Draft Sectoral Marine Plans for Offshore Renewable Energy in Scottish Waters- Strategic Environmental Assessment: Environmental Report and Appendix A
This Environmental Report documents the results of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) which is an assessment of the effects of the plans on relevant environmental receptors. In
this assessment the effects of the plan on the following have been
6 Environmental Assessment
6.1 Background
6.1.1 The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 Schedule 3 requires an assessment of the plans and the reasonable alternatives. The detailed assessment of alternatives is set out in Appendices C and D and summarised below.
6.1.2 The first stage of the SEAs was an assessment of current technologies for wind, wave and tidal devices. The assessment has been drawn from a number of existing sources of information including:
- The Environmental Report from the SEA of "Blue Seas, Green Energy: The Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters" [52] ;
- The Environmental Report from the SEA of Scottish Marine Renewables [53] ;
- Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA) and other project level environmental assessment and monitoring of offshore renewable energy projects, as set out in Appendix C [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] ;
- The draft report of the review of the Potential Impacts of Wave and Tidal Energy development on Scotland's Marine Environment [60] ; and
- Other relevant specialist reports and documents [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] .
6.2 Assessment of Wind Technologies
6.2.1 The technologies considered under wind technology covered:
1. Gravity-base foundation devices;
2. Monopile or multi-pile foundation devices;
3. Tripod of steel jacket foundation devices;
4. Mono or multi-caisson foundation devices; and
5. Floating wind turbines.
6.2.2 Appendix D provides more detail on the technologies included in the assessment and the references of the information sources used in this review.
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna
6.2.3 Each of the technologies reviewed have the potential for a similar range of effects on biodiversity, flora and fauna. Underwater noise and vibration is associated with the installation of all devices, although in particular those involving piling and fixing to the seabed. This could affect marine fauna including seals, otters, cetaceans, basking sharks and fish, however, the exact effects of noise and vibration are relatively unknown. The assessment identified the potential for some species to be curious and attracted to noise sources while the noise might directly impact on the health e.g. hearing of other species in the vicinity of works.
6.2.4 Additionally underwater noise and vibration alongside other noise sources (such as those associated with vessel movement), vibration, visual and light intensity changes (associated with installation and operation of devices), water quality changes and habitat disturbance, have the potential for displacement or disturbance of marine fauna and seabirds that forage in these areas; in particular diving birds who would be affected by both surface and underwater noise.
6.2.5 Aside from noise impacts, there are other potential sources of injury and even mortality risks associated with the technologies. In particular, risk of injury to seals, cetaceans and elasmobranchs from collision. Although this risk may be reduced with floating devices that require anchoring only. Furthermore, there is a risk to seabirds and some migratory birds from bird-strike with turbine blades. Precise effects depend on the location of migratory paths and foraging grounds. Diving birds could also collide with support devices and infrastructure.
6.2.6 Cabling and grid connection infrastructure have the potential for EMF impacts that could impact on elasmobranchs and fish. Cabling infrastructure, alongside mooring infrastructure, device arrays, and construction vessels and equipment, have also been considered to have the potential for cumulative impacts as barriers to movement of mammals, cetaceans and migratory fish.
6.2.7 All of the technologies will result in a degree of loss of benthic habitat as a result of installation. The degree of impact may vary between technologies, as a result of differing surface areas of disturbance required for piling installation, mooring and gravity anchors, and from the placement of gravity based foundations on the seabed. The latter will have a larger area of contact with the seabed than other technologies.
6.2.8 In addition to loss of seabed habitat there are other impacts associated with gravity based foundations as a result of sourcing of fill material or dredged material for use. Potential effects include impacts to marine fauna from dredging activities, loss of habitat at the source of material, changes to water hydrology and turbidity, and potential release of contaminated materials from dredged material in less contaminated areas. Potential impacts for marine fauna and flora also include disturbance and physical injury from dredging operations.
6.2.9 Some benthic habitats are particularly sensitive to sediment dispersion and deposition that can arise from both the construction phase of works and from dredging and release activities associated with gravity based devices. Shellfish growing waters such as those in Argyll, Islay and Kintyre which are located in regions containing areas of search are particularly sensitive to this type of impact.
6.2.10 Many of the construction and decommissioning effects associated with the technologies may be temporary and reversible. For example, eventual removal of structures, such as gravity base and turbines, may reduce collision risks and enable rehabilitation of the seabed. However, some impacts on biodiversity as a result of the construction and operation of wind farms could be permanent if they were to significantly impact on the viable population of a species. Aside from mortality from collision, other impacts on population numbers, such as change to prey species, could also be permanent.
6.2.11 Previous assessments have identified the potential for the creation of artificial habitats for marine organisms as a result of new structures in the water. This may be aided by potential reductions in commercial fishing ( e.g. trawling) in areas where wind technology is located. These benefits could last for the life time of the project, or potentially longer depending on the decommissioning scheme.
Population and Human Health
6.2.12 The review has identified that all of the technologies will have the same potential effects on population and human health. There is potential for noise and shadow flicker effects, which can cause nuisance and irritation to people who live or travel through areas. The significance of effects will depend on the proximity of wind farms to the shore line and its inhabitants and users, and the location of turbines in relation to the sun, particularly when low in the sky. Impacts on mobile sea users could be magnified if they are in closer proximity to the turbines. Effects can only however be reasonably established at the project design stage.
6.2.13 Other impacts on marine users ( e.g. fishing, recreational, shipping, aquaculture) to consider are the potential displacement of activities, collision risk with turbine structures, and visual impacts associated with the presence of the turbines. These effects will be reversible and will reduce upon decommissioning
6.2.14 The SEA for " Blue Seas, Green Energy" identified benefits for the Scottish population, which is projected to increase, as a result of the provision of a new renewable energy supply.
6.2.15 Information from previous environmental assessments has identified potential conflicts with shipping navigation, although it has been noted that this may be managed through the involvement of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency ( MCA) to ensure that there are no hazards to shipping.
6.2.16 Potential for commercial impacts on the fishing and shipping industries have been identified, as a result of the loss of access to fishing areas, reduced catches relating to potential displacement of fish populations, and collision risk.
6.2.17 All of the technologies will require the installation of new transmission infrastructure to connect devices to the grid, such as cables on the seabed, and terrestrial infrastructure. The potential impacts of this infrastructure are likely to be site and development specific. In addition there may be a requirement for upgrading of nearby port and harbour infrastructure to install and maintain turbines. Specific effects on ports and harbours from required upgrading are assessed in more detail within the SEA of the National Renewable Infrastructure Plan ( NRIP) [68] .
Water and the Marine Environment
6.2.18 Potential for significant effects on water and the marine environment are, in general, related to the installation of turbine foundations and structures. Changes to turbidity, seabed disturbance from placement of gravity-based devices and from piling activities, contamination from installation equipment and maintenance vessels, could all impact on local water quality. Changes in water quality will have associated impacts on local marine biodiversity where species are dependent on existing water conditions. In addition, when using gravity based devices, the potential for cross-contamination from the use of dredged material as ballast, as well as the process of dredging itself, could result in changes to water quality.
6.2.19 The SEA for " Blue Seas, Green Energy" also raised the potential for impacts to the ability of fish species to spawn, respire and feed, and on shellfish growing waters in the vicinity of wind farm sites. The significance of these effects will depend on the proximity of devices to these waters.
6.2.20 As the majority of effects are likely during phases of disturbance, e.g. during construction and decommissioning, it is considered that effects on water and the marine environment are likely to be temporary and may be reversible. However, implications for species that depend on water quality could have greater significance and permanence.
Climatic Factors
6.2.21 The technologies themselves will involve the use of energy in their construction, transportation and maintenance. However, as noted within the SEA for " Blue Seas, Green Energy", wind farms will contribute to the decarbonisation of electricity generation through their long-term operation which will be beneficial for climatic factors.
6.2.22 Devices have the potential to result in some changes to wave energy dissipation and to coastal processes. Depending on location these effects could exacerbate existing vulnerability of coasts to climatic change by altering wave energy patterns whilst in some circumstances reducing wave energy could contribute to the protection of coastlines susceptible to erosion.
Marine Geology and Coastal Processes
6.2.23 For all of the technologies there are potential adverse impacts to the seabed that would result from the preparation of the seabed, including some dredging, and in the placement of technology. Technologies that involve piling operations may affect a smaller area of the seabed than gravity based technology or suction caisson, but will still involve a degree of adverse effects. Impacts on the seabed may result from changes to turbidity, sediment disturbance, loss of geology, release of contaminated materials bonded to sediments.
6.2.24 Additionally, all of the technologies have been identified as capable of potential alteration of sediment dynamics and tidal flows and fluxes as a result of turbine masts and support structures, including anchors, in the water column. As set out in 6.2.22 these can interact with existing pressures on vulnerable coastlines. Impacts such as scouring, deposition and abrasion, particularly in the placement of mooring lines, may also occur due to the foundation structures present at the seabed. However, it is assumed that scour protection would be used for such foundation structures and this may alleviate such risks.
6.2.25 The significance of effects is dependent on the type of receiving environment and it is likely that associated scour protection with the technologies would provide some mitigation. The SEA for " Blue Seas, Green Energy" considered that impacts from construction and decommissioning works are likely to be temporary and are thought to be reversible. However, impacts from seabed preparation works are likely to be more permanent.
6.2.26 Gravity based wind devices require material to fill the shell around these and anchor them to the seabed. Aside from the placement of technologies, there is potential for impacts at the source of the fill material, either from areas dredged or from terrestrial sites of extraction. Potential impacts at the source could include loss of substrata or habitat if taken from undisturbed areas. Dredging has the potential for a range of effects including the release of contaminated materials bonded to dredged sediments, and cross-contamination from source areas to wind farm sites, particularly if material is sourced from shipping lanes or harbours. The hydrodynamics and water flows at the source location could be altered by the removal of sediments and increased turbidity from sediment disturbance during dredging operations could reduce water quality.
