4. A total of six UKHO records from within the Proposed Development site were not identified by geophysical survey. All these records were related to wrecks that are now considered ‘dead’[3] by the UKHO. The positions given for each of these records is deemed to be approximate, or for filing purposes only. As such, it is highly likely that any wreck to which they may relate is not at the location of the record.
  5. In addition, a total of 106 magnetic anomalies with an intensity >100 Nanotesla (nT) with no strong correlating seabed contact were identified within the Proposed Development site. Of these, 37 lie within the Proposed Development array area and 69 within the Proposed Development export cable corridor. These anomalies have been provisionally identified as areas of archaeological potential. The position of these magnetic anomalies is shown in Figure 3.1   Open ▸ and listed in the Marine Archaeology Technical Report.
  6. A total of 36 AEZs to protect the high and unconfirmed medium potential contacts are therefore recommended. In addition, a total of three TAEZs are proposed to protect records of live wrecks outside the survey data coverage. It is intended that these AEZs would remain in place for the lifespan of the Proposed Development, unless amended or removed through further survey. Similarly, the TAEZs will remain in place until further survey can establish the archaeological potential of the live wrecks indicated and whether the temporary exclusion areas should become AEZs or be removed.
  7. Magnetic anomalies >100 nT within the marine archaeology study area have been identified as Areas of Archaeological Potential. No formal exclusion zones are recommended at this stage however, the positions of magnetic anomalies are identified in the Applicant’s reporting and the archaeological potential of these areas will be monitored during future assessments.

Figure 3.1:
The Positions of Magnetic Anomalies Identified within the Marine Archaeology Study Area

Figure 3.1: The Positions of Magnetic Anomalies Identified within the Marine Archaeology Study Area

4. Potential Impacts

  1. The Proposed Development site (comprising the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor is considered to contain deposits of archaeological potential. These include:
  • potential prehistoric sites and land surfaces dating from the late Palaeolithic and early Mesolithic periods (close to the shore);
  • undiscovered maritime remains (wrecks and debris);
  • aircraft remains, and;
  • known maritime remains.
    1. Any construction activities and subsequent works that disturb the seabed therefore have the potential to negatively affect archaeological sites and deposits.
    2. The most obvious way in which these archaeological remains can be negatively affected during the construction phase is by a direct impact, for example from dropping anchors, the use of grapnels, cable laying, the use of jack up barges or via foundation installation. In addition, indirect impacts on archaeological remains can occur when direct effects impact an intermediary receptor. For example, if the removal of sediment (a direct effect) influences the hydrodynamic regime (a secondary effect) and this results in increased erosion and scouring and damage to an archaeological receptor. Sediment cover typically provides protection to a submerged archaeological resource, which can deteriorate more rapidly once exposed.


Table 4.1:
Maximum Design Scenario Considered for Assessment of Potential Impacts on Marine Archaeology

Table 4.1: Maximum Design Scenario Considered for Assessment of Potential Impacts on Marine Archaeology


4.2. Measures Adopted as part of the Proposed Development

  1. A number of measures have been proposed to avoid or reduce the potential for impacts on marine archaeology. The measures adopted for the Proposed Development relate to the Proposed Development site (comprising the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor). The mitigation measures set out in Table 4.2   Open ▸ are intended to:
  • identify archaeologically sensitive remains encountered during the development;
  • avoid archaeologically sensitive remains wherever possible, and;
  • enable the recording of any remains that could be directly affected.

 

Table 4.2:
Designed-in Measures Adopted for the Proposed Development

Table 4.2: Designed-in Measures Adopted for the Proposed Development

 

5. Responsibilities and Communications

5.1. Introduction

  1. This section sets out the responsibilities of relevant parties and the lines of communications during all phases of the Proposed Development. This structure aims to ensure that the archaeological mitigation measures described within the WSI and PAD are fully implemented in a timely manner that does not interfere with the smooth running of the Proposed Development’s programme.
  2. An organogram identifying the communication channels between different parties, discussed within this Outline WSI and PAD is illustrated in Figure 5.1   Open ▸ below.

