marine scotland licensing and consents manual - Scottish Government

MARINE SCOTLAND LICENSING AND 

CONSENTS MANUAL 

Covering Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy Development 

Report R.1957 

October 2012

Marine Scotland 

Marine Scotland Licensing and Consents Manual, covering 

Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy 

Development 

Date: October 2012 

Project Ref: 

Error! Reference source not found. 

Report No: R.1957 

© ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd 

Version Details of Change Authorised By Date 

1 Draft for Steering Group H Roberts 2/4/12 

2 Draft for Consultation with MS H Roberts 22/5/12 

3 

Draft for Consultation Scottish 

Renewables 

H Roberts 31/8/12 

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

Document Authorisation Signature Date 

Project Manager: H Roberts H Roberts 

5/10/12 

Quality Manager: C R Scott C R Scott 

Project Director: S C Hull S C Hull 

5/10/12 

5/10/12 

ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd 

Suite B, Waterside House 

Town Quay Tel: +44(0)23 8071 1840 

SOUTHAMPTON Fax: +44(0)23 8071 1841 

Hampshire Web: www.abpmer.co.uk 

SO14 2AQ 

Email:enquiries@abpmer.co.uk 

ABPmer is certified by:

Marine Scotland Publishers 

This text is to be added to the internal Title Page 

The Manual is the property of Scottish Ministers and provides their main 

project level licensing/consenting policy guidance to deliver sustainable green 

energy development within Scottish waters. Marine Scotland Licensing and 

Operations Team will oversee the application of this manual, on behalf of 

Scottish Ministers, within the project licensing and consents application 

processes for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy Developments. 

Developers and their consultants are expected to follow this guidance. 

Statutory advisors and other statutory bodies with a marine or relevant 

planning/permitting remit are expected to take full account of the manual 

within their respective roles within the licensing and consenting marine 

renewables and offshore wind energy development process.

Marine Scotland Licensing and Consents Manual, covering Marine 

Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy Development 

Foreward 

The Scottish Government has a target for 100% of Scottish demand for electricity to 

be met from renewable sources by 2020 by creating a balanced portfolio of both 

onshore and offshore technologies. 

Marine Scotland has been and continues to be committed to a culture of continuous 

improvement. To support this, the Short Life Energy Planning and Consenting Task 

Force was established to produce a report promoting greater streamlining and 

efficiency of Scotland's planning and consenting regimes. The Task Force 

considered the existing challenges within the planning and consenting frameworks 

for Scotland's growing offshore industries, and then recommended a number of 

actions to be taken forward which could deliver yet more positive results. 

One of the recommendations is to give full support to Marine Scotland's work 

streams delivering licensing efficiencies. The ‘Marine Scotland Licensing and 

Consents Manual, covering Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy 

Development’ is part of one such work stream, supporting marine renewable energy 

developers (offshore wind, wave, and tide) when applying for marine licences and 

consents. 

The licensing manual summarises the process to be followed by developers and/or 

other applicants, and the roles and responsibilities of the teams and organisations 

involved in the consenting and licensing processes are made clear. The manual will 

cover Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulations Appraisal 

processes and provides guidance on the information Marine Scotland will expect to 

see within applications. 

The consenting and licensing manual is a key part of the offshore renewable energy 

planning system, providing developers with guidance and advice for the whole of the 

consenting licensing process from initial pre-screening or pre-application to the 

issuing of permissions and post consent. The manual is a live document and 

progress will be closely monitored and regularly reviewed, with a view to updating 

the manual when required. 

Error! Reference source not 

found. 

(i) 


found.



Abbreviations 

AA Appropriate Assessment 

ABPmer ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd 

ASFB Association of Salmon Fishery Boards 

CAR Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 

CEC Crown Estate Commissioners 

Cefas Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science 

Ciria Construction Industry Research Information Association 

CPA Coastal Protection Act 

cSAC candidate Special Area of Conservation 

DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change 

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

DETI Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment 

DP Decommissioning Programme 

EC European Commission 

EEC European Economic Community 

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment 

ES Environmental Statement 

EMF Electro Magnetic Fields 

ENVID Environmental Issues Identification 

EDPR EDP Renováveis 

EPS European Protected Species 

EQS Environmental Quality Standards 

ES Environmental Statement 

F&FAG Fish and Fisheries Advisory Group 

FCS Favourable Conservation Status 

FEPA Food and Environmental Protection Act 

GRT Gross Register Tonnage 

HR Habitat Regulations 

HRA Habitats Regulations Appraisal 

IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management) 

IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest 

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee 

LHA Local Harbour Authorities 

LLA Local Lighthouse Authority 

LPG Licensing Policy Guidance 

LSE Likely Significant Effect 

MaRS Marine Resource System 

MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency 

MCEU Marine Consents and Environment Unit 

MEMP Monitoring and Environmental Management Plan 

MGN Marine Guidance Note 

ML Marine Licence 

MMO Marine Management Organisation 

MOD Ministry of Defence 

MORL Moray Offshore Wind Limited’s project 


found. 

(ii) 


found.



MPA Marine Protected Areas 

MRFG Marine Renewable Facilitators Group 

MS Marine Scotland 

MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

MS-LOT Marine Scotland’s Licensing Operations Team 

MSPP Marine Scotland Planning and Policy 

MS-Science Marine Scotland's Science Team (also MSS) 

MW Megawatt(s) 

NATS Navigational Air Traffic Services 

NetRegs A free environmental guidance service to help companies comply with 

environmental law 

NI Northern Ireland 

NLB Northern Lighthouse Board 

nm Nautical Mile(s) 

NRA Navigational Risk Assessment 

N-RIP National Renewables Infrastructure Plan 

NTS Non-Technical Summary 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OFTO Offshore Transmission Operator 

OMR Offshore Marine Regulations 

OREI Offshore Renewable Energy Installations 

ORELG Offshore Renewable Energy Licensing Group 

ORRSG Offshore Renewable Research Steering Group 

OW(E) Offshore Wind (Energy) 

OWF Offshore Windfarm 

PA Planning Authority 

PAN Planning Advice Note 

PFOW Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters 

PFSA Pentland Firth Strategic Area (also know as PFOW Pentland Firth and 

Orkney Waters) 

PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis 

PLI Public Local Inquiry 

PMRA Protection of Military Remains Act 

pSPA proposed Special Protection Area 

PWA Protection of Wrecks Act 

Ramsar The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) 

REZ Renewable Energy Zone 

RLG Regional Locational Guidance 

SAC Special Area of Conservation 

SCI Sites of Community Importance 

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment 

SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

SG Scottish Government 

SHA Statutory Harbour Authority 

SLS Service Level Statement 

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage 

SMRU Sea Mammals Research Unit 


found. 

(iii) 


found.



SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea 

SoS Secretary of State 

SPA Special Protection Area 

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest 

S36 Section 36 

TPV Third Party Verification 

UK United Kingdom 

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 

WANE Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 

WFD Water Framework Directive 

WWF WWF UK Ltd 

W&TE Wave and Tidal Energy 


found. 

(iv) 


found.



Marine Scotland Licensing and Consents Manual, covering 

Marine Renewables and Offshore Wind Energy 

Development 

Contents 

Page 

Foreward ...............................................................................................................................................i 

Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... ii 

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................2 

1.2 Marine Planning....................................................................................................................5 

1.2.1 Offshore Wind Energy Sectoral Plan............................................................................6 

1.2.2 Marine Renewable Energy Sectoral Plan.....................................................................7 

1.2.3 Pilot Marine Spatial Plan in Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters ...................................8 

1.3 Strategic Research ..............................................................................................................9 

1.3.1 Environmental Impact Research ................................................................................10 

2. Marine Licences .........................................................................................................................1 

2.1 Marine Licence (ML)...................................................................................................................1 

2.2 Section 36 Consent (s36)...........................................................................................................2 

2.3 European Protected Species Licence (EPS)..............................................................................4 

3. Key Organisations: Roles and Functions......................................................................8 

3.1 Marine Scotland....................................................................................................................8 

3.1.1 Marine Scotland Licensing and Operations Team ......................................8 

3.1.2 Marine Scotland Licensing and Policy Team ................................................9 

3.1.3 Marine Scotland Marine/Offshore Renewable Energy Branch................9 

3.1.4 Marine Scotland Science.....................................................................................9 

3.2 Statutory Consultees ................................................................................................................10 

3.2.1 Scottish Natural Heritage...................................................................................10 

3.2.2 JNCC .......................................................................................................................10 

3.2.3 Planning Authorities ............................................................................................10 

3.2.4 Maritime and Coastguard Agency ..................................................................11 

3.2.5 Northern Lighthouse Board...............................................................................11 

3.2.6 Scottish Environment Protection Agency .....................................................11 

4. The Licensing Process .....................................................................................................13 

4.1 Pre-screening Consultation.............................................................................................15 

4.1.1 Marine Renewables Facilitators Group (MRFG)........................................16 

4.1.2 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees......................................................16 

4.2 Environmental Screening and Scoping .......................................................................18 

4.2.1 Screening and scoping consultation ..............................................................18 

4.3 Ongoing Preparation of Documentation......................................................................20 

4.3.1 Pre-application Consultation ............................................................................20 


found. 

(v) 


found.



4.4 MS-LOT Gate-checking of Documentation ................................................................21 

4.5 Submission of Application ...............................................................................................21 

4.5.1 Fees .........................................................................................................................22 

4.6 Consultation/Advertisement............................................................................................22 

4.7 Determination ......................................................................................................................23 

4.7.1 Timescales.............................................................................................................23 

4.7.2 Objections ..............................................................................................................24 

4.7.3 Refusal ....................................................................................................................24 

4.8 Post Approval ......................................................................................................................24 

4.8.1 Conditions ..............................................................................................................24 

4.8.2 Review, Reassessment and Remedial Measures.....................................26 

4.8.3 Appeal .....................................................................................................................27 

4.8.4 EPS licences .........................................................................................................27 

4.8.5 WANE Licence........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

5. Legislative Context.............................................................................................................30 

5.1 Supporting Environmental Information ........................................................................30 

5.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment................................................................30 

5.1.2 Habitat Regulations Appraisal..........................................................................31 

5.2 Other Licences and Approvals.......................................................................................34 

5.2.1 Seabed Lease.......................................................................................................34 

5.2.2 Planning Permission ...........................................................................................34 

5.2.3 Local Acts and Local Revision Orders ..........................................................35 

5.2.4 Navigational Safety and Aids to Navigation.................................................35 

5.2.5 Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR)...........................................................36 

5.2.6 Statutory Decommissioning Scheme.............................................................37 

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

6. EIA and HRA........................................................................................................................40 

6.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................40 

6.1.1 Structure .................................................................................................................42 

6.2 Screening..............................................................................................................................43 

6.2.1 EIA Screening .......................................................................................................43 

6.2.2 HRA Step 1 ............................................................................................................45 

6.3 Scoping..................................................................................................................................45 

6.3.1 EIA Scoping ...........................................................................................................45 

6.3.2 HRA Step 2 ............................................................................................................48 

6.4 Impact Assessment ...........................................................................................................50 

6.4.1 Project Description ..............................................................................................51 

6.4.2 Project Design Envelope ...................................................................................52 

6.4.3 Baseline Characterisation .................................................................................56 

6.4.4 Assessment of Alternatives ..............................................................................62 

6.4.5 Specialist Studies.................................................................................................63 

6.4.6 Impact Assessment.............................................................................................64 

6.4.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................................71 

6.4.8 Cumulative Effects...............................................................................................72 

6.4.9 Transboundary Effects .......................................................................................73 

6.4.10 Monitoring...............................................................................................................74 

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

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


found. 

(vi) 


found.



7.1 Environmental Statement ................................................................................................79 

7.1.1 ES Compliance.....................................................................................................81 

7.2 Information for Appropriate Assessment ....................................................................82 

7.3 Navigation Risk Assessment ..........................................................................................83 

7.4 Third Party Verification (TPV) Report and Certificate.............................................84 

8. References and Additional Reading.............................................................................86 

8.1 References ...........................................................................................................................86 

8.2 Further Reading..................................................................................................................89 


found. 

(vii) 


found.



Appendices 

A. Consultees 

B. Information Sources, Data Sources, and Further Reading 

Tables 

1. Indicative information for design statement ...................................................53 

2. Magnitude of impacts ....................................................................................69 

3. Significance of Impact ...................................................................................69 

Figures 

1. Key Stages in the Marine Licence Application Process.................................14 

2. EPS Licensing Process .................................................................................29 

3. Overview of HRA Process .............................................................................33 

4. EIA Assessment Process ..............................................................................67 


found. 

(viii) 


found.



1. Introduction 

To help address the challenges of developing offshore renewables, Marine 

Scotland (MS) has taken steps towards delivering a simplified licensing 

system, which aims to be transparent, efficient and proportionate. In April 

2011 Marine Scotland initiated a one-stop-shop for offshore wind, wave and 

tidal developers to obtain consents/licences for marine renewable 

developments in Scottish waters. This creates a simpler, more streamlined 

process to handle marine/offshore energy development applications and aims 

to reduce some of the burden for applicants and regulators alike. 

The implementation of the one-stop-shop is an opportunity to provide a 

holistic consenting regime and promotes a close working relationship with 

consulting bodies by running Section 36 (s36) and Marine Licence (ML) 

applications simultaneously. 

This document has been produced by MS as licensing policy guidance for 

developers, regulators, statutory advisors, interested parties and the public. It 

applies to projects within Scottish Territorial Waters (0-12nm) and the Scottish 

Renewable Energy Zone (12-200nm) and is intended to assist offshore 

renewable energy developers (wave, wind and tide developers) when 

applying for MS and s36 consent. The manual covers three key areas: 

• The licensing process; 

• The legislative context; and 

• Supporting documentation, in particular Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) and Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). 

The activities which will require permissions from MS are: 

• Coastal and marine developments; 

• Offshore windfarms (OWF); 

• Wave and tidal power; and 

• Removal and disposal of marine dredged material at sea. 

Marine licensing and consenting is led by Marine Scotland’s Licensing 

Operations Team (MS-LOT). MS-LOT is the impartial single point of contact 

responsible for the assessment of applications, ensuring compliance with all 

relevant legislation and the issue of all related permissions. It is responsible 

for liaison with any relevant external parties in relation to project-specific 

requirements and ensures that appropriate consultation is enabled and 

encouraged at the appropriate time. MS Planning and Policy (MSPP) provide 

MS-LOT with independent policy advice on the application process with 

respect to the relevant Regulations covering development in Scottish Waters 

and the Scottish Government Legal Department (SGLD) provides MS-LOT 

and Scottish Ministers with impartial legal advice. MS-LOT also works closely 


found. 

1 Error! Reference source not 

found.



with its statutory and non-statutory advisors including Scottish Natural 

Heritage (SNH) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). More 

detail on MS, its departments relevant to marine licensing and other key 

organisations is provided in section 3.1 below. 

This Manual summarises the process to be followed by developers or other 

applicants and the roles and responsibilities of the teams and organisations 

involved with respect to ML and s36 applications. MS is also the licensing 

authority for European Protected Species (EPS) and guidance is provided on 

this consent. The term ‘licensing’ therefore refers to any permissions, 

consents and permits under marine development application process that MS- 

LOT is responsible for and this Manual covers. 

In the majority of cases EIA and/or HRA assessments will be required to 

comply with the legislation and are a pre-requisite for approval. Information 

and guidance on MS-LOT’s requirements for these assessments is detailed in 

Chapter Six of this manual. 

Other consents may be required from other regulatory bodies such as local 

planning authorities, harbour authorities and the Scottish Environment 

Protection Agency (SEPA). 

1.1 Background 

The simplified licensing system is only one of a number of strategic initiatives 

that is being taken forward by MS to enable it to meet its target of 100% of 

Scottish demand for electricity from renewable sources by 2020. 

To develop best practice to help facilitate Marine Renewables development, 

MS established a partnership group, the Marine Energy Spatial Planning 

Group (MESPG), with SNH, the enterprise network, Scottish Renewables, the 

Crown Estate Commissioners and DG Energy in December 2008. The Group 

worked on a remit consisting of the following themes: 

• Sectoral Marine Planning; 

• Efficient Licensing; 

• Addressing Environmental Impact Unknowns; and 

• Regional Initiatives. 

On Sectoral Marine Planning the Group established a project to produce an 

Offshore Wind Sectoral Marine Plan through the use of Strategic 

Environmental Assessment, Socio-economic Assessment, strategic Habitat 

Regulation Appraisal (HRA) and Statutory Consultation Analysis. 

Efficient Licensing is been delivered through 4 main initiatives: 


found. 


found.



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

LOT; 

• The production of a Licensing Manual: this document; 

• Development of Licensing Policy Guidance: this initially covers Survey, 

Deploy and Monitor but being expanded to cover other issues including 

the Rochdale Envelope etc.; and 

• SNH Monitoring Protocol: a draft document to advise developers on 

pre development survey and post development monitoring techniques 

has been posted on the SNH web site. 

The Scottish Marine Renewables Research Group (SMRRG) was set up to 

examine issues related to marine renewables devices potential impacts on the 

marine ecosystem. This sub group continues to operate and manage a range 

of projects. 

Regional Initiatives include the development of a Regional Marine Plan 

Framework and Regional Locational Guidance for the Pentland Firth and 

Orkney Waters. A three stage approach was developed and stage one reports 

produced. Stage two consists of collecting better regional data - studies to 

map and evaluate inshore fishing activity and shipping activity are ongoing. 

Regional Locational Guidance has been developed to encourage further 

marine renewable development around Scotland to facilitate competition for 

The Saltire Prize. Regional Locational Guidance has a role in Marine 

Licensing and is now used to identify Sectoral Marine Plan options. 

Although work on these themes continues and a number of outputs/models 

have been developed and continue to be refined, the MESPG was closed 

down after 12 months. 

The Short Life Energy Planning and Consenting Task Force reported on 9 

February 2012 with a number of recommendations. The recommendations 

focus on further improving Scotland’s planning and consenting landscape by 

requiring wide ranging pre-application engagement, co-ordinating the collation 

of, and access to, relevant data as well as resourcing the regulators 

sufficiently to deal with the peak of project applications expected in the near 

future. The recommendations, which are currently being implemented by MS 

are: 

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

efficiencies. 

2. Establish a national database of survey data. 

3. To standardise approaches to data collection and assessment. 

4. To encourage developers to follow advice set out in the Good Practice 

Wind tool kit. 

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

consultation process. 


found. 


found.



6. To engage with the European Commission (EC) to gain adoption of 

proportionate actions for planning and licensing. 

7. To resource licensing application handling through additional staffing of 

MS-LOT, the creation of a MS Science specialist team and through the 

commissioning of environmental audit, and consultation analysis work 

to assist with applications and multi sectoral workshops. 

8. To prioritise and accelerate work on the identification of potential sites 

for new test facilities. 

This Manual has been produced to support MS’s four main workstreams 

(Recommendation 1). The Manual will be supported by Licensing Policy 

Guidance Papers (LPGs) a number of which are described briefly below. 

These papers will be produced over the coming months and be available on 

Scottish Government’s website. Further topic specific LPGs in support of the 

Manual will also be produced. 

The first LPG to be produced is the Survey, Deploy and Monitor Policy 

which aims to provide a risk-based approach to help address uncertainties in 

licensing for offshore renewables development, taking into consideration 

environmental sensitivity, device type and scale of development. A draft 

version of the policy is available on the Scottish Government website, this will 

be finalised after consultation over the summer. 

Work is being undertaken to look at amending primary legislation (the Town 

and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) using Parliamentary Order 

Process to allow Scottish Ministers the authority to grant deemed planning 

permission for onshore ancillary works related to offshore/marine energy 

development. More information on this is provided in sections 2.2, 3.2.3 and 

5.2.2. 

An LPG is also being produced for the application of the Rochdale Envelope 

or Project Design Envelope in consultation with the marine offshore 

renewables industry and other stakeholders. This is the approach which tries 

to address some of the issues associated with projects where there are 

uncertainties over the final details of a proposed development, while ensuring 

compliance with environmental legislation. These uncertainties could include 

scale, type of device, elements and dimensions of the device and/or other 

factors, if there remain limitations in the amount of detail that is available on 

the project at the time at which consent is being sought. More detail on this 

aspect is provided in section 6.4.2. 

The Renewables Demonstration Strategy is a component of the MS 

approach to reducing the environmental uncertainty currently inherent in the 

licensing of renewables developments in Scottish waters. Information, 

beyond the monitoring which would be required of the developer as consent 

conditions, will be obtained and used to inform the licensing/consenting of 

future developments. MS will, in agreement with developers taking forward 


found. 


found.



initial array developments, use consented projects to gather strategic 

information into how marine devices interact with the wider ecosystem. 

Priority for demonstration strategy investigations will be given to those 

interactions which are relevant to features of the environment that may be 

designated under EU (or national) legislation, i.e. seabed habitats, seabirds, 

marine mammals (seals and cetaceans), and migratory fish (primarily 

salmonids), but not confined to these features. The potential for the Sound of 

Islay and Kyle Rhea projects to be included within the Demonstration Strategy 

have already been discussed with the relevant developers and a feasibility 

study proposal has been prepared. 

MS has also provided a new resource for providing access to spatial data. 

The first phase of the MS Interactive project concentrates on themed marine 

environmental data covering renewable energy, monitoring, conservation and 

marine spatial planning. In time new themes will be added to the site. Marine 

Scotland Science has undertaken survey and monitoring work to provide 

expert scientific and technical advice to support Scottish Government policies 

and regulatory responsibilities. Marine Scotland Interactive now holds this 

information in the form of maps, video clips and photographs. Full accessibility 

of these data is enabled through the use of freely available software and 

social networking sites to assist in the release of large data sets in viewerfriendly 

formats. 

1.2 Marine Planning 

The more MS deals with marine renewables development the more it 

understands the differences between wave and tidal energy development 

characteristics and hence the potential for resultant impacts. The different 

sectors actually have very little potential for overlap of resource areas. The 

best wave resources are off the west coasts of the Outer Hebrides, Orkney 

and Shetland Isles whereas tidal energy is funnelled through the Pentland 

Firth and between the Orkneys and down the southwest of Islay and the Mull 

of Kintyre. The devices to convert resource to energy are also very different 

with wave energy often requiring various forms of floating or surface devices 

and tidal requiring turbines below the surface. This knowledge and expertise 

will develop over time (as will the technologies used) and best practice will be 

fed back into the planning and licensing process. 

MS is using marine planning to ensure efficient, sustainable green energy 

generation. As Scottish Ministers plan to facilitate marine green energy 

development Environmental Regulations require Strategic Environmental 

Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal. MS has therefore taken or is taking 

forward Marine Sectoral Plans for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy 

development. It will also be producing a statutory National Marine Plan and 

statutory Regional Marine Plans. 


found. 


found.



As a specific commitment under the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) 

process, these sectoral plans will also be pursued according to mechanism of 

Iterative Plan Review (IPR). This process will ensure that the Plans are 

undertaken in a phased way, and are regularly reviewed, so that they will 

continue to be informed by the results of project-level assessments and 

monitoring review work as well as from the results of broader strategic 

monitoring. 

The Sectoral Marine Planning process consists of three stages. The first 

stage requires the production of plan options through a scoping exercise 

which examines a combination of resource, sensitivity and constraint mapping 

and then the application of additional information, views and policies to 

produce Regional Locational Guidance (RLG). 

The RLG documents are used to identify Plan options which can then be 

subject the second stage which consists of Sustainability Appraisal (SEA, 

sHRA and Socio-economic Assessment). Sustainability Appraisal findings are 

used to create a draft Plan. 

The third stage requires statutory consultation and the production of 

Consultation Analysis to fully inform Ministers on stakeholders views. 

Ministers decide upon the final form of the Plan and sanction its publication 

alongside a Post Adoption Statement. 

It is important that any offshore renewable project is developed within the 

context of these plans and more information on these plans is provided below. 

1.2.1 Offshore Wind Energy Sectoral Plan 

A Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial 

Waters was published along with its associated Post Adoption Statement on 

the Scottish Government website on 18 March 2011; titled ‘Blue Seas – 

Green Energy. The Plan sets out the Scottish Government’s policies for 

developing offshore wind energy up to and beyond 2020. It has been 

developed using Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), strategic 

Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) and consultation and informed by 

socio-economic impact at the strategic level using Scotland’s Marine Atlas as 

the main data source. 

The Plan identifies six areas for development in the short term (by 2020) and 

25 medium term (beyond 2020) areas of search. The short term areas in total 

could deliver up to five Giga Watts of electricity, they are: 

• Argyll Array (off Tiree); 

• Islay; 

• Inch Cape; 

• Neart na Gaoithe; 


found. 


found.



• Forth Array; and 

• Beatrice (Moray Firth). 

Marine Scotland will manage the review and implementation of the Plan with 

strategic guidance from the Marine Scotland Board. MS will also ask the 

Marine Strategy Forum (Marine Scotland’s main consultee forum consisting of 

statutory, sectoral and NGO bodies with an interest in Scottish marine waters) 

to provide a strategic overview on the way forward. 

Project specific work will be managed again by MS - the Marine Strategy 

Forum membership bodies will be asked to help steer the projects through 

involvement in advisory groups. Output and assessment reports will be 

subject to public consultation procedures which meet best practice standards. 

Consultation analysis will be undertaken and reports published to ensure that 

consultees can check their views and responses have been reported upon 

and taken into account. 

MS seeks to consider issues at the regional and national level, within sectoral 

marine plans, to help facilitate linkages to marine licensing and other marine 

planning processes such as the National and Regional Marine Plans. 

Implementation includes the establishment of a strategic monitoring network 

and will include the application of further marine planning techniques to 

develop Plan options. 

MS published the Scoping Study for Offshore Wind Farm Development in 

Scottish Waters on 29 November 2011. This was undertaken using the 

MaRS model and will be followed by Regional Locational Guidance. This 

work seeks to identify Plan options, facilitate future lease bidding and better 

inform the licence application process. The Plan will be reviewed over a two 

year period and the scope of the Plan expanded beyond Scottish Territorial 

Waters out to the 200 nautical mile Renewable Energy Zone limit. The 

outcomes of the Key Actions (Section A.12 of the current Sectoral Marine 

Plan) will feed into the review process. Any options or areas of search arising 

from the Scoping exercise, Regional Locational Guidance or any future 

leasing round which are contained in the review will be subject to 

sustainability appraisal including SEA, strategic HRA, socio-economic 

assessment and statutory consultation. 

1.2.2 Marine Renewable Energy Sectoral Plan 

In 2007, the Scottish Government published a Strategic Environmental 

Assessment (SEA) for Marine Renewables covering Scottish Territorial 

Waters for our West and North Coasts. The report concluded that there is 

significant resource within Scottish territorial waters for wave and tidal energy 

development. Work is progressing on the Sectoral Plans for Wave and Tidal 

Energy which require Sustainability Appraisal in line with the requirements of 

the Marine legislation. This work will refresh the 2007 SEA and increase the 


found. 


found.



geographic scope to include Scotland's renewable energy zone (out to 200 

nm). Sustainability Appraisal includes SEA, strategic HRA, Socio-economic 

Impact Assessment and consultation. 

Initial Plan Frameworks will be produced which will draw upon the original 

SEA, Scoping and Regional Locational Guidance for The Saltire Prize and 

Regional Locational Guidance for the Pentland Firth Strategic Area. 

Additional scoping work is being undertaken using the MaRS model to map 

resource and constraint areas covering the Scottish renewable energy zone to 

develop further Plan options. Regional Locational Guidance review and 

application will be applied to the areas identified to produce refined Plan 

options and these will be reported within Initial Plan Frameworks. 

Sustainability Appraisal will be applied to produce Draft Plans and will be 

subject to statutory public consultation. The Plans will provide clear guidance 

to Industry on where to focus investment and pursue development 

opportunities. 

1.2.3 Pilot Marine Spatial Plan in Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters 

An initial Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) Framework and draft Regional Locational 

Guidance have been published on the Scottish Government website which 

sets out the stage process for the development of regional marine plans and 

Regional Locational Guidance for wave and tidal development in the Pentland 

Firth and Orkney Waters area. The purpose of the Plan is to inform use of the 

sea, in a manner which minimises conflict between marine users and allows 

for wider marine management, including protection of the marine 

environment. 

The Framework document contains a summary of existing information on 

different uses of the seas, shows how these different uses may impact on 

each other, makes recommendations for future research to ensure that the 

Plan is properly underpinned by relevant and good quality information, and 

sets out how the Plan will be developed. 

Stage two of this work, currently underway, consists of commissioning a set of 

studies to fill the identified gaps in knowledge, to determine the likely 

interaction between future renewables activities and other sectors, as well as 

the potential environmental effects of the new technologies proposed. In 

particular, an inshore fishing study pilot (Scotmap) is being undertaken to 

spatially analyse fishing activity in the PFOW area, targeted at smaller inshore 

vessels (under 15m in length). The draft report of this study is available on 

the Scottish Government website and the project is being extended to other 

parts of Scottish coastal waters. 


found. 


found.



1.3 Strategic Research 

MS has also developed a programme of strategic research and data provision 

in support of the development of offshore renewable energy in Scotland's 

seas which is linked to the recommendations of the Short-Life Task Force. A 

Research Implementation Strategy has been established to address the 

various gaps in current knowledge that have been identified through the 

ongoing programme of work that MS is commissioning. It continues to build 

this research strategy to cover issues and develop solutions when problems 

are identified which may inhibit development. 

The second recommendation of the Short Life Task Force is the 

establishment of a national database of survey data. This data will be 

provided through the interactive web portal ‘MS Interactive’. The database 

will include the following datasets: 

• Sea Bed Mapping and Sediment Profiling. 

• Aerial Bird Survey Data. 

• Other Marine Species Data 

• Strategic Environmental Assessments and Data Annexes. 

• Socio-economic Assessments and Data Annexes. 

• Scotmap and Fisheries Sensitivity Mapping 

• Submitted Project EIA and HRA reports. 

• Submitted Cumulative Impact Assessments. 

• MSS Research Reports and Data covering marine mammals, sea birds 

and migratory fish. 

Other key research areas and projects are described briefly below. 

For example, MS and the Enterprise Companies are developing an approach 

for engaging with developers and supply chain companies in order to 

maximise manufacturing and construction activity in Scotland. The approach 

will initially consist of a pilot partnership project with EDP Renováveis (EDPR) 

and Repsol Nuevas Energias (Repsol) for the Moray Offshore Wind Limited’s 

(MORL) project. The pilot will seek to use sectoral marine planning as a basis 

to examine how socio-economics and carbon emissions mitigation can be 

used to track improvements in ‘local’ supply chain content related to the 

manufacturing and construction of offshore wind and marine renewable 

energy projects. By involving the Enterprise Companies directly at the prequalification 

and bidding stages of project development, the pilot will also 

allow early intervention to enable domestic supply chain companies to 

compete in the emerging markets and to persuade international companies to 

invest and locate in Scotland. 

Another example of strategic research which MS is taking forward in support 

of the offshore renewable energy generation is the prioritisation of mapping 

and profiling in areas of proposed development, a requirement identified by 


found. 


found.



Scottish Renewables. The information will assist developers and regulators 

assess the characteristics and ecological value of the sea bed in relation to 

renewable energy development of wave and tidal resources. The mapping 

and profiling has been undertaken at the request of Scottish Renewables in 

the Pentland Firth, around Orkney, off Farr Point to the west of the Pentland 

Firth, to the west of Lewis and west of Shetland. MS will continue to work with 

the Scottish industry to prioritise this work within an overall programme to map 

all of the Scottish seabed. This is being taken forward through a signed 

Memorandum of Understanding and MS is working with the Northern 

Lighthouse Board (NLB) to collect the bathymetric data in collaboration with 

the Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA). 

MS is also working with Argyll and Bute Council to promote developer 

community engagement to examine and better understand any potential 

onshore implications associated with the proposed Argyll Array offshore wind 

farm (off Tiree). This approach involves the participation of key partner 

organisations - Argyll & Bute Council, Crown Estate Commissioners, Tiree 

Community Development Trust, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and 

Scottish Power Renewables (the developer). The aim was to ‘map’ the 

onshore implications arising from the four scenarios identified by the 

developer relating to the associated construction, operational, and 

maintenance requirements of the wind farm. The study was also looking to 

optimise the socio economic benefit to the island and mitigate the negative 

consequences of each scenario. A draft report was produced for consultation 

and a final report will be published shortly. 

1.3.1 Environmental Impact Research 

MS is also implementing strategic research to improve the understanding of 

offshore renewables on the natural environment. In particular, MS is 

undertaking various pieces of work to address potential issues with marine 

mammals, particularly focusing on noise related to construction/installation 

and operation of devices. The programme links with other work on monitoring 

methodologies and seeks to better understand what species will be affected 

by offshore renewables - looking at current noise levels, potential noise from 

construction and potential mitigation measures, including alternatives to piling. 

It will seek to determine risks and will provide knowledge to facilitate informed 

licensing. 

The work will utilise key stakeholders and expert opinion and will link with 

developers’ preliminary work on construction. It is looking to determine zones 

of influence through expert opinion and as part of the Population 

Consequences of Disturbance programme (PCoD) being promoted by Marine 

Scotland through Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) or another 

funding body. 


found. 


found.



MSS is working up a programme of work to address risks to migratory fish. 

The first project is investigating the potential effects of EMF on migratory fish. 

It has installed electrical coils in a large annular fish tank as an experimental 

system which is used to create EMF in the tank to test if salmon, sea trout or 

eels are likely to be affected by EMF from electrical generation devices or 

transmission cables used in offshore wind and marine renewables 

developments. 

MSS has also developed a programme of work to address key species of sea 

birds, their flight characteristics and their habitats. This work has already 

paid dividends as it has persuaded the Strategic Ornithological Support 

Services (SOSS) Group to revisit the Band Model to assess potential impacts 

with turbines based on bird flight height characteristics. A potential mitigation 

coming from the combination of MSS and SOSS work suggests that if turbine 

height is increased by a few metres bird collision risks generally decrease, 

and wind resource increases. Other strategic projects include a pilot project 

on the consequences of displacement by wind farms for guillemot breeding 

populations. This will be extended to wider ranges of wind farms and seabird 

species. Another project is the development of indices of the sensitivity of 

Scottish seabird populations to the risks of collision and displacement by 

offshore wind farms. The outputs from this project will be used to inform 

planning for offshore wind farms. 


found. 


found.



2. Marine Licences 

This Manual deals with the consents, permits and licences for which the 

Scottish Government is the competent or regulatory authority; in particular ML 

and s36 consent, hereon termed ‘licences’. The following section details the 

different consents and approvals for which MS is responsible, namely: 

• Marine Licence (Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and Marine and Coastal 

Access Act 2009); 

• Section 36 Consent (Electricity Act 1989); 

• European Protected Species (EPS) 1 (The Conservation (Natural 

Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended); The Conservation and 

Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Offshore Marine Regulations 2007 

(as amended)); transposed via the (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 

(as amended) and Wildlife and the Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 

2011); and 

• Basking Shark Licence (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended) and the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 

2011). 

2.1 Marine Licence (ML) 

The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 10 March 2010 

and along with the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides a 

framework for marine management. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 

legislates for marine planning and licensing and conservation activities in 

Scottish inshore waters (0-12nm). The UK Act provides executive devolution 

to Scottish Ministers for marine planning and licence and conservation powers 

in the offshore region (12-200nm). An agreement between UK and Scottish 

Ministers defining the responsibilities was established through a Joint 

Ministerial Committee. Through the agreement Scotland received executive 

responsibility for planning and nature conservation out to 200 nautical miles. 

In addition to the UK Act, international responsibilities for the implementation 

of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in the Scottish inshore 

and offshore region will fall to Scottish Ministers who are the competent 

authority. 

The Acts meet demands from a wide diversity of marine users for better 

stewardship and management of Scotland's seas and introduce a framework 

for sustainable management. The framework includes: 

• The introduction of a statutory marine planning system; 

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

licences. 


found. 


found.



• Improved marine nature conservation and conservation of the marine 

historic environment with new powers to protect and manage areas of 

importance for marine wildlife, habitats and historic monuments; and 

• Improved protection for seals. 

The Acts also introduce a streamlined marine licensing system with 

accompanying enforcement powers. The ML supersedes the former Food 

and Environmental Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) licence and Coast Protection 

Act 1949 (CPA) consents and makes Scottish Ministers responsible for 

issuing new marine licences in the Scottish inshore and offshore waters. 

Under the Acts a marine licence from Scottish Ministers is required if any 

person intends to do any of the following from a vehicle, vessel and other 

structure in Scottish Waters (from Mean High Water Springs out to 12 nautical 

miles (nm) under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and 12-200nm through 

devolved powers from the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009): 

• Deposit any substance or object in the sea or on or under the seabed; 

• Construct, alter or improve works on or over the sea or on or under the 

seabed; 

• Remove substances or objects from the seabed; 

• Dredging (including plough, agitation, side-casting and water injection 

dredging); 

• Deposit and/or use explosives; and 

• Incinerate substances or objects. 

This includes the removal of small quantities of sediment from the seabed 

over 1 m³ as part of scientific and/or investigative surveys (Marine (Scotland) 

Act 2010, Part 4 Marine Licensing General Guidance for Applicants). Liaison 

with MS-LOT is therefore recommended to determine the consenting 

requirements of any pre-development activities such as seabed surveys. 

Part 7 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 also makes specific provision for 

Marine Enforcement Officers. These officers have specific powers to enforce 

the marine licensing regime, and all issues relating to marine protection and 

nature conservation legislation. For the majority of offshore renewables 

developments an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required to 

support the application for a ML in line with the EIA Directive (85/337/EC as 

amended). MS-LOT makes sure applications meet the requirements of the 

EIA Directive prior to formally accepting the application. 

