marine scotland licensing and consents manual€¦ · consents manual, covering marine renewables...

MARINE SCOTLAND LICENSING AND

CONSENTS MANUAL

Covering Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy Development

Report R.1957October 2012

Marine Scotland Marine Scotland Licensing and Consents Manual, covering Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy Development Date: October 2012 Project Ref: Error! Reference source not found. Report No: R.1957 © ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd

Version Details of Change Authorised By Date 1 Draft for Steering Group H Roberts 2/4/12 2 Draft for Consultation with MS H Roberts 22/5/12

3 Draft for Consultation Scottish Renewables H Roberts 31/8/12

4 Draft for Public Consultation H Roberts 5/10/12

Document Authorisation Signature Date

Project Manager: H Roberts H Roberts 5/10/12

Quality Manager: C R Scott C R Scott 5/10/12

Project Director: S C Hull S C Hull 5/10/12

ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd Suite B, Waterside House Town Quay Tel: +44(0)23 8071 1840 SOUTHAMPTON Fax: +44(0)23 8071 1841

Hampshire Web: www.abpmer.co.uk SO14 2AQ Email:[email protected]

ABPmer is certified by:

Marine Scotland Publishers This text is to be added to the internal Title Page The Manual is the property of Scottish Ministers and provides their main project level licensing/consenting policy guidance to deliver sustainable green energy development within Scottish waters. Marine Scotland Licensing and Operations Team will oversee the application of this manual, on behalf of Scottish Ministers, within the project licensing and consents application processes for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy Developments. Developers and their consultants are expected to follow this guidance. Statutory advisors and other statutory bodies with a marine or relevant planning/permitting remit are expected to take full account of the manual within their respective roles within the licensing and consenting marine renewables and offshore wind energy development process.

Marine Scotland Licensing and Consents Manual, covering Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy Development

Error! Reference source not found.

(i) Error! Reference source not found.

Foreward The Scottish Government has a target for 100% of Scottish demand for electricity to be met from renewable sources by 2020 by creating a balanced portfolio of both onshore and offshore technologies. Marine Scotland has been and continues to be committed to a culture of continuous improvement. To support this, the Short Life Energy Planning and Consenting Task Force was established to produce a report promoting greater streamlining and efficiency of Scotland's planning and consenting regimes. The Task Force considered the existing challenges within the planning and consenting frameworks for Scotland's growing offshore industries, and then recommended a number of actions to be taken forward which could deliver yet more positive results. One of the recommendations is to give full support to Marine Scotland's work streams delivering licensing efficiencies. The ‘Marine Scotland Licensing and Consents Manual, covering Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy Development’ is part of one such work stream, supporting marine renewable energy developers (offshore wind, wave, and tide) when applying for marine licences and consents. The licensing manual summarises the process to be followed by developers and/or other applicants, and the roles and responsibilities of the teams and organisations involved in the consenting and licensing processes are made clear. The manual will cover Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulations Appraisal processes and provides guidance on the information Marine Scotland will expect to see within applications. The consenting and licensing manual is a key part of the offshore renewable energy planning system, providing developers with guidance and advice for the whole of the consenting licensing process from initial pre-screening or pre-application to the issuing of permissions and post consent. The manual is a live document and progress will be closely monitored and regularly reviewed, with a view to updating the manual when required.



(ii) Error! Reference source not found.

Abbreviations AA Appropriate Assessment ABPmer ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd ASFB Association of Salmon Fishery Boards CAR Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 CEC Crown Estate Commissioners Cefas Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Ciria Construction Industry Research Information Association CPA Coastal Protection Act cSAC candidate Special Area of Conservation DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DETI Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment DP Decommissioning Programme EC European Commission EEC European Economic Community EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement EMF Electro Magnetic Fields ENVID Environmental Issues Identification EDPR EDP Renováveis EPS European Protected Species EQS Environmental Quality Standards ES Environmental Statement F&FAG Fish and Fisheries Advisory Group FCS Favourable Conservation Status FEPA Food and Environmental Protection Act GRT Gross Register Tonnage HR Habitat Regulations HRA Habitats Regulations Appraisal IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management) IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee LHA Local Harbour Authorities LLA Local Lighthouse Authority LPG Licensing Policy Guidance LSE Likely Significant Effect MaRS Marine Resource System MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency MCEU Marine Consents and Environment Unit MEMP Monitoring and Environmental Management Plan MGN Marine Guidance Note ML Marine Licence MMO Marine Management Organisation MOD Ministry of Defence MORL Moray Offshore Wind Limited’s project



(iii) Error! Reference source not found.

MPA Marine Protected Areas MRFG Marine Renewable Facilitators Group MS Marine Scotland MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MS-LOT Marine Scotland’s Licensing Operations Team MSPP Marine Scotland Planning and Policy MS-Science Marine Scotland's Science Team (also MSS) MW Megawatt(s) NATS Navigational Air Traffic Services NetRegs A free environmental guidance service to help companies comply with

environmental law NI Northern Ireland NLB Northern Lighthouse Board nm Nautical Mile(s) NRA Navigational Risk Assessment N-RIP National Renewables Infrastructure Plan NTS Non-Technical Summary O&M Operation and Maintenance OFTO Offshore Transmission Operator OMR Offshore Marine Regulations OREI Offshore Renewable Energy Installations ORELG Offshore Renewable Energy Licensing Group ORRSG Offshore Renewable Research Steering Group OW(E) Offshore Wind (Energy) OWF Offshore Windfarm PA Planning Authority PAN Planning Advice Note PFOW Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters PFSA Pentland Firth Strategic Area (also know as PFOW Pentland Firth and

Orkney Waters) PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis PLI Public Local Inquiry PMRA Protection of Military Remains Act pSPA proposed Special Protection Area PWA Protection of Wrecks Act Ramsar The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) REZ Renewable Energy Zone RLG Regional Locational Guidance SAC Special Area of Conservation SCI Sites of Community Importance SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency SG Scottish Government SHA Statutory Harbour Authority SLS Service Level Statement SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SMRU Sea Mammals Research Unit



(iv) Error! Reference source not found.

SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea SoS Secretary of State SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest S36 Section 36 TPV Third Party Verification UK United Kingdom UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea WANE Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act WFD Water Framework Directive WWF WWF UK Ltd W&TE Wave and Tidal Energy



(v) Error! Reference source not found.

Marine Scotland Licensing and Consents Manual, covering Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy Development Contents Page Foreward ............................................................................................................................................... i Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... ii

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................2 1.2 Marine Planning ....................................................................................................................5

1.2.1 Offshore Wind Energy Sectoral Plan............................................................................6 1.2.2 Marine Renewable Energy Sectoral Plan.....................................................................7 1.2.3 Pilot Marine Spatial Plan in Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters ...................................8

1.3 Strategic Research ..............................................................................................................9 1.3.1 Environmental Impact Research ................................................................................10

2. Marine Licences .........................................................................................................................1 2.1 Marine Licence (ML)...................................................................................................................1 2.2 Section 36 Consent (s36) ...........................................................................................................2 2.3 European Protected Species Licence (EPS) ..............................................................................4

3. Key Organisations: Roles and Functions ......................................................................8 3.1 Marine Scotland ....................................................................................................................8

3.1.1 Marine Scotland Licensing and Operations Team ......................................8 3.1.2 Marine Scotland Licensing and Policy Team ................................................9 3.1.3 Marine Scotland Marine/Offshore Renewable Energy Branch ................9 3.1.4 Marine Scotland Science.....................................................................................9

3.2 Statutory Consultees ................................................................................................................10 3.2.1 Scottish Natural Heritage...................................................................................10 3.2.2 JNCC .......................................................................................................................10 3.2.3 Planning Authorities ............................................................................................10 3.2.4 Maritime and Coastguard Agency ..................................................................11 3.2.5 Northern Lighthouse Board...............................................................................11 3.2.6 Scottish Environment Protection Agency .....................................................11

4. The Licensing Process .....................................................................................................13 4.1 Pre-screening Consultation.............................................................................................15

4.1.1 Marine Renewables Facilitators Group (MRFG) ........................................16 4.1.2 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees ......................................................16

4.2 Environmental Screening and Scoping .......................................................................18 4.2.1 Screening and scoping consultation ..............................................................18

4.3 Ongoing Preparation of Documentation......................................................................20 4.3.1 Pre-application Consultation ............................................................................20



(vi) Error! Reference source not found.

4.4 MS-LOT Gate-checking of Documentation ................................................................21 4.5 Submission of Application ...............................................................................................21

4.5.1 Fees .........................................................................................................................22 4.6 Consultation/Advertisement ............................................................................................22 4.7 Determination ......................................................................................................................23

4.7.1 Timescales .............................................................................................................23 4.7.2 Objections ..............................................................................................................24 4.7.3 Refusal ....................................................................................................................24

4.8 Post Approval ......................................................................................................................24 4.8.1 Conditions ..............................................................................................................24 4.8.2 Review, Reassessment and Remedial Measures .....................................26 4.8.3 Appeal .....................................................................................................................27 4.8.4 EPS licences .........................................................................................................27 4.8.5 WANE Licence........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. Legislative Context.............................................................................................................30 5.1 Supporting Environmental Information ........................................................................30

5.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................30 5.1.2 Habitat Regulations Appraisal..........................................................................31

5.2 Other Licences and Approvals .......................................................................................34 5.2.1 Seabed Lease .......................................................................................................34 5.2.2 Planning Permission ...........................................................................................34 5.2.3 Local Acts and Local Revision Orders ..........................................................35 5.2.4 Navigational Safety and Aids to Navigation.................................................35 5.2.5 Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR)...........................................................36 5.2.6 Statutory Decommissioning Scheme.............................................................37

5.3 Legislative and Policy Compliance ...............................................................................37

6. EIA and HRA........................................................................................................................40 6.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................40

6.1.1 Structure .................................................................................................................42 6.2 Screening..............................................................................................................................43

6.2.1 EIA Screening .......................................................................................................43 6.2.2 HRA Step 1 ............................................................................................................45

6.3 Scoping..................................................................................................................................45 6.3.1 EIA Scoping ...........................................................................................................45 6.3.2 HRA Step 2 ............................................................................................................48

6.4 Impact Assessment ...........................................................................................................50 6.4.1 Project Description ..............................................................................................51 6.4.2 Project Design Envelope ...................................................................................52 6.4.3 Baseline Characterisation .................................................................................56 6.4.4 Assessment of Alternatives ..............................................................................62 6.4.5 Specialist Studies.................................................................................................63 6.4.6 Impact Assessment .............................................................................................64 6.4.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................................71 6.4.8 Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................72 6.4.9 Transboundary Effects .......................................................................................73 6.4.10 Monitoring...............................................................................................................74

6.5 Appropriate Assessment..................................................................................................75

7. ES and Supporting Documentation ..............................................................................79



(vii) Error! Reference source not found.

7.1 Environmental Statement ................................................................................................79 7.1.1 ES Compliance .....................................................................................................81

7.2 Information for Appropriate Assessment ....................................................................82 7.3 Navigation Risk Assessment ..........................................................................................83 7.4 Third Party Verification (TPV) Report and Certificate .............................................84

8. References and Additional Reading .............................................................................86 8.1 References ...........................................................................................................................86 8.2 Further Reading ..................................................................................................................89



(viii) Error! Reference source not found.

Appendices A. Consultees B. Information Sources, Data Sources, and Further Reading Tables 1. Indicative information for design statement ...................................................53 2. Magnitude of impacts ....................................................................................69 3. Significance of Impact ...................................................................................69 Figures 1. Key Stages in the Marine Licence Application Process.................................14 2. EPS Licensing Process .................................................................................29 3. Overview of HRA Process .............................................................................33 4. EIA Assessment Process ..............................................................................67



1 Error! Reference source not found.

1. Introduction To help address the challenges of developing offshore renewables, Marine Scotland (MS) has taken steps towards delivering a simplified licensing system, which aims to be transparent, efficient and proportionate. In April 2011 Marine Scotland initiated a one-stop-shop for offshore wind, wave and tidal developers to obtain consents/licences for marine renewable developments in Scottish waters. This creates a simpler, more streamlined process to handle marine/offshore energy development applications and aims to reduce some of the burden for applicants and regulators alike. The implementation of the one-stop-shop is an opportunity to provide a holistic consenting regime and promotes a close working relationship with consulting bodies by running Section 36 (s36) and Marine Licence (ML) applications simultaneously. This document has been produced by MS as licensing policy guidance for developers, regulators, statutory advisors, interested parties and the public. It applies to projects within Scottish Territorial Waters (0-12nm) and the Scottish Renewable Energy Zone (12-200nm) and is intended to assist offshore renewable energy developers (wave, wind and tide developers) when applying for MS and s36 consent. The manual covers three key areas: The licensing process; The legislative context; and Supporting documentation, in particular Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) and Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). The activities which will require permissions from MS are: Coastal and marine developments; Offshore windfarms (OWF); Wave and tidal power; and Removal and disposal of marine dredged material at sea.

Marine licensing and consenting is led by Marine Scotland’s Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT). MS-LOT is the impartial single point of contact responsible for the assessment of applications, ensuring compliance with all relevant legislation and the issue of all related permissions. It is responsible for liaison with any relevant external parties in relation to project-specific requirements and ensures that appropriate consultation is enabled and encouraged at the appropriate time. MS Planning and Policy (MSPP) provide MS-LOT with independent policy advice on the application process with respect to the relevant Regulations covering development in Scottish Waters and the Scottish Government Legal Department (SGLD) provides MS-LOT and Scottish Ministers with impartial legal advice. MS-LOT also works closely




with its statutory and non-statutory advisors including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). More detail on MS, its departments relevant to marine licensing and other key organisations is provided in section 3.1 below. This Manual summarises the process to be followed by developers or other applicants and the roles and responsibilities of the teams and organisations involved with respect to ML and s36 applications. MS is also the licensing authority for European Protected Species (EPS) and guidance is provided on this consent. The term ‘licensing’ therefore refers to any permissions, consents and permits under marine development application process that MS-LOT is responsible for and this Manual covers. In the majority of cases EIA and/or HRA assessments will be required to comply with the legislation and are a pre-requisite for approval. Information and guidance on MS-LOT’s requirements for these assessments is detailed in Chapter Six of this manual. Other consents may be required from other regulatory bodies such as local planning authorities, harbour authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

1.1 Background The simplified licensing system is only one of a number of strategic initiatives that is being taken forward by MS to enable it to meet its target of 100% of Scottish demand for electricity from renewable sources by 2020. To develop best practice to help facilitate Marine Renewables development, MS established a partnership group, the Marine Energy Spatial Planning Group (MESPG), with SNH, the enterprise network, Scottish Renewables, the Crown Estate Commissioners and DG Energy in December 2008. The Group worked on a remit consisting of the following themes: Sectoral Marine Planning; Efficient Licensing; Addressing Environmental Impact Unknowns; and Regional Initiatives.

On Sectoral Marine Planning the Group established a project to produce an Offshore Wind Sectoral Marine Plan through the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Socio-economic Assessment, strategic Habitat Regulation Appraisal (HRA) and Statutory Consultation Analysis. Efficient Licensing is been delivered through 4 main initiatives:




The establishment of a one stop shop covering marine licensing: MS-LOT;

The production of a Licensing Manual: this document; Development of Licensing Policy Guidance: this initially covers Survey,

Deploy and Monitor but being expanded to cover other issues including the Rochdale Envelope etc.; and

SNH Monitoring Protocol: a draft document to advise developers on pre development survey and post development monitoring techniques has been posted on the SNH web site.

The Scottish Marine Renewables Research Group (SMRRG) was set up to examine issues related to marine renewables devices potential impacts on the marine ecosystem. This sub group continues to operate and manage a range of projects. Regional Initiatives include the development of a Regional Marine Plan Framework and Regional Locational Guidance for the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters. A three stage approach was developed and stage one reports produced. Stage two consists of collecting better regional data - studies to map and evaluate inshore fishing activity and shipping activity are ongoing. Regional Locational Guidance has been developed to encourage further marine renewable development around Scotland to facilitate competition for The Saltire Prize. Regional Locational Guidance has a role in Marine Licensing and is now used to identify Sectoral Marine Plan options. Although work on these themes continues and a number of outputs/models have been developed and continue to be refined, the MESPG was closed down after 12 months. The Short Life Energy Planning and Consenting Task Force reported on 9 February 2012 with a number of recommendations. The recommendations focus on further improving Scotland’s planning and consenting landscape by requiring wide ranging pre-application engagement, co-ordinating the collation of, and access to, relevant data as well as resourcing the regulators sufficiently to deal with the peak of project applications expected in the near future. The recommendations, which are currently being implemented by MS are:

1. Support of Marine Scotland’s 4 main workstreams to deliver licensing efficiencies.

2. Establish a national database of survey data. 3. To standardise approaches to data collection and assessment. 4. To encourage developers to follow advice set out in the Good Practice

Wind tool kit. 5. Developers and regulators to adopt a multi-sectoral pre-application

consultation process.




6. To engage with the European Commission (EC) to gain adoption of proportionate actions for planning and licensing.

7. To resource licensing application handling through additional staffing of MS-LOT, the creation of a MS Science specialist team and through the commissioning of environmental audit, and consultation analysis work to assist with applications and multi sectoral workshops.

8. To prioritise and accelerate work on the identification of potential sites for new test facilities.

This Manual has been produced to support MS’s four main workstreams (Recommendation 1). The Manual will be supported by Licensing Policy Guidance Papers (LPGs) a number of which are described briefly below. These papers will be produced over the coming months and be available on Scottish Government’s website. Further topic specific LPGs in support of the Manual will also be produced. The first LPG to be produced is the Survey, Deploy and Monitor Policy which aims to provide a risk-based approach to help address uncertainties in licensing for offshore renewables development, taking into consideration environmental sensitivity, device type and scale of development. A draft version of the policy is available on the Scottish Government website, this will be finalised after consultation over the summer. Work is being undertaken to look at amending primary legislation (the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) using Parliamentary Order Process to allow Scottish Ministers the authority to grant deemed planning permission for onshore ancillary works related to offshore/marine energy development. More information on this is provided in sections 2.2, 3.2.3 and 5.2.2. An LPG is also being produced for the application of the Rochdale Envelope or Project Design Envelope in consultation with the marine offshore renewables industry and other stakeholders. This is the approach which tries to address some of the issues associated with projects where there are uncertainties over the final details of a proposed development, while ensuring compliance with environmental legislation. These uncertainties could include scale, type of device, elements and dimensions of the device and/or other factors, if there remain limitations in the amount of detail that is available on the project at the time at which consent is being sought. More detail on this aspect is provided in section 6.4.2. The Renewables Demonstration Strategy is a component of the MS approach to reducing the environmental uncertainty currently inherent in the licensing of renewables developments in Scottish waters. Information, beyond the monitoring which would be required of the developer as consent conditions, will be obtained and used to inform the licensing/consenting of future developments. MS will, in agreement with developers taking forward




initial array developments, use consented projects to gather strategic information into how marine devices interact with the wider ecosystem. Priority for demonstration strategy investigations will be given to those interactions which are relevant to features of the environment that may be designated under EU (or national) legislation, i.e. seabed habitats, seabirds, marine mammals (seals and cetaceans), and migratory fish (primarily salmonids), but not confined to these features. The potential for the Sound of Islay and Kyle Rhea projects to be included within the Demonstration Strategy have already been discussed with the relevant developers and a feasibility study proposal has been prepared. MS has also provided a new resource for providing access to spatial data. The first phase of the MS Interactive project concentrates on themed marine environmental data covering renewable energy, monitoring, conservation and marine spatial planning. In time new themes will be added to the site. Marine Scotland Science has undertaken survey and monitoring work to provide expert scientific and technical advice to support Scottish Government policies and regulatory responsibilities. Marine Scotland Interactive now holds this information in the form of maps, video clips and photographs. Full accessibility of these data is enabled through the use of freely available software and social networking sites to assist in the release of large data sets in viewer-friendly formats.

1.2 Marine Planning The more MS deals with marine renewables development the more it understands the differences between wave and tidal energy development characteristics and hence the potential for resultant impacts. The different sectors actually have very little potential for overlap of resource areas. The best wave resources are off the west coasts of the Outer Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland Isles whereas tidal energy is funnelled through the Pentland Firth and between the Orkneys and down the southwest of Islay and the Mull of Kintyre. The devices to convert resource to energy are also very different with wave energy often requiring various forms of floating or surface devices and tidal requiring turbines below the surface. This knowledge and expertise will develop over time (as will the technologies used) and best practice will be fed back into the planning and licensing process. MS is using marine planning to ensure efficient, sustainable green energy generation. As Scottish Ministers plan to facilitate marine green energy development Environmental Regulations require Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal. MS has therefore taken or is taking forward Marine Sectoral Plans for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy development. It will also be producing a statutory National Marine Plan and statutory Regional Marine Plans.




As a specific commitment under the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) process, these sectoral plans will also be pursued according to mechanism of Iterative Plan Review (IPR). This process will ensure that the Plans are undertaken in a phased way, and are regularly reviewed, so that they will continue to be informed by the results of project-level assessments and monitoring review work as well as from the results of broader strategic monitoring. The Sectoral Marine Planning process consists of three stages. The first stage requires the production of plan options through a scoping exercise which examines a combination of resource, sensitivity and constraint mapping and then the application of additional information, views and policies to produce Regional Locational Guidance (RLG). The RLG documents are used to identify Plan options which can then be subject the second stage which consists of Sustainability Appraisal (SEA, sHRA and Socio-economic Assessment). Sustainability Appraisal findings are used to create a draft Plan. The third stage requires statutory consultation and the production of Consultation Analysis to fully inform Ministers on stakeholders views. Ministers decide upon the final form of the Plan and sanction its publication alongside a Post Adoption Statement. It is important that any offshore renewable project is developed within the context of these plans and more information on these plans is provided below.

1.2.1 Offshore Wind Energy Sectoral Plan A Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters was published along with its associated Post Adoption Statement on the Scottish Government website on 18 March 2011; titled ‘Blue Seas – Green Energy. The Plan sets out the Scottish Government’s policies for developing offshore wind energy up to and beyond 2020. It has been developed using Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), strategic Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) and consultation and informed by socio-economic impact at the strategic level using Scotland’s Marine Atlas as the main data source. The Plan identifies six areas for development in the short term (by 2020) and 25 medium term (beyond 2020) areas of search. The short term areas in total could deliver up to five Giga Watts of electricity, they are: Argyll Array (off Tiree); Islay; Inch Cape; Neart na Gaoithe;




Forth Array; and Beatrice (Moray Firth).

Marine Scotland will manage the review and implementation of the Plan with strategic guidance from the Marine Scotland Board. MS will also ask the Marine Strategy Forum (Marine Scotland’s main consultee forum consisting of statutory, sectoral and NGO bodies with an interest in Scottish marine waters) to provide a strategic overview on the way forward. Project specific work will be managed again by MS - the Marine Strategy Forum membership bodies will be asked to help steer the projects through involvement in advisory groups. Output and assessment reports will be subject to public consultation procedures which meet best practice standards. Consultation analysis will be undertaken and reports published to ensure that consultees can check their views and responses have been reported upon and taken into account. MS seeks to consider issues at the regional and national level, within sectoral marine plans, to help facilitate linkages to marine licensing and other marine planning processes such as the National and Regional Marine Plans. Implementation includes the establishment of a strategic monitoring network and will include the application of further marine planning techniques to develop Plan options. MS published the Scoping Study for Offshore Wind Farm Development in Scottish Waters on 29 November 2011. This was undertaken using the MaRS model and will be followed by Regional Locational Guidance. This work seeks to identify Plan options, facilitate future lease bidding and better inform the licence application process. The Plan will be reviewed over a two year period and the scope of the Plan expanded beyond Scottish Territorial Waters out to the 200 nautical mile Renewable Energy Zone limit. The outcomes of the Key Actions (Section A.12 of the current Sectoral Marine Plan) will feed into the review process. Any options or areas of search arising from the Scoping exercise, Regional Locational Guidance or any future leasing round which are contained in the review will be subject to sustainability appraisal including SEA, strategic HRA, socio-economic assessment and statutory consultation.

1.2.2 Marine Renewable Energy Sectoral Plan

In 2007, the Scottish Government published a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Marine Renewables covering Scottish Territorial Waters for our West and North Coasts. The report concluded that there is significant resource within Scottish territorial waters for wave and tidal energy development. Work is progressing on the Sectoral Plans for Wave and Tidal Energy which require Sustainability Appraisal in line with the requirements of the Marine legislation. This work will refresh the 2007 SEA and increase the




geographic scope to include Scotland's renewable energy zone (out to 200 nm). Sustainability Appraisal includes SEA, strategic HRA, Socio-economic Impact Assessment and consultation. Initial Plan Frameworks will be produced which will draw upon the original SEA, Scoping and Regional Locational Guidance for The Saltire Prize and Regional Locational Guidance for the Pentland Firth Strategic Area. Additional scoping work is being undertaken using the MaRS model to map resource and constraint areas covering the Scottish renewable energy zone to develop further Plan options. Regional Locational Guidance review and application will be applied to the areas identified to produce refined Plan options and these will be reported within Initial Plan Frameworks. Sustainability Appraisal will be applied to produce Draft Plans and will be subject to statutory public consultation. The Plans will provide clear guidance to Industry on where to focus investment and pursue development opportunities.

1.2.3 Pilot Marine Spatial Plan in Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters

An initial Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) Framework and draft Regional Locational Guidance have been published on the Scottish Government website which sets out the stage process for the development of regional marine plans and Regional Locational Guidance for wave and tidal development in the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters area. The purpose of the Plan is to inform use of the sea, in a manner which minimises conflict between marine users and allows for wider marine management, including protection of the marine environment. The Framework document contains a summary of existing information on different uses of the seas, shows how these different uses may impact on each other, makes recommendations for future research to ensure that the Plan is properly underpinned by relevant and good quality information, and sets out how the Plan will be developed. Stage two of this work, currently underway, consists of commissioning a set of studies to fill the identified gaps in knowledge, to determine the likely interaction between future renewables activities and other sectors, as well as the potential environmental effects of the new technologies proposed. In particular, an inshore fishing study pilot (Scotmap) is being undertaken to spatially analyse fishing activity in the PFOW area, targeted at smaller inshore vessels (under 15m in length). The draft report of this study is available on the Scottish Government website and the project is being extended to other parts of Scottish coastal waters.




1.3 Strategic Research MS has also developed a programme of strategic research and data provision in support of the development of offshore renewable energy in Scotland's seas which is linked to the recommendations of the Short-Life Task Force. A Research Implementation Strategy has been established to address the various gaps in current knowledge that have been identified through the ongoing programme of work that MS is commissioning. It continues to build this research strategy to cover issues and develop solutions when problems are identified which may inhibit development. The second recommendation of the Short Life Task Force is the establishment of a national database of survey data. This data will be provided through the interactive web portal ‘MS Interactive’. The database will include the following datasets: Sea Bed Mapping and Sediment Profiling. Aerial Bird Survey Data. Other Marine Species Data Strategic Environmental Assessments and Data Annexes. Socio-economic Assessments and Data Annexes. Scotmap and Fisheries Sensitivity Mapping Submitted Project EIA and HRA reports. Submitted Cumulative Impact Assessments. MSS Research Reports and Data covering marine mammals, sea birds

and migratory fish. Other key research areas and projects are described briefly below. For example, MS and the Enterprise Companies are developing an approach for engaging with developers and supply chain companies in order to maximise manufacturing and construction activity in Scotland. The approach will initially consist of a pilot partnership project with EDP Renováveis (EDPR) and Repsol Nuevas Energias (Repsol) for the Moray Offshore Wind Limited’s (MORL) project. The pilot will seek to use sectoral marine planning as a basis to examine how socio-economics and carbon emissions mitigation can be used to track improvements in ‘local’ supply chain content related to the manufacturing and construction of offshore wind and marine renewable energy projects. By involving the Enterprise Companies directly at the pre-qualification and bidding stages of project development, the pilot will also allow early intervention to enable domestic supply chain companies to compete in the emerging markets and to persuade international companies to invest and locate in Scotland. Another example of strategic research which MS is taking forward in support of the offshore renewable energy generation is the prioritisation of mapping and profiling in areas of proposed development, a requirement identified by




Scottish Renewables. The information will assist developers and regulators assess the characteristics and ecological value of the sea bed in relation to renewable energy development of wave and tidal resources. The mapping and profiling has been undertaken at the request of Scottish Renewables in the Pentland Firth, around Orkney, off Farr Point to the west of the Pentland Firth, to the west of Lewis and west of Shetland. MS will continue to work with the Scottish industry to prioritise this work within an overall programme to map all of the Scottish seabed. This is being taken forward through a signed Memorandum of Understanding and MS is working with the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) to collect the bathymetric data in collaboration with the Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA). MS is also working with Argyll and Bute Council to promote developer community engagement to examine and better understand any potential onshore implications associated with the proposed Argyll Array offshore wind farm (off Tiree). This approach involves the participation of key partner organisations - Argyll & Bute Council, Crown Estate Commissioners, Tiree Community Development Trust, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Power Renewables (the developer). The aim was to ‘map’ the onshore implications arising from the four scenarios identified by the developer relating to the associated construction, operational, and maintenance requirements of the wind farm. The study was also looking to optimise the socio economic benefit to the island and mitigate the negative consequences of each scenario. A draft report was produced for consultation and a final report will be published shortly.

1.3.1 Environmental Impact Research MS is also implementing strategic research to improve the understanding of offshore renewables on the natural environment. In particular, MS is undertaking various pieces of work to address potential issues with marine mammals, particularly focusing on noise related to construction/installation and operation of devices. The programme links with other work on monitoring methodologies and seeks to better understand what species will be affected by offshore renewables - looking at current noise levels, potential noise from construction and potential mitigation measures, including alternatives to piling. It will seek to determine risks and will provide knowledge to facilitate informed licensing. The work will utilise key stakeholders and expert opinion and will link with developers’ preliminary work on construction. It is looking to determine zones of influence through expert opinion and as part of the Population Consequences of Disturbance programme (PCoD) being promoted by Marine Scotland through Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) or another funding body.




MSS is working up a programme of work to address risks to migratory fish. The first project is investigating the potential effects of EMF on migratory fish. It has installed electrical coils in a large annular fish tank as an experimental system which is used to create EMF in the tank to test if salmon, sea trout or eels are likely to be affected by EMF from electrical generation devices or transmission cables used in offshore wind and marine renewables developments.

MSS has also developed a programme of work to address key species of sea birds, their flight characteristics and their habitats. This work has already paid dividends as it has persuaded the Strategic Ornithological Support Services (SOSS) Group to revisit the Band Model to assess potential impacts with turbines based on bird flight height characteristics. A potential mitigation coming from the combination of MSS and SOSS work suggests that if turbine height is increased by a few metres bird collision risks generally decrease, and wind resource increases. Other strategic projects include a pilot project on the consequences of displacement by wind farms for guillemot breeding populations. This will be extended to wider ranges of wind farms and seabird species. Another project is the development of indices of the sensitivity of Scottish seabird populations to the risks of collision and displacement by offshore wind farms. The outputs from this project will be used to inform planning for offshore wind farms.




2. Marine Licences This Manual deals with the consents, permits and licences for which the Scottish Government is the competent or regulatory authority; in particular ML and s36 consent, hereon termed ‘licences’. The following section details the different consents and approvals for which MS is responsible, namely: Marine Licence (Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and Marine and Coastal

Access Act 2009); Section 36 Consent (Electricity Act 1989); European Protected Species (EPS)1 (The Conservation (Natural

Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended); The Conservation and Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Offshore Marine Regulations 2007 (as amended)); transposed via the (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Wildlife and the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011); and

Basking Shark Licence (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011).

2.1 Marine Licence (ML)

The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 10 March 2010 and along with the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides a framework for marine management. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 legislates for marine planning and licensing and conservation activities in Scottish inshore waters (0-12nm). The UK Act provides executive devolution to Scottish Ministers for marine planning and licence and conservation powers in the offshore region (12-200nm). An agreement between UK and Scottish Ministers defining the responsibilities was established through a Joint Ministerial Committee. Through the agreement Scotland received executive responsibility for planning and nature conservation out to 200 nautical miles. In addition to the UK Act, international responsibilities for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in the Scottish inshore and offshore region will fall to Scottish Ministers who are the competent authority. The Acts meet demands from a wide diversity of marine users for better stewardship and management of Scotland's seas and introduce a framework for sustainable management. The framework includes: The introduction of a statutory marine planning system;

1 For EPS which are predominantly terrestrial e.g. Otter, SNH is the licensing authority for issuing EPS licences.




Improved marine nature conservation and conservation of the marine historic environment with new powers to protect and manage areas of importance for marine wildlife, habitats and historic monuments; and

Improved protection for seals. The Acts also introduce a streamlined marine licensing system with accompanying enforcement powers. The ML supersedes the former Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) licence and Coast Protection Act 1949 (CPA) consents and makes Scottish Ministers responsible for issuing new marine licences in the Scottish inshore and offshore waters. Under the Acts a marine licence from Scottish Ministers is required if any person intends to do any of the following from a vehicle, vessel and other structure in Scottish Waters (from Mean High Water Springs out to 12 nautical miles (nm) under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and 12-200nm through devolved powers from the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009): Deposit any substance or object in the sea or on or under the seabed; Construct, alter or improve works on or over the sea or on or under the

seabed; Remove substances or objects from the seabed; Dredging (including plough, agitation, side-casting and water injection

dredging); Deposit and/or use explosives; and Incinerate substances or objects.