Historic Environment
6.2.27 There is potential for impacts from all of the technologies designated and non-designated historic features, including wrecks, and other submerged archaeology. These impacts could result from construction of the technologies and from potential scouring, siltation and deposition around assets located in the vicinity of devices or arrays. However, adverse effects are likely to be avoided through careful siting of individual device foundations and arrays, although this may be more difficult for larger gravity bases or arrays of bases.
6.2.28 Wind technologies, specifically masts, turbines and supporting infrastructure, could impact on the setting of historic features, including WHS, coastal listed buildings, and scheduled monuments. The magnitude of visual effects on the historic environment will depend on how the setting of the feature is defined and will be strongly related to the visibility of the device and structure. Impacts will differ between views from the terrestrial and marine environments.
6.2.29 Guidance [69] also notes that development could enhance the significance of heritage assets, or at least make their significance more apparent. This can arise through better understanding or knowledge of the marine historic environment as a result of investigation works which lead to the discovery of features.
Landscape and Seascape
6.2.30 Wind turbines and their supporting infrastructure, depending on their location, may impact on views to and from areas designated for their landscape and seascape value. In general, greater impacts are likely for near-shore devices than those located further offshore ( e.g. beyond 15k m). However devices that are further offshore can still be highly visible to commercial and recreational sea users.
6.2.31 Field observations of offshore wind turbines in the United Kingdom have revealed that the facilities may be visible at distances of up to 26 miles (42 km). However, visibility as a feature of visual attention distances will reduce to approximately 10 miles (16 km). Elevation will also be a factor on the visibility of wind turbines from the marine environment.
6.2.32 There are potential onshore impacts from supporting grid infrastructure and interconnectors with terrestrial grid, although these will likely depend on siting and surroundings. Additionally there could be landscape impacts at the source of excavated terrestrial fill material if this is used as ballast in gravity-based foundations.
6.3 Assessment of Wave Technologies
6.3.1 The technologies considered under wave technology covered:
1. Point absorbers and Rotating Mass Devices;
2. Attenuators and Bulge Wave Devices;
3. Oscillating wave surge converters;
4. Submerged pressure differential devices;
5. Oscillating water column devices (offshore and shoreline); and
6. Overtopping devices (offshore and shoreline).
6.3.2 Appendix D provides more detail on the technologies included in the assessment and the references of the information sources used in this review.
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna
6.3.3 Studies have identified that wave technologies can have a broad range of effects on flora and fauna. These effects could potentially be exacerbated for some devices (1, 2, 5, 6), as a result of bird aggregation utilising above water elements, particularly if located in foraging waters.
6.3.4 Noise effects, both under and above water, are potentially associated with all of the technologies. Noise from some devices may be fairly slight in the operation phase. Noise effects result from construction and installation works ( e.g. associated with anchoring), from machinery housing in floating or subsurface structures, and from vessels may occur. Potential effects associated with noise include behavioural impacts to seals and otters (typically located near the shoreline) and cetaceans and elasmobranchs (located offshore) which might avoid locations where development is occurring during installation and operation. Basking sharks avoiding structures or installations and servicing vessel activities, is a concern because it could result in displacement of foraging activities or courtship behaviour. Additionally, there are potential impacts on seabirds, in particular birds within coastal breeding sites, if located close to devices, or in foraging sites located offshore where underwater noise could affect diving birds.
6.3.5 Research demonstrates that there is a significant amount of uncertainty regarding the level of disturbance likely to occur to all species as effects will be site-specific, and will depend on the noise levels generated by the technologies. Moreover, the importance for birds of being able to hear underwater, threshold levels and the likelihood of any impacts, are also unknown. However, it is reasonable to assume that, for some species, there is the potential for disturbance which is serious enough to cause displacement and a reduction in foraging success.
6.3.6 Further displacement of marine fauna, particularly seals, otters and birds, can be associated with impacts on shoreline habitats caused by the installation of shoreline devices (5 and 6). The impact of this is likely to be site-specific and will be dependent on the availability of alternative habitats, siting options, and the activities displaced.
6.3.7 The physical presence of new structures in the water column may disrupt movements or migration of marine fauna, particularly where there are groups of devices present. Given the mobility of species, any impacts are likely to be site specific. There is uncertainty about movements and migration routes ( e.g. basking sharks) and patterns of movement of other species ( e.g. seals, otters). There is also uncertainty about whether devices and their moorings will be perceived by fauna as barriers to movement, and, if they are, whether species will simply alter their movement accordingly. Available research shows that near-shore devices (5 and 6) may restrict movement more than offshore because there are greater alternatives for movement around devices offshore (1 to 4).
6.3.8 Aside from noise effects, birds may also be displaced by visual disturbance if surface-piercing components are present, with potential for greater impacts if devices are located near-shore and close to coastal breeding and moulting sites, or offshore near foraging areas. The previous Marine Renewables SEA considered that, in such instances, some birds in flight may use similar avoidance tactics to those employed when encountering other natural and man-made obstructions by taking alternative flight routes. In these cases some effects may only be temporary as birds become accustomed to the presence of the devices.
6.3.9 Potential for collisions between marine fauna and devices and their moorings has been identified, particularly where devices have moving parts. However, this will be largely dependent on the size and design of the device, the location of the device, its proximity to receptors such as seal haul out zones, and the response of the marine fauna involved. Avoidance is a likely response for many species, in some circumstances, with a low collision risk. However, if collision were to occur, impacts could result in injuries to some larger species (seals, otters, cetaceans, and elasmobranchs).
6.3.10 Collision with, or entanglement in, mooring lines associated with offshore devices is also considered possible, particularly for larger species (such as Minke whales which are more prone to entanglement than other ondontocetes). Effects will be most likely where complex arrays of devices are present with multiple mooring lines ( e.g. likely 3-point mooring systems). It is not presently known whether the effects of entanglement would be significant, although it is noted that if it did occur, it may result in serious injury or fatality.
6.3.11 Whilst there is potential for collision risk for diving birds with wave devices, it is considered minimal as devices are generally placed on the water surface.
6.3.12 Some of the technologies (1 and 5) have been found to have the potential for impacts arising from shock waves or pressure waves which occur when large waves hit the side of surface-piercing structures which have high profiles above the water surface. The magnitude of any impacts and their effects on these species is not yet known; however, the potential for impacts to seals, cetaceans, otter and elasmobranchs such as basking shark has been identified.
6.3.13 There is the potential for EMF impacts from underwater cabling and grid connections that could impact on marine mammals and, in particular, fish. Further information is required to determine the potential susceptibility of marine fauna and likely effects associated with this issue.
6.3.14 Research and assessment of wave technologies has identified a range of potential impacts on benthic habitats. Appendix C provides details of potential effects on specific species and habitats (including maerl beds, tidal swept channels, horse mussel beds, blue mussel beds). The presence of these devices in the water column and their seabed moorings, have the potential to contribute to habitat changes. The presence and type of mooring used for devices (gravity/deadweight anchor, gravity base structure, rock anchors, etc.) and the presence of structures on the seabed, are the main impacts to benthic habitats.
6.3.15 Impacts to seabed habitats from the devices are likely to result from changes to wave energy dissipation, tidal flows and flux changes and deposition, due in large to the presence of structures in the water column.
6.3.16 Other impacts, such as scouring, deposition, abrasion, smothering and siltation, and the potential for loss of habitat from placement of anchors on the seabed and mooring lines in the water column have also been identified. These may also occur due to wave and coastal process changes and during installation of devices. Associated effects include the introduction of variations and shifts in grain size of sediments, which can alter habitat character and species distribution.
6.3.17 Finally, other potential effects include: shading or smothering of benthic areas with sediments and the presence of the device itself; changes in species distribution via interference with filter feeders; inhibiting their respiration and reproduction; and secondary impacts such as reducing food sources for other species supported by these habitats. These may collectively lead to wider changes in ecosystem composition. In some instances, this may also result in changes to sediment movement which can, in turn, result in changes in coastal character and profile which has the potential for a range of adverse impacts for habitats. Secondary impacts may include changes to species distribution, and potentially reducing food sources for other species supported by these habitats.
Population and Human Health
6.3.18 Above water components are likely to be visible to larger vessels, particularly for certain technologies (5, 6). As such potential for vessel collisions with above water components or components at shallow depths in the water column has been identified and is considered to have the potential for serious injury, particularly in periods of low light. However, navigational warnings ( e.g. marker buoys, navigational aids, lighting) will likely be required on such devices for navigational purposes reducing the risk of significant effects. Potential for a greater significance of effects for small recreational craft has been considered, particularly where sea conditions could make devices that sit on the surface of the sea difficult to see from a distance.
6.3.19 The displacement of shipping, both commercial and recreational, from wave sites as a result of restricting access, could increase the potential risk of collision by limiting the space for vessels. Shallow water devices may in particular reduce the space available for some recreational boating.
Water and the Marine Environment
6.3.20 All of the wave devices reviewed have the potential to result in impacts as a result of local changes in water turbulence. Changes to hydrological dynamics, tidal flows and fluxes, water turbidity and water turbulence, vibration, dissipation of wave energy and wave period could result from the presence of devices and their support structures.
6.3.21 Water turbidity and vibration might, in particular, be associated with the construction and installation phase. Impacts as listed above will remain during operation and there may be additional contamination risks associated with leakage from vessels or equipment.
6.3.22 Impacts on the water environment are closely linked to impacts on the seabed and marine geology, and, in turn, to impacts on biodiversity.