2.2 Section 36 Consent (s36) 

Applicants are required to apply for and obtain the consent of the Scottish 

Ministers (which like marine licences can be granted with conditions to ensure 

full compliance with all relevant legislation) under Section 36 of the Electricity 

Act 1989 before an electricity generating station with the capacity of over 1 


found. 


found.



megawatt can be constructed or operated in the Scottish marine area. The 

Electricity Act 1989 (Requirement of Consent for Offshore Generating 

Stations) (Scotland) Order 2002 modifies Section 36(2) of the 1989 Act to 

specify that such generating stations with a permitted capacity of 1 mega watt 

require consent (for onshore generators the capacity is 50 mega watts). 

Offshore developments with a capacity of 1 mega watt or under are exempt 

from s36 requirements. 

Applications for s36 consent can be made at the same time as applications for 

marine licences. Section 35 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 Act allows for 

s36 electricity consents and ML to be considered together. 

Planning permission is not required to be obtained by applicants for offshore 

generators (the marine licensing scheme is the means by which authority is 

given for this activity). Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning 

(Scotland) Act 1997 is relevant in that it allows the Scottish Ministers to direct 

that planning permission be deemed to be granted for any development that is 

ancillary to onshore development covered by s36 consent under the 1989 Act. 

The legislation does not, however, extend to offshore developments. Until the 

legislation on deemed planning permission is amended, applicants are 

currently required to apply for, and obtain, planning permission from the 

relevant Planning Authority (PA) for any onshore ancillary development 

required which is not part of the offshore generating station. 

Under the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment)(Scotland) 

Regulations 2000, Scottish Ministers are required to consider whether any 

proposal for an offshore renewable energy device is likely to have a significant 

effect on the environment. These Regulations were amended in 2008 by the 

Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Amendment 

Regulations 2008 to meet the requirements of the Public Participation 

Directive, 2003/35/EC. The amended Regulations recognise that additional 

information is generated in the application process (e.g. advice from statutory 

advisers) and now seeks to formally bring this into the public domain. 

Applicants must, when the first statutory consultee response is received by 

MS-LOT, publish a notice in the Edinburgh gazette and one or more local 

newspapers to say that additional information has been received by Scottish 

Ministers and has been placed on the Planning Register of the planning 

authority closest to the development. This allows the public and other 

stakeholders a further 28 days from the date of the second advert to make a 

representation in light of the additional information. Subsequent statutory 

consultee responses also go to the closest planning authority for the register, 

and to the applicant, but no further press notices are required. 

Applicants have a duty under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 to have 

regard to the preservation of amenity. This requires the applicant, when 

formulating proposals relating to the construction and operation of a 

generating station, to take account of the effects the proposal would have on 


found. 


found.



the natural beauty of the countryside, on any flora, fauna, and geological and 

physiological features of special interest, and sites, buildings and objects of 

architectural, historic or archaeological interest. It is also required that the 

applicant take reasonable actions to mitigate the effects of the proposal on 

amenity. 

Regarding s36 applications and the offshore transmission operator (OFTO) 

regime, MS-LOT advises applicants that the s36 application should cover the 

generating station (turbine, wave / tidal device etc.) and any inter array 

cabling whilst any offshore platform or cabling to the platform or to shore 

should be considered through an application for a ML. This will allow an 

easier transfer process of the transmission assets to the OFTO at the relevant 

time. 

The Energy Act 2004 introduced two new sections into s36 of the Electricity 

Act relating to navigation. Section 36a gives Scottish Ministers the power to 

make a declaration, on application by a developer, which extinguishes public 

rights of navigation which pass through the place where the generating station 

will be established; or suspending rights of navigation for a specified period of 

time. The declaration can only be made at the same time as the s36 consent 

being granted. The power to extinguish public rights of navigation extends 

only to generating stations in territorial waters. 

Section 36b places a duty on Scottish Ministers that they may not grant 

consent for a generating station where the generating station, whether in the 

territorial sea or Renewable Energy Zone (REZ), would interfere with 

recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation. The Scottish 

Ministers are also under a duty, in determining whether to grant consent to a 

particular application, to have regard to the extent and nature of any 

obstruction of or danger to navigation which is likely to be caused by or result 

from the generating station. 

In exercising their duties both in relation to interference with recognised sea 

lanes essential to navigation and obstruction of or danger to navigation, 

Scottish Ministers must take into account the cumulative impact of the 

generating station for which s36 is being sought, together with those for which 

consents have already been granted and those for which it appears likely that 

consents will be granted. 

2.3 European Protected Species Licence (EPS) 

Certain species are listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive as species of 

European Community interest and in need of strict protection. The protective 

measures required are outlined in Articles 12 to 16 of the Directive and are 

transposed into Scottish law through the following: 


found. 


found.



• Regulation 39 (1) and (2) and 43 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, 

&c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended): (Scottish inshore waters within 

12nm); 

• Regulation 39 (1) and 43 of the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural 

Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 applies (Offshore Marine Regulations); 

and 

• The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act (2011) (WANE). 

The species listed in Annex IV of the Directive whose natural range includes 

any area in the UK are called ‘European protected species’. Marine EPS 

whose natural range includes any area in Scottish waters (both inshore and 

offshore) include: all cetaceans, five species of turtle and the common 

sturgeon. 

Consideration of WANE/EPS should be included as part of the application 

process, not as an issue to be dealt with at a later stage. Any consent given 

without due consideration to these species is likely to breach the WANE Act 

and Habitats Directive with respect to EPS and the possibility of consequential 

delays or the project being halted by the EC. 

With respect to activities associate with offshore renewables, it is an offence 

to deliberately or recklessly: 

• Capture, injure or kill any wild animal of a European protected species 

(regulation 39(1)(a); 

• Harass such an animal or group of animals; 

• Disturb such an animal while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its 

young; 

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

the animal use of the breeding site or resting place; 

• Disturb such an animal while it is occupying a structure or place used 

for shelter or protection; 

• Disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which 

are, likely to significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of 

the species to which it belongs; or 

• Disturb such an animal in a manner that is, or in circumstances which 

are, likely to impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or 

otherwise care for its young (regulation 39(1)(b); and 

• It is also an offence to deliberately or recklessly disturb any dolphin, 

porpoise or whale (regulation 39(2). 

If there is a risk that a marine activity could potentially be unlawful then in 

some instances a licence may be granted to carry out the activity (EPS 

Licence). Licences are usually granted subject to conditions and licence 

holders are responsible for ensuring compliance with conditions. Failure to 

comply with conditions is an offence. The Scottish Government issues 


found. 


found.



licences under Regulation 44 of the Regulations (as amended) for specific 

purposes. These purposes include: 

• 44(e) preserving public health or public safety or other imperative 

reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or 

economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance 

for the environment; 

• 44(f) preventing the spread of disease; and 

• 44(g) preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, 

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

MS aims to process the applications within six to eight weeks of receipt of a 

completed application; however it has to obtain advice on applications from 

other parties to complete the work. SNH and JNCC will provide statutory 

nature conservation advice to MS (SNH within 12mn). The completion of a 

licence application does not guarantee that a licence will be granted. If an 

application is refused, the Scottish Government will inform the applicant in 

writing of the basis for the refusal. 

The application form requires the following information: 

• Section 1: Applicant details i.e. the individual, company or 

partnership to be named on the licence. The licensee is responsible for 

ensuring compliance with the licence and its conditions. Under the 

Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 (as amended) it is 

an offence to fail to comply with the terms and conditions of a licence; 

• Section 2: details of previous relevant licences; 

• Section 3: Species. This section details of the work to be undertaken 

and the EPS that will be affected by the work. A summary of this 

information is to be provided in the application and Supporting 

Documents provided. The information should also detail the mitigation 

work being proposed to minimise adverse effects on EPS. 

• Section 4: Activities to be licensed; 

• Section 5: Purpose of the licence application; 

• Section 6: Justification for carrying out the work. This should be a 

rational and reasoned justification as to why the proposed activity 

relates to the licensing purpose and an explanation of why the 

proposed work is necessary. This is the legal basis of the application; 

• Section 7: Satisfactory alternatives. This section must document the 

consideration of alternatives and the conclusion that there is no 

satisfactory alternative available. In relation to each alternative 

considered, an explanation of why it is considered it to be satisfactory 

or unsatisfactory must be provided This should include the other 

options that have been evaluated, the alternative sites and 

methodologies that were considered why they were rejected (if no 

others considered, you must document the reasons why); 


found. 


found.



• Section 8: summary of planning and licensing position. A summary of 

the planning and licensing position should be provided; 

• Section 9: Consideration of designated sites. Details of any designated 

site that may be affected by the proposals must be submitted. An 

Appropriate Assessment of the proposals in a licence application may 

be required. European protected species likely to be affected by the 

proposals are also likely to be a qualifying interest of an SPA or SAC 

under the Birds and Habitats Directives. If this is the case if Scottish 

Ministers are the competent authority authorising the plan or project 

which has a significant effect on the site. The requirement for 

appropriate assessment extends to plans or projects outwith the 

boundary of the site should they have implications for the interest 

protected within the site. As such the applicant will need to provide all 

the necessary information through a HRA to allow Scottish Ministers to 

complete the assessment. Detail of how to undertake a HRA is 

provided in Chapter six of this Manual; 

• Section 10: Data sharing; and 

• Section 11: Declaration and warning. 

The SG, in partnership with SNH is producing draft guidance which provides 

advice for marine users who are planning to carry out activities in Scottish 

inshore waters which has the potential to deliberately or recklessly injure, kill 

or disturb a marine EPS. The guidance is intended to help assess a) the 

likelihood of an offence being committed, b) if this can be avoided or 

minimised; and c) where this cannot be avoided or minimised, whether the 

activity could go ahead under licence. In addition, the guidance provides 

advice and examples on the interpretation of disturbance, deliberate and 

reckless as cited in the Habitats Regulations. Once approved the guidance 

will be available on the SG website. For information on the protection of 

marine EPS in the UK offshore area, refer to the Defra guidelines on ‘The 

protection of marine European Protected Species from deliberate injury, killing 

and disturbance’ or contact JNCC. 


found. 


found.



3. Key Organisations: Roles and Functions 

3.1 Marine Scotland 

To fully understand the planning and licensing process in Scottish Territorial 

Waters with respect to offshore renewable energy it is important to 

understand the role of MS and its key departments and these are described 

briefly below. 

MS is the directorate of Scottish Government (SG) responsible for marine and 

fisheries issues in Scotland. Its key responsibilities are to: 

• Work towards achieving good environmental status, through marine 

planning, licensing and other functions, to help ensure a healthy and 

sustainable environment; 

• Promote sustainable economic growth from offshore renewables and 

other marine and maritime industries through integrated planning and, 

where appropriate, streamlined regulatory frameworks; 

• Promote sustainable, profitable and well managed fisheries and 

aquaculture industries in Scotland; 

• Ensure sustainably managed freshwater fish and fisheries resources; 

• Ensure a sound evidence base to inform the development and delivery 

of marine policy, planning and services; 

• Ensure effective compliance and enforcement arrangements; and 

• Continue to integrate functions and resources, and to develop 

organisational skills, competencies and capacity to ensure effective 

and efficient marine management arrangements in Scotland. 

The Scottish Government is responsible for the marine licensing system for 

activities carried out in the Scottish inshore region of UK waters from 0-12 

nautical miles (nm). It is also the licensing and enforcement authority for the 

Scottish offshore region from 12-200nm (other than reserved matters). Hence 

this Manual relates to the legislation in respect of offshore renewable 

installations in the Scottish Territorial Sea (up to 12 nm offshore) and the 

Renewable Energy Zone (REZ), extending to 200 nm. This Manual describes 

the licensing and consenting process for offshore renewable energy 

developments in Scotland and provides information on the legislation and 

supporting environmental assessments required to support marine consents. 

3.1.1 Marine Scotland Licensing and Operations Team 

MS-LOT is the Government department responsible for the impartial 

assessment of applications, ensuring compliance with all relevant legislation 

and the issue of all marine related permissions. It operates a ‘’one stop shop” 

to handle the whole consenting/licensing process, from initial (pre-screening 

or pre-application) queries to the issuing of permissions and post consenting 

negotiations. It is the first point of contact for all queries relating to the 


found. 


found.



deployment of offshore renewable energy devices in Scottish waters and can 

be contacted via one of the following: 

• Website: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Marine/Licensing/marine; 

• Email: ms.marinelicensing@scotland.gsi.gov.uk; 

• Phone: +44 (0)1224 295579; and 

• Address: Marine Scotland (Licensing Operations Team), Marine 

Laboratory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB. 

MS-LOT takes the lead role in facilitating engagement with relevant external 

parties in relation to project-specific requirements and ensures that 

consultation proceeds in a timely and effective manner. Applications for 

marine consents will need to be supported by environmental information and, 

where appropriate, the production of EIA and HRA. There is a mandatory 

requirement for multi-lateral pre-development consultations where the scope 

and extent of environmental information should be discussed. 

3.1.2 Marine Scotland Planning and Policy Team 

MS Planning and Policy (MSPP) will provide MS-LOT with independent policy 

advice on the application process with respect to relevant regulations covering 

development in Scottish Waters. It also produces the Licence and Policy 

Guidance such as the Survey Deploy Monitor Policy and others described 

above as well as being responsible for this Licensing and Consents Manual. 

3.1.3 Marine Scotland Marine/Offshore Renewable Energy Branch 

MS Planning and Policy Marine/Offshore Renewable Energy branch (MS 

MORE) fulfils a sponsorship role to consider how to tackle problems, 

difficulties being faced by developers and facilitate other improvements 

through sectoral marine planning, policy guidance and co-ordinated research. 

MS MORE is responsible for strategic level outputs which guide renewable 

energy developments into areas of least constraint, principally the sectoral 

plans described in section 1.2 above. 

3.1.4 Marine Scotland Science 

On technical aspects, MS-LOT is supported by Marine Scotland’s Science 

Team (MSS) which has expertise in a range of topics that are key to 

understanding the marine environment. 

MSS supports MS-LOT and MS MORE within a culture of ensuring that 

independent good science is applied to marine sectoral planning, research 

projects to tackle developer issues, establishment of strategic environmental 

survey programmes, audit of developer applications, and the production of 

Appropriate Assessments. 


found. 


found.



MSS therefore has an important advisory role to play in relation to MS-LOT, 

and will be called upon for scientific and technical advice. The advice provided 

by MSS will be complemented by that provided by the Marine Renewable 

Facilitators Group (including SNH and JNCC) and other statutory and nonstatutory 

consultees. More information on the statutory and non-statutory 

consultees is provided below. 

3.2 Statutory Consultees 

S36 and ML has four main consultees SNH, SEPA, Local Authorities and the 

Fisheries Committee. ML has Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, the 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency; 

and Scottish Natural Heritage. Below is a short synopsis of each 

organisation. 

3.2.1 Scottish Natural Heritage 

3.2.2 JNCC 

SNH is Scottish Ministers independent statutory advisors on nature 

conservation out to the 12 nautical mile (nm) limit and will therefore advise MS 

on sectoral marine plans and development applications. It is a statutory 

consultee for both s36 and ML. SNH has produced a service level statement 

(SLS) for renewable energy consultation. This statement provides information 

regarding the level of input that can be expected from SNH at various stages 

of the EIA process. SNH is working closely with the offshore renewables 

industry and developing a range of guidance including landscape assessment 

and survey/monitoring guidelines. 

JNCC is the public body that advises the UK Government and devolved 

administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation. It has 

responsibility for the provision of nature conservation advice in the offshore 

area beyond 12 nm from the coastline to the extent of the United Kingdom 

Continental Shelf (UKCS). It is a statutory consultee for s36 consent and MS 

is likely to consult JNCC for ML applications beyond 12nm. 

For offshore wind developments, a memorandum of agreement with the 

JNCC has been established and the JNCC and MS liaise closely in the 

provision of joint advice. 

3.2.3 Planning Authorities 

Planning Authorities (PAs) are statutory consultees for s36 and have 

important responsibilities in respect of land-side components of offshore 

renewable energy development and MS-LOT will consult with the relevant PA 

in respect of those elements. In some cases, consultation with more than one 


found. 


found.



PA may be necessary. Consent for ancillary land-based developments will be 

required under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as 

amended) and therefore both marine and terrestrial consents may be required 

for a single offshore renewable development. External to the marine licence 

application process applicants should ensure there is close and detailed 

liaison with the PA from the early project-planning stage even if terrestrial 

consents are not required as PAs will also be interested in the landscape and 

visual impact arising from offshore developments and any socio-economic 

implications. MS-LOT will ensure that the relevant PA is included in the 

consultation process with respect to marine licences. 

Work is being undertaken to look at amending primary legislation (the Town 

and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) using Parliamentary Order 

Process to allow Scottish Ministers the authority to grant deemed planning 

permission for onshore ancillary works related to offshore/marine energy 

development. 

3.2.4 Maritime and Coastguard Agency 

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is a statutory consultee for MLs 

and has responsibility for ensuring the navigational safety of the marine 

environment. Although the policy for offshore renewables industry is 

overseen by a specialist team at MCA headquarters in Southampton, the 

team will often consult with local MCA representatives. However, as Offshore 

Renewable Energy installations are considered “significant projects” within the 

MCA, the first point of contact should be the Navigation Safety Branch in 

Southampton. MS-LOT will liaise directly with this office in the first instance. 

3.2.5 Northern Lighthouse Board 

The Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) is a statutory consultee for MLs and is 

responsible for advising on all buoys, lights, or other marking requirements 

and for issuing Statutory Sanction to deploy such markers. 

3.2.6 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) is a statutory consultee 

for both s36 and ML and is Scotland’s environmental regulator whose main 

role is to protect the environment. The two primary regulatory mechanisms 

for SEPA, in relation to offshore energy, are: 

• Water Environment and Water Services Act 2003; and 

• Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. 

For the River Basin Management Planning process SEPA has established the 

Fish and Fisheries Advisory Group (F&FAG) which, together with SEPA’s 

fisheries science staff, advises SEPA on strategic issues relating to the 


found. 


found.



development of policy, guidance and research for the protection of fish and 

fisheries. SEPA will also advise and make recommendations during the 

appropriate licence application process or consultation, in relation to 

protecting the environment. 


found. 


found.



4. The Licensing Process 

The following section provides summary information on the consenting 

process as illustrated in Figure 1. This shows all the stages of the process 

and indicates the different areas of responsibility for the applicant and MS- 

LOT. The right hand side of the figure shows associated processes which the 

responsible party (as indicated by the colour-coding) needs to progress at the 

different stages. The stages involved in EIA and HRA are described in 

Chapter 4. 

MS-LOT staff must be the first point of contact for all queries relating to the 

consenting of offshore renewable energy projects in Scotland. The team is 

trained in the issuing of the relevant consents and licences and in undertaking 

the various assessments to underpin its decisions and advice. During 

consultation they are responsible for assessing all formal feedback from the 

expert stakeholder consultees and will ensure that this advice is reflected in 

permissions granted, in an appropriate and consistent manner. 

MS-LOT also has access to key information to support developers in 

preparation of applications. This includes support in the use of national 

datasets and detailed site specific information, including for example, baseline 

information on key environmental receptors such as fish and marine 

mammals. Ensuring adequate engagement at the pre-application stage and 

seeking guidance from MS-LOT will assist developers in determining the level 

of data collection needed to inform supporting impact assessment. 

In line with Task Force Recommendations (Scottish Government, 2012) and 

wider UK strategies, MS is developing strategic data management tools, 

including the national database for survey data, and engaging with developers 

on how to contribute to, and access, this information as discussed in section 

1.3. It is also MS-LOT’s role to highlight problems within the licensing process 

and for MS MORE to consider research requirements coming from sectoral 

marine planning and in the case of licensing difficulties to evolve policy and/or 

research solutions. Where relevant MS MORE will work with MSS, SNH, 

JNCC, the CEC, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and other 

research centres and other UK Government Departments to identify and 

facilitate research programmes to deliver marine planning and licensing 

solutions. MSS and MS-LOT must be content that research reports and 

findings are sufficiently robust that findings can be included within planning 

assessment and licensing application documentation. 


found. 


found.



Commence 

Consenting Process 

Pre-application Discussion 

EIA 

Screening 

EIA 

Scoping* 

HRA/AA 

Screening 

HRA 

Scoping 

Assessment (EIA and AA**) 

Marine Scotland Front Door 

ms.marinelicensing@scotland.gsi.gov.uk 

01224295579 

Screening 

and Scoping 

Consultation 

and Advice 

With MS-LOT 

All applications for 

consents/licences 

under Marine Licence, 

s.36 and European 

Protected Species 

(EPS) 

Guidance from 

government and 

non-government 

consultees 

Prepare 

EIA/ES 

Prepare AA 

Evidence 

Submit 

Application*** 

Submit ES 

Submit AA 

Evidence 

Quality Check 

Public Consultation 

Determination 

Public Inquiry 

Distribution to 

consultees 

Post Consent 

Actions 

* If an EIA necessary based on screening 

** If assessment concludes likelihood for significant effects. 

*** Including Navigational Risk Assessment and Third Party 

Flow diagram adapted from original by: 

DETI (2011). Regional Locational Guidance (RLG) for Offshore Renewable Energy Development in 

NI Waters. Published September 2011 by The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment: 

http://www.detini.gov.uk/rlg_final_version_sept_2011.pdf 

Figure 1. 

Key Stages in the Marine Licence Application Process 

A more detailed Guide to Marine Licensing can be found on the Marine 

Scotland website http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/general. 

The licensing process (with supporting environmental assessments) can be 

summarised as follows: 

1. Pre-screening consultation with MS-LOT; 

2. Environmental screening and scoping; 

3. Scoping consultation and feedback stages (ongoing); 

4. Ongoing preparation of documentation; 

5. MS-LOT gate-checking of documentation; 

6. Submission of application; 

7. Consultation stage; 

8. Determination; and 

9. Post approval actions. 


found. 


found.



4.1 Pre-screening Consultation 

Applicants should decide when to make their first approach to MS-LOT, in 

relation to other licence discussions (e.g. the CEC), but early contact is 

recommended enabling issues to be dealt with efficiently. 

MS-LOT as the one-stop-shop for MS licences will manage consultation with 

statutory and non-statutory consultees at EIA screening and scoping stages 

as well as at the pre-application stage (see sections 4.1 and 4.3.1 below). In 

the majority of cases MS-LOT will liaise directly with consultees but will also 

direct applicants to specific organisations if appropriate. 

Under the EIA Regulations the Environmental Statement (ES) undergoes a 

formal public consultation process. However, in recognition of the potential 

issues arising, it is mandatory (and inherently valuable) that developers begin 

informal consultations at the pre-application stage and recognise the 

importance of continuing consultation between applicants, MS-LOT, its 

advisors and other stakeholders, including local interest groups and the 

public. This will ensure that appropriate consideration is given to all 

stakeholder concerns (including the public) and that opinions are integrated 

into the project decision making process. All commitments made by the 

applicant during the EIA should be open and transparent and documented in 

the ES or supporting application information. 

The production of a Consultation Strategy at scoping stage is considered 

good practice for consultation that is external to the licence application 

process. Consultation should take a variety of forms depending upon the 

nature of the information being requested or provided, the 

consultees/stakeholders being contacted, and the timeline in the consenting 

process. It is recommended that MS-LOT reviews and comments upon the 

Consultation Strategy at Screening Stage, it will then inform key stakeholders, 

allowing them to plan resources accordingly. Consultation can include all or 

any of the following forms: 

• Telephone discussions; 

• Meetings; 

• Workshops; 

• Public events; and 

• Email updates; Web pages, leaflets etc. 

When applicants are seeking to meet with MS-LOT and statutory consultees 

the request should be supported by a draft meeting agenda. Supporting 

documentation/reports should be supplied to MS-LOT 28 days before the 

meeting. The statutory and non-statutory consultees for ML and s36 

applications are listed in Appendix A. 


found. 


found.



4.1.1 Marine Renewables Facilitators Group (MRFG) 

To assist in tackling complex issues and/or to resolve areas of dispute 

anytime in the application process prior to determination, MS-LOT may decide 

to bring together an advisory/decision making group. This group is formally 

known as the Marine Renewables Facilitators Group (MRFG). The group 

normally, but not always, comprises representatives of the key regulators and 

statutory consultees who are suitably experienced and empowered by their 

organisations to provide advice and guidance. The potential members of a 

MRFG are drawn from the following bodies: 

• Ministry of Defence (MOD); 

• National Air Traffic Services (NATS); 

• Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); 

• Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH); 

• Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC); 

• Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA); 

• Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB); 

• Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA); 

• Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC); 

• Marine Scotland Science (MSS); 

• Planning Authority (PA); and 

• Marine Scotland Policy and Planning (MSPP) 

The Chair is nominated by MS-LOT and may be selected from the bodies 

listed above or as specific circumstances dictate from a particular stakeholder 

or independent third party. The MRFG’s function is not to take part in the final 

determination of an application but it will be expected to, where appropriate, 

advise and give direction to MS-LOT on aspects of the application process 

before the final recommendation is made. The up to date Terms of Reference 

and membership can be obtained from MS-LOT. 

4.1.2 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees 

During the course of performing regulatory duties, MS-LOT will seek expertise 

from a variety of sources both within MS and from expert external advisors, 

consultees, stakeholders and regulators as outlined above. The list of 

statutory and non-statutory consultees for s36 and ML is provided as 

Appendix A. Where appropriate, consultations will be coordinated to improve 

efficiency, with savings in cost and time. 

The coordinated consultation with statutory consultees ensures that: 

• Each organisation manages all aspects of consultations in respect of a 

particular proposal and that consultation within the stakeholder 

organisation is carried out in the most appropriate way, by targeting 

inquiries to specific expert members as most appropriate; 


found. 


found.



• Close liaison means that MS-LOT and statutory consultees are equally 

aware of development proposals in Scottish waters and facilitates 

appraisal of proposals at the early stages; and 

• Consultation with statutory consultees is directed appropriately and 

ensures that statutory consultees are clear about the range of 

legislation to be considered. It is the responsibility of the statutory 

organisation to consult within its organisation as appropriate. 

There is a wide range of potential stakeholders who may need to be consulted 

in depth during the course of the application process and MS-LOT will provide 

advice in respect of specific proposals. Initial contact should be via MS-LOT 

which will advise accordingly. 

It is also expected that applicants have had prior discussion with groups and 

organisations external to the application process. Examples include key local 

interested groups over the potential use of areas of sea (and land) sought for 

development, particularly where there is significant existing use of the area(s). 

Non-statutory consultees are likely to include Historic Scotland as well as 

fishery and conservation groups. 

The CEC has set up three developer groups for offshore wind covering the 

Moray Firth, the Firth of Forth and Tay and West coast areas, as well as a 

Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Developer Group for Round 1 wave and 

tidal projects. These developer groups have been formed to promote 

collaborative discussions regarding the deployment of offshore renewables in 

particular regions and to consider specific regional issues. 

Key Information 

When applicants are seeking to meet with MS-LOT and statutory consultees 

meeting requests must be supported by a draft agenda. Supporting 

documentation and reports must be supplied 28 days prior to the meeting. 

It is good practice to produce a Consultation Strategy at Scoping Stage. The 

consultation process and its outcomes must be documented in the 

Environmental Statement. 

Other licences are also likely to be required separate to those administered by 

MS such as seabed leases, planning permissions, harbour permissions etc. 

MS-LOT expects the applicants to have appropriate discussions with other 

regulators as necessary including CEC, Local Harbour Authorities (LHAs) and 

PAs within whose jurisdiction the proposed development lies as well as the 

Chamber of Shipping, Civil Aviation Authority and other navigation/aviation 

authorities as well as regulators such as SEPA. 


found. 


found.



4.2 Environmental Screening and Scoping 

All licence applications will require supporting information on the potential 

environmental effects of the development. This is likely to be through the 

production of a statutory EIA if the development has the potential for a 

significant adverse effect on the environment. 

The term EIA describes a procedure that must be followed for certain types of 

project before they can be given development consent as outlined in the EIA 

Directive and associated regulations. An EIA is likely to be applicable to all 

offshore renewable energy developments as outlined through the Electricity 

Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as 

amended) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 

1999 (as amended). The procedure is a means of drawing together, in a 

systematic way, an assessment of a project's significant environmental 

impacts. 

Screening for an EIA, simply defined, is the process by which a project is 

reviewed to determine if a statutory EIA is required for a specific project or 

development under the EIA Directive and associated Regulations. 

Scoping provides the first identification and likely significance of the 

environmental effects and the information needed to enable their assessment. 

In many cases an applicant will combine the screening and scoping elements 

together to produce a single screening and scoping document to be submitted 

to MS. 

The requirements for each stage of the EIA (and HRA) are discussed in detail 

in Chapter 5 of this manual. 

4.2.1 Screening and scoping consultation 

Consultation at screening and scoping stages is important and should be 

directed through MS-LOT. Applicants should consider both the sensitivities of 

the local environment and the potential issues and effects that may arise from 

the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development. The 

locations should also have been identified to conform to national and regional 

marine plans as well as the relevant renewables strategies once produced. 

Supporting information should include but not be limited to: 

• Description of the proposals: 

o Device design and operation (e.g. mooring method or options, 

device type etc); 

o Location and size of the intended project (footprint and capacity, 

including coordinates); 

o Any relevant maps, charts or site drawings; 

o Proposed programme; construction and operation; 


found. 


found.



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


• Outcomes of other regulator/stakeholder discussions. 

The timescale for the screening opinion by Scottish Ministers is set out in 

paragraph (5) of The Electricity Works (EIA) (Scotland) Regulations 2000. 

Once it is considered that MS has sufficient information it will give a screening 

opinion within three weeks of the latest date of the following: 

• The date of receipt of the request; 

• The date by which it has received all the further information required by 

it under paragraph (3) of the regulations; and 

• The date by which the planning authority is required to give its views 

under paragraph (5) of the regulations, (or earlier if received earlier); 

• Or within such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the 

person making the request. 

The ideal timescale for providing a scoping opinion is nine weeks assuming 

that MS-LOT receives the consultation responses within the expected 

timescales. Within three weeks of receipt of a scoping report, and letter 

requesting a formal scoping opinion, MS-LOT will issue a copy of the scoping 

report to each of its consultees together with a covering letter setting out a 

three week consultation period. Within three weeks following receipt of the 

consultation responses, MS-LOT will issue the collated formal Scoping 

Opinion to the developer. The scoping opinion will also be published on the 

MS website. MS-LOT will also: 

• Issue a letter to all consultees on the applicant’s consultation list setting 

out the consultation deadline; 

• Issue an acknowledgement letter to the applicant; 

• Issue reminder letters where appropriate; and 

• Collate all consultation responses. 

The usefulness of the consultation will depend on the amount of information 

provided by the applicant. The typical outputs that applicants may expect 

from the consultations include: 

• Advice on whether or not EIA and/or AA (under the HRA process) are 

likely to be required; 

• Relevant data and information held by MS-LOT or other bodies: 

• Information on any specific sensitivities at the planned sites; 

• An indication of environmental data collection likely to be required; 

• Information on relevant legislation and consents/licences required; 

• Likely cost for consents/licences; and 

• Recommendations for consultation. 


found. 


found.



At all stages in the licensing process MS-LOT will be the primary point of 

contact for new queries. Queries may be answered by MS-LOT or via onward 

consultation with the relevant body. 

4.3 Ongoing Preparation of Documentation 

Applicants are responsible for producing all the necessary documentation to 

accompany the applications. Chapter 5 details the content and format of 

documents required in support of the applications. MS-LOT will advise on 

document preparation if required, but overall responsibility for including 

accurate and relevant information lies with the applicant. 

4.3.1 Pre-application Consultation 

The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 sections 22 to 24 provide for certain classes 

of activity to be subject to pre-application consultation. It is expected that 

legislation implementing these sections will be laid in the summer/autumn of 

2012. A transitional period of 6 months is proposed to allow developers to 

adapt to the new legislation. 

The requirement for pre-application consultation is intended to capture largescale 

developments with the potential for significant impact on the 

environment and local communities. The process will allow feedback from the 

public and third sector organisations to inform the nature of an application. 

Various classes of activity are likely to be specified as subject to preapplication 

consultation by the legislation, including cables which cross an 

inter-tidal boundary, renewable energy projects over 30 MW and 

developments that increase the output of an existing project to over 30 MW. 

Applicants will be required to place a pre-application notice, hold a public 

consultation event and produce a pre-application report. Notices will be 

required to be published in a local paper and be available to view at an 

appropriate location (such as local authority offices or a public library) prior to 

an application being submitted to MS-LOT. The notice will include a 

description of the proposed activity, the timing of the activity, a plan or chart of 

the location and contact details for the applicant. It will also advertise the date 

of the public consultation event. The public consultation event will be held at a 

suitable venue, early in the consultation period. A Consultation Report should 

detail what has been done to satisfy the pre-application consultation 

requirements. 

MS-LOT will administer the application, consultation process and will collate 

and review feedback from consultees. MS-LOT will liaise as appropriate to 

resolve any conflicting recommendations and will discuss any additional 

information or clarification requested by consultees. Applicants should be 


found. 


found.



aware that the time taken to provide additional information will affect the time 

taken to determine the application. 

Although not required under the s36 process, MS-LOT will require applicants 

to have undertaken pre-application consultation with stakeholders, consultees 

and the public in accordance with good practice. 

4.4 MS-LOT Gate-checking of Documentation 

S36 applications are required to go through a three week ‘gate-check’ process 

to ensure that they are satisfactory and meet the requirements of the 

legislation. This is also undertaken for ML applications. The Gate-checking 

process is a high level check of the applicant’s ES to compare it with the 

scoping opinion and to ensure that all relevant information requested by 

consultees is included. 

The documents submitted at this stage must be final versions. At this stage as 

well as the ES, the non-technical summary marine licence application forms, 

covering letter, draft adverts (a template will have been sent to applicant) 

should also be provided for checking. If satisfactory MS-LOT will formally 

accept the application in writing. At this stage the developer should pay the 

associated fees and agree the distribution arrangements and the date which 

is to appear on the adverts as to when representations can be made 

(Section 2.7). 

MS-LOT will expect an agreed consultee list from the applicant at the gate 

checking stage. MS-LOT will contact all consultees to see whether they 

require electronic or paper copies of the documentation, or MS-LOT may ask 

the developer to do this. MS-LOT will instruct the applicant to either send all 

copies of the ES to the licensing team for distribution or to distribute direct to 

agreed consultees. MS-LOT will send a letter requesting comments on the 

project to coincide with the delivery of the documentation from the developer. 

Applicants may wish consult with other organisations over and above those 

required by MS-LOT and these organisations may represent to MS-LOT 

through the specified mailbox. A list of organisations contacted directly by the 

developer should be provided to MS-LOT 

4.5 Submission of Application 

Applications for consents/licences should be made to MS-LOT and applicants 

should ensure that they include: 

• Covering Letter; 

• All relevant completed application forms (as advised by MS-LOT) and 

associated advertisements; 

• All relevant documentation, ES (including non-technical summary) and 

other supporting assessments (HRA, NRA etc.); 


found. 


found.



4.5.1 Fees 

• All appendices as appropriate (as advised by MS-LOT if necessary); 

• Site drawings with a red line boundary; 

• Any additional information that has been requested during the 

consultation process; and 

• Payment for the full cost of the consents and licensing process. 

ML and s36 applications will be subject to fees (no fees required for EPS 

licences) which recover the costs incurred during the consenting and licensing 

process and also any post determination monitoring and enforcement activity. 

However, if it is necessary for MS to carry out any additional investigations, 

examinations or tests to enable determination of a ML application, the 

applicants may be required to pay an additional fee towards such costs. It 

should be noted that fees will be incurred for some early activities, under the 

ML, such as certain types of surveys and met mast construction. Both ML and 

s36 fees vary according to the type of licence and consent being applied for 

and the scale of the proposed works. For up to date information on fees 

contact MS-LOT. 

4.6 Consultation/Advertisement 

The vast majority of licence applications will need to be advertised in at least 

a local paper. MS-LOT is able to provide applicants with advert templates for 

all required public notices. It is good practice to publish the advert in both 

English and Gaelic where Gaelic is spoken. Advertising will not be required if 

the proposal has already been advertised under another consenting regime 

(e.g. planning). 

For MLs, MS-LOT may direct the applicant to publish, for two successive 

weeks, a public notice in such newspapers or other publications as they see 

fit. Any persons wishing to make representations to the ML must do so within 

42 days from the first advert (Marine Works (EIA) Regulations (2007). 

S36 applications must be published in one or more local papers (such 

newspapers as are likely to come to the attention of those likely to be affected 

by the proposed development) for two consecutive weeks, the Edinburgh 

Gazette for two consecutive weeks and one or more national newspapers 

(e.g. The Herald, Scotsman) once (The Electricity Works (Environmental 

Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2008). All consultees, and 

members of the public have 28 days from the date of the last advert to 

respond, except for the nearest PA which has four calendar months to 

respond from the date of the application. 

Once MS-LOT has received a response from one of the statutory consultees 

the developer is required to publish another advert under The Electricity 

Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Amendment 


found. 


found.



Regulations 2008, advertising the fact that additional information has been 

received. This advert must be placed in one or more local newspapers and 

the Edinburgh Gazette for two consecutive weeks. MS-LOT can provide the 

applicant with a template. 

If any addendums are received they must be advertised for two successive 

weeks in the Edinburgh Gazette and one or more local newspapers. 