This includes the removal of small quantities of sediment from the seabed over 1 m³ as part of scientific and/or investigative surveys (Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, Part 4 Marine Licensing General Guidance for Applicants). Liaison with MS-LOT is therefore recommended to determine the consenting requirements of any pre-development activities such as seabed surveys. Part 7 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 also makes specific provision for Marine Enforcement Officers. These officers have specific powers to enforce the marine licensing regime, and all issues relating to marine protection and nature conservation legislation. For the majority of offshore renewables developments an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required to support the application for a ML in line with the EIA Directive (85/337/EC as amended). MS-LOT makes sure applications meet the requirements of the EIA Directive prior to formally accepting the application.

2.2 Section 36 Consent (s36) Applicants are required to apply for and obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers (which like marine licences can be granted with conditions to ensure full compliance with all relevant legislation) under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 before an electricity generating station with the capacity of over 1




megawatt can be constructed or operated in the Scottish marine area. The Electricity Act 1989 (Requirement of Consent for Offshore Generating Stations) (Scotland) Order 2002 modifies Section 36(2) of the 1989 Act to specify that such generating stations with a permitted capacity of 1 mega watt require consent (for onshore generators the capacity is 50 mega watts). Offshore developments with a capacity of 1 mega watt or under are exempt from s36 requirements. Applications for s36 consent can be made at the same time as applications for marine licences. Section 35 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 Act allows for s36 electricity consents and ML to be considered together. Planning permission is not required to be obtained by applicants for offshore generators (the marine licensing scheme is the means by which authority is given for this activity). Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 is relevant in that it allows the Scottish Ministers to direct that planning permission be deemed to be granted for any development that is ancillary to onshore development covered by s36 consent under the 1989 Act. The legislation does not, however, extend to offshore developments. Until the legislation on deemed planning permission is amended, applicants are currently required to apply for, and obtain, planning permission from the relevant Planning Authority (PA) for any onshore ancillary development required which is not part of the offshore generating station. Under the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment)(Scotland) Regulations 2000, Scottish Ministers are required to consider whether any proposal for an offshore renewable energy device is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. These Regulations were amended in 2008 by the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008 to meet the requirements of the Public Participation Directive, 2003/35/EC. The amended Regulations recognise that additional information is generated in the application process (e.g. advice from statutory advisers) and now seeks to formally bring this into the public domain. Applicants must, when the first statutory consultee response is received by MS-LOT, publish a notice in the Edinburgh gazette and one or more local newspapers to say that additional information has been received by Scottish Ministers and has been placed on the Planning Register of the planning authority closest to the development. This allows the public and other stakeholders a further 28 days from the date of the second advert to make a representation in light of the additional information. Subsequent statutory consultee responses also go to the closest planning authority for the register, and to the applicant, but no further press notices are required. Applicants have a duty under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 to have regard to the preservation of amenity. This requires the applicant, when formulating proposals relating to the construction and operation of a generating station, to take account of the effects the proposal would have on




the natural beauty of the countryside, on any flora, fauna, and geological and physiological features of special interest, and sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest. It is also required that the applicant take reasonable actions to mitigate the effects of the proposal on amenity. Regarding s36 applications and the offshore transmission operator (OFTO) regime, MS-LOT advises applicants that the s36 application should cover the generating station (turbine, wave / tidal device etc.) and any inter array cabling whilst any offshore platform or cabling to the platform or to shore should be considered through an application for a ML. This will allow an easier transfer process of the transmission assets to the OFTO at the relevant time. The Energy Act 2004 introduced two new sections into s36 of the Electricity Act relating to navigation. Section 36a gives Scottish Ministers the power to make a declaration, on application by a developer, which extinguishes public rights of navigation which pass through the place where the generating station will be established; or suspending rights of navigation for a specified period of time. The declaration can only be made at the same time as the s36 consent being granted. The power to extinguish public rights of navigation extends only to generating stations in territorial waters. Section 36b places a duty on Scottish Ministers that they may not grant consent for a generating station where the generating station, whether in the territorial sea or Renewable Energy Zone (REZ), would interfere with recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation. The Scottish Ministers are also under a duty, in determining whether to grant consent to a particular application, to have regard to the extent and nature of any obstruction of or danger to navigation which is likely to be caused by or result from the generating station. In exercising their duties both in relation to interference with recognised sea lanes essential to navigation and obstruction of or danger to navigation, Scottish Ministers must take into account the cumulative impact of the generating station for which s36 is being sought, together with those for which consents have already been granted and those for which it appears likely that consents will be granted.

2.3 European Protected Species Licence (EPS) Certain species are listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive as species of European Community interest and in need of strict protection. The protective measures required are outlined in Articles 12 to 16 of the Directive and are transposed into Scottish law through the following:




Regulation 39 (1) and (2) and 43 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended): (Scottish inshore waters within 12nm);

Regulation 39 (1) and 43 of the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 applies (Offshore Marine Regulations); and

The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act (2011) (WANE). The species listed in Annex IV of the Directive whose natural range includes any area in the UK are called ‘European protected species’. Marine EPS whose natural range includes any area in Scottish waters (both inshore and offshore) include: all cetaceans, five species of turtle and the common sturgeon. Consideration of WANE/EPS should be included as part of the application process, not as an issue to be dealt with at a later stage. Any consent given without due consideration to these species is likely to breach the WANE Act and Habitats Directive with respect to EPS and the possibility of consequential delays or the project being halted by the EC. With respect to activities associate with offshore renewables, it is an offence to deliberately or recklessly: Capture, injure or kill any wild animal of a European protected species

(regulation 39(1)(a); Harass such an animal or group of animals; Disturb such an animal while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its

young; Obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place, or otherwise deny

the animal use of the breeding site or resting place; Disturb such an animal while it is occupying a structure or place used

for shelter or protection; Disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which

are, likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which it belongs; or

Disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young (regulation 39(1)(b); and

It is also an offence to deliberately or recklessly disturb any dolphin, porpoise or whale (regulation 39(2).

If there is a risk that a marine activity could potentially be unlawful then in some instances a licence may be granted to carry out the activity (EPS Licence). Licences are usually granted subject to conditions and licence holders are responsible for ensuring compliance with conditions. Failure to comply with conditions is an offence. The Scottish Government issues




licences under Regulation 44 of the Regulations (as amended) for specific purposes. These purposes include: 44(e) preserving public health or public safety or other imperative

reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;

44(f) preventing the spread of disease; and 44(g) preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock,

crops, fruit, growing timber, or any other form of property or to fisheries.

MS aims to process the applications within six to eight weeks of receipt of a completed application; however it has to obtain advice on applications from other parties to complete the work. SNH and JNCC will provide statutory nature conservation advice to MS (SNH within 12mn). The completion of a licence application does not guarantee that a licence will be granted. If an application is refused, the Scottish Government will inform the applicant in writing of the basis for the refusal. The application form requires the following information: Section 1: Applicant details i.e. the individual, company or

partnership to be named on the licence. The licensee is responsible for ensuring compliance with the licence and its conditions. Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 (as amended) it is an offence to fail to comply with the terms and conditions of a licence;

Section 2: details of previous relevant licences; Section 3: Species. This section details of the work to be undertaken

and the EPS that will be affected by the work. A summary of this information is to be provided in the application and Supporting Documents provided. The information should also detail the mitigation work being proposed to minimise adverse effects on EPS.

Section 4: Activities to be licensed; Section 5: Purpose of the licence application; Section 6: Justification for carrying out the work. This should be a

rational and reasoned justification as to why the proposed activity relates to the licensing purpose and an explanation of why the proposed work is necessary. This is the legal basis of the application;

Section 7: Satisfactory alternatives. This section must document the consideration of alternatives and the conclusion that there is no satisfactory alternative available. In relation to each alternative considered, an explanation of why it is considered it to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory must be provided This should include the other options that have been evaluated, the alternative sites and methodologies that were considered why they were rejected (if no others considered, you must document the reasons why);




Section 8: summary of planning and licensing position. A summary of the planning and licensing position should be provided;

Section 9: Consideration of designated sites. Details of any designated site that may be affected by the proposals must be submitted. An Appropriate Assessment of the proposals in a licence application may be required. European protected species likely to be affected by the proposals are also likely to be a qualifying interest of an SPA or SAC under the Birds and Habitats Directives. If this is the case if Scottish Ministers are the competent authority authorising the plan or project which has a significant effect on the site. The requirement for appropriate assessment extends to plans or projects outwith the boundary of the site should they have implications for the interest protected within the site. As such the applicant will need to provide all the necessary information through a HRA to allow Scottish Ministers to complete the assessment. Detail of how to undertake a HRA is provided in Chapter six of this Manual;

Section 10: Data sharing; and Section 11: Declaration and warning.

The SG, in partnership with SNH is producing draft guidance which provides advice for marine users who are planning to carry out activities in Scottish inshore waters which has the potential to deliberately or recklessly injure, kill or disturb a marine EPS. The guidance is intended to help assess a) the likelihood of an offence being committed, b) if this can be avoided or minimised; and c) where this cannot be avoided or minimised, whether the activity could go ahead under licence. In addition, the guidance provides advice and examples on the interpretation of disturbance, deliberate and reckless as cited in the Habitats Regulations. Once approved the guidance will be available on the SG website. For information on the protection of marine EPS in the UK offshore area, refer to the Defra guidelines on ‘The protection of marine European Protected Species from deliberate injury, killing and disturbance’ or contact JNCC.




3. Key Organisations: Roles and Functions 3.1 Marine Scotland

To fully understand the planning and licensing process in Scottish Territorial Waters with respect to offshore renewable energy it is important to understand the role of MS and its key departments and these are described briefly below. MS is the directorate of Scottish Government (SG) responsible for marine and fisheries issues in Scotland. Its key responsibilities are to: Work towards achieving good environmental status, through marine

planning, licensing and other functions, to help ensure a healthy and sustainable environment;

Promote sustainable economic growth from offshore renewables and other marine and maritime industries through integrated planning and, where appropriate, streamlined regulatory frameworks;

Promote sustainable, profitable and well managed fisheries and aquaculture industries in Scotland;

Ensure sustainably managed freshwater fish and fisheries resources; Ensure a sound evidence base to inform the development and delivery

of marine policy, planning and services; Ensure effective compliance and enforcement arrangements; and Continue to integrate functions and resources, and to develop

organisational skills, competencies and capacity to ensure effective and efficient marine management arrangements in Scotland.

The Scottish Government is responsible for the marine licensing system for activities carried out in the Scottish inshore region of UK waters from 0-12 nautical miles (nm). It is also the licensing and enforcement authority for the Scottish offshore region from 12-200nm (other than reserved matters). Hence this Manual relates to the legislation in respect of offshore renewable installations in the Scottish Territorial Sea (up to 12 nm offshore) and the Renewable Energy Zone (REZ), extending to 200 nm. This Manual describes the licensing and consenting process for offshore renewable energy developments in Scotland and provides information on the legislation and supporting environmental assessments required to support marine consents.

3.1.1 Marine Scotland Licensing and Operations Team MS-LOT is the Government department responsible for the impartial assessment of applications, ensuring compliance with all relevant legislation and the issue of all marine related permissions. It operates a ‘’one stop shop” to handle the whole consenting/licensing process, from initial (pre-screening or pre-application) queries to the issuing of permissions and post consenting negotiations. It is the first point of contact for all queries relating to the




deployment of offshore renewable energy devices in Scottish waters and can be contacted via one of the following: Website: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Marine/Licensing/marine; Email: [email protected]; Phone: +44 (0)1224 295579; and Address: Marine Scotland (Licensing Operations Team), Marine

Laboratory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB. MS-LOT takes the lead role in facilitating engagement with relevant external parties in relation to project-specific requirements and ensures that consultation proceeds in a timely and effective manner. Applications for marine consents will need to be supported by environmental information and, where appropriate, the production of EIA and HRA. There is a mandatory requirement for multi-lateral pre-development consultations where the scope and extent of environmental information should be discussed.

3.1.2 Marine Scotland Planning and Policy Team MS Planning and Policy (MSPP) will provide MS-LOT with independent policy advice on the application process with respect to relevant regulations covering development in Scottish Waters. It also produces the Licence and Policy Guidance such as the Survey Deploy Monitor Policy and others described above as well as being responsible for this Licensing and Consents Manual.

3.1.3 Marine Scotland Marine/Offshore Renewable Energy Branch MS Planning and Policy Marine/Offshore Renewable Energy branch (MS MORE) fulfils a sponsorship role to consider how to tackle problems, difficulties being faced by developers and facilitate other improvements through sectoral marine planning, policy guidance and co-ordinated research. MS MORE is responsible for strategic level outputs which guide renewable energy developments into areas of least constraint, principally the sectoral plans described in section 1.2 above.

3.1.4 Marine Scotland Science On technical aspects, MS-LOT is supported by Marine Scotland’s Science Team (MSS) which has expertise in a range of topics that are key to understanding the marine environment. MSS supports MS-LOT and MS MORE within a culture of ensuring that independent good science is applied to marine sectoral planning, research projects to tackle developer issues, establishment of strategic environmental survey programmes, audit of developer applications, and the production of Appropriate Assessments.




MSS therefore has an important advisory role to play in relation to MS-LOT, and will be called upon for scientific and technical advice. The advice provided by MSS will be complemented by that provided by the Marine Renewable Facilitators Group (including SNH and JNCC) and other statutory and non-statutory consultees. More information on the statutory and non-statutory consultees is provided below.

3.2 Statutory Consultees S36 and ML has four main consultees SNH, SEPA, Local Authorities and the Fisheries Committee. ML has Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency; and Scottish Natural Heritage. Below is a short synopsis of each organisation.

3.2.1 Scottish Natural Heritage SNH is Scottish Ministers independent statutory advisors on nature conservation out to the 12 nautical mile (nm) limit and will therefore advise MS on sectoral marine plans and development applications. It is a statutory consultee for both s36 and ML. SNH has produced a service level statement (SLS) for renewable energy consultation. This statement provides information regarding the level of input that can be expected from SNH at various stages of the EIA process. SNH is working closely with the offshore renewables industry and developing a range of guidance including landscape assessment and survey/monitoring guidelines.

3.2.2 JNCC JNCC is the public body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation. It has responsibility for the provision of nature conservation advice in the offshore area beyond 12 nm from the coastline to the extent of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS). It is a statutory consultee for s36 consent and MS is likely to consult JNCC for ML applications beyond 12nm. For offshore wind developments, a memorandum of agreement with the JNCC has been established and the JNCC and MS liaise closely in the provision of joint advice.

3.2.3 Planning Authorities Planning Authorities (PAs) are statutory consultees for s36 and have important responsibilities in respect of land-side components of offshore renewable energy development and MS-LOT will consult with the relevant PA in respect of those elements. In some cases, consultation with more than one




PA may be necessary. Consent for ancillary land-based developments will be required under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and therefore both marine and terrestrial consents may be required for a single offshore renewable development. External to the marine licence application process applicants should ensure there is close and detailed liaison with the PA from the early project-planning stage even if terrestrial consents are not required as PAs will also be interested in the landscape and visual impact arising from offshore developments and any socio-economic implications. MS-LOT will ensure that the relevant PA is included in the consultation process with respect to marine licences. Work is being undertaken to look at amending primary legislation (the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) using Parliamentary Order Process to allow Scottish Ministers the authority to grant deemed planning permission for onshore ancillary works related to offshore/marine energy development.

3.2.4 Maritime and Coastguard Agency The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is a statutory consultee for MLs and has responsibility for ensuring the navigational safety of the marine environment. Although the policy for offshore renewables industry is overseen by a specialist team at MCA headquarters in Southampton, the team will often consult with local MCA representatives. However, as Offshore Renewable Energy installations are considered “significant projects” within the MCA, the first point of contact should be the Navigation Safety Branch in Southampton. MS-LOT will liaise directly with this office in the first instance.

3.2.5 Northern Lighthouse Board The Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) is a statutory consultee for MLs and is responsible for advising on all buoys, lights, or other marking requirements and for issuing Statutory Sanction to deploy such markers.

3.2.6 Scottish Environment Protection Agency The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) is a statutory consultee for both s36 and ML and is Scotland’s environmental regulator whose main role is to protect the environment. The two primary regulatory mechanisms for SEPA, in relation to offshore energy, are: Water Environment and Water Services Act 2003; and Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011.

For the River Basin Management Planning process SEPA has established the Fish and Fisheries Advisory Group (F&FAG) which, together with SEPA’s fisheries science staff, advises SEPA on strategic issues relating to the




development of policy, guidance and research for the protection of fish and fisheries. SEPA will also advise and make recommendations during the appropriate licence application process or consultation, in relation to protecting the environment.




4. The Licensing Process The following section provides summary information on the consenting process as illustrated in Figure 1. This shows all the stages of the process and indicates the different areas of responsibility for the applicant and MS-LOT. The right hand side of the figure shows associated processes which the responsible party (as indicated by the colour-coding) needs to progress at the different stages. The stages involved in EIA and HRA are described in Chapter 4. MS-LOT staff must be the first point of contact for all queries relating to the consenting of offshore renewable energy projects in Scotland. The team is trained in the issuing of the relevant consents and licences and in undertaking the various assessments to underpin its decisions and advice. During consultation they are responsible for assessing all formal feedback from the expert stakeholder consultees and will ensure that this advice is reflected in permissions granted, in an appropriate and consistent manner. MS-LOT also has access to key information to support developers in preparation of applications. This includes support in the use of national datasets and detailed site specific information, including for example, baseline information on key environmental receptors such as fish and marine mammals. Ensuring adequate engagement at the pre-application stage and seeking guidance from MS-LOT will assist developers in determining the level of data collection needed to inform supporting impact assessment. In line with Task Force Recommendations (Scottish Government, 2012) and wider UK strategies, MS is developing strategic data management tools, including the national database for survey data, and engaging with developers on how to contribute to, and access, this information as discussed in section 1.3. It is also MS-LOT’s role to highlight problems within the licensing process and for MS MORE to consider research requirements coming from sectoral marine planning and in the case of licensing difficulties to evolve policy and/or research solutions. Where relevant MS MORE will work with MSS, SNH, JNCC, the CEC, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and other research centres and other UK Government Departments to identify and facilitate research programmes to deliver marine planning and licensing solutions. MSS and MS-LOT must be content that research reports and findings are sufficiently robust that findings can be included within planning assessment and licensing application documentation.




Figure 1. Key Stages in the Marine Licence Application Process

A more detailed Guide to Marine Licensing can be found on the Marine Scotland website http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/general. The licensing process (with supporting environmental assessments) can be summarised as follows: 1. Pre-screening consultation with MS-LOT; 2. Environmental screening and scoping; 3. Scoping consultation and feedback stages (ongoing); 4. Ongoing preparation of documentation; 5. MS-LOT gate-checking of documentation; 6. Submission of application; 7. Consultation stage; 8. Determination; and 9. Post approval actions.

Pre-application Discussion

EIA Screening

EIA Scoping*

HRA/AA Screening

HRA Scoping

Assessment (EIA and AA**)

Post Consent Actions

Determination

Submit ES

Public Consultation

Quality Check Submit Application***

Screening and Scoping Consultation and Advice With MS-LOT

Commence Consenting Process

Submit AA Evidence

Public Inquiry

Prepare EIA/ES

Prepare AA Evidence

* If an EIA necessary based on screening ** If assessment concludes likelihood for significant effects. *** Including Navigational Risk Assessment and Third Party

Distribution to consultees

All applications for consents/licences

under Marine Licence, s.36 and European Protected Species

(EPS)

Marine Scotland Front Door [email protected]

01224295579

Guidance from government and non-government

consultees

Flow diagram adapted from original by: DETI (2011). Regional Locational Guidance (RLG) for Offshore Renewable Energy Development in NI Waters. Published September 2011 by The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment: http://www.detini.gov.uk/rlg_final_version_sept_2011.pdf




4.1 Pre-screening Consultation Applicants should decide when to make their first approach to MS-LOT, in relation to other licence discussions (e.g. the CEC), but early contact is recommended enabling issues to be dealt with efficiently. MS-LOT as the one-stop-shop for MS licences will manage consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees at EIA screening and scoping stages as well as at the pre-application stage (see sections 4.1 and 4.3.1 below). In the majority of cases MS-LOT will liaise directly with consultees but will also direct applicants to specific organisations if appropriate. Under the EIA Regulations the Environmental Statement (ES) undergoes a formal public consultation process. However, in recognition of the potential issues arising, it is mandatory (and inherently valuable) that developers begin informal consultations at the pre-application stage and recognise the importance of continuing consultation between applicants, MS-LOT, its advisors and other stakeholders, including local interest groups and the public. This will ensure that appropriate consideration is given to all stakeholder concerns (including the public) and that opinions are integrated into the project decision making process. All commitments made by the applicant during the EIA should be open and transparent and documented in the ES or supporting application information. The production of a Consultation Strategy at scoping stage is considered good practice for consultation that is external to the licence application process. Consultation should take a variety of forms depending upon the nature of the information being requested or provided, the consultees/stakeholders being contacted, and the timeline in the consenting process. It is recommended that MS-LOT reviews and comments upon the Consultation Strategy at Screening Stage, it will then inform key stakeholders, allowing them to plan resources accordingly. Consultation can include all or any of the following forms: Telephone discussions; Meetings; Workshops; Public events; and Email updates; Web pages, leaflets etc.

When applicants are seeking to meet with MS-LOT and statutory consultees the request should be supported by a draft meeting agenda. Supporting documentation/reports should be supplied to MS-LOT 28 days before the meeting. The statutory and non-statutory consultees for ML and s36 applications are listed in Appendix A.




4.1.1 Marine Renewables Facilitators Group (MRFG) To assist in tackling complex issues and/or to resolve areas of dispute anytime in the application process prior to determination, MS-LOT may decide to bring together an advisory/decision making group. This group is formally known as the Marine Renewables Facilitators Group (MRFG). The group normally, but not always, comprises representatives of the key regulators and statutory consultees who are suitably experienced and empowered by their organisations to provide advice and guidance. The potential members of a MRFG are drawn from the following bodies: Ministry of Defence (MOD); National Air Traffic Services (NATS); Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH); Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC); Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA); Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB); Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA); Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC); Marine Scotland Science (MSS); Planning Authority (PA); and Marine Scotland Policy and Planning (MSPP)

The Chair is nominated by MS-LOT and may be selected from the bodies listed above or as specific circumstances dictate from a particular stakeholder or independent third party. The MRFG’s function is not to take part in the final determination of an application but it will be expected to, where appropriate, advise and give direction to MS-LOT on aspects of the application process before the final recommendation is made. The up to date Terms of Reference and membership can be obtained from MS-LOT.

4.1.2 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees During the course of performing regulatory duties, MS-LOT will seek expertise from a variety of sources both within MS and from expert external advisors, consultees, stakeholders and regulators as outlined above. The list of statutory and non-statutory consultees for s36 and ML is provided as Appendix A. Where appropriate, consultations will be coordinated to improve efficiency, with savings in cost and time. The coordinated consultation with statutory consultees ensures that: Each organisation manages all aspects of consultations in respect of a

particular proposal and that consultation within the stakeholder organisation is carried out in the most appropriate way, by targeting inquiries to specific expert members as most appropriate;




Close liaison means that MS-LOT and statutory consultees are equally aware of development proposals in Scottish waters and facilitates appraisal of proposals at the early stages; and

Consultation with statutory consultees is directed appropriately and ensures that statutory consultees are clear about the range of legislation to be considered. It is the responsibility of the statutory organisation to consult within its organisation as appropriate.

There is a wide range of potential stakeholders who may need to be consulted in depth during the course of the application process and MS-LOT will provide advice in respect of specific proposals. Initial contact should be via MS-LOT which will advise accordingly. It is also expected that applicants have had prior discussion with groups and organisations external to the application process. Examples include key local interested groups over the potential use of areas of sea (and land) sought for development, particularly where there is significant existing use of the area(s). Non-statutory consultees are likely to include Historic Scotland as well as fishery and conservation groups. The CEC has set up three developer groups for offshore wind covering the Moray Firth, the Firth of Forth and Tay and West coast areas, as well as a Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Developer Group for Round 1 wave and tidal projects. These developer groups have been formed to promote collaborative discussions regarding the deployment of offshore renewables in particular regions and to consider specific regional issues. When applicants are seeking to meet with MS-LOT and statutory consultees meeting requests must be supported by a draft agenda. Supporting documentation and reports must be supplied 28 days prior to the meeting. It is good practice to produce a Consultation Strategy at Scoping Stage. The consultation process and its outcomes must be documented in the Environmental Statement. Other licences are also likely to be required separate to those administered by MS such as seabed leases, planning permissions, harbour permissions etc. MS-LOT expects the applicants to have appropriate discussions with other regulators as necessary including CEC, Local Harbour Authorities (LHAs) and PAs within whose jurisdiction the proposed development lies as well as the Chamber of Shipping, Civil Aviation Authority and other navigation/aviation authorities as well as regulators such as SEPA.

Key Information




4.2 Environmental Screening and Scoping All licence applications will require supporting information on the potential environmental effects of the development. This is likely to be through the production of a statutory EIA if the development has the potential for a significant adverse effect on the environment. The term EIA describes a procedure that must be followed for certain types of project before they can be given development consent as outlined in the EIA Directive and associated regulations. An EIA is likely to be applicable to all offshore renewable energy developments as outlined through the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as amended) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (as amended). The procedure is a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project's significant environmental impacts. Screening for an EIA, simply defined, is the process by which a project is reviewed to determine if a statutory EIA is required for a specific project or development under the EIA Directive and associated Regulations. Scoping provides the first identification and likely significance of the environmental effects and the information needed to enable their assessment. In many cases an applicant will combine the screening and scoping elements together to produce a single screening and scoping document to be submitted to MS. The requirements for each stage of the EIA (and HRA) are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of this manual.

4.2.1 Screening and scoping consultation Consultation at screening and scoping stages is important and should be directed through MS-LOT. Applicants should consider both the sensitivities of the local environment and the potential issues and effects that may arise from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development. The locations should also have been identified to conform to national and regional marine plans as well as the relevant renewables strategies once produced. Supporting information should include but not be limited to: Description of the proposals:

o Device design and operation (e.g. mooring method or options, device type etc);

o Location and size of the intended project (footprint and capacity, including coordinates);

o Any relevant maps, charts or site drawings; o Proposed programme; construction and operation;




Progress in securing lease option from the landowner (usually CEC); and

Outcomes of other regulator/stakeholder discussions. The timescale for the screening opinion by Scottish Ministers is set out in paragraph (5) of The Electricity Works (EIA) (Scotland) Regulations 2000. Once it is considered that MS has sufficient information it will give a screening opinion within three weeks of the latest date of the following: The date of receipt of the request; The date by which it has received all the further information required by

it under paragraph (3) of the regulations; and The date by which the planning authority is required to give its views

under paragraph (5) of the regulations, (or earlier if received earlier); Or within such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the

person making the request. The ideal timescale for providing a scoping opinion is nine weeks assuming that MS-LOT receives the consultation responses within the expected timescales. Within three weeks of receipt of a scoping report, and letter requesting a formal scoping opinion, MS-LOT will issue a copy of the scoping report to each of its consultees together with a covering letter setting out a three week consultation period. Within three weeks following receipt of the consultation responses, MS-LOT will issue the collated formal Scoping Opinion to the developer. The scoping opinion will also be published on the MS website. MS-LOT will also: Issue a letter to all consultees on the applicant’s consultation list setting

out the consultation deadline; Issue an acknowledgement letter to the applicant; Issue reminder letters where appropriate; and Collate all consultation responses.

The usefulness of the consultation will depend on the amount of information provided by the applicant. The typical outputs that applicants may expect from the consultations include: Advice on whether or not EIA and/or AA (under the HRA process) are

likely to be required; Relevant data and information held by MS-LOT or other bodies: Information on any specific sensitivities at the planned sites; An indication of environmental data collection likely to be required; Information on relevant legislation and consents/licences required; Likely cost for consents/licences; and Recommendations for consultation.




At all stages in the licensing process MS-LOT will be the primary point of contact for new queries. Queries may be answered by MS-LOT or via onward consultation with the relevant body.

4.3 Ongoing Preparation of Documentation Applicants are responsible for producing all the necessary documentation to accompany the applications. Chapter 5 details the content and format of documents required in support of the applications. MS-LOT will advise on document preparation if required, but overall responsibility for including accurate and relevant information lies with the applicant.

4.3.1 Pre-application Consultation The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 sections 22 to 24 provide for certain classes of activity to be subject to pre-application consultation. It is expected that legislation implementing these sections will be laid in the summer/autumn of 2012. A transitional period of 6 months is proposed to allow developers to adapt to the new legislation. The requirement for pre-application consultation is intended to capture large-scale developments with the potential for significant impact on the environment and local communities. The process will allow feedback from the public and third sector organisations to inform the nature of an application. Various classes of activity are likely to be specified as subject to pre-application consultation by the legislation, including cables which cross an inter-tidal boundary, renewable energy projects over 30 MW and developments that increase the output of an existing project to over 30 MW. Applicants will be required to place a pre-application notice, hold a public consultation event and produce a pre-application report. Notices will be required to be published in a local paper and be available to view at an appropriate location (such as local authority offices or a public library) prior to an application being submitted to MS-LOT. The notice will include a description of the proposed activity, the timing of the activity, a plan or chart of the location and contact details for the applicant. It will also advertise the date of the public consultation event. The public consultation event will be held at a suitable venue, early in the consultation period. A Consultation Report should detail what has been done to satisfy the pre-application consultation requirements. MS-LOT will administer the application, consultation process and will collate and review feedback from consultees. MS-LOT will liaise as appropriate to resolve any conflicting recommendations and will discuss any additional information or clarification requested by consultees. Applicants should be




aware that the time taken to provide additional information will affect the time taken to determine the application. Although not required under the s36 process, MS-LOT will require applicants to have undertaken pre-application consultation with stakeholders, consultees and the public in accordance with good practice.

4.4 MS-LOT Gate-checking of Documentation S36 applications are required to go through a three week ‘gate-check’ process to ensure that they are satisfactory and meet the requirements of the legislation. This is also undertaken for ML applications. The Gate-checking process is a high level check of the applicant’s ES to compare it with the scoping opinion and to ensure that all relevant information requested by consultees is included. The documents submitted at this stage must be final versions. At this stage as well as the ES, the non-technical summary marine licence application forms, covering letter, draft adverts (a template will have been sent to applicant) should also be provided for checking. If satisfactory MS-LOT will formally accept the application in writing. At this stage the developer should pay the associated fees and agree the distribution arrangements and the date which is to appear on the adverts as to when representations can be made (Section 2.7). MS-LOT will expect an agreed consultee list from the applicant at the gate checking stage. MS-LOT will contact all consultees to see whether they require electronic or paper copies of the documentation, or MS-LOT may ask the developer to do this. MS-LOT will instruct the applicant to either send all copies of the ES to the licensing team for distribution or to distribute direct to agreed consultees. MS-LOT will send a letter requesting comments on the project to coincide with the delivery of the documentation from the developer. Applicants may wish consult with other organisations over and above those required by MS-LOT and these organisations may represent to MS-LOT through the specified mailbox. A list of organisations contacted directly by the developer should be provided to MS-LOT

4.5 Submission of Application Applications for consents/licences should be made to MS-LOT and applicants should ensure that they include: Covering Letter; All relevant completed application forms (as advised by MS-LOT) and

associated advertisements; All relevant documentation, ES (including non-technical summary) and

other supporting assessments (HRA, NRA etc.);




All appendices as appropriate (as advised by MS-LOT if necessary); Site drawings with a red line boundary; Any additional information that has been requested during the

consultation process; and Payment for the full cost of the consents and licensing process.

4.5.1 Fees

ML and s36 applications will be subject to fees (no fees required for EPS licences) which recover the costs incurred during the consenting and licensing process and also any post determination monitoring and enforcement activity. However, if it is necessary for MS to carry out any additional investigations, examinations or tests to enable determination of a ML application, the applicants may be required to pay an additional fee towards such costs. It should be noted that fees will be incurred for some early activities, under the ML, such as certain types of surveys and met mast construction. Both ML and s36 fees vary according to the type of licence and consent being applied for and the scale of the proposed works. For up to date information on fees contact MS-LOT.

4.6 Consultation/Advertisement The vast majority of licence applications will need to be advertised in at least a local paper. MS-LOT is able to provide applicants with advert templates for all required public notices. It is good practice to publish the advert in both English and Gaelic where Gaelic is spoken. Advertising will not be required if the proposal has already been advertised under another consenting regime (e.g. planning). For MLs, MS-LOT may direct the applicant to publish, for two successive weeks, a public notice in such newspapers or other publications as they see fit. Any persons wishing to make representations to the ML must do so within 42 days from the first advert (Marine Works (EIA) Regulations (2007). S36 applications must be published in one or more local papers (such newspapers as are likely to come to the attention of those likely to be affected by the proposed development) for two consecutive weeks, the Edinburgh Gazette for two consecutive weeks and one or more national newspapers (e.g. The Herald, Scotsman) once (The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2008). All consultees, and members of the public have 28 days from the date of the last advert to respond, except for the nearest PA which has four calendar months to respond from the date of the application. Once MS-LOT has received a response from one of the statutory consultees the developer is required to publish another advert under The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Amendment




Regulations 2008, advertising the fact that additional information has been received. This advert must be placed in one or more local newspapers and the Edinburgh Gazette for two consecutive weeks. MS-LOT can provide the applicant with a template. If any addendums are received they must be advertised for two successive weeks in the Edinburgh Gazette and one or more local newspapers. The applicant must provide MS-LOT with copies of all adverts published. These may be originals or scanned copies which must show the name and date of the publication. MS-LOT will forward all responses from the consultees to the applicant and inform the applicant of any agreed extensions. MS-LOT will send the statutory consultee responses to the relevant PA and any other responses requested. When applying for a ML only, the timeframe for public response to advertisements is 42 days with an ES and 28 days without. There are common errors made involving adverts which result in the publicity notice having to be re-advertised. Applicants can reduce the risk of such an occurrence by adhering to the following points: Draft advert to be submitted to MS-LOT two weeks prior to publication

date. Hard copies should also be submitted to MS-LOT once published.