Climatic Factors
6.3.23 The technologies themselves will involve the use of energy in their construction, transportation and maintenance. However, wave energy will contribute to reducing greenhouse gases as part of energy generation and displacement of energy generated from non-renewable sources.
6.3.24 Devices have the potential to result in changes to wave energy dissipation and to coastal processes. Depending on location these effects could exacerbate existing vulnerability of coasts to climatic change by altering wave energy patterns whilst, in some circumstances, actually contribute to the protection of coastlines susceptible to erosion by reducing the energy of wave impacts.
Marine Geology and Coastal Processes
6.3.25 The 2007 Marine Renewables SEA identified the potential for impacts on important coastal geological features including geological SSSI and Geological Conservation Review sites ( GCRs). Furthermore, it identified changes in coastal processes due to energy extraction.
6.3.26 The research reviewed discusses the potential for local changes in water turbulence due to the presence of groups of wave devices, and the presence of support structures in offshore and near-shore areas. There is potential for increased scouring and changes to coastal processes, such as sediment dynamics, wave dissipation and tidal fluxes during operation, and for seabed disturbance and abrasion of marine geology during installation of mooring systems and subsea cabling.
6.3.27 Changes to sediment dynamics, both offshore and in shallow waters, has the potential, in particular, to impact on benthic habitats and as a result will affect biodiversity.
Historic Environment
6.3.28 Wave energy technologies could pose a risk to submerged features of archaeological interest, although the greatest risk is most likely to be for unknown remains. The moorings that anchor the devices (including lengthy mooring chains), and the means to construct these ( e.g. piling and seabed preparation), could have direct impacts on features of interest by directly disturbing them. Furthermore, associated grid cables and the anchors of supporting vessels also have the potential to affect historic features located on the seabed.
6.3.29 Wave technologies, in particular those with elements that sit on top of and above the water, could also have effects on the setting of historic features during both construction and operation. The significance of these effects will depend greatly on the setting of the historic feature, including views to and from it, and the visibility of technologies in any given location.
6.3.30 Mooring of devices can be associated with changes to sediment and seabed processes, as a result of deposition, siltation or abrasion from offshore support structures, scouring, and changes in sediment dynamics. Changes in the movement of sediment can cause adverse effects on historic features from increased exposure. However, guidance on the historic marine environment also identifies that, in some circumstances, where devices reduce wave energy reaching shore there could be benefits, in terms of reduced erosion of coastal heritage features.
6.3.31 In general, adverse effects of the devices can be avoided through careful siting of individual device supports and moorings, although this may be more difficult for larger gravity bases or for larger arrays.
Landscape and Seascape
6.3.32 Landscape and visual effects may vary between technologies depending on the presence of surface-piercing structures, marker buoys and lights for navigation. These features all have the potential to impact on the aesthetic character of the coastline, particularly if located near-shore and in large numbers. Submerged and oscillating devices may have fewer impacts than attenuator devices which sit on top of the water, but this will depend on location of devices and receptors, and the quality of the receiving environment. Near shore devices tend to have a greater amount of infrastructure below water and would have reduced visibility, although part of the device infrastructure may be above the surface.
6.3.33 The SEA for marine renewable energy identified that eight out of the ten seascape types are of high sensitivity to point structures such as the surface-piercing structures on certain devices, with the potential for effects occurring at 0 - 10 km from coastline. Moderate effects may also occur at distances over 10km.
6.3.34 There are potential onshore impacts from supporting grid infrastructure and interconnectors with terrestrial grid, although these will likely depend on siting and surroundings.
6.4 Assessment of Tidal Technologies
6.4.1 The tidal technologies considered covered:
1. Horizontal Axis Turbines;
2. Vertical Axis Turbines;
3. Reciprocating Hydrofoils; and
4. Emerging Technologies.
6.4.2 Appendix C provides more detail on the technologies included in the assessment and the references of the information sources used in this review.
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna
6.4.3 There are a number of potential effects on species and habitats as a result of tidal power devices. Noise effects are associated with all of the technologies and can have impacts for marine fauna. During installation of devices there is potential for noise from drilling and piling, from machinery housing and from vessels. There may be the potential for behavioural impacts to marine fauna (seals, cetaceans, otter, basking sharks), although effects will be site specific and dependant on the presence of species and noise levels generated. Basking sharks avoiding structures or installations and servicing vessel activities, may lead to the displacement of foraging activities or courtship behaviour.
6.4.4 There is potential for noise impacts from generators within devices or their support structures. This may impact on birds, in particular diving birds within coastal breeding sites if these are located close to devices or those in foraging sites located offshore, where underwater noise could affect them. Effects on birds and other marine fauna may include displacement, avoidance, and reduction in foraging success. Some displacement effects are considered to be temporary as species become accustomed to changes in noise.
6.4.5 Research has found that, although noise has been identified as potentially damaging, there is uncertainty around the magnitude of impact. Noise levels within devices are likely to be low and constant and the high energy environments required for tidal energy are likely to have high levels of background noise.
6.4.6 The presence of new structures in the water column can disrupt movements or migration of marine fauna, particularly where devices are grouped. Currently the precise migration routes for species such as basking shark and patterns of movement of other fauna ( e.g. Atlantic salmon, seals) are not well defined. Therefore, given the mobility of these species, any impacts are likely to be site specific. There is uncertainty about whether devices will impact directly on species or whether they will simply alter their movement accordingly, particularly with fauna which have been able to gain familiarity with the devices.
6.4.7 Bird species could also be displaced by devices with components which extend above the waterline and interfere with their flight paths, although with this technology effects are considered of very minor significance. The potential for impacts of this kind is greater where technologies are located near-shore and close to coastal breeding and moulting sites, or offshore near foraging areas. The 2007 Marine Renewables SEA considered that, in such instances, some birds in flight may operate in a broadly similar way and use similar avoidance tactics to those employed when encountering other natural and man-made obstructions by taking alternative flight routes. In these cases some effects may only be temporary as birds become accustomed to the presence of devices.
6.4.8 Potential for collisions between marine fauna and particularly the moving parts of devices, and potentially their moorings has been identified. However, this will be largely dependent on the size and design of the device, the location of the device and its proximity to receptors such as seal haul out zones, and the response of the marine fauna involved. Avoidance is a likely response for many species, and collision risk could be low. However, if collision were to occur, impacts could result in injuries to some larger species (seals, otters, cetaceans, and elasmobranchs).
6.4.9 There is potential for collision of diving birds with devices within the water column. Collisions could be fatal for some marine birds, which can dive to depths of up to 60m from the water surface ( e.g. common guillemots, long-tailed ducks). This is likely to be of particular concern with the moving blades present on horizontal and vertical axis turbines, and potentially less of a concern with reciprocating hydrofoils where blades are likely to be slower moving.
6.4.10 Horizontal and vertical axis turbines have the potential to result in shock waves rebounding from surface piercing features. The magnitude of any impacts and the effects on these species is not yet known, although it is expected to be of a minor significance. The potential for impacts to seals, cetaceans, otter and elasmobranchs has been identified in the research.
6.4.11 During periods where hydrofoil devices might not be turning (shutdown periods or slack water) there may be potential for fish aggregation in the vicinity of devices. Research has identified that there may, therefore, be a potential risk of physical injury to some species during periods of start-up ( i.e. when the blades start moving), where aggregation has occurred.
6.4.12 There is the potential for EMF impacts on marine mammals and in particular fish from underwater cabling and grid connections. Further information is required to determine the susceptibility of marine fauna and likely effects associated with this issue.
6.4.13 Research and assessment of tidal technologies (included in Appendix C) has identified a range of potential impacts on benthic habitats including maerl beds, tidal swept channels, horse mussel beds, blue mussel beds and other filter feeders. Tidal devices in general can impact on seabed habitats as a result of installation, and from limited changes in tidal flows, fluxes and turbulence due to the presence of these devices and associated structures in the water column.
6.4.14 Other impacts, such as scouring, deposition, abrasion, smothering and siltation, and the potential for loss of habitat from placement of device mooring and anchors ( e.g. gravity anchors, or rock anchors) on the seabed and in the water column, have also been identified. Subsea cables can also have these impacts. These effects may also occur due to wave and coastal process changes, as well as during installation of devices. Associated effects include the introduction of variations and shifts in grain size of sediments, which can alter habitat character and species distribution. These effects can impact on a range of species and habitats including the species referred to above.
6.4.15 Other effects include: shading or smothering of benthic areas from sediments or from the presence of the device itself; changes in species distribution via interference with filter feeders inhibiting their respiration and reproduction; and secondary impacts such as reducing food sources for other species supported by these habitats. These impacts may collectively lead to wider changes in ecosystem composition. In some instances, this may also result in changes to sediment movement which can result in changes to coastal character and profile and this has the potential for a range of adverse impacts on habitats. Secondary impacts may include changes to species distribution, and potentially reducing food sources for other species supported by these habitats.
Population and Human Health
6.4.16 The presence of tidal devices in the water column could interfere with the navigation of recreational or commercial shipping and lead to an increased risk of collision and serious injury.
6.4.17 Navigational warnings ( e.g. marker buoys, navigational aids, lighting) are likely to be required on such devices and access restrictions for shipping, recreational sailing and other water sports can reduce this risk. However, the displacement of shipping as a result of restricting access to areas where devices are located could increase the potential risk of collision.
6.4.18 The research suggests some measures to prevent adverse effects including; siting devices away from areas spatially constrained or with high vessel densities, and siting devices in open water. Using device types that are fully submerged and allow shipping to pass over the top of them could also reduce effects, but guidance would need to be sought on a case-by-case basis on the level of clearance required.