Figure 5.1:
Organogram Illustrating the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Marine Archaeology Team

Figure 5.1: Organogram Illustrating the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Marine Archaeology Team


Figure 5.2:
Organogram Illustrating the Key Marine Archaeology Consultees for the Proposed Development

Figure 5.2: Organogram Illustrating the Key Marine Archaeology Consultees for the Proposed Development

 

5.2. Contacts

  1. The current relevant contacts at HES are:

5.3. Responsibilities

5.3.1.    The Applicant

  1. BBWFL, a wholly owned subsidiary of SSE Renewables Limited, is the Applicant for the Proposed Development. The Applicant will directly engage with the appointed Construction Contractor and the RA, as necessary. 
  2. The responsibility for implementing the WSI and PAD rests with the Applicant and its appointed representatives.
  3. Following the grant of development consent, the Applicant would provide the RA with the programme of construction.
  4. The Applicant or their representative will advise the RA of its requirements or responsibilities under any CoCP produced for the Proposed Development. The CoCP will fully reference the WSI (and PAD) to inform all phases of the Proposed Development.
  5. The Applicant or their representatives will submit the archaeological Method Statements or reports to Marine Scotland - Licensing Operations Team in the first instance who will then forward to the Archaeological Curator for approval (HES).

5.3.2.    Retained Archaeologist

  1. The Applicant shall employ the services of a suitably qualified and experienced Archaeological Contractor (the RA) to ensure the effective implementation of the WSI and PAD and other relevant commitments in relation to archaeology.
  2. Prior to application submission RPS supported by MSDS Marine are acting in the role of the RA.
  3. In relation to the implementation of the WSI, the RA will report to the Applicant or their named representative. Interaction with the Proposed Development’s construction team will be administered by the Applicant or their appointed representative and advised by the RA
  4. The responsibilities of the RA will include:
  • maintaining, reviewing and updating the WSI as required;
  • advising the Proposed Development’s construction team on those elements of the Proposed Development that require archaeological involvement;
  • ensuring the scope of work specifications for the Proposed Development meet archaeological requirements;
  • liaising with the Applicant/Construction Contractors regarding timescales of completion of site investigations (SI) to ensure sufficient time is available to complete all fieldwork in accordance with the WSI;
  • advising the Project Manager for the Proposed Development on the micro siting of infrastructure, particularly wind turbines, OSPs/Offshore convertor station platforms based upon archaeological results from pre-application and pre-construction surveys;
  • advising, preparing and issuing Method Statements to the Archaeological Curator for approval;
  • implementing and monitoring the PAD;
  • providing advice to vessel staff/UXO) specialists in the event of a discovery of high archaeological interest;
  • monitoring the work of and liaising with the Archaeological Contractor(s) where this is not the RA;
  • monitoring the preparation and submission of archaeological reports as appropriate and making them available to the Archaeological Curator for approval;
  • preparing provisions for the management of the Proposed Development’s archives in consultation with an appropriate museum; and
  • advising the Applicant and the Archaeological Curator on final arrangements for the analysis, archive deposition, publication and popular dissemination of the results of the archaeological works.

5.3.3.    Archaeological Contractors

  1. Archaeological Contactors may be employed by the Applicant or the RA. Suitably qualified Archaeological Contractors may be called to provide a range of services relating to specialised archaeological provisions (e.g. divers/remote operated vehicles (ROV), geotechnical analysis etc.).

5.3.4.    Construction Contractors

  1. All Construction Contractors engaged in the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning of the Proposed Development shall:
  • familiarise themselves with the generic requirements of the WSI and make them available to their staff;
  • obey legal obligations in respect of ‘wrecks’ under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (see section 13);
  • obey legal obligations in respect of ‘treasure’ under the Treasure Act of 1996 and the Treasure Trove system in Scotland;
  • respect constraint maps and AEZs (see section 8);
  • notify the RA prior to any diving/ROV investigation;
  • notify the RA in advance of any construction works that warrant archaeological mitigation;
  • assist and afford access to archaeologists employed by the Applicant;
  • inform the RA of any environmental constraint or matter relating to health, safety and welfare which they are aware that is relevant to the archaeologist’s activities;
  • implement the PAD (see section 13); and
  • suspend work in areas where objects have been identified as being of potential archaeological interest and contacting the RA in the event of a discovery of potentially high archaeological interest.

5.3.5.    Archaeological Curator

  1. HES is the Archaeological Curator (AC) for heritage matters offshore up to Mean High Water Springs (MHWS), HES are the public body responsible for the care and protection of Scotland’s historic environment, which includes marine archaeology within Scotland’s territorial waters. East Lothian, Scottish Borders and Fife Council will also be consulted for completeness.
  2. Contact with the Archaeological Curator will be through Marine Scotland - Licensing Operations Team as the Regulator.
  3. Method Statements, assessment reports or other deliverables will be submitted by the Applicant to Marine Scotland - Licensing Operations Team who will forward on to the Archaeological Curator for approval. Their agreement/acceptance of the documents will be assumed if no contrary response is received within 30 working days of submission.
  4. To encourage timely decisions relating to archaeological mitigation and avoid disruptions to the Proposed Development’s program, MS-LOT and HES will be consulted as soon as practicable on discoveries made during the programme of works and regarding the management and removal of AEZs or TAEZs