The applicant must provide MS-LOT with copies of all adverts published. 

These may be originals or scanned copies which must show the name and 

date of the publication. MS-LOT will forward all responses from the 

consultees to the applicant and inform the applicant of any agreed extensions. 

MS-LOT will send the statutory consultee responses to the relevant PA and 

any other responses requested. 

When applying for a ML only, the timeframe for public response to 

advertisements is 42 days with an ES and 28 days without. 

There are common errors made involving adverts which result in the publicity 

notice having to be re-advertised. Applicants can reduce the risk of such an 

occurrence by adhering to the following points: 

• Draft advert to be submitted to MS-LOT two weeks prior to publication 

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

published. 

• Ensure correct dates on advert. 

• Documents listed in the advert must be made available at the time 

stated at the appropriate locations. 

• The chosen locations must be as close as possible to communities 

likely to be affected by the development. 

• When calculating representation deadline factor in local or national 

Public Holidays. 

4.7 Determination 

For all devolved responsibilities such as Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 licences, 

Section 36 of The Electricity Act 1989 consents and Regulation 44(2)(e) of the 

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 European Protected 

Species (EPS) licences, MS-LOT will issue consents/licences on behalf of 

Scottish Ministers, with appropriate conditions, for successful applications. 

For non-devolved issues such as decommissioning and navigation risk 

assessment, MS-LOT will liaise, as appropriate, with appropriate regulatory 

bodies. 

4.7.1 Timescales 


found. 


found.



MS is working closely with industry to improve the quality of applications 

which will reduce the risk of delays in the processing and determination of 

licences. 

If there are no objections or complex issues ML applications can be dealt with 

in between eight and 12 weeks following receipt of all information, payment 

and the relevant notices have been placed (see below) if there are no 

objections or complex issues. MS-LOT will ensure, where possible, that s36 

applications are determined within nine months of receipt where there is no 

public inquiry. 

4.7.2 Objections 

For onshore s36 applications, if the relevant PA objects to the application then 

Scottish Ministers must instigate a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) to be held as per 

paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989. However if a s36 

application relates solely to the offshore element of a development, then a 

planning authority objection does not automatically trigger a PLI. Where a s36 

application contains an onshore element of the generating station, then a 

planning authority objection will trigger a PLI which will be confined to the 

onshore element. However, paragraph 7A(7) of Schedule 8 to the Electricity 

Act 1989 gives the Scottish Ministers powers of direction in relation to the 

scope of any inquiry. 

4.7.3 Refusal 

Should applications for consents/licences be refused MS-LOT will advise on 

the reasons, and on the best way forward should applicants wish to review 

and resubmit. 

4.8 Post Approval 

4.8.1 Conditions 

Following a positive determination, the applicant will be required to implement 

various measures depending on the consent/licence conditions set by MS- 

LOT and it should be expected that all licences and consents that are issued 

will be subject to conditions. Such conditions will be set out in the licence 

application. 

MS-LOT will give careful consideration before recommending the imposition 

of conditions to any consent. While the imposition of conditions can enable 

many development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been 

necessary to refuse consent, they are not a panacea and would not be 

imposed lightly. In particular conditions will not be used as a means of 


found. 


found.



shortcutting the consent process or employed on a purely precautionary 

basis. MS-LOT will always have regard to the six criteria by which conditions 

should be judged. These are set out in the onshore Planning Circular 4/1998 

i.e. conditions should be: 

• Necessary; 

• Relevant to Planning; 

• Relevant to the development to be permitted; 

• Enforceable; 

• Precise; and 

• Reasonable in all other respects. 

The wording of condition should be clear, concise and unambiguous and 

should incorporate the purpose of the condition. 

The applicant has a statutory duty to comply with the terms of the consent 

issued and MS-LOT has statutory powers to enforce compliance. Such 

conditions could be for survey and monitoring, specific design or construction 

methodology or any other aspect of the project. It will fall to the Scottish 

Ministers to enforce any conditions applied and once the consent has been 

granted, s36 conditions cannot be modified or amended in any way. 

The need for conditions should be discussed with MS-LOT and key 

stakeholders from the pre-screening stage. This will ensure that the applicant 

is aware of the conditions that are likely to be added to the consents/licences 

and can manage them accordingly. In many cases they should be written into 

the Monitoring and Environmental Management Plan (MEMP) which MS-LOT 

will expect to be submitted as part of the ES. Most consents and licences will 

have two sets of conditions. 

• Standard conditions which generally apply to all proposals (e.g. 

navigational lighting). 

• Specific conditions which relate to individual projects at its specified 

location. 

There are two important conditions for every project: 

• Production of Construction Statement. The Construction Statement 

must be produced 3 months prior to construction commencing. It will 

include a full breakdown of construction methods and controls and 

must be agreed with the statutory consultees and with MS-LOT; and 

• Production of a MEMP. The objective of the MEMP is to ensure that 

the environmental impacts predicted within the ES are not exceeded 

and where possible to establish if the impacts are actually less in 

reality. The MEMP will include separate monitoring of baseline, 

construction and operation phases of the development. The MEMP 


found. 


found.



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

consultees. 

Both of these documents will evolve to meet changing requirements but only 

with the agreement of the regulator. 

The conditions within the Construction Statement and MEMP can be 

applicable prior and during construction as well as through operation or 

decommissioning. Applicants should ensure that all project managers (and, if 

necessary, relevant subcontractors) are fully aware of all conditions and 

understand the need for compliance. MS-LOT will provide clarification of any 

conditions if they are not clear. Some conditions may include timing 

constraints on all or some of the works, so an early and concentrated 

assessment of consent conditions should be provided for in the time schedule 

of the works. 

Should there be changes required to the project or design following the 

granting of consents/licences, the applicant should liaise with MS-LOT, which 

will advise on the acceptability of the proposed changes. However, applicants 

should be aware that it may not be possible to change the terms of a consent 

or licence. A s36 Consent cannot be varied after issue. 

Applicants should also be aware of the potential need to renew 

consents/licences and any lease agreements, and should keep independent 

checks on their status. Adequate finances should be made for instigating any 

necessary applications for renewal. The cost of such renewals will be advised 

by MS-LOT and must be met in full by applicants. 

4.8.2 Review, Reassessment and Remedial Measures 

Review, reassessment and remedial measures may be required by condition 

on a project licence. Developers will be required to submit regular monitoring 

results in line with the MEMP and MS-LOT will monitor compliance with the 

licence conditions. 

Provision must be made at the decision-making stage to ensure that changes 

or corrective action can be implemented effectively and quickly if monitoring 

reveals problems. Procedures for the review of monitoring data and the 

review of mitigation measures after the project has commenced (and for as 

long as may be necessary) are therefore essential if monitoring is to have any 

real effect. 

Reviews may need to include consultation, which may be overseen by MS- 

LOT. Often this can be accommodated by an annual report (or similar) being 

submitted to MS-LOT and other relevant stakeholders. These reports should 

be considered at review meetings where relevant parties decide on the 

effectiveness of the mitigation and results of monitoring. 


found. 


found.



4.8.3 Appeal 

There is no statutory appeals mechanism under the Electricity Act (1989) and 

the Scottish Ministers decision is final unless successfully challenged in the 

Court of Session in Scotland. Judicial Review is the mechanism by which the 

Court of Session supervises the proper exercise of administrative functions, 

including how the Scottish Government carries out its statutory function to 

grant or refuse consents. 

The procedure is concerned with the improper exercise of power and is not a 

process to re-evaluate the merits of the development. Thus the court will not 

impose its own view on the development but in a successful judicial review, 

the decision is likely to be quashed and the Scottish Ministers will be required 

to remedy, what in most cases will essentially be a 'procedural' deficiency 

found by the Court, and then retake the decision. As long as it is taken in a 

lawful way, that decision could, of course, be the same decision, for example 

to grant or to refuse consent. Guidance on the Judicial Review process can 

be found at the Scottish Courts website and the Review may: 

• Grant or refuse any part of the petition, with or without conditions; 

• Make such order in relation to the decision in question as it thinks fit, 

whether or not such order was sought in the petition, including an order 

for reduction, declarator, suspension, interdict, implement, restitution, 

payment (whether of damages or otherwise) and any interim order; or 

• Make such order in relation to procedure as it thinks fit. The review 

shall be heard by a judge nominated by the Lord President, or, where 

such a judge is not available, any other judge of the court. 

Regulations made under Section 38 of the Marine (Scotland) Act (2010) and 

Section 73 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) provide that appeals 

against marine licensing decisions for both the Scottish inshore and offshore 

regions will be heard by a Sheriff. The Sheriff Court provides an independent 

and impartial forum for these appeals. Any applicant for a Marine Licence will 

be able to appeal against a decision not to grant a licence or against any of 

the conditions attached to a licence. The deadline for lodging any appeal is 

21 days after intimation of the decision in question and applicants will need to 

bear this in mind in deciding on the best way forward. Any formal appeal 

requires to be made in the Sheriff Court. 

4.8.4 EPS licences 

The likelihood of an activity resulting in injury or disturbance offence to an 

EPS will depend on the characteristics of the activity, of the environment and 

the species concerned, hence the need for a case-by-case approach when 

assessing the risk of it occurring. Pursuing mitigation measures, alternative 

methods, locations and/or times for carrying out proposed activities might in 


found. 


found.



some cases be sufficient to reduce the risk of committing an offence to 

negligible levels. This would then negate the requirement for a licence. 

If there is a risk of injury or disturbance of EPS that cannot be removed or 

sufficiently reduced by using alternatives and/or mitigation measures, then the 

activity may still be able to go ahead under a licence, although this should be 

a last resort. A licence should only be granted if the activity fits certain 

purposes, if there is no satisfactory alternative and where the activity will not 

be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species 

concerned at a Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) in their natural range. 

Any licence application (under Regulation 44 (2) of the Habitats Regulations 

and 49(6) of the OMR) will necessitate a detailed assessment of whether the 

licence should be granted. The licence assessment will comprise of three 

tests to ascertain: 

• Whether the activity fits one of the purposes specified in the 

Regulations; 

• Whether there are no satisfactory alternatives to the activity proposed 

(that would not incur the risk of offence); and 

• That the licensing of the activity will not be detrimental to the 

maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a FCS in 

their natural range. 

The licence assessment will be carried out by MS-LOT on behalf of Scottish 

Ministers, using the information provided by the developer and advice from 

nature conservation agencies (SNH or JNCC). Applicants should ensure that 

a Risk Assessment is included as part of their application. Marine EPS 

licences for marine renewable activities are issued by Scottish Ministers for 

both Scottish inshore and offshore waters under regulations 44(2) and 49(6) 

respectively. 

Figure 2 describes the EPS Licensing process which the licensing authority 

will undertake for areas both within and outside 12nm. 


found. 


found.



Licence tests 

Information 

provided by 

operator 

Advice from nature 

conservation agencies 

Is activity carried out 

for designated 

“certain purposes”? 

Yes 

Satisfactory 

No 

Detrimental to 

No 

alternative? 

population 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Not to go ahead 

as proposed 

Not possible 

Limitation of intensity, 

extent and duration 

to levels not 

detrimental to FCS? 

Possible 

Licence 

(with or without 

conditions) 

Figure 2. 

EPS Licensing Process 


found. 


found.



5. Legislative Context 

5.1 Supporting Environmental Information 

5.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment 

The EIA Directive 1985 is likely to be applicable to the vast majority of 

offshore renewable energy developments and an EIA, written up in the form of 

an Environmental Statement (ES), will be required in support of the 

applications. The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC as amended 97/11/EC, 

2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC) requires an EIA to be completed in support of 

an application for development of certain types of project, as listed in Annexes 

I and II of the Directive. Wave, tidal and wind energy developments are listed 

in Annex II of the Directive as “Industrial installations for the production of 

electricity, steam and hot water (unless included in Annex I)”. The Directive 

has been transposed in part into Scottish legislation through the Electricity 


amended), the Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007, the Environmental 

Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (as amended) and the 

Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as 

amended). 

The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC as amended) requires Annex II developments 

such as offshore renewables to be screened to determine if an EIA is required 

and, if so, the formal EIA that is to be produced, reported through the 

production of an ES. The outputs of the pre-screening meeting will provide 

much of the information necessary to screen the project but further 

information gathering or consultation with key consultees such as SNH may 

be necessary. If the screening concludes that a formal EIA is not required it is 

general good practice to undertake a non-statutory EIA to ensure any 

environmental effects are understood and documented. 

If an EIA is required a scoping exercise must be undertaken to determine the 

issues and impacts to be assessed and documented in the ES as well as the 

data required, and the assessment methodologies to be used. A Scoping 

Report should be submitted to MS-LOT. MS-LOT will respond by producing a 

formal Scoping Opinion following consultation with statutory and non-statutory 

consultees. The screening and scoping processes are described in detail in 

chapter Six. 

The applicant can proceed straight to the ES stage, but is advised against this 

because scoping is the key stage for focusing the assessment process and 

receiving regulator advice and support for the EIA approach. The screening 

and scoping exercises will also provide information on the other documents 

which may be required in support of the application, in addition to the ES. 

Depending upon the nature and location of the site, the applicant may also be 

required to submit further reports including an Information report on AA to 


found. 


found.



document the HRA process, Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA), Third 

Party Verifications (TPV) and others. 

Pre-application discussions with MS-LOT at the screening stage may indicate 

that a formal EIA is not required under the Directive 2 . In this case MS-LOT is 

still likely to require documentation of how the environment has been taken 

into account and potential effects managed, and will be in a position to advise 

on the scope of the supporting documentation. 

A flow diagram of the EIA process is provided as Figure 1 and more detail on 

the EIA requirements is provided in Chapter six. 

5.1.2 Habitats Regulations Appraisal 

In order to tackle the continuing deterioration of natural habitats and the 

threats posed to the wellbeing of certain plant and animal species, the 

European Community adopted Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the 

conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. This directive, 

known as the Habitats Directive, is implemented in Scottish inshore and 

offshore waters through the following legislation: 

• The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994; 

• The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) 

Regulations 2004; 

• The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) 


• The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2) 

(Scotland) Regulations 2007; 

• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which 

replace the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as 

amended) in England and Wales (and to a limited degree in Scotland - 

as regards reserved matters) and 

• The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 

2007 and associated amendments. 

The Regulations are collectively termed the Habitats Regulations for inshore 

waters and Offshore Marine Regulations (OMR) for offshore waters and give 

protection to designated species and habitats designated through 

implementation of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive (Directive 

2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 

conservation of wild birds). 

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are sites designated under the 

Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are designated under 

the Birds Directive; together they are commonly referred to as Natura sites 

2 

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


found. 


found.



and they are internationally important for threatened habitats and species. 

Natura is a network of areas designated to conserve natural habitats that are 

in danger of disappearance in their natural range, have a small natural range, 

or present outstanding examples of typical characteristics of the 

biogeographic region and species that are rare, endangered, vulnerable or 

endemic within the European Community. 

MS must satisfy itself that the requirements of the Birds and Habitat Directives 

have been met before issuing Marine Licence and s36 consent. 

Regulation 48 of the Habitat Regulations 1994 and 2007 and Regulation 21 of 

the OMR 2010 state that if a plan or project is in, or adjacent to, a Natura site, 

or, regardless of location, wherever the development has potential to affect 

the qualifying features of a Natura site, then the proposal must undergo a 

HRA. Where the possibility of a likely significant effect (LSE) on these sites 

cannot be excluded, either alone or in combination with other plans or 

projects, an AA should be undertaken in view of the site’s conservation 

objectives by the competent authority in compliance with the Council Directive 

92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (the EC Habitats Directive). 

In Scotland it is also a matter of policy as set out in the February 2010 

Scottish Planning Policy document (SG 2010) that Ramsar sites (designated 

under the Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 

1971)) are also Natura sites and protected under the same statutory regimes. 

Therefore, where the interests of Ramsar sites correspond with those of 

overlapping SACs and SPAs there is no need to consider them separately. 

SPAs and Ramsar sites generally have the same geographic boundaries but 

may have slightly different features of interest. 

In recognition of this, sites protected either by law under the Habitats 

Regulations/OMR, or by Government policy, are referred to throughout the 

HRA process as European sites. In addition, it is a matter of law that 

candidate SACs (cSACs), potential SPAs (pSPA) and Sites of Community 

Importance (SCI) are also considered in this process. 

HRA is considered a separate requirement from EIA, due to the specific 

assessment requirements for projects that may affect European sites although 

both often need to be informed by the same information. It is also necessary 

for projects which do not require EIA to undergo HRA if a risk of likely 

significant effect (LSE) is identified. In these cases full presentation of HRA 

assessment and evidence will be required outwith the EIA process. 

A flow diagram of the HRA process is provided within Figure 1 and the 

decision making process is illustrated in Figure 3 with more guidance on 

undertaking the HRA provided in chapter six. 


found. 


found.



Consideration of Projects Affecting European Sites 

Is the proposal directly connected with or necessary to 

site management for nature conservation? 

Yes 

No 

Is the proposal likely to have a significant effect on the 

internationally important interest features of the site, alone or 

in combination with other plans and projects? 

No 

Yes 

Assess the implications of the effects of the proposal for the 

site’s conservation objectives, consult MS-LOT and, 

if appropriate, the public 

Can it be ascertained that the proposal will not adversely affect 

the integrity of the site? 

Yes 

Permission may be granted 

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

Would compliance with conditions or other restrictions, such as 

planning obligations, enable it to be ascertained that the proposal 

would not adversely affect the integrity of the site? 

Yes 

Permission may be granted subject to the conditions 

or obligation 

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

Are there alternative solutions that would have a lesser effect, 

or avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the site? 

Yes 

No 

Are there imperative reasons of overriding public interest, 

which could be of a social or economic nature, 

sufficient to override the harm to the site? 

No 

Yes 

If minded to grant permission or undertake the 

project, competent authority must notify the 

Scottish Ministers and must wait 21 days 

Permission must 

not be granted 

Permission may be granted subject to 

the Scottish Ministers securing 

that any necessary compensatory 

measures are taken to ensure 

the overall coherence of the 

Natura is protected 

Flow diagram adapted from original by: 

Tyldesley, D. 2011 Assessing projects under the Habitats Directive: Guidance for competent authorities. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor. 

Figure 3. 


found. 

Overview of HRA Process 


found.



5.2 Other Licences and Approvals 

There are a number of other consents and approvals which may be required 

in support of an offshore renewable energy project where MS is not the 

competent authority or regulator. A brief summary of these are provided 

below but contact with the relevant authority will be necessary at the EIA 

scoping stage. 

5.2.1 Seabed Lease 

In Scotland, the foreshore and seabed out to a distance of 12nm are 

presumed to belong to The Crown, with management of this resource being 

the responsibility of the Crown Estate Commissioners. As proprietor, The 

Crown may grant titles or leases of parts of the foreshore and seabed out to a 

distance of 12nm. In addition, the Energy Act (2004) includes provisions for 

the Crown to grant leases in the REZ on the UK’s continental shelf out to 200 

nm. Applicants therefore need to obtain a lease from the Crown Estate 

Commissioners (or the holder of the rights) for the use of all sea areas in 

inshore waters (up to 12nm) or out to 200 nm in the REZ. 

Although The Crown Estate Commissioners own the vast majority of the 

seabed there may be other landowners from which permission will be 

required, most likely in inshore waters and estuaries. It is the sole 

responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all necessary leases are 

acquired, and any conditions satisfied, by the planned deployment date. MS- 

LOT is responsible for the administration and issuing of the necessary 

licences required for deployment, and does not enter into negotiations 

between applicants and CEC (or other lessor). 

5.2.2 Planning Permission 

The current legislation requires consent from the PA under The Town and 

Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended by the Planning 

(Scotland) Act 2006) for all associated land-based developments. 

The applicant should make early contact with the appropriate PA regarding 

the proposed development, any problems that may be associated with it and 

any environmental information they are likely to need to provide. Applicants 

should also be aware that under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) 

Act 1997, as amended, there are additional pre-application consultation 

requirements between the applicants and local communities for any 

development classified as “major”. “Major” development would include 

development where the area of the site is or exceeds 2ha, or a building where 

the gross floorspace exceeds 10,000m². 


found. 


found.



It is likely that future legislation will transfer powers to Scottish Ministers to 

grant deemed planning permission, via the s36 consent, for any terrestrial 

components of an offshore renewable electricity generating station. 

5.2.3 Local Acts and Local Revision Orders 

Local Acts and Orders can apply if the proposed project is within a designated 

area, e.g., a Statutory Harbour Authority area. These areas are under the 

control of Local Planning Authorities or Harbour Authorities and require Local 

Development Consents or Work Orders to be granted. Where applications 

relate to such areas, applicants will be notified by MS-LOT at an early stage 

and these approvals will be required in addition to s36 consent and/or a ML. 

In such cases the power to permit the work rests with the relevant Local 

Authority or Harbour Authority. Hence, whilst MS-LOT can provide advice, it 

is the responsibility of the applicant to pursue the issuing of such permits or 

licences. Applicants should ensure that early consultation is undertaken with 

the relevant authorities and that the application is made in good time. 

Examples of such Acts and Orders in Scotland include: the Orkney County 

Council Act 1974 for harbour works and the Zetland County Council Act 1974 

permitting the Harbour Authority to licence dredging, construction and marine 

works within their defined harbour authority area. MS-LOT will inform 

applicants of other relevant Acts as appropriate for the proposed area of 

development. 

5.2.4 Navigational Safety and Aids to Navigation 

The UK Government has a responsibility to ensure navigational safety 

measures are implemented in order to honour its commitments under Article 

60(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 

relating to provisions for ‘Artificial islands, installations and structures in the 

exclusive economic zone’. This is addressed in a number of specific Acts. 

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is responsible under 

Section 95 of the Energy Act 2004 for considering applications for safety 

zones for offshore renewable energy projects in English, Welsh and Scottish 

waters and in the Renewable Energy Zone, except for those with a generating 

capacity of 100MW or less in English and Welsh waters which are dealt with 

by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). 

The Energy Act 2004 (and subsequent commencement orders, the latest 

issued in 2010) establishes a regulatory regime for UK waters, with extension 

to the UK’s REZ. Section 99 of the Act deals specifically with navigation and 

in combination with Section 36b ‘duties in relation to navigation’ of the 

Electricity Act (1989), stipulates that a consent cannot be granted for an 

offshore renewable energy installation (OREI) which is likely to interfere with 

the use of ‘recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation’. This 


found. 


found.



term is married at 36b (7) to Article 60(7) of the United Nations Convention on 

the Law of the Sea, 36b(2) of the Electricity Act consolidates the provisions of 

Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (now superseded by the Marine 

and Coastal Access Act 2009) (MCA, 2008). Within UK water, the Maritime 

and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is a statutory consultee on all developments. 

If marks or lights are required in respect of marine developments, a projectspecific 

assessment must be made with Statutory Sanction applied for from 

the General Lighthouse Authority, which in Scottish Waters is the Northern 

Lighthouse Board (NLB). This provides compliance with the Government’s 

commitment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

(SOLAS) 1974, and as directed by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. 

NLB are also responsible for the inspection and audit of all Aids to Navigation 

within their area of jurisdiction, including Local Lighthouse Authority (LLA), 

offshore installations and aquaculture aids. Once Aids to Navigation are 

established as part of the design and build of marine developments, any 

alteration or removal within Scottish Waters requires the prior Statutory 

Sanction of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses. 

5.2.5 Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR) 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was transposed into Scottish law in 

2003 by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. 

The Act sets out the role of Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Environment 

Protection Agency (SEPA) in relation to achieving the overall aims of the 

WFD. In order to deliver its WFD obligations, the Scottish Government has 

introduced controls over activities likely to have an adverse impact on the 

water environment. This is embodied within the Water Environment 

(Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, referred to as the 

Controlled Activity Regulations (CAR), which came fully into force on 01 April 

2006. CAR enables SEPA to control activities which may have an impact on 

the water environment; and is one of the key tools enabling the Scottish 

Government to achieve objectives identified within the WFD. The key aspects 

of the WFD of relevance to offshore renewables (for engineering and dredging 

works) are water quality, ecology and morphology. 

SEPA is the regulatory authority but MS-LOT will provide initial guidance. 

Applicants are strongly advised to consult with SEPA to identify if a CAR 

licence is necessary, and to determine the extent of the information required 

by SEPA to fully assess any licence application. CAR legislation is intended 

to control impacts on the water environment, including mitigating the effects 

on other water users. 


found. 


found.



5.2.6 Statutory Decommissioning Scheme 

Sections 105 to 114 of the Energy Act 2004 introduced a statutory 

decommissioning scheme for offshore renewable energy installations in 

English, Welsh and Scottish territorial waters and in the REZ. Under the 

statutory scheme, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change may 

require those persons with an interest in such installations to produce a fully 

costed Decommissioning Programme (DP) detailing how they intend to 

remove the installation when it comes to the end of its useful life and how the 

costs of doing so will be funded. Unlike development consents/licences which 

have been devolved, responsibility for decommissioning remains with the UK 

Government and is administered by the Department for Energy and Climate 

Change (DECC) and must be agreed by the Secretary of State (SoS). Liaison 

with DECC should be via MS-LOT in the first instance and guidance is 

available on the DECC website. Applicants should bear in mind that all 

information presented in the DP will be made publicly available. If applicants 

feel that the financial section of the programme is likely to be of high 

commercial sensitivity, they should discuss this issue directly with DECC. 

DECC is keen to assist developers and offer informal, as well as formal, 

feedback on the proposed decommissioning programmes. Developers should 

ensure that they have fully read and followed the DECC Guidelines (DECC, 

2011) for decommissioning before approaching them to discuss their 

proposals in greater detail. 

5.3 Legislative and Policy Compliance 

Applicants will need to show compliance with a wide variety of other plans, 

strategies and legislation, from international to local level as part of the 

application process which are too numerous to detail here. Examples of 

relevant legislation are discussed below. 

Through the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Marine and Coastal Access 

Act 2009 the UK Government is committed to establishing a network of 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The network will contribute to the creation of 

an ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs in the North East 

Atlantic. The network of MPAs is currently being developed and Scottish 

Ministers will be required to report to Parliament on MPAs and their 

contribution to the MPA network on a six yearly basis beginning in 2012. MS- 

LOT will advise on how MPAs should be included in the assessments as the 

process proceeds. 

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/EC) was 

transposed into Scottish law in 2010 through the Marine (Scotland) Act. The 

objective of the MSFD is to “promote the integration of environmental 

considerations into all relevant policy areas and deliver the environmental 

pillar of the future maritime policy for the European Union”. The Directive 


found. 


found.



follows a similar approach to the WFD establishing a framework within which 

Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain 

good environmental status in the marine environment by 2020”. To do this 

Member States have to make an initial assessment of their marine waters, 

establish environmental targets and associated indicators to guide progress to 

good environmental status along with a co-ordinated monitoring programme 

and identify and deliver a programme of measures. The National Marine 

Policy Statement and Marine Plans will be the delivery mechanism for the 

MSFD in Scotland and MS-LOT is responsible for ensuring that applications 

allow for compliance with the Directive. 

Other relevant legislation includes: 

• The Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the 

North-East Atlantic (OSPAR); 

• Rio Convention on Biological Diversity 1992; 

• Bonn Convention on migratory species (implemented through the Bern 

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural 

Habitats 1979) 

• Priority Substances Directive (2008/105/EC); 

• Revised Shellfish Waters Directive (2006/113/EC) (to be repealed); 

• Revised Bathing Waters Directive (2006/7/EC); 

• Dangerous Substances Directive 1976 (76/464/EEC) (to be repealed); 

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; 

• Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; 

• Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003; 

• Environment Act 1995; 

• Control of Pollution Act 1974; 

• Water Environment (Register of Protected Areas) (Scotland) 


• Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006. 

• The Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 and its enabling legislation the 

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act; 

• The Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 outlining statutory rights to most 

land and inland waters; 

• Energy Act 2004 and subsequent commencement orders, the latest 

issued in 2010; 

• Merchant Shipping Act 1995; 

• The Protection of Wrecks Act (PWA) 1973; 

• Protection of Military Remains Act (PMRA) 1986; 

• CAP 670 Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements, CAA Regulation 

Group June 2003; 

• CAP 168 Licensing of Aerodrome, CAA Safety Regulations Groups 

May 2006; and 

• CAA 738 Safeguarding of Aerodromes 2006. 


found. 


found.



Applicants also need to develop their schemes within the national and 

regional planning context including: 

• The relevant offshore renewable strategies and associated Strategic 

Environmental Assessments (SEA) and plan level HRA (Marine 

Scotland); 

• Regional Locational Guidance (Marine Scotland); 

• Marine Spatial Plans (being developed by Marine Scotland); 

• the Scottish Government’s National Planning Framework and 

associated Scottish Planning Policy; and 

• Structure and local Development Plans (local planning authorities). 

The strategic plans and strategies will all have supporting Strategic 

Environmental Assessment (SEA) and HRA, the outcomes of which will form 

an important consideration in project specific applications. The following 

strategic guidance is also important: 

• PAN 3 Community Engagement; 

• PAN 42: Archaeology–Planning Process and Scheduled Monument 

Procedures; 

• PAN 45: 2002 Renewable Energy Technologies; 

• PAN 50: Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral 

Workings; 

• PAN 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation; 

• PAN 56: Planning and Noise; 

• PAN 58: Environmental Impact Assessment; 

• PAN 60: Planning for Natural Heritage; 

• PAN 62: Radio Telecommunications; 

• PAN 68: Design Statements 

• PAN 69: Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding; 

• PAN 75: Planning for Transport; 

• PAN 79: Water and Drainage; and 

• Marine Guidance Note 371 (M). 

Applicants should bear in mind that there may be requests made to regulatory 

bodies, from members of the public, for access to information under the 

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 or Freedom of Information Act 

2000. It is the applicant’s responsibility to clearly mark all commercially 

confidential documentation as such, and to seek advice from MS-LOT on any 

information they feel should be excluded from public scrutiny on the grounds 

of risk to Intellectual Property. However, applicants should be aware that 

regulators are unlikely to be in a position to withhold documentation from 

public scrutiny, particularly if the proposal is subject to formal EIA. 


found. 


found.



6. EIA and HRA 

6.1 Introduction 

An EIA is likely to be applicable to all offshore renewable energy 

developments as outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 

85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC. Annex II of the Directive 

includes offshore renewables within “industrial installations for the production 

of electricity, steam and hot water (unless included in Annex I)”. The Directive 

has been transposed in part into Scottish legislation through the Electricity 


amended) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 

1999 (as amended). 

Offshore renewable energy projects are likely to fall within Annex II. Annex II 

projects will require EIA where any part of the development is likely to be 

carried out in a sensitive area. 

The term EIA describes a procedure that must be followed for certain types of 

project before they can be given development consent as outlined in the EIA 

Directive and associated regulations. The procedure is a means of drawing 

together, in a systematic way, an assessment of a project's significant 

environmental impacts. The assessment includes consideration of direct and 

indirect effects during construction, operation (and maintenance) and 

decommissioning and must also consider cumulative effects from other 

proposed developments. This helps ensure that the likely significant 

environmental effects are clearly documented, the scope for reducing 

negative effects are properly understood by the public and regulatory bodies 

(in this case, MS-LOT) and environmental and other benefits are documented 

before a decision on the outcome of the application is made. 

The HRA process relates specifically to the consideration of features 

protected for their importance as European protected habitats or species 

under the Habitats and Birds Directives and associated Regulations. The 

process considers the potential effects of the development on internationally 

important habitats and/or species for which the sites are designated. The 

assessment includes consideration of direct and indirect effects on these 

interests and must also consider cumulative and in-combination effects 3 from 

other proposed plans or projects. A summary of the EIA process is illustrated 

in Figure 1. 

3 

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

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

the same receptors. 


found. 


found.



HRA is considered a separate consenting requirement from EIA, due to the 

specific consenting requirements for projects that may affect European sites. 

It is also necessary for projects which do not require EIA, to undergo HRA, if a 

risk is identified and in these cases full presentation of assessment and 

evidence will be required outside of a formal EIA process. 

If the HRA screening process concludes that the potential for likely significant 

effect cannot be excluded then an AA must be undertaken. The AA must 

ascertain whether the proposed project will or will not adversely affect the 

integrity of the site(s). In cases where there is doubt about the presence or 

absence of adverse effects, the proposal may not proceed unless there are no 

alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of over-riding public 

interest (IROPI). The HRA process can be summarised as three steps as 

illustrated in Figure 1 with the decision-making process illustrated in Figure 3, 

these are: 

• Step 1: Is the proposal directly connected with or necessary for site 

management for nature conservation? 

• Step 2: Is the proposal likely to have a significant effect on the site? 

• Step 3: Can it be ascertained that the proposal will not adversely affect 

the integrity of the site (AA)? 

This Chapter provides guidance on the key steps for undertaking EIA and 

HRA which are likely to be required in support of marine applications for 

offshore renewables in Scottish inshore and offshore waters. 

Although the stages of EIA and HRA are complementary and can be shared, 

they are two separate processes with different legislative requirements as 

outlined in Chapter five. For example, it is possible (but unlikely) that HRA 

may be required for some projects that do not require EIA, and vice versa. 

The terms ‘significant’, ‘compensation’ and ‘mitigation’ have different 

definitions/implications under the EIA and HRA legislation and these need to 

be clearly understood at the outset. 

Many offshore renewable energy projects will have both marine and landbased 

effects and be subject to marine and terrestrial consenting 

requirements. In these cases it is important that the impacts of the project as 

a whole are understood and it is advised that a single EIA covering the 

terrestrial and marine based effects is produced. This will also aid 

consultation and ensure that effects at the land/sea interface are effectively 

documented. 

The objective of the Manual is to provide an initial reference point to support 

the consenting process for offshore renewable energy projects. There is an 

abundance of guidance on the legislative background to EIA and details on 

specific topic methodologies which this Manual does not seek to reproduce. 


found. 


found.



For example, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has issued comprehensive 

guidance on EIA (SNH, 2009, (3 rd Edition)) which has been taken into account 

in this Manual. The Countryside Council for Wales has also recently published 

detailed guidance for competent authorities for assessing projects under the 

Habitats Directive which includes the latest European Marine Sites and 

associated revisions to the relevant Habitats Regulations (authored by D 

Tyldesley and Associates 2011). 

The Scottish Government has also produced specific guidance in support of 

s36 and s37 consents (Guidance on the Electricity (EIA) (Scotland) 

Amendment Regulations 2008). 

The Manual provides a reference point for applicants and regulators alike to 

understand what is required to achieve a thorough and robust approach to 

EIA and HRA. In particular it is hoped that this will ensure consistent and high 

quality documents are produced in support of the applications for marine 

consents. 

Important information sources and references for further reading are provided 

in Appendix B. 

6.1.1 Structure 

The structure of this Chapter reflects the key stages of the EIA and HRA 

processes, namely: 

1. EIA Screening and HRA Step 1; 

2. EIA Scoping and HRA Step 2; 

3. EIA Impact Assessment and HRA Step 3; and 

4. Documentation 

The environmental assessment section has been divided to provide 

information on the key aspects of the EIA process, namely: 

• Project description 

• Baseline characterisation; 

• Assessment of alternatives; 

• Specialist studies; 

• Impact assessment; 

• Identification and assessment of mitigation measures; 

• Cumulative effects; and 

• Monitoring and environmental management. 

Whilst the four stages will follow consecutively in the main, in practice the 

process rarely proceeds in a simple linear fashion and should follow an 

iterative approach. For example, gathering baseline data should begin at the 

screening and scoping stages in order to identify potential data gaps and 


found. 


found.



design any necessary surveys which will need to be completed prior to the 

impact assessment stage. Design of mitigation and monitoring requirements 

should also be iterative through the assessment process. 

This part of the Manual is structured to follow the chronological progression of 

the EIA process from pre-application consultation and screening to the final 

decision by MS-LOT and the actions thereafter. The roles of both applicants 

and MS-LOT are explained as necessary within these sections drawing 

attention to statutory requirements and elements of good EIA and HRA 

practice. 

For the majority of projects which require EIA, there is clear overlap between 

the EIA and HRA. For example, baseline data gathered for specific receptors, 

and the application of subsequent impact assessment tools (e.g. collision risk 

modelling) will be used to support conclusions on HRA and EIA. It is 

therefore appropriate for the developer to use, incorporate and present the 

information within the EIA’s Environmental Statement (ES) as well as HRA 

reporting. Step 3 of the HRA should be reported as ‘Information for 

Appropriate Assessment (AA)’ where the analysis, results and evidencebased 

justification is summarised and presented strictly in regard to the 

predicted impacts of the project and how they relate to the Conservation 

Objectives of the relevant designated site(s). More details on reporting the 

HRA is provided in section 6.5 and 7.2. 

The ES and Information for AA are integral documents to the licence 

applications and should be submitted as part of the application package of 

documents. 

6.2 Screening 

6.2.1 EIA Screening 

Screening, simply defined, is the process by which a project is reviewed to 

determine if a statutory EIA is required for a specific project or development 

under the EIA Directive and associated Regulations. It will determine if the 

project features within Annex I or Annex II of the European Council (EC) 

Directive on EIA (85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC). Annex I of this 

Directive provides a list of projects for which an EIA is mandatory and a 

statutory ES is required. Projects listed under Annex II of the EC Directive 

97/11/EC may require an EIA if it is concluded that the project will exceed 

certain limits or thresholds. Offshore renewable energy projects are likely to 

fall within Annex II. Annex (or Schedule) II 4 projects will require EIA where 

any part of the development is likely to be carried out in a sensitive area. 

4 

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

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

II developments under the EIA Regulations. 


found. 


found.