Water and the Marine Environment
6.4.19 Devices have the potential to result in a range of impacts from local changes in water quality during installation and from the presence of devices in the water column which could alter water turbulence and change tidal flows and fluxes. Water quality impacts could arise as a result of changes to sediment dynamics, scouring, deposition, smothering and changes to water turbulence. These may be associated with the installation and presence of support cables and structures on the seabed. Additional contamination risks might be associated with leakage from vessels or equipment during installation and operation.
Climatic Factors
6.4.20 The devices themselves will involve the use of energy in their construction, transportation and maintenance. However, tidal energy will contribute to reducing greenhouse gases as part of energy generation and displacement of energy generated from non-renewable sources.
6.4.21 Devices have the potential to result in changes to wave energy dissipation and to coastal processes. Depending on location these effects could exacerbate existing vulnerability of coasts to climatic change by altering wave energy patterns whilst, in some circumstances, actually contribute to the protection of coastlines susceptible to erosion by energy and turbidity within the coastal zone.
Marine Geology and Coastal Processes
6.4.22 The 2007 Marine Renewables SEA identified the potential for impacts on important coastal geological features including geological SSSI and GCRs. Furthermore, it identified changes in coastal processes due to energy extraction.
6.4.23 The research reviewed discusses potential for local changes in water turbulence due to the presence of groups of tidal devices, and support structures, including anchoring and moorings. There is potential for increased scouring and changes to coastal processes, such as sediment dynamics, wave dissipation and tidal fluxes during operation and for seabed disturbance and abrasion of marine geology during installation of mooring systems and subsea cabling.
6.4.24 Changes to sediment dynamics, both offshore and in shallow waters, has the potential to impact on benthic habitats and, as a result, on biodiversity.
Historic Environment
6.4.25 Tidal devices can impact on submerged features of historic interest, such as wreck sites, although the greatest risk is to unknown archaeological remains. Moorings that anchor the devices and the means to construct these ( e.g. piling and seabed preparation), can have direct impacts on features of interest e.g. from disturbance caused by lengthy mooring chains dragging on the seabed. Furthermore, associated grid cables and the anchors of supporting vessels also have the potential to historic features located on the seabed.
6.4.26 There may also be impacts on the setting of historic features from elements of devices that sit above the water surface. However, effects are likely to be less significant than for wind or wave devices that sit above the water level. The significance of these effects on the historic environment will depend greatly on the setting of the feature in question, views to and from it, and the visibility of technologies in any given location.
6.4.27 Mooring of devices can result in changes to sediment and seabed processes from deposition, siltation or abrasion from offshore support structures, scouring, and changes in sediment dynamics. Changes in the movement of sediment can cause adverse effects on historic features. However, guidance on the historic marine environment identifies that, in some circumstances, where devices reduce wave energy reaching the shore, there could be benefits in terms of reduced erosion of coastal heritage features.
6.4.28 In general, adverse effects from devices can be avoided through careful siting of individual device supports and moorings, although this may be more difficult for larger arrays.
Landscape and Seascape
6.4.29 Landscape and visual effects of the devices will depend on the presence of surface-piercing structures, marker buoys and lights for navigation. These features all have the potential to impact on the aesthetic character of the coastline, particularly if located near-shore and in large numbers. As predominantly submerged devices, the significance of impacts of tidal technology may be lower than for other technologies, although this will depend on their location and the characteristics of the receiving environment. The greatest effects are likely to result from the process of constructing and locating devices where supporting vessels and structures would be visible.
6.4.30 The SEA for marine renewable energy identified that eight out of the ten seascape types are of high sensitivity to point structures, such as the surface-piercing structures on certain devices, with the potential for effects occurring at 0-10km from coastline. Moderate effects may also occur at distances over 10km.
6.5 Assessment of Transmission Infrastructure
6.5.1 The infrastructure considered covered:
1. Offshore Transmission Infrastructure Components;
2. Subsea Transmission Cables;
3. Landfall and Transition Pit;
4. Onshore Transmission Infrastructure Components;
5. Overhead Lines;
6. Onshore AC Substations; and
7. Onshore DC/ AC Converter Stations.
6.5.2 While offshore renewable development will require transmission infrastructure and connections to grid infrastructure, the design and placement of such infrastructure is likely to be location and development-specific. Each offshore energy project will have its own unique characteristics which will drive the specific connection requirements, and as such, there is a degree of uncertainty into requirements at this stage. It is expected that these considerations will form a key part of the project level design process.
6.5.3 The Crown Estate has prepared a reference document [70] outlining the types of transmission infrastructure that may be developed for connecting offshore energy generation sites. The document discusses infrastructure components and presents a range of environmental and socio-economic considerations likely to be associated with this infrastructure.
6.5.4 Appendix C provides more detail on the infrastructure included in the assessment and reference to the information sources used in this review.
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna
6.5.5 There is the potential for a range of effects on species and habitats as a result of the installation and presence of transmission infrastructure in both the onshore and offshore environments. For large offshore transmission infrastructure components such as substations, similar effects are likely to that associated with other renewables infrastructure, particularly wind devices. Such impacts may include: underwater and above water noise during installation and operation ( e.g. piling, placement of gravity base foundations, vessel noise), benthic effects ( e.g. scouring, shading, smothering, etc.), and collision risk, particularly for marine mammals, elasmobranchs and diving birds with submerged structures ( e.g. steel jackets, monopiles and mooring cables).
6.5.6 While there is the potential for serious injury or fatality associated with some effects, particularly collisions, potential behavioural and displacement impacts for marine fauna have also been identified. There is also the potential for benthic and EMF effects from the placement and presence of operational of subsea cabling.
6.5.7 In many cases, these impacts are likely to be location dependent. For example, the potential for displacement and collision impacts is likely to be greater for infrastructure located in proximity to sensitive or important areas, such as coastal bird breeding and moulting sites, seabird foraging sites and seal haul out areas. In some areas, these displacement effects may be temporary as species become accustomed to change ( i.e. as the presence of infrastructure and operational noise). Adaptation may also occur, with the presence of stationary infrastructure with above water components such as an offshore substation potentially resulting in the aggregation of fish species around its support structure and foundations, and predator species such as diving birds aggregating on its above water structure.
6.5.8 In many instances, transmission infrastructure ( e.g. offshore substations for wind developments) is likely to be located in close proximity to other visible offshore infrastructure ( e.g. wind turbines). In such cases, the potential for additional impact risk above that of other offshore renewables infrastructure may be minimal.
6.5.9 Disturbance effects such as construction noise, vibration and dust generation are likely for all onshore and landfall works. In most cases, these impacts and any associated disturbance to fauna is likely to be temporary. However, the presence of larger infrastructure such as substation sites, may involve loss of habitat, and also contribute to long-term operational disturbance effects through the continued generation of operational noise and vibration. As for the offshore environment, the scale and nature of such impacts are likely to be location dependent.
Population and Human Health
6.5.10 The presence of offshore transmission infrastructure, particularly AC and AC/ DC substations in the water column or mounted on surface-piercing structures, could interfere with the navigation of recreational or commercial shipping and lead to an increased risk of collision and serious injury. For the most part, this infrastructure is likely to be located near to other offshore renewable infrastructure, and could likely be considered in the context of a wider development, particularly for wind and wave energy devices.
6.5.11 In many instances, navigational warnings ( e.g. marker buoys, navigational aids, lighting) are likely to be required, and access restrictions for shipping, recreational sailing and other water sports can reduce this risk. The displacement of other marine users or restricting access during construction and/or operation could also increase the potential risk of collision in other areas. However, the potential displacement effects for submerged infrastructure, such as subsea transmission cables, are likely to be temporary.
6.5.12 Construction impacts such as dust generation, noise and vibration, and disruption effects ( e.g. traffic) are likely to be a consequence of the installation of onshore infrastructure, although there is also the potential for additional impacts during operation. However, any such impacts will likely depend on the type and size of infrastructure, ranging from minor displacement of other land users for sub-surface or overhead cables, to operational noise associated with substations and converter stations.
Water and the Marine Environment
6.5.13 The potential for significant effects on water and the marine environment is likely to be limited to the installation of infrastructure and subsea cables. Localised changes to turbidity and seabed disturbance from placement of offshore infrastructure components ( i.e. transmission infrastructure mounted on gravity-base, steel jacket or monopiles), habitat loss from placement of subsea cables, and contamination from installation equipment and maintenance vessels could all impact on local water quality. Changes in water quality will have associated impacts on local marine biodiversity where species are dependent on existing water conditions.
6.5.14 Potential impacts such as sedimentation, increased turbidity and contamination of watercourses from construction works has also been identified with the installation of onshore infrastructure. In many cases, these impacts may only be temporary and reversible, although the potential for longer term effects associated with permanent infrastructure such as substations and converter stations have also been identified ( e.g. flood risk). In many instances, such impacts could be controlled through the adoption of appropriate sediment and erosion controls and site management practices.
Climatic Factors
6.5.15 While the installation of transmission infrastructure will involve the use of energy in their construction, transportation, installation and maintenance, it will support the contribution of offshore renewables to the decarbonisation of electricity generation, and through supporting their long-term operation, be beneficial for climatic factors.
6.5.16 Depending on their location, offshore and coastal infrastructure may have the potential to exacerbate the effects of climate change, including contributing to coastal erosion by altering wave energy patterns and coastal processes, and destabilising the coastline at landfall sites.
Marine Geology and Coastal Processes
6.5.17 While potential impacts likely vary for onshore and offshore infrastructure, impacts from the construction phase is considered more likely for both than during the operational phase. Impacts such as scour from seabed foundation installation during construction and operation ( e.g. piling for offshore structures, gravity-based foundations) and sediment disturbance from seabed excavations ( e.g. subsea cables) may occur during installation works offshore, while alteration to coastline stability and coastal processes may be associated with the installation of infrastructure such as transition pits and transmission cabling at landfall sites.