Ensure correct dates on advert. Documents listed in the advert must be made available at the time

stated at the appropriate locations. The chosen locations must be as close as possible to communities

likely to be affected by the development. When calculating representation deadline factor in local or national

Public Holidays.

4.7 Determination For all devolved responsibilities such as Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 licences, Section 36 of The Electricity Act 1989 consents and Regulation 44(2)(e) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 European Protected Species (EPS) licences, MS-LOT will issue consents/licences on behalf of Scottish Ministers, with appropriate conditions, for successful applications. For non-devolved issues such as decommissioning and navigation risk assessment, MS-LOT will liaise, as appropriate, with appropriate regulatory bodies.

4.7.1 Timescales




MS is working closely with industry to improve the quality of applications which will reduce the risk of delays in the processing and determination of licences. If there are no objections or complex issues ML applications can be dealt with in between eight and 12 weeks following receipt of all information, payment and the relevant notices have been placed (see below) if there are no objections or complex issues. MS-LOT will ensure, where possible, that s36 applications are determined within nine months of receipt where there is no public inquiry.

4.7.2 Objections For onshore s36 applications, if the relevant PA objects to the application then Scottish Ministers must instigate a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) to be held as per paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989. However if a s36 application relates solely to the offshore element of a development, then a planning authority objection does not automatically trigger a PLI. Where a s36 application contains an onshore element of the generating station, then a planning authority objection will trigger a PLI which will be confined to the onshore element. However, paragraph 7A(7) of Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 gives the Scottish Ministers powers of direction in relation to the scope of any inquiry.

4.7.3 Refusal Should applications for consents/licences be refused MS-LOT will advise on the reasons, and on the best way forward should applicants wish to review and resubmit.

4.8 Post Approval

4.8.1 Conditions Following a positive determination, the applicant will be required to implement various measures depending on the consent/licence conditions set by MS-LOT and it should be expected that all licences and consents that are issued will be subject to conditions. Such conditions will be set out in the licence application. MS-LOT will give careful consideration before recommending the imposition of conditions to any consent. While the imposition of conditions can enable many development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse consent, they are not a panacea and would not be imposed lightly. In particular conditions will not be used as a means of




shortcutting the consent process or employed on a purely precautionary basis. MS-LOT will always have regard to the six criteria by which conditions should be judged. These are set out in the onshore Planning Circular 4/1998 i.e. conditions should be: Necessary; Relevant to Planning; Relevant to the development to be permitted; Enforceable; Precise; and Reasonable in all other respects.

The wording of condition should be clear, concise and unambiguous and should incorporate the purpose of the condition. The applicant has a statutory duty to comply with the terms of the consent issued and MS-LOT has statutory powers to enforce compliance. Such conditions could be for survey and monitoring, specific design or construction methodology or any other aspect of the project. It will fall to the Scottish Ministers to enforce any conditions applied and once the consent has been granted, s36 conditions cannot be modified or amended in any way. The need for conditions should be discussed with MS-LOT and key stakeholders from the pre-screening stage. This will ensure that the applicant is aware of the conditions that are likely to be added to the consents/licences and can manage them accordingly. In many cases they should be written into the Monitoring and Environmental Management Plan (MEMP) which MS-LOT will expect to be submitted as part of the ES. Most consents and licences will have two sets of conditions. Standard conditions which generally apply to all proposals (e.g.

navigational lighting). Specific conditions which relate to individual projects at its specified

location. There are two important conditions for every project: Production of Construction Statement. The Construction Statement

must be produced 3 months prior to construction commencing. It will include a full breakdown of construction methods and controls and must be agreed with the statutory consultees and with MS-LOT; and

Production of a MEMP. The objective of the MEMP is to ensure that the environmental impacts predicted within the ES are not exceeded and where possible to establish if the impacts are actually less in reality. The MEMP will include separate monitoring of baseline, construction and operation phases of the development. The MEMP




must be agreed with the developer, MS-LOT and the statutory consultees.

Both of these documents will evolve to meet changing requirements but only with the agreement of the regulator. The conditions within the Construction Statement and MEMP can be applicable prior and during construction as well as through operation or decommissioning. Applicants should ensure that all project managers (and, if necessary, relevant subcontractors) are fully aware of all conditions and understand the need for compliance. MS-LOT will provide clarification of any conditions if they are not clear. Some conditions may include timing constraints on all or some of the works, so an early and concentrated assessment of consent conditions should be provided for in the time schedule of the works. Should there be changes required to the project or design following the granting of consents/licences, the applicant should liaise with MS-LOT, which will advise on the acceptability of the proposed changes. However, applicants should be aware that it may not be possible to change the terms of a consent or licence. A s36 Consent cannot be varied after issue. Applicants should also be aware of the potential need to renew consents/licences and any lease agreements, and should keep independent checks on their status. Adequate finances should be made for instigating any necessary applications for renewal. The cost of such renewals will be advised by MS-LOT and must be met in full by applicants.

4.8.2 Review, Reassessment and Remedial Measures Review, reassessment and remedial measures may be required by condition on a project licence. Developers will be required to submit regular monitoring results in line with the MEMP and MS-LOT will monitor compliance with the licence conditions. Provision must be made at the decision-making stage to ensure that changes or corrective action can be implemented effectively and quickly if monitoring reveals problems. Procedures for the review of monitoring data and the review of mitigation measures after the project has commenced (and for as long as may be necessary) are therefore essential if monitoring is to have any real effect. Reviews may need to include consultation, which may be overseen by MS-LOT. Often this can be accommodated by an annual report (or similar) being submitted to MS-LOT and other relevant stakeholders. These reports should be considered at review meetings where relevant parties decide on the effectiveness of the mitigation and results of monitoring.




4.8.3 Appeal

There is no statutory appeals mechanism under the Electricity Act (1989) and the Scottish Ministers decision is final unless successfully challenged in the Court of Session in Scotland. Judicial Review is the mechanism by which the Court of Session supervises the proper exercise of administrative functions, including how the Scottish Government carries out its statutory function to grant or refuse consents. The procedure is concerned with the improper exercise of power and is not a process to re-evaluate the merits of the development. Thus the court will not impose its own view on the development but in a successful judicial review, the decision is likely to be quashed and the Scottish Ministers will be required to remedy, what in most cases will essentially be a 'procedural' deficiency found by the Court, and then retake the decision. As long as it is taken in a lawful way, that decision could, of course, be the same decision, for example to grant or to refuse consent. Guidance on the Judicial Review process can be found at the Scottish Courts website and the Review may: Grant or refuse any part of the petition, with or without conditions; Make such order in relation to the decision in question as it thinks fit,

whether or not such order was sought in the petition, including an order for reduction, declarator, suspension, interdict, implement, restitution, payment (whether of damages or otherwise) and any interim order; or

Make such order in relation to procedure as it thinks fit. The review shall be heard by a judge nominated by the Lord President, or, where such a judge is not available, any other judge of the court.

Regulations made under Section 38 of the Marine (Scotland) Act (2010) and Section 73 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) provide that appeals against marine licensing decisions for both the Scottish inshore and offshore regions will be heard by a Sheriff. The Sheriff Court provides an independent and impartial forum for these appeals. Any applicant for a Marine Licence will be able to appeal against a decision not to grant a licence or against any of the conditions attached to a licence. The deadline for lodging any appeal is 21 days after intimation of the decision in question and applicants will need to bear this in mind in deciding on the best way forward. Any formal appeal requires to be made in the Sheriff Court.

4.8.4 EPS licences The likelihood of an activity resulting in injury or disturbance offence to an EPS will depend on the characteristics of the activity, of the environment and the species concerned, hence the need for a case-by-case approach when assessing the risk of it occurring. Pursuing mitigation measures, alternative methods, locations and/or times for carrying out proposed activities might in




some cases be sufficient to reduce the risk of committing an offence to negligible levels. This would then negate the requirement for a licence. If there is a risk of injury or disturbance of EPS that cannot be removed or sufficiently reduced by using alternatives and/or mitigation measures, then the activity may still be able to go ahead under a licence, although this should be a last resort. A licence should only be granted if the activity fits certain purposes, if there is no satisfactory alternative and where the activity will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) in their natural range. Any licence application (under Regulation 44 (2) of the Habitats Regulations and 49(6) of the OMR) will necessitate a detailed assessment of whether the licence should be granted. The licence assessment will comprise of three tests to ascertain: Whether the activity fits one of the purposes specified in the

Regulations; Whether there are no satisfactory alternatives to the activity proposed

(that would not incur the risk of offence); and That the licensing of the activity will not be detrimental to the

maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a FCS in their natural range.

The licence assessment will be carried out by MS-LOT on behalf of Scottish Ministers, using the information provided by the developer and advice from nature conservation agencies (SNH or JNCC). Applicants should ensure that a Risk Assessment is included as part of their application. Marine EPS licences for marine renewable activities are issued by Scottish Ministers for both Scottish inshore and offshore waters under regulations 44(2) and 49(6) respectively. Figure 2 describes the EPS Licensing process which the licensing authority will undertake for areas both within and outside 12nm.




Figure 2. EPS Licensing Process

Licence tests Information provided by

operator

Advice from nature conservation agencies

Detrimental to population

Satisfactory alternative?

Is activity carried out for designated

“certain purposes”?

Not to go ahead as proposed

Limitation of intensity, extent and duration

to levels not detrimental to FCS?

Licence (with or without

conditions)

Yes No No

Yes YesNo

Not possible

Possible




5. Legislative Context

5.1 Supporting Environmental Information

5.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment The EIA Directive 1985 is likely to be applicable to the vast majority of offshore renewable energy developments and an EIA, written up in the form of an Environmental Statement (ES), will be required in support of the applications. The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC as amended 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC) requires an EIA to be completed in support of an application for development of certain types of project, as listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive. Wave, tidal and wind energy developments are listed in Annex II of the Directive as “Industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water (unless included in Annex I)”. The Directive has been transposed in part into Scottish legislation through the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as amended), the Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007, the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (as amended) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended). The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC as amended) requires Annex II developments such as offshore renewables to be screened to determine if an EIA is required and, if so, the formal EIA that is to be produced, reported through the production of an ES. The outputs of the pre-screening meeting will provide much of the information necessary to screen the project but further information gathering or consultation with key consultees such as SNH may be necessary. If the screening concludes that a formal EIA is not required it is general good practice to undertake a non-statutory EIA to ensure any environmental effects are understood and documented. If an EIA is required a scoping exercise must be undertaken to determine the issues and impacts to be assessed and documented in the ES as well as the data required, and the assessment methodologies to be used. A Scoping Report should be submitted to MS-LOT. MS-LOT will respond by producing a formal Scoping Opinion following consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees. The screening and scoping processes are described in detail in chapter Six. The applicant can proceed straight to the ES stage, but is advised against this because scoping is the key stage for focusing the assessment process and receiving regulator advice and support for the EIA approach. The screening and scoping exercises will also provide information on the other documents which may be required in support of the application, in addition to the ES. Depending upon the nature and location of the site, the applicant may also be required to submit further reports including an Information report on AA to




document the HRA process, Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA), Third Party Verifications (TPV) and others. Pre-application discussions with MS-LOT at the screening stage may indicate that a formal EIA is not required under the Directive2. In this case MS-LOT is still likely to require documentation of how the environment has been taken into account and potential effects managed, and will be in a position to advise on the scope of the supporting documentation. A flow diagram of the EIA process is provided as Figure 1 and more detail on the EIA requirements is provided in Chapter six.

5.1.2 Habitats Regulations Appraisal In order to tackle the continuing deterioration of natural habitats and the threats posed to the wellbeing of certain plant and animal species, the European Community adopted Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. This directive, known as the Habitats Directive, is implemented in Scottish inshore and offshore waters through the following legislation: The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994; The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland)

Regulations 2004; The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland)

Regulations 2007; The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2)

(Scotland) Regulations 2007; The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which

replace the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) in England and Wales (and to a limited degree in Scotland - as regards reserved matters) and

The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 and associated amendments.

The Regulations are collectively termed the Habitats Regulations for inshore waters and Offshore Marine Regulations (OMR) for offshore waters and give protection to designated species and habitats designated through implementation of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds).

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are sites designated under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are designated under the Birds Directive; together they are commonly referred to as Natura sites

2 For example if the proposal relates to a generation station of less than 1MW output




and they are internationally important for threatened habitats and species. Natura is a network of areas designated to conserve natural habitats that are in danger of disappearance in their natural range, have a small natural range, or present outstanding examples of typical characteristics of the biogeographic region and species that are rare, endangered, vulnerable or endemic within the European Community.

MS must satisfy itself that the requirements of the Birds and Habitat Directives have been met before issuing Marine Licence and s36 consent. Regulation 48 of the Habitat Regulations 1994 and 2007 and Regulation 21 of the OMR 2010 state that if a plan or project is in, or adjacent to, a Natura site, or, regardless of location, wherever the development has potential to affect the qualifying features of a Natura site, then the proposal must undergo a HRA. Where the possibility of a likely significant effect (LSE) on these sites cannot be excluded, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, an AA should be undertaken in view of the site’s conservation objectives by the competent authority in compliance with the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the EC Habitats Directive). In Scotland it is also a matter of policy as set out in the February 2010 Scottish Planning Policy document (SG 2010) that Ramsar sites (designated under the Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971)) are also Natura sites and protected under the same statutory regimes. Therefore, where the interests of Ramsar sites correspond with those of overlapping SACs and SPAs there is no need to consider them separately. SPAs and Ramsar sites generally have the same geographic boundaries but may have slightly different features of interest. In recognition of this, sites protected either by law under the Habitats Regulations/OMR, or by Government policy, are referred to throughout the HRA process as European sites. In addition, it is a matter of law that candidate SACs (cSACs), potential SPAs (pSPA) and Sites of Community Importance (SCI) are also considered in this process. HRA is considered a separate requirement from EIA, due to the specific assessment requirements for projects that may affect European sites although both often need to be informed by the same information. It is also necessary for projects which do not require EIA to undergo HRA if a risk of likely significant effect (LSE) is identified. In these cases full presentation of HRA assessment and evidence will be required outwith the EIA process. A flow diagram of the HRA process is provided within Figure 1 and the decision making process is illustrated in Figure 3 with more guidance on undertaking the HRA provided in chapter six.




Figure 3. Overview of HRA Process

Is the proposal directly connected with or necessary tosite management for nature conservation?

Is the proposal likely to have a significant effect on the internationally important interest features of the site, alone or

in combination with other plans and projects?

Assess the implications of the effects of the proposal for the site’s conservation objectives, consult MS-LOT and,

if appropriate, the public

Can it be ascertained that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?

Permission may be granted

Would compliance with conditions or other restrictions, such as planning obligations, enable it to be ascertained that the proposal

would not adversely affect the integrity of the site?

No

Yes

No, because there would be an adverse effect or it is uncertain

Permission may be granted subject to the conditionsor obligation

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Are there alternative solutions that would have a lesser effect,or avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the site?

No, because there would be an adverse effect or it is uncertain

Yes

Are there imperative reasons of overriding public interest,which could be of a social or economic nature,

sufficient to override the harm to the site?

If minded to grant permission or undertake the project, competent authority must notify the

Scottish Ministers and must wait 21 days

YesNo

Permission must not be granted Permission may be granted subject to

the Scottish Ministers securing that any necessary compensatory

measures are taken to ensure the overall coherence of the

Natura is protected

Consideration of Projects Affecting European Sites

No

Flow diagram adapted from original by: Tyldesley, D. 2011 Assessing projects under the Habitats Directive: Guidance for competent authorities. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.




5.2 Other Licences and Approvals

There are a number of other consents and approvals which may be required in support of an offshore renewable energy project where MS is not the competent authority or regulator. A brief summary of these are provided below but contact with the relevant authority will be necessary at the EIA scoping stage.

5.2.1 Seabed Lease In Scotland, the foreshore and seabed out to a distance of 12nm are presumed to belong to The Crown, with management of this resource being the responsibility of the Crown Estate Commissioners. As proprietor, The Crown may grant titles or leases of parts of the foreshore and seabed out to a distance of 12nm. In addition, the Energy Act (2004) includes provisions for the Crown to grant leases in the REZ on the UK’s continental shelf out to 200 nm. Applicants therefore need to obtain a lease from the Crown Estate Commissioners (or the holder of the rights) for the use of all sea areas in inshore waters (up to 12nm) or out to 200 nm in the REZ. Although The Crown Estate Commissioners own the vast majority of the seabed there may be other landowners from which permission will be required, most likely in inshore waters and estuaries. It is the sole responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all necessary leases are acquired, and any conditions satisfied, by the planned deployment date. MS-LOT is responsible for the administration and issuing of the necessary licences required for deployment, and does not enter into negotiations between applicants and CEC (or other lessor).

5.2.2 Planning Permission The current legislation requires consent from the PA under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006) for all associated land-based developments. The applicant should make early contact with the appropriate PA regarding the proposed development, any problems that may be associated with it and any environmental information they are likely to need to provide. Applicants should also be aware that under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, there are additional pre-application consultation requirements between the applicants and local communities for any development classified as “major”. “Major” development would include development where the area of the site is or exceeds 2ha, or a building where the gross floorspace exceeds 10,000m².




It is likely that future legislation will transfer powers to Scottish Ministers to grant deemed planning permission, via the s36 consent, for any terrestrial components of an offshore renewable electricity generating station.

5.2.3 Local Acts and Local Revision Orders Local Acts and Orders can apply if the proposed project is within a designated area, e.g., a Statutory Harbour Authority area. These areas are under the control of Local Planning Authorities or Harbour Authorities and require Local Development Consents or Work Orders to be granted. Where applications relate to such areas, applicants will be notified by MS-LOT at an early stage and these approvals will be required in addition to s36 consent and/or a ML. In such cases the power to permit the work rests with the relevant Local Authority or Harbour Authority. Hence, whilst MS-LOT can provide advice, it is the responsibility of the applicant to pursue the issuing of such permits or licences. Applicants should ensure that early consultation is undertaken with the relevant authorities and that the application is made in good time. Examples of such Acts and Orders in Scotland include: the Orkney County Council Act 1974 for harbour works and the Zetland County Council Act 1974 permitting the Harbour Authority to licence dredging, construction and marine works within their defined harbour authority area. MS-LOT will inform applicants of other relevant Acts as appropriate for the proposed area of development.

5.2.4 Navigational Safety and Aids to Navigation The UK Government has a responsibility to ensure navigational safety measures are implemented in order to honour its commitments under Article 60(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) relating to provisions for ‘Artificial islands, installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone’. This is addressed in a number of specific Acts. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is responsible under Section 95 of the Energy Act 2004 for considering applications for safety zones for offshore renewable energy projects in English, Welsh and Scottish waters and in the Renewable Energy Zone, except for those with a generating capacity of 100MW or less in English and Welsh waters which are dealt with by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). The Energy Act 2004 (and subsequent commencement orders, the latest issued in 2010) establishes a regulatory regime for UK waters, with extension to the UK’s REZ. Section 99 of the Act deals specifically with navigation and in combination with Section 36b ‘duties in relation to navigation’ of the Electricity Act (1989), stipulates that a consent cannot be granted for an offshore renewable energy installation (OREI) which is likely to interfere with the use of ‘recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation’. This




term is married at 36b (7) to Article 60(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 36b(2) of the Electricity Act consolidates the provisions of Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (now superseded by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009) (MCA, 2008). Within UK water, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is a statutory consultee on all developments. If marks or lights are required in respect of marine developments, a project-specific assessment must be made with Statutory Sanction applied for from the General Lighthouse Authority, which in Scottish Waters is the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB). This provides compliance with the Government’s commitment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974, and as directed by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. NLB are also responsible for the inspection and audit of all Aids to Navigation within their area of jurisdiction, including Local Lighthouse Authority (LLA), offshore installations and aquaculture aids. Once Aids to Navigation are established as part of the design and build of marine developments, any alteration or removal within Scottish Waters requires the prior Statutory Sanction of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses.

5.2.5 Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR) The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was transposed into Scottish law in 2003 by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. The Act sets out the role of Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in relation to achieving the overall aims of the WFD. In order to deliver its WFD obligations, the Scottish Government has introduced controls over activities likely to have an adverse impact on the water environment. This is embodied within the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, referred to as the Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR), which came fully into force on 01 April 2006. CAR enables SEPA to control activities which may have an impact on the water environment; and is one of the key tools enabling the Scottish Government to achieve objectives identified within the WFD. The key aspects of the WFD of relevance to offshore renewables (for engineering and dredging works) are water quality, ecology and morphology. SEPA is the regulatory authority but MS-LOT will provide initial guidance. Applicants are strongly advised to consult with SEPA to identify if a CAR licence is necessary, and to determine the extent of the information required by SEPA to fully assess any licence application. CAR legislation is intended to control impacts on the water environment, including mitigating the effects on other water users.




5.2.6 Statutory Decommissioning Scheme Sections 105 to 114 of the Energy Act 2004 introduced a statutory decommissioning scheme for offshore renewable energy installations in English, Welsh and Scottish territorial waters and in the REZ. Under the statutory scheme, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change may require those persons with an interest in such installations to produce a fully costed Decommissioning Programme (DP) detailing how they intend to remove the installation when it comes to the end of its useful life and how the costs of doing so will be funded. Unlike development consents/licences which have been devolved, responsibility for decommissioning remains with the UK Government and is administered by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and must be agreed by the Secretary of State (SoS). Liaison with DECC should be via MS-LOT in the first instance and guidance is available on the DECC website. Applicants should bear in mind that all information presented in the DP will be made publicly available. If applicants feel that the financial section of the programme is likely to be of high commercial sensitivity, they should discuss this issue directly with DECC. DECC is keen to assist developers and offer informal, as well as formal, feedback on the proposed decommissioning programmes. Developers should ensure that they have fully read and followed the DECC Guidelines (DECC, 2011) for decommissioning before approaching them to discuss their proposals in greater detail.

5.3 Legislative and Policy Compliance Applicants will need to show compliance with a wide variety of other plans, strategies and legislation, from international to local level as part of the application process which are too numerous to detail here. Examples of relevant legislation are discussed below. Through the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 the UK Government is committed to establishing a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The network will contribute to the creation of an ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs in the North East Atlantic. The network of MPAs is currently being developed and Scottish Ministers will be required to report to Parliament on MPAs and their contribution to the MPA network on a six yearly basis beginning in 2012. MS-LOT will advise on how MPAs should be included in the assessments as the process proceeds. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/EC) was transposed into Scottish law in 2010 through the Marine (Scotland) Act. The objective of the MSFD is to “promote the integration of environmental considerations into all relevant policy areas and deliver the environmental pillar of the future maritime policy for the European Union”. The Directive




follows a similar approach to the WFD establishing a framework within which Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by 2020”. To do this Member States have to make an initial assessment of their marine waters, establish environmental targets and associated indicators to guide progress to good environmental status along with a co-ordinated monitoring programme and identify and deliver a programme of measures. The National Marine Policy Statement and Marine Plans will be the delivery mechanism for the MSFD in Scotland and MS-LOT is responsible for ensuring that applications allow for compliance with the Directive. Other relevant legislation includes: The Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the

North-East Atlantic (OSPAR); Rio Convention on Biological Diversity 1992; Bonn Convention on migratory species (implemented through the Bern

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 1979)

Priority Substances Directive (2008/105/EC); Revised Shellfish Waters Directive (2006/113/EC) (to be repealed); Revised Bathing Waters Directive (2006/7/EC); Dangerous Substances Directive 1976 (76/464/EEC) (to be repealed); Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003; Environment Act 1995; Control of Pollution Act 1974; Water Environment (Register of Protected Areas) (Scotland)

Regulations 2004; Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006. The Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 and its enabling legislation the

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act; The Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 outlining statutory rights to most

land and inland waters; Energy Act 2004 and subsequent commencement orders, the latest

issued in 2010; Merchant Shipping Act 1995; The Protection of Wrecks Act (PWA) 1973; Protection of Military Remains Act (PMRA) 1986; CAP 670 Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements, CAA Regulation

Group June 2003; CAP 168 Licensing of Aerodrome, CAA Safety Regulations Groups

May 2006; and CAA 738 Safeguarding of Aerodromes 2006.




Applicants also need to develop their schemes within the national and regional planning context including: The relevant offshore renewable strategies and associated Strategic

Environmental Assessments (SEA) and plan level HRA (Marine Scotland);

Regional Locational Guidance (Marine Scotland); Marine Spatial Plans (being developed by Marine Scotland); the Scottish Government’s National Planning Framework and

associated Scottish Planning Policy; and Structure and local Development Plans (local planning authorities).

The strategic plans and strategies will all have supporting Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and HRA, the outcomes of which will form an important consideration in project specific applications. The following strategic guidance is also important: PAN 3 Community Engagement; PAN 42: Archaeology–Planning Process and Scheduled Monument

Procedures; PAN 45: 2002 Renewable Energy Technologies; PAN 50: Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral

Workings; PAN 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation; PAN 56: Planning and Noise; PAN 58: Environmental Impact Assessment; PAN 60: Planning for Natural Heritage; PAN 62: Radio Telecommunications; PAN 68: Design Statements PAN 69: Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding; PAN 75: Planning for Transport; PAN 79: Water and Drainage; and Marine Guidance Note 371 (M).

Applicants should bear in mind that there may be requests made to regulatory bodies, from members of the public, for access to information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 or Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is the applicant’s responsibility to clearly mark all commercially confidential documentation as such, and to seek advice from MS-LOT on any information they feel should be excluded from public scrutiny on the grounds of risk to Intellectual Property. However, applicants should be aware that regulators are unlikely to be in a position to withhold documentation from public scrutiny, particularly if the proposal is subject to formal EIA.




6. EIA and HRA

6.1 Introduction An EIA is likely to be applicable to all offshore renewable energy developments as outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC. Annex II of the Directive includes offshore renewables within “industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water (unless included in Annex I)”. The Directive has been transposed in part into Scottish legislation through the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as amended) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (as amended). Offshore renewable energy projects are likely to fall within Annex II. Annex II projects will require EIA where any part of the development is likely to be carried out in a sensitive area. The term EIA describes a procedure that must be followed for certain types of project before they can be given development consent as outlined in the EIA Directive and associated regulations. The procedure is a means of drawing together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project's significant environmental impacts. The assessment includes consideration of direct and indirect effects during construction, operation (and maintenance) and decommissioning and must also consider cumulative effects from other proposed developments. This helps ensure that the likely significant environmental effects are clearly documented, the scope for reducing negative effects are properly understood by the public and regulatory bodies (in this case, MS-LOT) and environmental and other benefits are documented before a decision on the outcome of the application is made. The HRA process relates specifically to the consideration of features protected for their importance as European protected habitats or species under the Habitats and Birds Directives and associated Regulations. The process considers the potential effects of the development on internationally important habitats and/or species for which the sites are designated. The assessment includes consideration of direct and indirect effects on these interests and must also consider cumulative and in-combination effects3 from other proposed plans or projects. A summary of the EIA process is illustrated in Figure 1.

3 Cumulative effects can be defined as pressures of the same type acting on the same

receptors. In-combination effects can be defined as pressures of a different type but acting on the same receptors.




HRA is considered a separate consenting requirement from EIA, due to the specific consenting requirements for projects that may affect European sites. It is also necessary for projects which do not require EIA, to undergo HRA, if a risk is identified and in these cases full presentation of assessment and evidence will be required outside of a formal EIA process. If the HRA screening process concludes that the potential for likely significant effect cannot be excluded then an AA must be undertaken. The AA must ascertain whether the proposed project will or will not adversely affect the integrity of the site(s). In cases where there is doubt about the presence or absence of adverse effects, the proposal may not proceed unless there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest (IROPI). The HRA process can be summarised as three steps as illustrated in Figure 1 with the decision-making process illustrated in Figure 3, these are: Step 1: Is the proposal directly connected with or necessary for site

management for nature conservation? Step 2: Is the proposal likely to have a significant effect on the site? Step 3: Can it be ascertained that the proposal will not adversely affect

the integrity of the site (AA)? This Chapter provides guidance on the key steps for undertaking EIA and HRA which are likely to be required in support of marine applications for offshore renewables in Scottish inshore and offshore waters. Although the stages of EIA and HRA are complementary and can be shared, they are two separate processes with different legislative requirements as outlined in Chapter five. For example, it is possible (but unlikely) that HRA may be required for some projects that do not require EIA, and vice versa. The terms ‘significant’, ‘compensation’ and ‘mitigation’ have different definitions/implications under the EIA and HRA legislation and these need to be clearly understood at the outset. Many offshore renewable energy projects will have both marine and land-based effects and be subject to marine and terrestrial consenting requirements. In these cases it is important that the impacts of the project as a whole are understood and it is advised that a single EIA covering the terrestrial and marine based effects is produced. This will also aid consultation and ensure that effects at the land/sea interface are effectively documented. The objective of the Manual is to provide an initial reference point to support the consenting process for offshore renewable energy projects. There is an abundance of guidance on the legislative background to EIA and details on specific topic methodologies which this Manual does not seek to reproduce.




For example, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has issued comprehensive guidance on EIA (SNH, 2009, (3rd Edition)) which has been taken into account in this Manual. The Countryside Council for Wales has also recently published detailed guidance for competent authorities for assessing projects under the Habitats Directive which includes the latest European Marine Sites and associated revisions to the relevant Habitats Regulations (authored by D Tyldesley and Associates 2011). The Scottish Government has also produced specific guidance in support of s36 and s37 consents (Guidance on the Electricity (EIA) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008). The Manual provides a reference point for applicants and regulators alike to understand what is required to achieve a thorough and robust approach to EIA and HRA. In particular it is hoped that this will ensure consistent and high quality documents are produced in support of the applications for marine consents. Important information sources and references for further reading are provided in Appendix B.

6.1.1 Structure The structure of this Chapter reflects the key stages of the EIA and HRA processes, namely: 1. EIA Screening and HRA Step 1; 2. EIA Scoping and HRA Step 2; 3. EIA Impact Assessment and HRA Step 3; and 4. Documentation The environmental assessment section has been divided to provide information on the key aspects of the EIA process, namely: Project description Baseline characterisation; Assessment of alternatives; Specialist studies; Impact assessment; Identification and assessment of mitigation measures; Cumulative effects; and Monitoring and environmental management.

Whilst the four stages will follow consecutively in the main, in practice the process rarely proceeds in a simple linear fashion and should follow an iterative approach. For example, gathering baseline data should begin at the screening and scoping stages in order to identify potential data gaps and




design any necessary surveys which will need to be completed prior to the impact assessment stage. Design of mitigation and monitoring requirements should also be iterative through the assessment process. This part of the Manual is structured to follow the chronological progression of the EIA process from pre-application consultation and screening to the final decision by MS-LOT and the actions thereafter. The roles of both applicants and MS-LOT are explained as necessary within these sections drawing attention to statutory requirements and elements of good EIA and HRA practice. For the majority of projects which require EIA, there is clear overlap between the EIA and HRA. For example, baseline data gathered for specific receptors, and the application of subsequent impact assessment tools (e.g. collision risk modelling) will be used to support conclusions on HRA and EIA. It is therefore appropriate for the developer to use, incorporate and present the information within the EIA’s Environmental Statement (ES) as well as HRA reporting. Step 3 of the HRA should be reported as ‘Information for Appropriate Assessment (AA)’ where the analysis, results and evidence-based justification is summarised and presented strictly in regard to the predicted impacts of the project and how they relate to the Conservation Objectives of the relevant designated site(s). More details on reporting the HRA is provided in section 6.5 and 7.2. The ES and Information for AA are integral documents to the licence applications and should be submitted as part of the application package of documents.

6.2 Screening

6.2.1 EIA Screening Screening, simply defined, is the process by which a project is reviewed to determine if a statutory EIA is required for a specific project or development under the EIA Directive and associated Regulations. It will determine if the project features within Annex I or Annex II of the European Council (EC) Directive on EIA (85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC). Annex I of this Directive provides a list of projects for which an EIA is mandatory and a statutory ES is required. Projects listed under Annex II of the EC Directive 97/11/EC may require an EIA if it is concluded that the project will exceed certain limits or thresholds. Offshore renewable energy projects are likely to fall within Annex II. Annex (or Schedule) II4 projects will require EIA where any part of the development is likely to be carried out in a sensitive area.

4 The EC Directive on EIA is transposed into national legislation in the form of the EIA

Regulations. Annex II projects as defined under the EC Directive are referred to as Schedule II developments under the EIA Regulations.