In considering a new project, prospective applicants must participate in prescreening 

consultation, discussing their proposals with MS-LOT as soon as 

possible. Screening requires the applicant to present a document to MS-LOT 

for comment. It is a statutory requirement that the regulator provides a 

screening response in a time that is reasonably practicable. In requesting a 

screening opinion the applicant should provide MS-LOT with key information 

on the proposed project within a screening document. The screening 

document should include: 

• Project background/context (including alternatives); 

• Details of device design and operation; 

• Mooring/foundation method or options; 

• Size of the intended project; 

• Area or areas under consideration for development and the wider 

development (offshore and onshore requirements); 

• Any relevant maps, charts or site drawings; and 

• An idea of timescale and duration of the development. 

• A summary of all discussions already held with local stakeholders 

and/or CEC; 

• Any specific queries; 

• Early identification of significant constraints that may potentially prevent 

developments; and 

• A statement of any navigational issues envisaged. 

Following a decision, MS-LOT will provide the applicant with a Screening 

Opinion in writing. This will include: 

• Whether or not a statutory EIA is required and guidance on HRA 

requirements (see below); 

• Information on specific sensitivities at the planned site/s; 

• Details of available datasets and relevant research/information; and 

• An indication of the type and possibly the extent of environmental data 

collation/collection likely to be required. 

In the vast majority of cases a statutory EIA is required and the applicant 

progresses to EIA scoping. If a statutory EIA is not required, the applicant will 

be advised if or what information/studies will be required to support consent 

applications. If the applicant does not agree with the screening opinion 

provided, i.e., the requirement for a statutory EIA, the matter would generally 

be referred back to MS with arbitration through the Scottish Government if 

necessary. 


found. 


found.



The benefits of pre-screening consultation to the applicant: 


• Early access to environmental data, e.g., seabed data held by Marine 

Scotland; 

• Consideration of the compatibility of the proposal with the existing 

environment; 

• Identification of significant environmental issues where known; 

• Encouraging applicants to establish a network of contacts and develop 

relationships with key organisations; and 

• Applicants will be given an indication of acceptable methodologies and 

data presentation. 

6.2.2 HRA Step 1 

The first step of the HRA process is undertaken by MS-LOT using information 

supplied by the applicant. It is highly unlikely that offshore renewable energy 

developments would be ‘directly connected or necessary for site management 

for nature conservation’ and MS-LOT will confirm that the project should be 

taken through to Step Two. This second step determines if a proposal is 

capable of affecting a European site and therefore if an AA is required (Step 

Three). 

Step two is discussed in detail below as it is a fundamental component of 

environmental scoping. However, MS-LOT will undertake a preliminary 

assessment of LSE and advise on the nature and scope of step two in 

consultation with SNH and/or JNCC at this screening stage. The applicant 

should therefore provide details of the proposed site in relation to European 

sites within the screening information. 

6.3 Scoping 

6.3.1 EIA Scoping 

Scoping is an important stage within the EIA process as it provides the first 

identification and likely significance of the environmental effects and the 

information needed to enable their assessment. It should also outline the 

data collection and assessment methodologies to be used in the EIA. It 

identifies what actions need to be taken to compile the required information 

and the level of detail that is likely to be needed. In many cases an applicant 

will combine the screening and scoping elements together to produce a single 

screening and scoping document. 


found. 


found.



In conducting scoping there are four basic questions to be covered: 


• What potential effects might the project have on the environment? 

• Which of these potential effects are likely to be significant and therefore 

need particular attention during the EIA? 

• What level of data/evidence is needed to answer the consenting questions 

with confidence? and 

• What alternatives and mitigating strategies ought to be considered when 

outlining proposals for the project? 

In order to conduct a scoping exercise the applicant is strongly advised to 

write to MS-LOT requesting a Scoping Opinion to determine the scope and 

content of the EIA. This is defined as a ‘formal scoping opinion’. However, in 

order to request this, applicants must provide information on the proposed 

project to MS-LOT. 

The scoping report should provide an initial assessment of potential impacts 

and, equally importantly, identify any receptors or issues which are not likely 

to result in a significant environmental effect and therefore should be scoped 

out of the EIA. There are many approaches to scoping (and subsequent 

assessment of impacts) and these include Environmental Issues Identification 

(ENVID) or qualitative judgements using source-pathway-receptor analysis. 

These approaches identify potential issues, the risk and the likely impact on 

the receptors (e.g. wildlife, recreation, landscape, navigation etc). The 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) in its Coastal 

Guidelines provides useful advice on scoping marine issues (IEEM, 2010). 

Socio-economic issues are becoming more important and subject to greater 

attention by MS-LOT and other regulators such as local planning authorities. 

Potential socio-economic aspects should therefore be addressed in the EIA 

Scoping Report and subsequent ES. MS-LOT will advise on the detail of the 

socio-economic assessment it will expect to see in the ES as part of the 

Scoping Opinion. 

A plan must then be devised for the EIA studies, which will include details of 

the methods to be used and the resources required. Depending upon the 

size, location and type of offshore renewable development there are likely to 

be environmental issues which require specific investigations. These could 

include the detailed assessment of marine hydrodynamics and sediments 

around windfarm piles (potentially including numerical modelling), specific 

landscape and seascape assessments for windfarm turbines, underwater 

noise and vibration assessments for construction and operation, and 

Navigation Risk Assessments (NRA) for the construction and operation of 

offshore renewable developments. 


found. 


found.



The Scoping Report is expected to include: 

• Details of the proposed development; 

• Suggested alternatives to the development; 

• Identification of potentially significant environmental impacts; 

• Identification of issues which should be scoped out of the assessment; 

• Known data gaps; 

• Details of the baseline surveys and monitoring being proposed 

(including survey methodologies); 

• Description of the EIA methodology including approaches and specific 

studies to the assessment of specific effects; 

• Suggested structure, content and length of the ES; and 

• Proposed Consultation Strategy, including a proposed list of 

consultees. 

MS-LOT has a statutory duty on the behalf of Scottish Ministers to provide a 

scoping opinion three weeks after the last consultee response, unless 

otherwise agreed in writing with the applicant. Member States also have an 

obligation under the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a 

Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991) (which came into effect in 1997) to 

consult each other should a major project have a likely significant adverse 

environmental impact across borders. The opinion provided will draw upon 

responses from statutory and non-statutory consultees and MS-LOT will 

consult with relevant transboundary authorities if necessary. 

MS-LOT will collate responses on the scoping report and return this to the 

applicant in the form of a Scoping Opinion. 

Applicants may wish to undertake a wider informal scoping exercise to 

establish good communication channels with non statutory consultees at an 

early stage in the project. This will help identify potential impacts of the 

project and potential objections which if dealt with could reduce the potential 

for project delays. Opening such communication channels will also help the 

applicant to draw upon specialised and local knowledge relevant to issues 

identified with the proposed project. During the development of the 

stakeholder consultation strategy applicants should liaise with MS-LOT which 

will advise on the list of consultees appropriate for a specific project and 

location. 


The activity of scoping should not end with the delivery of a scoping report 

and subsequent opinion. New issues will emerge during the course of the EIA 

and it is necessary to keep the EIA scope under review as studies progress. 

Addressing such issues before application submission will reduce delays 

following submission of the ES. 


found. 


found.



The process is iterative and following the Scoping Opinion it is likely that there 

will be at least one round of consultation to agree the baseline survey 

requirements and methodologies for those potential impacts identified. 

6.3.2 HRA Step 2 

The second step of the HRA process should be undertaken and documented 

within the Scoping Report. SNH provide useful guidance on ‘how to consider 

proposals affecting SACs and SPAs in Scotland (SNH, 2010) which is the 

basis for the following guidance. The objective of Step Two is to determine 

whether LSE can be ruled out. 

The applicant should consider whether there are connections between the 

project/proposal and any of the qualifying interests (source - pathway - 

receptor) for which the sites are designated (including indirect effects). If there 

are none, or it is obvious that there are no effects on the qualifying interests 

despite a connection, then no likely significant effect can be concluded. The 

applicant should consider all possible linkages. For example, is the proposed 

site on a pathway to an estuarine/freshwater SAC for migratory fish? Is the 

site within foraging ranges of protected species or, on a flightline associated 

with an SPA? This assessment is quite straight forward but is an important 

step and must be fully justified, even if the conclusion is one of no likely 

significant effect. 

If there is a risk of LSE then an AA is required, alone and in-combination with 

other plans and projects. If there is any uncertainty associated with this step, 

the project should be subject to AA (Step Three). 

It should be noted that a ‘significant impact’ under the EIA Regulations implies 

an impact of a certain magnitude and/or one that exceeds a certain threshold 

or meets certain criteria. However, when associated with the HRA process, 

LSE refers to any potential connectivity or interaction with a European site(s) 

with the potential to affect the qualifying interest(s) of the site(s) in terms of 

their conservation objectives. 

At this step MS-LOT will consult with the relevant consultees, particularly if 

there is conflicting advice, to determine what information will be required from 

the applicant, including suggested methods of data collection and the level of 

detail that will be required in the assessment. It is likely that much of the 

baseline data gathered for EIA will be applicable for HRA, although more 

information or a higher level of detail is likely to be required to support an AA. 

There is a requirement to ascertain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that 

the project will not adversely affect site integrity. As with EIA, applicants 

should be aware of timescales for obtaining the necessary data. 


found. 


found.



The information gathered through the Step Two assessment, and contained in 

the scoping report, will allow Marine Scotland (the Competent Authority) to 

establish a good understanding of: 

• The designated sites that will potentially be affected, the Conservation 

Objectives, and the qualifying features for which they have been 

designated, e.g., threatened species of birds, seabed habitats, marine 

mammals, Atlantic salmon, etc.; 

• The underlying trends which should be outlined in baseline data 

supplied by the applicant; 

• A good understanding of the proposed development and the preferred 

methods by which the project will be achieved; and 

• Other plans and projects which could affect the integrity of the site. 

Plan level HRAs will provide a lot of useful information with respect to both the 

sites for consideration and LSE as will the relevant strategic environmental 

assessments (SEA). Key documents include the report to Inform Appropriate 

Assessment for the Pentland Firth Strategic Area (PFSA) Leasing Round 

(ABPmer, 2010), the HRA of the Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish 

Territorial Waters (ABPmer, 2011a), the HRA of National Infrastructure 

Renewables Plan (N-RIP) (ABPmer, 2011b), and the HRA of the Plan for 

Wave and Tidal Energy in Scottish Waters (ABPmer, 2012). 

Once the above have been considered, MS-LOT, and its advisors, will be in a 

position to determine if the proposed development has the potential to affect 

any European sites. This will be communicated to the applicant through the 

scoping opinion and/or ongoing informal consultation during the EIA process. 

If it is considered there is no potential for LSE on European site(s) this will be 

documented by the Competent Authority (MS-LOT) and no further 

assessment will be required under the Habitats Regulations or OMR. 

If the assessment concludes that the potential for LSE cannot be excluded, 

then an AA is required and the process requires consideration as to whether 

the proposed project could adversely affect the integrity of the European 

site(s) in terms of the relevant conservation objectives. 


Between EIA and HRA Scoping it is routine for there to be at least one round 

of consultation with MS-LOT to agree survey requirements and assessment 

methodologies. 


found. 


found.



6.4 Impact Assessment 

This section refers specifically to the assessment of potentially significant 

marine environmental impacts and is the most resource intensive stage of the 

assessment. The screening and scoping exercises will have identified any 

data gaps and the methodologies to be used in the impact assessment for the 

different topic areas. The EIA, documented through the ES, should 

demonstrate that all potentially significant impacts have been assessed, any 

limitations (data, assessment process etc.) have been recognised and 

explained, and all residual impacts identified. The information submitted must 

be sufficient for MS-LOT to determine the application. 

The following sections give a brief introduction to the main elements of the 

marine impact assessment process. Applicants should also use the wealth of 

other EIA guidance documents which are available, including the ‘Handbook 

on Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance for Competent Authorities, 

Consultees and others involved in the EIA process in Scotland (SNH, 2009) 

and ‘OWF Guidance for EIA in respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements 

Version 2’ (Cefas, 2004). Numerous references and sources of information 

are provided as Appendix B of this Manual. 

The following key aspects are required as part of the impact assessment as 

drawn from Annex IV of the EIA Directive: 

• Project description; 

• An outline of the main alternatives studies and reason for choice; 

• A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be affected by 

the proposal (Baseline Characterisation); 

• Description of the likely significant effects and the methodologies used 

to assess them (including in-combination); 

• Mitigation measures to prevent, reduce and where possible offset 

adverse effects; and 

• Non-technical summary 

The European Commission (EC) has published guidance on EIA and Review 

of Environmental Statements (European Commission, 2001). The qualities of 

a good ES are listed below and it is recommended that they are referred to 

when undertaking EIAs (taken from European Commission, 2001): 

• A clear structure with a logical sequence for example, describing, 

existing baseline conditions, predicted effects (nature, extent and 

magnitude), scope for mitigation, agreed mitigation measures, 

significance of unavoidable/residual impacts for each environmental 

topic; 

• A table of contents and list of acronyms/abbreviations; 


found. 


found.



• A clear description of the development consent procedure and how EIA 

fits within it; 

• Reads as a single document with appropriate cross-referencing; 

• Is concise, comprehensive and objective; 

• Is written in an impartial manner without bias; 

• Includes a full description of the development proposals; 

• Makes effective use of diagrams, illustrations, photographs and other 

graphics to support the text; 

• Uses consistent terminology with a glossary; 

• References all information sources used; 

• Has a clear explanation of complex issues; 

• Contains a good description of the methods used for the studies of 

each environmental topic; 

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

importance; 

• Provides evidence of good consultations; 

• Includes a clear discussion of alternatives; 

• Makes a commitment to mitigation (with a programme) and to 

monitoring; and 

• Has a Non Technical Summary which does not contain technical 

jargon. 

6.4.1 Project Description 

In order for the project team, regulators and key stakeholders to understand 

the nature of project effects, a clear understanding of both the project and the 

baseline environment is required. 

Applicants must have a clear understanding of all aspects of the project 

covering all aspects and phases of the proposed development from 

installation and commissioning, through operation and maintenance as well as 

the ultimate decommissioning of the project. This description should not just 

cover tangible aspects, such as equipment on site, but also details such as 

monitoring programmes and consideration of accidental events. 

To aid applicants in the compilation of their ES, and specifically the project 

description (commonly known as a Design Statement), Table 1 below has 

been compiled to provide guidance on the type of information that should be 

included. 

The Design Statement should provide full details of the alternative methods 

being proposed. For example details of the different pile foundations if more 

than one may be used; or different construction methodologies. More detail 

on addressing uncertainty in the project design is discussed in Section 4.4.2 

below. 


found. 


found.



6.4.2 Project Design Envelope 

It is recognised that there will remain uncertainties in the scheme design and 

construction methodologies, particularly for wave and tidal energy which are 

new industries with developing technology. The approach for addressing 

uncertainty in the scheme design for all offshore renewables is known as the 

Rochdale Envelope or Project Design Envelopes as they are becoming more 

commonly known. 

The Rochdale Envelope arises from two cases: R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte 

Tew [1999] and R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne [2000]. These cases 

concerned outline planning applications for a proposed business park in 

Rochdale. These decisions considered that it may be appropriate for an 

environmental assessment to assess the impacts of a range of possible 

parameters and that conditions could then be imposed to ensure that any 

permitted development kept within those ranges. 

Although the Rochdale Envelope applies to planning applications rather than 

applications under the Electricity Act 1989, the principles provide a degree of 

guidance as to what can be expected from a marine consents ES. 

The EIA submitted in support of a s36 application should assess the proposal 

as described in the application documents. Therefore sufficient detail must be 

known about the project to prepare the ES which has to be clear as to the 

potential impacts. However, MS-LOT understands that the EIA process is ongoing 

and iterative and it is not unreasonable for a scheme to evolve from preapplication 

stage, over time and in response to the assessment process. 

However, when assessing a project, MS-LOT must be satisfied that the likely 

significant effects, including significant residual effects from mitigation 

measures, have been adequately assessed. Therefore at the time of 

application proposed project parameters must not be so wide ranging as to 

represent effectively a different scheme. The parameters have to be defined in 

the application and accompanying ES (and HRA). It is for the developer to 

consider whether it is possible to assess robustly a range of potentially 

complex in-combination effects resulting from a large number of undecided 

parameters. The description of the development in the ES must not be so 

wide that it does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Electricity Works 

(EIA)(Scotland) Regulations 2000. 

The EIA (and HRA) will require full assessment of the variations of the 

proposal where certain details remain unresolved. The EIA (and HRA) should 

assess the likely worst case in terms of the potential variations within a project 

but the project should not vary beyond these limits so that the proposal as 

built would not have been assessed. It will also be the applicant’s 

responsibility to present the assessment of possible variations of the project, 


found. 


found.



where certain parameters are not yet fixed, in a manner that aids decisionmaking. 

The assessment should not be presented in an over-complex manner 

so that it is difficult to understand. 

The applicant will therefore find it helpful to limit the potential range of options 

within the proposed development. This will make presentation of the options 

easier and make it clearer for MS-LOT to understand and determine the 

application (potentially reducing determination time). Where elements of a 

project have yet to be finalised, these should be clearly identified in the ES 

with reasons provided to explain why they cannot be finalised at that stage. 

In terms of the decision itself, MS-LOT will not grant any consent which is 

substantially different from that applied for. 

Table 1. 

Indicative information for design statement 

Component Marine Renewables Offshore Wind 

Project 

location 

Project 

Programme 

Device 

structure and 

operation 

Geographical area over which the 

different aspects of the project will 

be located. Include a map showing 

the location of the different aspects 

of the project offshore and onshore. 

Include proposed location of 

devices, cable routes etc. 

Geographical area over which the 

different aspects of the project will 

be located. Include a map showing 

the location of the different aspects 

of the project offshore and onshore 

including windfarm layout, cable 

routes etc. 

Timing and length of the different phases of the project, for 

construction/installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning. 

This should include full construction/installation programme and 

contingency. Details of design life and decommissioning etc. 

General description (include scale 

pictures / photos of device showing 

in and out of (where relevant) water 

profiles; site layout). 

Layout and spacing, including 

distance from shore and required 

water depths including full 

dimensions and weight. Physical 

dimensions in all operational 

modes. 

If sub surface, depth below sea 

surface, i.e. draft and height above 

seabed. 

General description of power 

generation module/generator, 

including number and arrangement 

of modules and mechanisms for 

power extraction e.g. propeller, 

buoyancy, venturie. Device 

generation capacity - design power 

output profile; swept area; energy 

capture area and proportion of 

energy flux; frequency/speed of 

moving parts and transformer 

requirements (offshore (subsea and 

General description (include scale 

pictures/photos) Basic Turbine 

parameters including: 

Rotor dimensions; 

Number of turbines; 

Tip height range; 

Air draft and hub height; 

Grid spacing and detailed layout 

(e.g. rectangular grid system or 

offset packing arrangements; 

orientation etc). 

Details of turbine type (or details of 

alternatives if necessary) 

Operational speeds (pitching and 

yawing, cut in and out etc) 

Noise 

Navigation lighting and colour 

scheme 


found. 


found.




above surface) or onshore). 

Details of hydraulic systems, 

corrosion protection and antifouling. 

Noise and vibration levels 

Heating and cooling requirements 

(water abstraction and discharge 

requirements). 

General description of device 

communication systems 

Possible device failure modes e.g. 

floating, sinking, fire, collapse 

(narrative). 

Mooring or 

foundation 

system 

Power 

requirements 

General description to include but 

not be limited to: 

Size, area of coverage, depth of 

seabed penetration, installation 

method (description), materials, 

movement of device around 

moorings. 

Chains, anchors, blocks, subsea 

connections, piles etc. 

Clump weight requirements. 

Potential for scour induced by or 

around moorings. 

Mooring and marker buoys (position 

(lat long), number, colour, lighting, 

mass, materials, markings, tether 

arrangements, tensioning/bend 

ratio). 

Seabed preparation, depth of 

excavation. 

Drilling requirements (narrative 

including detail of any drilling fluids 

and discharges and timing of 

operation). 

Piling requirements (narrative of 

piling operation and timing of 

operation). 

Foundation construction (materials, 

mass). 

Vessel requirements (expected 

vessel type, GRT, length, draft etc). 

Consideration of temporary and 

permanent aspects of moorings and 

foundations. 

Details of power requirements, 

including requirement for and 

location of any external power 

sources (narrative). 

Electrical systems: Voltage and 

current patterns from generated 

power in umbilical; impressed 

currents corrosion systems; 

Details of foundation type (e.g. 

jackets, gravity base structures 

suction caissons etc), including: 

Dimensions of the foundations 

(shapes and sizes); 

Seabed preparation and 

penetration; 

Disposal sites (spoil from ground 

preparation) 

Details of the electrical 

infrastructure including: 

Export cables (length and routes) 

Inter-array cables 

Offshore (and onshore) sub-stations 


found. 


found.




frequency and harmonics of any 

electrical currents. 

Details of any shore connections, 

e.g., cables, umbilicals and 

pipelines, including installation 

method. 

Diesel or other fuel requirements 

including inventory, bunkering 

procedures and regularity etc. 

Navigational 

requirements 

Materials 

Installation 

requirements 

Operation/ 

maintenance 

requirements 

Above surface visibility (diagram, 

metres above water line). 

Details of expected navigational 

requirements e.g. buoys, lights, 

charting etc 

Low visibility warning signals e.g. 

fog horns, radar reflectors. 

Device stationing verification. 

Inventory of materials e.g. metal; 

plastics; seals; greases and 

lubricants, oil types and inventories 

(e.g. hydraulic, transformer etc); 

paints and description of types; 

adhesives (litres) and description of 

types; batteries (e.g. back up 

system); ballast (type of material 

and source location); and chemical 

requirements/treatments. 

Potential discharges to air and sea. 

Description of installation process, 

including pre installation 

requirements (narrative). 

Description of any installation 

mooring requirements (e.g., to moor 

a jack-up barge), with diagrams of 

any mooring spreads. 

Vessel requirements (expected 

vessel type, GRT, length, draft etc). 

Generation of onsite waste/litter. 

Description of likely maintenance 

requirements, how often required, 

what needed to support 

maintenance operations, (narrative) 

to include: 

Geographical coverage of 

maintenance activities (including 

anchors/mooring lines). 

Frequency of vessel operations on 

site (if known vessel numbers and 

frequency/timing of visits). 

Anchoring requirements of support 

Details of expected navigational 

requirements e.g. buoys, lights, 

charting etc 

Oils and fluids; turbine materials; 

foundation materials; cables and 

pipeline materials. Include 

contingency plan in case of 

accidental leak/spill of any 

materials. 

Potential discharges to air and sea 

Details of construction methodology 

for foundation, cable and turbine 

installations) including: 

Method of construction of 

foundations; 

Transportation to site; 

Construction; lifting operations; 

Details of cable pre-lay works (e.g. 

ploughing; trenching etc; details of 

methods for crossing other 

cables/pipelines). Details for both 

export cables and inter-array 

cables. 

Operations and maintenance 

infrastructure required; 

Likely programme (levels and type 

of activity including associated boat 

activity; shore-side infrastructure 

Exclusion zones around structures. 


found. 


found.




vessels (anchor etc and length of 

chains, radius of mooring facilities 

etc). 

Any onshore infrastructure 

requirements to support 

maintenance operations e.g. 

pontoon, quayside upgrade. 

On site requirements e.g. utilities 

(periodically used by maintenance 

personnel). 

Any requirements for seabed 

maintenance (e.g. dredging or scour 

protection). 

Potential for generation of onsite 

waste/litter and disposal methods. 

Debris recovery and disposal 

method. 

Decommissio 

ning 

Accidental 

events 

6.4.3 Baseline Characterisation 

General description of device and 

mooring recovery/ removal 

activities/requirements to include: 

Geographical coverage of 

decommissioning activities 

(including anchors/mooring lines, 

cables). 

Vessel/other requirements. 

Anchoring requirements of vessels. 

Cutting/removal techniques for any 

imbedded structures. 

Onsite requirements e.g. utilities 

(periodically used by maintenance 

personnel). 

Potential for generation of onsite 

waste/litter and disposal methods. 

Debris survey details, recovery and 

disposal. 

Seabed reinstatement 

requirements. 

Provisions for decommissioning 

bond. 

General description of activities 

including removal of turbines, 

foundations and associated 

electrical infrastructure. 

Methods for removal (or not) of 

scour protection; infilling of 

excavations etc. 

Risk Assessment: 

Description of accidental/emergency situations which may result in 

interference with other sea users and environmental pollution, to include 

assessment of likelihood and scale of consequence of each event. 

Mitigation Measures and Contingency Plans: For example. spill prevention 

strategy/measures (for oils and chemicals) and response procedures for 

possible device failure modes and dropped objects. 

In order to measure, and therefore assess, the potentially significant impacts 

of a development there must be a baseline of environmental conditions 

against which the significance of predicted environmental impacts can be 


found. 


found.



assessed. Applicants must have a sound understanding of all the different 

environmental aspects (physical, biological and human) which could be 

affected by the proposals and which must be reported within the ES. Without 

this understanding of the baseline environment, it is not possible to provide 

accurate assessments, nor will it be possible to suggest measures to 

minimise adverse environmental effects, which is the objective of the EIA 

process. 

EIA baseline characterisation is developed to identify potential environmental 

impacts. These baselines may also be of suitable detail to support 

subsequent survey monitoring programmes but it is more likely that they 

would need to be refined (post project approval) to be of sufficient resolution 

(spatial and temporal). 

The baseline will follow a desk-based approach in the first instance and there 

are several widely available datasets and publications that provide various 

biological, ecological and geological data relevant to offshore renewable 

energy projects. Of particular relevance are the SEAs in support of national 

offshore renewable plans such as the Marine Renewable Energy SEA and 

Offshore Wind Energy SEAs and Marine Spatial Plans as well as the plans 

listed in section 1.2. Strategic work is underway to identify the key evidence 

gaps faced in the deployment of offshore renewable energy projects. For 

example the Offshore Renewables Research Steering Group (ORRSG) and 

the work of the Offshore Renewable Energy Licensing Group (ORELG) which 

have identified priority tasks to be addressed to minimise the time taken to 

consent renewable projects. Early engagement with MS-LOT will identify 

relevant initiatives. 

Gathering baseline data and producing the environmental baseline should be 

one of the first tasks of the EIA in order to ascertain what data are available 

for use in the assessment. The human, biological and physical environments 

should be characterised and MS-LOT will expect to see baselines for the 

receptor topics listed below. For receptors such as birds and other mobile 

species the baseline will also need to establish linkages with European sites 

and to understand the trends and behaviours of populations. 

Standard environmental receptors which MS will expect to be included in a 

marine EIA 5 : 

• Physical Environment: 

- Water quality and seabed contamination; 

- Coastal/marine processes and geology; 

5 

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

components full representation of land based receptors will also be expected (traffic and 

transport, contaminated land, terrestrial ecology and landscape etc). 


found. 


found.



• Biological Environment: 

- Benthic ecology (including non-native species); 

- Fish, migratory fish and shellfish (including non-native species); 

- Birds; 

- Marine mammals; 

- Underwater noise, vibration and electro-magnetic fields (this can 

be incorporated into the biological receptors above); 

• Human Environment: 

- Archaeology and cultural heritage; 

- Navigation; 

- Commercial fisheries, shellfisheries and aquaculture; 

- Other sea users (topic include reference to oil and gas; subsea 

pipelines; dredging and marine aggregate extraction, tourism 

and recreation, aviation, military activity, munitions etc); 

- Landscape/seascape and visual impact; 

- Socio-economics; and 

- Aviation. 

MS and other key stakeholders have been funding the creation of a number of 

comprehensive marine datasets including characterising Scotland’s marine 

areas for geodiversity (geological and geomorphological features) and 

biodiversity (including seabed habitats, benthic ecology and mobile species 

(including mammals) produced for Scotland’s Marine Atlas and datasets 

gathered for Defra’s Charting Progress 2. For certain receptors, particularly 

mobile species, it is appropriate to assess impacts against a baseline of 

significantly greater scale than the project location (e.g. to understand impacts 

on wide-ranging marine mammal populations). It would therefore be 

appropriate to consider strategic data initiatives such as the Joint Cetacean 

Protocol which provides a means for collation of data on abundance of marine 

mammals to support EIA (and HRA/EPS) assessments. 

It is not appropriate to define a prescriptive list of data that an applicant should 

gather in order to compile an accurate representation of the environmental 

conditions at a specific site, since this varies from site to site. However there 

will be some similarities in the baseline data required for different offshore 

renewable energy developments. MS-LOT should be approached for access 

to information not publically available as part of the scoping phase. 

6.4.4 Survey 

Despite these significant data projects and those undertaken for more local 

projects and initiatives (generally inshore), survey coverage of offshore, 

inshore and intertidal areas around Scotland at a detail required for an ES is 

likely to be sporadic and infrequent for the area of interest. Furthermore, 

where there is good data coverage the data may be old and inappropriate for 


found. 


found.



use in an EIA. Applicants should consider what data are currently available 

and assess the currency and adequacy of such data for the purpose of their 

development. 

It should be assumed that surveys are likely to be required. These could be 

for benthic habitats, birds and marine mammals or metocean data (e.g. 

waves, tides, wind). The need for, and methodologies for the surveys should 

be discussed with MS-LOT. 

MS-LOT has produced a Survey, Deploy & Monitor policy with the intention 

of providing regulators, and developers, with an efficient risk-based approach 

for taking forward wave and tidal energy proposals. The policy is not 

mandatory, it is a tool which may be used to distinguish between those 

proposed developments for which there are sufficient grounds to seek 

determination on a consent application based on a minimum of one year of 

wildlife survey effort, and those where a greater level of site characterisation 

is required. 

The policy is based upon 3 main factors: 

1. Environmental Sensitivity (of the proposed development location) 

2. Scale of Development; and 

3. Device (or Technology) Classification. 

Environmental sensitivity for the purposes of the policy, relates to designated 

areas, protected species, and protected habitats. MS will undertake an 

assessment of the relative environmental sensitivity of the proposed location 

of a renewable energy project, based on environmental sensitivity maps which 

will be attached to the policy. MS will assign an overall assessment of high, 

medium or low environmental sensitivity. 

Relevant measures of the scale of development are based on the total 

installed generating capacity in megawatts (MW) of the development. The 

scale of the development will also be assessed on a three point scale, low, 

medium, or high. 

Device (or technology) classification is an expression of how the device or 

technology (including moorings or support) is installed, moves, behaves and 

interacts with the surrounding environment and is a broad assessment of the 

potential effects of the device on marine life. Examples of environmental 

hazards which Marine Scotland will use are contained within a table within the 

policy derived from the report ‘A Review of the Potential Impacts of Wave and 

Tidal Energy Development on Scotland’s Marine Environment’ commissioned 

by the Scottish Government (Aquatera, 2010). 

Marine Scotland propose to express the overall risk to the environment posed 

by the development, taking account of the equipment to be used, the size of 


found. 


found.



the development and the environmental sensitivity of the location, as a 

combination of the assessments under the three factors above. This final 

overall combined assessment will be expressed as low, medium or high and 

will be used to guide the requirements for pre-application site characterisation 

and assessment of the environmental interactions of the devices. 

SNH and MS have also commissioned reports on surveys for marine 

renewables. These reports (including Saunders et. al. 2011) provide 

guidance, options and detailed protocols for the conduct of site 

characterisation surveys and impact monitoring programmes for marine (wave 

and tidal) renewables developments in Scotland. The guidance is split into 

five volumes covering: 

1. Context and General Principals; 

2. Cetaceans and Basking Sharks; 

3. Seals; 

4. Birds; and 

5. Benthic Habitats. 

These important information sources should be regarded as 

recommendations by MS and SNH rather than formal guidance but should be 

a key reference for any applicant looking to conduct surveys in support of its 

application. 

Another important source of guidance has recently been produced by CEFAS 

‘Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental assessments 

of offshore renewable energy projects Report ME5403’ (CEFAS, 2011). 

Applicants should be aware of the timescales and costs that may be 

associated with collecting relevant data and the difficulties in collecting marine 

data. The environment within a development area is not static; conditions 

may change from season to season and from year to year. The length of time 

over which it may be necessary to collect baseline data will depend on, 

among other factors, the sensitivity of the site and the behaviour of different 

species e.g. seabed, birds, marine mammals etc as well as changes in 

landforms through natural coastal/marine processes. Baseline data should be 

collected in a way that adequately reflects the variability in the environment. 

It is also important to understand and assess the potential environmental 

impacts arising from the survey work. For example, noise impacts could have 

a likely significant effect on Natura sites and thus be subject to HRA. 

The need for baseline data should be factored into the project timescale and 

initial budgeting and it is important that field work is carefully planned and 

agreed with all relevant consultees. Survey specifications should be 

submitted to MS-LOT who will liaise with MS- Science, and other consultees 

as appropriate to ensure that data and analyses are adequate to meet the 


found. 


found.



regulatory requirements. Formal bodies are not only an invaluable source of 

baseline data but they will also be able to comment on the suitability of 

collected data and proposed surveys which will reduce the risk that they have 

to be repeated. 

Applicants are obliged to collaborate where possible such as sea bird surveys 

as part of CEC led collaborative developer group process as well as leasing 

requirements for most Round 2 and 3 OWF leases and Scottish Territorial 

Waters’ Agreements. MS has already established a set of information sharing 

methods through the establishment of ‘Marine Scotland Interactive’, which 

hosts/will host sea bed mapping and sediment profiling, along with strategic 

survey information for sea birds and marine mammals. It also posts research 

and monitoring programmes and related reports on its web site, as well as 

Scoping, Regional Locational Guidance (RLG), SEA, strategic HRA, socioeconomics, 

consultation analysis and plan reports, including the related data 

sources (MS, 2012). MS is considering how it can improve the access to 

these data and report sources in a manner which will aid applicants and other 

stakeholders, including through the development of a national database of 

survey data and a Marine Knowledge Exchange facility. 


Common pitfalls associated with gathering environmental baseline data are: 

• Data-gaps not identified; 

• Reliance on out-of-date data; 

• Omission of important data that are available; 

• Narrow focus on the development site, omitting the wider area; 

• Inappropriate/inadequate survey methodologies; 

• Changing survey methodologies without consultation; 

• Inadequate acknowledgement of data limitations; 

• Inadequate knowledge of the assessment process and work required; 

• Insufficient time allocated in project schedules to ensure the collection of 

robust data; 

• Insufficient funds allocated for surveys; and 

• No consideration of presentation and analysis requirements. 

Baseline data collection should include consideration of the data required to 

support other supporting assessments (if necessary) including AA, CAR or 

and NRA. The EIA must also address cumulative effects from other 

developments and activities in the area. Hence, co-ordination of baseline 

data collection activities with other developers is strongly encouraged. This 

will help work towards a standardised approach to data collection, thereby 

facilitating comparison between sites and contributing to co-ordinated postconstruction 

monitoring plans as well as resulting in potential cost and 

programme savings. Collaboration between developers will also assist the 


found. 


found.



production of broad scale regional overviews for particular species and 

contribute to SEA. 

6.4.5 Assessment of Alternatives 

In embarking on the EIA processes it is important that developers recognise 

that site selection and design are integral parts of scheme development and 

environmental assessment. The EIA Directive includes the requirement for an 

assessment of alternatives and so it is necessary for all projects to clearly 

document the project decision-making, demonstrating the incorporation of 

environmental criteria. It is likely that this first stage of site selection will be a 

key component of any assessment of alternatives and should therefore be 

clearly documented from the outset. 

The site selection process should result in the avoidance of particularly 

environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible. For example, sites 

designated for their nature conservation importance (SACs and SPAs), 

important fish spawning areas or sites which are important for cetaceans will 

be more sensitive than other areas. However, it is also important to 

understand that mobile species are protected throughout their range and 

therefore sensitive areas are not restricted to within designated sites. 

Characterisation therefore needs to consider the relative importance of the 

project area for species of concern, in comparison to surrounding areas, and 

in the context of the potential impact pathways. 


To avoid unnecessary environmental impacts and to reduce development 

constraints applicants should consider the following when selecting a potential 

development site and considering design of the development: 

• The regulatory and planning context (terrestrial and marine plans and 

sectoral plans for marine renewables); 

• Survey, construction and operational activities and scheme design 

(including technical constraints); 

• The proximity of the site to nature conservation, wildlife interests and 

fisheries; 

• The potential effects on coastal and marine interests and navigation 

(including socio-economic effects); 

• The potential effects on landscape/seascape and the historic environment; 


• The proximity to other activities and developments and the potential 

cumulative and in combination impacts. 


found. 


found.



Sites should be reviewed for their design and operational constrains such as 

access and transport links and other technical criteria. 

The proposal should also be developed within the strategic context including 

Marine Spatial Plans and the relevant sectoral plans and associated SEA and 

strategic HRAs. 

6.4.6 Specialist Studies 

The offshore renewable energy industry is in its infancy and the potential 

environmental effects of wave and tidal developments in particular are 

uncertain. A recent Strategic Review of environmental monitoring of offshore 

windfarms (OWF) under the Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) 

licence conditions (CEFAS, 2010 cited in Renewable UK 2010) also 

concluded that as Round 3 commenced, the monitoring of existing OWF 

projects have not allowed definite conclusions to be made regarding 

environmental effects. The EIA and consenting procedures should therefore 

be as evidence-based as possible. However, where there is significant 

uncertainty in the assessment of environmental effects, it is appropriate to 

define ‘worst case scenarios’ to ensure that there are no undue risks to the 

physical, biological or human environment. The priority for industry is 

therefore to reduce the uncertainty as far as possible, by undertaking 

specialist investigations to justify its assessments. 

Specialist studies may be required to understand the effects on any of the 

environmental receptors and can range from hydrodynamic and sediment 

modelling to underwater noise modelling, investigations into potential changes 

in bird behaviour/migration patterns and NRA. For all these studies it is 

considered good practice to incorporate the findings into the ES as well as 

providing the supporting Technical Reports as Annexes to the ES if 

necessary. 

The need and form of specialist studies will be dependent upon the type, 

scale and location of development and the issues identified at the project site. 

These should be developed in discussion with MS-LOT and relevant experts 

to ensure buy-in from the regulator. In some cases it may be beneficial to 

include a peer review process for complex/sensitive issues to engender 

transparency and confidence in the adequacy of work undertaken, the 

robustness of the results and associated scientific uncertainty. 

Those projects with a footprint in both the marine and terrestrial environments 

are likely to have a longer list of supporting studies than a solely marine 

project. 


found. 


found.



The need for specific studies to assess the impact of the development on the 

environment will be initially identified during the scoping stage. However 

there may also be other study requirements that become apparent as the EIA 

progresses, e.g., due to changes in project design, consultation requirements 

or as new information identifies greater or new uncertainty. In addition, it is 

important to reiterate that regulators and consultees must agree that the 

proposed study methods are appropriate. This will help prevent requests for 

additional data following submission of the ES. 


The wave and tidal energy industries are in their infancy and there are 

numerous different technologies that can be deployed. As a result there are 

large uncertainties with regard to the significance of specific impacts, e.g. the 

effects on diving birds and marine mammals. 

As more knowledge is gained from the results of operational monitoring, these 

uncertainties will reduce. Robust environmental monitoring programmes are 

therefore vital. 

6.4.7 Impact Assessment 

The EIA Regulations require that the EIA considers the significance of the 

effects of the development on the environment and should be a clear and 

transparent process, documented in the ES. Predicting environmental 

impacts involves two main elements of work; anticipating, modelling, 

predicting or forecasting the changes that would be brought about by the 

project at all of its life stages, often compared to baseline, and/or predicted 

changes without the project; and explaining in a rational, consistent, impartial 

and transparent way, the significance of the changes (SNH, 2009). The 

common principles of the impact assessment include: 

Environmental significance is a value judgement; 

• The degree of environmental significance is related to the specific 

impact; 

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

and its capacity to accommodate change; 

• The amount of change, often referred to as the impact magnitude 

includes timing, scale, size, and duration of impact; 

• Potential effects of the proposed project may be wide ranging in nature, 

e.g., they could be direct, indirect; short, medium or long term, 

permanent or temporary and have positive or negative effects; 

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

and the 

• Identification of any significant residual impacts following mitigation. 


found. 


found.



The impact assessment needs to assess the effects of the development 

through all stages of the development: 

• Construction including information on project management – contractor 

arrangements, ‘chain of command’, roles and responsibilities of key 

staff – and timetabling – the phasing / sequencing of proposed works – 

especially if this has been identified as a mitigation measure for 

environmental, navigational or other effects. Information should also be 

included on the proposed construction equipment, and intended 

delivery routes and port facilities; 

• Operation and maintenance (O&M) activity assessments including 

navigation, environmental or other effects. This should include 

disturbance (to environmental and/or other interests) from O&M boat 

and/or helicopter traffic which may be reduced if remote condition 

monitoring is used to inform the maintenance schedules of turbines; 

• Repowering including the design life of the different elements. It is 

important to be clear what repowering entails and whether there is to 

be any relocation of subsea infrastructure or alteration of the 

scheme/design or anchoring structures. Any alterations to the locations 

of offshore elements for repowering may require an update to the 

survey work and assessments that have previously been carried out; 


• The process and methods of decommissioning should also be 

considered, and reviewed, at this (pre-application) stage, with an 

options appraisal presented in the ES. 

The environmental issues should be divided into distinct topic areas or 

‘receptors’ and the effect of the development on each of these is considered 

by describing in turn: 

• The baseline conditions; 

• The impact pathways by which the receptors could be affected; 

• The assessment of significance of impacts; 

• The definition of the measures to mitigate for significant adverse 

impacts; and 

• Where these are predicted, the residual significance of the impacts 

occurring. 

This follows four iterative stages and is illustrated in Figure 4: 

1. Identify both the environmental changes from the proposal activities 

and the features of interest (i.e. receptors) that could be affected; 

2. Understand the nature of the environmental changes in terms of: their 

exposure characteristics, the natural conditions of the system and the 

sensitivity of the specific receptors (i.e. predict the impact); 

3. Evaluate the vulnerability of the features as a basis for assessing the 

nature of the impact and its significance; and 


found. 


found.



4. Manage any impacts which are found to be significant and require the 

implementation of impact reduction/mitigation measures; identify the 

significance of the residual impact. 

The assessment focuses on understanding the sensitivity and vulnerability of 

the receptors to the changes that will result from the development. 


found. 


found.



Receptor 

IDENTIFY 

Environmental 

Change 

Features of 

interest 

Temporal 

variability 

Responses to 

change 

UNDERSTAND 

Natural 

change 

Magnitude 

Spatial extent 

Duration and 

frequency 

SENSITIVTY 

EXPOSURE 

EVALUATE 

VULNERABILITY 

Recoverability 

Permanence 

Importance 

SIGNIFICANCE 

MANAGE 

Mitigation 

Proposal design 

Environmental 

thresholds 

Monitoring 

Figure 4. 

EIA Assessment Process 

Sensitivity is the relative tolerance of a receptor to the predicted changes 

which they are exposed and its ability to recover. For example, the tolerance 

of benthic fauna to increased turbidity in the water column and the likely 

period of recovery, and should take into consideration wider trends (e.g. 

seasonality in bird population numbers, population decline etc). This stage 

provides the benchmark against which the changes and levels of exposure 

should be compared. In some cases it will be applicable to compare the 

anticipated change or exposure against either baseline conditions or other 

relevant thresholds (e.g. established Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) 

for water or sediment quality). 


found. 


found.



Once the impact pathways (e.g. noise, turbidity etc) and receptor sensitivities 

(e.g. diving birds, marine mammals etc.) are understood, the likelihood of a 

receptor being vulnerable to an impact pathway is then evaluated. The 

vulnerability of a receptor is derived from the relationship between its 

anticipated levels of exposure and its response characteristics. The degree to 

which exposure exceeds sensitivity will indicate the predictability, or certainty, 

of the impact. The actual categorisation of the significance level will tend to be 

a judgement-based decision (ABPmer, 2004). 

Where exposure exceeds receptor sensitivity/tolerance levels then 

vulnerability exists and an adverse impact may occur. Conversely, where a 

change occurs to which a receptor is not sensitive, then no direct impact can 

occur. The degree to which exposure exceeds sensitivity will indicate the 

predictability, or certainty, of the impact. 

Assessing how the vulnerability will manifest as an actual impact on a 

receptor, and making a judgement about the significance of the impact, 

requires knowledge of other factors such as the receptor’s spatial extent and 

ability to recover. These factors, together with knowledge of receptor 

importance, can be applied to assess the overall significance of any impact. 

The key significance levels for either beneficial or adverse impacts are 

described as follows: 

• Negligible: Insignificant change not having a discernable effect; 

• Minor: Effects tending to be discernable but tolerable; 

• Moderate: Where these changes are adverse they may require 

mitigation; and 

• Major: Effects are highest in magnitude and reflect the high 

vulnerability and importance of the receptor (e.g. to nature 

conservation). Where these changes are adverse they will require 

mitigation. 

The magnitude of each effect can be assessed using the standard 

terminology and criteria summarised in Table 2 below. This is an indicative 

table of impacts and each topic area would need to modify the table to reflect 

the specific sensitivities of the receptor (e.g. fish or bird populations or 

landscape value). 

It is important to note that the significance of impact in the context of EIA is 

very different to definition of LSE under HRA. 


found. 


found.



Table 2. 

Magnitude 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

Magnitude of impacts 

Description 

Significant change in environmental conditions causing breaches of 

legislation. Likely to impact on receptors of national or international 

importance. Likely to affect a large-scale area or a large population on 

frequent or permanent basis. May be an irreversible decline. 

Unlikely to cause a breach of legislation but likely to impact on a 

receptor of regional or local environmental importance. Likely to affect 

a small number of residents/visitors on a permanent basis. 

Likely to impact an area or feature of local interest or importance. 

Likely to have a temporary impact on a small number of people, or be 

a recoverable impact. 

No significant impact predicted. 

The severity or significance of an impact should be determined by considering 

the magnitude of the effect against the sensitivity of the receptor. A matrix 

should be used to combine magnitude and sensitivity to generate the overall 

significance of an impact, as illustrated in Table 3 below. 

Table 3. 

Significance of Impact 

Magnitude 

Sensitivity 

Very High High Medium Low 

Very High Major Major Major Moderate 

High Major Major Moderate Minor 

Medium Major Moderate Minor Minor 

Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible 

Negligible Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Estimating and categorising the significance of an impact is the stage that 

probably incorporates the greatest degree of subjectivity. It is inappropriate to 

apply a rigid framework for the actual categorisation of the significance level 

as this will tend to be a judgement-based decision. However, adverse 

impacts will be those which are judged to be undesirable or negative. The 

concern they raise will increase from adverse impacts of negligible or minor 

significance, which may be tolerable to moderate or major impacts which will 

require some form of impact reduction or mitigation measure. Beneficial 

impacts are those impacts that are judged to provide some environmental, 

economic and/or social gain. 

As a project is conceived and developed and as the impact assessment is 

progressed, it will become apparent that some impacts are likely to be 

‘significant adverse’ and will require mitigation. This invokes an iterative 

process in which the impact can be designed-out by changing the works 

(either before or during the assessment process) and mitigating measures 

integrated into the design/project methodology. These include constraints on 


found. 


found.



the construction process as well as measures for the enhancement of a 

relevant habitat or receptor. 

Within the assessment procedure the use of mitigation measures will alter the 

risk of exposure and will require significance to be re-assessed and the 

‘residual impact’ identified. 

The regulations themselves do not provide definitive statements on 

significance. However, the methods used for identifying and assessing 

effects should be transparent and verifiable and a standard assessment 

methodology should be applied across all environmental receptors. The 

assessment methodology may need to be supported by specialist studies and 

investigations where appropriate. 

It is recommended that the impact assessment methodology is drafted at the 

outset of the project for distribution to the topic specialists within the project 

team. In many instances, the sensitivity and impact tables will need to be 

tailored to each individual topic. Whatever the methodology employed to 

assess impact significance, it should be clearly described in the ES document, 

ensuring consistency across the EIA. 

In many cases environmental receptors will also have specific EIA 

methodologies which may be used, for example, seascape and visual impact 

assessment methodologies (SNH, 2009) or guidance for ecological impact 

assessment by IEEM (Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management), 

the results of which should feed into the overarching EIA methodology 

described above. 


The evaluation of impact significance should follow the four stage process 

outlined below: 

1. Identify both the environmental changes from the proposal activities and 

the features of interest (i.e. receptors) that could be affected; 

2. Understand the nature of the environmental changes in terms of: their 

exposure characteristics, the natural conditions of the system and the 

sensitivity of the specific receptors (i.e. predict the impact); 

3. Evaluate the vulnerability of the features as a basis for assessing the 

nature of the impact and its significance; and 

4. Manage any impacts which are found to be significant and require the 

implementation of impact reduction/mitigation measures; identify the 

significance of the residual impact. 

The significance of impact in the context of EIA is very different to the 

definition of LSE under HRA. 


found. 


found.



6.4.8 Mitigation 

The primary purpose of the EIA is to ensure that significant environmental 

impacts are prevented, avoided or reduced as far as possible or practicable. 

Mitigation refers to the methods or actions that will be implemented as part of 

the scheme to reduce/avoid these environmental effects and are a statutory 

component of the EIA. This can be achieved by many different measures 

which can include (SNH 2009): 

• Locating the project so as not to affect environmentally sensitive 

locations; 

• Using construction, operation and restoration methods or processes 

which reduce environmental effects; 

• Designing the whole project carefully to avoid or minimise 

environmental impacts; and 

• Introducing specific measures into the project design, construction, 

decommissioning and restoration that will reduce or compensate for 

adverse effects. 

Mitigation measures are most successful when they are considered from the 

outset of the project rather than as a late stage solution. This allows a design 

with integrated solutions to potential environmental problems, rather than 

looking for a solution late on, which is an add-on to the design. Mitigation 

measures should therefore be considered from the outset of the project and 

discussions on the appropriate mitigation measures are likely to continue after 

submission of the ES and determination. 

MS-LOT will expect full details of all mitigation documented as part of the 

Construction Statement and MEMP. 

Mitigation measures for a site will be highly specific for each development. It 

is recommended that the applicant provides detailed information about each 

of the mitigation measures including: what is proposed; where and when it will 

be proposed; duration of the measure; how effective the measures will be; 

and responsibilities for monitoring the measure. The mitigation measures 

themselves should be assessed for environmental impact (for example habitat 

creation/restoration can have its own environmental effects) and any 

uncertainty in the effectiveness of the measures should be noted in the ES. 

It is good practice to provide a section summarising all proposed mitigation 

measures for each of the potentially significant impacts. This can be of 

significant benefit for the process of identifying and agreeing consent/licence 

conditions. This also demonstrates that the findings of the ES have been 

considered in an integrated manner. 


found. 


found.



When considering mitigation, consideration should be given to ‘design’ 

mitigation and site specific mitigation. Regulators will give priority to 

measures that firstly avoid the effect or minimise or reduce the environmental 

effect. Only when effects cannot be realistically be avoided should applicants 

look at measures for compensating or offsetting effects. Good construction 

practice can be effective mitigation for a number of environmental effects, 

particularly pollution prevention and noise reduction measures. 

Note that in relation to the HRA the term ‘compensation’ has a specific 

definition and approval for a scheme with compensation can only be given if 

there are no alternatives and there are no imperative reasons of over-riding 

public interest (IROPI) as to why the project must proceed. 


Mitigation can take various forms, including in descending order of best 

practice: 

• Avoidance - the project is designed or the site selected to avoid any 

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

impacts; 

• Reduction - where impacts cannot be avoided, applicants should then look 

to reduce impacts via the introduction of mitigation measures; 

• Compensation - where impacts are unavoidable or cannot be reduced, 

compensation must be considered which involves the improvement of a 

related environmental issue, such as construction of alternative / artificial 

otter holts in an alternative location; and 

• Remediation - where the environmental impact both short and medium 

term is unavoidable, e.g. where materials may have spread to adjacent 

seabed and on completion of the works the area must be cleaned and 

restored. 

Additionally best practice measures should also be investigated including 

environmental enhancement which refers to improving the environment 

beyond the existing baseline. 

6.4.9 Cumulative Effects 

The EIA Regulations state that cumulative effects should be addressed within 

an EIA. These effects can occur on a local, regional or global basis and can 

be additive, combined or synergistic impacts. They are described as impacts 

that result, or are likely to result, from incremental changes caused by other 

past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project. 

More specifically they are defined as pressures of the same type acting on the 

same receptors. In-combination effects can be defined as pressures of a 

different type but acting on the same receptors. The EIA needs to examine 


found. 


found.



the totality of influences on the system and therefore both cumulative and incombination 

effects need to be investigated as part of the Cumulative Effects 

assessment. 

These effects are not necessarily controlled by the applicant and, as such, it is 

more difficult to assess these impacts and attribute a level of significance to 

them. The European Commission (EC) has produced guidance on how 

cumulative impacts can be assessed (EC, 1999). 

To identify which developments should be included in the in-combination 

effects assessment consultation with MS-LOT is required. They should 

include other offshore renewable developments as well as: 

• Ports and shipping; 

• Oil and gas; 

• Fishing and aquaculture; 

• Dredging; and 

• Coastal developments. 

Projects will include those that are: 

• Under construction; 

• Permitted application(s), but not yet implemented; 

• Submitted application(s) not yet determined; and 

• Plans and projects which are “reasonably foreseeable” (i.e. 

developments that are being planned, including other offshore 

windfarms which have a Crown Estate Agreement for Lease) 6 . 

The assessment of cumulative impacts in relation to Natura interests is also 

an integral aspect of a HRA as discussed in Section 4.5 below. 

6.4.10 Transboundary Effects 

As identified in Section 4.3.1 above, The Espoo (EIA) Convention which came 

into effect in 1997 required governments to consult each other on all major 

projects which could have significant adverse trans-boundary environmental 

effects. In terms of offshore renewable energy projects in Scotland it will 

relate to projects that may affect mobile species or those close to the national 

boundaries. For a proposed activity that is likely to cause a significant 

adverse cross border or transboundary impact, the Scottish Government (or 

the UK Government depending on whether it’s cross border or transboundary) 

must notify any party which it considers may be affected as early as possible 

within the EIA process and no later than when carrying out the public 

consultation exercise following submission of ES. MS-LOT will expect to see 

consideration of potential impacts throughout the EIA from the scoping phase 

6 

Adapted from CEFAS (2004) Offshore Windfarm Guidance 


found. 


found.



onwards, and reported in the ES. Applicants should note that in gathering 

baseline environmental data it may be necessary to consider collecting data 

from other sovereign waters/areas as migratory species such as fish and 

birds, which potentially could be affected, may migrate from one area to the 

other. Transboundary consultation and engagement is still relatively new and 

liaison with MS-LOT will be necessary as soon as potential cross 

border/transbounday issues are identified. This will be particularly important 

for gathering information and assessing potential effects on mobile marine 

species and migratory bird populations. 

6.4.11 Monitoring 

The potential need for environmental monitoring studies arises at the 

application, installation and operational stages of renewable projects. 

Effective EIA and HRA need to include sound site characterisation information 

on which to base predictions of the nature, scale and intensity of 

environmental impacts. In cases where there is potential for interaction with 

designated features of European sites, the quality of the site characterisation 

information must be such as to enable a sound Information for AA to be 

prepared. 

Monitoring will be an important component of the licence conditions and 

applications should include proposals for environmental impact monitoring as 

part of the ES and MEMP. In drafting these proposals, applicants should take 

account of issues discussed at the scoping stage. In general, post-approval 

monitoring activity will be required to: 

• Establish pre-development baselines as part of the pre-project 

component of monitoring activities to explore the environmental 

impacts of renewable projects. The purpose of the monitoring will be to 

test hypotheses on impacts attributable to the offshore renewable 

development during construction, operation and decommissioning 

phases (as identified during the consenting process); 

• Assess cause and effect relationships to validate predictions of 

environmental impacts identified in the ES and through the consents 

application process; 

• To confirm that the predictions in any AA are accurate and that adverse 

effect on the integrity of designated features of European sites is not 

occurring; and 

• Evaluate other short, medium and long-term effects of marine 

renewable devices and associated infrastructure, as may be identified 

through the application process. 

Monitoring is therefore likely to be required pre-application, and also in the 

pre-construction and post-construction periods. The information and methods 

needed for the pre-application EIA baseline surveys is likely to be different 

from that required for post-approval impact monitoring. In many cases, 


found. 


found.



appropriate or standard survey methodologies are available, and should in 

general be used, but pre-agreement with MS-LOT is a requirement in case an 

issue requires more novel survey approaches. 

6.5 Appropriate Assessment 

If, following Step 2 of the HRA process, it has been concluded that a 

proposed project will have a LSE, or that the possibility of a LSE cannot be 

excluded, an AA will need to be undertaken by the competent authority (MS- 

LOT). This assessment needs to determine whether the effects arising from a 

proposed development will adversely affect the integrity of a designated site 

with integrity being defined in UK planning guidance as: 

‘the coherence of the site’s ecological structure and function across its 

whole area that enables it to sustain the habitats, or complex of habitats 

and/or populations of species for which the site is or will be classified’ 

The assessment of effects on integrity is made against the conservation 

objectives for the European sites and these are available on SNH and JNCC 

websites. The onus is on demonstrating the absence of such effect so the 

question which an AA must satisfy is ‘can it be ascertained that the proposal 

will not adversely affect the integrity of the site?’ 

Although the Habitats Directive and Regulations (Habitats Regulations and 

OMR) do not specify exactly how an AA should be undertaken, they do 

specify key responsibilities of both the Competent Authority (MS-LOT) and 

applicant. The role of the Competent Authority is to undertake the decision 

making process and document the AA, while it is the responsibility of the 

applicant to supply all the information required to undertake this assessment. 

In reality, therefore, the applicant will undertake and fully document the HRA 

process and produce an ‘Information for AA’ report for MS-LOT. MS-LOT will 

review the supplied documentation in consultation with SNH and JNCC and 

make the necessary judgement. 

The scope and content of Information for AA needs to be fit for purpose and 

will depend on the potential scale of the proposed project’s impacts (direct 

and indirect). It will not necessarily be linked to the size of a project because 

small developments in sensitive areas can have large adverse effects. The 

AA will also provide valuable information to support the EIA. 

The format of the Information for AA report should be agreed with MS-LOT. 

This can be a stand-alone document, or a ‘signposting document’ which refers 

to the locations within the ES where relevant information is available. 

However, care must be taken to ensure that the product addresses the 

questions and issues that are specific to the Habitats Regulations/OMR; the 

features of interest for which the site(s) is designated, the Conservation 

Objectives, and the LSE on site integrity. 


found. 


found.




HRA is not the same as an EIA and it is not always the case that a project will 

require both. Much of the information/data required to inform the AA will also 

be required for the EIA. 

HRA is only concerned with effects on the qualifying interests of European 

sites (the specific habitats and/or species for which the sites are designated) 

whereas EIA considers a much wider scope of environmental impacts. 

There is a statutory requirement for MS-LOT to determine beyond reasonable 

scientific doubt that an activity or development will not affect the integrity of a 

European site. The applicant therefore has to provide sufficiently compelling 

evidence to enable MS-LOT to make such a judgement. 

There are clear meanings for the terms in the Habitats Regulations/OMR: 

• Never use the terms significant and adverse together when considering 

the effects of European sites. 

• Likely significant effect is the step where potential effects from the 

proposed project are initially considered. 

• Adverse is the term used to describe any impacts on site integrity in view 

of the conservation objectives of the site(s). This is the AA step in the HRA 

process which follows only after likely significant effect has been 

determined. 

The assessment must be specifically tailored to consider each designated site 

and each relevant interest feature of these sites for which the project could 

have an effect. It should be noted that a development does not have to be 

located within the boundaries of the designated site to require an AA because 

effects may occur even if the development is located some distance from a 

designated site. For example, bottlenose dolphins from the Moray Firth SAC 

have been recorded as far south as the Firth of Forth, therefore an activity 

impacting upon bottlenose dolphins anywhere between these two locations 

could, potentially, affect the interest of the SAC and thereby require AA. Also, 

some species of breeding birds are known to forage over long distances 

(10s to 100s of kilometres) and may feed within an area that is away from the 

designated sites for which they are an interest feature. 

A paramount consideration for an AA, and for the reports that are produced to 

inform it, is that a high level of confidence is required when making the final 

judgement. A precautionary approach is enshrined in the process by which 

judgments are made when assessing whether the integrity of sites are 

affected. In particular, under the Habitats Regulations/OMR, there is a need 

for a high level of ‘certainty’ in the assessment conclusions. The requirement 


found. 


found.



to adopt this approach is highlighted within the Waddenzee judgement which 

concluded that: 

‘a plan or project [that is] likely to have significant effect on the site is only 

to be authorised if it is ascertained that it will not adversely affect the 

integrity of the site (i.e. where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to 

the absence of such effects)’. 

These considerations must be taken into account within an AA and where 

there is a remaining risk of an impact to the integrity of a designated site, 

there will be a need to identify mitigation measures to ameliorate such effects. 

This includes measures which avoid any impacts such as timing the work to 

avoid ecologically sensitive periods (e.g. bird breeding of fish migration 

seasons) or measures which reduce an effect (e.g. soft start piling to reduce 

noise impacts). The effects then need to be assessed in the context of such 

measures to identify the residual effects. 

It may still be true that achieving the requisite assurances of no residual 

adverse effects is difficult especially in the marine environment where the 

environment is dynamic and where impacts are not always obvious. 

However, one way to address this is to adopt ‘worst-case’ interpretations that 

are founded on scientific evidence obtained during the assessment process. 

Also, where residual uncertainties remain (or project design envelopes are 

used) then it is possible to derive project implementation processes linked to 

monitoring work to address these. There are now many examples of projects 

which adopt such a process where monitoring is carried out to validate the 

predicted effects arising during construction or operational activities while also 

ensuring the offsetting benefits of mitigation or identifying remedial measures 

as required. This adaptive approach is also endorsed in recent EC guidance 

(EC 2011) which states that: 

‘Following a thorough appropriate assessment that includes collecting all 

relevant data, and subject to the reversibility of actions, minor remaining 

uncertainties should, however, not block or restrain projects indefinitely. 

This needs to be judged on a case by case basis. In case of uncertainty 

on particular mechanisms of complex estuarine or coastal ecosystems 

port and waterway applicants should assess the nature of the remaining 

uncertainties and manage them through targeted monitoring and adaptive 

strategies. Monitoring schemes should be designed in a way that they 

signal any unexpected developments at a stage where effective corrective 

measures can still be taken.’ 

The applicant should ensure that all stages of the project are included 

(construction, operation and decommissioning) and all aspects (including 

associated infrastructure and activities such as cables and pipelines). Under 

the Habitats Regulations/OMR, the assessment must also consider the incombination 

effects with other projects and plans that are known about and 


found. 


found.



are in the planning domain. In-combination effects refer to effects, which may 

or may not interact with each other, but which could affect the same receptor 

or interest feature (i.e. a habitat or species for which a site is designated). For 

instance, bird species could be affected by disturbance from one proposal and 

habitat loss by another. 

If following development of mitigation measures it is assessed that the effects 

will not longer have an adverse effect on integrity then permission is likely to 

be granted. In the event that the assessment cannot conclude that integrity 

will not be adversely affected (even with mitigation) then the project will need 

be addressed under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive rather then Article 

6(3). This means there is a need to demonstrate that there are no 

alternatives which would have a lesser effects and if so the project can only 

proceed if compensation measures are adopted and the scheme can be 

shown to be of overriding public interest. 


Where it has not been ascertained that a proposal will not adversely affect a 

European site, the conditions under which it will be permitted are listed as 

follows: 

• There are no less damaging alternative solutions; AND 

• There are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest for which the 

development should go ahead; 

• Such reasons are limited to those outlined in Regulation 49 of the Habitats 

Regulations; 

• The Competent Authority must consult with the Scottish Ministers and UK 

Government; and 

• Necessary compensatory measures must be taken to secure the 

coherence of the Natura site network. 


found. 


found.


7. ES and Supporting Documentation 

7.1 Environmental Statement 

The ES is the written output of the EIA process and should be presented as a 

complete and independent document which sets out all the information 

gathered during the EIA process in a clear and logical manner. It is the 

primary document supporting the application forms and is the primary tool for 

MS-LOT and consultees to base their decision on whether or not to grant 

approval. 


The key elements that an ES should achieve are: 

• Provide sufficient details to allow readers to make an independent decision 

on the impacts associated with the proposed development; 

• Provide an unbiased report of the EIA process; and 

• Avoid technical jargon unless absolutely necessary as findings should be 

presented in non-technical language. 

The level of detail in the ES depends largely on the nature of the effects and 

vulnerability and significance of the receptors which will vary between 

projects. However, for all ES documentation the focus should be on robust 

baseline and analysis explained in a clear and coherent manner, keeping 

technical terminology to a minimum. In many cases the detailed technical 

analyses should be contained within supporting annexes. Applicants do, 

however, have a statutory duty to include certain information within the ES 

which are listed in Annex III of the EIA directive and described further below: 

• A non technical summary (NTS); 

• A description of the development; 

• A description of the mitigation measures; 

• The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the 

development is likely to have on the environment; and 

• An outline of the main alternatives considered. 

Applicants are advised to include a number of other sections within the ES 

and, although not mandatory, MS-LOT may request them. An indicative 

contents list for an ES including the mandatory requirements includes: 

Non Technical Summary (NTS): This section will be the primary consultation 

tool. It should be clear, concise and written in a non-technical language to be 

accessible to the lay reader. The NTS should be a fair reflection of the main 

ES and should cover all aspects of the EIA process, not just a summary of the 

potential impacts; and should inform readers of the environmental effects of 


found. 


found.


the project and proposed mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. 

The use of graphics to illustrate issues rather than the use of lengthy text is 

recommended. 

Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary: A list of the abbreviations and 

acronyms used should be provided together with a glossary to define any 

technical terms used within the ES. 

Introduction: This section should be used to introduce the project (briefly), 

the legislative policy and context within which the EIA is undertaken and the 

purpose and scope of the ES. Data gaps and uncertainties identified during 

the EIA should be included within this section, as should a list of the 

contributors to the EIA and their relevant experience. 

Alternatives: This section should include a full assessment of the alternatives 

that were considered for the proposed project. This could include alternatives 

sites, technologies and preliminary designs. If no alternatives were 

considered then this should be stated. Refer to Section 4.4.4. 

Description of the Proposed Development: The project should be 

described in sufficient detail and include: site design and size or scale of the 

development in order to allow potential environmental impacts to be identified. 

This section should include consideration of installation and commissioning; 

operation and maintenance; and decommissioning aspects of both onshore 

and offshore facilities. Refer to Section 4.4.1. 

Environmental Baseline: The environmental baseline should describe the 

characteristics for each of the relevant receptors and highlight any particularly 

sensitive receptors or areas. These are usually split into receptor topics as 

outlined in Section 4.4.3. Applicants must have a sound understanding of all 

the different environmental aspects which could be significantly affected by 

the proposals and which must therefore be assessed through the EIA. The 

environmental description should include the physical, biological and human 

aspects of the environment, to provide a background of environmental 

conditions prior to development. 

EIA Methodology, Scoping and Consultation: The explanation of EIA 

methodology should include each stage of the EIA process that the 

development went through from screening, scoping and consultation, both 

formal and informal, to the assessment of potential impacts. The method by 

which the magnitude of effect is assessed should be defined, i.e. under which 

circumstances an impact is considered to be significant as well as any 

specialist studies which were undertaken. Details of all the consultation 

undertaken as part of the EIA should also be documented (including how any 

concerns/issues have been addressed). Refer to Section 4.4.5 and 4.4.6. 


found. 


found.


Assessment of Potentially Significant Impacts: Assessment of the 

potentially significant impacts which were highlighted during the EIA should be 

addressed in this section using the methodology defined in the previous 

section. This should include reference to specific studies which may need to 

be included as technical annexes/appendices to the ES. Depending on the 

scale of the project it may be easier for the applicant to address key issues as 

separate sections within the ES. The assessment section should be split into 

the key receptor/topic areas and include any mitigation which will be 

implemented to reduce environmental effects. The residual impacts including 

mitigation should be clearly defined using the EIA methodology. The 

assessment of cumulative/in-combination effects should also be documented 

within the assessment chapters. Refer to Sections 4.4.6 to 4.4.9. 

Monitoring and Environmental Management Plan (MEMP): The ES is not 

the end point of the EIA process. The design envelopes will reduce as further 

work is undertaken post approval and the mitigation measures defined will 

contain future actions in terms of construction methodologies, survey and 

monitoring as well as specific environmental mitigation. It is necessary to 

document all commitments made and all remaining actions (pre-construction, 

construction, operation and decommissioning) as well as defining the 

responsibilities for those actions. The actions in the MEMP will become part 

of the licence conditions where appropriate. Refer to Section 4.4.10. 

7.1.1 ES Compliance 

In order to ensure that the ES satisfies the legal requirements MS-LOT will 

review the ES as part of the licence/consenting process. The key criteria that 

MS-LOT will be checking are listed below. Any omissions in the ES will result 

in additional queries or information requests as part of the determination 

process and ultimately rejection of the application. MS-LOT will require the 

ES to fully document and answer the following questions: 

• Does the ES describe the condition of those aspects of the 

environment that are likely to be significantly affected by the 

development? 

• Is the ‘sensitivity’ of the baseline environment clearly evaluated? 

• Where limitations in the baseline information exist which could 

influence the assessment of the findings, are they easily identifiable? 

• Is the assessment methodology appropriate? 

• Are the methods for establishing the ‘magnitude’ of effects on the 

receiving environment clearly defined? 

• Where the ES sets out a generic method for evaluating significance, is 

this applied throughout the ES? Where an over-arching approach is not 

followed, are the specific methods used to evaluate significance for 

each environmental topic clearly justified? 

• Does the evaluation of significance consider the different stages of 

development (construction, operation and decommissioning) and relate 

the effects identified to the condition of the baseline environment? 


found. 


found.


• Does the ES give appropriate prominence to both positive and negative 

effects relative to their significance? 

• Is it clear that the EIA has considered inter-relationships in order to 

identify secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects? 

• Does the ES describe the measures proposed to be implemented to 

avoid, reduce, or offset significant adverse effects of the proposed 

development? 

• Does the ES identify the residual impacts following the successful 

implementation of any mitigation described in the ES? 

• Does the ES set out how mitigation measures are to be secured and 

implemented and who has responsibility for their delivery? 

The review should confirm that the ES: 


• Adequately reflects the environmental aspects of the development; 

• Fully documents the EIA process; 

• Is suitable and sufficient to withstand external scrutiny; and 

• Meets the legal requirements of the EIA Directive. 

7.2 Information for Appropriate Assessment 

As discussed above the Information for AA is the documentation of Step 3 of 

the HRA, whereby the project is assessing the LSE of a proposal and if it 

could have an adverse effect on the features of interest of the European site. 

To complete the AA, MS-LOT (taking appropriate expert advice) will consider 

the site’s conservation objectives against the potential impacts that the 

proposed development is likely to cause. If it is ascertained that the proposal 

will or may adversely affect the habitats and species of the designated site 

and consequently the conservation objective(s) of the site, then action will 

need to be taken to avoid this. 

The size, content and structure of an AA and of the information report 

(Information for AA) which supports it will vary between projects as 

determined by MS-LOT but it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide all 

the supporting information documented as Information for AA. 

The Information for AA can be provided as a stand-alone assessment or as a 

signposting document to the relevant sections in the ES. Whichever the 

format, the document should be clearly structured around the HRA process 

and should record the advice received in relation to the HRA, and how the 

issues raised have been addressed. The Information for AA must include the 

following: 


found. 


found.


• Summary of the project and the agreed assessment scope; 

• Description of the baseline environmental conditions (for those interest 

feature habitats and species that have been scoped into the 

assessment; 

• Review of the impact pathways; 

• Review of the relevant conservation objectives; 

• Assessment of the effects on the integrity of the designated site(s) 

against the conservation objectives; 

• Identification of mitigation measures if required; 

• Revisit conclusions about the effects on integrity in the light of the 

applied mitigation measures; and 

• Assessment of the project’s impacts in-combination with other existing 

plans or projects that are in the planning domain. 

7.3 Navigation Risk Assessment 

There should be a dedicated NRA produced to support the application and a 

Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA) may also be required. This needs to be 

specific to the device/s and the area in relation to which the licence 

applications will be made and should address all potential navigational effects 

on other users of the sea, including commercial and leisure users. All efforts 

should be made to access as much up-to-date information as possible on 

vessel passage in, and other users of, the areas that will be affected by the 

proposed development. A summary of the NRA should be included within 

the ES. 

International protocols and conventions relating to safety, laws of the sea and 

pollution apply to shipping and ports. The UK government has a responsibility 

to ensure that measures are implemented in order to honour its commitments 

to these protocols, not least of these is the UK’s responsibility under Article 

60(7) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 

relating to provisions for ‘Artificial islands, installations and structures in the 

exclusive economic zone’. A Navigation Risk Assessment is one process by 

which the necessary considerations of developments can be evaluated. 

Within UK territorial waters, the UK Government uphold the right of innocent 

passage as defined in Article 17 of UNCLOS. Beyond the 12-nautical-mile 

limit of UK territorial waters shipping has the freedom of navigation. The 

regulation of shipping should be carried out by the ‘flag state control’ operated 

by the country in which the ship is registered. As this has proved 

unsatisfactory ‘port state control’ has become common in national 

jurisdictions. Under this regime the UK Government represented by the 

inspection division of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) exercises 

the rights of the port state to inspect and if appropriate detain sub-standard 

ships. 


found. 


found.


The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Navigation Safety Branch is 

actively engaged in the nearshore and offshore development consenting 

process. The MCA’s navigation and safety practitioner experience is used by 

Government Departments, applicants and stakeholders alike. The MCA is a 

formal consultee in the consent process for all UK offshore renewable energy 

installation and will liaise with applicants and stakeholders. Statutory 

consultees also include the relevant General Lighthouse Authority (Northern 

Lighthouse Board, Trinity House, Commissioners of Irish Lights) who respond 

on navigational requirements including aids to navigation. 

The requirement to carry out a NRA in relation to Offshore Renewable Energy 

Installations (OREIs) is established in The Energy Act (2004) (and 

subsequent commencement orders, the latest issued in 2010) which includes 

provisions for safety zones to be placed around renewable energy 

installations or structures, to protect them and passing shipping from collision 

and damage. Section 99 of the Act deals specifically with navigation and in 

combination with Section 36B ‘duties in relation to navigation’ of the Electricity 

Act 1989, stipulates that a consent cannot be granted for an OREI which is 

likely to interfere with the use of ‘recognised sea lanes essential to 

international navigation’ (MCA, 2008). 

The MCA issues ongoing Marine Guidance Notes (MGNs) containing advice 

on specific areas of their responsibility and it is highly recommended that 

these are closely followed. 

Sea ports and harbours provide the interface between the land, nearshore 

and open sea. The majority of port operations are administered by Statutory 

Harbour Authorities (SHA), which are governed by harbour-specific legislation 

tailored to the needs of each port. A range of national legislation places 

statutory responsibility on the harbour master to ensure navigation and safety 

within the harbour limits, this includes the ‘Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses 

Act 1847’ and the ‘Docks and Harbour Act 1972’. Under such legislation, the 

harbour master may issue general or specific directions to control movements 

of vessels within their SHA in order to ensure safety. Harbour Authorities who 

have the power to issue Work Licenses under provisions in their Special 

Act(s) may choose to apply conditions including the completion of a NRA for 

developments in their SHA areas. 

7.4 Third Party Verification (TPV) Report and Certificate 

MS-LOT also requires an independent TPV Report and Certificate 7 of the 

detailed device design and will also be required by developers for insurance 

purposes. 

7 

This is not a legislative requirement 


found. 


found.


The TPV is a report that certifies the integrity of the structural design of the 

device and its foundation for the conditions expected at the site. The report 

must be provided by an independent accredited agency of recognised 

international standing and reputation. At the time of preparation of this 

Manual, there is no list of recommended accreditation bodies, but applicants 

need to ensure that the verifying party is sufficiently experienced and 

reputable in the field. 

The TPV is likely to take the form of a detailed report, which will be produced 

by the verifier in accordance with a specified level of resource and conditions 

(e.g., produced to ensure survivability of the structure at the specific location, 

to a 50-year, or a 100-year wave). The specific conditions to which the 

verifying body makes their assessment are for the applicant and verifier to 

discuss and agree. The level of assessment applied by the third party verifier 

should be made clear in the report. 

Applicants should obtain a certificate, issued by the verifying body, which 

clearly states the level and, where appropriate, the limits of assessment to 

which the proposal has been verified. The TPV certificate is relevant to the 

Marine (Scotland) Act 2012, and should be submitted at the Licence 

application stage. If an applicant envisages a problem or a potential delay in 

obtaining the TPV certificate, then early liaison with MS-LOT is crucial. In 

some circumstances it may be possible to agree a later submission date for 

this document, but applicants should not assume that this will be acceptable. 


found. 


found.


8. References and Additional Reading 

8.1 References 

ABPmer (2004) Impact Assessment Guide. ABP Marine Environmental 

Research Ltd, Unpublished. 

ABPmer (2010) Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment for the Pentland 

Firth Strategic Area (PFSA) Leasing Round. Report for The Crown Estate 

February 2010; ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Report No. R.1602. 

ABPmer (2011) Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Draft Plan for Offshore 

Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters: Proposed Approach for the 

Screening and Assessment of the Short and Medium Term Options. Report 

for the Scottish Government January 2011; ABP Marine Environmental 

Research Ltd. Report No. R. 1722b. 

ABPmer (2011) Habitats Regulations Appraisal of National Infrastructure 

Renewables Plan (N-RIP): Appropriate Assessment Information Review. 

Report for the Scottish Government January 2011; ABP Marine 

Environmental Research Ltd. Report No. R. 1740b. 

ABPmer (2012) Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Draft Plan for Wave and 

Tidal Energy in Scottish Waters Screening Review. Report for Marine 

Scotland 2012; ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, February 2012 

Report No. R.1863b 

Aquatera (2010) A Review of the Potential Impacts of Wave and Tidal Energy 

Development on Scotland’s Marine Environment (Aquatera, Orkney) 

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) (2004) 

Offshore Wind Farms Guidance note for Environmental Impact Assessment In 

respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements Version 2 (Crown Copyright) 

CEFAS (2011) Guidelines for Data Acquisition to Support Marine 

Environmental Assessments of Offshore Renewable Energy Projects Report: 

ME5403 – Module 15 (CEFAS, Lowestoft) 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) Decommissioning of 

offshore renewable energy installations under the Energy Act 2004 Guidance 

Notes for Industry (DECC, London) 

EMEC and Xodus Group (2010) Consenting, EIA and HRA Guidance for 

Marine Renewable Energy Developments in Scotland Part One – Marine 

Renewables Licensing Process 


found. 


found.



Marine Renewable Energy Developments in Scotland Part Two – Legislation 

and Documentation 


Marine Renewable Energy Developments in Scotland Part Three – 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Habitat Regulations Appraisal 

(HRA) Guidance 


Marine Renewable Energy Developments in Scotland Part Four – Wave and 

Tidal Annex 

European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA, EIS Review. Luxembourg: 

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 

European Commission (2011) The Implementation of the Birds and Habitats 

Directives in Estuaries and Coastal Zones with particular attention to port 

development and dredging (European Commission, Luxemburg) 

IEEM (2010) Guidelines For Ecological Impact Assessment in Britain and 

Ireland – Marine and Coastal – Final Document 5 August 2010; commissioned 

by the Council of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management: 

http://www.ieem.net/docs/Final%20EcIA%20Marine%2001%20Dec%202010. 

pdf 

Infrastructure Planning Commission (2011) Using the Rochdale Envelope 

Advice Note 9 (Infrastructure Planning Commission, Bristol) 

Jackson, D., and Whitfield, P. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in 

relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 4. Birds. 

Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. 

Joint Nature Conservation Council Joint Cetacean Protocol 

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5657 

Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse 

Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, 

Natuurbeheer en Visserij, C-172/02, [2005] Env LR 14. 

Macleod, K., Lacey, C., Quick, N., Hastie, G. and Wils on J. (2011). Guidance 

on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in 

Scotland. Volume 2. Cetaceans and Basking Sharks. Unpublished draft report 

to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. 


found. 


found.


Marine Scotland (2010) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Draft 

Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters: Volume 1: 

Environmental Report (Marine Scotland, Edinburgh) 

Saunders, G., Bedford, G.S., Trendall, J.R., and Sotheran, I. (2011). 

Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables 

deployments in Scotland. Volume 5. Benthic Habitats. Unpublished draft 

report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. 

Scottish Executive (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic 

Environmental Assessment (SEA) (Scottish Executive, Edinburgh) 

Scottish Government (2012) Scotland's Renewables Routemap Short Life 

Task Force on Streamlining Energy Development Licensing and Consents. 

Final Report (The Scottish Government, Edinburgh) 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) A handbook on Environmental Impact 

Assessment Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and others 

involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Scotland 3rd 

Edition (David Tyldesley and Associates Edinburgh) 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2010) Natura sites and the Habitats Regulations 

How to consider proposals affecting SACs and SPAs in Scotland The 

essential quick guide (SNH) http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B617797.pdf 

Sparling, C., Grellier, K., Philpott, E., Macleod, K., and Wilson, J. (2011) 

Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables 

deployments in Scotland. Volume 3. Seals. Unpublished draft report to 

Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. 

Trendall, J.R., Fortune, F. and Bedford, G.S. (2011) Guidance on survey and 

monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 

1. Context and General Principals. Unpublished draft report to Scottish 

Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. 

Marine Scotland 2011 Survey Deploy Monitor Policy (Marine Scotland, 

Edinburgh) 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2008) MGN 371 (M+F), Offshore 

Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) Guidance on UK Navigation 

Practice, Safety and Emergency Response Issues 

Renewable UK 2011 Consenting Lessons Learned An offshore wind industry 

review of past concerns, lessons learned and future challenges (Renewable 

UK). 


found. 


found.


Thomas, L. 2009 Potential Use of Joint Cetacean Protocol Data for 

Determining Changes in Species’ Range and Abundance: Exploratory 

Analysis of Southern Irish Sea Data. Report to Joint Nature Conservation 

Committee; National Parks and Wildlife Service; and Countryside Council for 

Wales (University of St Andrews) 

Tyldesley, D. 2011 Assessing projects under the Habitats Directive: Guidance 

for competent authorities. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, 

Bangor. 

WWF UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] Env. L.R. 632, at 

1084-5 

8.2 Further Reading 

ABPmer (2010) Screening and Scoping Review for the Pentland Firth 

Strategic Area (PFSA) Leasing Round Habitats Regulations Assessment. 

Report for The Crown Estate January 2010; ABP Marine Environmental 

Research Ltd, Report No. R.1601. 

Baxter, J.M, Boyd, I.L., Cox, M, Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, 

B., Moffat, C.F., (editors), (2001) Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the 

national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh 

Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) (2003). 

The Coastal and Marine Environmental Site Guide. 

DECC, Decommissioning. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file35754.pdf. 

Essex Planning Officers Association (2007). The Essex Guide to 

Environmental Impact 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) The Guidelines 

for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. 

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2006) Update to the 

Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment. 

European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA, Scoping. Luxembourg: 


European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA, Screening. Luxembourg: 


European Commission (1999) Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and 

Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. Luxembourg: Office for 

Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001. 


found. 


found.


Marine Consents and Environment Unit (2004) Offshore Wind Farms: 

Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessment is Respect of FEPA 

and CPA Requirements, Version 2. Prepared by CEFAS on behalf of MCEU. 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2008) MGN 371 (M+F), Offshore 

Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs) Guidance on UK Navigation 

Practice, Safety and Emergency Response Issues. 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2009) MGN 372: Offshore Renewable 

Energy Installations (OREIs) - Guidance to Mariners operating in the vicinity 

of UK OREIs 

Marine Management Organisation (2011) Marine Licensing Guidance 8 

Environmental Impact Assessment (MMO, Lodon) 

NetRegs. http://www.netregs.gov.uk/. 

OSPAR, (2008). OSPAR Guidance on Environmental Considerations for 

Offshore Wind Farm Development. 

Productive Seas Evidence Group (2010) Charting Progress 2 Feeder Report: 

Productive Seas. (Defra, London) 

Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER) 

(2011) Tidal Technologies: Key Issues Across Planning and Development for 

Environmental Regulators Project ER20 (SNIFFER, Edinburgh) 

Scottish Executive (2006). Assessing Development Plans in Terms of the 

Need for Appropriate Assessment; Interim Guidance. Edinburgh: Scottish 

Executive. 

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Introduction to the Controlled 

Activities Regulations: 

http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/wfd/regimes/intro_car.pdf. 

Scottish Government (2012) Scotland’s Renewables Routemap Short Life 

Task Force on Streamlining Energy Development in Scotland Final Report 

(The Scottish Government, Edinburgh) 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2004) Policy Statement Marine Renewable Energy 

and the Natural Heritage: An overview and policy statement (SNH) 

Scott Wilson and Downie, A J (2003) A Review of Possible Marine Renewable 

Energy Development Projects and their Natural Heritage Impacts from a 

Scottish Perspective. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report 

FO2AA414 


found. 


found.

Appendices 


found. 


found.


Appendix A. 

Consultees 

A1. Section 36 Statutory and Non Statutory Consultees 

A1.1 Statutory 

Scottish National Heritage (SNH) (within 12nm) 

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (outwith 12nm) 

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 

(SEPA) 

Local Authority 

A1.2 Non Statutory 

Association of Salmon Fishery Boards 

(ASFB) 

British Telecom (Radio Network Protection Team) (BT) 

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (Windfarms only) 

Chamber of Shipping 

(COS) 

The Crown Estate 

(CEC) 

Defence Infrastructure Organisation 

(DIO) 

Health and Safety Executive 

(HSE) 

Inshore Fishery Groups 

(IFG) 

Joint Radio Company 

(JRC) 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency 

(MCA) 

Marine Safety Forum 

(MSF) 

Marine Scotland 

(MS) 

National Air Traffic Services 

(NATS) 

Northern Lighthouse Board 

(NLB) 

Royal Yachting Association 

(RYA) 

Royal Society for Protection Birds 

(RSPB) 

Scottish Canoe Association 

(SCA) 

Scottish Fishermans Federation 

(SFF) 

Scottish Fishermans Organisation 

(SFO) 

Scottish Wildlife Trust 

(SWT) 

Surfers Against Sewage 

(SAS) 

Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society 

(WDCS) 

Ports and Harbours 

Historic Scotland 

Marine Scotland Compliance 

Planning 


found. 


found.


A2. Marine Licence Consultees 

A2.1 Statutory 

Scottish National Heritage 

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency 

Northern Lighthouse Board 

(SNH) 

(SEPA) 

(MCA) 

(NLB) 

A2.2 Non Statutory 

We would also consult with anyone identified as having a vested interest in the 

application. These would not be statutory consultees. 


found. 


found.


Appendix B. 

Information Sources, Data Sources, and Further 

Reading 

B1. Introduction 

This annex provides a starting point for the assessment, but there are a number of 

more detailed information sources which should be considered. Key references are 

provided below under various topic headings and MS-LOT and key stakeholders 

should be contacted to ensure the EIA team are using the most up-to-date data and 

research. Topics covered by the subsections in this annex are: 

• Physical processes; 

• Water quality and seabed contamination; 

• Benthic ecology; 

• Migratory fish and shellfish; 

• Birds; 

• Marine mammals; 

• Underwater noise, vibration and electro magnetic fields; 

• Marine archaeology and cultural heritage; 

• Navigation; 

• Commercial fisheries, shellfish and aquaculture; 

• Other sea users; 

• Seascape, landscape and visual impact; and 

• Socioeconomics. 

B2. Physical Processes 

As previously stated, the Scoping Phase should assess the available information and 

data and identify any gaps with respect to the four physical process elements. 

Suggestions regarding the approaches and methodology for site-specific surveys to 

be undertaken to fill any gaps should also be made. 

Information and data should be also be considered that forms part of the evidence 

base with respect to the potential effects of a development upon the physical 

process regime. Whilst the marine energy industry is in its infancy, evidence gained 

from other industries, for example the offshore wind industry, also merits 

consideration. 

B2.1 Primary Data Sources/Supporting Information 

The following section discusses the different sources and types of information which 

will be useful to the characterisation and assessment of physical processes. It will 

be the responsibility of the developer to identify and gather this information but MS- 

LOT will be able to advise. 


found. 


found.


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

holdings (http://www.bodc.ac.uk); 

• Metocean data, including the Cefas WaveNet system 

(http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/our-science/observing-and-modelling/ 

monitoring-programmes/wavenet.aspx); 

• British Geological Maps (www.bgs.ac.uk); 

• Admiralty Charts; 

• Aerial photographs; 

• JNCC Coastal Directory Series; 

• Geological Conservation Review (GCR); 

• The Scottish Marine Renewables SEA 2007 available http://www.seaenergy 

scotland.co.uk/; 

• DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/; and 

• The Coastal Cells of Scotland (HR Wallingford). 

There are a number of important national and regional datasets which can be 

provided such as those collected for Scotland’s Marine Atlas and the Pentland Firth 

Strategic Area. 

Much of the information and reports on the likely physical affects of offshore 

renewables relates to OWF but their conclusions will be directly relevant for marine 

renewables. Previous to ABPmer et al., (2010), Department of Trade & Industry 

(DTI) (now DECC) commissioned a study to assess the potential effects of Round 2 

offshore windfarm developments on sediment transport (ABPmer, 2005). It is hoped 

that evidence from Round 2 developments, once available, can be used to prove, or 

otherwise, this study and initial results are seeming positive. The work used 

numerical modelling to provide one of a series of supporting technical investigations 

into the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for marine renewable energy. It 

also further extended generic research funded by DTI, prior to Round 1, to 

investigate the potential effects of offshore windfarm developments upon coastal 

processes, as reported in Cooper & Beiboer (2002). 

The pan-Government Research Advisory Group (RAG) also commissioned studies 

to address the key impact sediment process issues of offshore windfarms as well as 

a study to address the key impact issues cabling (BERR, 2008). In addition to 

documenting the different cables and installation techniques currently available, the 

report also details the potential environmental impacts of these techniques, 

mitigation measures and good practise which could be applied to minimise the 

impacts 

The potential impacts of future large-scale commercial deployments of wave and 

tidal energy devices extracting large amounts of energy from the tides, is an area of 

concern associated with the marine energy industry. In addition to numerical 

modelling already completed, for example within the SUPERGEN project, recent 

CEC, ETI and PerAWatT initiatives are also concerned with the numerical 

representation of such schemes and their potential energy extraction effects . 


found. 


found.


B2.2 References and Further Reading 

CEFAS 2004 Offshore wind farms: Guidance Note for Environmental Impact 

Assessment in respect of Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) and Coast 

Protection Act (CPA) requirements: Version 2’ Volume 2 of 4 Coastal Processes 

Defra, Cefas and Department for Transport (DfT), 2004 Guidance on Environmental 

Impact Assessment in Relation to Dredging Applications’ (Office of the Deputy Prime 

Minister, 2001) 

Defra, 2005 Nature Conservation Guidance on Offshore Wind Farm Development 

Scottish Natural Heritage 2003 Marine Renewable Energy and the Natural Heritage: 

An Overview and Policy Statement 

Defra (2012) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation UK Initial 

Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status (HMSO, London) 

Bryden, I. and Melville, G., 2004. Choosing and Evaluating Sites for Tidal Current 

Development. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, Vol 218, Part A: J.Power and Energy, p567- 

578, Professional Engineering Publishing Limited, London, UK, ISSN 0957-6509. 

Bryden, I. G. Extracting Energy from Tidal Flows. Hydraulic Aspects of Renewable 

Energy, 19th March 2004, Glasgow 

Bryden, I.G., Couch, S.J., Owen, A. and Melville, G. Tidal Current Resource 

Assessment. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, Part A: J.Power and Energy, Accepted and 

awaiting publication. 

Bryden, I.G., Grinsted, T. and Melville, G.T. Assessing the Potential of a Simple 

Tidal Channel to Deliver Useful Energy. Applied Ocean Research, Vol 26/5 pp. 200- 

206. 

Chin, D. A. Water resources engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, ISBN 0-201- 

35091-2, p. 146. 

Dean, R. and Dalrymple. 1991, Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists. 

Worlds Scientific, Singapore, pp 100-125, ISBN 981-02-0421-3. 

Garrett, C. and Cummins, P., 2005. The power potential of tidal currents in 

channels. Proc. R. Soc. A, Vol. 461, pp. 2563-2572, doi:10.1098/rspa.2005.1494. 

B2.2.1 Baseline Data 

Airy, G., B. Tides and Waves. Encyc. Metrop., Vol. 192, pp241-396. 


found. 


found.


Cooper, W., Saulter, A., and Hodgetts, P., 2008. Guidelines for the use of metocean 

data through the life cycle of a marine renewable energy development. CIRIA 2008, 

RP742, ISBN-13: 978-0-86017-666-4. 

Fisheries Research Services Internal Report No 06/09. A Review of the Sources 

and Scope of Data on Characteristics of Scottish Waters. An Assessment of the 

Adequacy of the Data and Identification of Gaps in Knowledge, Mike Robertson & 

Ian Davies, March 2009 available http://www.frsscotland.gov.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Documents/Int0609.pdf 

This document provides 

a very comprehensive summary of the data sets available for the categorisation of 

Scottish Waters. 

Jeffreys, H., 1925. On the Formation of Water Waves by Wind. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of London, Series A, Vol. 107, No. 742, pp. 189-206. 

Pugh, D. T., 1987. Tides, surges and mean sea-level, Wiley. P 244 Section 7.5. 

B2.2.2 Assessment 

ABPmer, 2005. Assessment of potential effects of Round 2 offshore wind farm 

developments on sediment transport. Report reference R.1109. 

ABPmer and Metoc Plc, 2002. Potential effects of offshore wind developments on 

coastal processes. ETSU W/35/00596/00/REP. URN 02/1336 

ABPmer, Cefas and HR Wallingford, 2007a. Review of Round 1 sediment process 

monitoring data – lessons learnt. Report for DTI, Seabed and Coastal Processes 

Research SED01. Draft report version 1.1, June 2007. 

ABPmer, Cefas and HR Wallingford, 2007b. Dynamics of scour pits and scour 

protection – synthesis report and recommendations (Milestones 2 and 3). Report for 

DTI, Seabed and Coastal Processes Research SED02. Report EX 5588, Release 2, 

November 2007. 

BERR, 2008 Review of Cabling Techniques and Environmental Effects Applicable to 

the Offshore Wind Farm Industry – Technical Report 

ABPmer and HR Wallingford, 2009 Coastal Process Modelling for Offshore Wind 

Farm Environmental Impact Assessment. Report for Cowrie. 

English Nature, RSPB, WWF, BWEA, 2001. Wind Farm Development and Nature 

Conservation 

Huddleston J (ed) 2010 Understanding the Environmental Impacts of Offshore 

Windfarms COWRIE 2010 


found. 


found.


Koutitas, C., Mathematical Models in Coastal Engineering. Pentech Press London, 

pp20-31, ISBN 0- 

7272-1313-4 

The Crown Estate, 2010. Round 3 zone appraisal and planning. A strategic 

approach to zone design, project identification and consent. 

Topper M B R 2010 Guidance for Numerical Modelling in Wave and Tidal Energy 

Revision: 729. The University of Edinburgh for SUPERGEN Marine 

Wilson, J.C., Elliott, M., Cutts, N.D., Mander, L., Mendao, V., Perez-Dominguez, R., 

and Phelps, A., 2010. Coastal and Offshore Wind Energy Generation: Is It 

Environmentally Benign? Energies, 2010, 3, 1383 – 1422. 

Whitehouse, R., 1998. Scour at Marine Structures. Thomas Telford Publications. 

B2.2.3 Survey and Monitoring 

ABPmer, Cefas and HR Wallingford, 2007a. Review of Round 1 sediment process 

monitoring data – lessons learnt. Report for DTI, Seabed and Coastal Processes 

Research SED01. Draft report version 1.1, June 2007. 

Cefas, 2006. Scroby Sands Offshore Wind Farm – Coastal Processes Monitoring. 

Report for DTI, Contract AE0262. Final report. 

Robertson, M. & Davies I.M. 2009. Fisheries Research Services Internal Report No 

06/09. A Review of the Sources and Scope of Data on Characteristics of Scottish 

Waters. An Assessment of the Adequacy of the Data and Identification of Gaps in 

Knowledge. http://www.frs-scotland.gov.uk/FRS.Web/Uploads/Documents/Int 

0609.pdf. 

B3. Water Quality and Seabed Contamination 


MS-LOT will be able to advise on the availability of data of relevance to the 

development, potential sources of baseline data include: 

• Scotland’s Marine Atlas (www.scotland.gov.uk/marineatlas); 

• Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA 

www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/; 

• Marine Scotland Science Survey Data; 

• River Basin Management Plans; 

• DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/; 

• Environmental Statements (and HRAs) for offshore wind and wave and tidal 

developments; 


found. 


found.


• Marine Spatial Plans (when available); 


• Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH): www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-andresearch/snhi-information-service/; 

• COWRIE report on cumulative impact assessment 

www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE/; 

• British Geological Society –geology maps and hydrogeological map of 

Scotland; 

• Ordinance Survey maps; 

• SEPA- bathing quality information, aquifer vulnerability maps available on 

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

• Local Development Plans. 


Cefas, Defra, DTI and MCEU. (2004) .Offshore Wind Farms: Guidance Note for 

Environmental Impact Assessment in Respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements 

Version 2, Marine Consents Environment Unit, 48pp. 

Cefas, 2011. Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental 

assessments of offshore renewable energy projects. Cefas contract report: ME5403 

– Module 15. 

CIRIA C584 guidance: Coastal and Marine Environmental Site Guide 

Cole, S., Codling, I.D., Parr, W. & Zabel, T., (1999). Guidelines for managing water 

quality impacts within UK European marine sites. 

Environmental Resources Management limited (2010) Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm: 

Environmental Scoping report Project 0108603 

HM Government, 2012. Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation. UK Initial 

Assessment and Proposals for good Environmental Status. March 2012. 

Marine Environment Monitoring Group (MEMG), (2004). UK National Marine 

Environment Monitoring Programme - Second Report (1999-2001). Cefas, 

Lowestoft. 138pp. 

OSPAR. (2006). Review of the Current State of Knowledge on the Environmental 

Impacts of the Location, Operation and Removal/Disposal of Offshore Wind-Farms. 

Publication Number: 278/2006 

OSPAR. (2008). Assessment of the environmental impact of offshore wind-farms. 


OSPAR (2010) OSPAR Commission Quality Status Report 2010. Available at 

http://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/ch01_02.html. 


found. 


found.


Pollution Prevention Guidelines 2 (PPG2) above ground storage tanks. February 

2004. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0204BHTN-e-e.pdf? 

lang=_e 

Pollution Prevention Guidelines 4 (PPG4) Disposal of sewage where no foul sewer is 

available. July 2004. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0706 

BJGL-E-E.pdf?lang=_e 

Pollution Prevention Guidelines 5 (PPG5) works and maintenance in or near water. 

October 2007. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO1107BNKGe-e.pdf?lang=_e 

Pollution Prevention Guidelines 6 (PPG 6) working at construction and demolition 

sites. Not dated. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0203 

AUDJ-e-e.pdf?lang=_e 

Pollution and Prevention Guidelines 7 (PPG7) Refuelling Facilities. August 2004. 

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0804BIDG-e-e.pdf?lang=_e 

Pollution and Prevention Guidelines14 (PPG14) Marinas and Craft. February 2004. 

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO0204PP14-e-e.pdf?lang=_e 

SNH. (2002). A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, Guidance for 

Competent Authorities, Consultees and others; 

Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) can also be accessed at 

http://www.sepa.org.uk/about_us/publications/guidance/ppgs.aspx. 

B4. Benthic Ecology 


There are a number of organisations and initiatives which will be important sources 

of data including SNH, MSS, JNCC, MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network), 

OSPAR, Shark Trust etc. Sources of baseline data and guidance include: 

• Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA, 

http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/. 

• DECC Offshore Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) for the UKCS, 

http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/. 

• Scoping reports, EIAs and HRAs undertaken for offshore renewable 

development in the region. 

• National Marine Spatial Plans (when available) 


found. 


found.


• JNCC Coastal Directory Series (baseline environmental and human use 

information for the coastal and near shore marine zone for the whole of the 

UK: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2157 

• MSS data sets (includes location and habitat data for renewable development 

sites): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/MSInteractive/ 

Themes/Renewables/Data 

• Marine Scotland surveys of areas identified for wave and tidal energy 

development http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/ 

MSInteractive/Datalinks 

• Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) data base: 

http://www.searchmesh.net. 

• DASSH (Data Archive for Seabed Species and Habitats): 

http://www.dassh.ac.uk 

• UK benthos. A CD produced for the oil and gas industry summarising all 

seabed sampling data available for the UK continental shelf. 

• JNCC information on protected sites: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4524 and 

SACs with marine components: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1445. 

• SNH information on protected sites – SNH site link: 

http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=53,910284,53_920284&_dad 

=portal&_schema=PORTAL. 

• UK BAP priority species and habitats: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5705 

• Scottish Biodiversity List, temporarily on the SNH website: 

http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/biodiversity-scotland/. 

• Regional Marine Spatial Plans – information on pilot marine plans under the 

Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative (SSMEI): 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/seamanagement/regional/SSMEI 

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

1596 

• JNCC Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland (v04.05) (marine 

benthic classification system): http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1584 

• Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland (MarLIN): 

http://www.marlin.ac.uk 

• COWRIE – Data Management and Stewardship for UK Marine Renewables: 

http://data.offshorewind.co.uk/ 

• National Marine Biological Library: http://www.mba.ac.uk/NMBL/. 

• UK Marine SACs Project website: http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/marinecommunities.htm 

• Admiralty charts. 

• Relevant Local Biodiversity Action Plans. 

• UKSeamap http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5534 

• Marine Protected Areas – gathering/developing and accessing the data of the 

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

• Scottish Biodiversity Layers 


found. 


found.


B4.2 Further Reading 


Basford D.J. and Eleftheriou A. (1988). The Benthic environment of the North Sea 

(56° - 61°N). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 68, 

125 – 141. 

Basford D.J., Eleftheriou A., and Raffaell, D. (1989). The epifauna of the northern 

North Sea (56-61°N). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United 

Kingdom 69, 387 -407. 

Basford D.J., Eleftheriou A., and Raffaelli D. (1990). The infauna and epifauna of the 

northern North Sea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 25, 165 – 173. 

Basford D.J., Eleftheriou A., Davies I. M., Irion G., and Soltwedel T. (1993). The 

ICES North Sea benthos survey: the sedimentary environment. International Council 

for the Exploration of the Seas Journal of Marine Science 50, 71 – 80. 

Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, 

K.O., Reker, J.B. (2004) The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland 

Version 04.05. JNCC, Peterborough ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version) 

www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification ISBN 1 861 07561 8. 

Dyer M.F., Fry W.G., Fry P.D. and Cranmer G.J. (1982). A series of North Sea 

benthos surveys with trawl and headline camera. Journal of the marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom, Vol 62. 297 – 313. 

Dyer M.F., Fry W.G., Fry P.D. and Cranmer G.J. (1983). Benthic regions within the 

North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 63, 

683 – 693. 

Eleftheriou A. and Basford D.J. (1989). The macrobenthic infauna of the offshore 

northern North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Huys 

et al., 1992. 

Eleftheriou, A., Basford, D., Moore, D. C., (2004). Synthesis of benthic information 

on benthos of Area SEA 5. Report for the DTI. SEA 5 Report. 

Faber Maunsell and Metoc, (2007). Scottish Marine Renewables: Strategic 

Environmental assessment. Environmental report. For the Scottish Executive. 

Frauenheim K., Neumann V., Theil H. and Türkay M. (1989). The distribution of the 

larger epifauna during the summer and winter in the North Sea and its suitability for 

environmental monitoring. Senckenbergiana Marit 20, 101– 118. 


found. 


found.


Hughes, D.J., 1998. Sea pens and burrowing megafauna (Vol III) – An overview of 

dynamics and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine 

SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project) pp. 105. 

Gray, J.S. (1974). Animal-sediment relationships. Oceanography and Marine 

Biology: an annual review 12, pp. 223 - 261. 

Gubbay, S. (2007) Defining and Managing Sabellaria spinulosa Reefs: Report of an 

Inter-agency Workshop. JNCC, JNCC Report No. 405, 22pp. 

Irving, R. (2009) Identification of the Main Characteristics of Stony Reef Habitats 

under the Habitats Directive. Summary of an Inter-agency Workshop 26-27 March 

2008. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC Report No. 432, 28pp. 

Jackson, A., (1999). Sabellaria spinulosa. Ross worm and Sabellaria alveolata. 

Honeycomb worm. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key 

Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the 

United Kingdom. [cited 06/08/02]. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk. 

(Connor et al. 2004). 

Jennings S., Lancaster J., Woolmer A. and Cotter J. (1999). Distribution, diversity 

and abundance of epibenthic fauna in the North Sea. Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the United Kingdom 79, 385 – 399. 

Kroencke, I., H. Reiss, J.D. Eggleton, J. Aldridge, M.J.N. Bergman, S. Cochrane, 

J.A. Craeymeersch, S. Degraer, N. Desroy, J-M. Dewarumez, G.C.A. Duineveld, K. 

Essink, H. Hillewaert, M.S.S. Lavaleye, A. Moll, S. Nehring, R. Newell, E. Oug, T. 

Pohlmann, E. Rachor, M. Robertson, H. Rumohr, M. Schratzberger, R. Smith, 

E.Vanden Berghe, J. van Dalfsen, G. van Hoey, M. Vincx, W. Willems, and H.L. 

Rees. (2011). Changes in North Sea macrofauna communities and species 

distribution between 1986 and 2000. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 94 

(1):115. 

Künitzer A., Basford D.J., Craeymeersch J.M., Dewarmez J.M., Dörjes J., Eleftheriou 

A., Heip C., Herman P.M., Kingston P., Niermann U., Rumohr H. and De Wilde 

P.A.J. (1992). The benthic infauna of the North Sea: species distribution and 

assemblages. 

International Council for the Exploration of the Seas Journal of Marine Science 49, 

127 – 143. 

Mair, J.M., Moore, C.G., Kingston, P.F., Harries, D.B., (2000). a review of the status, 

ecology and conservation of horse mussel Modiolus modiolus beds in Scotland. SNH 

Commissioned Report F99PA08. 

Moore, C. G. and Roberts, J. M. (2011). An assessment of the conservation 

importance of species and habitats identified during a series of recent research 

cruises around Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 446. 


found. 


found.


OSPAR (2006). OSPAR Agreement 2005-2006. Agreement on Background 

Concentrations for Contaminants in Seawater, Biota and Sediment. OSPAR 

Commission, London. Revised by ASMO 2006 (ASMO 2006 Summary Record 

(ASMO 06/12/1) § 5.38 

Rees H.L., Eggleton J.D., Rachor E. and Vanden Berghe E. (Eds) (2007) Structure 

and dynamics of the North Sea benthos. ICES cooperative research report. No. 288. 

Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre (SERC) (2012) http://www.serc.si.edu/ 

labs/benthic_ecology/index.aspx 

Shackley, S.E. & Collins, M. (1984). Variations in sublittoral sediments and their 

associated macro-infauna in response to inner shelf processes; Swansea Bay, U.K. 

Sedimentology 31, pp. 793 - 804. 

Snelgrove, P.V.R. & Butman, C.A. (1994). Animal-sediment relationships revisited: 

cause versus effect. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an annual review 32, pp. 

111 - 177. 

Wilding, T.A., Hughes, D.J., Black, K.D. (2005). The benthic environment of the 

North and West of Scotland and the Northern and Western Isles: Sources of 

information and overview. Report 1 to METOC. Scottish association for Marine 

Science, Oban. 


Anon. (1993). Analysis and interpretation of benthic community data at sewage 

sludge disposal sites. Aquat. Environ. Monit. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., 

Lowestoft, No. 37, 80pp. 

Anon. (2001). Offshore wind farms: guidance note for environmental impact 

assessment in respect of FEPA and CPA requirements. Lowestoft: Centre for 

Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, 20pp. 

Boyd, S. E. (2002). Guidelines for the conduct of benthic studies at aggregate 

extraction sites. London: Department for Transport, Local Government and the 

Regions, 117pp. 

Bryden. (2006). Marine Renewable Energy: Predicting the Influence of Energy 

Extraction. Unpublished Report to Metoc plc. June 2006. 

Cefas, Defra, DTI and MCEU. (2004) Offshore Wind Farms: Guidance Note for 

Environmental Impact Assessment in Respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements 

Version 2, Marine Consents Environment Unit, 48pp. 


found. 


found.


Cefas.(2011). Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental 



Cooper, K. M. and Rees, H. L. (2002). Review of Standard Operating Procedures. 

Sci. Ser., Aquat. Environ. Prot.: Analyt. Meth., CEFAS Lowestoft, No. 13, 57pp. 

Crown Estate (2012) Pentland Firth Strategic Area Revisions: Cumulative Impact 

Assessment 

Davies, J., Baxter, J., Bradley, M., Connor, D., KHAN, J., Murray, E., Sanderson, W., 

Turnbull, C. and Vincent, M. (eds., 2001). Marine monitoring handbook. 

Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 405pp. 

Ellis, N and Munro, (2004). A preliminary review of the distribution and extent of 

BAP Priority Habitats across Scotland. SNH Comm. Res. Rep. No. 044 

English Nature. (2001). Wind farm development and nature conservation. Publication 

by English Nature, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Fund UK 

& British Wind Energy Association. Goldaming: WWF-UK. 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM). 2010. Guidelines for 

ecological impact assessment in Britain and Ireland: Marine and Coastal. Final 

version 5, August 2010. 

JNCC (2001) Marine Monitoring Handbook. Available from 

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2430. 

Johnston, C.M., Turnbull, C.G., Tasker, M.L. (2002). Natura 2000 in UK Offshore 

Waters: Advice to support the implementation of the EC Habitats and Birds 

Directives in UK offshore waters. Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, 

Peterborough. 

Marine Scotland (2011). Blue seas – Green Energy: A Sectoral Marine Plan for 

Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. PART A The Plan. March 2011. 

ISBN: 978-1-78045-108-4. 

Nature Conservancy Council. Scotland. (1990) Marine Consultation Areas: Scotland. 

Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) Scotland. ODG Report. 

OSPAR (2004). Draft background document on problems and benefits associated 

with the development of offshore windmill farms (OWF). Annex 1. Report 

BDC/03/4/2-E 

OSPAR. (2006) Review of the Current State of Knowledge on the Environmental 

Impacts of the Location, Operation and Removal/Disposal of Offshore Wind-Farms. 



found. 


found.


OSPAR. (2008) Assessment of the environmental impact of offshore wind-farms. 


Rees, H. L., Moore, D. C., Pearson, T. H., Elliott, M., Service, M., Pomfret, J. and 

Johnson, D. (1990). Procedures for the monitoring of marine benthic communities at 

UK sewage sludge disposal sites. Dept. Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, 

Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet No. 18, 79pp. 

SNH. (2010). Renewable energy and the natural environment. Scottish Natural 

Heritage. 

Warwick, R.M. (2001). Evidence for the effects of metal contamination on the 

intertidal macrobenthic assemblages of the Fal estuary. Marine pollution bulletin 42 

(2), pp. 145 - 148. 


Anon. (1993). Analysis and interpretation of benthic community data at sewage 

sludge disposal sites. Aquat. Environ. Monit. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., 

Lowestoft, No. 37, 80pp. 

Anon. (1996). Monitoring and assessment of the marine benthos at UK dredged 

material disposal sites. Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet, No. 21, 35pp. 

Baldock, K. (2004), Ingoldmells Met Mast Survey Assessment of Marine Growth. Lin 

Baldock, August 2004. 

Bullimore, B. and Hiscock, K. (2001) Procedural Guideline No. 3-12 Quantitative 

Surveillance of Sublittoral Rock Biotopes and Species Using Photographs. In Marine 

Monitoring Handbook, (J. Davies ed.), 315-326. Joint Nature Conservation 

Committee. 

Clarke, K.R. & Warwick, R.M. (1994). Change in marine communities: an approach 

to statistical analysis and interpretation. UK: Plymouth Marine Laboratory. 

Clark, R.B, Frid, C. and Attrill, M. (1997). Marine pollution (fourth edition). Oxford: 

Oxford University Press. 

Davies, J., Baxter, J., Bradley, M., Connor, D., KHAN, J., Murray, E., Sanderson, W., 

Turnbull, C. and Vincent, M. (eds., 2001). Marine monitoring handbook. 

Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 405pp. 

Eleftheriou, A. & McIntyre, A. (2005) Methods for the study of marine benthos. 

Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford. 


found. 


found.


Holt, T.J., Rees, E.I.S., Hawkins, S.J. and Seed, R. (1998), Biogenic Reefs (volume 

IX). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation 

management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine 

SACs Project). 

Holt, R. and Sanderson, B. (2001) Procedural Guideline No.3-5 Identifying Biotopes 

Using Video Recordings. In Marine Monitoring Handbook, (J. Davies ed.), 241-249. 

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 

ICES. (2010) Addendum 1: IBTS Manual - Revision VIII Manual for the International 

Bottom Trawl Surveys. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 

Copenhagen 

ICES. (2009) WGBEAM Manual for the Offshore Beam Trawl Surveys Version 1.0 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen 

Kenny, A.J. and Rees, H.L. (1996), The Effects of Marine Gravel Extraction on the 

Macrobenthos: Early Post-Dredging Recolonization. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 

28, No. 7, 442–447. 

Kruskal, J.B. & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverley Hills, California: 

Sage publications. 

Linley, E.A.S., Wilding, T.A., Black, K., Hawkins, A.J.S. and Mangi, S. (2007) Review 

of the Reef Effects of Offshore Wind Farm Structures and their Potential for 

Enhancement and Mitigation. Report from PML Applications Ltd and the SAMS to 

BERR, Contract No: RFCA/005/0029P, 132pp. 

Marine Pollution Monitoring and Management Group. (2003). UK National Marine 

Monitoring Programme (NMMP2) Green Book. Available from 

http://www.monae.org/documents/. 

Marine Scotland. (2008). Seabed surveys of the Pentland Firth. Available on 

request from Marine Scotland 

Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J. and Hitchcock, D.R. (1998), The impact of dredging 

works in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent 

recovery of biological resources on the seabed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: 

an Annual Review. 36, 127–78. A.D. Assell, R.N. Gibson and Margaret Barnes, 

Editors. UCL Press. 

Rees, H. L., Moore, D. C., Pearson, T. H., Elliott, M., Service, M., Pomfret, J. and 

Johnson, D. (1990). Procedures for the monitoring of marine benthic communities at 

UK sewage sludge disposal sites. Dept. Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, 

Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet No. 18, 79pp. 


found. 


found.


Saunders, G., Bedford, G.S., Trendall, J.R., and Sotheran, I. (2011). Guidance on 

survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. 

Volume 5. Benthic Habitats. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage 

and Marine Scotland. 

Somerfield, P. J. and Warwick, R. M. (1996). Meiofauna in marine pollution 

monitoring programmes. A laboratory manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and 

Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, 71pp. 

Thomas, N.S. (2001) Procedural Guideline No. 3-9 Quantitative Sampling of 

Sublittoral Sediment Biotopes and Species using Remote-Operated Grabs. In Marine 

Monitoring Handbook, (J. Davies ed.), 275-293. Joint Nature Conservation 

Committee. 

Ware, S.J. & Kenny, A.J. (2011). Guidelines for the Conduct of Benthic Studies at 

Marine Aggregate Extraction Sites (2nd Edition). Marine Aggregate Levy 

Sustainability Fund, 80 pp. 

B5. Migratory Fish and Shellfish 


In addition to the data sources identified in the document above, further sources are 

provided below: 

• Atlas of North Sea Fisheries available from International Council for the 

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

• The Scottish Government Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 

www.scotland.gov.uk, under fisheries 

• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation www.sff.co.uk 

• CEFAS provide information on fish stocks around the UK coasts which are 

updated each March www.cefas.co.uk 

• Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters are available from CEFAS, 

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

large scale 

• JNCC Coastal Directory Series 


http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/ 

• DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/. 

• Marine Nature Conservation Review available http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page- 

1596. 

• MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland) 

http://www.marlin.ac.uk 

• Scottish Salmon and Sea Trout Catches available http://www.frsscotland.gov.uk 


found. 


found.


• National Biodiversity Network’s Gateway http://data.nbn.org.uk/. 

• SNH local offices http://www.snh.gov.uk/about/ab-hq.asp 

• SNH information site http://www.snh.gov.uk/snhi 

• Salmon distribution Map for Scotland 

• Reports for fish, shellfish and benthos available at www.offshorewind.co.uk 

B5.2 References and Further Readig 


ABPmer Ltd (2009) Development of spatial information layers for commercial fishing 

and shellfishing in UK waters to support strategic siting of offshore windfarms. 

Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference FISHVALUE-07-08). 

ABPmer (2010) Collision Risk of Fish with Wave and Tidal Devices Commissioned 

by RPS Group plc on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government (ABPmer, 

Southampton) 

ABPmer (2012) Pentland Firth Strategic Areas Revisions: Cumulative Impact 

Assessment for The Crown Estate (ABPmer, Southampton) 

ABPmer and Risk and Policy Analysis (2012) A Socio-economic Methodology and 

Baseline for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Wave and Tidal 

Developments (ABPmer, Southampton) 

ABPmer and Risk and Policy Analysis (2012) Socio- economic Baseline Reviews for 

Offshore Renewables in Scottish Waters (unpublished ABPmer, Southampton) 

CMACS, 2003. A baseline assessment of electromagnetic fields generated by 

offshore windfarm cables. COWRIE-EMF-01-2002. 

Coull, K. A., Johnstone, R. and Rogers, S. I., 1998. Fisheries sensitivity maps in 

British waters. Published and distributed by UKOOA Ltd., 58 pp. 

Fisheries Research Services, 2002. Report on biological information gathered from 

Scottish Fishing Vessels. Industry/Science Partnership, vol. Vol. 2. Aberdeen: 

Fisheries Research Services. 

Gill, A.B. 2005. Offshore renewable energy – ecological implications of generating 

electricity in the coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 605-615 

Gordon, J.D.M., 2006. Fish and shellfish of the north and west of Scotland and the 

Northern and Western isles Report to METOC. Scottish Association for Marine 

Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. 

Gordon, J.D.M., 1981. The fish populations of the west of Scotland shelf. Part II. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review. 19: 405-441. 


found. 


found.


Gordon, J.D.M., and De Silva, S.S., 1980. The fish populations of the west of 

Scotland shelf. Part I. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review. 18: 

317-366. 

Hendry K & Cragg-Hine D (2003). Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon. Conserving 

Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 7. English Nature, Peterborough. 

Knijn, R. J., Boon, T. W., Heessen, H. J. L. and Hislop, J. R. G., 1993. Atlas of North 

Sea fishes. ICES Cooperative Research Report No.194, 268pp. 

Maitland P.S. and Campbell R.N., 1992. Freshwater fishes. Harper Collins 

Publishers, 368pp. 

Malcolm, I. A., Godfrey, J and Youngson, A.F (2010) Review of migratory routes and 

behaviour of Atlantic Salmon, sea trout and European eel in Scotland’s coastal 

environment: implications for the development of marine renewables. Scottish 

Marine and Freshwater Science Vol. 1 No 14 (draft report Published by Marine 

Scotland Science) 

OSPAR.2008. Case reports for the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining 

species and habitats. 

OSPAR.2009. Background Document for Allis shad Alosa alosa. 

OSPAR 2010. Report of the OSPAR workshop on defining actions and measures for 

the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats. 

Picken, M.J. and Shearer, W.M. (eds). The Sea trout in Scotland, Natural 

Environment Research Council, UK. 

Wardle, C.S., 1986. Fish behaviour and fishing gear. In: Pitcher T.J. (ed) The 

behaviour of Teleost fishes. Croom Helm Ltd, London, UK, p 463-495. 

Wheeler, A.,1969. The Fishes of the British Isles and North West Europe. Michigan 

State University Press, 613 pp. 

Wheeler, A., 1978. Key to the Fishes of Northern Europe. Frederick Warne London. 

380pp. 

Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.L., Hureau, J.C., Nielsen, J. and Tortonese, E. (Eds.), 

1984. Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, Vol.1-3. 

UNESCO, Paris, 1473pp. 

Wilhelmsson, D and Malm, T. 2008. Fouling assemblages on offshore wind power 

plants and adjacent substrata. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 79. 459-466 


found. 


found.



Aquaterra 2010 A review of the potential impacts of wave and tidal energy 

development on Scotland’s marine environment. Report no P324 

Blyth-Skyrme 2010. Options and opportunities for marine fisheries mitigation 

associated with windfarm. Final report for COWRIE 

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D., Burnham, K., Laake, J., Borchers, D. & Thomas, L., 

2001. Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological 

populations, Oxford University Press. 

CEFAS (2004) Offshore Wind Farms: Guidance Note for Environmental Impact 

Assessments in respect of FEPA and CPA requirements. Version 2. Report by 

CEFAS on behalf of the MCEU. 

Crown Estate (2012) Pentland Firth Strategic Area Revisions: Cumulative Impact 

Assessment 

Gill, A.B., Gloyne-Phillips, I., Neal, K.J. & Kimber, J.A., 2005. The Potential impacts 

of electromagnetic fields generated by sub-sea power cables associated with 

offshore wind farm developments on electrically and magnetically sensitive marine 

organisms – a review. Final Report Commissioned for COWRIE, Cowrie-EM FIELD 

2-06-2004. 

Gill, A.B., Huang, Y., Gloyne-Philips, I., Metcalfe, J., Quayle, V., Spencer, J. & 

Wearmouth, V. (2009). COWRIE 2.0 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMFsensitive 

fish response to EM emissions from sub-sea electricity cables of the type 

used by the offshore renewable energy industry. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd 

(project reference COWRIE-EMF-1-06). 

Thomsen, F., Ludemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W., 2006. Effects of offshore 

wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. Biola, Hamburg, Germany on behalf 

of COWRIE Ltd. 

Wilson, B. Batty, R. S., Daunt, F. & Carter, C., 2006. Collision risks between marine 

renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the 

Scottish Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 

1QA. 


EMEC. Protocols for Land-based Wildlife observations for wave and tidal sites. 

Available from http://www.emec.org.uk. 


found. 


found.


Maclean I.M.D, Wright L.J., Showler D.A. and Rehfisch M.M. 2009. A Review of 

Assessment Methodologies for Offshore Windfarms. BTO Report commissioned by 

Cowrie Ltd. COWRIE METH-08-08. 

Nedwell, J., Langworthy, J., Howell, D., 2003. Assessment of sub-sea acoustic 

noise and vibration from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; 

initial measurements of underwater noise during construction of offshore windfarms, 

and comparison with background noise. COWRIE report 544R0424. 

Scottish Association of Marine Science, 2006. Collision risks between marine 


Scottish Executive. 

Saunders, G., Bedford, G.S., Trendall, J.R., and Sotheran, I. (2011). Guidance on 


Volume 5. Benthic Habitats. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage 

and Marine Scotland. 

Trendall, J.R., Fortune, F. and Bedford, G.S. (2011) Guidance on survey and 

monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 1. 

Context and General Principals. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural 

Heritage and Marine Scotland. 

Walsh S.J. and Godo O.R., 2003. Quantitative analysis of fish reaction to towed 

fishing gears-What responses are important?. Fisheries Research 63:289-292 

B6. Birds 



development. There are a number of important regional datasets which can be 

provided such as those collected for the Pentland Firth Strategic Area and those 

proposed for the West of Scotland. The Crown Estate has also undertaken aerial 

surveys at a regional scale. 

JNCC can provide some sources of marine bird data and this includes reference to 

ESAS accessible under OBIS-SEAMAP. OBIS-SEAMAP (Ocean Biogeographic 

Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Mega vertebrate Populations) is a 

spatially referenced online database, aggregating marine mammal, seabird and sea 

turtle data from across the globe. This database contains regional, national and 

international atlases of seabird distribution and can be accessed at 

http://seamap.env.duke.edu/. It will provide a good starting point for identifying the 

species of seabirds likely to be found within a particular development area and may 

include datasets if they have been submitted for that particular area. It should be 

noted ESAS data are collected at a large spatial resolution and so may provide only 


found. 


found.


indicative information at the scale of the proposal areas. Additionally proposals that 

are located inshore or in shallow waters may not be covered by ESAS because of 

limited access to boats. Such areas may be covered by other surveys including 

JNCC, The Crown Estate etc. aerial surveys, wintering waterfowl surveys (SNH and 

RSPB), and other observations of breeding, wintering or passage birds held by local 

bird clubs or biological records centres. For example, JNCC are currently running 

the European Seabirds At Sea (ESAS) programme. This is a database to identify 

seabird concentrations within Europe and host year round data on the at-sea 

distributions of all birds that occur around the north-west European continental shelf. 

The RSPB has recently undertaken a large scale tagging exercise to consider the 

foraging behaviour of seabirds and this data is currently being analysed (January 

2012). This work is part of the RSPB Future of the Atlantic Marine Environment 

(FAME) project which is aiming to advise on the designation of Marine Protected 

Areas (MPAs) and develop best practice management recommendations of these 

areas. FAME is the largest seabird tracking study ever undertaken. 

The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) is a joint scheme between the British Trust for 

Ornithology (BTO), RSPB and JNCC which monitors non-breeding water birds, 

including divers and sea ducks, in the UK. This survey aims to monitor trends in 

non-breeding water birds and by implication, their wetland habitats. It should be 

noted that these are shore based counts and the extent of coverage of marine areas 

is constrained to 500m to 2km from the coast. However these datasets have been 

collated over a long time series. The BTO is also part of the Strategic Ornithological 

Support Services (SOSS) which is a group that provides advice to the offshore 

windfarm industry. This group is currently compiling a list of seabird tracking projects 

with the aim of encouraging collaboration between researchers and the renewable 

energy industry to provide a greater understanding of the risk posed to seabirds as a 

result of marine renewable projects. 

Potential additional sources of baseline data and guidance include: 

• Scotland’s Marine Atlas (www.scotland.gov.uk/marineatlas) 


www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/. 

• Marine Scotland’s Scottish Renewables HRA (in production) 

• DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/. 

• Environmental Statements (and HRAs) for offshore wind and wave and tidal 

developments 

• Marine Spatial Plans (when available). 

• JNCC Coastal Directory Series. 

• JNCC published Atlas of seabird distribution in north west European waters 

this data is in ESAS. 

• Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) using SNHi www.snh.gov.uk/publicationsdata-and-research/snhi-information-service/ 

• Bird Life International - www.birdlife.org.uk. 

• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) www.rspb.org.uk. 


found. 


found.


• COWRIE report on cumulative impact assessment http 

www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE/. 

• The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) www.bto.org/webs. 

• Non-Estuarine Wade Survey (NEWS) 



Collier, M., Banks, A., Austin, G., Girling, T., Hearn, R. & Musgrove, A. (2005). The 

Wetland Bird Survey 2003/04 Wildfowl and Wader Counts, 

BTO/W&WT/RSPB/JNCC. 

Camphuysen, C.J. (2005). Seabirds at sea in summer in northwest North Sea. 

British Birds, 98:2-19. 

Cranswick, P., Worden, J., Ward, R., Rowell, H., Hall, C., Musgrove, A., Hearn, R., 

Holloway, S., Banks, A., Austin, G., Griffin, L., Hughes, B., Kershaw, M., O’Connell, 

M., Pollitt, M., Rees, E. & Smith, L. (2005). The Wetland Bird Survey 2001/03 

Wildfowl and Wader Counts. BTO/W&WT/RSPB/JNCC. 

Dawson N., Söhle I., Wilson L.J., Dean B.J., Webb A. and Reid J.B. (2007). The 

numbers of inshore waterbirds using the Firth of Forth during the non-breeding 

season, and an assessment of the area’s potential for qualification as a marine SPA. 

JNCC report no 402. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4484 

Dean, B.J., Webb, A., McSorley, C.A & Reid, J.B. (2003). Aerial surveys of UK 

inshore areas for wintering seaduck, divers and Grebes: 2000/01 and 2001/02. Joint 

Nature Conservation Committee Report no 333, JNCC, Peterborough. 

Dean, B.J., Webb, A., McSorley, C.A & Reid, J.B. (2004a). Surveillance of wintering 

sea duck, divers and Grebes in UK inshore areas: aerial surveys 2002/03. Joint 

Nature Conservation Committee Report no 345, JNCC, Peterborough. 

Dean, B.J., Webb, A., McSorley, C.A, Schofield, R.A. & Reid, J.B. (2004b). 

Surveillance of wintering sea duck, divers and Grebes in UK inshore areas: aerial 

surveys and shore-based counts 2003/04. Joint Nature Conservation Committee 

Report no 357, JNCC, Peterborough. 

European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (2011) Environmental Statement 

Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm Volume 2 of 4 

Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B. & Chapman, R.A. (1993). New atlas of breeding birds in 

Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. T. & A.D. Poyser, London. 

Lack, P. (1986). The atlas of wintering birds in Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, 

Calton. 


found. 


found.


Mitchell, P.I., Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N. & Dunn, T.E. (2004). Seabird populations of 

Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, London. 

OBIS-SEAMAP (Ocean Biogeographic Information System Spatial Ecological 

Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations). Available from: 

http://seamap.env.duke.edu/ 

Stone, C.J., Webb, A., Barton, C., Ratcliffe, N., Camphuysen, C.J. Reed, T.C., 

Tasker, M.L. & Pienkowski, M.W. (1995). An atlas of seabird distribution in Northwest 

European waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 

Webb, A., McSorley, C.A., Dean, B.J., Reid, J.B., Cranswick, P.A., Smith, L. & Hall, 

C. (2006). An assessment of the numbers and distribution of inshore aggregations 

of waterbirds using Liverpool Bay during the non-breeding season in support of 

possible SPA identification. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 373, 

JNCC, Peterborough. 

Wilson, L.J., Dean, B.J., Webb, A., McSorley, C.A & Reid, J.B. (2006). Wintering 

seaducks, divers and Grebes in UK inshore areas: aerial surveys and shore-based 

counts 2004/05. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 371, JNCC, 

Peterborough. 


Aquaterra 2010 A review of the potential impacts of wave and tidal energy 

development on Scotland’s marine environment. Report no P324 


(2001). Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological 


Daunt, F., Wanless, S., Peters, G., Benvenuti, S., Sharples, J., Gremillet, D. & Scott, 

B. (2006). Impacts of oceanography on the foraging dynamics of seabirds in the 

North Sea. In: Top predators in marine ecosystems: their role in monitoring and 

management. (eds I.L. Boyd, S. Wanless & K. Camphuysen). 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp177-190. 

Defra, (2005). Nature Conservation Guidance on Offshore Wind Farm Development. 

A guidance note on the implications of the EC Wild Birds and Habitats Directives for 

developers undertaking offshore windfarm developments. UK. 

Fraenkel, P.L. (2006). Tidal current energy technologies. In Wind, Fire and Water: 

Renewable Energy and Birds. Ibis 148 (Suppl. 1): 145–151. 


found. 


found.


Garthe, S. & Huppop, O. (2004). Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind 

farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied 

Ecology, 41, 724-734. 

Jackson, D., and Whitfield, P. (2011). Guidance on survey and monitoring in relation 

to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. Volume 4. Birds. 

King, S., Maclean, I. M. D., Norman, T. & Prior, A. (2009). Developing guidance on 

ornithological Cumulative Impact Assessment for offshore wind farm developers. 

COWRIE, London. Report available from: http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/ 

Pages/Publications/Latest_Reports/Birds/Developing_Guidance_onc4f9897d/ 

Kober K., Webb A., Win I., Lewis M., O’Brien S., Wilson L.J. and Reid J.B. (2010). 

An analysis of the numbers and distribution of seabirds within the British Fishery 

Limit aimed at identifying areas that qualify as possible marine SPAs. JNCC report 

no 431. 

Mavor, R.A., Parsons, M., Heubeck, M. & Schmitt, S. (2006). Seabird numbers and 

breeding success in Britain and Ireland, 2005. Joint Nature Conservation 

Committee, Peterborough. 

McSorley, C.A., Reid, J.M., Wilson, L.J. & Gray, C.M. (2006). Special protection 

areas in the marine environment: possible seaward boundary extensions to breeding 

seabird colony SPAs. Seabird Group Newsletter 101: 1-3. 

McSorley, C.A., Webb, A., Dean, B.J. & Reid, J.M. (2005). UK inshore SPAs: a 

methodological evaluation of site selection and definition of the extent of an interest 

feature using line transect data. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 

344, JNCC, Peterborough. 

Norman. T., Buisson. R., and Askew. N. (2007) COWRIE workshop on the 

cumulative impact of offshore windfarms on birds. Peterborough, 3rd May. 2007. 

Report commissioned by COWRIE Ltd 

Perrow M. R. Skeate E. R., & Tomlinson M. L. 2008. Scroby Sands Ornithological 

Monitoring. Assessing the impacts of the Scroby Sands offshore wind farm upon 

Little Tern Sternula albifrons: summary of monitoring programme 2002-2006. For 

and on behalf of E-ON UK Renewables Offshore Wind Limited, ECON Ecological 

Consultancy, Norwich. 

Scottish Association of Marine Science. (2006). Collision risks between marine 


Scottish Executive. 

Thaxter, C. Lascelles, B. Sugar, K. Aonghais S.C.P. Cook, Roos, S. Bolton, M. 

Rowena H.W. Langston and Niall H.K. Burton (2011) Seabird Foraging Ranges as a 

Preliminary Tool for Identifying Candidate Marine Protected Areas. 


found. 


found.


The Crown Estate (2012) Pentland Firth Strategic Area Revisions: Cumulative 

Impact Assessment 

Wilson, B. Batty, R. S., Daunt, F. & Carter, C. (2006). Collision risks between marine 

renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to Scottish 

Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. 


Key reports available at: http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/Publications/Archive/ 

Birds/ 

Burger, A. E. & Shaffer, S. A. (2008). Application of tracking and data-logging 

technology in research and conservation of seabirds. The Auk 125: 253-264. 

Camphuysen, C.J., Fox, A.D., Leopold, M.F. & Petersen, I.K. (2004). Towards 

standardised seabirds at Sea census techniques in connection with environmental 

impact assessments for offshore wind farms in the UK. Report to COWRIE. 

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/Camphuysenetal2004_COWRIEmethods.PDF and 

www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk 

EMEC. Protocols for Land-based Wildlife observations for wave and tidal sites. 

Available from http://www.emec.org.uk. 

Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. and Evans J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB 

Sandy. 

Maclean I.M.D., Skov H., Rehfisch M.M. and Piper W. 2006. Use of aerial surveys to 

detect bird displacement by offshore windfarms. COWRIE DISP-03-2006. BTO 

Research Report No. 446 

Maclean I.M.D., Skov H. and Rehfisch M.M. (2007). Further use of aerial surveys to 

detect bird displacement by offshore windfarms. COWRIE EXTDISP-06-07. 

Maclean I.M.D, Wright L.J., Showler D.A. and Rehfisch M.M. (2009). A Review of 

Assessment Methodologies for Offshore Windfarms. BTO Report commissioned by 

Cowrie Ltd. COWRIE METH-08-08. 

McSorley, C.A., Dean. B.J., Webb, A. & Reid, J.M. (2003). Seabird use of water 

adjacent to the colony. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report no 329, JNCC, 

Peterborough. 

Perrow M. R. Skeate E. R., Lines P., Brown D. and Tomlinson M. L. (2006). Radio 

telemetry as a tool for assessing impacts of windfarms: the case of Little Terns 

Sterna albifrons at Scroby Sands, Norfolk, UK. Ibis 148:57-75. 


found. 


found.


Thaxter & Burton in prep. High definition imagery for surveying seabirds and marine 

mammals: a review of recent trials and development of protocols. Due to be 

published at http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE. 

Walls, R., Pendlebury, C., Budgey, R., Brookes, K. & Thompson, P. (2009). Revised 

best practice guidance for the use of remote techniques for ornithological monitoring 

at offshore windfarms. COWRIE REMTECH-08-08, London. 

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/Publications/Latest%5FReports/Birds/RE 

VISED%5FBEST%5FPRACTICE%5F993b22da/ 

See also at sea survey methods page of JNCC website. Available from 

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=4514 

B7. Marine Mammals 



development. SNH 2011 guidance also summarises existing information and data 

sources (Macleod et al and Sparling et al 2011). Due to a lot of development and 

being proposed in Scottish waters and the subsequent need for a coherent and 

comprehensive ecological management system, there is a lot of work being done at 

the moment on the abundance and distribution of marine mammals in Scottish 

waters. 

Detailed reviews of marine mammal distribution and ecology in UK waters have been 

carried out by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), University of St. Andrews, in 

contribution to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Offshore 

Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (DECC, 2009). 

Information on the status of seals around the UK coast is reported annually by the 

SMRU-advised Special Committee on Seals (SCOS) (SCOS, 2010). Studies on the 

movements of seals fitted with satellite tags have been undertaken by 

(Matthiopoulos et al., 2004; Sharples et al., 2008; Cunningham et al., 2009; 

McConnell et al., 1999; Tollit et al 1998 and Thompson et al. 1996) to investigate 

their distributions in UK waters. An investigation into the long terms patterns of 

harbour seal site use (Cordes et al, 2011) has some confounding conclusions in that 

there are long term pattern changes of site selection that may need to be considered 

in the management of these seal populations. 

The ‘Small Cetacean Abundance in the European Atlantic and North Sea’ 

programmes (SCANS and SCANS-II) undertook widespread ship based and aerial 

surveys of cetaceans in the North Sea (SCANS-II, 2008). Survey data for cetaceans 

recorded along the shelf edge (and offshore waters beyond this) of the UK is 

provided by the Cetacean Offshore Distribution and Abundance (CODA) survey 


found. 


found.


(CODA, 2009). The WDCS (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society) additionally 

undertook a review identifying critical habitat for cetaceans to help highlight potential 

Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s) for cetacean species (Clark et al. 2010). 

Thompson et al (2011) reviewed the results of a number of research studies to 

determine the distribution, abundance and population structure of bottlenose 

dolphins around the Scottish coast. Studies and surveys at a more local scale on 

the bottlenose dolphins have been undertaken by a range of organisations including 

the University of Aberdeen/SMRU (Hastie et al., 2003, Bailey 2006,SMRU, 2007), 

Talisman Energy (UK) Limited (2006), WDCS, 2009) and the Hebridean Whale and 

Dolphin Trust (Mandleberg, 2006). 

Surveys on harbour porpoise abundance and distribution at a regional scale have 

been undertaken by a range of authors including Bailey and Thompson (2009), 

Goodwin and Speedie (2008), Robinson et al. (2007) and Marubini et al. (2009). 

Detailed research on otter ecology in coastal and marine environments has been 

undertaken around Shetland by members of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and 

University of Groningen (Kruuk et al. 1991; Kruuk and Moorhouse, 1991; Kruuk et 

al.. 1993; Kruuk, 1995; Kruuk et al. 1998 and Nolet et al.1993). In addition reviews 

of otter ecology have been produced as part of the Life in UK Rivers project, a 

project which aimed to develop methods for conserving the wildlife and habitats of 

rivers within the Natura 2000 network of protected European sites (Chanin, 2003) 

and by Mason and Macdonald (2008). Potential other sources of baseline data and 

guidance include: 

• Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA http://www.seaenergy 

scotland.co.uk/; 

• DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/; 

• Marine Spatial Plans (when available) ; 

• Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) http://www.smru.st-andrews.ac.uk/; 

• Seawatch foundation website and publications 

http://www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk/; 

• SCANS (Small Cetacean in the European Atlantic and North Sea) 

http://biology.st-andrews.ac.uk/scans2/; 

• SNH holds comprehensive digital datasets for terrestrial and marine protected 

areas; 

• NBN Gateway http://data.nbn.org.uk/; 

• JNCC Coastal Directory Series http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2157; 

• Local biological recording groups/local recorders; 

• JNCC Atlas of Cetacean distribution in NW European Waters 

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2713; 

• British Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC) http://www.bodc.ac.uk/; and 

• UKBAP website www.ukbap.org.uk. 


found. 


found.




Aecom/Metoc (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental 

Assessment (SEA) http://www.seaenergyscotland.net/SEA_Public_Environmental_ 

Report.htm 

Bailey, H. (2006). Distribution and habitat use of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncates) at varying temporal scales. PhD thesis 

Bailey, H. and Thompson, P.M. (2009). Using marine mammal habitat modelling to 

identify priority conservation zones within a marine protected area. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 378: 279-287. 

Chanin, P. (2003). Ecology of the European Otter. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers 

Ecology Series No. 10. English Nature, Peterborough. Ecology Series No.10 

English Nature, Peterborough. 

CODA. 2009. Cetacean Offshore Distribution and Abundance in the European 

Atlantic (CODA). Final Report. 43pp. 

Goodwin, L. and Speedie, C. (2008). Relative abundance, density and distribution of 

the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) along the west coast of the UK. Journal 

of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 88(6): 1221-1228. 

European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC), in progress. Environmental Standard for 

the Wave and Tidal Energy Industries. Refer to EMEC website: 

http://www.emec.org.uk 

Hammond, P. S., P. Berggren, et al. (2002). Abundance of harbour porpoises and 

other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. Journal of Applied Ecology 

39: 361-376. 

Hastie, G.D. and Wilson, B. (2006). Marine Mammals of the north and west of 

Scotland and the Northern and Western Isles. Report to METOC. Scottish 

Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. 

JNCC. (2009). The deliberate disturbance of marine European Protected Species, 

Guidance for English and Welsh territorial waters and the UK offshore marine area. 

Northridge, S. P., M. L. Tasker, et al. (1995). Distribution and relative abundance of 

harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena L.), white-beaked dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray), and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

Lacepede) around the British Isles. ICES Journal of Marine Biology 52(1): 

55-66. 


found. 


found.


Reid, J. B., Evans, P. G. H. et al. (200)3. Atlas of cetacean distribution in north-west 

European waters. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee: 1-82. 

Robinson, K.P., Baumgartner, N., Eisfeld, S.M., Clark, N.M., Culloch, R.M., Haskins, 

G.N., Zapponi, L., Whaley, A.R., Weare, J.S and Tetley, M.J. (2007).The summer 

distribution and occurrence of cetaceans in the coastal waters of the outer southern 

Moray Firth in northeast Scotland (UK). Lutra 50, 19-30. 

Thompson, P.M., Cheney, B., Ingram, S,. Stevick, P., Wilson, B and Hammond, P.S. 

(Eds) (2011). Distribution, abundance and population structure of bottlenose 

dolphins in Scottish waters. Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage 

funded report. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 354. 


Macleod, K., Lacey, C., Quick, N., Hastie, G. and Wilson, J. (2011). Guidance on 


Volume 2. Cetaceans and basking Sharks. 

Scottish Association of Marine Science. (2006). Collision risks between marine 

renewable energy devices 

and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish Executive. 

SMRU (Sea Mammal Research Unit). (2005). Scientific Advice on Matters Related 

to the Management of Seal Populations, 2005. UK Special Committee on Seals, 

Advice. Available from: http://smub.stand.ac.uk/CurrentResearch.htm/scos.htm 

Thomsen, F., Ludemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W., 2006. Effects of offshore 

wind farm noise on 

marine mammals and fish. Biola, Hamburg, Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd. 

Wilson, B., Batty, R.S., Daunt, F. & Carter, C. (2006). Collision risks between marine 

renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to Scottish 

Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. 



(2001). Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological 


Cheney, B., Thompson, P.M., Ingram, S.N., Hammond, P.S., Stevick, P.T., Durban, 

J.W., Culloch, R.M., Elwen, S.H., Mandleburg, L., Janik, V.M., Quick, N.J., Islas- 

Villanueva, V., Robinson, K.P., Costa, M., Eisfeld, S.M., Walters ,A., Phillips, C., 

Weir, C.R., Evans, P.G.H., Anderwald, P., Reid, R J., Reid, J.B., Wilson, B. (2011). 

Intergrating multiple data sources to assess the distribution and abundance of 


found. 


found.


bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) in Scottish waters. Mammal Review (In 

Press) 

COWRIE Report 8 Methodologies for measuring and assessing potential changes in 

marine mammal behaviour, abundance or distribution arising from the construction, 

operations and decommissioning of offshore wind farms. Available 

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk 

Cressie, N.A.C. (1991). Statistics for spatial data. John Wiley & Dons, New York. 

Matthiopolous, J., McConnell, B., Duck, C. and Fedak, M., 2004. Using satellite 

telemetry and aerial 

counts to estimate space use by grey seals around the British Isles. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 41: 476-491. 

Cunningham, L., Baxter, J.M., Boyd., I.L., Duck, C.D., Lonergan, M., Moss, S.E., 

McConnell, B. (2009). Harbour seal movements and haul-out patterns: implications 

for monitoring and management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems, 19 398-407. 

Macleod, K., Lacey, C., Quick, N., Hastie, G. and Wilson J. (2011). Guidance on 


Volume 2. Cetaceans and Basking Sharks. Unpublished draft report to Scottish 

Natural Heritage and Marine Scotland. 

Sparling, C., Grellier, K., Philpott, E., Macleod, K., and Wilson, J. (2011). Guidance 

on survey and monitoring in relation to marine renewables deployments in Scotland. 

Volume 3. Seals. Unpublished draft report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Marine 

Scotland. 

Sveegaard, S., Teilmann J., Tougaard, J., Dietz, R., Mouritsen, K.N., Desportes, G 

and Siebert, U. 2011. High-density area for harbour porpoises (Phecoena 

phocoena) identified by satellite tracking. Marine Mammal Science. 27:1, 230-246 

Tougaard J, Ebbesen I, Tougaard S, Jensen T, Teilmann J (2003b) Satellite 

tracking of Harbour Seals on Horns Reef. Use of the Horns Reef wind farm area and 

the North Sea. Commissioned by Tech-wise A/S. Fisheries and Maritime Museum, 

Esbjerg. 42 pp. 

B7.2.4 General 

Clark, J., Dolman, S.J. and Hoyt, E. (2010). Towards Marine Protected Areas for 

Cetaceans in Scotland, England and Wales: A scientific review identifying critical 

8 

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

and grey seals. 


found. 


found.


habitat with key recommendations. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 

Chippenham, UK, 178pp 

Cordes, LS., Duck, C.D., Mackey, B.L., Hall, A.J., and Thompson, P.M. (2011). Long 

term patterns in harbour seal site-use and the consequences for managing protected 

areas. Animal Conservation. 14, 430-438. 

DECC (2009) UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment: Future 

Leasing for Offshore Wind Farms and Licensing for Offshore Oil & Gas and Gas 

Storage. 

Kruuk, H.A., Moorhouse, A. (1991). The spatial organization of otters (Lutra lutra) in 

Shetland. J. Zool. 224, 41-57. 

Kruuk, H., Carss, D. N., Conroy, J. W. H. & Gaywood, M. J. (1998). Habitat use and 

conservation of otters (Lutra lutra) in Britain: a review. Symposia of the Zoological 

Society of London 71, 119-133. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

MacLeod, C. D.,Begoña Santos, M., Reid, R.J., Scott, B.E and Pierce G.J. (2007). 

Linking sandeel consumption and the likelihood of starvation in harbour porpoises in 

the Scottish North Sea: could climate change mean more starving porpoises? Biol. 

Lett.3, 185-188. 

Matthiopoulos J, McConnell B, Duck C, Fedack M (2004) Using satellite telemetry 

and aerial counts to estimate space use by grey seals around the British Isles. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 476-491. 

McConnell BJ, Fedak MA, Lovell P, Hammond PS (1999) Movements and foraging 

areas of grey seals in the North Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology 36, 573-590. 

Pierpoint, C. (2008). Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) foraging strategy at a 

high energy, near-shore site in south-west Wales, UK. Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2008, 88(6) 1167-1173. 

Pomeroy, P.P., Anderson, S.S., Twiss, S.D. and McConnell, B.J. (1994) Dispersion 

and site fidelity of breeding female grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) on North Rona, 

Scotland. Journal of Zoology, 233, 429-448. 

Pomeroy, P. P.. Twiss, P. Redman S. D. (2000). Philopatry, Site Fidelity and Local 

Kin Associations within Grey Seal Breeding Colonies. Ethology 106, 888-919. 

Read, A.J. and Westgate, A.J. 1997. Monitoring the movements of harbour 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)with satellite telemetry. Marine Biology. 130, 315- 

322 


found. 


found.


Reid JB, Evans PGH, Northridge SP, (2003) Atlas of Cetacean distribution in northwest 

European waters, 76 pages, colour photos, maps. Paperback, ISBN 1 86107 

550 2 

Robinson KP, Baumgartner N, Eisfeld SM, Clark NM, Culloch RM, Haskins GN, 

Zapponi L, Whaley AR, Weare JS, Tetley MJ (2007). The summer distribution and 

occurrence of cetaceans in the coastal waters of the outer southern Moray Firth in 

northeast Scotland (UK). Lutra 50(1): 19-30 

Robinson, K.P., Cheney, B., Mandleberg, L., Eisfeld, S.M., Costa, M., Johnston, P., 

Stevick, P.T (2009).Coast to Coast: First evidence for the translocational movements 

by Scottish dolphins (UK). Poster for 23rd Annual Conference of the European 

Cetacean Society, Istanbul, Turkey 

Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Reid, R.J., Patterson, I.A.P., Ross, H.M and Mente, E. 