6.5.18 Potential impacts including disturbance and degradation of soil resources, land contamination from leaks and spills, and displacement of existing land use ( e.g. agricultural production) may occur during onshore construction works, particularly for larger sites such as converter stations and substations.
Historic Environment
6.5.19 There is the potential for offshore works to impact on both designated historic features, such as wrecks and coastal monuments, and other submerged non-designated, and potentially unknown, archaeological assets. These impacts could result from construction works in the installation of transmission infrastructure, and from potential operational impacts such as scouring, siltation and deposition around assets located in the vicinity of such infrastructure.
6.5.20 Onshore infrastructure, particularly larger substations, converter stations and overhead power lines, have the potential to impact on the setting of historic features ( e.g. World Heritage Sites, coastal listed buildings, scheduled monuments). However, the magnitude of any visual effect on the historic environment will largely depend on how the setting of the feature is defined, and how visible this infrastructure is.
6.5.21 In general, adverse effects may be avoided through careful siting of onshore and offshore infrastructure, although this may be more difficult for larger components, such as gravity bases, in the marine environment. It is considered that historic setting issues associated with the development of onshore structures is also likely to be a consideration in existing planning processes.
Landscape and Seascape
6.5.22 Offshore infrastructure with above water components has the potential to impact on views to and from areas designated for their landscape and seascape value. While in general, greater impacts are likely for near-shore infrastructure than those located further offshore. Devices that are sited further offshore can be highly visible to commercial and recreational sea users. However, in many instances, transmission infrastructure such as offshore substations for wind developments will be located in close proximity to other visible offshore infrastructure ( e.g. wind turbines). In such cases, the potential for additional adverse visual impact above that of nearby visible offshore renewables infrastructure is likely to be minimal.
6.5.23 There is the potential for onshore impacts from supporting infrastructure and interconnectors with terrestrial grid ( e.g. substations and overhead cables), although these will largely depend on siting and surroundings.
6.5.24 There are potential onshore impacts from supporting grid infrastructure and interconnectors with terrestrial grid, although these will likely depend on siting and surroundings.
6.6 Assessment of the Draft Plan Options
6.6.1 Each of the Draft Plan Options has been assessed in turn against the SEA topics and environmental receptors, and full details of the assessment are presented in Appendix D. The assessments have demonstrated that whilst gaps within the evidence baseline are being closed through on-going research at this strategic level, difficulties remain in apportioning the precise significance of effects. This is in part due to the fact that renewable design parameters ( e.g. device type, size, number of devices, etc.) will be determined at the project level. Furthermore, there are changing marine and coastal designations, and a large number of mobile environmental receptors ( e.g. seabirds, cetaceans, elasmobranchs, etc.). These factors underline the requirement for detailed assessment through the project level EIA process.
6.6.2 In view of these constraints, Tables 6.1 - 6.3 set out a risk-based summary of the potential effects documented in the Draft Plan Options assessment (Appendix D) on the key receptors identified in the baseline (Appendix B) for wind, wave and tidal devices. Risks are assessed in line with the approach presented in Table 3.1.
6.6.3 This risk-based process considered relevant spatial data, such as the presence of designated areas or priority marine species in proximity to option areas ( e.g. Salmon river SACs, SPAs, Basking shark 'hotspots', NSAs, world heritage sites, etc.) and seabed habitat data ( e.g. bathymetry and survey data) amongst others, and linking this with available information on technology types and previous project-level studies undertaken for existing renewables projects ( e.g. EIAs and monitoring) to gauge the potential risks for these topic areas and features for each Draft Plan Option.
6.6.4 Several difficulties were encountered in undertaking this assessment, largely relating to uncertainties in data ( e.g. species distributions) and potential for effects associated with specific renewables technologies. This was of particular note for wave and tidal technologies which remain in the early stages of development and testing. The consideration of several Draft Plan Options was another difficulty, specifically those occupying large areas or set along large sections of varying coastline where the likelihood of effects has the potential to vary markedly within the option area itself ( e.g. one end of Draft Plan Option being close to a designation whilst another end is not).
6.6.5 For example, there are large differences in seabed composition within WNW1 ranging from coarse sediments to rocky substrate creating significant differences in potential seabed impacts, and the potential for coastal impacts is likely to vary greatly for wave devices installed within the eastern (near-shore) portion of the option area, compared to devices in the western (off-shore) portion. In these circumstances a precautionary approach was undertaken and a higher level of risk was recorded.
Table 6.1: Risk Based Summary for Offshore Wind
| Zone |
SEA Topic |
Feature |
Impact Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| OWSW1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Low |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Medium |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| OWSW2 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Low |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| OWW1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Medium |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| OWW2 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
High |
||
| Cetaceans |
High |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Medium |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Medium |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| OWW3 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| OWNW1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| OWN1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Medium |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
High |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| OWN2 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Low |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Medium |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| OWNE1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Low |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| OWNE2 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Low |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Medium |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
High |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
6.6.6 Table 6.1 identifies that visibility of offshore wind devices is likely to be a key issue, and the potential for associated impacts to landscapes and seascapes for options near to valued coastlines (of which there are several across the regions), and similarly in some key locations effects on the setting of historic features in coastal areas ( e.g. in proximity to the Heart of Neolithic Orkney WHS) are also likely to be important considerations for developments within some of the Draft Plan Options.
6.6.7 Potential impacts to biodiversity were also identified, particularly for seabirds in terms of collision and displacement risk, and for marine fauna during construction works. Higher risks to mobile species such as Basking sharks and Common skate, were identified in the Western region ( e.g. near to OWW2) where it is known that these priority marine species are frequent visitors. However, several of the other Draft Plan Options also carry some risk of interaction between technologies and elasmobranchs, birds, cetaceans and seals. The risks for many mobile species would arise from collision and displacement risk, although for many species the precise interactions with new technology are still to be ascertained, and might only be so at the project level.
6.6.8 The potential for seabed disturbance during turbine and foundation installation works was identified, particularly for devices with large footprints ( e.g. gravity-based, jacket, etc.). Displacement of recreational activities, either during construction or operational phases, may also be relevant for some option areas (in particular those within the South West and West regions).
6.6.9 While short-term construction impacts, such as potential for water pollution incidents, were identified in this assessment these were largely considered to be of lower risk in the context of wind energy. They might occur, but given reasonable assumptions on mitigation available during construction these might be avoided or minimised.
Table 6.2: Risk Based Summary for Wave
| Zone |
SEA Topic |
Feature |
Impact Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| WW1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Medium |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Medium |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| WW2 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
High |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Medium |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Medium |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| WW3 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
High |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Medium |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Medium |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| WW4 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Medium |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| WNW1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Medium |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
High |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| WN1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Medium |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| WN2 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Medium |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
High |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
||
| WN3 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Medium |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Medium |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Low |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Medium |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Medium |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Medium |
6.6.10 The visibility of wave devices was not identified to be as significant an issue as for wind largely, due largely to their lower profile above the water surface. However, the potential for impacts to landscape, seascape and the setting of features of the historic environment remains a key consideration for many options, particularly near-shore Draft Plan Options such as those in the Inner Hebrides, the North Sutherland Coast and around Orkney ( i.e. near to Orkney WHS). However, whilst risk of effects is considered, the type of device constructed ( e.g. near surface technology) may have impacts of only minor significance. This is expected to be a lower risk for options located further offshore ( e.g. the north west portion of WNW1).
6.6.11 Potential risks to biodiversity were identified for wave devices in all areas, with some options presenting risks to different species than others. For example, elasmobranchs were considered to be of greater risk for devices in Draft Plan Options located in the Inner Hebrides Islands where the presence of some species is more established, whilst other mobile marine mammal species such as some cetaceans and seals were likely to be of relevance across the whole of Scotland's coastline. Potential risks for diving birds were identified in all locations, particularly those option areas in the Western and Northern Isles known to support protected bird populations.
6.6.12 The potential for interactions between wave devices and coastal change was identified at most option areas, but was considered likely to be of greater risk for areas of the coast that may be susceptible to erosion or accretion ( e.g. parts of Orkney and the Western Isles).
6.6.13 In general terms, construction works impacts such as seabed disturbance were not considered likely to be as significant as that associated with offshore wind devices, and were considered to be of a lower risk. Whilst some effects will occur, wave devices may in general require a smaller footprint and requirement for works on the seabed as other devices may, such as gravity based wind devices.
Table 6.3: Risk Based Summary for Tidal
| Zone |
SEA Topic |
Feature |
Impact Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSW1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
High |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Medium |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TW1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
High |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TW2 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TN1 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Low |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TN2 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Medium |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TN3 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Medium |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TN4 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Medium |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TN5 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Medium |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TN6 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Medium |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Medium |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
||
| TN7 |
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
Birds |
Medium |
| Elasmobranchs |
Medium |
||
| Cetaceans |
Medium |
||
| Seals |
Medium |
||
| Fish |
Medium |
||
| Benthic Habitats |
Low |
||
| Population and Human Health |
Vessel Collision |
Low |
|
| Displacement of Recreational Activities |
Low |
||
| Water and the Marine Environment |
Water Quality |
Low |
|
| Climatic Factors |
Interaction with Coastal Change |
Low |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
Seabed Disturbance |
Low |
|
| Sediment Dynamics |
Medium |
||
| Historic Environment |
Historic Coastal and Marine Assets |
Low |
|
| Impacts on Setting of Historic Environment |
Low |
||
| Landscape and Seascape |
Visibility |
Low |
|
| Landscape Character Change and Wild Land |
Low |
6.6.14 Based on the fact that devices and the majority of their infrastructure will be below surface, the visibility of tidal devices is unlikely to be an issue.