In considering a new project, prospective applicants must participate in pre-screening consultation, discussing their proposals with MS-LOT as soon as possible. Screening requires the applicant to present a document to MS-LOT for comment. It is a statutory requirement that the regulator provides a screening response in a time that is reasonably practicable. In requesting a screening opinion the applicant should provide MS-LOT with key information on the proposed project within a screening document. The screening document should include: Project background/context (including alternatives); Details of device design and operation; Mooring/foundation method or options; Size of the intended project; Area or areas under consideration for development and the wider

development (offshore and onshore requirements); Any relevant maps, charts or site drawings; and An idea of timescale and duration of the development. A summary of all discussions already held with local stakeholders

and/or CEC; Any specific queries; Early identification of significant constraints that may potentially prevent

developments; and A statement of any navigational issues envisaged.

Following a decision, MS-LOT will provide the applicant with a Screening Opinion in writing. This will include: Whether or not a statutory EIA is required and guidance on HRA

requirements (see below); Information on specific sensitivities at the planned site/s; Details of available datasets and relevant research/information; and An indication of the type and possibly the extent of environmental data

collation/collection likely to be required. In the vast majority of cases a statutory EIA is required and the applicant progresses to EIA scoping. If a statutory EIA is not required, the applicant will be advised if or what information/studies will be required to support consent applications. If the applicant does not agree with the screening opinion provided, i.e., the requirement for a statutory EIA, the matter would generally be referred back to MS with arbitration through the Scottish Government if necessary.




The benefits of pre-screening consultation to the applicant: Early access to environmental data, e.g., seabed data held by Marine

Scotland; Consideration of the compatibility of the proposal with the existing

environment; Identification of significant environmental issues where known; Encouraging applicants to establish a network of contacts and develop

relationships with key organisations; and Applicants will be given an indication of acceptable methodologies and

data presentation.

6.2.2 HRA Step 1 The first step of the HRA process is undertaken by MS-LOT using information supplied by the applicant. It is highly unlikely that offshore renewable energy developments would be ‘directly connected or necessary for site management for nature conservation’ and MS-LOT will confirm that the project should be taken through to Step Two. This second step determines if a proposal is capable of affecting a European site and therefore if an AA is required (Step Three). Step two is discussed in detail below as it is a fundamental component of environmental scoping. However, MS-LOT will undertake a preliminary assessment of LSE and advise on the nature and scope of step two in consultation with SNH and/or JNCC at this screening stage. The applicant should therefore provide details of the proposed site in relation to European sites within the screening information.

6.3 Scoping

6.3.1 EIA Scoping Scoping is an important stage within the EIA process as it provides the first identification and likely significance of the environmental effects and the information needed to enable their assessment. It should also outline the data collection and assessment methodologies to be used in the EIA. It identifies what actions need to be taken to compile the required information and the level of detail that is likely to be needed. In many cases an applicant will combine the screening and scoping elements together to produce a single screening and scoping document.

Key Information




In conducting scoping there are four basic questions to be covered: What potential effects might the project have on the environment? Which of these potential effects are likely to be significant and therefore

need particular attention during the EIA? What level of data/evidence is needed to answer the consenting questions

with confidence? and What alternatives and mitigating strategies ought to be considered when

outlining proposals for the project? In order to conduct a scoping exercise the applicant is strongly advised to write to MS-LOT requesting a Scoping Opinion to determine the scope and content of the EIA. This is defined as a ‘formal scoping opinion’. However, in order to request this, applicants must provide information on the proposed project to MS-LOT. The scoping report should provide an initial assessment of potential impacts and, equally importantly, identify any receptors or issues which are not likely to result in a significant environmental effect and therefore should be scoped out of the EIA. There are many approaches to scoping (and subsequent assessment of impacts) and these include Environmental Issues Identification (ENVID) or qualitative judgements using source-pathway-receptor analysis. These approaches identify potential issues, the risk and the likely impact on the receptors (e.g. wildlife, recreation, landscape, navigation etc). The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) in its Coastal Guidelines provides useful advice on scoping marine issues (IEEM, 2010). Socio-economic issues are becoming more important and subject to greater attention by MS-LOT and other regulators such as local planning authorities. Potential socio-economic aspects should therefore be addressed in the EIA Scoping Report and subsequent ES. MS-LOT will advise on the detail of the socio-economic assessment it will expect to see in the ES as part of the Scoping Opinion. A plan must then be devised for the EIA studies, which will include details of the methods to be used and the resources required. Depending upon the size, location and type of offshore renewable development there are likely to be environmental issues which require specific investigations. These could include the detailed assessment of marine hydrodynamics and sediments around windfarm piles (potentially including numerical modelling), specific landscape and seascape assessments for windfarm turbines, underwater noise and vibration assessments for construction and operation, and Navigation Risk Assessments (NRA) for the construction and operation of offshore renewable developments.

Key Information




The Scoping Report is expected to include: Details of the proposed development; Suggested alternatives to the development; Identification of potentially significant environmental impacts; Identification of issues which should be scoped out of the assessment; Known data gaps; Details of the baseline surveys and monitoring being proposed

(including survey methodologies); Description of the EIA methodology including approaches and specific

studies to the assessment of specific effects; Suggested structure, content and length of the ES; and Proposed Consultation Strategy, including a proposed list of

consultees. MS-LOT has a statutory duty on the behalf of Scottish Ministers to provide a scoping opinion three weeks after the last consultee response, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the applicant. Member States also have an obligation under the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991) (which came into effect in 1997) to consult each other should a major project have a likely significant adverse environmental impact across borders. The opinion provided will draw upon responses from statutory and non-statutory consultees and MS-LOT will consult with relevant transboundary authorities if necessary. MS-LOT will collate responses on the scoping report and return this to the applicant in the form of a Scoping Opinion. Applicants may wish to undertake a wider informal scoping exercise to establish good communication channels with non statutory consultees at an early stage in the project. This will help identify potential impacts of the project and potential objections which if dealt with could reduce the potential for project delays. Opening such communication channels will also help the applicant to draw upon specialised and local knowledge relevant to issues identified with the proposed project. During the development of the stakeholder consultation strategy applicants should liaise with MS-LOT which will advise on the list of consultees appropriate for a specific project and location. The activity of scoping should not end with the delivery of a scoping report and subsequent opinion. New issues will emerge during the course of the EIA and it is necessary to keep the EIA scope under review as studies progress. Addressing such issues before application submission will reduce delays following submission of the ES.

Key Information




The process is iterative and following the Scoping Opinion it is likely that there will be at least one round of consultation to agree the baseline survey requirements and methodologies for those potential impacts identified.

6.3.2 HRA Step 2 The second step of the HRA process should be undertaken and documented within the Scoping Report. SNH provide useful guidance on ‘how to consider proposals affecting SACs and SPAs in Scotland (SNH, 2010) which is the basis for the following guidance. The objective of Step Two is to determine whether LSE can be ruled out. The applicant should consider whether there are connections between the project/proposal and any of the qualifying interests (source - pathway - receptor) for which the sites are designated (including indirect effects). If there are none, or it is obvious that there are no effects on the qualifying interests despite a connection, then no likely significant effect can be concluded. The applicant should consider all possible linkages. For example, is the proposed site on a pathway to an estuarine/freshwater SAC for migratory fish? Is the site within foraging ranges of protected species or, on a flightline associated with an SPA? This assessment is quite straight forward but is an important step and must be fully justified, even if the conclusion is one of no likely significant effect. If there is a risk of LSE then an AA is required, alone and in-combination with other plans and projects. If there is any uncertainty associated with this step, the project should be subject to AA (Step Three). It should be noted that a ‘significant impact’ under the EIA Regulations implies an impact of a certain magnitude and/or one that exceeds a certain threshold or meets certain criteria. However, when associated with the HRA process, LSE refers to any potential connectivity or interaction with a European site(s) with the potential to affect the qualifying interest(s) of the site(s) in terms of their conservation objectives. At this step MS-LOT will consult with the relevant consultees, particularly if there is conflicting advice, to determine what information will be required from the applicant, including suggested methods of data collection and the level of detail that will be required in the assessment. It is likely that much of the baseline data gathered for EIA will be applicable for HRA, although more information or a higher level of detail is likely to be required to support an AA. There is a requirement to ascertain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the project will not adversely affect site integrity. As with EIA, applicants should be aware of timescales for obtaining the necessary data.




The information gathered through the Step Two assessment, and contained in the scoping report, will allow Marine Scotland (the Competent Authority) to establish a good understanding of: The designated sites that will potentially be affected, the Conservation

Objectives, and the qualifying features for which they have been designated, e.g., threatened species of birds, seabed habitats, marine mammals, Atlantic salmon, etc.;

The underlying trends which should be outlined in baseline data supplied by the applicant;

A good understanding of the proposed development and the preferred methods by which the project will be achieved; and

Other plans and projects which could affect the integrity of the site. Plan level HRAs will provide a lot of useful information with respect to both the sites for consideration and LSE as will the relevant strategic environmental assessments (SEA). Key documents include the report to Inform Appropriate Assessment for the Pentland Firth Strategic Area (PFSA) Leasing Round (ABPmer, 2010), the HRA of the Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters (ABPmer, 2011a), the HRA of National Infrastructure Renewables Plan (N-RIP) (ABPmer, 2011b), and the HRA of the Plan for Wave and Tidal Energy in Scottish Waters (ABPmer, 2012). Once the above have been considered, MS-LOT, and its advisors, will be in a position to determine if the proposed development has the potential to affect any European sites. This will be communicated to the applicant through the scoping opinion and/or ongoing informal consultation during the EIA process. If it is considered there is no potential for LSE on European site(s) this will be documented by the Competent Authority (MS-LOT) and no further assessment will be required under the Habitats Regulations or OMR. If the assessment concludes that the potential for LSE cannot be excluded, then an AA is required and the process requires consideration as to whether the proposed project could adversely affect the integrity of the European site(s) in terms of the relevant conservation objectives. Between EIA and HRA Scoping it is routine for there to be at least one round of consultation with MS-LOT to agree survey requirements and assessment methodologies.

Key Information




6.4 Impact Assessment

This section refers specifically to the assessment of potentially significant marine environmental impacts and is the most resource intensive stage of the assessment. The screening and scoping exercises will have identified any data gaps and the methodologies to be used in the impact assessment for the different topic areas. The EIA, documented through the ES, should demonstrate that all potentially significant impacts have been assessed, any limitations (data, assessment process etc.) have been recognised and explained, and all residual impacts identified. The information submitted must be sufficient for MS-LOT to determine the application. The following sections give a brief introduction to the main elements of the marine impact assessment process. Applicants should also use the wealth of other EIA guidance documents which are available, including the ‘Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and others involved in the EIA process in Scotland (SNH, 2009) and ‘OWF Guidance for EIA in respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements Version 2’ (Cefas, 2004). Numerous references and sources of information are provided as Appendix B of this Manual. The following key aspects are required as part of the impact assessment as drawn from Annex IV of the EIA Directive: Project description; An outline of the main alternatives studies and reason for choice; A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be affected by

the proposal (Baseline Characterisation); Description of the likely significant effects and the methodologies used

to assess them (including in-combination); Mitigation measures to prevent, reduce and where possible offset

adverse effects; and Non-technical summary

The European Commission (EC) has published guidance on EIA and Review of Environmental Statements (European Commission, 2001). The qualities of a good ES are listed below and it is recommended that they are referred to when undertaking EIAs (taken from European Commission, 2001): A clear structure with a logical sequence for example, describing,

existing baseline conditions, predicted effects (nature, extent and magnitude), scope for mitigation, agreed mitigation measures, significance of unavoidable/residual impacts for each environmental topic;

A table of contents and list of acronyms/abbreviations;




A clear description of the development consent procedure and how EIA

fits within it; Reads as a single document with appropriate cross-referencing; Is concise, comprehensive and objective; Is written in an impartial manner without bias; Includes a full description of the development proposals; Makes effective use of diagrams, illustrations, photographs and other

graphics to support the text; Uses consistent terminology with a glossary; References all information sources used; Has a clear explanation of complex issues; Contains a good description of the methods used for the studies of

each environmental topic; Covers each environmental topic in a way which is proportionate to its

importance; Provides evidence of good consultations; Includes a clear discussion of alternatives; Makes a commitment to mitigation (with a programme) and to

monitoring; and Has a Non Technical Summary which does not contain technical

jargon.

6.4.1 Project Description In order for the project team, regulators and key stakeholders to understand the nature of project effects, a clear understanding of both the project and the baseline environment is required. Applicants must have a clear understanding of all aspects of the project covering all aspects and phases of the proposed development from installation and commissioning, through operation and maintenance as well as the ultimate decommissioning of the project. This description should not just cover tangible aspects, such as equipment on site, but also details such as monitoring programmes and consideration of accidental events. To aid applicants in the compilation of their ES, and specifically the project description (commonly known as a Design Statement), Table 1 below has been compiled to provide guidance on the type of information that should be included. The Design Statement should provide full details of the alternative methods being proposed. For example details of the different pile foundations if more than one may be used; or different construction methodologies. More detail on addressing uncertainty in the project design is discussed in Section 4.4.2 below.




6.4.2 Project Design Envelope

It is recognised that there will remain uncertainties in the scheme design and construction methodologies, particularly for wave and tidal energy which are new industries with developing technology. The approach for addressing uncertainty in the scheme design for all offshore renewables is known as the Rochdale Envelope or Project Design Envelopes as they are becoming more commonly known. The Rochdale Envelope arises from two cases: R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew [1999] and R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne [2000]. These cases concerned outline planning applications for a proposed business park in Rochdale. These decisions considered that it may be appropriate for an environmental assessment to assess the impacts of a range of possible parameters and that conditions could then be imposed to ensure that any permitted development kept within those ranges. Although the Rochdale Envelope applies to planning applications rather than applications under the Electricity Act 1989, the principles provide a degree of guidance as to what can be expected from a marine consents ES. The EIA submitted in support of a s36 application should assess the proposal as described in the application documents. Therefore sufficient detail must be known about the project to prepare the ES which has to be clear as to the potential impacts. However, MS-LOT understands that the EIA process is on-going and iterative and it is not unreasonable for a scheme to evolve from pre-application stage, over time and in response to the assessment process. However, when assessing a project, MS-LOT must be satisfied that the likely significant effects, including significant residual effects from mitigation measures, have been adequately assessed. Therefore at the time of application proposed project parameters must not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively a different scheme. The parameters have to be defined in the application and accompanying ES (and HRA). It is for the developer to consider whether it is possible to assess robustly a range of potentially complex in-combination effects resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The description of the development in the ES must not be so wide that it does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Electricity Works (EIA)(Scotland) Regulations 2000. The EIA (and HRA) will require full assessment of the variations of the proposal where certain details remain unresolved. The EIA (and HRA) should assess the likely worst case in terms of the potential variations within a project but the project should not vary beyond these limits so that the proposal as built would not have been assessed. It will also be the applicant’s responsibility to present the assessment of possible variations of the project,




where certain parameters are not yet fixed, in a manner that aids decision-making. The assessment should not be presented in an over-complex manner so that it is difficult to understand. The applicant will therefore find it helpful to limit the potential range of options within the proposed development. This will make presentation of the options easier and make it clearer for MS-LOT to understand and determine the application (potentially reducing determination time). Where elements of a project have yet to be finalised, these should be clearly identified in the ES with reasons provided to explain why they cannot be finalised at that stage. In terms of the decision itself, MS-LOT will not grant any consent which is substantially different from that applied for. Table 1. Indicative information for design statement

Component Marine Renewables Offshore Wind Project location

Geographical area over which the different aspects of the project will be located. Include a map showing the location of the different aspects of the project offshore and onshore. Include proposed location of devices, cable routes etc.

Geographical area over which the different aspects of the project will be located. Include a map showing the location of the different aspects of the project offshore and onshore including windfarm layout, cable routes etc.

Project Programme

Timing and length of the different phases of the project, for construction/installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning. This should include full construction/installation programme and contingency. Details of design life and decommissioning etc.

Device structure and operation

General description (include scale pictures / photos of device showing in and out of (where relevant) water profiles; site layout). Layout and spacing, including distance from shore and required water depths including full dimensions and weight. Physical dimensions in all operational modes. If sub surface, depth below sea surface, i.e. draft and height above seabed. General description of power generation module/generator, including number and arrangement of modules and mechanisms for power extraction e.g. propeller, buoyancy, venturie. Device generation capacity - design power output profile; swept area; energy capture area and proportion of energy flux; frequency/speed of moving parts and transformer requirements (offshore (subsea and

General description (include scale pictures/photos) Basic Turbine parameters including: Rotor dimensions; Number of turbines; Tip height range; Air draft and hub height; Grid spacing and detailed layout (e.g. rectangular grid system or offset packing arrangements; orientation etc). Details of turbine type (or details of alternatives if necessary) Operational speeds (pitching and yawing, cut in and out etc) Noise Navigation lighting and colour scheme




Component Marine Renewables Offshore Wind above surface) or onshore). Details of hydraulic systems, corrosion protection and antifouling. Noise and vibration levels Heating and cooling requirements (water abstraction and discharge requirements). General description of device communication systems Possible device failure modes e.g. floating, sinking, fire, collapse (narrative).

Mooring or foundation system

General description to include but not be limited to: Size, area of coverage, depth of seabed penetration, installation method (description), materials, movement of device around moorings. Chains, anchors, blocks, subsea connections, piles etc. Clump weight requirements. Potential for scour induced by or around moorings. Mooring and marker buoys (position (lat long), number, colour, lighting, mass, materials, markings, tether arrangements, tensioning/bend ratio). Seabed preparation, depth of excavation. Drilling requirements (narrative including detail of any drilling fluids and discharges and timing of operation). Piling requirements (narrative of piling operation and timing of operation). Foundation construction (materials, mass). Vessel requirements (expected vessel type, GRT, length, draft etc). Consideration of temporary and permanent aspects of moorings and foundations.

Details of foundation type (e.g. jackets, gravity base structures suction caissons etc), including: Dimensions of the foundations (shapes and sizes); Seabed preparation and penetration; Disposal sites (spoil from ground preparation)

Power requirements

Details of power requirements, including requirement for and location of any external power sources (narrative). Electrical systems: Voltage and current patterns from generated power in umbilical; impressed currents corrosion systems;

Details of the electrical infrastructure including: Export cables (length and routes) Inter-array cables Offshore (and onshore) sub-stations




Component Marine Renewables Offshore Wind frequency and harmonics of any electrical currents. Details of any shore connections, e.g., cables, umbilicals and pipelines, including installation method. Diesel or other fuel requirements including inventory, bunkering procedures and regularity etc.

Navigational requirements

Above surface visibility (diagram, metres above water line). Details of expected navigational requirements e.g. buoys, lights, charting etc Low visibility warning signals e.g. fog horns, radar reflectors. Device stationing verification.

Details of expected navigational requirements e.g. buoys, lights, charting etc

Materials Inventory of materials e.g. metal; plastics; seals; greases and lubricants, oil types and inventories (e.g. hydraulic, transformer etc); paints and description of types; adhesives (litres) and description of types; batteries (e.g. back up system); ballast (type of material and source location); and chemical requirements/treatments. Potential discharges to air and sea.

Oils and fluids; turbine materials; foundation materials; cables and pipeline materials. Include contingency plan in case of accidental leak/spill of any materials. Potential discharges to air and sea

Installation requirements

Description of installation process, including pre installation requirements (narrative). Description of any installation mooring requirements (e.g., to moor a jack-up barge), with diagrams of any mooring spreads. Vessel requirements (expected vessel type, GRT, length, draft etc). Generation of onsite waste/litter.

Details of construction methodology for foundation, cable and turbine installations) including: Method of construction of foundations; Transportation to site; Construction; lifting operations; Details of cable pre-lay works (e.g. ploughing; trenching etc; details of methods for crossing other cables/pipelines). Details for both export cables and inter-array cables.

Operation/ maintenance requirements

Description of likely maintenance requirements, how often required, what needed to support maintenance operations, (narrative) to include: Geographical coverage of maintenance activities (including anchors/mooring lines). Frequency of vessel operations on site (if known vessel numbers and frequency/timing of visits). Anchoring requirements of support

Operations and maintenance infrastructure required; Likely programme (levels and type of activity including associated boat activity; shore-side infrastructure Exclusion zones around structures.




Component Marine Renewables Offshore Wind vessels (anchor etc and length of chains, radius of mooring facilities etc). Any onshore infrastructure requirements to support maintenance operations e.g. pontoon, quayside upgrade. On site requirements e.g. utilities (periodically used by maintenance personnel). Any requirements for seabed maintenance (e.g. dredging or scour protection). Potential for generation of onsite waste/litter and disposal methods. Debris recovery and disposal method.

Decommissioning

General description of device and mooring recovery/ removal activities/requirements to include: Geographical coverage of decommissioning activities (including anchors/mooring lines, cables). Vessel/other requirements. Anchoring requirements of vessels. Cutting/removal techniques for any imbedded structures. Onsite requirements e.g. utilities (periodically used by maintenance personnel). Potential for generation of onsite waste/litter and disposal methods. Debris survey details, recovery and disposal. Seabed reinstatement requirements. Provisions for decommissioning bond.

General description of activities including removal of turbines, foundations and associated electrical infrastructure. Methods for removal (or not) of scour protection; infilling of excavations etc.

Accidental events

Risk Assessment: Description of accidental/emergency situations which may result in interference with other sea users and environmental pollution, to include assessment of likelihood and scale of consequence of each event. Mitigation Measures and Contingency Plans: For example. spill prevention strategy/measures (for oils and chemicals) and response procedures for possible device failure modes and dropped objects.

6.4.3 Baseline Characterisation

In order to measure, and therefore assess, the potentially significant impacts of a development there must be a baseline of environmental conditions against which the significance of predicted environmental impacts can be




assessed. Applicants must have a sound understanding of all the different environmental aspects (physical, biological and human) which could be affected by the proposals and which must be reported within the ES. Without this understanding of the baseline environment, it is not possible to provide accurate assessments, nor will it be possible to suggest measures to minimise adverse environmental effects, which is the objective of the EIA process. EIA baseline characterisation is developed to identify potential environmental impacts. These baselines may also be of suitable detail to support subsequent survey monitoring programmes but it is more likely that they would need to be refined (post project approval) to be of sufficient resolution (spatial and temporal). The baseline will follow a desk-based approach in the first instance and there are several widely available datasets and publications that provide various biological, ecological and geological data relevant to offshore renewable energy projects. Of particular relevance are the SEAs in support of national offshore renewable plans such as the Marine Renewable Energy SEA and Offshore Wind Energy SEAs and Marine Spatial Plans as well as the plans listed in section 1.2. Strategic work is underway to identify the key evidence gaps faced in the deployment of offshore renewable energy projects. For example the Offshore Renewables Research Steering Group (ORRSG) and the work of the Offshore Renewable Energy Licensing Group (ORELG) which have identified priority tasks to be addressed to minimise the time taken to consent renewable projects. Early engagement with MS-LOT will identify relevant initiatives. Gathering baseline data and producing the environmental baseline should be one of the first tasks of the EIA in order to ascertain what data are available for use in the assessment. The human, biological and physical environments should be characterised and MS-LOT will expect to see baselines for the receptor topics listed below. For receptors such as birds and other mobile species the baseline will also need to establish linkages with European sites and to understand the trends and behaviours of populations. Standard environmental receptors which MS will expect to be included in a marine EIA5: Physical Environment:

- Water quality and seabed contamination; - Coastal/marine processes and geology;

5 Where a single EIA is being undertaken for developments with marine and terrestrial

components full representation of land based receptors will also be expected (traffic and transport, contaminated land, terrestrial ecology and landscape etc).




Biological Environment: - Benthic ecology (including non-native species); - Fish, migratory fish and shellfish (including non-native species); - Birds; - Marine mammals; - Underwater noise, vibration and electro-magnetic fields (this can

be incorporated into the biological receptors above); Human Environment:

- Archaeology and cultural heritage; - Navigation; - Commercial fisheries, shellfisheries and aquaculture; - Other sea users (topic include reference to oil and gas; subsea

pipelines; dredging and marine aggregate extraction, tourism and recreation, aviation, military activity, munitions etc);

- Landscape/seascape and visual impact; - Socio-economics; and - Aviation.

MS and other key stakeholders have been funding the creation of a number of comprehensive marine datasets including characterising Scotland’s marine areas for geodiversity (geological and geomorphological features) and biodiversity (including seabed habitats, benthic ecology and mobile species (including mammals) produced for Scotland’s Marine Atlas and datasets gathered for Defra’s Charting Progress 2. For certain receptors, particularly mobile species, it is appropriate to assess impacts against a baseline of significantly greater scale than the project location (e.g. to understand impacts on wide-ranging marine mammal populations). It would therefore be appropriate to consider strategic data initiatives such as the Joint Cetacean Protocol which provides a means for collation of data on abundance of marine mammals to support EIA (and HRA/EPS) assessments. It is not appropriate to define a prescriptive list of data that an applicant should gather in order to compile an accurate representation of the environmental conditions at a specific site, since this varies from site to site. However there will be some similarities in the baseline data required for different offshore renewable energy developments. MS-LOT should be approached for access to information not publically available as part of the scoping phase.

6.4.4 Survey Despite these significant data projects and those undertaken for more local projects and initiatives (generally inshore), survey coverage of offshore, inshore and intertidal areas around Scotland at a detail required for an ES is likely to be sporadic and infrequent for the area of interest. Furthermore, where there is good data coverage the data may be old and inappropriate for




use in an EIA. Applicants should consider what data are currently available and assess the currency and adequacy of such data for the purpose of their development. It should be assumed that surveys are likely to be required. These could be for benthic habitats, birds and marine mammals or metocean data (e.g. waves, tides, wind). The need for, and methodologies for the surveys should be discussed with MS-LOT. MS-LOT has produced a Survey, Deploy & Monitor policy with the intention of providing regulators, and developers, with an efficient risk-based approach for taking forward wave and tidal energy proposals. The policy is not mandatory, it is a tool which may be used to distinguish between those proposed developments for which there are sufficient grounds to seek determination on a consent application based on a minimum of one year of wildlife survey effort, and those where a greater level of site characterisation is required. The policy is based upon 3 main factors: 1. Environmental Sensitivity (of the proposed development location) 2. Scale of Development; and 3. Device (or Technology) Classification. Environmental sensitivity for the purposes of the policy, relates to designated areas, protected species, and protected habitats. MS will undertake an assessment of the relative environmental sensitivity of the proposed location of a renewable energy project, based on environmental sensitivity maps which will be attached to the policy. MS will assign an overall assessment of high, medium or low environmental sensitivity. Relevant measures of the scale of development are based on the total installed generating capacity in megawatts (MW) of the development. The scale of the development will also be assessed on a three point scale, low, medium, or high. Device (or technology) classification is an expression of how the device or technology (including moorings or support) is installed, moves, behaves and interacts with the surrounding environment and is a broad assessment of the potential effects of the device on marine life. Examples of environmental hazards which Marine Scotland will use are contained within a table within the policy derived from the report ‘A Review of the Potential Impacts of Wave and Tidal Energy Development on Scotland’s Marine Environment’ commissioned by the Scottish Government (Aquatera, 2010). Marine Scotland propose to express the overall risk to the environment posed by the development, taking account of the equipment to be used, the size of




the development and the environmental sensitivity of the location, as a combination of the assessments under the three factors above. This final overall combined assessment will be expressed as low, medium or high and will be used to guide the requirements for pre-application site characterisation and assessment of the environmental interactions of the devices. SNH and MS have also commissioned reports on surveys for marine renewables. These reports (including Saunders et. al. 2011) provide guidance, options and detailed protocols for the conduct of site characterisation surveys and impact monitoring programmes for marine (wave and tidal) renewables developments in Scotland. The guidance is split into five volumes covering: 1. Context and General Principals; 2. Cetaceans and Basking Sharks; 3. Seals; 4. Birds; and 5. Benthic Habitats. These important information sources should be regarded as recommendations by MS and SNH rather than formal guidance but should be a key reference for any applicant looking to conduct surveys in support of its application. Another important source of guidance has recently been produced by CEFAS ‘Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental assessments of offshore renewable energy projects Report ME5403’ (CEFAS, 2011). Applicants should be aware of the timescales and costs that may be associated with collecting relevant data and the difficulties in collecting marine data. The environment within a development area is not static; conditions may change from season to season and from year to year. The length of time over which it may be necessary to collect baseline data will depend on, among other factors, the sensitivity of the site and the behaviour of different species e.g. seabed, birds, marine mammals etc as well as changes in landforms through natural coastal/marine processes. Baseline data should be collected in a way that adequately reflects the variability in the environment. It is also important to understand and assess the potential environmental impacts arising from the survey work. For example, noise impacts could have a likely significant effect on Natura sites and thus be subject to HRA. The need for baseline data should be factored into the project timescale and initial budgeting and it is important that field work is carefully planned and agreed with all relevant consultees. Survey specifications should be submitted to MS-LOT who will liaise with MS- Science, and other consultees as appropriate to ensure that data and analyses are adequate to meet the




regulatory requirements. Formal bodies are not only an invaluable source of baseline data but they will also be able to comment on the suitability of collected data and proposed surveys which will reduce the risk that they have to be repeated. Applicants are obliged to collaborate where possible such as sea bird surveys as part of CEC led collaborative developer group process as well as leasing requirements for most Round 2 and 3 OWF leases and Scottish Territorial Waters’ Agreements. MS has already established a set of information sharing methods through the establishment of ‘Marine Scotland Interactive’, which hosts/will host sea bed mapping and sediment profiling, along with strategic survey information for sea birds and marine mammals. It also posts research and monitoring programmes and related reports on its web site, as well as Scoping, Regional Locational Guidance (RLG), SEA, strategic HRA, socio-economics, consultation analysis and plan reports, including the related data sources (MS, 2012). MS is considering how it can improve the access to these data and report sources in a manner which will aid applicants and other stakeholders, including through the development of a national database of survey data and a Marine Knowledge Exchange facility. Common pitfalls associated with gathering environmental baseline data are: Data-gaps not identified; Reliance on out-of-date data; Omission of important data that are available; Narrow focus on the development site, omitting the wider area; Inappropriate/inadequate survey methodologies; Changing survey methodologies without consultation; Inadequate acknowledgement of data limitations; Inadequate knowledge of the assessment process and work required; Insufficient time allocated in project schedules to ensure the collection of

robust data; Insufficient funds allocated for surveys; and No consideration of presentation and analysis requirements.

Baseline data collection should include consideration of the data required to support other supporting assessments (if necessary) including AA, CAR or and NRA. The EIA must also address cumulative effects from other developments and activities in the area. Hence, co-ordination of baseline data collection activities with other developers is strongly encouraged. This will help work towards a standardised approach to data collection, thereby facilitating comparison between sites and contributing to co-ordinated post-construction monitoring plans as well as resulting in potential cost and programme savings. Collaboration between developers will also assist the

Key Information




production of broad scale regional overviews for particular species and contribute to SEA.

6.4.5 Assessment of Alternatives In embarking on the EIA processes it is important that developers recognise that site selection and design are integral parts of scheme development and environmental assessment. The EIA Directive includes the requirement for an assessment of alternatives and so it is necessary for all projects to clearly document the project decision-making, demonstrating the incorporation of environmental criteria. It is likely that this first stage of site selection will be a key component of any assessment of alternatives and should therefore be clearly documented from the outset. The site selection process should result in the avoidance of particularly environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible. For example, sites designated for their nature conservation importance (SACs and SPAs), important fish spawning areas or sites which are important for cetaceans will be more sensitive than other areas. However, it is also important to understand that mobile species are protected throughout their range and therefore sensitive areas are not restricted to within designated sites. Characterisation therefore needs to consider the relative importance of the project area for species of concern, in comparison to surrounding areas, and in the context of the potential impact pathways. To avoid unnecessary environmental impacts and to reduce development constraints applicants should consider the following when selecting a potential development site and considering design of the development: The regulatory and planning context (terrestrial and marine plans and

sectoral plans for marine renewables); Survey, construction and operational activities and scheme design

(including technical constraints); The proximity of the site to nature conservation, wildlife interests and

fisheries; The potential effects on coastal and marine interests and navigation

(including socio-economic effects); The potential effects on landscape/seascape and the historic environment;

and The proximity to other activities and developments and the potential

cumulative and in combination impacts.

Key Information




Sites should be reviewed for their design and operational constrains such as access and transport links and other technical criteria. The proposal should also be developed within the strategic context including Marine Spatial Plans and the relevant sectoral plans and associated SEA and strategic HRAs.

6.4.6 Specialist Studies

The offshore renewable energy industry is in its infancy and the potential environmental effects of wave and tidal developments in particular are uncertain. A recent Strategic Review of environmental monitoring of offshore windfarms (OWF) under the Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) licence conditions (CEFAS, 2010 cited in Renewable UK 2010) also concluded that as Round 3 commenced, the monitoring of existing OWF projects have not allowed definite conclusions to be made regarding environmental effects. The EIA and consenting procedures should therefore be as evidence-based as possible. However, where there is significant uncertainty in the assessment of environmental effects, it is appropriate to define ‘worst case scenarios’ to ensure that there are no undue risks to the physical, biological or human environment. The priority for industry is therefore to reduce the uncertainty as far as possible, by undertaking specialist investigations to justify its assessments. Specialist studies may be required to understand the effects on any of the environmental receptors and can range from hydrodynamic and sediment modelling to underwater noise modelling, investigations into potential changes in bird behaviour/migration patterns and NRA. For all these studies it is considered good practice to incorporate the findings into the ES as well as providing the supporting Technical Reports as Annexes to the ES if necessary. The need and form of specialist studies will be dependent upon the type, scale and location of development and the issues identified at the project site. These should be developed in discussion with MS-LOT and relevant experts to ensure buy-in from the regulator. In some cases it may be beneficial to include a peer review process for complex/sensitive issues to engender transparency and confidence in the adequacy of work undertaken, the robustness of the results and associated scientific uncertainty. Those projects with a footprint in both the marine and terrestrial environments are likely to have a longer list of supporting studies than a solely marine project.




The need for specific studies to assess the impact of the development on the environment will be initially identified during the scoping stage. However there may also be other study requirements that become apparent as the EIA progresses, e.g., due to changes in project design, consultation requirements or as new information identifies greater or new uncertainty. In addition, it is important to reiterate that regulators and consultees must agree that the proposed study methods are appropriate. This will help prevent requests for additional data following submission of the ES. The wave and tidal energy industries are in their infancy and there are numerous different technologies that can be deployed. As a result there are large uncertainties with regard to the significance of specific impacts, e.g. the effects on diving birds and marine mammals. As more knowledge is gained from the results of operational monitoring, these uncertainties will reduce. Robust environmental monitoring programmes are therefore vital.

6.4.7 Impact Assessment The EIA Regulations require that the EIA considers the significance of the effects of the development on the environment and should be a clear and transparent process, documented in the ES. Predicting environmental impacts involves two main elements of work; anticipating, modelling, predicting or forecasting the changes that would be brought about by the project at all of its life stages, often compared to baseline, and/or predicted changes without the project; and explaining in a rational, consistent, impartial and transparent way, the significance of the changes (SNH, 2009). The common principles of the impact assessment include: Environmental significance is a value judgement; The degree of environmental significance is related to the specific

impact; The significance of the impact is related to sensitivity of the receptor

and its capacity to accommodate change; The amount of change, often referred to as the impact magnitude

includes timing, scale, size, and duration of impact; Potential effects of the proposed project may be wide ranging in nature,

e.g., they could be direct, indirect; short, medium or long term, permanent or temporary and have positive or negative effects;

The likelihood of a specific effect occurring should also be considered; and the

Identification of any significant residual impacts following mitigation.

Key Information




The impact assessment needs to assess the effects of the development through all stages of the development: Construction including information on project management – contractor

arrangements, ‘chain of command’, roles and responsibilities of key staff – and timetabling – the phasing / sequencing of proposed works – especially if this has been identified as a mitigation measure for environmental, navigational or other effects. Information should also be included on the proposed construction equipment, and intended delivery routes and port facilities;

Operation and maintenance (O&M) activity assessments including navigation, environmental or other effects. This should include disturbance (to environmental and/or other interests) from O&M boat and/or helicopter traffic which may be reduced if remote condition monitoring is used to inform the maintenance schedules of turbines;

Repowering including the design life of the different elements. It is important to be clear what repowering entails and whether there is to be any relocation of subsea infrastructure or alteration of the scheme/design or anchoring structures. Any alterations to the locations of offshore elements for repowering may require an update to the survey work and assessments that have previously been carried out; and

The process and methods of decommissioning should also be considered, and reviewed, at this (pre-application) stage, with an options appraisal presented in the ES.

The environmental issues should be divided into distinct topic areas or ‘receptors’ and the effect of the development on each of these is considered by describing in turn: The baseline conditions; The impact pathways by which the receptors could be affected; The assessment of significance of impacts; The definition of the measures to mitigate for significant adverse

impacts; and Where these are predicted, the residual significance of the impacts

occurring. This follows four iterative stages and is illustrated in Figure 4: 1. Identify both the environmental changes from the proposal activities

and the features of interest (i.e. receptors) that could be affected; 2. Understand the nature of the environmental changes in terms of: their

exposure characteristics, the natural conditions of the system and the sensitivity of the specific receptors (i.e. predict the impact);

3. Evaluate the vulnerability of the features as a basis for assessing the nature of the impact and its significance; and




4. Manage any impacts which are found to be significant and require the implementation of impact reduction/mitigation measures; identify the significance of the residual impact.

The assessment focuses on understanding the sensitivity and vulnerability of the receptors to the changes that will result from the development.




Figure 4. EIA Assessment Process Sensitivity is the relative tolerance of a receptor to the predicted changes which they are exposed and its ability to recover. For example, the tolerance of benthic fauna to increased turbidity in the water column and the likely period of recovery, and should take into consideration wider trends (e.g. seasonality in bird population numbers, population decline etc). This stage provides the benchmark against which the changes and levels of exposure should be compared. In some cases it will be applicable to compare the anticipated change or exposure against either baseline conditions or other relevant thresholds (e.g. established Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for water or sediment quality).

Receptor Environmental Change IDENTIFY

Natural change

Features of interest

Temporal variability

Responses to change

Magnitude

Spatial extent

Duration and frequency

VULNERABILITY

Recoverability

Permanence

SIGNIFICANCE

MitigationProposal design

Environmental thresholds

Monitoring

MANAGE

EVALUATE

UNDERSTAND

EXPOSURE SENSITIVTY

Importance




Once the impact pathways (e.g. noise, turbidity etc) and receptor sensitivities (e.g. diving birds, marine mammals etc.) are understood, the likelihood of a receptor being vulnerable to an impact pathway is then evaluated. The vulnerability of a receptor is derived from the relationship between its anticipated levels of exposure and its response characteristics. The degree to which exposure exceeds sensitivity will indicate the predictability, or certainty, of the impact. The actual categorisation of the significance level will tend to be a judgement-based decision (ABPmer, 2004). Where exposure exceeds receptor sensitivity/tolerance levels then vulnerability exists and an adverse impact may occur. Conversely, where a change occurs to which a receptor is not sensitive, then no direct impact can occur. The degree to which exposure exceeds sensitivity will indicate the predictability, or certainty, of the impact. Assessing how the vulnerability will manifest as an actual impact on a receptor, and making a judgement about the significance of the impact, requires knowledge of other factors such as the receptor’s spatial extent and ability to recover. These factors, together with knowledge of receptor importance, can be applied to assess the overall significance of any impact. The key significance levels for either beneficial or adverse impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Insignificant change not having a discernable effect; Minor: Effects tending to be discernable but tolerable; Moderate: Where these changes are adverse they may require

mitigation; and Major: Effects are highest in magnitude and reflect the high

vulnerability and importance of the receptor (e.g. to nature conservation). Where these changes are adverse they will require mitigation.

The magnitude of each effect can be assessed using the standard terminology and criteria summarised in Table 2 below. This is an indicative table of impacts and each topic area would need to modify the table to reflect the specific sensitivities of the receptor (e.g. fish or bird populations or landscape value). It is important to note that the significance of impact in the context of EIA is very different to definition of LSE under HRA.




Table 2. Magnitude of impacts Magnitude Description

Major

Significant change in environmental conditions causing breaches of legislation. Likely to impact on receptors of national or international importance. Likely to affect a large-scale area or a large population on frequent or permanent basis. May be an irreversible decline.

Moderate Unlikely to cause a breach of legislation but likely to impact on a receptor of regional or local environmental importance. Likely to affect a small number of residents/visitors on a permanent basis.

Minor Likely to impact an area or feature of local interest or importance. Likely to have a temporary impact on a small number of people, or be a recoverable impact.

Negligible No significant impact predicted. The severity or significance of an impact should be determined by considering the magnitude of the effect against the sensitivity of the receptor. A matrix should be used to combine magnitude and sensitivity to generate the overall significance of an impact, as illustrated in Table 3 below. Table 3. Significance of Impact

Sensitivity Magnitude Very High High Medium Low Very High Major Major Major Moderate High Major Major Moderate Minor Medium Major Moderate Minor Minor Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible

Estimating and categorising the significance of an impact is the stage that probably incorporates the greatest degree of subjectivity. It is inappropriate to apply a rigid framework for the actual categorisation of the significance level as this will tend to be a judgement-based decision. However, adverse impacts will be those which are judged to be undesirable or negative. The concern they raise will increase from adverse impacts of negligible or minor significance, which may be tolerable to moderate or major impacts which will require some form of impact reduction or mitigation measure. Beneficial impacts are those impacts that are judged to provide some environmental, economic and/or social gain. As a project is conceived and developed and as the impact assessment is progressed, it will become apparent that some impacts are likely to be ‘significant adverse’ and will require mitigation. This invokes an iterative process in which the impact can be designed-out by changing the works (either before or during the assessment process) and mitigating measures integrated into the design/project methodology. These include constraints on




the construction process as well as measures for the enhancement of a relevant habitat or receptor. Within the assessment procedure the use of mitigation measures will alter the risk of exposure and will require significance to be re-assessed and the ‘residual impact’ identified. The regulations themselves do not provide definitive statements on significance. However, the methods used for identifying and assessing effects should be transparent and verifiable and a standard assessment methodology should be applied across all environmental receptors. The assessment methodology may need to be supported by specialist studies and investigations where appropriate. It is recommended that the impact assessment methodology is drafted at the outset of the project for distribution to the topic specialists within the project team. In many instances, the sensitivity and impact tables will need to be tailored to each individual topic. Whatever the methodology employed to assess impact significance, it should be clearly described in the ES document, ensuring consistency across the EIA. In many cases environmental receptors will also have specific EIA methodologies which may be used, for example, seascape and visual impact assessment methodologies (SNH, 2009) or guidance for ecological impact assessment by IEEM (Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management), the results of which should feed into the overarching EIA methodology described above. The evaluation of impact significance should follow the four stage process outlined below: 1. Identify both the environmental changes from the proposal activities and

the features of interest (i.e. receptors) that could be affected; 2. Understand the nature of the environmental changes in terms of: their

exposure characteristics, the natural conditions of the system and the sensitivity of the specific receptors (i.e. predict the impact);

3. Evaluate the vulnerability of the features as a basis for assessing the nature of the impact and its significance; and

4. Manage any impacts which are found to be significant and require the implementation of impact reduction/mitigation measures; identify the significance of the residual impact.

The significance of impact in the context of EIA is very different to the definition of LSE under HRA.

Key Information




6.4.8 Mitigation

The primary purpose of the EIA is to ensure that significant environmental impacts are prevented, avoided or reduced as far as possible or practicable. Mitigation refers to the methods or actions that will be implemented as part of the scheme to reduce/avoid these environmental effects and are a statutory component of the EIA. This can be achieved by many different measures which can include (SNH 2009): Locating the project so as not to affect environmentally sensitive

locations; Using construction, operation and restoration methods or processes

which reduce environmental effects; Designing the whole project carefully to avoid or minimise

environmental impacts; and Introducing specific measures into the project design, construction,

decommissioning and restoration that will reduce or compensate for adverse effects.

Mitigation measures are most successful when they are considered from the outset of the project rather than as a late stage solution. This allows a design with integrated solutions to potential environmental problems, rather than looking for a solution late on, which is an add-on to the design. Mitigation measures should therefore be considered from the outset of the project and discussions on the appropriate mitigation measures are likely to continue after submission of the ES and determination. MS-LOT will expect full details of all mitigation documented as part of the Construction Statement and MEMP. Mitigation measures for a site will be highly specific for each development. It is recommended that the applicant provides detailed information about each of the mitigation measures including: what is proposed; where and when it will be proposed; duration of the measure; how effective the measures will be; and responsibilities for monitoring the measure. The mitigation measures themselves should be assessed for environmental impact (for example habitat creation/restoration can have its own environmental effects) and any uncertainty in the effectiveness of the measures should be noted in the ES. It is good practice to provide a section summarising all proposed mitigation measures for each of the potentially significant impacts. This can be of significant benefit for the process of identifying and agreeing consent/licence conditions. This also demonstrates that the findings of the ES have been considered in an integrated manner.




When considering mitigation, consideration should be given to ‘design’ mitigation and site specific mitigation. Regulators will give priority to measures that firstly avoid the effect or minimise or reduce the environmental effect. Only when effects cannot be realistically be avoided should applicants look at measures for compensating or offsetting effects. Good construction practice can be effective mitigation for a number of environmental effects, particularly pollution prevention and noise reduction measures. Note that in relation to the HRA the term ‘compensation’ has a specific definition and approval for a scheme with compensation can only be given if there are no alternatives and there are no imperative reasons of over-riding public interest (IROPI) as to why the project must proceed. Mitigation can take various forms, including in descending order of best practice: Avoidance - the project is designed or the site selected to avoid any

environmental impacts. This may not always be possible for all potential impacts;

Reduction - where impacts cannot be avoided, applicants should then look to reduce impacts via the introduction of mitigation measures;

Compensation - where impacts are unavoidable or cannot be reduced, compensation must be considered which involves the improvement of a related environmental issue, such as construction of alternative / artificial otter holts in an alternative location; and

Remediation - where the environmental impact both short and medium term is unavoidable, e.g. where materials may have spread to adjacent seabed and on completion of the works the area must be cleaned and restored.

Additionally best practice measures should also be investigated including environmental enhancement which refers to improving the environment beyond the existing baseline.

6.4.9 Cumulative Effects The EIA Regulations state that cumulative effects should be addressed within an EIA. These effects can occur on a local, regional or global basis and can be additive, combined or synergistic impacts. They are described as impacts that result, or are likely to result, from incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project. More specifically they are defined as pressures of the same type acting on the same receptors. In-combination effects can be defined as pressures of a different type but acting on the same receptors. The EIA needs to examine

Key Information




the totality of influences on the system and therefore both cumulative and in-combination effects need to be investigated as part of the Cumulative Effects assessment. These effects are not necessarily controlled by the applicant and, as such, it is more difficult to assess these impacts and attribute a level of significance to them. The European Commission (EC) has produced guidance on how cumulative impacts can be assessed (EC, 1999). To identify which developments should be included in the in-combination effects assessment consultation with MS-LOT is required. They should include other offshore renewable developments as well as: Ports and shipping; Oil and gas; Fishing and aquaculture; Dredging; and Coastal developments.

Projects will include those that are: Under construction; Permitted application(s), but not yet implemented; Submitted application(s) not yet determined; and Plans and projects which are “reasonably foreseeable” (i.e.

developments that are being planned, including other offshore windfarms which have a Crown Estate Agreement for Lease)6.

The assessment of cumulative impacts in relation to Natura interests is also an integral aspect of a HRA as discussed in Section 4.5 below.

6.4.10 Transboundary Effects As identified in Section 4.3.1 above, The Espoo (EIA) Convention which came into effect in 1997 required governments to consult each other on all major projects which could have significant adverse trans-boundary environmental effects. In terms of offshore renewable energy projects in Scotland it will relate to projects that may affect mobile species or those close to the national boundaries. For a proposed activity that is likely to cause a significant adverse cross border or transboundary impact, the Scottish Government (or the UK Government depending on whether it’s cross border or transboundary) must notify any party which it considers may be affected as early as possible within the EIA process and no later than when carrying out the public consultation exercise following submission of ES. MS-LOT will expect to see consideration of potential impacts throughout the EIA from the scoping phase

6 Adapted from CEFAS (2004) Offshore Windfarm Guidance




onwards, and reported in the ES. Applicants should note that in gathering baseline environmental data it may be necessary to consider collecting data from other sovereign waters/areas as migratory species such as fish and birds, which potentially could be affected, may migrate from one area to the other. Transboundary consultation and engagement is still relatively new and liaison with MS-LOT will be necessary as soon as potential cross border/transbounday issues are identified. This will be particularly important for gathering information and assessing potential effects on mobile marine species and migratory bird populations.

6.4.11 Monitoring The potential need for environmental monitoring studies arises at the application, installation and operational stages of renewable projects. Effective EIA and HRA need to include sound site characterisation information on which to base predictions of the nature, scale and intensity of environmental impacts. In cases where there is potential for interaction with designated features of European sites, the quality of the site characterisation information must be such as to enable a sound Information for AA to be prepared. Monitoring will be an important component of the licence conditions and applications should include proposals for environmental impact monitoring as part of the ES and MEMP. In drafting these proposals, applicants should take account of issues discussed at the scoping stage. In general, post-approval monitoring activity will be required to: Establish pre-development baselines as part of the pre-project

component of monitoring activities to explore the environmental impacts of renewable projects. The purpose of the monitoring will be to test hypotheses on impacts attributable to the offshore renewable development during construction, operation and decommissioning phases (as identified during the consenting process);

Assess cause and effect relationships to validate predictions of environmental impacts identified in the ES and through the consents application process;

To confirm that the predictions in any AA are accurate and that adverse effect on the integrity of designated features of European sites is not occurring; and

Evaluate other short, medium and long-term effects of marine renewable devices and associated infrastructure, as may be identified through the application process.

Monitoring is therefore likely to be required pre-application, and also in the pre-construction and post-construction periods. The information and methods needed for the pre-application EIA baseline surveys is likely to be different from that required for post-approval impact monitoring. In many cases,




appropriate or standard survey methodologies are available, and should in general be used, but pre-agreement with MS-LOT is a requirement in case an issue requires more novel survey approaches.

6.5 Appropriate Assessment If, following Step 2 of the HRA process, it has been concluded that a proposed project will have a LSE, or that the possibility of a LSE cannot be excluded, an AA will need to be undertaken by the competent authority (MS-LOT). This assessment needs to determine whether the effects arising from a proposed development will adversely affect the integrity of a designated site with integrity being defined in UK planning guidance as:

‘the coherence of the site’s ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitats, or complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site is or will be classified’

The assessment of effects on integrity is made against the conservation objectives for the European sites and these are available on SNH and JNCC websites. The onus is on demonstrating the absence of such effect so the question which an AA must satisfy is ‘can it be ascertained that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?’ Although the Habitats Directive and Regulations (Habitats Regulations and OMR) do not specify exactly how an AA should be undertaken, they do specify key responsibilities of both the Competent Authority (MS-LOT) and applicant. The role of the Competent Authority is to undertake the decision making process and document the AA, while it is the responsibility of the applicant to supply all the information required to undertake this assessment. In reality, therefore, the applicant will undertake and fully document the HRA process and produce an ‘Information for AA’ report for MS-LOT. MS-LOT will review the supplied documentation in consultation with SNH and JNCC and make the necessary judgement. The scope and content of Information for AA needs to be fit for purpose and will depend on the potential scale of the proposed project’s impacts (direct and indirect). It will not necessarily be linked to the size of a project because small developments in sensitive areas can have large adverse effects. The AA will also provide valuable information to support the EIA. The format of the Information for AA report should be agreed with MS-LOT. This can be a stand-alone document, or a ‘signposting document’ which refers to the locations within the ES where relevant information is available. However, care must be taken to ensure that the product addresses the questions and issues that are specific to the Habitats Regulations/OMR; the features of interest for which the site(s) is designated, the Conservation Objectives, and the LSE on site integrity.




HRA is not the same as an EIA and it is not always the case that a project will require both. Much of the information/data required to inform the AA will also be required for the EIA. HRA is only concerned with effects on the qualifying interests of European sites (the specific habitats and/or species for which the sites are designated) whereas EIA considers a much wider scope of environmental impacts. There is a statutory requirement for MS-LOT to determine beyond reasonable scientific doubt that an activity or development will not affect the integrity of a European site. The applicant therefore has to provide sufficiently compelling evidence to enable MS-LOT to make such a judgement. There are clear meanings for the terms in the Habitats Regulations/OMR: Never use the terms significant and adverse together when considering

the effects of European sites. Likely significant effect is the step where potential effects from the

proposed project are initially considered. Adverse is the term used to describe any impacts on site integrity in view

of the conservation objectives of the site(s). This is the AA step in the HRA process which follows only after likely significant effect has been determined.

The assessment must be specifically tailored to consider each designated site and each relevant interest feature of these sites for which the project could have an effect. It should be noted that a development does not have to be located within the boundaries of the designated site to require an AA because effects may occur even if the development is located some distance from a designated site. For example, bottlenose dolphins from the Moray Firth SAC have been recorded as far south as the Firth of Forth, therefore an activity impacting upon bottlenose dolphins anywhere between these two locations could, potentially, affect the interest of the SAC and thereby require AA. Also, some species of breeding birds are known to forage over long distances (10s to 100s of kilometres) and may feed within an area that is away from the designated sites for which they are an interest feature. A paramount consideration for an AA, and for the reports that are produced to inform it, is that a high level of confidence is required when making the final judgement. A precautionary approach is enshrined in the process by which judgments are made when assessing whether the integrity of sites are affected. In particular, under the Habitats Regulations/OMR, there is a need for a high level of ‘certainty’ in the assessment conclusions. The requirement

Key Information




to adopt this approach is highlighted within the Waddenzee judgement which concluded that:

‘a plan or project [that is] likely to have significant effect on the site is only to be authorised if it is ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site (i.e. where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects)’.

These considerations must be taken into account within an AA and where there is a remaining risk of an impact to the integrity of a designated site, there will be a need to identify mitigation measures to ameliorate such effects. This includes measures which avoid any impacts such as timing the work to avoid ecologically sensitive periods (e.g. bird breeding of fish migration seasons) or measures which reduce an effect (e.g. soft start piling to reduce noise impacts). The effects then need to be assessed in the context of such measures to identify the residual effects. It may still be true that achieving the requisite assurances of no residual adverse effects is difficult especially in the marine environment where the environment is dynamic and where impacts are not always obvious. However, one way to address this is to adopt ‘worst-case’ interpretations that are founded on scientific evidence obtained during the assessment process. Also, where residual uncertainties remain (or project design envelopes are used) then it is possible to derive project implementation processes linked to monitoring work to address these. There are now many examples of projects which adopt such a process where monitoring is carried out to validate the predicted effects arising during construction or operational activities while also ensuring the offsetting benefits of mitigation or identifying remedial measures as required. This adaptive approach is also endorsed in recent EC guidance (EC 2011) which states that:

‘Following a thorough appropriate assessment that includes collecting all relevant data, and subject to the reversibility of actions, minor remaining uncertainties should, however, not block or restrain projects indefinitely. This needs to be judged on a case by case basis. In case of uncertainty on particular mechanisms of complex estuarine or coastal ecosystems port and waterway applicants should assess the nature of the remaining uncertainties and manage them through targeted monitoring and adaptive strategies. Monitoring schemes should be designed in a way that they signal any unexpected developments at a stage where effective corrective measures can still be taken.’

The applicant should ensure that all stages of the project are included (construction, operation and decommissioning) and all aspects (including associated infrastructure and activities such as cables and pipelines). Under the Habitats Regulations/OMR, the assessment must also consider the in-combination effects with other projects and plans that are known about and




are in the planning domain. In-combination effects refer to effects, which may or may not interact with each other, but which could affect the same receptor or interest feature (i.e. a habitat or species for which a site is designated). For instance, bird species could be affected by disturbance from one proposal and habitat loss by another. If following development of mitigation measures it is assessed that the effects will not longer have an adverse effect on integrity then permission is likely to be granted. In the event that the assessment cannot conclude that integrity will not be adversely affected (even with mitigation) then the project will need be addressed under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive rather then Article 6(3). This means there is a need to demonstrate that there are no alternatives which would have a lesser effects and if so the project can only proceed if compensation measures are adopted and the scheme can be shown to be of overriding public interest. Where it has not been ascertained that a proposal will not adversely affect a European site, the conditions under which it will be permitted are listed as follows: There are no less damaging alternative solutions; AND There are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest for which the

development should go ahead; Such reasons are limited to those outlined in Regulation 49 of the Habitats

Regulations; The Competent Authority must consult with the Scottish Ministers and UK

Government; and Necessary compensatory measures must be taken to secure the

coherence of the Natura site network.

Key Information




7. ES and Supporting Documentation

7.1 Environmental Statement The ES is the written output of the EIA process and should be presented as a complete and independent document which sets out all the information gathered during the EIA process in a clear and logical manner. It is the primary document supporting the application forms and is the primary tool for MS-LOT and consultees to base their decision on whether or not to grant approval. The key elements that an ES should achieve are: Provide sufficient details to allow readers to make an independent decision

on the impacts associated with the proposed development; Provide an unbiased report of the EIA process; and Avoid technical jargon unless absolutely necessary as findings should be

presented in non-technical language. The level of detail in the ES depends largely on the nature of the effects and vulnerability and significance of the receptors which will vary between projects. However, for all ES documentation the focus should be on robust baseline and analysis explained in a clear and coherent manner, keeping technical terminology to a minimum. In many cases the detailed technical analyses should be contained within supporting annexes. Applicants do, however, have a statutory duty to include certain information within the ES which are listed in Annex III of the EIA directive and described further below:

A non technical summary (NTS); A description of the development; A description of the mitigation measures; The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the

development is likely to have on the environment; and An outline of the main alternatives considered.

Applicants are advised to include a number of other sections within the ES and, although not mandatory, MS-LOT may request them. An indicative contents list for an ES including the mandatory requirements includes: Non Technical Summary (NTS): This section will be the primary consultation tool. It should be clear, concise and written in a non-technical language to be accessible to the lay reader. The NTS should be a fair reflection of the main ES and should cover all aspects of the EIA process, not just a summary of the potential impacts; and should inform readers of the environmental effects of

Key Information




the project and proposed mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. The use of graphics to illustrate issues rather than the use of lengthy text is recommended. Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary: A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used should be provided together with a glossary to define any technical terms used within the ES. Introduction: This section should be used to introduce the project (briefly), the legislative policy and context within which the EIA is undertaken and the purpose and scope of the ES. Data gaps and uncertainties identified during the EIA should be included within this section, as should a list of the contributors to the EIA and their relevant experience. Alternatives: This section should include a full assessment of the alternatives that were considered for the proposed project. This could include alternatives sites, technologies and preliminary designs. If no alternatives were considered then this should be stated. Refer to Section 4.4.4. Description of the Proposed Development: The project should be described in sufficient detail and include: site design and size or scale of the development in order to allow potential environmental impacts to be identified. This section should include consideration of installation and commissioning; operation and maintenance; and decommissioning aspects of both onshore and offshore facilities. Refer to Section 4.4.1. Environmental Baseline: The environmental baseline should describe the characteristics for each of the relevant receptors and highlight any particularly sensitive receptors or areas. These are usually split into receptor topics as outlined in Section 4.4.3. Applicants must have a sound understanding of all the different environmental aspects which could be significantly affected by the proposals and which must therefore be assessed through the EIA. The environmental description should include the physical, biological and human aspects of the environment, to provide a background of environmental conditions prior to development. EIA Methodology, Scoping and Consultation: The explanation of EIA methodology should include each stage of the EIA process that the development went through from screening, scoping and consultation, both formal and informal, to the assessment of potential impacts. The method by which the magnitude of effect is assessed should be defined, i.e. under which circumstances an impact is considered to be significant as well as any specialist studies which were undertaken. Details of all the consultation undertaken as part of the EIA should also be documented (including how any concerns/issues have been addressed). Refer to Section 4.4.5 and 4.4.6.




Assessment of Potentially Significant Impacts: Assessment of the potentially significant impacts which were highlighted during the EIA should be addressed in this section using the methodology defined in the previous section. This should include reference to specific studies which may need to be included as technical annexes/appendices to the ES. Depending on the scale of the project it may be easier for the applicant to address key issues as separate sections within the ES. The assessment section should be split into the key receptor/topic areas and include any mitigation which will be implemented to reduce environmental effects. The residual impacts including mitigation should be clearly defined using the EIA methodology. The assessment of cumulative/in-combination effects should also be documented within the assessment chapters. Refer to Sections 4.4.6 to 4.4.9. Monitoring and Environmental Management Plan (MEMP): The ES is not the end point of the EIA process. The design envelopes will reduce as further work is undertaken post approval and the mitigation measures defined will contain future actions in terms of construction methodologies, survey and monitoring as well as specific environmental mitigation. It is necessary to document all commitments made and all remaining actions (pre-construction, construction, operation and decommissioning) as well as defining the responsibilities for those actions. The actions in the MEMP will become part of the licence conditions where appropriate. Refer to Section 4.4.10.

7.1.1 ES Compliance In order to ensure that the ES satisfies the legal requirements MS-LOT will review the ES as part of the licence/consenting process. The key criteria that MS-LOT will be checking are listed below. Any omissions in the ES will result in additional queries or information requests as part of the determination process and ultimately rejection of the application. MS-LOT will require the ES to fully document and answer the following questions: Does the ES describe the condition of those aspects of the

environment that are likely to be significantly affected by the development?

Is the ‘sensitivity’ of the baseline environment clearly evaluated? Where limitations in the baseline information exist which could

influence the assessment of the findings, are they easily identifiable? Is the assessment methodology appropriate? Are the methods for establishing the ‘magnitude’ of effects on the

receiving environment clearly defined? Where the ES sets out a generic method for evaluating significance, is

this applied throughout the ES? Where an over-arching approach is not followed, are the specific methods used to evaluate significance for each environmental topic clearly justified?

Does the evaluation of significance consider the different stages of development (construction, operation and decommissioning) and relate the effects identified to the condition of the baseline environment?




Does the ES give appropriate prominence to both positive and negative effects relative to their significance?

Is it clear that the EIA has considered inter-relationships in order to identify secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects?

Does the ES describe the measures proposed to be implemented to avoid, reduce, or offset significant adverse effects of the proposed development?

Does the ES identify the residual impacts following the successful implementation of any mitigation described in the ES?

Does the ES set out how mitigation measures are to be secured and implemented and who has responsibility for their delivery?

The review should confirm that the ES: Adequately reflects the environmental aspects of the development; Fully documents the EIA process; Is suitable and sufficient to withstand external scrutiny; and Meets the legal requirements of the EIA Directive.

7.2 Information for Appropriate Assessment As discussed above the Information for AA is the documentation of Step 3 of the HRA, whereby the project is assessing the LSE of a proposal and if it could have an adverse effect on the features of interest of the European site. To complete the AA, MS-LOT (taking appropriate expert advice) will consider the site’s conservation objectives against the potential impacts that the proposed development is likely to cause. If it is ascertained that the proposal will or may adversely affect the habitats and species of the designated site and consequently the conservation objective(s) of the site, then action will need to be taken to avoid this. The size, content and structure of an AA and of the information report (Information for AA) which supports it will vary between projects as determined by MS-LOT but it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide all the supporting information documented as Information for AA. The Information for AA can be provided as a stand-alone assessment or as a signposting document to the relevant sections in the ES. Whichever the format, the document should be clearly structured around the HRA process and should record the advice received in relation to the HRA, and how the issues raised have been addressed. The Information for AA must include the following:

Key Information




Summary of the project and the agreed assessment scope; Description of the baseline environmental conditions (for those interest

feature habitats and species that have been scoped into the assessment;

Review of the impact pathways; Review of the relevant conservation objectives; Assessment of the effects on the integrity of the designated site(s)

against the conservation objectives; Identification of mitigation measures if required; Revisit conclusions about the effects on integrity in the light of the

applied mitigation measures; and Assessment of the project’s impacts in-combination with other existing

plans or projects that are in the planning domain.

7.3 Navigation Risk Assessment There should be a dedicated NRA produced to support the application and a Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) may also be required. This needs to be specific to the device/s and the area in relation to which the licence applications will be made and should address all potential navigational effects on other users of the sea, including commercial and leisure users. All efforts should be made to access as much up-to-date information as possible on vessel passage in, and other users of, the areas that will be affected by the proposed development. A summary of the NRA should be included within the ES. International protocols and conventions relating to safety, laws of the sea and pollution apply to shipping and ports. The UK government has a responsibility to ensure that measures are implemented in order to honour its commitments to these protocols, not least of these is the UK’s responsibility under Article 60(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) relating to provisions for ‘Artificial islands, installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone’. A Navigation Risk Assessment is one process by which the necessary considerations of developments can be evaluated. Within UK territorial waters, the UK Government uphold the right of innocent passage as defined in Article 17 of UNCLOS. Beyond the 12-nautical-mile limit of UK territorial waters shipping has the freedom of navigation. The regulation of shipping should be carried out by the ‘flag state control’ operated by the country in which the ship is registered. As this has proved unsatisfactory ‘port state control’ has become common in national jurisdictions. Under this regime the UK Government represented by the inspection division of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) exercises the rights of the port state to inspect and if appropriate detain sub-standard ships.




The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Navigation Safety Branch is actively engaged in the nearshore and offshore development consenting process. The MCA’s navigation and safety practitioner experience is used by Government Departments, applicants and stakeholders alike. The MCA is a formal consultee in the consent process for all UK offshore renewable energy installation and will liaise with applicants and stakeholders. Statutory consultees also include the relevant General Lighthouse Authority (Northern Lighthouse Board, Trinity House, Commissioners of Irish Lights) who respond on navigational requirements including aids to navigation. The requirement to carry out a NRA in relation to Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) is established in The Energy Act (2004) (and subsequent commencement orders, the latest issued in 2010) which includes provisions for safety zones to be placed around renewable energy installations or structures, to protect them and passing shipping from collision and damage. Section 99 of the Act deals specifically with navigation and in combination with Section 36B ‘duties in relation to navigation’ of the Electricity Act 1989, stipulates that a consent cannot be granted for an OREI which is likely to interfere with the use of ‘recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation’ (MCA, 2008). The MCA issues ongoing Marine Guidance Notes (MGNs) containing advice on specific areas of their responsibility and it is highly recommended that these are closely followed. Sea ports and harbours provide the interface between the land, nearshore and open sea. The majority of port operations are administered by Statutory Harbour Authorities (SHA), which are governed by harbour-specific legislation tailored to the needs of each port. A range of national legislation places statutory responsibility on the harbour master to ensure navigation and safety within the harbour limits, this includes the ‘Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847’ and the ‘Docks and Harbour Act 1972’. Under such legislation, the harbour master may issue general or specific directions to control movements of vessels within their SHA in order to ensure safety. Harbour Authorities who have the power to issue Work Licenses under provisions in their Special Act(s) may choose to apply conditions including the completion of a NRA for developments in their SHA areas.

