Planning Scotland's Seas: 2013 - The Scottish Marine Protected Area Project – Developing the Evidence Base tor Impact Assessments and the Sustainability Appraisal Final Report

C.15. Telecom Cables

C.15.1 Introduction

This appendix provides an overview of existing and potential future activity for the telecom cables sector in Scottish waters and outlines the methods used to assess the impacts of proposed MPAs on this sector.

C.15.2 Sector Definition

This sector relates to fibre optic submarine telecommunication cables, which carry telephone calls, internet connections and data as part of national and international data transfer networks utilised for the majority of international communication transmissions.

C.15.3 Overview of Existing Activity

A list of sources to inform the writing of this baseline is provided in Table C15.1.

Table C15.1 Information Sources

Scale	Information Available	Date	Source
Scotland	All pipelines and cables	Current	SeaZone Solutions Ltd
Scotland	Power cables (submarine electricity cables)	Current	Baxter et al. (2011)
Scotland	Potential future subsea cable developments / reinforcements	2009	National Planning Framework for Scotland Annex National development 11 (Scottish Government, 2009b)
UK	Telecom cables laid on seabed or buried underwater (polyline)		KISCA / SeaZone
UK	Status of telecoms sector	2010	CP2 Feeder Report
UK	Socio-economic importance and trends	2008	Pugh, 2008

C15.3.1 Distribution level and intensity of activity

Telecommunication cables within the Scottish Continental shelf include fibre optic international cable links and domestic inter-island cables which are mainly copper wire. Over 4,000km of international cables (comprising approximately 40% of all the UK's active international cables) and 600km of inshore cables exist in Scottish seas (Baxter et al, 2011) (see Figure C19). An international network passes North and South of Shetland connecting Europe to North America, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland, while networks connecting Scotland and Northern Ireland occur in waters off the West and South West of Scotland. Cables also connect the Scottish mainland and island communities.

C15.3.2 Economic value and employment

The economic value and employment associated with subsea telecommunications cables is uncertain, although they are very important in supporting regional, national and international communication networks.

C15.3.3 Future trends

According to the UK Cable Protection Committee (UKCPC, now Subsea Cables UK) around 95% of international trans-ocean traffic is carried by cable, hence, submarine cables will be vital for the foreseeable future (Baxter et al, 2011). However, there is little information available on how this sector may change in the future (Saunders et al, 2011). According to UKMMAS (2010), changes in bandwidth and the development of high speed internet as well as continued growth in the sector are using up the spare capacity in the current telecommunication networks. The further development of more resilient networks requires a greater reliance on a number of submarine cable routes rather than a few, and major domestic and international systems are now being installed. Future developments in telecom cables are likely to focus on upgrading and increasing the capacity of existing cables along the same routes that are currently present ( ABPmer, RPA & SQW, 2011). The extent to which new cables will be laid in Scottish waters is not known (Baxter et al, 2011).

C.15.4 Assumptions on Future Activity

It is assumed that future activity is limited to replacing existing telecom cables. It is assumed that 50% of existing telecom cables transecting MPAs within 12nm will require replacement over the assessment period (assumed to be in 2024).

C.15.5 Potential Interactions with MPA Features

The burying of telecom cables in the seabed generally involves the use of jetting or a plough, disturbing the local seabed area and producing temporary sediment plumes. Sediment may also be removed from the seabed. The overall level of disturbance to sediments and benthic fauna is, however, likely to be minimal and impacts on MPA features likely to be short-lived, although recovery rates vary between environments. Sandy and mixed sediment environments, for example, recover more rapidly from disturbance than intertidal sediments supporting biogenic reefs and macrophyte assemblages ( JNCC & NE, 2011).

Where cable burial is not feasible, mattressing, grout bags or rock dumping may be used. The effects of these techniques may lead to a direct loss of habitat in the surrounding area, particularly where rock dumping may create a hard substrate on originally soft sediment, which may also provide a pathway for non-indigenous species to migrate across an area ( JNCC & NE, 2011). During cable installation vessels will need to be anchored, causing abrasion to the local seabed, and underwater noise will also be generated by the presence of vessels. A risk of death or injury to mobile species will also be associated with vessels involved in cable installation.

The potential impacts of telecom cable installation and use are likely to be short-term and the impacts on the seabed will remain local. JNCC and Natural England state that in most cases the installation of cables has no significant impact on marine features in an area ( JNCC & NE, 2011).

