Recent experience of CIA in renewables consenting in

Scotland

Ian Davies

Marine Scotland Science

Planning

authorityLicensing

authority

Science

support

Marine Scotlandrsquos roles in renewable energy

Consents and licences in Scotland

bull Marine Scotland Act and Marine and Coastal Access Act

Licence

bull Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (s36)

bull Section 44 European Protected Species (EPS)

bull Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act

bull Energy Act (2004) Decommissioning issued by DECC

EC EIA Directive Assess effects on

Human beingsFauna and flora

LandscapeseascapeMaterial assets

Cultural heritage

EC Habitats Directive Effects on protected sites and species

SPAsSACs

Requirement for CIA

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and

To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term

bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats

supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species

Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal

Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations

Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process

Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas

Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available

Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments

Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range

Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level

Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving

Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability

Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term

Example output from population model for harbour seals

Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for

harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)

bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and

SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Consents and licences in Scotland

bull Marine Scotland Act and Marine and Coastal Access Act

Licence

bull Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (s36)

bull Section 44 European Protected Species (EPS)

bull Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act

bull Energy Act (2004) Decommissioning issued by DECC

EC EIA Directive Assess effects on

Human beingsFauna and flora

LandscapeseascapeMaterial assets

Cultural heritage

EC Habitats Directive Effects on protected sites and species

SPAsSACs

Requirement for CIA

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and

To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term

bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats

supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species

Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal

Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations

Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process

Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas

Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available

Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments

Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range

Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level

Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving

Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability

Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term

Example output from population model for harbour seals

Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for

harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)

bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and

SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

EC EIA Directive Assess effects on

Human beingsFauna and flora

LandscapeseascapeMaterial assets

Cultural heritage

EC Habitats Directive Effects on protected sites and species

SPAsSACs

Requirement for CIA

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and

To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term

bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats

supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species

Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal

Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations

Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process

Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas

Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available

Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments

Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range

Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level

Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving

Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability

Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term

Example output from population model for harbour seals

Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for

harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)

bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and

SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and

To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term

bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats

supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species

Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal

Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations

Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process

Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas

Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available

Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments

Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range

Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level

Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving

Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability

Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term

Example output from population model for harbour seals

Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for

harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)

bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and

SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and

To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term

bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats

supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species

Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal

Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations

Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process

Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas

Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available

Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments

Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range

Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level

Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving

Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability

Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term

Example output from population model for harbour seals

Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for

harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)

bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and

SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations

Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process

Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas

Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available

Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments

Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range

Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level

Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving

Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability

Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term

Example output from population model for harbour seals

Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for

harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)

bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and

SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments

Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range

Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level

Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving

Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability

Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term

Example output from population model for harbour seals

Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for

harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)

bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and

SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for

harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)

bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and

SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Moray Firth wind farms

Consented 2014

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Species of negligible concern

Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua

SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Great black-backed gull

Herring gull

Puffin

Razorbill and

Guillemot)

Full quantitative assessment required

Species of greater concern

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

What was the

problem

Displacement

proportion of birds displaced

birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable

proportion of birds adult

proportion of adults breeding

proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z

mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate

proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully

each displaced bird from a discrete pair

Collision

Avoidance rate

breeding season

nocturnal activity

flap gliding flight

attraction to survey vessles

rotor speed - mean seasonal mean

Apportioning

SNH approach

At-sea flight direction information

GPS tracking data

Starting populations

SPA vs non-SPA colonies

Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)

Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Starting population

Maintain +ve trajectory

What is acceptable

f-value for use in PBR

PBR in relation to productivity effects

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Why was it a problem

bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken

bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale

bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA

bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project

bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

How was it resolved

bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS

bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible

bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences

bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Assessment of consequencesfor populations

bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method

ndash Probabalistic population modelling

ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity

ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

Consequences

bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale

bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance

bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale

bull Post-consent monitoring

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal

bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process

bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope

ndash Timing of projects

ndash Quantification

ndash Underwater collision

ndash Displacement and consequences

ndash Population models and assessment methods

ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs

Lessons for wave and tidal