6.6.15 Potential risks to biodiversity were identified for tidal devices in all areas, for both diving birds and marine fauna as a result of collision or entanglement. Some option areas were identified as having different levels of risk to certain species based upon the known patterns of distribution of these around Scotland's coastline. As with wave energy, elasmobranchs were considered to be of particular interest for tidal devices in Draft Plan Options located in the Inner Hebrides Islands and Solway Firth ( e.g. TW1 and TSW1), whilst other mobile marine mammal species, such as cetaceans and seals, were likely to be of relevance around most of Scotland's coastline.
6.6.16 Potential risks to fish species, such as Atlantic salmon and Sea trout amongst others, were also considered relevant to most Draft Plan Options, particularly those located near to designated sites such as the River Bladnoch in the Solway Firth. Risks to diving birds were identified for all tidal devices. These were considered to be of particular interest for option areas located in areas known to support important bird populations ( e.g. Western and Northern Isles, Solway Firth).
6.6.17 The potential for interactions between tidal devices and coastal change was broadly identified in Table 6.3, and was considered to be of particular relevance for option areas located near to those coastal areas that may be susceptible to erosion or accretion ( e.g. Luce Bay, parts of Orkney and Shetland).
6.6.18 In general terms, the risks of effects associated with construction works, such as seabed disturbance during installation, were considered to be of a lower risk than that associated with other technologies ( e.g. offshore wind devices. Whilst some effects will occur, tidal devices may in general require a smaller footprint and requirement for works on the seabed as other devices may, such as gravity based wind devices.
6.7 Cumulative and In-Combination Effects
6.7.1 The following section discusses the cumulative assessment on a regional basis and concludes with the overarching effects of the plans. The cumulative assessment considers the potential for development within multiple Draft Plan Options in each region. It then considers the potential effects of other potential renewables development, such as those included in the Blue Seas, Green Energy SEA and other assessments, in combination with the current plans. Figure 6.1 illustrates the distribution of current and potential projects for consideration. Additionally where relevant the effects of other coastal renewables activity have been considered and published, namely the effects identified in the SEA of the NRIP for wind energy.
Figure 6.1: Draft Plan Options and Potential Developments
North East
6.7.2 The two wind options within the north east region are located between existing proposals for wind development within the firth of forth and Moray Firth. These proposed developments cover large portions of the sea off the east of Scotland. Existing EIAs identify a number of potential effects on a range of environmental receptors and work is continuing to help to determine the significance of effects. Therefore whether the high, low or medium scenarios for occupancy will result in additional significant effects is difficult to predict, although there is likely to be an increased risk of these. If significant effects can be appropriately reduced through project mitigation, development of the high scenario for wind energy in the Draft Plan Options could be favoured.
6.7.3 There are a range of potential cumulative effects of development within the Draft Plan Options. Impacts on biodiversity flora and fauna have been raised, in particular potential collision of seabirds with wind turbines. Birds are known to travel along the east coast from the Firth of Forth, Firth of Tay and Moray Firth and flight patterns might cross both wind sites in the North East region as well as other planned projects.
6.7.4 There are a number of factors that would influence the significance of effects, not least the species of bird and the height above water at which it flies the vulnerability of its population and the design of technologies, such as turbine height. Project level HRA and EIA should help to indicate the potential significance of effects and hence the level of density of development that could be undertaken within the Draft Plan Options. If project assessment cannot avoid significant effects on protected species it is recommended that Draft Plan Options could be revisited and/or lower growth scenarios favoured.
6.7.5 Similarly, the potential collision risks and impacts of construction on mobile cetaceans and seals will require consideration. Future plan iterations can use the results of project level EIA to indicate the potential level of acceptable development within the Draft Plan Options. In particular effects on the population of bottlenose dolphins attached to the Moray Firth SAC, and common seals from the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SAC are considered to be important concerns. If project level assessments and monitoring demonstrate minimal effects there is potential for a higher level of occupancy within the Draft Plan Options.
6.7.6 Disturbance to terrestrial habitat for seabirds and areas used as seals haul outs, as a result of increased shipping and port activities promoted through the NRIP could add further pressures. Ports included in the NRIP include several within the Firth of Forth, Forth of Tay and Moray Firth, Aberdeen and the Aberdeenshire coast.
6.7.7 There are potential effects for landscape and seascape. Development in both of the Draft Plan Options will result in some degree of visibility from the Aberdeenshire coast. On one hand it could be considered that the higher the level of occupancy of the Draft Plan Option the greater the impact on the seascape, however equally it could also be considered that effects are related simply to a change in the appearance of the coastline and a higher occupancy can minimise effects elsewhere. The latter might imply greater significance of effects in the region, especially alongside the potential development of the projects proposed in the Moray Firth and Firth of Forth. This would create potentially large developments along much of the east coast. However, given the large number of commercial vessels already using the seas in this area it might be considered that there is an existing working seascape and the receiving environment may be considered to have greater resilience than other sections of the coastline. Furthermore, this section of coastline might be considered to have fewer areas of high landscape value and wilderness than some other Draft Plan Options.
6.7.8 Large scale development of wind energy through the Draft Plan Options and sites in the Moray Firth and Firth of Forth will have interactions with commercial and recreational boating and shipping. Increased port activity associated with the NRIP could also increase the volume of commercial traffic. Residual impacts for displacement of some recreational activities may result, although these may not be significant if displacement can avoid cessation of activities. Appropriate exclusion zones around the technologies will assist in reducing collision risk.
6.7.9 Impacts on the historic environment, particularly damage to marine archaeology, could increase with density of development within the region, with the high occupancy scenario and planned development. There are some valued receptors within the area including listed lighthouses however cumulative impacts on their setting are not considered to be significant.
6.7.10 Development of renewable energy along the coastline, from Draft Plan Options and other renewable development could interact with existing sediment and coastal processes. There may also be an interaction with marine water quality from the potential release of seabed contaminants. However, contamination effects would occur during construction of developments where mitigation to limit effects is likely to be available. Furthermore, it is anticipated that development would be staggered, and as a result the significance of cumulative effects is considered minimal. There may be some dredging activities associated with NRIP development, as well as continuing dredging activities undertaken in the Firth of Forth. Dredging for fill material for any gravity based devices could magnify any existing issues associated with dredging, although the volumes of material needed may be substantially below existing levels of dredging. Furthermore, there may be opportunities for coordinated activity between required port dredging and renewables filling to reduce potential dumping and discharge of sediment.
North
6.7.11 The draft plans for the north region contain two wind, two wave and seven tidal sites. The region already has a number of tidal and wave projects at various stages of the planning and licencing process, in particular in the Orkney Isles including at the European Marine Energy Centre ( EMEC). Renewables projects in the region have been subject to a number of continuing assessments. The published EIAs for tidal energy at Inner Sound in the Pentland Firth and for wave energy (oyster device) at Billia Croo ( EMEC) on the west coast of Orkney help to give an indication of what type of effects may arise in combination with the predicted effects of the Draft Plan Options. Project level work on a number of other proposed projects in the region could assist with determining the significance of potential effects.
6.7.12 The low, medium and high scenarios for occupancy differ quite markedly between the technologies and it is difficult to accurately predict the precise cumulative effects of the future mix of technologies. In part this is due to the assumption of the plans and this assessment that co-location of technologies is not currently favoured. Therefore where plan options overlap it is difficult to determine if one technology would be developed or smaller plan options that do not overlap might emerge. However, for wave and tidal the occupancy scenarios demonstrate that a relatively small part of the total area of draft (approximately 5% for tidal and 1% for wind) may be developed. The scenarios for wind could see larger proportions of occupancy in the two Draft Plan Options, however as there are not existing wind projects in this area the in combination effects associated with wind power only may be more limited in this region.
6.7.13 Furthermore, it is considered that many of the potential effects identified in this assessment might be appropriately reduced through project level mitigation, such as for construction and maintenance. However, the following paragraphs set out some of the potential cumulative effects.
6.7.14 Impacts on marine fauna are varied, due in part to the fact that all types of device could be developed in the region. Firstly there is potential for collision of some species of seabirds with wind turbines if both Draft Plan Options for wind are developed, although as stated previously OWN1 may not necessarily be developed if wave power is favoured in this location. Seabirds are highly mobile and may travel across many of the regions protected habitats and areas beyond the region, such as the Moray Firth and west coast.
6.7.15 There are a number of factors that would influence the significance of effects, not least the species of bird and the height above water at which it flies the vulnerability of its population and the design of technologies, such as turbine height. Whilst there is potential interaction with seabirds across the whole of Scotland, the region may have fewer projects than others and potentially bird strike from wind energy may have fewer cumulative effects than other regions. However, given the number of important sites for seabirds the size of the populations of that could be affected are high. Project level HRA and EIA should help to indicate the potential significance of effects on species and hence the level of density of development that could be undertaken within the Draft Plan Options. If project assessment cannot avoid significant effects on protected species it is recommended that Draft Plan Options could be revisited and/or lower growth scenarios favoured.
6.7.16 Given the number of tidal and wave developments set out within the plan options and currently in project planning phase there are potential cumulative effects for diving seabirds, fish and marine mammals as a result of collision, barriers to movement and potentially displacement. Diving seabirds and birds that fly above the water surface are present across the region. Cetaceans (including Bottlenose dolphin, Minke whale and Orcas), seals (including Harbour seals that are features of the Sanday SAC), elasmobranchs and fish, are all present in the waters surrounding Shetland, Orkney and the Sutherland coast.
6.7.17 The potential collision risks and impacts of construction on these species will be considered as part of project level assessment ( EIA and HRA) and this can help indicate the potential level of acceptable development within the Draft Plan Options as part of a plan review process. If project level assessments and monitoring demonstrate the potential for effects, in particular on specific species or designated areas, then the number of Draft Plan Options, specifically for tidal energy, may need to be subject to review or lower scenarios of occupancy, in order to minimise effects.