C.15.6 Assumptions on Management Measures for Scenarios

It is assumed that the impact of telecom cables on MPA features will be managed under the existing marine licensing framework within 12nm. Two scenarios ('lower' and 'upper') have been developed to capture the possible costs of potential MPAs to the sector. These include a range of possible management measures, as detailed requirements will need to be based on site-specific factors.

It has been assumed that there will be no review of existing consents or licences, although where existing cables within 12nm apply for new consents or licences, these applications will be considered against the conservation objectives for features for which MPAs may have been designated.

The intermediate ('best') estimate for each site has been based on SNH/ JNCC current views on management options and judgements made by the study team. The assumptions do not pre-judge any future site-specific licensing decisions. After MPA designation, the management of activities in MPAs will be decided on a site-by-site basis and may differ from the assumptions in this assessment.

Management measures applied under the lower and upper scenarios are detailed below. Specific management measure assumptions for each scenario (including the intermediate scenario) are defined in the MPA Site Reports (Table 4, Appendix E).

Lower Scenario

• Additional costs will be incurred for new licence applications within 12nm in assessing potential impacts to MPA features within the proposed development footprint; and
• Mitigation measures may be required for non- OSPAR/BAP features within 12nm ranging from:
  ˉ No additional mitigation required for existing power interconnectors and transmission lines beyond existing good practice;
  ˉ No additional mitigation required for new developments beyond good practice; and
  ˉ Re-routeing of cables to avoid highly sensitive MPA features.

Upper Scenario

• Additional costs will be incurred for new licence applications within 12nm in assessing potential impacts to MPA features within 1km; and
• Additional survey costs will be incurred to inform new licence applications for cables intersecting features proposed for designation within proposed MPAs within 12nm;
• Mitigation measures may be required for some OSPAR/BAP features ^[53] for which adequate protection is not currently achieved and all non- OSPAR/BAP features within 12nm ranging from:
  ˉ No additional mitigation required for existing power interconnectors and transmission lines beyond existing good practice;
  ˉ No additional mitigation required for new developments beyond good practice;
  ˉ Seasonal controls on new cable laying to minimise impacts to highly sensitive MPA features - site specific assessment; and
  ˉ Re-routeing of cables to avoid moderately and highly sensitive MPA features.

C.15.7 Assessment Methods

Additional Licensing Costs

Where required, it is assumed that the additional costs will be as follows:

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £10k per licence application (based on Annex H6 of finding Sanctuary et al, 2012); and
• Additional survey costs - £5k per km of cable route within potential MPA ( ABPmer, 2011).

Mitigation Measures

Where required, it is assumed that the following additional costs may be incurred:

• Seasonal controls on new cable laying to minimise impacts to highly sensitive MPA features - site specific assessment; and
• Re-routeing of cables to avoid moderately and highly sensitive features - [£1.01m/km (based on Annex H14 of Finding Sanctuary et al, 2012).

Cost of Uncertainty and Delays

The designation of NC MPAs has the potential to increase the time taken to determine licence applications and to negatively affect investor confidence. It has not been possible to quantify these potential impacts.

C.15.8 Limitations

• The number and location of new telecom cables is uncertain; and
• The requirements for management measures are uncertain.

C.15.9 References

ABPmer, RPA & SQW, 2011. Economic Assessment of Short Term Options for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. ABPmer Report No. R1743, March 2011

Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., Moffat, C.F., (Editors), 2011. Scotland's Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh.

Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain and Balanced Seas, 2012. Impact

Assessment materials in support of the Regional Marine Conservation Zone Projects' Recommendations. Annex H6 Cables.

Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain and Balanced Seas, 2012. Impact

Assessment materials in support of the Regional Marine Conservation Zone Projects' Recommendations. Annex H14 Renewable Energy.

JNCC and NE, 2011. General advice on assessing potential impacts of and mitigation for human activities on MCZ features, using existing regulation and legislation. Advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England to the Regional MCZ Projects. June 2011. 107pp

Saunders, J., Tinch, R., Ozdemiroglu, E. & Hull, S., 2011. Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas: Dynamic Baseline Assessment (draft). Marine Estate Research Report for The Crown Estate.

United Kingdom Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS), 2010. Charting Progress 2 Feeder Report Productive Seas. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of UKMMAS (Eds. Saunders, J. and McKie, J.) 472pp Available online: http://chartingprogress.Defra.gov.uk/