(2001). Stomach contents of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) in Scottish 

waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 81, 873-878. 

Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Learmonth, J.A. (2004). Variability in the diet of harbour 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Scottish waters 1992-2003. Marine mammal 

science 20, 1-27. 

SCANS-II (2008) Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea. Final 

Report to the European Commission under project LIFE04NAT/GB/000245. 

Available from Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St. Andrews, 54pp. 

Sea Mammal Research Unit (2002) Surveys of harbour (common) seals in Shetland 

and Orkney, August 2001. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report 

F01AA417 . 

Sharples RJ, Matthiopoulos J, Hammond PS (2008). Distribution and movements of 

Harbour seals around the coast of Britain. Report to the Department of Energy and 

Climate Change (DECC). Sea Mammal Research Unit, St Andrews, UK, 65pp. 

SCOS. (2009). Scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal 

populations: 2009. Special Committee on Seals, 100pp. 

SCOS. (2010). Scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal 

populations: 2010. Special Committee on Seals, 115pp. 

Scottish Executive. (2007). Scottish Marine Renewables: Strategic Environmental 

Assessment (SEA). Report prepared for the Scottish Executive by Faber Maunsell 

and Metoc PLC. 

SMRU. (2007). Potential impact of Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on 

SACs for bottlenose dolphins and other marine mammals in the Moray Firth and 


found. 


found.


Cardigan Bay/Pembrokeshire. Report to the Department of Trade and Industry. Sea 

Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), University of St. Andrews, UK, 13pp. 

SNH, (2006a). Faray & Holm of Faray Special Area of Conservation. Advice under 

Regulation 33(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as 

amended). 

SNH, (2006b). North Rona Special Area of Conservation 

.Advice under Regulation 33(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) 

Regulations 1994 

(as amended). 

SNH, (2006c). Dornoch Firth and Morrich More Special Area of Conservation. 

Advice under Regulation 33(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) 

Regulations 1994 (as amended). 

SNH, (2006d). Yell Sound Coast Special Area of Conservation. Advice under 

Regulation 33(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as 

amended). 

Talisman Energy (UK) Limited (2006) Beatrice Wind Farm Demonstrator Project: 

Environmental Statement. 

Thompson, P.M., Cheney, B., Ingram, S., Stevick, P., Wilson, B. & Hammond, P.S. 

(Eds) (2009). Distribution, abundance and population structure of bottlenose 

dolphins in Scottish waters. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report. 

Tollit, D.J., Black, A,D., Thompson, P.M., Mackay, A., Corpe, H.M., Wilson, B. Van 

Parijs, S.M., Grellier, K and Parlane, S. (1998). Variations in harbour seal Phoca 

vitulina diet and dive-depths in relation to foraging habitat. J. Zool., Lond 244, 209- 

222. 

Thompson, P. M. & Miller, D. (1990). Summer foraging activity and movements of 

radio-tagged common seals (Phoca vitulina L.) in the Moray Firth, Scotland. J. Appl. 

Ecol. 27: 492±501. Corpe HM 1996 The behavioural ecology of young harbour seals 

in the Moray Firth, NE Scotland. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen. 

Thompson PM, McConnell BJ, Tollit DJ, Mackay A, Hunter C, Racey PA (1996) 

Comparative distribution, movements and diet of harbour and grey seals from the 

Moray Firth, NE Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 33 1572-1584. 

WDCS, (2009). Outer Moray Firth Cetacean Research 2008. Project Report for the 

BBC Wildlife Fund. 


found. 


found.


B8. Underwater Noise, Vibration and Electro Magnetic Fields 



development. A number of reports have been produced by COWRIE and SNH 

identifying the potential effects of sub-sea cables and these references are provided 

below along with an extensive reference list of material on noise and vibration 

effects. The reference list has been split into baseline, assessment and survey and 

monitoring for ease of use. 

Key data sources also include: 

• ES, HRAs and monitoring from other offshore renewable developments; 

• Kingfisher cable awareness charts; 

• seaZone data; 

• Admiralty charts; 



Ainslie M. A. (2001) Wind, rain and shipping noise source levels: Review and 

recommendations for Dinamo v4.0, CORDA Report CR1212/TR-1, Version 2 

Blackwell, S.B., J.W. Lawson, and M.T. Williams. (2004). Tolerance by ringed seals 

(Phoca hispida) to impact pipe-driving and construction sounds at an oil production 

island, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 115, Issue 5, pp. 2346-2357 (May 2004). 

Clarke T. and David A. (2002) Ambient noise curves for shallow water, QinetiQ 

Report QINETIQ/S&E/MAC/CR021228. 

Danneskiold-Samsoe O. (2005) Offshore wind turbines: Underwater and airborne 

noise, Copenhagen, pp 1xA4 

Defra (2012) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation UK Initial 

Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status (HMSO, London) 

De Jong, C.A.F. & Ainslie, M.A. (2008). Underwater radiated noise due to the piling 

for the Q7 Offshore Wind Park, Acoustics 08, June 29 – July 4 2008, Paris. 

Gill, A.B. & Bartlett, M. (2010). Literature review on the potential effects of 

electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy 

developments on Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel. Scottish Natural 

Heritage Commissioned Report No.401 


found. 


found.


Greene, C.R. Jr. (1987) Characteristics of oil industry dredge and drilling sounds in 

the Beaufort Sea, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 82, Issue 4, pp. 1315-1324 (October 

1987). 

Richards S D, Harland E J and Jones S A S (2007) Underwater noise study 

supporting Scottish Executive strategic environmental assessment for marine 

renewables (Qinetiq) 

Urick R. J. (1983) Principles of underwater sound (McGraw-Hill, New York) 


CMACS (2003). A baseline assessment of electromagnetic fields generated by 

offshore windfarm cables. Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, University of 

Liverpool. Report to Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment 

(COWRIE) COWRIE. 

Haviland G. M., Sayigh L. S., Frankel A. S., Powell C. M., Bocconcelli A. and 

Herman R. L. (2001) Mapping total environmental sound exposure of bottlenose 

dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the Wilmington, North Carolina Intracoastal 

Waterway. In: Holland R.C., (ed) OCEANS 2001. Marine Technology Society, 

Washington, pp 1392-1394 

Gibbons J. A. M. (2000), A review of the shipping traffic in the Durlston Marine 

Research Area 1997 to 2000, Durlston Marine Project, Swanage 

Gill, A. B., Gloyne-Phillips, I., Neal, K. J. & Kimber, J.A. (2005). The potential effects 

of electromagnetic fields generated by sub-sea power cables associated with 

offshore windfarm developments on electrically and magnetically sensitive marine 

organisms – a review. Report to Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the 

Environment (COWRIE) COWRIE. 

Gill, A. B., Huang, Y., Gloyne-Philips, I., Metcalfe, J., Quayle, V., Spencer, J. & 

Wearmouth, V. (2009). COWRIE 2.0 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMFsensitive 

fish response to EM emissions from sub-sea electricity cables of the type 

used by the offshore renewable energy industry. Report to Collaborative Offshore 

Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE) COWRIE. 

Gill, A. B. & Bartlett, M. (2010) Literature review on the potential effects of 

electromagneitc fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy 

developments on Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel. Scottish Natural 

Heritage (SNH) Commissioned Report No. 401. 

Gordon J, Thompson d, Calderan S, Jaffey B and Todd V . (2007) Assessment of 

the potential for acoustic deterrents to mitigate the impact on marine animals of 

underwater noise arising from the construction of offshore windfarms, COWRIE 

report DETER-01-07Prepared by Sea mammal Research unit 


found. 


found.


Hazlewood R. A. and Connelly J. (2005) Estimation of underwater noise – a 

simplified method, International Journal of the Society of Underwater Technology, 

26, 51-57 

Huddleston J. (2010) Understanding the environmental impact of offshore windfarms 

COWRIE 

Kastelein, R.A., Hoek, L., Jennings, N., de Jong, C.A.F., Terhune, J.M. & Dieleman, 

M. (2010) COWRIE Ref: SEAMAMD-09, Technical Report 31st July 2010. 

Koschinski S., Culik B. M., Henrikson O. D., Tregenza N., Ellis G., Jansen C. and 

Kathe G. (2003) Behavioural reactions of free-ranging porpoises and seals to the 

noise of a simulated 2 MW windpower generator, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

265, 263-273, 2003. 

Mueloler-Blenkle C, Mcgregor P, Gill A B, Sigray P and Yjomsen F. (2010) Effects of 

pile driving noise on behaviour of marine fish. Prepared for COWRIE limited. 

Negwell J R and Howell D. (2004) A review of offshore wind farm related underwater 

noise sources. Subcoustech report no. 544 R 0308 prepared by Subacoustech Ltd 

Nedwell J ad Howell D (2004) A Review of Offshore Windfarm Related Underwater 

Noise Sources Report No. 544 R03308 (Prepared by Subacoustech Ltd for 

COWRIE) 

Nedwell J R and Brooker A G. (2008). Measurement and assessment of background 

underwater noise and its comparison with noise from pile drilling operations during 

installation of the SeaGen tidal turbine device Strangford Lough. CORIE report 

SEAGEN -07-07 (Prepared by Subacoustech Ltd for COWRIE) 

Nedwell J, Langworthy J and Howell D. (2004). Assessment of sub-sea acoustic 

noise and vibration from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; 

initial measurements of underwater noise during construction of offshore windfarms 

and comparison with background noise. Report no 544 R 0424 (Prepared by 

Subacoustech Ltd for COWRIE) 

Nehls G, Betke K, Eckelmann S and Ross M. (2007). Assessment and costs of 

potential engineering solutions for the mitigation of the impacts of underwater noise 

arising from the construction of offshore windfarms. COWRIE Report ENG-01-2007. 

Prepared by BioConsult SH 

Norris J. and Mueller M. (2006) EMEC/UKERC Workshop: Environmental impacts 

and monitoring of marine energy conversion device, UK Energy Research Centre 

Report UKERC/WP/FSE/2006/002. 


found. 


found.


Olsson, T & Larsson (2010) A. Impact of Electric and Magnetic Fields From 

Submarine Cables on Marine Organisms. Vattenfall Research and Development 

Peter Bergsten & Johan Nissen, Vattenfall Power Consultants 

Parvin S. J., Workman R., Bourke P. and Nedwell J. R. (2005) Assessment of tidal 

current turbine noise at the Lynmouth site and predicted impact of underwater noise 

at Strangford Lough, Subacoustech Ltd, Report 628 R 0102, (commercial in 

confidence) 

Styles, P., Holt, T., and Thorne, P. (2001) Assessment of The Effects Of Noise And 

Vibration From Offshore Wind Farms On Marine Wildlife. Department of Trade and 

Industry, Energy Technology Support Unit (DTI/ETSU) report w/13/00566/REP10 

Thompson P, Brookes K, Cheney B, Candido A, Bates H, Richardson N and Barton 

T (2012). Assessing the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration operations on 

cetaceans in the Moray Firth. 

Thomsen F, Ludemann K, Kafemann R and Piper W. (2006). Effects of offshore 

windfarm noise on marine mammals and fish. Prepared for COWRIE Limited by biola 

Von der Emde, G. (1998). Electroreception. The Physiology of Fishes pp 313- 343. 

CRC press. 

Westerberg, H. & Langenfelt, I. (2008) Sub-sea power cables and the migration 

behaviour of the European eel. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 15: 369-375. 

Wharam J. C., Gibbons J. A. M. and Harland E. J., Potential impact of underwater 

noise on small cetaceans within the Durlston Marine Research Area, 18th Annual 

conference of the European Cetacean Society, Kolmarden, Sweden, 2004. 

Wursig B., Greene C. R. and Jefferson T. A., Development of an air bubble curtain to 

reduce underwater noise of percussive piling, Marine Environmental Research 49, 

79-93, 2000. 


Nedwell j R, Parvin S J, Edwards B, Workman R, Brooker A G and Kynoch J E. 

(2007). Measurements and interpretation of underwater noise during construction 

and operation of offshore windfarms in UK wayers COWRIE report NOISE-03-2003. 

Subacoustech Ltd report no 544 R 0738 

Robinson, S.P., Lepper, P.A. and Ablitt, J., (2007) The measurement of the 

underwater radiated noise from marine piling including characterisation of a "soft 

start" period, Oceans 2007 – Europe, 18 – 21 June 2007. 


found. 


found.


B9. Marine Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 



development. An excellent source of guidance for developers is Historic 

Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector by Wessex 

Archaeology Ltd. (2007) ,available at www.offshorewind.co.uk. Developers should 

be aware that the guidance contains references to English legislation but the 

principles are applicable to Scotland. Other potential sources of baseline data and 

guidance include: 

• Institute for Archaeologists (guidance on desk-based and field assessment): 

http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa; 

• COWRIE (guidance on historic environment for the OWF sector and on 

geotechnical investigations): http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE/; 

• Scottish Government (policy relating to Historic Environment): 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National- 

Planning-Policy/themes/historic; 

• Scottish Government SEAs for offshore wind 

(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/05/14155353/0) and wave and 

tidal energy (Marine Renewable SEA; http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/); 


• SeaZone Limited datasets: http://www.seazone.com/index.php; 

• Scoping reports and EIAs undertaken for OWFs in the region; 

• Historic Scotland Data Services: http://data.historicscotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=2000:10:0; 

• The UK Hydrographic Office (Records of wrecks and obstructions): 

http://www.ukho.gov.uk/ProductsandServices/Services/Pages/Wrecks.aspx; 

• Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Receiver of Wreck): 

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

• Ministry of Defence (Aviation Archaeology): 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/SP 

VA/AviationArchaeology.htm; 

• Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC) / The Crown Estate: 

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/jnapc_code_of_practice_2; 

• The CANMORE database (www.rcahms.gov.uk) (website contains a proviso 

that it should not be relied upon for development purposes, however listed as 

a useful guide); 

• PASTMAP database www.pastmap.org.uk (this website also contains a 

proviso that it should not be relied upon for development purposes, however 

listed as a useful guide). Details of Scheduled Areas should be confirmed 

with Historic Scotland; 

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


found. 


found.


• The National Trust Sites and Monuments Records (NTSMR) 

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-countryside_environment/warchaeology/w-archaeology-smr.htm; 

• JNCC Coastal Directory Series: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2157; 

• Shipwreck Index of the British Isles - Volume 4 'Scotland'. Lloyd's Register of 

Shipping. 1998 ISBN 1-900839-01-6; 

• Local Authority Sites and Monuments Records; 

• Historic Environment Records; 

• Coastal Zone Assessment Surveys http://www.scapetrust.org/html/czas.html; 

• Ordnance Survey maps and British Geological Survey maps; 

• Aerial photographs; 

• Nautical charts such as Admiralty Charts; and 

• Marine Spatial Plans (when available, e.g. Marine Scotland’s Sectoral Marine 

Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Water). 


Many of these documents themselves have very comprehensive reference lists and 

the COWRIE Report on Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic 

Environment Analysis (Gribble et al 2011) in particular should be reviewed. 


COWRIE (2007). Guidance for assessment of Cumulative Impacts on the historic 

environment from offshore renewable energy. Report prepared by Oxford 

Archaeology for COWRIE, January 2007. Available online: 

http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/Publications/Archive/Cultural_Heritage/Guidan 

ce_for_Assessmen642afc68/ 

Bicket, A. (2011). Submerged Prehistory: Marine ALSF Research in Context. Marine 

ALSF Science Monograph Series No. 5 (Ed. J. Gardiner). MEPF 10/P150. (Edited by 

R. C. Newell & J. Measures). 63pp. ISBN: 978 0 907545 48 4. Available online: 

http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/463676/monograph5-web.pdf 

Dawson, T., (2003) Coastal Archaeology and Erosion in Scotland - Conference 

Proceedings. 

Emu Ltd (2008) Geophysical and Seabed Habitat Assessment of the Proposed 

Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm for Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm Ltd. Report No. 

07/J/1/02/1136/0716 

Flemming, N.C. (2004). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of North 

Sea Area SEA5 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Report prepared for 

the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_5/SEA5_TR_Archaeology_NCF.pdf 


found. 


found.


Flemming, N.C. (2002). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of North 

Sea areas SEA3 and SEA2 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Report 

prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: 

http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_3/TR_SEA3_Archaeology.pdf 

Flemming, N.C. (2003). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of 

Continental Shelf Area SEA 4 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Report 

prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: 

http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_4/SEA4_TR_Archaeology_NFC.pdf 

Flemming, N.C. (2005). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of Irish 

Sea Area SEA6 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Report prepared for 

the Department of Trade and Industry. Available online: http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_6/SEA6_Archaeology_NCF.pdf 

Gribble, J. and Leather, S. for EMU Ltd. Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and 

Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector. 

Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference GEOARCH-09). 

http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Assets/final%20GEORARCH- 

09%20Offshore%20Geotech%20Guidance%20web.pdf 

Historic Scotland. (2011). Scottish Historic Environment Policy. Available online: 

http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/index/heritage/policy/shep.htm. Includes policies 

on the marine historic environment and reference to the UK Marine Policy 

Statement. 

Historic Scotland. (1999). Historic Scotland Policy Paper HP6; Conserving the 

Underwater Heritage. Available online: http://www.historicscotland.gov.uk/conserving-underwater-heritage.pdf 

Institute for Archaeologists. (2008). Standard and guidance for archaeological deskbased 

assessment. Available online: 

http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/node-files/ifa_standards_desk.pdf 

Osiris Projects. (2010). Aberdeen Offshore Wind farm Geophysical Survey. Volume 

1: Operations Report. No. C10023 

Scottish Executive. (2007). Scottish Marine Renewables: Strategic Environmental 

Assessment (SEA). Report prepared for the Scottish Executive by Faber Maunsell 

and Metoc PLC. 

Scottish Government, 2010. Scottish Planning Policy. Available online: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/03132605/0 


found. 


found.


Scottish Government. (2008). Scottish Planning Policy SPP 23 Planning and the 

Historic Environment. Available online: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/242900/0067569.pdf 

Scottish Government. (1994). Planning Advice Note PAN 42: Advice on the handling 

of archaeological matters within the planning process. Available online: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1994/01/17081/21711 

Senergy. (2009). Inch Cape Offshore Windfarm Geotechnical Site Evaluation. 

Prepared for npower renewable limited. Reference No. 1575-NPOW-RPT-01-01. 

Wickham-Jones, C.R. and Dawson, S. (2006). The scope of Strategic Environmental 

Assessment of North Sea Area SEA7 with regard to prehistoric and early historic 

archaeological remains. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry. 

Available online: http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_7/SEA7_PreArchaeology_CWJ.pdf 

Wessex Archaeology (2005). Strategic Environmental Assessment Sea 6: Irish Sea: 

Maritime Archaeology: Technical Report. Report prepared for the Department of 

Trade and Industry. Technical report, ref. 58890, May 2005. Available online: 

http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_6/SEA6_Archaeology_Wessex.pdf 

Wessex Archaeology (2006). Strategic Environmental Assessment Sea 7: Maritime 

Archaeology: Technical Report. Report prepared for the Department of Trade and 

Industry. Technical report, ref. 62170.02, November, 2006. Available online: 

http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/SEA_7/SEA7_Archaeology_Wessex.pdf 


BMAPA & English Heritage. (2003). Marine aggregate dredging and the historic 

environment: Assessing, evaluating, mitigating and monitoring archaeological effects 

of marine aggregate dredging. Available online: 

http://www.bmapa.org/downloads/arch_guidance.pdf 

BMAPA and English Heritage. (2005) Protocol for reporting finds of archaeological 

interest. Report prepared for BMAPA and English Heritage by Wessex archaeology. 

Available online: http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/files/projects/BMAPA- 

Protocol/protocol_text.pdf 

Cefas. (2011). Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental 



Gribble, J. and Leather, S. for EMU Ltd. Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and 

Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector. 


found. 


found.


Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference GEOARCH-09). Available online: 

http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Assets/final%20GEORARCH- 

09%20Offshore%20Geotech%20Guidance%20web.pdf 

Institute for Archaeologists. (2009). Standard and guidance for archaeological field 

evaluation: Available online: http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/nodefiles/ifa_standards_field_eval.pdf 


Historic Scotland. (2007). Protecting underwater sites of national significance, 

http://www.historicscotland.gov.uk/wrecks 

Historic Scotland. (2009). Managing Change in the Historic Environment. 

Consultation draft, August 2009. Available online: http://www.historicscotland.gov.uk/managing-change-consultation-setting.pdf 

Wessex Archaeology. (2010). Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries: Offshore 

enwables Projects. Report prepared for The Crown Estate. Document Ref. 

73830.04, December 2010. Available online: 

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/pad_offshore_renewables.pdf 

B9.2.4 General 

Ashmore, P., & Dawson, T. (2002). A Strategy for Scotland's Coasts and Inshore 

Waters. Scottish Coastal Forum. 

COWRIE. (2007). Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable 

Energy Sector. Report prepared by Wessex Archaeology Ltd for COWRIE, January, 

2007. Available online: http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Pages/Publications/Archive 

/Cultural_Heritage/Historic_environment_g43354590/ 

Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC) and The Crown Estate, 

undated. Maritime Cultural Heritage and Seabed Development: JNAPC Code of 

Practice for Seabed development. Available online: 

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/jnapc_code_of_practice.pdf 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2004). Marine renewable energy and the natural heritage: 

an overview and policy statement. Policy Statement No. 04/01. 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2010). Renewable energy and the natural heritage. Ref 

No. 2010/02. 

The Crown Estate. (2010). Model clauses for archaeological written schemes of 

investigation: Offshore renewable projects. Report prepared for The Crown Estate by 

Wessex Archaeology, Document ref. 73340.05, December 2010. Available online: 

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/wsi_renewables.pdf 


found. 


found.


B10. Navigation 


Sources of baseline data and guidance include: 


http://www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/; 


• DECC Maritime Data Centre http://www.maritimedata.co.uk/; 

• UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) Admiralty charts http://www.ukho.gov.uk/; 

• Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07- 

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

• Marine Scotland navigation surveys for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters 

(due for completion late 2012); 

• Marine Scotland shipping study for Forth, Clyde, Dundee and Aberdeen (due 

for completion spring 2012); 

• Royal Yachting Association Scotland (RYAS) http://www.ryascotland.org.uk/; 

• Marine Scotland Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) data provide information 

on the movement of fishing vessels; 

• Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) http://www.nlb.org.uk/; 

• Local harbours and port authorities; 

• Local fisheries organisations, ferry companies, dive boat operators, boat tour 

operators, specific marine leisure interest, for example, surfing, etc; 

• IMO, Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule 

Making Process, 5th April 2002; and 

• IALA Recommendation O-139 On The Marking of Man-Made Offshore 

Structures, Edition 1, Dec 2008. 


Key references and data sources are provided below and MS-LOT and key 

stakeholders should be contacted to ensure the use of the most up-to-date data and 

research. 

Department of Trade and Industry (2005) ‘Methodology for Assessing the Marine 

Navigational Safety Risks of Offshore Wind Farms’. 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2008) MGN 371 (M+F), Offshore Renewable 

Energy Installations (OREIs) Guidance on UK Navigation Practice, Safety and 

Emergency Response Issues. 

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (2008) MGN 372 (M+F), Offshore Renewable 

Energy Installations (OREIs) Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREIs): 

Guidance to Mariners Operating in the Vicinity of UK OREIs 


found. 


found.


Maritime and Coastguard Agency. (2004). Proposed UK Offshore Renewable 

Energy Installations (OREI) - Guidance on Navigational Safety Issues. Marine 

Guidance Notice 275. 

RenewableUK (2011) Consenting Lessons Learned An offshore wind industry review 

of past concerns lessons learnt and future challenges. www.RenewableUK.com 

Scottish Executive (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental 

Assessment (SEA) (Scottish Executive, Edinburgh) 

B11. Commercial Fisheries, Shellfishes and Aquaculture 


The following organisations and resources provide important sources of information. 

• Marine Scotland Compliance; 

• Marine Scotland Science; 

• The Scottish Executive Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics 

www.scotland.gov.uk, under fisheries ; 

• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation www.sff.co.uk; 

• Relevant Local Authorities; 

• Local fisheries organisations (www.scotland.gov.uk)/ fishermen’s associations 

(this includes individual fishermen); 

• Local producer organisations; 

• Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters available from www.cefas.co.uk – 

this report aims to provide the information required for interested parties to 

better understand the interaction between fisheries and offshore industries (oil 

and gas but the information is relevant to renewables); 


www.seaenergyscotland.co.uk/; 

• DECC offshore SEAs for the UKCS www.offshore-sea.org.uk; and 

• Marine Spatial Plans (when available). 



ABPmer and Risk and Policy Analysis (2012) A Socio-economic Methodology and 

Baseline for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Wave and Tidal 

Developments (ABPmer, Southampton) 

ABPmer and Risk and Policy Analysis (2012) Socio- economic Baseline Reviews for 

Offshore Renewables in Scottish Waters (unpublished ABPmer, Southampton) 


found. 


found.


Baxter, J.M, Boyd, I.L., Cox, M, Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., 

Moffat, C.F., (editors) (2001) Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national 

marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh 

RenewableUK (2011) Consenting Lessons Learned An offshore wind industry review 

of past concerns lessons learnt and future challenges. www.RenewableUK.com 

Cefas (2002) A Procedure to Assess the Effects of Dredging on Commercial 

Fisheries Report No. A0253 (Cefas) 

Cefas, MCUE, Defra, DTI .(2004) Offshore Wind Farms, Guidance Note for 

Environmental Impact Assessment in Respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements - 

Version 2. 

Pawson, M.J., Pickett, G.D. and Walker P (2002) The coastal fisheries of England 

and Wales, Part IV: A review of their status 1999-2001. Science Series Technical 

Report, CEFAS, Lowestoft 116, 83pp. 

FLOW (2008) Recommendations for Fisheries Liaison 

UK Oil & Gas, (2008) Fisheries Liaison Guidelines – Issue 5; 

UKOOA (renamed UK Oil & Gas),.(2006) Guidelines to Improve Relations between 

Oil & Gas Industries and Nearshore Fishermen. 

International Cable Protection Committee (CPC). (2009) Fishing & Submarine 

Cables – Working Together 

COWRIE (2010) Options and Opportunities for Marine Fisheries Mitigation 

Associated with Wind farms. 

Scottish Executive. (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables SEA http://www.seaenergy 

scotland.net/SEA_Public_Environmental_Report.htm 


BWEA. (2002) Best practice for consultation of offshore renewable developers. 

BERR. (2008) Fishing Liaison with offshore wind and wet renewable group 

(FLOWW) recommendations for fisheries liaison. 

OSPAR (2008) Guidance on environmental considerations for offshore wind farm 

development reference number 2003-8. 


found. 


found.


B12. Other Sea Users 


A lot of useful information is available in national and regional assessments 

undertaken by Government such as Scotland’s Marine Atlas and the socio-economic 

baseline for offshore renewables which is currently being produced by Marine 

Scotland; further data will be contained in the associated plan level SEAs. It will be 

important to show compliance with the national and regional planning framework or 

provide detailed justification if the project/development is in conflict with such plans 

or policies. Potential sources of baseline data and guidance include: 

• Marine Scotland’s Marine Atlas; 

• Admiralty charts / UKHO website; 

• Scottish Government Marine Renewables SEA; 

• DECC offshore SEAs for the UK Continental Shelf; 


• Marine Spatial Plans (when available) and Local Development Plans; 

• MoD Practice and Exercise Area Charts; 

• UKDEAL (oil and gas data); 

• Telecommunications companies; 

• Kingfisher Information Service- Cable Awareness; 

• Scottish Census Results online; 

• Highlands and Islands Enterprise: area profiles; 

• Visit Scotland: Visit Scotland Tourism Statistics; and 

• Scottish Government: Transport and other statistical reports. 


ABPmer, RPA (2012) Marine Scotland’s socio-economic baseline for marine 

renewables (ABPmer) 

Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., 

Moffat, C.F. (2011) Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine 

plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh. 

BMF (2010) UK leisure, superyacht and small commercial marine industry - key 

performance indicators 2009-10. Surrey: The British Marine Federation (BMF). 

Bournemouth University (2010) The Economic Impact of Wildlife Tourism in 

Scotland. A report for the Scottish Government. 

Land Use Consultants (2007) A Review of Marine and Coastal Recreation. Scottish 

Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.247 (ROAME No. F05AA608). 

Marine Scotland (2010) Scottish Shellfish Farm Production Survey. 2010 Report. 

(Marine Scotland website) 


found. 


found.


MyGen Ltd (2011) MyGen Phase 1 EIA Scoping Document (MyGen Ltd) 

Oxford Economics (2009) The economic contribution of ports to the UK economy 

(Oxford Economics) 

Renewable UK (2011) Consenting Lessons Learned An offshore wind industry 

review of past concerns lessons learnt and future challenges 

RYA. (2009) The RYA's position on offshore energy developments - December 

2009. (The Royal Yachting Association) 

Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise. (2010) National Renewables 

Infrastructure Plan. 

Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise. (2010) National Renewables 

Infrastructure Plan Stage 2 

Scottish Executive (2007) Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental 

Assessment (SEA) (Scottish Executive, Edinburgh) 

Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise, (2010). Carbon capture and Storage – 

A Roadmap for Scotland. 

Scottish Government. (2010). Scottish Transport Statistics: No. 29 - 2009 Edition: 

Available online 

Scottish Government. (2011). High Level summary of statistics: Social and welfare. 

Available online: 

Scott Wilson and Downie, A.J. (2003) A review of possible marine renewable energy 

development projects and their natural heritage impacts from a Scottish perspective. 

Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F02AA414. 

B13. Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact 


DTI Guidance on the assessment of the impact of offshore windfarms - seascape 

and visual impact report. (November 2005) 

The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and 

Assessment. (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. 

Second edition, Spon press. 


found. 


found.


Scottish Natural Heritage (2007). Visual Representation of Windfarms: Good 

Practice Guidance. 

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A305436.pdf 

Scottish Natural Heritage, (2008), Guidance on Landscape/Seascape Capacity for 

Aquaculture, Natural Heritage Management 

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/aquaculture.pdf 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2012) Scoping Marine Renewables EIA for Seascape, 

Landscape and Visual Impacts (unpublished draft) 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2012), Assessing the cumulative impacts of onshore wind 

energy developments 


Alison Grant for SNH, The Crown Estate and Scottish Quality Salmon (2001) Marine 

Aquaculture and the Landscape: The siting and design of marine aquaculture 

developments in the landscape. 

Hill, M., Briggs, J., Minto, P., Bagnall, D., Foley, K., and Williams, A. (2001). Guide to 

Best Practice in Seascape Assessment. Maritime Ireland / Wales INTERREG 1994 – 

1999. Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment Countryside Council for 

Wales, Brady Shipman Martin and University College Dublin, (2001), for CCW. 

http://www.ccw.gov.uk/pdf/Guide-to-best-practice-in-seascape-assessment.pdf 

Scott, K.E., Anderson, C., Dunsford, H., Benson, J.F. and MacFarlane, R. (2005). An 

assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish seascape in relation to 

offshore windfarms. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.103 

(ROAME No. F03AA06). http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications 

/commissioned_reports/F03AA06.pdf 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2003). Wildness in Scotland’s Countryside. Policy 

Statement 02/03. http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A150654.pdf 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2006). Constructed tracks in the Scottish Uplands. 

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/constructedtracks.pdf 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2010). Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape. 

SNH,. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewables/Guidance_Siting_Designing 

_windfarms.pdf 

Scottish Natural Heritage (2010). The Special qualities of the National Scenic Areas. 

SNH commissioned report No. 374. http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlandsnature/protected-areas/national-designations/nsa/special-qualities/ 


found. 


found.


Scottish Natural Heritage Landscape Character Assessment and aquaculture 

capacity studies for Loch Fyne, Orkney and Lewis which provide useful background 

information. 

Swanwick, Carys Department of the University of Sheffield and Land Use 

Consultants on behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage 

Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland (2002) 

B14. Socio-economics 


ABPmer, SQW and RPA, 2011. Economic Assessment of Short Term Optinos for 

Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. Reprot to Marine Scotland, 

March 2011. 

ABPmer, 2012a. Socio-economic Baseline Reviews for Offshore Renewables in 

Scottish Waters. Report to Marine Scotland, April 2012. 

ABPmer and RPA, 2012b. A Socio-economic Methodology and Baseline for 

Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Wave and Tidal Developments. Report 

to The Crown Estate, April 2012. 


Moffat, C.F., (2011). Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine 


Pugh, D., Socio-economic indicators of marine-related activities in the UK economy. 

Report to The Crown Estate, March 2008. 

Snedden Economics, 2005. Economic Impact of Proposed Talisman Offshore Wind 

Farm in the Beatrice Oilfield Final Report March 2005 

UKMMAS, 2010. Charting Progress 2: Productive Seas Evidence Group Feeder 

Report. Available online: http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/ 



Moffat, C.F., (2011). Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine 


Highlands and Islands Enterprise. (2011). Area profile reports e.g. see 

http://www.hie.co.uk/highlands-and-islands/economic-reports-and-research/ 


found. 


found.


Marine Scotland (2009). Scottish Shellfish Farm Production Survey. 2009 Report. 

Marine Scotland (2010). Scottish Shellfish Farm Production Survey. 2010 Report. 

Oxford Economics. (2009). The economic contribution of ports to the UK economy, 

March 2009. 

Ports & Harbours of the UK. (2011). Website: http://www.ports.org.uk/ 

Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise. (2010a). National Renewables 

Infrastructure Plan. February 2010. 

Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise. (2010b). National Renewables 

Infrastructure Plan Stage 2. July 2010. 

Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise. (2010). Carbon capture and Storage – 

A Roadmap for Scotland. March 2010. 

Scottish Government. (2009)a. Scottish Transport Statistics: No. 28 - 2009 Edition: 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/12/18095042/0. 

Scottish Government. (2010). Scottish Transport Statistics: No. 29 - 2009 Edition: 


Scottish Government, 2011. High Level summary of statistics: Social and welfare. 

Available online: 



ABPmer, SQW and RPA, 2011. Economic Assessment of Short Term Optinos for 

Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. Reprot to Marine Scotland, 

March 2011. 

ABPmer and RPA, 2012. A Socio-economic Methodology and Baseline for Pentland 

Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Wave and Tidal Developments. Report to The 

Crown Estate, April 2012. 

ANEMOS IDSS. (2007). An interactive Game for Offshore Wind Energy: A powerful 

tool for informing the broad public, improving planning processes and societal 

decision-making (Information & Decision Support System (IDSS)). ICBM, University 

Oldenburg; Germany; June 2007. 

Bournemouth University. (2010).The Economic Impact of Wildlife Tourism in 

Scotland. A report for the Scottish Government. Department for Transport, 2010. 

Maritime Statistics Compendium http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/ 

datatablespublications/maritime/compendium/. 


found. 


found.


Energy for Sustainable Development Ltd. (2004). Offshore wind, onshore jobs, - A 

new industry for Britain, Report for Greenpeace UK. 

Food and Resource Economic Institute. (2005). Economic Valuation of the Visual 

Externalities of Offshore Wind Farms Report No. 179. 

George Street Research and Jones Economics. (2004). Economic Impact and 

Development Opportunities for Outdoor and Environment Related Recreation in the 

Highlands and Islands. A report for HIE. 

Glasgow Caledonian University and Cogent Strategies International Ltd. (2008). The 

economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish Tourism. A report for the Scottish 

Government, March 2008. 

Harrald, M, Aires, C & Davies, I. (2010). Further Scottish Leasing Round (Saltire 

Prize Projects): Regional Locational Guidance. Scottish Marine & Freshwater 

Science Volume 1 No 18. 

Marine Scotland, 2011. Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters, Marine Spatial Plan 

Framework & Regional Locational Guidance for Marine Energy. Marine Scotland. 

March 2011. 

O’Connor, S., Campbell, R., Cortez, H., & Knowles, T., (2009). Whale Watching 

Worldwide: tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a 

special report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth MA, USA, 

prepared by Economists at Large. 

Oil and Gas UK. (2010). Economic report 2010. Available online: 

http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/knowledgecentre/economic_report.cfm 

OSPAR Commission. (2009). JAP assessment of the environmental impact of 

dumping of wastes at sea. Available online: 

http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00433_JAMP%20Dumping%2 

0Assessment.pdf 

Radford, A., Riddington, G. and Gibson, H. (2009). Economic Impact of Recreational 

Sea Angling in Scotland. Prepared for the Scottish Government. July 2009. ISBN: 

978-0-7559-8130-4. 

Renewable Supply Chain Gap Analysis Report, DTI, Scottish Executive (2004). 

Scottish Executive, 2007. Scottish Marine Renewables: Strategic Environmental 

Assessment. 

Scottish Government. (2009b). National Planning Framework for Scotland 2. 


found. 


found.


Sociological Investigation of The Reception of Horns Rev and Nysted Offshore Wind 

Farms In the Local Communities, (2005). The need for integrated assessment of 

large-scale offshore wind farm development, Environmental Science, Managing 

European Coasts, Published by Springer Berlin Heidelberg, (2005), Pages 365-378. 

Scott Wilson and Downie, A.J. (2003) A review of possible marine renewable energy 

development projects and their natural heritage impacts from a Scottish perspective. 

Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F02AA414. 


found. 


found.

Insert Clients Back Cover Here

marine scotland licensing and consents manual - Scottish Government

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?