7.4 Third Party Verification (TPV) Report and Certificate MS-LOT also requires an independent TPV Report and Certificate7 of the detailed device design and will also be required by developers for insurance purposes.

7 This is not a legislative requirement




The TPV is a report that certifies the integrity of the structural design of the device and its foundation for the conditions expected at the site. The report must be provided by an independent accredited agency of recognised international standing and reputation. At the time of preparation of this Manual, there is no list of recommended accreditation bodies, but applicants need to ensure that the verifying party is sufficiently experienced and reputable in the field. The TPV is likely to take the form of a detailed report, which will be produced by the verifier in accordance with a specified level of resource and conditions (e.g., produced to ensure survivability of the structure at the specific location, to a 50-year, or a 100-year wave). The specific conditions to which the verifying body makes their assessment are for the applicant and verifier to discuss and agree. The level of assessment applied by the third party verifier should be made clear in the report. Applicants should obtain a certificate, issued by the verifying body, which clearly states the level and, where appropriate, the limits of assessment to which the proposal has been verified. The TPV certificate is relevant to the Marine (Scotland) Act 2012, and should be submitted at the Licence application stage. If an applicant envisages a problem or a potential delay in obtaining the TPV certificate, then early liaison with MS-LOT is crucial. In some circumstances it may be possible to agree a later submission date for this document, but applicants should not assume that this will be acceptable.




8. References and Additional Reading

8.1 References ABPmer (2004) Impact Assessment Guide. ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Unpublished. ABPmer (2010) Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment for the Pentland Firth Strategic Area (PFSA) Leasing Round. Report for The Crown Estate February 2010; ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Report No. R.1602. ABPmer (2011) Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Draft Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters: Proposed Approach for the Screening and Assessment of the Short and Medium Term Options. Report for the Scottish Government January 2011; ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd. Report No. R. 1722b. ABPmer (2011) Habitats Regulations Appraisal of National Infrastructure Renewables Plan (N-RIP): Appropriate Assessment Information Review. Report for the Scottish Government January 2011; ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd. Report No. R. 1740b. ABPmer (2012) Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Draft Plan for Wave and Tidal Energy in Scottish Waters Screening Review. Report for Marine Scotland 2012; ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, February 2012 Report No. R.1863b Aquatera (2010) A Review of the Potential Impacts of Wave and Tidal Energy Development on Scotland’s Marine Environment (Aquatera, Orkney) Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) (2004) Offshore Wind Farms Guidance note for Environmental Impact Assessment In respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements Version 2 (Crown Copyright) CEFAS (2011) Guidelines for Data Acquisition to Support Marine Environmental Assessments of Offshore Renewable Energy Projects Report: ME5403 – Module 15 (CEFAS, Lowestoft) Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) Decommissioning of offshore renewable energy installations under the Energy Act 2004 Guidance Notes for Industry (DECC, London) EMEC and Xodus Group (2010) Consenting, EIA and HRA Guidance for Marine Renewable Energy Developments in Scotland Part One – Marine Renewables Licensing Process




EMEC and Xodus Group (2010) Consenting, EIA and HRA Guidance for Marine Renewable Energy Developments in Scotland Part Two – Legislation and Documentation EMEC and Xodus Group (2010) Consenting, EIA and HRA Guidance for Marine Renewable Energy Developments in Scotland Part Three – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Habitat Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Guidance EMEC and Xodus Group (2010) Consenting, EIA and HRA Guidance for Marine Renewable Energy Developments in Scotland Part Four – Wave and Tidal Annex European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA, EIS Review. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2011) The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in Estuaries and Coastal Zones with particular attention to port development and dredging (European Commission, Luxemburg) IEEM (2010) Guidelines For Ecological Impact Assessment in Britain and Ireland – Marine and Coastal – Final Document 5 August 2010; commissioned by the Council of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management: http://www.ieem.net/docs/Final%20EcIA%20Marine%2001%20Dec%202010.pdf Infrastructure Planning Commission (2011) Using the Rochdale Envelope Advice Note 9 (Infrastructure Planning Commission, Bristol) Jackson, D., and Whitfield, P. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 4. Birds. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. Joint Nature Conservation Council Joint Cetacean Protocol http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5657 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, C-172/02, [2005] Env LR 14. Macleod, K., Lacey, C., Quick, N., Hastie, G. and Wils on J. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 2. Cetaceans and Basking Sharks. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland.




Marine Scotland (2010) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Draft Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters: Volume 1: Environmental Report (Marine Scotland, Edinburgh) Saunders, G., Bedford, G.S., Trendall, J.R., and Sotheran, I. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 5. Benthic Habitats. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. Scottish Executive (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (Scottish Executive, Edinburgh) Scottish Government (2012) Scotland's Renewables Routemap Short Life Task Force on Streamlining Energy Development Licensing and Consents. Final Report (The Scottish Government, Edinburgh) Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) A handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and others involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Scotland 3rd Edition (David Tyldesley and Associates Edinburgh) Scottish Natural Heritage (2010) Natura sites and the Habitats Regulations How to consider proposals affecting SACs and SPAs in Scotland The essential quick guide (SNH) http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B617797.pdf Sparling, C., Grellier, K., Philpott, E., Macleod, K., and Wilson, J. (2011) Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 3. Seals. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. Trendall, J.R., Fortune, F. and Bedford, G.S. (2011) Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 1. Context and General Principals. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. Marine Scotland 2011 Survey Deploy Monitor Policy (Marine Scotland, Edinburgh) Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2008) MGN 371 (M+F), Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) Guidance on UK Navigation Practice, Safety and Emergency Response Issues Renewable UK 2011 Consenting Lessons Learned An offshore wind industry review of past concerns, lessons learned and future challenges (Renewable UK).




Thomas, L. 2009 Potential Use of Joint Cetacean Protocol Data for Determining Changes in Species’ Range and Abundance: Exploratory Analysis of Southern Irish Sea Data. Report to Joint Nature Conservation Committee; National Parks and Wildlife Service; and Countryside Council for Wales (University of St Andrews) Tyldesley, D. 2011 Assessing projects under the Habitats Directive: Guidance for competent authorities. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor. WWF UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] Env. L.R. 632, at 1084-5

8.2 Further Reading ABPmer (2010) Screening and Scoping Review for the Pentland Firth Strategic Area (PFSA) Leasing Round Habitats Regulations Assessment. Report for The Crown Estate January 2010; ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Report No. R.1601. Baxter, J.M, Boyd, I.L., Cox, M, Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., Moffat, C.F., (editors), (2001) Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) (2003). The Coastal and Marine Environmental Site Guide. DECC, Decommissioning. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file35754.pdf. Essex Planning Officers Association (2007). The Essex Guide to Environmental Impact Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) The Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2006) Update to the Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA, Scoping. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA, Screening. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (1999) Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001.




Marine Consents and Environment Unit (2004) Offshore Wind Farms: Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessment is Respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements, Version 2. Prepared by CEFAS on behalf of MCEU. Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2008) MGN 371 (M+F), Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) Guidance on UK Navigation Practice, Safety and Emergency Response Issues. Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2009) MGN 372: Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) - Guidance to Mariners operating in the vicinity of UK OREIs Marine Management Organisation (2011) Marine Licensing Guidance 8 Environmental Impact Assessment (MMO, Lodon) NetRegs. http://www.netregs.gov.uk/. OSPAR, (2008). OSPAR Guidance on Environmental Considerations for Offshore Wind Farm Development. Productive Seas Evidence Group (2010) Charting Progress 2 Feeder Report: Productive Seas. (Defra, London) Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER) (2011) Tidal Technologies: Key Issues Across Planning and Development for Environmental Regulators Project ER20 (SNIFFER, Edinburgh) Scottish Executive (2006). Assessing Development Plans in Terms of the Need for Appropriate Assessment; Interim Guidance. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Introduction to the Controlled Activities Regulations: http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/wfd/regimes/intro_car.pdf. Scottish Government (2012) Scotland’s Renewables Routemap Short Life Task Force on Streamlining Energy Development in Scotland Final Report (The Scottish Government, Edinburgh) Scottish Natural Heritage (2004) Policy Statement Marine Renewable Energy and the Natural Heritage: An overview and policy statement (SNH) Scott Wilson and Downie, A J (2003) A Review of Possible Marine Renewable Energy Development Projects and their Natural Heritage Impacts from a Scottish Perspective. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report FO2AA414



Appendices




Appendix A. Consultees A1. Section 36 Statutory and Non Statutory Consultees A1.1 Statutory Scottish National Heritage (SNH) (within 12nm) Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (outwith 12nm) Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Local Authority A1.2 Non Statutory Association of Salmon Fishery Boards (ASFB) British Telecom (Radio Network Protection Team) (BT) Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (Windfarms only) Chamber of Shipping (COS) The Crown Estate (CEC) Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inshore Fishery Groups (IFG) Joint Radio Company (JRC) Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Marine Safety Forum (MSF) Marine Scotland (MS) National Air Traffic Services (NATS) Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) Royal Yachting Association (RYA) Royal Society for Protection Birds (RSPB) Scottish Canoe Association (SCA) Scottish Fishermans Federation (SFF) Scottish Fishermans Organisation (SFO) Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) Ports and Harbours Historic Scotland Marine Scotland Compliance Planning




A2. Marine Licence Consultees A2.1 Statutory Scottish National Heritage (SNH) Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) A2.2 Non Statutory We would also consult with anyone identified as having a vested interest in the application. These would not be statutory consultees.




Appendix B. Information Sources, Data Sources, and Further Reading

B1. Introduction This annex provides a starting point for the assessment, but there are a number of more detailed information sources which should be considered. Key references are provided below under various topic headings and MS-LOT and key stakeholders should be contacted to ensure the EIA team are using the most up-to-date data and research. Topics covered by the subsections in this annex are: Physical processes; Water quality and seabed contamination; Benthic ecology; Migratory fish and shellfish; Birds; Marine mammals; Underwater noise, vibration and electro magnetic fields; Marine archaeology and cultural heritage; Navigation; Commercial fisheries, shellfish and aquaculture; Other sea users; Seascape, landscape and visual impact; and Socioeconomics.

B2. Physical Processes As previously stated, the Scoping Phase should assess the available information and data and identify any gaps with respect to the four physical process elements. Suggestions regarding the approaches and methodology for site-specific surveys to be undertaken to fill any gaps should also be made. Information and data should be also be considered that forms part of the evidence base with respect to the potential effects of a development upon the physical process regime. Whilst the marine energy industry is in its infancy, evidence gained from other industries, for example the offshore wind industry, also merits consideration. B2.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information The following section discusses the different sources and types of information which will be useful to the characterisation and assessment of physical processes. It will be the responsibility of the developer to identify and gather this information but MS-LOT will be able to advise.




Tide gauge data, including British Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC)

holdings (http://www.bodc.ac.uk); Metocean data, including the Cefas WaveNet system

(http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/our-science/observing-and-modelling/ monitoring-programmes/wavenet.aspx);

British Geological Maps (www.bgs.ac.uk); Admiralty Charts; Aerial photographs; JNCC Coastal Directory Series; Geological Conservation Review (GCR); The Scottish Marine Renewables SEA 2007 available http://www.seaenergy

scotland.co.uk/; DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/; and The Coastal Cells of Scotland (HR Wallingford).

There are a number of important national and regional datasets which can be provided such as those collected for Scotland’s Marine Atlas and the Pentland Firth Strategic Area. Much of the information and reports on the likely physical affects of offshore renewables relates to OWF but their conclusions will be directly relevant for marine renewables. Previous to ABPmer et al., (2010), Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) (now DECC) commissioned a study to assess the potential effects of Round 2 offshore windfarm developments on sediment transport (ABPmer, 2005). It is hoped that evidence from Round 2 developments, once available, can be used to prove, or otherwise, this study and initial results are seeming positive. The work used numerical modelling to provide one of a series of supporting technical investigations into the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for marine renewable energy. It also further extended generic research funded by DTI, prior to Round 1, to investigate the potential effects of offshore windfarm developments upon coastal processes, as reported in Cooper & Beiboer (2002). The pan-Government Research Advisory Group (RAG) also commissioned studies to address the key impact sediment process issues of offshore windfarms as well as a study to address the key impact issues cabling (BERR, 2008). In addition to documenting the different cables and installation techniques currently available, the report also details the potential environmental impacts of these techniques, mitigation measures and good practise which could be applied to minimise the impacts The potential impacts of future large-scale commercial deployments of wave and tidal energy devices extracting large amounts of energy from the tides, is an area of concern associated with the marine energy industry. In addition to numerical modelling already completed, for example within the SUPERGEN project, recent CEC, ETI and PerAWatT initiatives are also concerned with the numerical representation of such schemes and their potential energy extraction effects .




B2.2 References and Further Reading CEFAS 2004 Offshore wind farms: Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessment in respect of Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) and Coast Protection Act (CPA) requirements: Version 2’ Volume 2 of 4 Coastal Processes Defra, Cefas and Department for Transport (DfT), 2004 Guidance on Environmental Impact Assessment in Relation to Dredging Applications’ (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2001) Defra, 2005 Nature Conservation Guidance on Offshore Wind Farm Development Scottish Natural Heritage 2003 Marine Renewable Energy and the Natural Heritage: An Overview and Policy Statement Defra (2012) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation UK Initial Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status (HMSO, London) Bryden, I. and Melville, G., 2004. Choosing and Evaluating Sites for Tidal Current Development. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, Vol 218, Part A: J.Power and Energy, p567-578, Professional Engineering Publishing Limited, London, UK, ISSN 0957-6509. Bryden, I. G. Extracting Energy from Tidal Flows. Hydraulic Aspects of Renewable Energy, 19th March 2004, Glasgow Bryden, I.G., Couch, S.J., Owen, A. and Melville, G. Tidal Current Resource Assessment. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, Part A: J.Power and Energy, Accepted and awaiting publication. Bryden, I.G., Grinsted, T. and Melville, G.T. Assessing the Potential of a Simple Tidal Channel to Deliver Useful Energy. Applied Ocean Research, Vol 26/5 pp. 200-206. Chin, D. A. Water resources engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, ISBN 0-201-35091-2, p. 146. Dean, R. and Dalrymple. 1991, Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists. Worlds Scientific, Singapore, pp 100-125, ISBN 981-02-0421-3. Garrett, C. and Cummins, P., 2005. The power potential of tidal currents in channels. Proc. R. Soc. A, Vol. 461, pp. 2563-2572, doi:10.1098/rspa.2005.1494. B2.2.1 Baseline Data Airy, G., B. Tides and Waves. Encyc. Metrop., Vol. 192, pp241-396.




Cooper, W., Saulter, A., and Hodgetts, P., 2008. Guidelines for the use of metocean data through the life cycle of a marine renewable energy development. CIRIA 2008, RP742, ISBN-13: 978-0-86017-666-4. Fisheries Research Services Internal Report No 06/09. A Review of the Sources and Scope of Data on Characteristics of Scottish Waters. An Assessment of the Adequacy of the Data and Identification of Gaps in Knowledge, Mike Robertson & Ian Davies, March 2009 available http://www.frs-scotland.gov.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Documents/Int0609.pdf This document provides a very comprehensive summary of the data sets available for the categorisation of Scottish Waters. Jeffreys, H., 1925. On the Formation of Water Waves by Wind. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Vol. 107, No. 742, pp. 189-206. Pugh, D. T., 1987. Tides, surges and mean sea-level, Wiley. P 244 Section 7.5. B2.2.2 Assessment ABPmer, 2005. Assessment of potential effects of Round 2 offshore wind farm developments on sediment transport. Report reference R.1109. ABPmer and Metoc Plc, 2002. Potential effects of offshore wind developments on coastal processes. ETSU W/35/00596/00/REP. URN 02/1336 ABPmer, Cefas and HR Wallingford, 2007a. Review of Round 1 sediment process monitoring data – lessons learnt. Report for DTI, Seabed and Coastal Processes Research SED01. Draft report version 1.1, June 2007. ABPmer, Cefas and HR Wallingford, 2007b. Dynamics of scour pits and scour protection – synthesis report and recommendations (Milestones 2 and 3). Report for DTI, Seabed and Coastal Processes Research SED02. Report EX 5588, Release 2, November 2007. BERR, 2008 Review of Cabling Techniques and Environmental Effects Applicable to the Offshore Wind Farm Industry – Technical Report ABPmer and HR Wallingford, 2009 Coastal Process Modelling for Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Impact Assessment. Report for Cowrie. English Nature, RSPB, WWF, BWEA, 2001. Wind Farm Development and Nature Conservation Huddleston J (ed) 2010 Understanding the Environmental Impacts of Offshore Windfarms COWRIE 2010




Koutitas, C., Mathematical Models in Coastal Engineering. Pentech Press London, pp20-31, ISBN 0- 7272-1313-4 The Crown Estate, 2010. Round 3 zone appraisal and planning. A strategic approach to zone design, project identification and consent. Topper M B R 2010 Guidance for Numerical Modelling in Wave and Tidal Energy Revision: 729. The University of Edinburgh for SUPERGEN Marine Wilson, J.C., Elliott, M., Cutts, N.D., Mander, L., Mendao, V., Perez-Dominguez, R., and Phelps, A., 2010. Coastal and Offshore Wind Energy Generation: Is It Environmentally Benign? Energies, 2010, 3, 1383 – 1422. Whitehouse, R., 1998. Scour at Marine Structures. Thomas Telford Publications. B2.2.3 Survey and Monitoring ABPmer, Cefas and HR Wallingford, 2007a. Review of Round 1 sediment process monitoring data – lessons learnt. Report for DTI, Seabed and Coastal Processes Research SED01. Draft report version 1.1, June 2007. Cefas, 2006. Scroby Sands Offshore Wind Farm – Coastal Processes Monitoring. Report for DTI, Contract AE0262. Final report. Robertson, M. & Davies I.M. 2009. Fisheries Research Services Internal Report No 06/09. A Review of the Sources and Scope of Data on Characteristics of Scottish Waters. An Assessment of the Adequacy of the Data and Identification of Gaps in Knowledge. http://www.frs-scotland.gov.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Documents/Int 0609.pdf. B3. Water Quality and Seabed Contamination B3.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information MS-LOT will be able to advise on the availability of data of relevance to the development, potential sources of baseline data include: Scotland’s Marine Atlas (www.scotland.gov.uk/marineatlas); Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA

www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/; Marine Scotland Science Survey Data; River Basin Management Plans; DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/; Environmental Statements (and HRAs) for offshore wind and wave and tidal

developments;




Marine Spatial Plans (when available); JNCC Coastal Directory Series; Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH): www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and-

research/snhi-information-service/; COWRIE report on cumulative impact assessment

www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE/; British Geological Society –geology maps and hydrogeological map of

Scotland; Ordinance Survey maps; SEPA- bathing quality information, aquifer vulnerability maps available on

website. http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/monitoring_and_classification; and Local Development Plans.

B3.2 References and Further Reading Cefas, Defra, DTI and MCEU. (2004) .Offshore Wind Farms: Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessment in Respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements Version 2, Marine Consents Environment Unit, 48pp. Cefas, 2011. Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental assessments of offshore renewable energy projects. Cefas contract report: ME5403 – Module 15. CIRIA C584 guidance: Coastal and Marine Environmental Site Guide Cole, S., Codling, I.D., Parr, W. & Zabel, T., (1999). Guidelines for managing water quality impacts within UK European marine sites. Environmental Resources Management limited (2010) Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm: Environmental Scoping report Project 0108603 HM Government, 2012. Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation. UK Initial Assessment and Proposals for good Environmental Status. March 2012. Marine Environment Monitoring Group (MEMG), (2004). UK National Marine Environment Monitoring Programme - Second Report (1999-2001). Cefas, Lowestoft. 138pp. OSPAR. (2006). Review of the Current State of Knowledge on the Environmental Impacts of the Location, Operation and Removal/Disposal of Offshore Wind-Farms. Publication Number: 278/2006 OSPAR. (2008). Assessment of the environmental impact of offshore wind-farms. Publication Number: 385/2008 OSPAR (2010) OSPAR Commission Quality Status Report 2010. Available at http://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/ch01_02.html.




Pollution Prevention Guidelines 2 (PPG2) above ground storage tanks. February 2004. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0204BHTN-e-e.pdf? lang=_e Pollution Prevention Guidelines 4 (PPG4) Disposal of sewage where no foul sewer is available. July 2004. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0706 BJGL-E-E.pdf?lang=_e Pollution Prevention Guidelines 5 (PPG5) works and maintenance in or near water. October 2007. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO1107BNKG-e-e.pdf?lang=_e Pollution Prevention Guidelines 6 (PPG 6) working at construction and demolition sites. Not dated. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0203 AUDJ-e-e.pdf?lang=_e Pollution and Prevention Guidelines 7 (PPG7) Refuelling Facilities. August 2004. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0804BIDG-e-e.pdf?lang=_e Pollution and Prevention Guidelines14 (PPG14) Marinas and Craft. February 2004. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0204PP14-e-e.pdf?lang=_e SNH. (2002). A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and others; Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) can also be accessed at http://www.sepa.org.uk/about_us/publications/guidance/ppgs.aspx. B4. Benthic Ecology B4.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information There are a number of organisations and initiatives which will be important sources of data including SNH, MSS, JNCC, MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network), OSPAR, Shark Trust etc. Sources of baseline data and guidance include: Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA,

http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/. DECC Offshore Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) for the UKCS,

http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/. Scoping reports, EIAs and HRAs undertaken for offshore renewable

development in the region. National Marine Spatial Plans (when available)




JNCC Coastal Directory Series (baseline environmental and human use

information for the coastal and near shore marine zone for the whole of the UK: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2157

MSS data sets (includes location and habitat data for renewable development sites): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/MSInteractive/ Themes/Renewables/Data

Marine Scotland surveys of areas identified for wave and tidal energy development http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/ MSInteractive/Datalinks

Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) data base: http://www.searchmesh.net.

DASSH (Data Archive for Seabed Species and Habitats): http://www.dassh.ac.uk

UK benthos. A CD produced for the oil and gas industry summarising all seabed sampling data available for the UK continental shelf.

JNCC information on protected sites: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4524 and SACs with marine components: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1445.

SNH information on protected sites – SNH site link: http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,910284,53_920284&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.

UK BAP priority species and habitats: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5705 Scottish Biodiversity List, temporarily on the SNH website:

http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/biodiversity-scotland/. Regional Marine Spatial Plans – information on pilot marine plans under the

Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative (SSMEI): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/seamanagement/regional/SSMEI

Marine Nature Conservation Review (MNCR) http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1596

JNCC Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland (v04.05) (marine benthic classification system): http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1584

Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland (MarLIN): http://www.marlin.ac.uk

COWRIE – Data Management and Stewardship for UK Marine Renewables: http://data.offshorewind.co.uk/

National Marine Biological Library: http://www.mba.ac.uk/NMBL/. UK Marine SACs Project website: http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/marine-

communities.htm Admiralty charts. Relevant Local Biodiversity Action Plans. UKSeamap http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5534 Marine Protected Areas – gathering/developing and accessing the data of the

planning of a network of marine conservation Zones – MB0102 - defra.gov.uk Scottish Biodiversity Layers




B4.2 Further Reading B4.2.1 Baseline Data Basford D.J. and Eleftheriou A. (1988). The Benthic environment of the North Sea (56° - 61°N). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 68, 125 – 141. Basford D.J., Eleftheriou A., and Raffaell, D. (1989). The epifauna of the northern North Sea (56-61°N). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 69, 387 -407. Basford D.J., Eleftheriou A., and Raffaelli D. (1990). The infauna and epifauna of the northern North Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 25, 165 – 173. Basford D.J., Eleftheriou A., Davies I. M., Irion G., and Soltwedel T. (1993). The ICES North Sea benthos survey: the sedimentary environment. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas Journal of Marine Science 50, 71 – 80. Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O., Reker, J.B. (2004) The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05. JNCC, Peterborough ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version) www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Dyer M.F., Fry W.G., Fry P.D. and Cranmer G.J. (1982). A series of North Sea benthos surveys with trawl and headline camera. Journal of the marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Vol 62. 297 – 313. Dyer M.F., Fry W.G., Fry P.D. and Cranmer G.J. (1983). Benthic regions within the North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 63, 683 – 693. Eleftheriou A. and Basford D.J. (1989). The macrobenthic infauna of the offshore northern North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Huys et al., 1992. Eleftheriou, A., Basford, D., Moore, D. C., (2004). Synthesis of benthic information on benthos of Area SEA 5. Report for the DTI. SEA 5 Report. Faber Maunsell and Metoc, (2007). Scottish Marine Renewables: Strategic Environmental assessment. Environmental report. For the Scottish Executive. Frauenheim K., Neumann V., Theil H. and Türkay M. (1989). The distribution of the larger epifauna during the summer and winter in the North Sea and its suitability for environmental monitoring. Senckenbergiana Marit 20, 101– 118.




Hughes, D.J., 1998. Sea pens and burrowing megafauna (Vol III) – An overview of dynamics and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project) pp. 105. Gray, J.S. (1974). Animal-sediment relationships. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an annual review 12, pp. 223 - 261. Gubbay, S. (2007) Defining and Managing Sabellaria spinulosa Reefs: Report of an Inter-agency Workshop. JNCC, JNCC Report No. 405, 22pp. Irving, R. (2009) Identification of the Main Characteristics of Stony Reef Habitats under the Habitats Directive. Summary of an Inter-agency Workshop 26-27 March 2008. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC Report No. 432, 28pp. Jackson, A., (1999). Sabellaria spinulosa. Ross worm and Sabellaria alveolata. Honeycomb worm. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 06/08/02]. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk. (Connor et al. 2004). Jennings S., Lancaster J., Woolmer A. and Cotter J. (1999). Distribution, diversity and abundance of epibenthic fauna in the North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 79, 385 – 399. Kroencke, I., H. Reiss, J.D. Eggleton, J. Aldridge, M.J.N. Bergman, S. Cochrane, J.A. Craeymeersch, S. Degraer, N. Desroy, J-M. Dewarumez, G.C.A. Duineveld, K. Essink, H. Hillewaert, M.S.S. Lavaleye, A. Moll, S. Nehring, R. Newell, E. Oug, T. Pohlmann, E. Rachor, M. Robertson, H. Rumohr, M. Schratzberger, R. Smith, E.Vanden Berghe, J. van Dalfsen, G. van Hoey, M. Vincx, W. Willems, and H.L. Rees. (2011). Changes in North Sea macrofauna communities and species distribution between 1986 and 2000. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 94 (1):115. Künitzer A., Basford D.J., Craeymeersch J.M., Dewarmez J.M., Dörjes J., Eleftheriou A., Heip C., Herman P.M., Kingston P., Niermann U., Rumohr H. and De Wilde P.A.J. (1992). The benthic infauna of the North Sea: species distribution and assemblages. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas Journal of Marine Science 49, 127 – 143. Mair, J.M., Moore, C.G., Kingston, P.F., Harries, D.B., (2000). a review of the status, ecology and conservation of horse mussel Modiolus modiolus beds in Scotland. SNH Commissioned Report F99PA08. Moore, C. G. and Roberts, J. M. (2011). An assessment of the conservation importance of species and habitats identified during a series of recent research cruises around Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 446.




OSPAR (2006). OSPAR Agreement 2005-2006. Agreement on Background Concentrations for Contaminants in Seawater, Biota and Sediment. OSPAR Commission, London. Revised by ASMO 2006 (ASMO 2006 Summary Record (ASMO 06/12/1) § 5.38 Rees H.L., Eggleton J.D., Rachor E. and Vanden Berghe E. (Eds) (2007) Structure and dynamics of the North Sea benthos. ICES cooperative research report. No. 288. Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre (SERC) (2012) http://www.serc.si.edu/ labs/benthic_ecology/index.aspx Shackley, S.E. & Collins, M. (1984). Variations in sublittoral sediments and their associated macro-infauna in response to inner shelf processes; Swansea Bay, U.K. Sedimentology 31, pp. 793 - 804. Snelgrove, P.V.R. & Butman, C.A. (1994). Animal-sediment relationships revisited: cause versus effect. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an annual review 32, pp. 111 - 177. Wilding, T.A., Hughes, D.J., Black, K.D. (2005). The benthic environment of the North and West of Scotland and the Northern and Western Isles: Sources of information and overview. Report 1 to METOC. Scottish association for Marine Science, Oban. B4.2.2 Assessment Anon. (1993). Analysis and interpretation of benthic community data at sewage sludge disposal sites. Aquat. Environ. Monit. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft, No. 37, 80pp. Anon. (2001). Offshore wind farms: guidance note for environmental impact assessment in respect of FEPA and CPA requirements. Lowestoft: Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, 20pp. Boyd, S. E. (2002). Guidelines for the conduct of benthic studies at aggregate extraction sites. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 117pp. Bryden. (2006). Marine Renewable Energy: Predicting the Influence of Energy Extraction. Unpublished Report to Metoc plc. June 2006. Cefas, Defra, DTI and MCEU. (2004) Offshore Wind Farms: Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessment in Respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements Version 2, Marine Consents Environment Unit, 48pp.




Cefas.(2011). Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental assessments of offshore renewable energy projects. Cefas contract report: ME5403 – Module 15. Cooper, K. M. and Rees, H. L. (2002). Review of Standard Operating Procedures. Sci. Ser., Aquat. Environ. Prot.: Analyt. Meth., CEFAS Lowestoft, No. 13, 57pp. Crown Estate (2012) Pentland Firth Strategic Area Revisions: Cumulative Impact Assessment Davies, J., Baxter, J., Bradley, M., Connor, D., KHAN, J., Murray, E., Sanderson, W., Turnbull, C. and Vincent, M. (eds., 2001). Marine monitoring handbook. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 405pp. Ellis, N and Munro, (2004). A preliminary review of the distribution and extent of BAP Priority Habitats across Scotland. SNH Comm. Res. Rep. No. 044 English Nature. (2001). Wind farm development and nature conservation. Publication by English Nature, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Fund UK & British Wind Energy Association. Goldaming: WWF-UK. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM). 2010. Guidelines for ecological impact assessment in Britain and Ireland: Marine and Coastal. Final version 5, August 2010. JNCC (2001) Marine Monitoring Handbook. Available from http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2430. Johnston, C.M., Turnbull, C.G., Tasker, M.L. (2002). Natura 2000 in UK Offshore Waters: Advice to support the implementation of the EC Habitats and Birds Directives in UK offshore waters. Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, Peterborough. Marine Scotland (2011). Blue seas – Green Energy: A Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. PART A The Plan. March 2011. ISBN: 978-1-78045-108-4. Nature Conservancy Council. Scotland. (1990) Marine Consultation Areas: Scotland. Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) Scotland. ODG Report. OSPAR (2004). Draft background document on problems and benefits associated with the development of offshore windmill farms (OWF). Annex 1. Report BDC/03/4/2-E OSPAR. (2006) Review of the Current State of Knowledge on the Environmental Impacts of the Location, Operation and Removal/Disposal of Offshore Wind-Farms. Publication Number: 278/2006




OSPAR. (2008) Assessment of the environmental impact of offshore wind-farms. Publication Number: 385/2008 Rees, H. L., Moore, D. C., Pearson, T. H., Elliott, M., Service, M., Pomfret, J. and Johnson, D. (1990). Procedures for the monitoring of marine benthic communities at UK sewage sludge disposal sites. Dept. Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet No. 18, 79pp. SNH. (2010). Renewable energy and the natural environment. Scottish Natural Heritage. Warwick, R.M. (2001). Evidence for the effects of metal contamination on the intertidal macrobenthic assemblages of the Fal estuary. Marine pollution bulletin 42 (2), pp. 145 - 148. B4.2.3 Survey and Monitoring Anon. (1993). Analysis and interpretation of benthic community data at sewage sludge disposal sites. Aquat. Environ. Monit. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft, No. 37, 80pp. Anon. (1996). Monitoring and assessment of the marine benthos at UK dredged material disposal sites. Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet, No. 21, 35pp. Baldock, K. (2004), Ingoldmells Met Mast Survey Assessment of Marine Growth. Lin Baldock, August 2004. Bullimore, B. and Hiscock, K. (2001) Procedural Guideline No. 3-12 Quantitative Surveillance of Sublittoral Rock Biotopes and Species Using Photographs. In Marine Monitoring Handbook, (J. Davies ed.), 315-326. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Clarke, K.R. & Warwick, R.M. (1994). Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. UK: Plymouth Marine Laboratory. Clark, R.B, Frid, C. and Attrill, M. (1997). Marine pollution (fourth edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies, J., Baxter, J., Bradley, M., Connor, D., KHAN, J., Murray, E., Sanderson, W., Turnbull, C. and Vincent, M. (eds., 2001). Marine monitoring handbook. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 405pp. Eleftheriou, A. & McIntyre, A. (2005) Methods for the study of marine benthos. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.




Holt, T.J., Rees, E.I.S., Hawkins, S.J. and Seed, R. (1998), Biogenic Reefs (volume IX). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project). Holt, R. and Sanderson, B. (2001) Procedural Guideline No.3-5 Identifying Biotopes Using Video Recordings. In Marine Monitoring Handbook, (J. Davies ed.), 241-249. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. ICES. (2010) Addendum 1: IBTS Manual - Revision VIII Manual for the International Bottom Trawl Surveys. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen ICES. (2009) WGBEAM Manual for the Offshore Beam Trawl Surveys Version 1.0 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen Kenny, A.J. and Rees, H.L. (1996), The Effects of Marine Gravel Extraction on the Macrobenthos: Early Post-Dredging Recolonization. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 7, 442–447. Kruskal, J.B. & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverley Hills, California: Sage publications. Linley, E.A.S., Wilding, T.A., Black, K., Hawkins, A.J.S. and Mangi, S. (2007) Review of the Reef Effects of Offshore Wind Farm Structures and their Potential for Enhancement and Mitigation. Report from PML Applications Ltd and the SAMS to BERR, Contract No: RFCA/005/0029P, 132pp. Marine Pollution Monitoring and Management Group. (2003). UK National Marine Monitoring Programme (NMMP2) Green Book. Available from http://www.monae.org/documents/. Marine Scotland. (2008). Seabed surveys of the Pentland Firth. Available on request from Marine Scotland Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J. and Hitchcock, D.R. (1998), The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the seabed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review. 36, 127–78. A.D. Assell, R.N. Gibson and Margaret Barnes, Editors. UCL Press. Rees, H. L., Moore, D. C., Pearson, T. H., Elliott, M., Service, M., Pomfret, J. and Johnson, D. (1990). Procedures for the monitoring of marine benthic communities at UK sewage sludge disposal sites. Dept. Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet No. 18, 79pp.




Saunders, G., Bedford, G.S., Trendall, J.R., and Sotheran, I. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 5. Benthic Habitats. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland.

Somerfield, P. J. and Warwick, R. M. (1996). Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes. A laboratory manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, 71pp. Thomas, N.S. (2001) Procedural Guideline No. 3-9 Quantitative Sampling of Sublittoral Sediment Biotopes and Species using Remote-Operated Grabs. In Marine Monitoring Handbook, (J. Davies ed.), 275-293. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Ware, S.J. & Kenny, A.J. (2011). Guidelines for the Conduct of Benthic Studies at Marine Aggregate Extraction Sites (2nd Edition). Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund, 80 pp. B5. Migratory Fish and Shellfish B5.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information In addition to the data sources identified in the document above, further sources are provided below: Atlas of North Sea Fisheries available from International Council for the

Exploration of the Sea (ICES): http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/ices-fishmap.asp

The Scottish Government Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics www.scotland.gov.uk, under fisheries

Scottish Fishermen’s Federation www.sff.co.uk CEFAS provide information on fish stocks around the UK coasts which are

updated each March www.cefas.co.uk Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters are available from CEFAS,

however these are dated 1998 and the information is presented at quite a large scale

JNCC Coastal Directory Series Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA

http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/ DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/. Marine Nature Conservation Review available http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-

1596. MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland)

http://www.marlin.ac.uk Scottish Salmon and Sea Trout Catches available http://www.frs-

scotland.gov.uk




National Biodiversity Network’s Gateway http://data.nbn.org.uk/. SNH local offices http://www.snh.gov.uk/about/ab-hq.asp SNH information site http://www.snh.gov.uk/snhi Salmon distribution Map for Scotland Reports for fish, shellfish and benthos available at www.offshorewind.co.uk

B5.2 References and Further Readig B5.2.1 Baseline Data ABPmer Ltd (2009) Development of spatial information layers for commercial fishing and shellfishing in UK waters to support strategic siting of offshore windfarms. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference FISHVALUE-07-08). ABPmer (2010) Collision Risk of Fish with Wave and Tidal Devices Commissioned by RPS Group plc on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government (ABPmer, Southampton) ABPmer (2012) Pentland Firth Strategic Areas Revisions: Cumulative Impact Assessment for The Crown Estate (ABPmer, Southampton) ABPmer and Risk and Policy Analysis (2012) A Socio-economic Methodology and Baseline for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Wave and Tidal Developments (ABPmer, Southampton) ABPmer and Risk and Policy Analysis (2012) Socio- economic Baseline Reviews for Offshore Renewables in Scottish Waters (unpublished ABPmer, Southampton) CMACS, 2003. A baseline assessment of electromagnetic fields generated by offshore windfarm cables. COWRIE-EMF-01-2002. Coull, K. A., Johnstone, R. and Rogers, S. I., 1998. Fisheries sensitivity maps in British waters. Published and distributed by UKOOA Ltd., 58 pp. Fisheries Research Services, 2002. Report on biological information gathered from Scottish Fishing Vessels. Industry/Science Partnership, vol. Vol. 2. Aberdeen: Fisheries Research Services. Gill, A.B. 2005. Offshore renewable energy – ecological implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 605-615 Gordon, J.D.M., 2006. Fish and shellfish of the north and west of Scotland and the Northern and Western isles Report to METOC. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. Gordon, J.D.M., 1981. The fish populations of the west of Scotland shelf. Part II. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review. 19: 405-441.




Gordon, J.D.M., and De Silva, S.S., 1980. The fish populations of the west of Scotland shelf. Part I. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review. 18: 317-366. Hendry K & Cragg-Hine D (2003). Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 7. English Nature, Peterborough. Knijn, R. J., Boon, T. W., Heessen, H. J. L. and Hislop, J. R. G., 1993. Atlas of North Sea fishes. ICES Cooperative Research Report No.194, 268pp. Maitland P.S. and Campbell R.N., 1992. Freshwater fishes. Harper Collins Publishers, 368pp. Malcolm, I. A., Godfrey, J and Youngson, A.F (2010) Review of migratory routes and behaviour of Atlantic Salmon, sea trout and European eel in Scotland’s coastal environment: implications for the development of marine renewables. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol. 1 No 14 (draft report Published by Marine Scotland Science) OSPAR.2008. Case reports for the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats. OSPAR.2009. Background Document for Allis shad Alosa alosa. OSPAR 2010. Report of the OSPAR workshop on defining actions and measures for the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats. Picken, M.J. and Shearer, W.M. (eds). The Sea trout in Scotland, Natural Environment Research Council, UK. Wardle, C.S., 1986. Fish behaviour and fishing gear. In: Pitcher T.J. (ed) The behaviour of Teleost fishes. Croom Helm Ltd, London, UK, p 463-495. Wheeler, A.,1969. The Fishes of the British Isles and North West Europe. Michigan State University Press, 613 pp. Wheeler, A., 1978. Key to the Fishes of Northern Europe. Frederick Warne London. 380pp. Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.L., Hureau, J.C., Nielsen, J. and Tortonese, E. (Eds.), 1984. Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, Vol.1-3. UNESCO, Paris, 1473pp. Wilhelmsson, D and Malm, T. 2008. Fouling assemblages on offshore wind power plants and adjacent substrata. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 79. 459-466




B5.2.2 Assessment Aquaterra 2010 A review of the potential impacts of wave and tidal energy development on Scotland’s marine environment. Report no P324 Blyth-Skyrme 2010. Options and opportunities for marine fisheries mitigation associated with windfarm. Final report for COWRIE Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D., Burnham, K., Laake, J., Borchers, D. & Thomas, L., 2001. Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations, Oxford University Press. CEFAS (2004) Offshore Wind Farms: Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessments in respect of FEPA and CPA requirements. Version 2. Report by CEFAS on behalf of the MCEU. Crown Estate (2012) Pentland Firth Strategic Area Revisions: Cumulative Impact Assessment Gill, A.B., Gloyne-Phillips, I., Neal, K.J. & Kimber, J.A., 2005. The Potential impacts of electromagnetic fields generated by sub-sea power cables associated with offshore wind farm developments on electrically and magnetically sensitive marine organisms – a review. Final Report Commissioned for COWRIE, Cowrie-EM FIELD 2-06-2004. Gill, A.B., Huang, Y., Gloyne-Philips, I., Metcalfe, J., Quayle, V., Spencer, J. & Wearmouth, V. (2009). COWRIE 2.0 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMF-sensitive fish response to EM emissions from sub-sea electricity cables of the type used by the offshore renewable energy industry. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference COWRIE-EMF-1-06). Thomsen, F., Ludemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W., 2006. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. Biola, Hamburg, Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd. Wilson, B. Batty, R. S., Daunt, F. & Carter, C., 2006. Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. B5.2.3 Survey and Monitoring EMEC. Protocols for Land-based Wildlife observations for wave and tidal sites. Available from http://www.emec.org.uk.




Maclean I.M.D, Wright L.J., Showler D.A. and Rehfisch M.M. 2009. A Review of Assessment Methodologies for Offshore Windfarms. BTO Report commissioned by Cowrie Ltd. COWRIE METH-08-08. Nedwell, J., Langworthy, J., Howell, D., 2003. Assessment of sub-sea acoustic noise and vibration from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; initial measurements of underwater noise during construction of offshore windfarms, and comparison with background noise. COWRIE report 544R0424. Scottish Association of Marine Science, 2006. Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish Executive. Saunders, G., Bedford, G.S., Trendall, J.R., and Sotheran, I. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 5. Benthic Habitats. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. Trendall, J.R., Fortune, F. and Bedford, G.S. (2011) Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 1. Context and General Principals. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. Walsh S.J. and Godo O.R., 2003. Quantitative analysis of fish reaction to towed fishing gears-What responses are important?. Fisheries Research 63:289-292 B6. Birds B6.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information MS-LOT will be able to advise on the availability of data of relevance to the development. There are a number of important regional datasets which can be provided such as those collected for the Pentland Firth Strategic Area and those proposed for the West of Scotland. The Crown Estate has also undertaken aerial surveys at a regional scale. JNCC can provide some sources of marine bird data and this includes reference to ESAS accessible under OBIS-SEAMAP. OBIS-SEAMAP (Ocean Biogeographic Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Mega vertebrate Populations) is a spatially referenced online database, aggregating marine mammal, seabird and sea turtle data from across the globe. This database contains regional, national and international atlases of seabird distribution and can be accessed at http://seamap.env.duke.edu/. It will provide a good starting point for identifying the species of seabirds likely to be found within a particular development area and may include datasets if they have been submitted for that particular area. It should be noted ESAS data are collected at a large spatial resolution and so may provide only




indicative information at the scale of the proposal areas. Additionally proposals that are located inshore or in shallow waters may not be covered by ESAS because of limited access to boats. Such areas may be covered by other surveys including JNCC, The Crown Estate etc. aerial surveys, wintering waterfowl surveys (SNH and RSPB), and other observations of breeding, wintering or passage birds held by local bird clubs or biological records centres. For example, JNCC are currently running the European Seabirds At Sea (ESAS) programme. This is a database to identify seabird concentrations within Europe and host year round data on the at-sea distributions of all birds that occur around the north-west European continental shelf. The RSPB has recently undertaken a large scale tagging exercise to consider the foraging behaviour of seabirds and this data is currently being analysed (January 2012). This work is part of the RSPB Future of the Atlantic Marine Environment (FAME) project which is aiming to advise on the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and develop best practice management recommendations of these areas. FAME is the largest seabird tracking study ever undertaken. The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) is a joint scheme between the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), RSPB and JNCC which monitors non-breeding water birds, including divers and sea ducks, in the UK. This survey aims to monitor trends in non-breeding water birds and by implication, their wetland habitats. It should be noted that these are shore based counts and the extent of coverage of marine areas is constrained to 500m to 2km from the coast. However these datasets have been collated over a long time series. The BTO is also part of the Strategic Ornithological Support Services (SOSS) which is a group that provides advice to the offshore windfarm industry. This group is currently compiling a list of seabird tracking projects with the aim of encouraging collaboration between researchers and the renewable energy industry to provide a greater understanding of the risk posed to seabirds as a result of marine renewable projects. Potential additional sources of baseline data and guidance include: Scotland’s Marine Atlas (www.scotland.gov.uk/marineatlas) Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA

www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/. Marine Scotland’s Scottish Renewables HRA (in production) DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/. Environmental Statements (and HRAs) for offshore wind and wave and tidal

developments Marine Spatial Plans (when available). JNCC Coastal Directory Series. JNCC published Atlas of seabird distribution in north west European waters

this data is in ESAS. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) using SNHi www.snh.gov.uk/publications-

data-and-research/snhi-information-service/ Bird Life International - www.birdlife.org.uk. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) www.rspb.org.uk.




COWRIE report on cumulative impact assessment http www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE/.

The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) www.bto.org/webs. Non-Estuarine Wade Survey (NEWS)

B6.2 References and Further Reading B6.2.1 Baseline Data Collier, M., Banks, A., Austin, G., Girling, T., Hearn, R. & Musgrove, A. (2005). The Wetland Bird Survey 2003/04 Wildfowl and Wader Counts, BTO/W&WT/RSPB/JNCC. Camphuysen, C.J. (2005). Seabirds at sea in summer in northwest North Sea. British Birds, 98:2-19. Cranswick, P., Worden, J., Ward, R., Rowell, H., Hall, C., Musgrove, A., Hearn, R., Holloway, S., Banks, A., Austin, G., Griffin, L., Hughes, B., Kershaw, M., O’Connell, M., Pollitt, M., Rees, E. & Smith, L. (2005). The Wetland Bird Survey 2001/03 Wildfowl and Wader Counts. BTO/W&WT/RSPB/JNCC. Dawson N., Söhle I., Wilson L.J., Dean B.J., Webb A. and Reid J.B. (2007). The numbers of inshore waterbirds using the Firth of Forth during the non-breeding season, and an assessment of the area’s potential for qualification as a marine SPA. JNCC report no 402. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4484 Dean, B.J., Webb, A., McSorley, C.A & Reid, J.B. (2003). Aerial surveys of UK inshore areas for wintering seaduck, divers and Grebes: 2000/01 and 2001/02. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 333, JNCC, Peterborough. Dean, B.J., Webb, A., McSorley, C.A & Reid, J.B. (2004a). Surveillance of wintering sea duck, divers and Grebes in UK inshore areas: aerial surveys 2002/03. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 345, JNCC, Peterborough. Dean, B.J., Webb, A., McSorley, C.A, Schofield, R.A. & Reid, J.B. (2004b). Surveillance of wintering sea duck, divers and Grebes in UK inshore areas: aerial surveys and shore-based counts 2003/04. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 357, JNCC, Peterborough. European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (2011) Environmental Statement Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm Volume 2 of 4 Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B. & Chapman, R.A. (1993). New atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. T. & A.D. Poyser, London. Lack, P. (1986). The atlas of wintering birds in Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, Calton.




Mitchell, P.I., Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N. & Dunn, T.E. (2004). Seabird populations of Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, London. OBIS-SEAMAP (Ocean Biogeographic Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations). Available from: http://seamap.env.duke.edu/ Stone, C.J., Webb, A., Barton, C., Ratcliffe, N., Camphuysen, C.J. Reed, T.C., Tasker, M.L. & Pienkowski, M.W. (1995). An atlas of seabird distribution in North-west European waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Webb, A., McSorley, C.A., Dean, B.J., Reid, J.B., Cranswick, P.A., Smith, L. & Hall, C. (2006). An assessment of the numbers and distribution of inshore aggregations of waterbirds using Liverpool Bay during the non-breeding season in support of possible SPA identification. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 373, JNCC, Peterborough. Wilson, L.J., Dean, B.J., Webb, A., McSorley, C.A & Reid, J.B. (2006). Wintering seaducks, divers and Grebes in UK inshore areas: aerial surveys and shore-based counts 2004/05. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 371, JNCC, Peterborough. B6.2.2 Assessment Aquaterra 2010 A review of the potential impacts of wave and tidal energy development on Scotland’s marine environment. Report no P324 Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D., Burnham, K., Laake, J., Borchers, D. & Thomas, L., (2001). Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations, Oxford University Press. Daunt, F., Wanless, S., Peters, G., Benvenuti, S., Sharples, J., Gremillet, D. & Scott, B. (2006). Impacts of oceanography on the foraging dynamics of seabirds in the North Sea. In: Top predators in marine ecosystems: their role in monitoring and management. (eds I.L. Boyd, S. Wanless & K. Camphuysen). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp177-190. Defra, (2005). Nature Conservation Guidance on Offshore Wind Farm Development. A guidance note on the implications of the EC Wild Birds and Habitats Directives for developers undertaking offshore windfarm developments. UK. Fraenkel, P.L. (2006). Tidal current energy technologies. In Wind, Fire and Water: Renewable Energy and Birds. Ibis 148 (Suppl. 1): 145–151.




Garthe, S. & Huppop, O. (2004). Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 724-734. Jackson, D., and Whitfield, P. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 4. Birds. King, S., Maclean, I. M. D., Norman, T. & Prior, A. (2009). Developing guidance on ornithological Cumulative Impact Assessment for offshore wind farm developers. COWRIE, London. Report available from: http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/ Pages/Publications/Latest_Reports/Birds/Developing_Guidance_onc4f9897d/ Kober K., Webb A., Win I., Lewis M., O’Brien S., Wilson L.J. and Reid J.B. (2010). An analysis of the numbers and distribution of seabirds within the British Fishery Limit aimed at identifying areas that qualify as possible marine SPAs. JNCC report no 431. Mavor, R.A., Parsons, M., Heubeck, M. & Schmitt, S. (2006). Seabird numbers and breeding success in Britain and Ireland, 2005. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. McSorley, C.A., Reid, J.M., Wilson, L.J. & Gray, C.M. (2006). Special protection areas in the marine environment: possible seaward boundary extensions to breeding seabird colony SPAs. Seabird Group Newsletter 101: 1-3. McSorley, C.A., Webb, A., Dean, B.J. & Reid, J.M. (2005). UK inshore SPAs: a methodological evaluation of site selection and definition of the extent of an interest feature using line transect data. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 344, JNCC, Peterborough. Norman. T., Buisson. R., and Askew. N. (2007) COWRIE workshop on the cumulative impact of offshore windfarms on birds. Peterborough, 3rd May. 2007. Report commissioned by COWRIE Ltd Perrow M. R. Skeate E. R., & Tomlinson M. L. 2008. Scroby Sands Ornithological Monitoring. Assessing the impacts of the Scroby Sands offshore wind farm upon Little Tern Sternula albifrons: summary of monitoring programme 2002-2006. For and on behalf of E-ON UK Renewables Offshore Wind Limited, ECON Ecological Consultancy, Norwich. Scottish Association of Marine Science. (2006). Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish Executive. Thaxter, C. Lascelles, B. Sugar, K. Aonghais S.C.P. Cook, Roos, S. Bolton, M. Rowena H.W. Langston and Niall H.K. Burton (2011) Seabird Foraging Ranges as a Preliminary Tool for Identifying Candidate Marine Protected Areas.




The Crown Estate (2012) Pentland Firth Strategic Area Revisions: Cumulative Impact Assessment Wilson, B. Batty, R. S., Daunt, F. & Carter, C. (2006). Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to Scottish Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. B6.2.3 Survey and Monitoring Key reports available at: http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/Publications/Archive/ Birds/ Burger, A. E. & Shaffer, S. A. (2008). Application of tracking and data-logging technology in research and conservation of seabirds. The Auk 125: 253-264. Camphuysen, C.J., Fox, A.D., Leopold, M.F. & Petersen, I.K. (2004). Towards standardised seabirds at Sea census techniques in connection with environmental impact assessments for offshore wind farms in the UK. Report to COWRIE. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/Camphuysenetal2004_COWRIEmethods.PDF and www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk EMEC. Protocols for Land-based Wildlife observations for wave and tidal sites. Available from http://www.emec.org.uk. Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. and Evans J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB Sandy. Maclean I.M.D., Skov H., Rehfisch M.M. and Piper W. 2006. Use of aerial surveys to detect bird displacement by offshore windfarms. COWRIE DISP-03-2006. BTO Research Report No. 446 Maclean I.M.D., Skov H. and Rehfisch M.M. (2007). Further use of aerial surveys to detect bird displacement by offshore windfarms. COWRIE EXTDISP-06-07. Maclean I.M.D, Wright L.J., Showler D.A. and Rehfisch M.M. (2009). A Review of Assessment Methodologies for Offshore Windfarms. BTO Report commissioned by Cowrie Ltd. COWRIE METH-08-08. McSorley, C.A., Dean. B.J., Webb, A. & Reid, J.M. (2003). Seabird use of water adjacent to the colony. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 329, JNCC, Peterborough. Perrow M. R. Skeate E. R., Lines P., Brown D. and Tomlinson M. L. (2006). Radio telemetry as a tool for assessing impacts of windfarms: the case of Little Terns Sterna albifrons at Scroby Sands, Norfolk, UK. Ibis 148:57-75.




Thaxter & Burton in prep. High definition imagery for surveying seabirds and marine mammals: a review of recent trials and development of protocols. Due to be published at http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE. Walls, R., Pendlebury, C., Budgey, R., Brookes, K. & Thompson, P. (2009). Revised best practice guidance for the use of remote techniques for ornithological monitoring at offshore windfarms. COWRIE REMTECH-08-08, London. http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/Publications/Latest%5FReports/Birds/REVISED%5FBEST%5FPRACTICE%5F993b22da/ See also at sea survey methods page of JNCC website. Available from http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=4514 B7. Marine Mammals B7.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information MS-LOT will be able to advise on the availability of data of relevance to the development. SNH 2011 guidance also summarises existing information and data sources (Macleod et al and Sparling et al 2011). Due to a lot of development and being proposed in Scottish waters and the subsequent need for a coherent and comprehensive ecological management system, there is a lot of work being done at the moment on the abundance and distribution of marine mammals in Scottish waters. Detailed reviews of marine mammal distribution and ecology in UK waters have been carried out by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), University of St. Andrews, in contribution to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (DECC, 2009). Information on the status of seals around the UK coast is reported annually by the SMRU-advised Special Committee on Seals (SCOS) (SCOS, 2010). Studies on the movements of seals fitted with satellite tags have been undertaken by (Matthiopoulos et al., 2004; Sharples et al., 2008; Cunningham et al., 2009; McConnell et al., 1999; Tollit et al 1998 and Thompson et al. 1996) to investigate their distributions in UK waters. An investigation into the long terms patterns of harbour seal site use (Cordes et al, 2011) has some confounding conclusions in that there are long term pattern changes of site selection that may need to be considered in the management of these seal populations. The ‘Small Cetacean Abundance in the European Atlantic and North Sea’ programmes (SCANS and SCANS-II) undertook widespread ship based and aerial surveys of cetaceans in the North Sea (SCANS-II, 2008). Survey data for cetaceans recorded along the shelf edge (and offshore waters beyond this) of the UK is provided by the Cetacean Offshore Distribution and Abundance (CODA) survey




(CODA, 2009). The WDCS (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society) additionally undertook a review identifying critical habitat for cetaceans to help highlight potential Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s) for cetacean species (Clark et al. 2010). Thompson et al (2011) reviewed the results of a number of research studies to determine the distribution, abundance and population structure of bottlenose dolphins around the Scottish coast. Studies and surveys at a more local scale on the bottlenose dolphins have been undertaken by a range of organisations including the University of Aberdeen/SMRU (Hastie et al., 2003, Bailey 2006,SMRU, 2007), Talisman Energy (UK) Limited (2006), WDCS, 2009) and the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust (Mandleberg, 2006). Surveys on harbour porpoise abundance and distribution at a regional scale have been undertaken by a range of authors including Bailey and Thompson (2009), Goodwin and Speedie (2008), Robinson et al. (2007) and Marubini et al. (2009). Detailed research on otter ecology in coastal and marine environments has been undertaken around Shetland by members of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and University of Groningen (Kruuk et al. 1991; Kruuk and Moorhouse, 1991; Kruuk et al.. 1993; Kruuk, 1995; Kruuk et al. 1998 and Nolet et al.1993). In addition reviews of otter ecology have been produced as part of the Life in UK Rivers project, a project which aimed to develop methods for conserving the wildlife and habitats of rivers within the Natura 2000 network of protected European sites (Chanin, 2003) and by Mason and Macdonald (2008). Potential other sources of baseline data and guidance include: Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA http://www.seaenergy

scotland.co.uk/; DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/; Marine Spatial Plans (when available) ; Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) http://www.smru.st-andrews.ac.uk/; Seawatch foundation website and publications

http://www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk/; SCANS (Small Cetacean in the European Atlantic and North Sea)

http://biology.st-andrews.ac.uk/scans2/; SNH holds comprehensive digital datasets for terrestrial and marine protected

areas; NBN Gateway http://data.nbn.org.uk/; JNCC Coastal Directory Series http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2157; Local biological recording groups/local recorders; JNCC Atlas of Cetacean distribution in NW European Waters

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2713; British Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC) http://www.bodc.ac.uk/; and UKBAP website www.ukbap.org.uk.




B7.2 References and Further Reading B7.2.1 Baseline Data Aecom/Metoc (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) http://www.seaenergyscotland.net/SEA_Public_Environmental_ Report.htm Bailey, H. (2006). Distribution and habitat use of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) at varying temporal scales. PhD thesis Bailey, H. and Thompson, P.M. (2009). Using marine mammal habitat modelling to identify priority conservation zones within a marine protected area. Marine Ecology Progress Series 378: 279-287. Chanin, P. (2003). Ecology of the European Otter. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 10. English Nature, Peterborough. Ecology Series No.10 English Nature, Peterborough. CODA. 2009. Cetacean Offshore Distribution and Abundance in the European Atlantic (CODA). Final Report. 43pp. Goodwin, L. and Speedie, C. (2008). Relative abundance, density and distribution of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) along the west coast of the UK. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 88(6): 1221-1228. European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC), in progress. Environmental Standard for the Wave and Tidal Energy Industries. Refer to EMEC website: http://www.emec.org.uk Hammond, P. S., P. Berggren, et al. (2002). Abundance of harbour porpoises and other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 361-376. Hastie, G.D. and Wilson, B. (2006). Marine Mammals of the north and west of Scotland and the Northern and Western Isles. Report to METOC. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. JNCC. (2009). The deliberate disturbance of marine European Protected Species, Guidance for English and Welsh territorial waters and the UK offshore marine area. Northridge, S. P., M. L. Tasker, et al. (1995). Distribution and relative abundance of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena L.), white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray), and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacepede) around the British Isles. ICES Journal of Marine Biology 52(1): 55-66.




Reid, J. B., Evans, P. G. H. et al. (200)3. Atlas of cetacean distribution in north-west European waters. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee: 1-82. Robinson, K.P., Baumgartner, N., Eisfeld, S.M., Clark, N.M., Culloch, R.M., Haskins, G.N., Zapponi, L., Whaley, A.R., Weare, J.S and Tetley, M.J. (2007).The summer distribution and occurrence of cetaceans in the coastal waters of the outer southern Moray Firth in northeast Scotland (UK). Lutra 50, 19-30. Thompson, P.M., Cheney, B., Ingram, S,. Stevick, P., Wilson, B and Hammond, P.S. (Eds) (2011). Distribution, abundance and population structure of bottlenose dolphins in Scottish waters. Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage funded report. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 354. B7.2.2 Assessment Macleod, K., Lacey, C., Quick, N., Hastie, G. and Wilson, J. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 2. Cetaceans and basking Sharks. Scottish Association of Marine Science. (2006). Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish Executive. SMRU (Sea Mammal Research Unit). (2005). Scientific Advice on Matters Related to the Management of Seal Populations, 2005. UK Special Committee on Seals, Advice. Available from: http://smub.stand.ac.uk/CurrentResearch.htm/scos.htm Thomsen, F., Ludemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W., 2006. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. Biola, Hamburg, Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd. Wilson, B., Batty, R.S., Daunt, F. & Carter, C. (2006). Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to Scottish Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. B7.2.3 Survey and Monitoring Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D., Burnham, K., Laake, J., Borchers, D. & Thomas, L., (2001). Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations, Oxford University Press. Cheney, B., Thompson, P.M., Ingram, S.N., Hammond, P.S., Stevick, P.T., Durban, J.W., Culloch, R.M., Elwen, S.H., Mandleburg, L., Janik, V.M., Quick, N.J., Islas-Villanueva, V., Robinson, K.P., Costa, M., Eisfeld, S.M., Walters ,A., Phillips, C., Weir, C.R., Evans, P.G.H., Anderwald, P., Reid, R J., Reid, J.B., Wilson, B. (2011). Intergrating multiple data sources to assess the distribution and abundance of




bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) in Scottish waters. Mammal Review (In Press) COWRIE Report8 Methodologies for measuring and assessing potential changes in marine mammal behaviour, abundance or distribution arising from the construction, operations and decommissioning of offshore wind farms. Available http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk Cressie, N.A.C. (1991). Statistics for spatial data. John Wiley & Dons, New York. Matthiopolous, J., McConnell, B., Duck, C. and Fedak, M., 2004. Using satellite telemetry and aerial counts to estimate space use by grey seals around the British Isles. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 476-491. Cunningham, L., Baxter, J.M., Boyd., I.L., Duck, C.D., Lonergan, M., Moss, S.E., McConnell, B. (2009). Harbour seal movements and haul-out patterns: implications for monitoring and management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19 398-407. Macleod, K., Lacey, C., Quick, N., Hastie, G. and Wilson J. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 2. Cetaceans and Basking Sharks. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. Sparling, C., Grellier, K., Philpott, E., Macleod, K., and Wilson, J. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 3. Seals. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. Sveegaard, S., Teilmann J., Tougaard, J., Dietz, R., Mouritsen, K.N., Desportes, G and Siebert, U. 2011. High-density area for harbour porpoises (Phecoena phocoena) identified by satellite tracking. Marine Mammal Science. 27:1, 230-246 Tougaard J, Ebbesen I, Tougaard S, Jensen T, Teilmann J (2003b) Satellite tracking of Harbour Seals on Horns Reef. Use of the Horns Reef wind farm area and the North Sea. Commissioned by Tech-wise A/S. Fisheries and Maritime Museum, Esbjerg. 42 pp. B7.2.4 General Clark, J., Dolman, S.J. and Hoyt, E. (2010). Towards Marine Protected Areas for Cetaceans in Scotland, England and Wales: A scientific review identifying critical

8 This report was carried out for a few studies of offshore windfarms and focuses on porpoise

and grey seals.




habitat with key recommendations. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Chippenham, UK, 178pp Cordes, LS., Duck, C.D., Mackey, B.L., Hall, A.J., and Thompson, P.M. (2011). Long term patterns in harbour seal site-use and the consequences for managing protected areas. Animal Conservation. 14, 430-438. DECC (2009) UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment: Future Leasing for Offshore Wind Farms and Licensing for Offshore Oil & Gas and Gas Storage. Kruuk, H.A., Moorhouse, A. (1991). The spatial organization of otters (Lutra lutra) in Shetland. J. Zool. 224, 41-57. Kruuk, H., Carss, D. N., Conroy, J. W. H. & Gaywood, M. J. (1998). Habitat use and conservation of otters (Lutra lutra) in Britain: a review. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 71, 119-133. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. MacLeod, C. D.,Begoña Santos, M., Reid, R.J., Scott, B.E and Pierce G.J. (2007). Linking sandeel consumption and the likelihood of starvation in harbour porpoises in the Scottish North Sea: could climate change mean more starving porpoises? Biol. Lett.3, 185-188. Matthiopoulos J, McConnell B, Duck C, Fedack M (2004) Using satellite telemetry and aerial counts to estimate space use by grey seals around the British Isles. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 476-491. McConnell BJ, Fedak MA, Lovell P, Hammond PS (1999) Movements and foraging areas of grey seals in the North Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology 36, 573-590. Pierpoint, C. (2008). Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) foraging strategy at a high energy, near-shore site in south-west Wales, UK. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2008, 88(6) 1167-1173. Pomeroy, P.P., Anderson, S.S., Twiss, S.D. and McConnell, B.J. (1994) Dispersion and site fidelity of breeding female grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) on North Rona, Scotland. Journal of Zoology, 233, 429-448. Pomeroy, P. P.. Twiss, P. Redman S. D. (2000). Philopatry, Site Fidelity and Local Kin Associations within Grey Seal Breeding Colonies. Ethology 106, 888-919. Read, A.J. and Westgate, A.J. 1997. Monitoring the movements of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)with satellite telemetry. Marine Biology. 130, 315-322




Reid JB, Evans PGH, Northridge SP, (2003) Atlas of Cetacean distribution in north-west European waters, 76 pages, colour photos, maps. Paperback, ISBN 1 86107 550 2 Robinson KP, Baumgartner N, Eisfeld SM, Clark NM, Culloch RM, Haskins GN, Zapponi L, Whaley AR, Weare JS, Tetley MJ (2007). The summer distribution and occurrence of cetaceans in the coastal waters of the outer southern Moray Firth in northeast Scotland (UK). Lutra 50(1): 19-30 Robinson, K.P., Cheney, B., Mandleberg, L., Eisfeld, S.M., Costa, M., Johnston, P., Stevick, P.T (2009).Coast to Coast: First evidence for the translocational movements by Scottish dolphins (UK). Poster for 23rd Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society, Istanbul, Turkey Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Reid, R.J., Patterson, I.A.P., Ross, H.M and Mente, E. (2001). Stomach contents of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) in Scottish waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 81, 873-878. Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Learmonth, J.A. (2004). Variability in the diet of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Scottish waters 1992-2003. Marine mammal science 20, 1-27. SCANS-II (2008) Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea. Final Report to the European Commission under project LIFE04NAT/GB/000245. Available from Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St. Andrews, 54pp. Sea Mammal Research Unit (2002) Surveys of harbour (common) seals in Shetland and Orkney, August 2001. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA417 . Sharples RJ, Matthiopoulos J, Hammond PS (2008). Distribution and movements of Harbour seals around the coast of Britain. Report to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Sea Mammal Research Unit, St Andrews, UK, 65pp. SCOS. (2009). Scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal populations: 2009. Special Committee on Seals, 100pp. SCOS. (2010). Scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal populations: 2010. Special Committee on Seals, 115pp. Scottish Executive. (2007). Scottish Marine Renewables: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Report prepared for the Scottish Executive by Faber Maunsell and Metoc PLC. SMRU. (2007). Potential impact of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on SACs for bottlenose dolphins and other marine mammals in the Moray Firth and




Cardigan Bay/Pembrokeshire. Report to the Department of Trade and Industry. Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), University of St. Andrews, UK, 13pp. SNH, (2006a). Faray & Holm of Faray Special Area of Conservation. Advice under Regulation 33(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). SNH, (2006b). North Rona Special Area of Conservation .Advice under Regulation 33(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). SNH, (2006c). Dornoch Firth and Morrich More Special Area of Conservation. Advice under Regulation 33(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). SNH, (2006d). Yell Sound Coast Special Area of Conservation. Advice under Regulation 33(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Talisman Energy (UK) Limited (2006) Beatrice Wind Farm Demonstrator Project: Environmental Statement. Thompson, P.M., Cheney, B., Ingram, S., Stevick, P., Wilson, B. & Hammond, P.S. (Eds) (2009). Distribution, abundance and population structure of bottlenose dolphins in Scottish waters. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report. Tollit, D.J., Black, A,D., Thompson, P.M., Mackay, A., Corpe, H.M., Wilson, B. Van Parijs, S.M., Grellier, K and Parlane, S. (1998). Variations in harbour seal Phoca vitulina diet and dive-depths in relation to foraging habitat. J. Zool., Lond 244, 209-222. Thompson, P. M. & Miller, D. (1990). Summer foraging activity and movements of radio-tagged common seals (Phoca vitulina L.) in the Moray Firth, Scotland. J. Appl. Ecol. 27: 492±501. Corpe HM 1996 The behavioural ecology of young harbour seals in the Moray Firth, NE Scotland. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen. Thompson PM, McConnell BJ, Tollit DJ, Mackay A, Hunter C, Racey PA (1996) Comparative distribution, movements and diet of harbour and grey seals from the Moray Firth, NE Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 33 1572-1584. WDCS, (2009). Outer Moray Firth Cetacean Research 2008. Project Report for the BBC Wildlife Fund.