6.7.18 Given the number of potential development sites in the north region the cumulative effects of noise, from construction activities and from vessels associated with developments, has been considered. Existing project level assessments indicated that noise is likely to be below levels at which lethal injury to species would result. Noise mitigation through promoting slow vessel speeds would reduce noise levels during construction and operation. Furthermore, it is highly likely that projects within Draft Plan Options would be phased as they go through the licensing process, and as a result cumulative effects of construction may not result in significant effects.
6.7.19 There are locations within the region for which development associated with the NRIP may occur. It is possible that such development could increase noise and disturbance at port locations, and also vessel movements within the area. Therefore further impacts on marine Fauna from increasing the potential for collision and disturbance effects.
6.7.20 If several of the Draft Plan Options are developed, alongside the emerging projects, there may be substantial amount of cables required to transmit the energy generated by the devices. Impacts on fish and elasmobranchs from EMF could therefore arise, although research has not been conclusive on the precise impacts. Therefore it is difficult to determine if cumulative effects would be significant.
6.7.21 The consideration of potential cumulative impacts on landscape and seascape are relatively complex. The region has a number of valued and important landscape receptors that could be affected by change, including NSAs, and that developments should demonstrate are not significantly affected. Whilst the Draft Plan Options might result in a number of renewable energy developments, it may only be the wind Draft Plan Options that would lead to significant effects and in particular OWN1, which is closer to the shore and sensitive receptors than OWN2. Whilst the high growth scenario for wind could be considered to have a higher degree of effect it could also be considered that these are related simply to a change in the appearance of the coastline and a higher occupancy could minimise effects elsewhere. Cumulative impacts of onshore and offshore wind farms should also be considered during project planning and where possible locations of devices within the Draft Plan Options should seek to minimise landscape effects.
6.7.22 Tidal developments may have some element of above water infrastructure but the majority of the device will be below the water surface and as a result visual impact limited. Similarly near shore wave devices can also have large parts of their infrastructure below the water surface, and even above water devices may have more limited effects if constructed further from the coast. Therefore cumulative effects on landscape and seascape for tidal and wave developments could be limited to effects of construction. However, as previously stated it is likely development between Draft Plan Options could be phased which would reduce cumulative effects.
6.7.23 The north region contains a number of features of historic importance, not least the Heart of Neolithic Orkney WHS, for which the impacts on setting should be considered. Similarly to the reasons set out above, impacts on setting might be lower for tidal and near shore wave developments than wind. Cumulative effects on the setting of important features of the historic environment will be a key consideration when planning for projects, particularly those that might follow development in other Draft Plan Options.
6.7.24 Furthermore, given the number of Draft Plan Options there is the potential for cumulative impacts on marine archaeology, both known and unknown. Draft Plan Options located within the Orkney archipelago and in near coast areas are particularly identified as potentially containing submerged archaeology. This would also increase further under the higher level growth scenarios with more devices.
6.7.25 The regions seas are busy with vessel traffic, both commercial and recreational. Increased port activity associated with the NRIP could also increase the volume of commercial traffic. Development of renewables within the Draft Plan Options in combination with the existing planned sites, and furthermore under the higher occupancy scenario, could result in some increased collision risk. Exclusion zones around the technologies will assist in reducing this risk. There may also be some residual impacts for displacement of recreational activities, and potentially cessation in some locations.
6.7.26 Development of renewable energy along the coastline, from Draft Plan Options and other renewable development, could interact with existing sediment and coastal processes. In particular tidal and wave devices could result in some cumulative effects in terms of alteration to hydrological and sedimentation processes. However, precise impacts can only be established at the project level with an appropriate level of assessment.
6.7.27 There may be some dredging activities associated with any NRIP development in the region. Dredging for fill material for any gravity based devices could magnify any existing issues associated with removal and movement of seabed material, although the volumes of material needed may be substantially below existing levels. Furthermore, there may be opportunities for coordinated activity between required port dredging and renewables filling to reduce potential dumping and discharge of sediment.
6.7.28 There may also be an interaction with marine water quality from the potential release of seabed contaminants. However, contamination effects are most likely to occur during construction of developments where mitigation to limit effects is likely to be available. Furthermore, it is anticipated that development would be staggered, and as a result the significance of cumulative effects is considered minimal.
North West
6.7.29 The North West Region includes one draft wind plan option at the north of the Minch and one large draft wave plan option to the north and west of the Isle of Lewis. However given the scenarios for occupancy wave development within this large Draft Plan Option is likely to be confined to a much smaller area if projects are licenced within the area.
6.7.30 Current wave projects are also in the planning phase and are located along the north west coast of Lewis. The EIA of the North West Lewis wave project set out potential effects of the development and provides a measure for the significance of effects within the region. Furthermore it demonstrates that many effects can be appropriately reduced through project level mitigation.
6.7.31 The SEA of the wind energy NRIP assessed development at Kishorn and Arnish. These locations are a considerable distance from the Draft Plan Options and are considered likely to have minimal cumulative effects.
6.7.32 There are potential cumulative effects for highly mobile seabirds with the regions Draft Plan Options and others outside the region. However, within the region cumulative effects may demonstrate a slightly different pattern of effect. Cumulative collision risk for some species in the region could in some cases be reasonably low. For example some diving birds that fly well below the blades of wind devices might not be affected by development within both Draft Plan Options, and non-diving seabirds may only be affected by one technology depending on the height at which they fly. There is potential for some species to be affected by both technologies and these effects would need exploration through project level EIA and HRA. If project assessment assessments cannot avoid significant effects on protected species it is recommended that Draft Plan Options could be revisited through plan review, and/or lower growth scenarios favoured.
6.7.33 Cumulative effects on mobile species including, fish, elasmobranchs, cetaceans and seals as a result of collision, noise and displacement are considerations for development within the Draft Plan Options, as a result of anchoring of devices and potentially some devices in the water column. The results of project level assessment ( EIA and HRA) can help to indicate the potential level of acceptable development scenario within the Draft Plan Options. This SEA baseline and the existing EIA for North West Lewis have indicated that there are likely to be a range of mobile species to be found within the area. However the EIA has indicated that the significance of potential effects was considered to be low for the proposed wind development. Project level assessments for new development within the Draft Plan Options will need to review and verify this conclusion as part of their own assessment.
6.7.34 The region has a number of valued and designated areas of landscape and seascape quality and areas of wildness value. Both OWNW1 and WNW1 may only be visible from the north of the Isle of Lewis. However, the likelihood for wave devices and infrastructure to potentially have minor significant effects, particularly for near shore devices, must steer any consideration of cumulative effects to be of a low significance.
6.7.35 The region contains features of historic interest including the St Kilda World Heritage area. However given the location of the Draft Plan Options and key features of the historic environment, cumulative impacts on the setting of historic assets are considered minimal. Cumulative effects on marine archaeology, both known and unknown could result from both options, in terms of the potential for total loss or damage. However it is considered these can be mitigated at the project level by undertaking appropriate site surveys and avoidance of infrastructure where assets are identified.
6.7.36 Given the region has major shipping channels ( e.g. shipping off the north west coast of Lewis to the North Minch) as well as established recreational sailing routes ( e.g. St Kilda to Lewis), there is a likely increase in the navigational and collision risks to shipping and marine traffic from development in both Draft Plan Options. However, it is considered that the mitigation suggested would reduce this.
6.7.37 Development of renewable energy along the coastline, from Draft Plan Options and other renewable development could interact with existing sediment and coastal processes. In particular wave devices above the surface or within the water column could result in some cumulative effects in terms of alteration to hydrological and sedimentation processes. However, the precise impacts can only be realistically established at the project level.
6.7.38 There may also be an interaction with marine water quality from the potential release of seabed contaminants. However, contamination effects are most likely to occur during construction of developments where mitigation to limit effects is likely to be available.
West
6.7.39 The three wind, four wave and two tidal Draft Plan Options within the West region cover substantial sections of the sea off the west coast of Scotland. Given the current scenarios for occupancy, development within these Draft Plan Option areas are likely to be confined to a much smaller portion of these waters. A number of wind and tidal sites are currently planned for this region, with several already located within the Draft Plan Option areas. Data collected in planning for these projects, sets out the potential effects of these developments and provides a measure for the significance of effects at these locations.
6.7.40 Several option areas overlap with MPA search areas ( OWW2, TW2, WW2 and WW3), and the progression of the MPA designation process that runs in parallel to this assessment, will be an important consideration in the selection of sites for renewables development in these areas.
6.7.41 There is the potential for cumulative impacts for both seabirds and diving birds in the region, particularly for Draft Plan Options near to areas of known importance to birds, such as Islay and Tiree. Of particular note is the potential for increased collision and displacement risk for seabirds associated with multiple arrays of operating wind turbines, and similar risks for diving birds associated with groups of wave and tidal devices.
6.7.42 Some bird species may be affected by several technologies. For example, species that fly at turbine height and dive for prey have the potential to be affected by wind, wave and tidal technologies, while others may fly below turbine height and may only be affected during diving activities. The potential for these effects should be further explored through project level EIA and HRA. If at project level it is ascertained that significant effects on protected species cannot be avoided, it is recommended that Draft Plan Options could be revisited as part of plan review, and/or lower growth scenarios favoured.
6.7.43 The potential for cumulative effects, such as the creation of barriers to movement, collision risk and impacts of renewable devices on mobile fauna ( e.g. elasmobranchs, cetaceans, seals), will need consideration for any development within the Draft Plan Options. The SEA identified the importance of waters within the West Region for a range of mobile species, particularly for Basking sharks, Common skate and seals. Basking sharks and migrating cetaceans are known to frequent the North Channel and the Sea of the Hebrides and this suggests that in combination potential wave (particularly near shore) and tidal energy development in these coastal waters may increase risks for these species. Project level assessments for new developments within the Draft Plan Options should be able to investigate these potential issues further.