B8. Underwater Noise, Vibration and Electro Magnetic Fields B8.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information MS-LOT will be able to advise on the availability of data of relevance to the development. A number of reports have been produced by COWRIE and SNH identifying the potential effects of sub-sea cables and these references are provided below along with an extensive reference list of material on noise and vibration effects. The reference list has been split into baseline, assessment and survey and monitoring for ease of use. Key data sources also include: ES, HRAs and monitoring from other offshore renewable developments; Kingfisher cable awareness charts; seaZone data; Admiralty charts;

B8.2 References and Further Reading B8.2.1 Baseline Data Ainslie M. A. (2001) Wind, rain and shipping noise source levels: Review and recommendations for Dinamo v4.0, CORDA Report CR1212/TR-1, Version 2 Blackwell, S.B., J.W. Lawson, and M.T. Williams. (2004). Tolerance by ringed seals (Phoca hispida) to impact pipe-driving and construction sounds at an oil production island, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 115, Issue 5, pp. 2346-2357 (May 2004). Clarke T. and David A. (2002) Ambient noise curves for shallow water, QinetiQ Report QINETIQ/S&E/MAC/CR021228. Danneskiold-Samsoe O. (2005) Offshore wind turbines: Underwater and airborne noise, Copenhagen, pp 1xA4 Defra (2012) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation UK Initial Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status (HMSO, London) De Jong, C.A.F. & Ainslie, M.A. (2008). Underwater radiated noise due to the piling for the Q7 Offshore Wind Park, Acoustics 08, June 29 – July 4 2008, Paris. Gill, A.B. & Bartlett, M. (2010). Literature review on the potential effects of electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments on Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.401




Greene, C.R. Jr. (1987) Characteristics of oil industry dredge and drilling sounds in the Beaufort Sea, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 82, Issue 4, pp. 1315-1324 (October 1987). Richards S D, Harland E J and Jones S A S (2007) Underwater noise study supporting Scottish Executive strategic environmental assessment for marine renewables (Qinetiq) Urick R. J. (1983) Principles of underwater sound (McGraw-Hill, New York) B8.2.2 Assessment CMACS (2003). A baseline assessment of electromagnetic fields generated by offshore windfarm cables. Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, University of Liverpool. Report to Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE) COWRIE. Haviland G. M., Sayigh L. S., Frankel A. S., Powell C. M., Bocconcelli A. and Herman R. L. (2001) Mapping total environmental sound exposure of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the Wilmington, North Carolina Intracoastal Waterway. In: Holland R.C., (ed) OCEANS 2001. Marine Technology Society, Washington, pp 1392-1394 Gibbons J. A. M. (2000), A review of the shipping traffic in the Durlston Marine Research Area 1997 to 2000, Durlston Marine Project, Swanage Gill, A. B., Gloyne-Phillips, I., Neal, K. J. & Kimber, J.A. (2005). The potential effects of electromagnetic fields generated by sub-sea power cables associated with offshore windfarm developments on electrically and magnetically sensitive marine organisms – a review. Report to Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE) COWRIE. Gill, A. B., Huang, Y., Gloyne-Philips, I., Metcalfe, J., Quayle, V., Spencer, J. & Wearmouth, V. (2009). COWRIE 2.0 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMF-sensitive fish response to EM emissions from sub-sea electricity cables of the type used by the offshore renewable energy industry. Report to Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE) COWRIE. Gill, A. B. & Bartlett, M. (2010) Literature review on the potential effects of electromagneitc fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments on Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Commissioned Report No. 401. Gordon J, Thompson d, Calderan S, Jaffey B and Todd V . (2007) Assessment of the potential for acoustic deterrents to mitigate the impact on marine animals of underwater noise arising from the construction of offshore windfarms, COWRIE report DETER-01-07Prepared by Sea mammal Research unit




Hazlewood R. A. and Connelly J. (2005) Estimation of underwater noise – a simplified method, International Journal of the Society of Underwater Technology, 26, 51-57 Huddleston J. (2010) Understanding the environmental impact of offshore windfarms COWRIE Kastelein, R.A., Hoek, L., Jennings, N., de Jong, C.A.F., Terhune, J.M. & Dieleman, M. (2010) COWRIE Ref: SEAMAMD-09, Technical Report 31st July 2010. Koschinski S., Culik B. M., Henrikson O. D., Tregenza N., Ellis G., Jansen C. and Kathe G. (2003) Behavioural reactions of free-ranging porpoises and seals to the noise of a simulated 2 MW windpower generator, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 265, 263-273, 2003. Mueloler-Blenkle C, Mcgregor P, Gill A B, Sigray P and Yjomsen F. (2010) Effects of pile driving noise on behaviour of marine fish. Prepared for COWRIE limited. Negwell J R and Howell D. (2004) A review of offshore wind farm related underwater noise sources. Subcoustech report no. 544 R 0308 prepared by Subacoustech Ltd Nedwell J ad Howell D (2004) A Review of Offshore Windfarm Related Underwater Noise Sources Report No. 544 R03308 (Prepared by Subacoustech Ltd for COWRIE) Nedwell J R and Brooker A G. (2008). Measurement and assessment of background underwater noise and its comparison with noise from pile drilling operations during installation of the SeaGen tidal turbine device Strangford Lough. CORIE report SEAGEN -07-07 (Prepared by Subacoustech Ltd for COWRIE) Nedwell J, Langworthy J and Howell D. (2004). Assessment of sub-sea acoustic noise and vibration from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; initial measurements of underwater noise during construction of offshore windfarms and comparison with background noise. Report no 544 R 0424 (Prepared by Subacoustech Ltd for COWRIE) Nehls G, Betke K, Eckelmann S and Ross M. (2007). Assessment and costs of potential engineering solutions for the mitigation of the impacts of underwater noise arising from the construction of offshore windfarms. COWRIE Report ENG-01-2007. Prepared by BioConsult SH Norris J. and Mueller M. (2006) EMEC/UKERC Workshop: Environmental impacts and monitoring of marine energy conversion device, UK Energy Research Centre Report UKERC/WP/FSE/2006/002.




Olsson, T & Larsson (2010) A. Impact of Electric and Magnetic Fields From Submarine Cables on Marine Organisms. Vattenfall Research and Development Peter Bergsten & Johan Nissen, Vattenfall Power Consultants Parvin S. J., Workman R., Bourke P. and Nedwell J. R. (2005) Assessment of tidal current turbine noise at the Lynmouth site and predicted impact of underwater noise at Strangford Lough, Subacoustech Ltd, Report 628 R 0102, (commercial in confidence) Styles, P., Holt, T., and Thorne, P. (2001) Assessment of The Effects Of Noise And Vibration From Offshore Wind Farms On Marine Wildlife. Department of Trade and Industry, Energy Technology Support Unit (DTI/ETSU) report w/13/00566/REP10 Thompson P, Brookes K, Cheney B, Candido A, Bates H, Richardson N and Barton T (2012). Assessing the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration operations on cetaceans in the Moray Firth. Thomsen F, Ludemann K, Kafemann R and Piper W. (2006). Effects of offshore windfarm noise on marine mammals and fish. Prepared for COWRIE Limited by biola Von der Emde, G. (1998). Electroreception. The Physiology of Fishes pp 313- 343. CRC press. Westerberg, H. & Langenfelt, I. (2008) Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 15: 369-375. Wharam J. C., Gibbons J. A. M. and Harland E. J., Potential impact of underwater noise on small cetaceans within the Durlston Marine Research Area, 18th Annual conference of the European Cetacean Society, Kolmarden, Sweden, 2004. Wursig B., Greene C. R. and Jefferson T. A., Development of an air bubble curtain to reduce underwater noise of percussive piling, Marine Environmental Research 49, 79-93, 2000. B8.2.3 Survey and Monitoring Nedwell j R, Parvin S J, Edwards B, Workman R, Brooker A G and Kynoch J E. (2007). Measurements and interpretation of underwater noise during construction and operation of offshore windfarms in UK wayers COWRIE report NOISE-03-2003. Subacoustech Ltd report no 544 R 0738 Robinson, S.P., Lepper, P.A. and Ablitt, J., (2007) The measurement of the underwater radiated noise from marine piling including characterisation of a "soft start" period, Oceans 2007 – Europe, 18 – 21 June 2007.




B9. Marine Archaeology and Cultural Heritage B9.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information MS-LOT will be able to advise on the availability of data of relevance to the development. An excellent source of guidance for developers is Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector by Wessex Archaeology Ltd. (2007) ,available at www.offshorewind.co.uk. Developers should be aware that the guidance contains references to English legislation but the principles are applicable to Scotland. Other potential sources of baseline data and guidance include: Institute for Archaeologists (guidance on desk-based and field assessment):

http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa; COWRIE (guidance on historic environment for the OWF sector and on

geotechnical investigations): http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE/; Scottish Government (policy relating to Historic Environment):

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy/themes/historic;

Scottish Government SEAs for offshore wind (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/05/14155353/0) and wave and tidal energy (Marine Renewable SEA; http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/);

DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/; SeaZone Limited datasets: http://www.seazone.com/index.php; Scoping reports and EIAs undertaken for OWFs in the region; Historic Scotland Data Services: http://data.historic-

scotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=2000:10:0; The UK Hydrographic Office (Records of wrecks and obstructions):

http://www.ukho.gov.uk/ProductsandServices/Services/Pages/Wrecks.aspx; Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Receiver of Wreck):

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-home/emergencyresponse/mcga-receiverofwreck.htm;

Ministry of Defence (Aviation Archaeology): http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/SPVA/AviationArchaeology.htm;

Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC) / The Crown Estate: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/jnapc_code_of_practice_2;

The CANMORE database (www.rcahms.gov.uk) (website contains a proviso that it should not be relied upon for development purposes, however listed as a useful guide);

PASTMAP database www.pastmap.org.uk (this website also contains a proviso that it should not be relied upon for development purposes, however listed as a useful guide). Details of Scheduled Areas should be confirmed with Historic Scotland;

Archaeology Data Service: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/;




The National Trust Sites and Monuments Records (NTSMR) http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-countryside_environment/w-archaeology/w-archaeology-smr.htm;

JNCC Coastal Directory Series: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2157; Shipwreck Index of the British Isles - Volume 4 'Scotland'. Lloyd's Register of

Shipping. 1998 ISBN 1-900839-01-6; Local Authority Sites and Monuments Records; Historic Environment Records; Coastal Zone Assessment Surveys http://www.scapetrust.org/html/czas.html; Ordnance Survey maps and British Geological Survey maps; Aerial photographs; Nautical charts such as Admiralty Charts; and Marine Spatial Plans (when available, e.g. Marine Scotland’s Sectoral Marine

Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Water). B9.2 References and Further Reading Many of these documents themselves have very comprehensive reference lists and the COWRIE Report on Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic Environment Analysis (Gribble et al 2011) in particular should be reviewed. B9.2.1 Baseline Data COWRIE (2007). Guidance for assessment of Cumulative Impacts on the historic environment from offshore renewable energy. Report prepared by Oxford Archaeology for COWRIE, January 2007. Available online: http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/Publications/Archive/Cultural_Heritage/Guidance_for_Assessmen642afc68/ Bicket, A. (2011). Submerged Prehistory: Marine ALSF Research in Context. Marine ALSF Science Monograph Series No. 5 (Ed. J. Gardiner). MEPF 10/P150. (Edited by R. C. Newell & J. Measures). 63pp. ISBN: 978 0 907545 48 4. Available online: http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/463676/monograph5-web.pdf Dawson, T., (2003) Coastal Archaeology and Erosion in Scotland - Conference Proceedings. Emu Ltd (2008) Geophysical and Seabed Habitat Assessment of the Proposed Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm for Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm Ltd. Report No. 07/J/1/02/1136/0716 Flemming, N.C. (2004). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of North Sea Area SEA5 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_5/SEA5_TR_Archaeology_NCF.pdf




Flemming, N.C. (2002). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of North Sea areas SEA3 and SEA2 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_3/TR_SEA3_Archaeology.pdf Flemming, N.C. (2003). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of Continental Shelf Area SEA 4 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_4/SEA4_TR_Archaeology_NFC.pdf Flemming, N.C. (2005). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of Irish Sea Area SEA6 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_6/SEA6_Archaeology_NCF.pdf Gribble, J. and Leather, S. for EMU Ltd. Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference GEOARCH-09). http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Assets/final%20GEORARCH-09%20Offshore%20Geotech%20Guidance%20web.pdf Historic Scotland. (2011). Scottish Historic Environment Policy. Available online: http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/index/heritage/policy/shep.htm. Includes policies on the marine historic environment and reference to the UK Marine Policy Statement. Historic Scotland. (1999). Historic Scotland Policy Paper HP6; Conserving the Underwater Heritage. Available online: http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/conserving-underwater-heritage.pdf Institute for Archaeologists. (2008). Standard and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessment. Available online: http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/ifa_standards_desk.pdf Osiris Projects. (2010). Aberdeen Offshore Wind farm Geophysical Survey. Volume 1: Operations Report. No. C10023 Scottish Executive. (2007). Scottish Marine Renewables: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Report prepared for the Scottish Executive by Faber Maunsell and Metoc PLC. Scottish Government, 2010. Scottish Planning Policy. Available online: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/03132605/0




Scottish Government. (2008). Scottish Planning Policy SPP 23 Planning and the Historic Environment. Available online: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/242900/0067569.pdf Scottish Government. (1994). Planning Advice Note PAN 42: Advice on the handling of archaeological matters within the planning process. Available online: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1994/01/17081/21711 Senergy. (2009). Inch Cape Offshore Windfarm Geotechnical Site Evaluation. Prepared for npower renewable limited. Reference No. 1575-NPOW-RPT-01-01. Wickham-Jones, C.R. and Dawson, S. (2006). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of North Sea Area SEA7 with regard to prehistoric and early historic archaeological remains. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_7/SEA7_PreArchaeology_CWJ.pdf Wessex Archaeology (2005). Strategic Environmental Assessment Sea 6: Irish Sea: Maritime Archaeology: Technical Report. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Technical report, ref. 58890, May 2005. Available online: http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_6/SEA6_Archaeology_Wessex.pdf Wessex Archaeology (2006). Strategic Environmental Assessment Sea 7: Maritime Archaeology: Technical Report. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Technical report, ref. 62170.02, November, 2006. Available online: http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_7/SEA7_Archaeology_Wessex.pdf B9.2.2 Survey and Monitoring BMAPA & English Heritage. (2003). Marine aggregate dredging and the historic environment: Assessing, evaluating, mitigating and monitoring archaeological effects of marine aggregate dredging. Available online: http://www.bmapa.org/downloads/arch_guidance.pdf BMAPA and English Heritage. (2005) Protocol for reporting finds of archaeological interest. Report prepared for BMAPA and English Heritage by Wessex archaeology. Available online: http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/files/projects/BMAPA-Protocol/protocol_text.pdf Cefas. (2011). Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental assessments of offshore renewable energy projects. Cefas contract report: ME5403 – Module 15. Gribble, J. and Leather, S. for EMU Ltd. Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector.




Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference GEOARCH-09). Available online: http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Assets/final%20GEORARCH-09%20Offshore%20Geotech%20Guidance%20web.pdf Institute for Archaeologists. (2009). Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation: Available online: http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/ifa_standards_field_eval.pdf B9.2.3 Assessment Historic Scotland. (2007). Protecting underwater sites of national significance, http://www.historicscotland.gov.uk/wrecks Historic Scotland. (2009). Managing Change in the Historic Environment. Consultation draft, August 2009. Available online: http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/managing-change-consultation-setting.pdf Wessex Archaeology. (2010). Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries: Offshore enwables Projects. Report prepared for The Crown Estate. Document Ref. 73830.04, December 2010. Available online: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/pad_offshore_renewables.pdf B9.2.4 General Ashmore, P., & Dawson, T. (2002). A Strategy for Scotland's Coasts and Inshore Waters. Scottish Coastal Forum. COWRIE. (2007). Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector. Report prepared by Wessex Archaeology Ltd for COWRIE, January, 2007. Available online: http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/Publications/Archive /Cultural_Heritage/Historic_environment_g43354590/ Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC) and The Crown Estate, undated. Maritime Cultural Heritage and Seabed Development: JNAPC Code of Practice for Seabed development. Available online: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/jnapc_code_of_practice.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage (2004). Marine renewable energy and the natural heritage: an overview and policy statement. Policy Statement No. 04/01. Scottish Natural Heritage (2010). Renewable energy and the natural heritage. Ref No. 2010/02. The Crown Estate. (2010). Model clauses for archaeological written schemes of investigation: Offshore renewable projects. Report prepared for The Crown Estate by Wessex Archaeology, Document ref. 73340.05, December 2010. Available online: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/wsi_renewables.pdf




B10. Navigation B10.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information Sources of baseline data and guidance include: Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA

http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/; DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/; DECC Maritime Data Centre http://www.maritimedata.co.uk/; UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) Admiralty charts http://www.ukho.gov.uk/; Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-

home/shipsandcargoes/mcga-shipsregsandguidance/mcga-windfarms/offshore-renewable_energy_installations.htm;

Marine Scotland navigation surveys for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters (due for completion late 2012);

Marine Scotland shipping study for Forth, Clyde, Dundee and Aberdeen (due for completion spring 2012);

Royal Yachting Association Scotland (RYAS) http://www.ryascotland.org.uk/; Marine Scotland Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) data provide information

on the movement of fishing vessels; Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) http://www.nlb.org.uk/; Local harbours and port authorities; Local fisheries organisations, ferry companies, dive boat operators, boat tour

operators, specific marine leisure interest, for example, surfing, etc; IMO, Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule

Making Process, 5th April 2002; and IALA Recommendation O-139 On The Marking of Man-Made Offshore

Structures, Edition 1, Dec 2008. B10.2 References and Further Reading Key references and data sources are provided below and MS-LOT and key stakeholders should be contacted to ensure the use of the most up-to-date data and research. Department of Trade and Industry (2005) ‘Methodology for Assessing the Marine Navigational Safety Risks of Offshore Wind Farms’. Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2008) MGN 371 (M+F), Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) Guidance on UK Navigation Practice, Safety and Emergency Response Issues. Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2008) MGN 372 (M+F), Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs): Guidance to Mariners Operating in the Vicinity of UK OREIs




Maritime and Coastguard Agency. (2004). Proposed UK Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREI) - Guidance on Navigational Safety Issues. Marine Guidance Notice 275. RenewableUK (2011) Consenting Lessons Learned An offshore wind industry review of past concerns lessons learnt and future challenges. www.RenewableUK.com Scottish Executive (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (Scottish Executive, Edinburgh) B11. Commercial Fisheries, Shellfishes and Aquaculture B11.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information The following organisations and resources provide important sources of information. Marine Scotland Compliance; Marine Scotland Science; The Scottish Executive Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics

www.scotland.gov.uk, under fisheries ; Scottish Fishermen’s Federation www.sff.co.uk; Relevant Local Authorities; Local fisheries organisations (www.scotland.gov.uk)/ fishermen’s associations

(this includes individual fishermen); Local producer organisations; Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters available from www.cefas.co.uk –

this report aims to provide the information required for interested parties to better understand the interaction between fisheries and offshore industries (oil and gas but the information is relevant to renewables);

Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/;

DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS www.offshore-sea.org.uk; and Marine Spatial Plans (when available).

B11.2 References and Further Reading B11.2.1 Baseline Data ABPmer and Risk and Policy Analysis (2012) A Socio-economic Methodology and Baseline for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Wave and Tidal Developments (ABPmer, Southampton) ABPmer and Risk and Policy Analysis (2012) Socio- economic Baseline Reviews for Offshore Renewables in Scottish Waters (unpublished ABPmer, Southampton)




Baxter, J.M, Boyd, I.L., Cox, M, Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., Moffat, C.F., (editors) (2001) Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh RenewableUK (2011) Consenting Lessons Learned An offshore wind industry review of past concerns lessons learnt and future challenges. www.RenewableUK.com Cefas (2002) A Procedure to Assess the Effects of Dredging on Commercial Fisheries Report No. A0253 (Cefas) Cefas, MCUE, Defra, DTI .(2004) Offshore Wind Farms, Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessment in Respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements - Version 2. Pawson, M.J., Pickett, G.D. and Walker P (2002) The coastal fisheries of England and Wales, Part IV: A review of their status 1999-2001. Science Series Technical Report, CEFAS, Lowestoft 116, 83pp. FLOW (2008) Recommendations for Fisheries Liaison UK Oil & Gas, (2008) Fisheries Liaison Guidelines – Issue 5; UKOOA (renamed UK Oil & Gas),.(2006) Guidelines to Improve Relations between Oil & Gas Industries and Nearshore Fishermen. International Cable Protection Committee (CPC). (2009) Fishing & Submarine Cables – Working Together COWRIE (2010) Options and Opportunities for Marine Fisheries Mitigation Associated with Wind farms. Scottish Executive. (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables SEA http://www.seaenergy scotland.net/SEA_Public_Environmental_Report.htm B11.2.2 Assessment BWEA. (2002) Best practice for consultation of offshore renewable developers. BERR. (2008) Fishing Liaison with offshore wind and wet renewable group (FLOWW) recommendations for fisheries liaison. OSPAR (2008) Guidance on environmental considerations for offshore wind farm development reference number 2003-8.




B12. Other Sea Users B12.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information A lot of useful information is available in national and regional assessments undertaken by Government such as Scotland’s Marine Atlas and the socio-economic baseline for offshore renewables which is currently being produced by Marine Scotland; further data will be contained in the associated plan level SEAs. It will be important to show compliance with the national and regional planning framework or provide detailed justification if the project/development is in conflict with such plans or policies. Potential sources of baseline data and guidance include: Marine Scotland’s Marine Atlas; Admiralty charts / UKHO website; Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA; DECC offshore SEAs for the UK Continental Shelf; JNCC Coastal Directory Series; Marine Spatial Plans (when available) and Local Development Plans; MoD Practice and Exercise Area Charts; UKDEAL (oil and gas data); Telecommunications companies; Kingfisher Information Service- Cable Awareness; Scottish Census Results online; Highlands and Islands Enterprise: area profiles; Visit Scotland: Visit Scotland Tourism Statistics; and Scottish Government: Transport and other statistical reports.

B12.2 References and Further Reading ABPmer, RPA (2012) Marine Scotland’s socio-economic baseline for marine renewables (ABPmer) Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., Moffat, C.F. (2011) Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh. BMF (2010) UK leisure, superyacht and small commercial marine industry - key performance indicators 2009-10. Surrey: The British Marine Federation (BMF). Bournemouth University (2010) The Economic Impact of Wildlife Tourism in Scotland. A report for the Scottish Government. Land Use Consultants (2007) A Review of Marine and Coastal Recreation. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.247 (ROAME No. F05AA608). Marine Scotland (2010) Scottish Shellfish Farm Production Survey. 2010 Report. (Marine Scotland website)




MyGen Ltd (2011) MyGen Phase 1 EIA Scoping Document (MyGen Ltd) Oxford Economics (2009) The economic contribution of ports to the UK economy (Oxford Economics) Renewable UK (2011) Consenting Lessons Learned An offshore wind industry review of past concerns lessons learnt and future challenges RYA. (2009) The RYA's position on offshore energy developments - December 2009. (The Royal Yachting Association) Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise. (2010) National Renewables Infrastructure Plan. Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise. (2010) National Renewables Infrastructure Plan Stage 2 Scottish Executive (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (Scottish Executive, Edinburgh) Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise, (2010). Carbon capture and Storage – A Roadmap for Scotland. Scottish Government. (2010). Scottish Transport Statistics: No. 29 - 2009 Edition: Available online Scottish Government. (2011). High Level summary of statistics: Social and welfare. Available online: Scott Wilson and Downie, A.J. (2003) A review of possible marine renewable energy development projects and their natural heritage impacts from a Scottish perspective. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F02AA414. B13. Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact B13.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information DTI Guidance on the assessment of the impact of offshore windfarms - seascape and visual impact report. (November 2005) The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Second edition, Spon press.




Scottish Natural Heritage (2007). Visual Representation of Windfarms: Good Practice Guidance. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A305436.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage, (2008), Guidance on Landscape/Seascape Capacity for Aquaculture, Natural Heritage Management http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/aquaculture.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage (2012) Scoping Marine Renewables EIA for Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impacts (unpublished draft) Scottish Natural Heritage (2012), Assessing the cumulative impacts of onshore wind energy developments B13.2 References and Further Reading Alison Grant for SNH, The Crown Estate and Scottish Quality Salmon (2001) Marine Aquaculture and the Landscape: The siting and design of marine aquaculture developments in the landscape. Hill, M., Briggs, J., Minto, P., Bagnall, D., Foley, K., and Williams, A. (2001). Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment. Maritime Ireland / Wales INTERREG 1994 – 1999. Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment Countryside Council for Wales, Brady Shipman Martin and University College Dublin, (2001), for CCW. http://www.ccw.gov.uk/pdf/Guide-to-best-practice-in-seascape-assessment.pdf Scott, K.E., Anderson, C., Dunsford, H., Benson, J.F. and MacFarlane, R. (2005). An assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish seascape in relation to offshore windfarms. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.103 (ROAME No. F03AA06). http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications /commissioned_reports/F03AA06.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage (2003). Wildness in Scotland’s Countryside. Policy Statement 02/03. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A150654.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage (2006). Constructed tracks in the Scottish Uplands. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/constructedtracks.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage (2010). Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape. SNH,. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewables/Guidance_Siting_Designing _windfarms.pdf Scottish Natural Heritage (2010). The Special qualities of the National Scenic Areas. SNH commissioned report No. 374. http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-areas/national-designations/nsa/special-qualities/




Scottish Natural Heritage Landscape Character Assessment and aquaculture capacity studies for Loch Fyne, Orkney and Lewis which provide useful background information. Swanwick, Carys Department of the University of Sheffield and Land Use Consultants on behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland (2002) B14. Socio-economics B14.1 References and Further Reading ABPmer, SQW and RPA, 2011. Economic Assessment of Short Term Optinos for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. Reprot to Marine Scotland, March 2011. ABPmer, 2012a. Socio-economic Baseline Reviews for Offshore Renewables in Scottish Waters. Report to Marine Scotland, April 2012. ABPmer and RPA, 2012b. A Socio-economic Methodology and Baseline for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Wave and Tidal Developments. Report to The Crown Estate, April 2012. Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., Moffat, C.F., (2011). Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh. Pugh, D., Socio-economic indicators of marine-related activities in the UK economy. Report to The Crown Estate, March 2008. Snedden Economics, 2005. Economic Impact of Proposed Talisman Offshore Wind Farm in the Beatrice Oilfield Final Report March 2005 UKMMAS, 2010. Charting Progress 2: Productive Seas Evidence Group Feeder Report. Available online: http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/ B14.1.1 Baseline Data Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., Moffat, C.F., (2011). Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh. Highlands and Islands Enterprise. (2011). Area profile reports e.g. see http://www.hie.co.uk/highlands-and-islands/economic-reports-and-research/




Marine Scotland (2009). Scottish Shellfish Farm Production Survey. 2009 Report. Marine Scotland (2010). Scottish Shellfish Farm Production Survey. 2010 Report. Oxford Economics. (2009). The economic contribution of ports to the UK economy, March 2009. Ports & Harbours of the UK. (2011). Website: http://www.ports.org.uk/ Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise. (2010a). National Renewables Infrastructure Plan. February 2010. Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise. (2010b). National Renewables Infrastructure Plan Stage 2. July 2010. Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise. (2010). Carbon capture and Storage – A Roadmap for Scotland. March 2010. Scottish Government. (2009)a. Scottish Transport Statistics: No. 28 - 2009 Edition: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/12/18095042/0. Scottish Government. (2010). Scottish Transport Statistics: No. 29 - 2009 Edition: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/933/0109841.pdf Scottish Government, 2011. High Level summary of statistics: Social and welfare. Available online: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/933/0116815.pdf B14.1.2 Assessment ABPmer, SQW and RPA, 2011. Economic Assessment of Short Term Optinos for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. Reprot to Marine Scotland, March 2011. ABPmer and RPA, 2012. A Socio-economic Methodology and Baseline for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Wave and Tidal Developments. Report to The Crown Estate, April 2012. ANEMOS IDSS. (2007). An interactive Game for Offshore Wind Energy: A powerful tool for informing the broad public, improving planning processes and societal decision-making (Information & Decision Support System (IDSS)). ICBM, University Oldenburg; Germany; June 2007. Bournemouth University. (2010).The Economic Impact of Wildlife Tourism in Scotland. A report for the Scottish Government. Department for Transport, 2010. Maritime Statistics Compendium http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/ datatablespublications/maritime/compendium/.




Energy for Sustainable Development Ltd. (2004). Offshore wind, onshore jobs, - A new industry for Britain, Report for Greenpeace UK. Food and Resource Economic Institute. (2005). Economic Valuation of the Visual Externalities of Offshore Wind Farms Report No. 179. George Street Research and Jones Economics. (2004). Economic Impact and Development Opportunities for Outdoor and Environment Related Recreation in the Highlands and Islands. A report for HIE. Glasgow Caledonian University and Cogent Strategies International Ltd. (2008). The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish Tourism. A report for the Scottish Government, March 2008. Harrald, M, Aires, C & Davies, I. (2010). Further Scottish Leasing Round (Saltire Prize Projects): Regional Locational Guidance. Scottish Marine & Freshwater Science Volume 1 No 18. Marine Scotland, 2011. Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters, Marine Spatial Plan Framework & Regional Locational Guidance for Marine Energy. Marine Scotland. March 2011. O’Connor, S., Campbell, R., Cortez, H., & Knowles, T., (2009). Whale Watching Worldwide: tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a special report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth MA, USA, prepared by Economists at Large. Oil and Gas UK. (2010). Economic report 2010. Available online: http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/knowledgecentre/economic_report.cfm OSPAR Commission. (2009). JAP assessment of the environmental impact of dumping of wastes at sea. Available online: http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00433_JAMP%20Dumping%20Assessment.pdf Radford, A., Riddington, G. and Gibson, H. (2009). Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in Scotland. Prepared for the Scottish Government. July 2009. ISBN: 978-0-7559-8130-4. Renewable Supply Chain Gap Analysis Report, DTI, Scottish Executive (2004). Scottish Executive, 2007. Scottish Marine Renewables: Strategic Environmental Assessment. Scottish Government. (2009b). National Planning Framework for Scotland 2.




Sociological Investigation of The Reception of Horns Rev and Nysted Offshore Wind Farms In the Local Communities, (2005). The need for integrated assessment of large-scale offshore wind farm development, Environmental Science, Managing European Coasts, Published by Springer Berlin Heidelberg, (2005), Pages 365-378. Scott Wilson and Downie, A.J. (2003) A review of possible marine renewable energy development projects and their natural heritage impacts from a Scottish perspective. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F02AA414.

Insert Clients Back Cover Here