6.7.44 The potential for collision risks and impacts of construction activities on marine fauna of these Draft Plan Options will also require consideration. Undertaking concurrent construction works for separate renewables projects within close proximity may exacerbate disturbance issues, particularly in the vicinity of Tiree, Mull and Islay, and those in proximity to the many seal haul out areas located across the region. These effects may be coupled with disturbance in other areas as a result of increased shipping and port activities during construction and maintenance periods. For example, vessel traffic accessing NRIP sites could add further pressures for sensitive species in these locations.
6.7.45 The landscapes and seascapes of the region are renowned for their scenic quality and character, with several areas also recognised for wildness value. However, given that a large number of commercial vessels already using waters, particularly between the Minches, the west of the Outer Hebrides and the North Channel, it might be considered that there is to a degree in these locations a working seascape and thus the receiving environment may be considered to have some resilience to change.
6.7.46 Wind and near-shore wave devices are likely to be the most visible to coastal receptors. The potential for massing of offshore wind and wave infrastructure in particular in areas to the west of Islay ( e.g. OWW1, WW1, TW1 and for proposed developments such as West Islay Wind and Tidal sites) and west of Tiree ( e.g. OWW2, WW3 and Argyll Array) will require further consideration. In many instances, the placement of devices further from these coastlines ( e.g. in the western portion of WW1) could reduce their visual effect.
6.7.47 The region contains features of historic interest, including designated coastal sites such as Skerryvore Lighthouse in Tiree and Iona Abbey, and the potential for cumulative impacts on the setting of historic sites has been identified. For example, the placement of wind turbines in the Argyll Wind Array and nearby Draft Plan Options OWW1 and OWW2 may have the potential to occupy much of the seascape west of Skerryvore Lighthouse, particularly under a high occupancy scenario. The potential for such effects will be a key consideration for any project level EIA. Cumulative effects on marine archaeology, both known and unknown may also result from development within the Draft Plan Option. In general, the potential for impacts to marine archaeology would increase with greater offshore development. However, it is considered these can be mitigated at the project level by undertaking appropriate site surveys and avoidance of infrastructure where assets are identified.
6.7.48 Given the presence of recreational boating and shipping channels in the region, particularly between islands in the Inner and Outer Hebrides, in the Sea of the Hebrides and in the North Channel to the south, there is a likely to be a cumulative increase in navigational risk to shipping and marine traffic. Increased port activity associated with the NRIP could also increase the volume of commercial traffic in other parts of Scotland. However, it is considered that adoption of mitigation measures would be likely to reduce this risk.
6.7.49 There is the potential for cumulative effects to displace recreational sailing, water sports and cruising from current routes. However, it is anticipated that under the occupancy scenarios for wind and wave, effects on these activities are likely to be low. Individual projects could result in some issues for navigation through near shore areas and project level assessment should include consultation with recreational groups.
6.7.50 There is the potential for significant interactions with existing sediment and coastal processes, particularly for wave and tidal sites such as those off the west coast of Islay, Mull and Tiree. However, the precise impacts may only be able to be established at the project level.
6.7.51 While there may be interactions with marine water quality from the potential release of seabed contaminants during installation works, project level investigation and mitigation may limit such effects. As development in this area would likely be staggered, the significance of cumulative effects is considered minimal.
South West
6.7.52 The South West region contains one draft wind and one draft tidal plan option to the south of Luce Bay, and a second draft wind option located further east within the Solway Firth, near to an existing offshore wind energy array at Robin Rigg. While these option areas cover large areas of water within the Solway Firth, particularly the overlapping wind and tidal energy areas immediately south of Luce Bay, development within this area is likely to be much smaller under the proposed occupancy scenarios.
6.7.53 It is expected that EIA and continuing monitoring work for the Robin Rigg Wind Array may assist in the identification of potential effects from further wind energy developments in its vicinity, and also aid their consideration in other future developments within the Firth. The SEA of the wind energy NRIP assessed several sites in the West Region, including those at Campbelltown/ Machrihanish and Hunterston. However, these locations are considerable distances from the Draft Plan Options and as such, are not considered likely to have significant effects.
6.7.54 The potential for cumulative impacts such as the collision of seabirds and diving birds with wind and tidal devices has been identified. Developments in the overlapping wind and tidal Draft Plan Options located near to Luce Bay ( OSW1 and TSW1), known for its importance to birds, are likely to require further investigation at the project level. Together, operational wind and tidal devices could pose a risk to both seabirds and diving birds through risk of collision, both above and below the water. However, the nature of any risk will likely vary for different species, and the potential for species to be affected by both technologies would need exploration through the project level HRA in combination test. If project assessments show that significant effects on protected species cannot be avoided, it is recommended that Draft Plan Options could be revisited and/or lower growth scenarios favoured.
6.7.55 The potential for impacts such as the creation of barriers to movement, collision and impacts associated with construction activities for mobile marine fauna ( e.g. Atlantic salmon, Lamprey, Cetaceans and elasmobranchs) will also require further exploration in project level EIA and HRA. In particular, potential barrier, collision effects and noise on important fish populations such as Atlantic salmon and Sea trout, and for Basking sharks frequently sighted near Luce Bay, will need consideration at the project level for tidal developments. Simultaneous construction works in close proximity within these areas, particularly those near to Luce Bay, could exacerbate disturbance issues in this area. However, it is expected that any development construction would be phased.
6.7.56 Wind energy development within the Firth will result in some degree of visibility from the Solway coast, much of which is recognised for its landscape and seascape value. However, the two Draft Plan Options are located some distance apart, and there are likely to be few parts of the Solway coastline where both are visible. Due to their proximity, developments within OWSW2 and the existing array at Robin Rigg are both likely to be visible from parts of the Solway and Cumbrian coasts. However, any cumulative impacts are best considered in detail at the project level.
6.7.57 The potential for interactions between offshore and onshore wind developments has also been identified, particularly in valued coastal areas with views to the eastern portion of the Solway Firth, from both Scotland and neighbouring Cumbria. However, any such cumulative impact is likely to depend on local topography and lines-of-sight which will require consideration at the project level.
6.7.58 The potential for impacts to the historic environment, particularly damage to marine archaeology, would be likely to increase with greater density of development within the region. The richness of the Dumfries and Galloway coastline for historic features has been established, and the potential for cumulative impacts on the setting of features from offshore development has been identified. Cumulative impacts on the setting of features are again likely to depend on local topography and lines-of-sight, which would be best considered at the project level. Undertaking project level site surveys should enable avoidance of historic features and may also contribute to the discovery of previously unidentified submerged archaeology in the region
6.7.59 Given the importance of the Solway Firth for recreational boating and fishing, and its location near commercial shipping traffic lanes in the North Channel to the west, there is a likely to be a cumulative increase in the navigational risk to shipping and marine traffic. However, it is considered that the mitigation suggested for individual assessments would reduce this. While the adoption of exclusion zones around the technologies will likely assist in reducing collision risk, their presence may have the potential to displace some recreational and fishing activities in the region.
6.7.60 Increased port activity associated with the NRIP could also increase the volume of commercial traffic in the vicinity of those sites, and in the Solway Firth, Irish Sea and the North Channel, particularly during the construction of offshore renewables in this region. However, it is considered that adoption of mitigation measures would reduce the potential for impacts.
6.7.61 There is the potential for significant interactions with existing sediment and coastal processes, particularly for tidal sites located south of Luce Bay, which could adversely affect important and potentially vulnerable sites such as the Luce Bay Sands SAC. The significance of effects will need to be established at the project level.
6.7.62 There may also be interactions with marine water quality from the potential release of seabed contaminants during installation works. However, as project level mitigation to limit effects is likely to be available, and that development in this area would likely be staggered, the significance of cumulative effects is considered minimal.
6.8 Summary of Overarching Plan Effects
6.8.1 The following table sets out a summary assessment of the wind, wave and tidal plans against the SEA objectives that were set out within the Scoping Phase of the assessment. This final assessment assists in drawing together the headline issues and provides an additional means to view the contribution to, or impact on, the environmental objectives drawn from the relevant policy context.
Table 6.4: Assessment of the Plans against SEA Objectives
| SEA Objectives |
Conclusions of the assessment |
|---|---|
| Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna |
|
| To safeguard marine and coastal ecosystems, and their interactions. |
|
| To avoid adverse effects on the integrity of Natura sites ( NB: this will be established through the parallel HRA work). |
|
| Population and Human Health |
|
| To avoid adversely affecting recreational users. |
|
| To avoid adverse effects on human health and safety. |
|
| Water and the Marine Environment |
|
| To avoid pollution of the coastal and marine water environment. |
|
| To maintain or work towards good ecological status. |
|
| Climatic Factors |
|
| To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. |
|
| To ensure that adaptation to climate change impacts are taken into account, e.g. through consideration of resilience, changing environmental sensitivity |
|
| Marine Geology and Coastal Processes |
|
| To avoid exacerbating coastal erosion. |
|
| To maintain integrity of coastal processes |
|
| To maintain and protect the character and integrity of the seabed |
|
| Historic Environment |
|
| To protect and, where appropriate, enhance the historic marine environment. |
|
| To avoid damage to known and unknown coastal and marine archaeology. |
|
| To avoid adverse effects on the character and setting of historic sites and buildings. |
|
| Landscape / Seascape |
|
| To avoid where possible, or minimise, adverse effects on landscape/seascape |
|
| To promote the protection of seascape and coastal landscapes |
|
| To avoid or minimise adverse visual effects |
|
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback