Orkney Marine Licence Application

Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information

Scottish and Southern Energy plc

Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002

Xodus Group Xodus House, 50 Huntly Street Aberdeen, UK, AB10 1RS

T +44 (0)1224 628300 E [email protected] www.xodusgroup.com

Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information A200331-S01

Client: Scottish and Southern Energy plc Document Type: Report Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002

MB/KC/ A01 01/06/18 Issued for Use EH KC - ORCA

Checked Approved Client Rev Date Description Issued By By By Approval

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 ii

CONTENTS

GLOSSARY 6

1 INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 Introduction 8 1.2 Work completed to date 8 1.2.1 Marine surveys 8 1.2.2 Route optimisation 8 1.3 Project description 10 1.3.1 Route overview 10 1.3.2 Submarine cable installation 11 1.3.3 Intertidal cable installation 13 1.3.4 Schedule 14 1.4 Consent requirements and relevant legislation 14 1.4.1 Marine Licence and supporting information requirements 14 1.4.2 Scottish National Marine Plan 15 1.4.3 Pilot Orkney Waters and Pentland Firth Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) 16 1.5 Stakeholder consultation 17 1.6 Environmental assessment scope 18

2 ECOLOGICAL PROTECTED SITES 19

2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 Consultation 21 2.3 Internationally important sites 21 2.3.1 Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) 21 2.3.2 Special Areas of Conservation (SPAs) and Ramsar sites 22 2.4 Nationally and locally important sites 22 2.5 Potential impacts 24

3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 26

3.1 Introduction 26 3.2 Legislation and policy context 26 3.3 Consultation 26 3.4 Physical environment description 26

4 BENTHIC AND INTERTIDAL ECOLOGY 29

4.1 Introduction 29 4.2 Legislation and Policy Context 29 4.2.1 European Habitats Directive 29 4.2.2 Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 29 4.2.3 Biodiversity Action Plan (BAPs) 30 4.2.4 Orkney Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) 30 4.3 Consultation 30 4.4 Benthic and intertidal ecology description 31 4.4.1 Subtidal area 31 4.4.2 Intertidal area 37 4.5 Potential Impacts to benthic and intertidal ecology 41 4.5.1 Potential impacts during cable installation 41

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 iii

4.5.2 Potential impacts during cable operation and maintenance 44 4.5.3 Impact, management and mitigation summary 44

5 MARINE MAMMALS, OTTERS, FISH AND BIRDS 46

5.1 Introduction 46 5.2 Legislation and Policy Context 46 5.3 Consultation 46 5.4 Receptor description 48 5.4.1 Marine mammals 48 5.4.2 Fish ecology 50 5.4.3 Ornithology 52 5.5 Summary of potential impacts 56

6 MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY 59

6.1 Introduction 59 6.2 Legislation and policy context 59 6.2.1 International/ EU legislation and policy 59 6.2.2 UK legislation and policy 59 6.2.3 Scottish legislation and policy 60 6.2.4 Local planning policy 60 6.2.5 Codes of practice, professional guidance and standards documents 60 6.3 Consultation 61 6.4 Sources of information 61 6.4.1 Desk-based assessment 61 6.4.2 Field surveys 62 6.5 Assessment Methodology 62 6.5.1 Desk Based Assessment 62 6.5.2 Field surveys 63 6.5.3 Receptor evaluation 65 6.6 Site characterisation 66 6.6.1 Potential for submerged landscapes and prehistoric sites 66 6.6.2 Shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks 66 6.6.3 Unexploded ordinance (UXO) 70 6.6.4 Geophysical anomalies 70 6.7 Potential Impacts 72 6.7.1 Direct damage to or destruction of known marine historic environment assets including geophysical anomalies and unexploded ordnance 72 6.7.2 Direct damage to or destruction of unknown marine historic environment assets including unexploded ordnance 72 6.7.3 Direct damage to or destruction of known and unknown marine historic environment assets and unexploded ordnance 73 6.7.4 Potential indirect damage to or destruction of known and unknown marine historic environment assets including unexploded ordnance 73 6.8 Mitigation 73 6.8.1 Mitigation by design 73 6.8.2 Mitigation during installation 73 6.8.3 Mitigation during operation 74 6.9 Residual Impacts 74

7 CONCLUSION 76

7.1 Key receptors 76 7.1.1 Ecological protected sites 76 7.1.2 Benthic and intertidal ecology 76 7.1.3 Marine mammals, fish, birds and otters 77 7.1.4 Marine archaeology 77 7.2 Residual impacts 78 7.3 Compliance with the NMP 78

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 iv

8 REFERENCES 80

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 v

GLOSSARY AfL Agreement for Lease AIS Automatic Identification System BAP Biodiversity Action Plan CEMP Construction Environment Management Plan EMEC European Marine Energy Centre EMF Electromagnetic Fields EPS European Protected Species ESG Environmental Scientifics Group FLMAP Fisheries Liaison and Mitigation Action Plan ICES International Council for the Exploitation of the Sea IMO International Marine Organisation IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committees Kp Kilometre Point LNCS Local Nature Conservation Site MCA Maritime Coastguard Agency MMO Marine Management Organisation MPA Marine Protected Area NERC Natural Environment Research Council NBN National Biodiversity Network NCMPA Nature Conservation Marine Protection Area NLB Northern Lighthouse Board OBRC Orkney Biological Research Centre OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic PFOW Pentland and Orkney Waters PMF Priority Marine Features pSPA proposed Special Protection Area PSA Particle Size Analysis RNLI Royal National Lifeboat Institute RYA Royal Yachting Association SAC Special Area of Conservation SAST JNCC Seabirds at Sea Team SCANS Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea SHE Scottish Hydro Electric SMRU Sea Mammal Research Unit

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 6

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SPA Special Protection Area SSEN Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest TCE The Crown Estate UK United Kingdom UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction In line with Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution plc (SHEPD) is submitting an application for a Marine Licence for the replacement of a subsea distribution cable between the islands of Shapinsay and Stronsay in Orkney (the ‘Project’). The purpose of this report is to provide information on the proposed works for the subsea cable and present the environmental information required in support of the Marine Licence application. The existing 33 kV submarine electricity cable from the Bay of Crook in Shapinsay to Bay of Holland in Stronsay within the Orkney Isles was installed in 1992 and had already been identified as nearing the end of its operational life. This has been verified through existing asset records and following recent ROV inspection of the cable. Additionally, the cable has been repaired since installation and contains five subsea repair joints, making further repair difficult. Due to a fault on the 12th May 2018, causing the loss of power supply to the islands, there is an emergency for replacing the existing cable in order to maintain a safe and reliable supply of electricity to the islands. The existing cable route and proposed replacement cable corridor are shown in Figure 1.1.

1.2 Work completed to date

1.2.1 Marine surveys Marine surveys were undertaken between September 2015 and October 2015 in order to confirm the viability of the proposed new cable route in relation to seabed conditions, bathymetry and any other seabed features. Geophysical and limited geotechnical marine surveys were undertaken over a 1,000 m wide corridor centred along the existing cable route (Figure 1.1). The main objectives of the marine surveys were to identify: > Seabed conditions (e.g. sand, rock, mud) to optimise the proposed marine route corridor (avoidance of rock outcrops); > Potential geological constraints, such as dykes, rock pinnacles, sand waves, incised channels etc.; > Locations of potential engineering constraints and/or safety hazards, such as existing pipelines and cables either in service or out of service, wrecks, marine debris and unexploded ordnance; and > Areas of potential biological and ecological importance (such as biogenic and rocky reefs, priority marine features etc.) to allow habitat mapping and inform the requirement for additional surveys and assessment.

1.2.2 Route optimisation The 1,000 m corridor surveyed in 2015 was centred along the existing cable route and was selected following a review of potential cable landing points and current and proposed sea user activities. Following plans to progress horizontal directional drilling (HDD) as shore end solutions (as discussed at the Pre- Application Consultation Events held in 2016 and 2017), a second marine cable route survey was undertaken in June 2017. However, due to the emergency nature of the cable replacement, it is proposed to utilise the existing shore ends and to maintain a replacement cable route as close to the existing cable as possible rather than progress the HDD solution. The corridor surveyed in 2017 covers most of the replacement cable route, which will be located within a working corridor of approximately 250 m (Figure 1.1). Only a short section of the replacement cable route, going through the Dowie sandbanks offshore of Stronsay, was not covered during the survey. However, the area is known to be predominantly sandbank. A further survey was undertaken in May 2018 to inform the emergency cable installation activities. A pre-lay ROV survey will be undertaken in June 2018 during the cable installation window to allow for micro-routing in the case of the presence of any sensitive benthic features.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 8

The resulting sonar mapping and video survey of the marine environment have confirmed a viable replacement cable route within this corridor. The bathymetric data along the surveyed route has highlighted significant rock outcrops and a shallow bank just south of Stronsay. Dowie Sand is a shallow bank which cannot be avoided and as such the replacement cable will be routed through the southernmost extent of the corridor so that it is located within the deepest available water. The Baas of Linton (3 km east of Shapinsay) will be avoided as far as possible. Between these points the cable will lie within water depths of 25 – 40 m. British Geological Survey data and ROV footage identifies a very shallow layer of sediment overlying rock formation, and so burial is expected to be very challenging in these areas. The existing cable is still visible, although partially self-buried. There was no physical evidence of previously recorded horse mussel beds along the route, although should any be found during the pre-lay ROV survey they will be micro-routed around where this is possible within the corridor width.

Figure 1.1 Shapinsay-Stronsay proposed new cable route

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 9

1.3 Project description

1.3.1 Route overview The Project aim is to install a replacement 33 kV distribution cable from Bay of Crook in Shapinsay to Bay of Holland in Stronsay within Orkney. At each shore end landfall, the existing land-based network of overhead line and underground cable will be utilised to connect the submarine cable into in order to minimise the energisation time as much as possible and ensure a safe, secure and reliable supply. The existing submarine cable will be left in situ.

Following a review of pre-installation marine survey data, an optimum route for the cable utilising the marine survey corridor has been identified. The application length for the proposed cable will be 16 km in length between the two transition joints, which are located inshore from the mean high water springs (MHWS) limit. This allows for obstacle avoidance during the cable lay and tolerances with the cable lay operations.

The proposed cable retains the existing shore end landfall at Bay of Crook, Shapinsay and Bay of Holland, Stronsay. The existing landfalls are suitable, evidenced by the faulted cable enduring over 25 years of operation. To protect the replacement cable, a combination of split pipe, rock bags and mattresses is proposed for the rocky intertidal areas (Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3) and deeper nearshore sections of the route to stabilise the cable and reduce the likelihood of freespans. No marine cultural heritage statutory designations have been identified in the Project area; the nearest designated sites are the wrecks of the High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow that are protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeology Areas Act 1979. However, there is one designated protected site with marine components located in the immediate vicinity of the replacement cable route and landfall locations, namely the Greenli Ness seal haul out (Figure 2.1). The site is designated for harbour seal Phoca vitulina and grey seal Halichoerus grypus, listed on the Annex II of the Habitats Directive. The Scottish PMFs that have been identified within the Project area are kelp beds and sandeels. The proposed cable will be offset by a minimum of 100 m and a maximum of 200 m from the faulted cable (Figure 1.1). This will ensure the safe inspection and maintenance of the cable during the operation of the cable. The proposed cable route lies within this survey corridor with some micro-routeing selected to avoid areas of significant bedrock, boulders and to avoid or minimise the impact on sensitive marine features identified from the marine surveys. Kelp beds and sandeels, both designated as PMFs, have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the survey area, along with reefs and sandbanks, both Annex I listed habitats (discussed further in Section 4.4.1.2).

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 10

Figure 1.2 Stronsay Shore End

Figure 1.3 Shapinsay Shore End

1.3.2 Submarine cable installation The replacement submarine cable will be surface laid along the seabed between the mean low water springs (MLWS) marks on the Shapinsay and Stronsay coasts (Figure 1.2). As described in Section 1.2.2., the new

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 11

cable will be laid along a similar route to the existing cable, though offset to allow for safe installation and inspection (Figure 1.1). The proposed cable will have an outer diameter of 127 mm, and will be installed from a cable lay vessel. It will be offset by 100 m to 200 m from the faulted cable to allow for any unforeseen difficulties that arise during installation, to enable more scope for in situ micro-routing during installation and to avoid sensitive environmental habitats or potential marine archaeology. During cable lay activities additional smaller support vessels will be required at each of the shallower shore locations; this is likely to be a multicat/Dive Support Vessel (DSV). This may require an anchoring system to be laid out prior to and during works in the nearshore region. In this instance, an anchor handling vessel would be required to lay out the anchors. A guard vessel is also likely to be used during the cable lay operations to ensure other vessels remain outside the area of operations to reduce collision risk. The cable installation method within the marine environment from each MLWS location will initially involve the cable being surface laid across the length of the route. The proposed route is subject to strong tidal currents resulting in a rocky seabed with very little overlying sediment. With the limited sediment, full cable burial will not be possible. By initially surface laying the cable, the footprint is minimised but cable mobility on the sea bed may increase the footprint and impact on the seabed habitat. Where cable mobility is a concern, for both damage to the cable and scarring of the seabed, SHEPD plan to lay rock filter bags (each with a seabed footprint of approximately 2.0 m by 2.0 m) and mattresses (each with a seabed footprint of approximately 3.0 m by 6.0 m) in spot locations on top of the cable to pin the cable to the seabed. Only clean washed stone will be used to fill the rock filter bags. Each bag will be no more than 1 m high when installed. The rock filter bags have been proven to provide a habitat for aquatic species and mould to the seabed contours where installed. The quantity of these rock filter bags, mattresses and split pipe protection will be subject to cable stability analysis and will consider the level of cable burial feasible along the route. The installation of rock filter bags, concrete mattressing and split pipe are primarily used to stabilise the cable but will also reduce the likelihood of freespans along the route. Example rock filter bags are shown in Figure 1.4. The cable stability assessment will inform the post-lay protection undertaken. This will include the number of rock filter bags and mattresses, and their location in order to pin the cable based on the level of burial achieved. However, our initial assessment of the deposits to the seabed are:

> At the Shapinsay shore end it will be necessary to protect the first 300 m of cable with a combination of split pipe and mattress protection;

> From Kilometre Point (Kp) 0.3 for the next 250 m it is expected that rock filter bags will be required with 50 m spacing to a maximum of 6 rock filter bags. In this location the water depth is a minimum of 10 m;

> At the Baas of Linton, on the approach to Shapinsay, the water depth reduces, exposing the cable to increased wave action. It may be necessary to install rock filter bags here every 50 m for a 1 km length to a maximum of 21 rock filter bags;

> In the centre of the channel it is not expected to need any rock filter bags for stabilisation, but pending the results of stability analysis, and micro routing to a maximum of 20 rock filter bags;

> Across Dowie Sand due to the shallower water, and therefore increased wave action that the cable is exposed to the cable should be stabilised in this location. It is proposed to install rock bags every 50 m for a 0.5 km length to a maximum of 11 rock filter bags; and

> At the Stronsay end where the new cable route is known to run across rocks, and taking previous faults of the original cable into account it is expected that the cable will need to be stabilised for the first 2 km offshore. It is proposed to install rock filter bags every 50 m for this length to a maximum of 27 rock filter bags. The first 700 m of this will be protected using split pipe and mattresses because of water depth.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 12

A post-lay inspection of the cable after will identify the potential risk to placement of the rock filter bags or mattresses directly onto the cable and confirm exact locations to avoid creating suspensions of the cable. The post-lay survey will be undertaken by a small rigid inflatable hull boat towing a sub-bottom profiler (expected to be an Edgetech 3100P operating at 4 – 24 kHz with a source noise level of 177 – 197 re 1μPa (rms)) and magnetometer (non-acoustic device). To reduce the risk to mariners in the shallow areas (of less than 10 m chart datum) along the route; rock filter bags will not be installed in depths of less than 10 m to avoid reducing chart datum water depths by more than 5% in line with Maritime and Coastguard Agency Pre- Application Consultation advice. Similarly mattresses will only be placed in the shallow areas (less than 10 m water depth) where water depths will not be reduced by greater than 5%.

There are no foreseen cable crossings for the proposed route. In the event that an out of service cable is encountered during the pre-lay surveys it is proposed to utilise a combination of rock filter bags and concrete mattressing to cross the cable. It is proposed to install four concrete mattresses (10 tonne in weight) with dimensions of 3.0 m (breadth) x 6.0 m (length) laid adjacent to and directly over any out of service cable being crossed.

Figure 1.4 Example rock filter bag

1.3.3 Intertidal cable installation On either shore above the mean low water spring (MLWS)) limit, where sufficient cable burial cannot be achieved, split pipe will be fitted around the cable for additional protection in the event of exposure (Figure 1.5). On both Shapinsay and Stronsay intertidal areas and down to the 10 m water depth, SHEPD will install split pipe protection to the cable. The split pipe is an articulated cast iron shell design that locks around the cable and fixed with bolted end clamps. There are a number of suppliers with differing shell designs and weights. As a guide, each shell has an 8 mm wall thickness, with an effective length of 391 mm and combined weight in air of 39.96 kg/m. The outer diameter of the split pipe is 213 mm.

Where cable installation by trenching can occur, an open-cut trench method of installation inshore from the MLWS tidal limits at both shore end landfall locations would be executed. An open cut trench will be excavated to install and bury the cable. This will utilise traditional terrestrial-based plant including excavators at low tide. The typical underground cable trench is illustrated in Figure 1.6. The submarine cable will be connected to the terrestrial cable in a transition joint pit buried in the ground located above the MHWS limit at each end. The footprint of the trenching activities will be up to 10 m width centre on the replacement cable route. To allow for micro-routing during cable installation the landfall excavation works will take place within 100 m either side of the cable landfall positions.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 13

The existing underground and overhead line cabling will be utilised to connect the new submarine cable into the existing electrical network on the islands. Figure 1.5 Illustration of a split pipe protection

Figure 1.6 Typical open cut trench cross-section inshore of MLWS

1.3.4 Schedule For this cable, based on the proposed cable design methodology and timing constraints, it is proposed to install the submarine cable as early in June 2018 as possible with cable protection completed by end of July 2018. It is expected that the cable installation operations will run from 6 June to 30 June, but SHEPD are taking all possible steps to expedite this programme.

1.4 Consent requirements and relevant legislation

1.4.1 Marine Licence and supporting information requirements Under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, a Marine Licence is required for the installation and operation of submarine cables in Scottish waters. However, submarine cables do not require a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as they are not listed on either Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 14

Although a formal EIA is not required for submarine cables, Marine Scotland advises, in their Guidance for Marine Licence Applicant Version 2 June 2015 (Marine Scotland, 2015) that “applicants for marine licences for submarine cables should consider the scale and nature of their projects and give consideration to the need for a proportionate environmental assessment”. For larger projects, where there is potential for the subsea cable to impact key environmental receptors, it is recommended by Marine Scotland (Marine Scotland, 2015) that an assessment of potential impacts on these receptors is carried out. Results from this assessment along with other relevant information about the Project should then be provided to support the Marine Licence application. This document forms part of a suite of documents that have been produced to support the Marine Licence application for the Shapinsay Stronsay Subsea Cable Replacement Project, and will be used to implement environmental management measures for the Project. The aim of this report is to provide sufficient environmental information to support the Marine Licence application, by identifying the environmental receptors in the area and undertaking an assessment of the potential impacts to those that are considered particularly sensitive to the proposed works.

1.4.2 Scottish National Marine Plan The Scottish Government adopted the National Marine Plan (NMP) in early 2015 (Scottish Government, 2015) to provide an overarching framework for marine activity in Scottish waters, with an aim to enable sustainable development and the use of the marine area in a way that protects and enhances the marine environment whilst promoting both existing and emerging industries. This is underpinned by a core set of general policies which apply across existing and future development and use of the marine environment. The general planning policies of particular relevance to the Shapinsay-Stronsay Subsea Cable Replacement Project include: > General planning - There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and use of the marine environment when consistent with the policies and objectives of the Plan; > Economic benefit - Sustainable development and use which provides economic benefit to Scottish communities is encouraged when consistent with the objectives and policies of this Plan; > Co-existence - Proposals which enable coexistence with other development sectors and activities within the Scottish marine area are encouraged in planning and decision-making processes, when consistent with policies and objectives of this Plan; > Climate change - Marine planners and decision makers must act in the way best calculated to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change; > Natural heritage - Development and use of the marine environment must: . Comply with legal requirements for protected areas and protected species;

. Not result in significant impact on the national status of PMF; and

. Protect and, where appropriate, enhance the health of the marine area.

> Noise: Development and use in the marine environment should avoid significant adverse effects of manmade noise and vibration, especially on species sensitive to such effects; > Engagement: Early and effective engagement should be undertaken with the general public and interested stakeholders to facilitate planning and consenting processes; and > Cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts affecting the ecosystem of the Marine Plan area should be addressed in decision-making and Plan implementation. SHEPD has taken all the above policies into consideration when developing the proposed new cable route and assessing the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. Sectoral policies are also outlined in

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 15

the Plan where a particular industry brings with it issues beyond those set out in the general policies. For the Project, the policies covering fisheries and submarine cables are of particular relevance; these are detailed below, along with comment on the degree to which the Project is aligned with such objectives and policies. Fisheries policies Taking account of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, Habitats and Birds Directives and Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Shapinsay-Stronsay Subsea Cable Replacement Project has been planned to ensure that existing fishing opportunities and activities are safeguarded wherever possible and that the proposed cable installation activities protect local fish stocks and sustain healthy fisheries. This has been achieved by SHEPD engaging early with the fishing community to discuss the proposals, minimising the duration of cable installation and by minimising conflicts with the fisheries sector and the impact on fish stocks through a thorough assessment of the potential impacts. Submarine cables policies With respect to submarine cables, the Marine Plan sets out a number of key objectives. Those that are relevant to the Shapinsay - Stronsay Subsea Cable Replacement include: > Protect submarine cables whilst achieving successful seabed user co-existence; > Achieve the highest possible quality and safety standards and reduce risks to all seabed users and the marine environment; and > Support the generation, distribution and optimisation of electricity from traditional and renewable sources to Scotland, UK and beyond. Key marine policies underpinning work carried out as part of this project include: > Stakeholder engagement – this should be undertaken before routes are selected and agreed; > Cable developers are required to provide evidence that they have taken a joined up approach to development and activity to minimise impacts on the environment and other sea users; > Cables should be suitability routed to provide sufficient requirement for installation and protection; > Cables should be buried to maximise protection where there are safety or seabed stability risks and to reduce conflict with other marine users and to protect the assets and infrastructure; > Where burial is demonstrated to be not feasible, cables may be suitability protected through recognised and approved measures (such as rock placement, concrete mattresses or cable armouring) where practicable and cost-effective and as risk assessments direct; and > When selecting locations for cable landfalls consideration should be given to flooding and coastal protection and align with policies in Scottish Planning Policy and Local Development Plans.

1.4.3 Pilot Orkney Waters and Pentland Firth Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) The pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan (MSP) sets out an integrated planning policy framework to guide marine development, activities and management decisions, whilst ensuring the quality of the marine environment is protected. It is anticipated that this pilot MSP will provide a useful basis for the preparation of two separate regional marine plans for Orkney and the North Coast Scottish Marine Regions. The pilot MSP has been prepared to align closely with the Scottish National Marine Plan, National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy. This is reflected in the plans guiding principles, aims and objectives all of which underpin the overarching vision to ensure that the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters is a clean, healthy, safe, attractive and productive marine and coastal environment that is rich in biodiversity and managed sustainable to support thriving and resilient local communities. Section 4 of the plan sets out a number of general policies which have been developed specifically to ensure that the Plan is contributing to both high-level government targets and helps meet our commitment to local sustainable development as outlined in the objectives. Those policies that are most relevant to this project

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 16

include: supporting sustainable social and economic benefits; safeguarding the marine ecosystem; climate change; nature conservation designations; protected species; wider biodiversity; landscape and seascape; geodiversity; water environment; coastal processes and flooding; historic environment; integrating coastal and marine development; noise and marine non-native species. There are also a number of sectoral policies which are specifically relevant to particular types of development or activity. Of direct relevance to this project is Sectoral Policy 8: Pipelines, Electricity and Telecommunications Infrastructure. Specific policy requirements relating to the development of subsea cables reflect those outlined in Scottish National Marine Plan discussed above.

1.5 Stakeholder consultation During the planning of the cable installation works and preparation of the Marine Licence application and supporting documentation, SHEPD has undertaken consultation with a number of different parties. Key to this was a series of “Pre-application Consultation Events” which were held to enable any interested party to comment upon the cable replacement process. SHEPD targeted events at legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public sector and non-governmental organisations and statutory consultees. The timing and content of these consultations are summarised below, with topic specific issues summarised as appropriate in the impact assessment. Full details of the Pre-application Consultation Events is provided in Pre- application Consultation Report.

Timing Organisation Consultation undertaken August Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, St Magnus Centre, Kirkwall 2016 sector and non-governmental organisations August Orkney Renewable Energy Forum (OREF) OREF information event, Stromness 2016 August Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, St Magnus Centre, Kirkwall 2016 sector and non-governmental organisations August Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, St Magnus Centre, Kirkwall 2016 sector and non-governmental organisations October Scottish Natural Heritage Update meeting, and to discuss issues raised in 2016 communications to date October Maritime Coastguard Agency Inform of project details prior to submission of 2016 applications November Scottish Fishermen’s Federation Inform of project details prior to submission of 2016 applications November Commissioners of the Northern Lighthouse Board Inform of project details prior to submission of 2016 Meeting applications November Scottish Environment Protection Agency Inform of project details prior to submission of 2016 applications January Crown Estate Inform of project details prior to submission of 2017 applications March Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, St Magnus Centre, Kirkwall 2017 sector and non-governmental organisations March Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, Höfn Youth Centre, Westray 2017 sector and non-governmental organisations March Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, Stronsay Fish Mart Hostel 2017 sector and non-governmental organisations And Café, Whitehall, Stronsay March Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, St Magnus Centre, Kirkwall 2017 sector and non-governmental organisations March Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, Shapinsay Community School 2017 sector and non-governmental organisations March Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open Door Event, Rousay Community School 2017 sector and non-governmental organisations

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 17

1.6 Environmental assessment scope The following sections of this environmental supporting information document provide information on: > The identification of potential impacts on protected sites and key receptors associated with those sites; > The identification of potential impacts on other key receptors and an assessment of the potential for those impacts to be significant; and > Mitigation measures that will be implemented to avoid or minimise any potential impacts (these include mitigation measures that are inherent to the Project design). Ongoing liaison between the SHEPD Project team and the environmental consultants during the course of the impact assessment work has allowed for environmental considerations to be incorporated into the Project design as appropriate, in the context of the public interest need for the replacement activities. The cable route from Shapinsay to Stronsay has a small discrete footprint in Stronsay Firth. The proposed works are also temporary in nature and will be short term. However, a small number of potential impacts on the following key receptors have been considered to demonstrate that impacts are either inherently sufficiently limited in nature or that sufficient control measures will be implemented to ensure impacts are not significant: > Protected sites and species associated with those sites; > Physical environment; > Benthic and intertidal ecology; > Other species, including mammals, fish, birds and otters; and > Marine archaeology. Fisheries and other sea users are considered in the Fisheries Liaison Management Action Plan (FLMAP) and are not discussed further in this document.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 18

2 ECOLOGICAL PROTECTED SITES

2.1 Introduction This section of the report provides detail on the protected sites and their qualifying features in the vicinity of the Project, as well as the relevant legislation applicable to each site, and the relevant consultation advice that has been provided to SHEPD by key stakeholders. It then assesses the potential impacts on the sites that could be impacted from the proposed activities and discusses the mitigation and management measures that will be undertaken in order to ensure impacts are avoided or minimised and provides a conclusion of the significance of potential impacts. There is one designated protected site with marine components located in the immediate vicinity of the replacement cable route and landfall locations, namely the Greenli Ness seal haul out (Figure 2.1). The site is designated for harbour seal and grey seal, listed on the Annex II of the Habitats Directive.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 19

Figure 2.1 Conservation sites in the vicinity of the replacement cable route

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 20

2.2 Consultation SHEPD has undertaken consultation with statutory and non-statutory bodies. Correspondence of relevance to ecologically protected sites is summarised in Table 2.1 (taken directly from the written correspondence). Table 2.1 Consultation summary (general)

Consultee Comment SNH Marine Licences and applications - SNH advised: > Welcomed a standard approach to providing environmental information and mitigation used on all cables and the clear highlighting of cable specific information. > None of licences require provision of an Environmental Impact Assessment but it would be beneficial to develop an Environmental Management Plan as part of each licence application to identify any potential significant environmental impact and mitigation actions. The use of a generic template with cable specific information highlighted is welcomed and SNH happy to review the draft management plans for SHEPD. > General point about otters: likely to be present at shore ends so SHEPD requires to be aware of otter guidance. There is survey specification guidance for otter surveys to check for presence and breeding and resting sites as it is a European protected species. Unlikely to result in major constraint but may have to apply for a licence application to SNH. > Otters breeding and resting sites for onshore sections will need to be surveyed for both shore ends. > There is a seal haul out at the shore end. The seals are most sensitive to harassment from June – August. However, unless noisy, unlikely to affect seals.

2.3 Internationally important sites

2.3.1 Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) The Scottish National Marine Plan incorporates 30 NCMPAs of which 17 are in territorial waters and two found in Orkney waters; Wyre and Rousay Sound NCMPA and North-West Orkney NCMPA. The NCMPA in closest proximity to the proposed cable corridor is the Wyre and Rousay Sound NCMPA, located 13.2 km north-east of the cable corridor (Table 2.2) and is protected for the following features: > Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediments; > Maerl beds; and > Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish shelf seabed (SNH, 2014). Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediments and maerl beds are designated as Priority Marine Features (PMFs) in Scottish waters (Tyler-Walters, 2016). Due to the distance to the NCMPA (13.2 km), impacts on these protected features are highly unlikely. The EC Habitats Directive comprises a list of priority habitat types and species that require measures for protection in Europe. In the UK, 76 habitat types and 61 species listed in the Directive have been recorded in the UK (McLeod et al., 2005). There are currently six SACs in Orkney that are designated for the presence of Annex I habitats and Annex II species, three of which have a marine component: Faray and Holm of Faray, Sanday SAC and Loch of Stenness SAC. The closest offshore SAC to the Project are is the Faray and Holm of Faray SAC, located 17.7 km north-west of the Project area. The features that are primary reasons for designating these sites are presented below in Table 2.2.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 21

Scotland is recognised as a stronghold for the otter in Europe, and there is an otter population in Orkney. Otter is listed as qualifying feature but not a primary reason for selection for the Loch of Isbister SAC, however there are no SAC with coastal features in which otters are a designating feature in Orkney. Table 2.2 SACs and NCMPAs located in the vicinity of the Project area

Distance and direction Potential connectivity with Site name Description and qualifying features from Project the Project No > Kelp and seaweed communities on Proposed activities will not Wyre and sublittoral sediments; impact this site. Rousay Sound > Maerl beds; and 13.2 km north-west NCMPA > Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish shelf seabed. > Black guillemot Cepphus grylle; and No Papa Proposed activities will not Westray > Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish 34 km north-north-west impact this site. NCMPA shelf seabed – sand wave field. No North-West > Sandeels; and Orkney 43 km north-west Proposed activities will not > Sandbanks (Annex I) NCMPA impact this site. No Faray and Proposed activities will not Holm of > Grey seal Halichoerus grypus 17.7 km north-west impact this site Faray SAC No Sanday SAC > Harbour seal Phoca vitulina 19.5 km north-east Proposed activities will not impact this site

2.3.2 Special Areas of Conservation (SPAs) and Ramsar sites The waters around Orkney support national and international populations of seabirds. Under the EC Birds Directive, breeding (Annex I) or regularly occurring migratory populations of seabird and marine waterfowl are protected through the designation of SPAs. In the Orkney Islands, there are 13 designated SPAs, seven of which have marine components. There are also two proposed SPAs (pSPAs), the North Orkney and Scapa Flow, with the North Orkney pSPA located 2.3 km south of the Project area. This site is designated for the Annex I species great northern diver Gavia immer, Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus, red-throated diver Gavia stellata and the following migratory birds: common eider Somateria mollissima, long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis, velvet scoter Melanitta fusca, red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator, and European shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis. However, there are no SPAs in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The closest SPA to the Project area is the Copinsay SPA, located 13.2 km south of the cable route. It is designated for guillemot Uria aalge, kittiwake Rissa tridactyla, great black-backed gull Larus marinus and fulmar Fulmarus glacialis. The works will be taking place at some distance from the SPAs where breeding seabirds are protected, therefore no impacts on breeding seabirds within these sites are anticipated. There is one Ramsar site designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance for wetland habitats and wetland species in Orkney, the East Sanday Coast Ramsar site (NMPI, 2018). However, given the distance to this protected wetland from the Project area (15.5 km north-east), no further consideration is given to this site.

2.4 Nationally and locally important sites Under Section 117 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, Scottish Ministers, in consultation with the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), have formally designated a number of seal haul out sites to provide additional protection for seals from intentional or reckless harassment under the Protection of Seals

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 22

(Designated Seal Haul out Sites (Scotland) Order 2014). A total of 194 designated seal haul outs occur around the Scottish coast (Scottish Government, 2017). The seal haul outs occurring in the vicinity of the proposed works are presented in Table 2.4 and shown in Figure 1.1. The Project area crosses the Greenli Ness seal-haul out, located on the Stronsay shore. Approximately 1 km of the cable from the Stronsay landfall is encompassed by this seal haul out (NMPI, 2018). Harbour seal density is estimated as medium along the majority of the proposed cable route, between 5 and 10 animals per 25 km2. Grey seal density is estimated as high (>100 animals per 25 km2) along the majority of the proposed cable route (Jones et al., 2018). Table 2.3 Seal haul outs located in the vicinity of the Project area (NMPI, 2018)

Site name Designated features Distance by sea from the Project Greenli Ness 0 km Bay of Holland E & Tor Ness 1.3 km Auskerry 5 km Bay of Houseby Grey seal1 5 km Linga Holm Harbour seal2 8 km Deer Sound 8.2 km Helliar Holm & Elwick 8.5 km Little Green Holm 8.8 km Rothiesholm grey seal pupping site 1.3 km Grey seal Auskerry grey seal pupping site 5 km Nationally important sites include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are 36 SSSIs in Orkney, including biological and geological features. The closest SSSI is the Auskerry SSSI, which features breeding storm petrel and Artic tern as presented in Table 2.4. There are 248 designated Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) in Orkney, including 239 for marine biological features and 24 coastal sites for geological and morphological features (OLDP, 2017). There are several LNCSs near the cable landfall sites of the Project (Table 2.4). These include the Rothiesholm LNCS, that the replacement cable route meets at the Stronsay landfall, and the East Hill LNCS, located 403 m south of the Shapinsay landfall. These LNCS have been established for the conservation of biological features. The Auskerry SSSI and Muckle and Little Green Holm SSSIs are also designated as LNCS (NMPI, 2018).

1 Grey seal foraging range is typically over 100 km (SCOS, 2014). 2 Harbour seal foraging range is typically 40 – 50 km (SCOS, 2014).

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 23

Table 2.4 Locally designated sites within vicinity of Project area

Approximate distance Site name Designation Description and qualifying features from proposed works (at closest point) > Breeding storm petrel Hydrobates Auskerry SSSI and LNCS pelagicus 5 km east > Breeding Arctic tern Muckle and Little SSSI and LNCS Breeding grey seal 10 km north-west Green Holm Breeding Arctic skua Stercorarius Rothiesholm LNCS parasiticus, Artic tern Sterna paradisaea 110 m and red-throated diver Gavia stellata. Designated for breeding wading birds including curlew Numenius arquata, East Hill LNCS 400 m redshank Tringa totanus, snipe Gallinago gallinago. There are 13 RSPB reserves in Orkney, the closest of which is Mill Dam, located 4.3 km west of the Project area (NMPI, 2018). As presented in Section 2.3.2, birds are not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed cable works and therefore are not discussed further here.

2.5 Potential impacts Based on the summary of protected sites provided above together with the consultation responses received with regards to protected sites, Table 2.5 summarises those sites which could potentially be impacted as a result of the Project. Table 2.5 Potential impacts on ecological protected sites

Environmental Management and mitigation and overall impact Potential impacts receptor significance

No potential for significant impacts on seals, due to: > Marine (vessel) activities will only last approximately 15 days; > Landfall operations will not occur within recognised seal haul outs at Shapinsay and there will be only limited landfall activity within the landfall at Stronsay; Grey and harbour seals > Implementation of a Marine Mammal Protection Plan could be disturbed from (MMPP); and Greenli Ness Seal their haul due to activities haul outs for in adjacent waters – > SHEPD will ensure the Contractor is aware of the protection for grey however the vessels Scottish Government advice and responsible and harbour seals involved in the works will behaviour around designated seal haul outs which coming ashore to not need to approach the states “New activities taking place near seal haul rest, moult or breed breeding sites during the outs, which present no significant disturbance to the activities and therefore no seals, or where the disturbance is low level (a few impacts are predicted seals) and/or short term (over a short time period), will normally be acceptable. This may require some monitoring of the seals to avoid the risk of potentially causing a significant proportion of seals on a haul out site to leave that site either more than once or repeatedly or, in the worst cases, to abandon it permanently.” (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00452869.pdf).

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 24

Environmental Management and mitigation and overall impact Potential impacts receptor significance

There is not considered to be the potential for Likely Significant Effects (LSE) on breeding seabirds as: Temporary and short term physical disturbance / > Marine (vessel) activities will be temporary (approximately displacement of breeding 15 days in total); Breeding seabirds seabirds due to vessel protected within the > Slow speed of vessels (maximum of few knots per hour) presence and noise Rothiesholm LNCS will minimise disturbance impacts; (offshore) and presence of and East Hill LNCS > Potential for accidental release of pollutants is very low. heavy machinery and Vessel SOPEP details procedures and description of actions to vehicles at landfall. be taken in the event of an oil pollution incident; and Accidental fuel release. > Operating instructions in place for all hazardous substances including hydraulic oil.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 25

3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Introduction This section of the report provides further detail on the physical environment in the vicinity of the Project, as well as the relevant legislation applicable to the site, and the relevant consultation advice provided by key stakeholder. The significance of potential impacts and the mitigation and management options required to avoid or minimise those impacts are subsequently discussed.

3.2 Legislation and policy context The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD) was formally adopted in July 2008 and was transposed into UK Legislation under the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 on 15th July 2010. The Directive is the environmental pillar of the Integrated European Maritime Policy which focuses on the development of a coherent, co-ordinated and integrated approach to the management of the marine environment through marine planning. The MSFD constitutes a vital environmental component of the European Union’s future maritime policy and is designed to achieve full economic potential of oceans and seas in harmony with the marine environment (MSFD, 2015). An updated Marine Strategy Part One will be published in 2018 following a public consultation in 2017. The main requirement of the MSFD is for Member States to prepare national strategies, including marine spatial plans, to manage their seas to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020 at the latest. The key requirements of the Directive are to undertake an assessment of the current state of UK seas, and a detailed description of what GES means for UK waters, with a set of associated targets and indicators (Scottish Government, 2016). In December 2012, the UK Marine Strategy Part 1 was published. This included an assessment of UK marine waters; proposals on defining Good Environmental Status (GES) and developing targets and indicators for achieving and monitoring GES. Provisions for Scotland to work with other UK administrations towards achieving GES are set out under the MSFD (DEFRA, 2012). In July 2014, Part two of the Marine Strategy was published by the UK government to establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes for the ongoing assessment of the environmental status of marine waters around the UK (DEFRA, 2014). Part 3 of the Marine Strategy was published in December 2015. It sets out a programme of measures to enable the achievement of GES (DEFRA, 2015).

3.3 Consultation SHEPD has undertaken consultation with statutory and non-statutory bodies. There were no issues raised of relevance to the physical environment during the consultation events.

3.4 Physical environment description Strong winds are the main characteristic of the Orkney climate. Prevailing winds come from between west and south-east for 60% of the year, with the windy months being October to March. Wind speeds greater than 8 m/s occur 30% of the year, with an hourly mean speed of 4 m/s recorded during the period 1965-1973 (Barne et al., 1997). The North Atlantic and the North Sea tidal systems influence the tides in Orkney, producing a net flow of water from west to east. Tidal current speeds are of 1 to 2 m/s around Orkney, with higher velocity in the Pentland Firth and Hoy Sound of up to 4.5 m/s (Barne et al., 1997). The tidal range at mean spring tide varies between 2.5 and 3.0 m, with variations in tidal estuaries and bays. The mean wave height in the east coast of Orkney is higher than 0.5 m for 75% of the year and higher than 1.5 m for 10% of the year while the west of Orkney is characterised by a mean wave height exceeding 1.0 m for 75% of the year.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 26

The channels between the Orkney islands are relatively shallow with water depths of less than 20 m. The sea floor gradient is steep from the west of Mainland and the south west of Hoy, but the slope is gentler to the north and east of the Orkney islands (Barne et al., 1997). The seabed between the Orkney islands is composed of bedrock, boulders, gravel, sand and occasional deposits of mud, while in tide-scoured sounds it is bedrock, shell gravel and sand. Shores consist of bedrock and boulders, with sand in the bays (Barne et al., 1997). In 2015, Environmental Scientifics Group conducted a survey in proposed cable routes around Shetland, Orkney and the Hebrides, including the proposed new cable route between Shapinsay-Stronsay. The aim of these surveys was to collect data on the physical and benthic environment around proposed cable replacement routes (ESG, 2015). The recorded seabed levels were varying between the inshore survey limit of 5 metres below Chart Datum to 34 metres at the deepest point of the crossing. Two large seabed mounds were observed during the ESG survey along the proposed new cable route, with the bed level rising by approximately 18 metres above the surrounding seabed levels. At the seabed mounds, the thickness of marine sediments increases to a level where the horizon occurs at a depth greater than detectable with the sub-bottom profiler (7 metres). A thin veneer of sediment is present in some portions of the route, making burial very challenging. Consequently, the existing cable is visible on the seabed surface for the majority of the crossing, though self-burial has been confirmed in a subsequent survey (Envision, 2017). Additional sonar mapping and video survey data have drawn attention to the rock outcrops and shallow bank known as Dowie Sand to the south of Stronsay. Between Dowie Sand and the Baas of Linton, the water depth increases to 25- 40 m (Table 3.1 – segment in dark blue).

Figure 3.1 Bathymetry of adjacent replacement cable route

A total of 33 grab samples were recovered during the ESG survey in 2015 and most of the samples contained medium to coarse gravelly sand, with occasional fragments of shells. One sample contained occasional medium to coarse gravel sized coral fragments. The subsequent 2017 survey by Envision included 45 grab samples and a drop-down video taken at a site of archaeological interest (Envision, 2017a). It characterised the rugosity (i.e. the small-scale surface irregularities) of the seabed along the replacement cable route. Regions of highest rugosity occurred along the rocky intertidal habitat where the cable makes landfall. There is increased rugosity around the Bass of Linton and Dowie Sand mounds where the seabed depth decreases. Based on the summary of the physical environment provided in Section 3.4 above, Table 3.1 summarises potential impacts on each receptor as a result of the Project.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 27

Table 3.1 Potential impact on the physical environment surrounding the Project area

Environmental Management and mitigation and overall impact Potential impacts receptor significance

Bathymetry and No potential impacts hydrology N/A

No potential for significant impacts on water quality, due to: > Underwater activities will be temporary (approximately 15 days) and any increase in suspended sediments Increased suspended sediment in will quickly revert back to background levels; the water column over the short period of the underwater activities > As this is a high energy environment, background resulting from cable installation levels of turbidity are already high along the cable activities where sediment permits route, so the impact of sediment resuspension from burial the post-lay jet on relative sediment suspension levels will be minimal; and

> All cable landfall works undertaken in line with Water quality standard best practice and general environmental management plans provided by SHEPD. No potential for significant impacts on water quality, due to: > Pollution prevention measures in place; Risk from accidental pollution e.g. > Potential for accidental release of pollutants is very from oil seepage, hydraulic fluid low. Vessel SOPEP details procedures and release, vessel fuel release description of actions to be taken in the event of an oil pollution incident; and > Operating instructions in place for all hazardous substances including hydraulic oil.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 28

4 BENTHIC AND INTERTIDAL ECOLOGY

4.1 Introduction This section of the report provides detail on the benthic and intertidal habitats in the vicinity of the Project, as well as the relevant legislation and policy guidance. It then assesses the potential impacts on benthic and intertidal ecology and the management and mitigation measures that will be undertaken in order to ensure impacts are minimised.

4.2 Legislation and policy context With respect to benthic and intertidal ecology, in order to identify potential constraints to routing a subsea cable and identifying potential landfall locations, it is necessary to identify potential habitats and species of conservation importance that could potentially be present in the project study area and along potential subsea cable route corridors. There are a number of different statutes and guidance that are relevant in this regard. These include: > European Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC); > The Habitats (Scotland) Regulations 1994 (as amended) which implements species protection requirements of the Habitats Directive in Scotland, on land and in inshore waters (within 12 nm); > The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (known as the OSPAR Convention); > Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009); and > UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (July 2012) – this supersedes the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) which was the UK Governments Response to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which the UK signed up to in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro.

4.2.1 European Habitats Directive The European Habitats Directive lists 15 marine and coastal habitats and eight marine species in Annexes I and II respectively. To meet the requirements outlined in Article 3 of the European Habitats Directive, SACs have been designated in UK waters to contribute to the European network of important high-quality conservation sites that will make a significant contribution to conserving these species and habitats. Sandbanks and reefs, both listed in Annex I of the Directive within the Project area, have been identified in the vicinity of the Project area.

4.2.2 Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 On behalf of the Scottish Government; JNCC, SNH and Marine Scotland have together developed recommended lists of PMFs in Scotland’s seas (Tyler-Walters et al., 2016). The list of PMFs has not been developed in accordance with any specific legislation, agreement or convention; it was developed to guide policy decisions regarding the conservation of Scotland’s seas, through the identification of priority species and habitats. The list of recommended PMFs in Scotland’s offshore waters was adopted in 2014 and contains 81 habitats and species considered to be of conservation importance (Tyler-Walters et al., 2016). Howson et al. (2012) have also developed an equivalent list for Scotland’s territorial waters which comprises 56 PMFs, including eight habitats and species groups, 11 individual habitats and 37 individual species. The Scottish PMFs that have been identified within the Project area are kelp beds and sandeels).

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 29

4.2.3 Biodiversity Action Plan (BAPs) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) was launched in 1994 as a means of meeting the UK’s obligations under the Biodiversity Convention (signed by the UK and over a hundred other countries at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992) to “develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”. The stated goal of the UK BAP is to “conserve and enhance biological diversity within the UK, and to contribute to the conservation of global diversity through all appropriate mechanisms”. UK BAP priority species were those identified as being the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK BAP. As a result of devolution, and new country-level and international drivers and requirements, much of the work previously carried out by the UK BAP is now focused at a country-level rather than a UK-level, and in July 2012 the UK BAP was succeeded by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework'. The UK list of priority species, however, remains an important reference source and has been used to help draw up statutory lists of priorities in Scotland.

4.2.4 Orkney Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) are seen as the means by which the UKBAP and the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy are implemented at the local level. Targets set nationally for species and habitats of conservation concern are translated into actions which are achievable in a local context. The Orkney LBAP, first published in 2003 and revised in 2008 and 2013, identifies actions which can be taken locally, and which will make a contribution to the conservation of those species and habitats identified as being “at risk” or “threatened” in the UK as a whole. It is presented as a series of individual Habitat Action Plans and associated guiding principles which also identify important sites for each habitat type. The 2013 review put forward ten habitats for Habitat Action Plans. Of these habitats the only one that is thought to have the possibility of occurring in the vicinity of the works is intertidal under boulder communities (OIC, 2013). This habitat is found from the mid-shore down to the extreme lower shore, and encompasses areas of boulders (greater than 256 mm diameter) that support a diverse under boulder community. This habitat is widespread in Orkney and although it is possible that it may occur at either of the landfall sites, neither of these areas are noted as best examples supporting a greater richness of species (OIC, 2013). One of the associated species of this habitat is the dog whelk (Nucella lapillus) which is recorded as a species of local importance in Orkney.

4.3 Consultation SHEPD has undertaken consultation with statutory and non-statutory bodies. Correspondence of relevance to ecologically protected sites is summarised below in Table 4.1 Consultation Summary (taken directly from the written correspondence). Table 4.1 Consultation Summary

Consultee Comment SNH > Some benthic PMFs are likely to be particularly sensitive to the damage or disturbance which could be caused by cable installation, e.g. maerl beds and we have highlighted where these could be affected in Annex A (not included here as relevant to marine cable). SNH > It is likely that the proposed cable route runs through a horse mussel bed, based on data from a drop video survey carried out in 2013. There are further records of horse mussel beds within several km of the proposed cable route. We therefore recommend a visual survey to check for the extent of this bed before determining the final route and cable protection.

> Horse mussel beds (Annex I habitat) are likely to be present along the Shapinsay-Stronsay SNH cable route. > Marine Recorder highlights the point data of where the horse mussel beds.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 30

Consultee Comment

> Survey data SHEPD provides needs to better correlate to geographic location. If point SNH location video taken, it would be good to show where it was taken on the map and to describe the biotope. A good example is the SHETL’s approach to Western Isles cable which uses ARC GIS approach taken by Transmission. > The sea bed gets more damage from protection works than surface lay. Dumping thousands of tonnes of imported rock; or trenching the cables causes more turbidity, a larger footprint, more noise and greater seabed damage. > Disturbing protection to access the cable in a fault situation will increase the environmental impact. > There is no evidence that protecting the cables has any noticeable effects on seabed Orkney communities, sea mammals or fish. Renewable > The impact on the seabed communities, mammals and fish from different installation Energy Forum methods is an area of research that we are examining with our technical consultants to identify a viable solution to allow the measurement of any impact to be incorporated into the CBA model. > The impact on the seabed from different installation methods is an area of research that we are actively seeking new guidance on and will in 2017 be commissioning research with academic partners to identify any links and measurements that we can employ to better articulate the environmental impact of our cables on the seabed.

4.4 Benthic and intertidal ecology description

4.4.1 Subtidal area 4.4.1.1 Overview of benthic ecology between Shapinsay and Stronsay The seabed between the Orkney islands consist of bedrock, boulders, gravel, sand and occasional deposits of mud, while the substrata of the tide-scoured sounds are bedrock, shell-gravel or sand. Most shores are composed of bedrock or boulders, supporting predominantly seaweeds and/or barnacles with sand in the bays. On Stronsay the bivalve molluscs at Mill Bay, the Sand of Rothiesholm and St Catherine's Bay are very varied. Most shores on Shapinsay are rocky, with sandstone bedrock steps, boulders and gullies supporting typical species (Barne et al., 1997). In June 2017, Envision was commissioned to undertake a drop-down video survey along the replacement cable route between Shapinsay and Stronsay in order to collect information on the benthic environment and geophysical data. The video imagery allowed identified any features of conservation importance including Annex I habitats and species, PMFs and any designated features of nearby marine protected areas (MPAs). A total of 45 stations were sampled for video imagery along the cable route. Over two minutes of video footage was successfully collected at each of the other stations, along with still images. Close to the Shapinsay shore, in the Bay of Linton, a thin band of kelp and red seaweed communities was observed on infralittoral rock in shallower water, changing quickly to circalittoral coarse sediment with shell and sparse epifauna (urchins) in deeper water to the east, with patches of pebbles or outcropping bedrock with urchins, brittle stars, pink crusts and small clumps of horse mussels. Further east, before the central channel of the Stronsay Firth, is the Bass of Linton sandbank, composed largely of coarse sand with shell (mussel shells) and some patches of pebbles, sparse epifauna such as starfish, flatfish and hermit crabs, with infrequent cobbles/boulders in the deeper sites associated with encrusting species, the bryozoan Flustridae and an occasional horse mussel. Sandeels were observed on the eastern flank of this sandbank at Station 18 (Envision, 2017a). In the main channel of the Stronsay Firth, dense brittle star beds were observed on cobble, pebbles and shell at the majority of stations, with Alcyonium, anemones, urchins, hydroid/bryozoan turf, starfish, occasional Buccinidae, solitary and small clumps of horse mussels, and other encrusting fauna such as pink

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 31

crusts, Spirobranchus and barnacles. At the easternmost site with brittle star beds (Station 20), the horse mussels formed a habitat mosaic with the more prominent brittle star beds (Envision, 2017a). Bordering the central channel on the eastern side is another large area of sand and coarse sediments forming a sandbank running from southeast of Rothiesholm Head, north-west to south-east orientated. To the east of the channel, on the western flank of the sandbank, the sediments comprised cobbles, pebbles and shell in coarse sediment associated with Flustridae, Alcyonium, urchins, some solitary mussels, brittle stars, starfish and encrusting species such as pink crusts, Spirobranchus and barnacles. The sandbank comprised coarse sand in ripples or waves with shell and pebbles, sparse epifauna including scallop, mussel, hermit crab and faunal turf. Further east of the sandbank, more rock was observed underlying the sand, with faunal turf species such as abundant Alcyonidium, Alcyonium and Flustra growing through the sand. Kelp beds are seen on areas closer to shore on Stronsay, with the associated red seaweeds and pink crusts, hydroids, bryozoa, urchins, molluscs, starfish, ascidians and some feather stars. A total of eight biotopes were identified along the route and their predicted distribution is shown on Figure 4.1 and listed in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Biotopes identified in the subtidal area of the replacement cable route between Shapinsay and Stronsay (Envision, 2017a)

Biotope/habitat type EUNIS Code MNCR Classification IR.MIR.KR A3.21 Kelp and red seaweeds (moderate energy infralittoral rock) CR.HCR.XFa A4.13 Mixed faunal turf communities Faunal and algal crusts on exposed to moderately wave-exposed CR.MCR.EcCr.FaAlCr A4.214 circalittoral rock Brittlestars on faunal and algal encrusted exposed to moderately wave- CR.MCR.EcCr.FaAlCr.Bri A4.2144 exposed circalittoral rock SS.SCS.ICS A5.13 Infralittoral coarse sediment Dense Lanice conchilega and other polychaetes in tide-swept infralittoral SS.SCS.ICS.SLan A5.137 sand and mixed gravelly sand SS.SCS.CCS A5.14 Circalittoral coarse sediment Modiolus modiolus beds with fine hydroids and large solitary ascidians on SS.SBR.SMus.ModT A5.623 very sheltered circalittoral mixed substrata

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 32

Figure 4.1 Biotopes distribution obtained from drop down video survey between Shapinsay and Stronsay (Envision, 2017a) (Note: the proposed cable route shown is out of date and not that proposed for the emergency replacement route – the replacement will track closely with the existing cable route shown)

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 33

4.4.1.2 Features of conservation interest There are no marine protected areas with benthic features in the vicinity of the proposed cable route. However, some features of conservation interest were observed along the replacement cable route. Horse mussels were observed at several locations throughout the Shapinsay to Stronsay replacement cable route, but at the majority of stations they occurred as scattered populations of isolated full-grown individuals or small clumps. Therefore, they were no horse mussel beds, as described on the PMF list and on the OSPAR Red List of Threatened and/or Declining Species, within the survey area (Envision, 2017a). Sandeels, classified as PMFs in Scottish waters, were observed at Station 18, on the eastern flank of the Bass of Linton sandbank. Kelp beds were observed throughout the infralittoral zone where rock was present in the intertidal area between Shapinsay and Stronsay. Kelp beds are designated as Scottish PMFs (Tyler-Walters et al., 2016) and are on the UKBAP list, however there are not listed as Annex I habitats or OSPAR declining or threatened species/habitats.

The predicted extent of PMFs along the replacement cable route is shown on Figure 4.2. There were two Annex I habitats observed within the survey area, including reefs and sandbanks. Bedrock and stony reefs were observed at ten stations, nine of these occurring where kelp beds were observed on rock. A reefiness assessment was undertaken using the Irving (2009) criteria, which accounts for the composition, elevation, extent and biota of the reef. Areas classified as medium or high reefiness were classified as potential Annex I reefs. The sites identified as potential Annex I reefs included all stations where kelp and red seaweeds (moderate energy infralittoral rock) (IR.MIR.KR) occurred, and at Station 16 where mixed faunal turf communities (CR.HCR.XFa) occurred. Sandbanks are listed as Annex I habitats under the title 'sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time'. They consist of sandy sediments covered by shallow sea water, typically at less than 20 m water depth. Figure 4.3 provides the predicted extent of potential Annex I structures along the replacement cable route. The topography was reviewed along with the video footage to delineate potential Annex I sandbank. Two areas were identified as potential Annex I sandbanks, including the Bass of Linton and Dowie Sand (Envision, 2017a).

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 34

Figure 4.2 Location of PMFs identified during the drop-down video survey between Shapinsay and Stronsay (Envision, 2017a) (Note: the proposed cable route shown is out of date and not that proposed for the emergency replacement route – the replacement will track closely with the existing cable route shown)

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 35

Figure 4.3 Potential Annex I and sandbank areas identified during the drop-down video survey between Shapinsay and Stronsay (Envision, 2017a) (Note: the proposed cable route shown is out of date and not that proposed for the emergency replacement route – the replacement will track closely with the existing cable route shown)

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 36

4.4.2 Intertidal area 4.4.2.1 Shapinsay The Shapinsay landfall can be described as a rocky shore, with a low-lying shingle beach, backed with a grassland Figure 4.5.

4.4.2.2 Stronsay The intertidal area on Stronsay was surveyed on 21st June 2017 by Envision. The intertidal area was visually assessed for ecology, topography and point of work risk assessment. Three transects perpendicular to the shoreline were selected on either side of the cable landfall site in order to determine the trends in ecological zonation from MHWS to MLWS (Figure 4.4). Photographs were taken at the shore along with their GPS positions.

The existing cable runs through a narrow channel in the rock, perpendicular to the shore, over cobbles and pebbles overgrown with fucoids and other seaweeds (Figure 4.5). South of the cable landfall on Stronsay, the intertidal area comprises barren cobbles, boulders and pebbles, with the upper area along Transect 2 comprising yellow and grey lichens on exposed rock or boulders (LR.FLR.Lic.YG) (Figure 4.6). Moving seawards, the cobbles and pebbles are replaced by rock with Fucus vesiculosus and barnacle mosaics, then Fucus serratus and red seaweeds on the lower shore and kelp and red seaweeds in the infralittoral zone, with Alaria esculenta observed at the two southernmost transects (Envision, 2017b). A total of 12 biotopes were allocated within the Stronsay intertidal area, as listed in Table 4.2. Table 4.3 Biotopes recorded along the transects in the Stronsay intertidal area (Envision, 2017b)

Biotope/habitat type EUNIS Code Classification LS.LSa.St A2.21 Strandline LR.FLR.Lic.YG B3.111 Yellow and grey lichens on supralittoral rock LS.LCS A2.1 Littoral coarse sediment LR.FLR.Lic.Ver B3.113 Verrucaria maura on littoral fringe rock LR.LLR.F.Fspi.X A1.3122 Fucus spiralis on full salinity upper eulittoral mixed substrata Fucus vesiculosus and barnacle mosaics on moderately exposed mid LR.MLR.BF.FvesB A1.213 eulittoral rock LR.LLR.F.Asc.X A1.3142 Ascophyllum nodosum on full salinity mid eulittoral mixed substrata LR.MLR.BF.Fser A1.214 Fucus serratus on moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock LR.HLR.MusB.Sem A1.113 Semibalamus balanoides on exposed lower eulittoral rock IR.MIR.KR A3.21 Kelp and red seaweeds (moderate energy infralittoral rock) LR (Vertical feature) A1 Littoral rock (and other hard substrata) LR.FLR.Rkp A1.41 Rockpools

The trends of biotopes along the shore have been mapped using a combination of visual observations and photographs, and allowed predicting the extent of each biotope in the intertidal area (Figure 4.7). The seaward extent of kelp could not be measured within the intertidal area therefore the boundary has been drawn arbitrarily. Kelp beds are designated as PMF in Scottish waters, and occurred in the infralittoral zone on Stronsay along most of the shoreline where rock was present (Envision, 2017b). Seals were observed hauled out on rocks near Greenli Ness, to the south of the survey area. No other features of conservation interest were observed during the intertidal surveys on Stronsay.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 37

Figure 4.4 Location of transects on the Stronsay shore (Envision, 2017b)

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 38

Figure 4.5 Existing cable landfall on Stronsay

Figure 4.6 Intertidal area south of the cable landfall on Shapinsay

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 39

Figure 4.7 Predicted extent of biotopes within the Stronsay intertidal area (Envision, 2017b)

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 40

4.5 Potential impacts to benthic and intertidal ecology

4.5.1 Potential impacts during cable installation Due to the relatively strong tidal currents, the majority of the proposed cable route will be across rocky seabed with very little overlying sediments, therefore cable burial will not be possible. To stabilise the cable where burial cannot be achieved, SHEPD plan to lay a combination of rock filter bags and mattresses to pin the cable on the seabed, which will reduce movements on the seabed and thus its footprint. Each rock filter bag has a footprint of 2 m x 2 m. The location of deposits on the seabed is described in Section 1.3.2. The footprint of cable installation activities and infrastructure is presented in Table 4.4 and the potential impacts that arise from these are presented in Table 4.4. In the event that an out of service cable is encountered it is proposed to utilise a combination of rock filter bags and concrete mattressing to cross the cable. It is proposed to install four concrete mattresses (10 tonne in weight) with dimensions of 3.0 m (breadth) x 6.0 m (length) x 0.4 m (depth) laid adjacent to and directly over an out of service cable being crossed. Cable burial will be undertaken in the Shapinsay-Stronsay intertidal areas where sediments allow open-cut trenching. The working corridor for trenching is 10 m wide. On either shore above the MLWS limit, where sufficient cable burial cannot be achieved, cast iron split pipe will be fitted around the cable for additional protection in the event of exposure. On both Shapinsay and Stronsay intertidal areas and down to 10 m water depth cast iron split pipe protection will be installed to protect the cable. The worst-case scenario (i.e. cable burial) has been considered for this impact assessment, therefore the footprint of the cast-iron split pipe installed between MLWS and MHWS is included in the footprint of trenching activities (Table 4.4). A CLV will be used for the cable installation works. Additional smaller support vessels will be required at each of the shallower shore locations, this is likely to be a multicat/dive-support vessel (DSV). This may require an anchoring system to be laid out prior to and during works in the nearshore region. It has been assumed that the DSV will have a 1-anchor system, with the anchor and chain impacting an arc of 45° and 150 m radius. The seabed impact calculations are based on the worst-case scenario where the entire chain length (150 m) would be lying on the seabed. Anchor moves will be minimised as far as possible, particularly where sediments are observed in order to reduce re-suspension. Where the anchor chain is slack, there is potential for using midline buoys, which would keep the anchor chain floating and off the seabed. An anchor handling vessel would be required to lay out the anchor, and a guard vessel is likely to be used for safety purposes, however these will not result in any seabed impacts. The total footprint of the cable route between Shapinsay and Stronsay is 0.29 km2.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 41

Table 4.4 Seabed disturbance from cable installation works3

Area of Nature of seabed Section of cable Habitat type Assumptions made in calculation of area disturbed disturbance disturbance (m2) Between MHWS and Cable burial in open-cut > Cobbles, pebbles > Maximum length of trenches is 100 m at each landfall; 2,000 MLWS trench > 10 m wide working corridor. From Shapinsay shore Surface laying with > High energy infralittoral/circalittoral > Cable length 300 m; 1,800 (MLWS) up to 300 m continuous concrete rock offshore mattresses protection 4 > 6 m wide concrete mattresses. Between 300 m and 550 Surface laying with up to 6 > Potential Annex I reefs; > Cable length 250 m; 55.75 m from Shapinsay rock filter bags (every 50 m) > Potential kelp beds > Cable diameter is 127 mm > Each rock filter bag has a maximum footprint of 2 m x 2 m. Between 550 m from Surface laying with no > Coarse sediments > Cable length 2,010 m; 255.3 Shapinsay to Bass of protection Linton > Cable diameter is 127 mm. Bass of Linton Surface laying of cable > Annex I sandbanks > Cable length 1,000 m; 211 with up to 21 rock filter bags (every 50 m) > Cable diameter is 127 mm; > Each rock filter bag has a maximum footprint of 2 m x 2 m. Middle section within the Surface laying of cable > Circalittoral rock > Cable length 6,900 m; 962.6 channel with up to 20 rock filter bags (every 50 m) > Coarse sediments > Each rock filter bag has a maximum footprint of 2 m x 2 m. > Potential brittle stars and horse > Cable length 500 m; 63.5 mussel beds mosaics > Assumed no rock filter bags.

3 There are no foreseen cable crossings for the proposed route. In the event an out of service cable is encountered during the pre-lay surveys it is proposed to install up to four concrete mattresses (each with a footprint of 18 m2) to cross the cable laid adjacent to and directly over an out of service cable being crossed. In that case, a 72 m2 footprint per crossing adds up to the total area of impact. 4 In order to encompass the worst-case scenario, it has been assumed that the 6.0 m x 3.0 m mattresses will be laid across the cable, thus impacting a 6 m-wide corridor.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 42

Area of Nature of seabed Section of cable Habitat type Assumptions made in calculation of area disturbed disturbance disturbance (m2) Dowie Sand Surface laying of cable > Annex I Sandbanks > Cable length 500 m; 44.1 with up to 11 rock filter bags (every 50 m) > Each rock filter bag has a maximum footprint of 2 m x 2 m. Between Dowie Sand and Surface laying with no > Potential Annex I reefs > Cable length 900 m; 114.3 up to 2 km off Stronsay protection > Potential kelp beds > Cable diameter is 127 mm. > Coarse sediments > Cable length 1,200 m; 152.4 > Cable diameter is 127 mm. From 2,000 m to 700 m Surface laying of cable > Coarse sediments > Cable length 1,300 m; 273.1 off Stronsay shore with up to 27 rock filter bags (every 50 m) > Cable diameter is 127 mm; > Each rock filter bag has a maximum footprint of 2 m x 2 m. Last 700 m to Stronsay Cast iron split pipe with > Coarse sediments > Cable length 590 m; 4,200 shore continuous mattress protection > 6 m wide concrete mattresses. > Potential Annex I reefs > Cable length 110 m; > Potential kelp beds > 6 m wide concrete mattresses. Nearshore areas DSV anchoring system > High energy infralittoral rock > 1 anchor system, anchor and chain impact an arc of 45° 282,600 and 150 m radius; and > 4 deployments at each landfall. Total area of disturbance (m2) 292,732

Total area of disturbance (km2) 0.29

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 43

4.5.2 Potential impacts during cable operation and maintenance The rock bags placed on top of the cable will hold the cable in position, thereby minimising the potential for the cable to move around on the seabed over its lifetime. Given this reduced likelihood for movement of the cable, potential impacts on benthic habitats during cable operation are highly unlikely. The only source of potential impact would be if the cable fails and needs to be repaired; a repair operation could potentially disturb protected habitats in the area as sections of the cable (or the whole cable) may need to be replaced. However, given that the cable will have a design life of more than 30 years, the likelihood that maintenance / repair works will be required is very low. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by submarine cables during operation could potentially affect elasmobranch species (shark and rays) which possess specialised electroreceptors and are able to detect induced voltage gradients associated with water movements and geomagnetic emissions. However, it should be noted that EMF is already present due to the existing cable and therefore the replacement cable will not introduce any new EMF. Data shows that the replacement cable route passes through areas defined as potential nursery grounds for three elasmobranch species of commercial importance: common skate Dipturus batis and spotted ray Raja montagui, however the nursing intensity of these species is considered to be low in this area (Ellis et al., 2012). Additionally, the EMFs decrease with distance from the cable and effects become negligible within a few metres. Therefore, no impacts are expected on EMF sensitive species.

4.5.3 Impact, management and mitigation summary Based on the summary of the benthic and intertidal environments provided in Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, Table 4.5 summarises potential impacts on each receptor as a result of the Project. Table 4.5 Potential impacts on benthic and intertidal ecology

Environmental Management and mitigation and overall Potential impacts receptor impact significance

No potential for significant impacts on intertidal and subtidal ecology from seabed disturbance, due to: > Very small area of impact on kelp (830 m2), potential Annex I sandbanks (255 m2), potential Annex I reefs (830 m2) and potential horse mussel beds (63.5 m2); > Kelps are highly resilient to physical damage/removal; approximately 20-25% Seabed disturbance from of kelp communities are removed Intertidal and subtidal physical interaction with the annually due to winter storms (Johnston, ecology seabed, shoreline and their 2010); associated habitats > The 250 m working corridor will allow for micro-routing, particularly if reefs and horse mussel beds are encountered; > Consideration for use of mid-line buoys to keep the DSV anchor chains off the seabed as much as possible; > Anchor moves will be minimised as far as possible; > Cable installation activities will be short-

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 44

Environmental Management and mitigation and overall Potential impacts receptor impact significance

term and any increase in suspended sediments will quickly revert back to background levels; and > All cable landfall works undertaken in line with standard best practice and general environmental management plans provided by SHEPD.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 45

5 MARINE MAMMALS, OTTERS, FISH AND BIRDS

5.1 Introduction This section of the report provides detail on marine mammals, fish, birds and otters in the vicinity of the Project, as well as the relevant legislation and policy guidance. It then assesses the potential impacts on these and the management and mitigation measures that will be undertaken in order to ensure impacts are minimised. Where relevant, impacts on species are also considered in Section 2 – Ecological Protected Sites.

5.2 Legislation and policy context With respect to marine mammals, otters, birds and fish, in order to identify potential constraints to routing a subsea cable and identifying potential landfall locations, it is necessary to identify potential habitats and species of conservation importance that could potentially be present in the Project study area and along potential subsea cable route corridors. There are a number of different statutes and guidance that are relevant in this regard. These include: > European Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC); > European Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) > The Habitats (Scotland) Regulations 1994 (as amended) which implements species protection requirements of the Habitats Directive in Scotland, on land and in inshore waters (within 12 nm); > Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) > The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (known as the OSPAR Convention); > Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009); and > UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (July 2012) – this supersedes the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) which was the UK Governments Response to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which the UK signed up to in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. > Marine Strategy Framework Directive, 2008; > Bern Convention 1979, The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 1979. > ASCOBANS, Convention for Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, north-east Atlantic, Irish and North seas, 1994;

5.3 Consultation SHEPD has undertaken consultation with statutory and non-statutory bodies. Correspondence of relevance to mammals, fish birds and otters is summarised in Table 5.1 to Table 5.4 (taken directly from the written correspondence). Table 5.1 General consultation comments on marine mammals, otters, fish, birds PAC event Comment Orkney > The impact on the seabed communities, mammals and fish from different installation methods Renewable is an area of research that we are examining with our technical consultants to identify a viable Energy Forum solution to allow the measurement of any impact to be incorporated into the CBA model; > There is no evidence that protecting the cables has any noticeable effects on seabed communities, sea mammals or fish.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 46

Table 5.2 Consultation summary (marine mammals) Consultee Comment SNH The cable landing point on Stronsay is within a designated haul out for harbour seals. The risk of harassment can be minimized by avoiding works in this area between June and August inclusive. SNH Installation of cables could affect otters and cetaceans. These species are European Protected Species which means they receive protection wherever they occur. Advice on the protection given to EPS can be found on the SNH website. Otter surveys are likely to be required at and near landfall sites and mitigation measures may be required. Proposals to disturb otter breeding or resting sites would require to be licenced by SNH. An advice note on otters and development is available on the SNH website. SNH > Otters breeding and resting sites for onshore sections will need to be surveyed for both shore ends > There is a seal haul out at the shore end. The seals are most sensitive to harassment from June – August. However, unless noisy, unlikely to affect seals. > In terms of vessel movements, there is no guidance for what would cause significant disturbance to a seal colony as this varies with each colony and their and experience of vessel movements. > Duration and timings of work and location of vessels to site require to be shared with SNH SNH > In terms of vessel movements, there is no guidance for what would cause significant disturbance to a seal colony as this varies with each colony and their and experience of vessel movements.

Table 5.3 Consultation summary (ornithology) Consultee Comment RSPB Shapinsay: The site is comprised of grassland and is close to East Hill LNCS. It would be advisable to include breeding waders in the survey. RSPB Stronsay: This site overlaps significantly with Rothiesholm LNCS designated for red throated diver, breeding birds of prey including hen harrier, Arctic skua, Great skua, Arctic tern, Common gull, Great black-backed gull, Snipe, Lapwing, Curlew Redshank, Skylark, Twite, Upland heath, Crowberry heath, Upland flushes, fens and swamps, oligotrophic and dystrophic lochs, maritime cliff and slope and basin bog. RSPB 'At the Rothiesholm Head landfall, I have been informed by the Orkney Raptor Study Group that there is a peregrine territory in this area. Since the Orkney population of this species is small and they are afforded the highest degree of legal protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, we would like to see the predicted impacts of this species assessed and mitigation suggested if the breeding area is within 600 – 1,000 m (the safe working distance for this species). It has also come to my attention that red-throated divers breed near the landfall site at Rothiesholm Head. Again, these are protected under the Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, and therefore we would want the predicted impacts on this species assessed and mitigation suggested.' SNH The Storm Petrel breeding season is May to October. The birds feed at night so there is a need to consider light colours on vessels when operating at night. However, long daylight hours in mid-summer in Orkney mean that this may not be required.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 47

Consultee Comment Open-door Stronsay – appreciate has been considerable data already collected in this area to inform wind farm PAC event applications with the following species identified as present: > Arctic tern; > Great skua; > Arctic skua; > Great backed back gull; and > Gull species in general. On Shapinsay, disturbance of breeding waders (rather than seabirds) through Horizontal Directional Drilling operations was cited as a concern.

Table 5.4 Consultation summary (fish) PAC event Comment Orkney Environmentally there is no evidence to show that electromagnetic fields and heat from cables has an Renewable impact on sea life. Yet the precautionary principle is adopted by regulators. Energy Forum

5.4 Receptor description

5.4.1 Marine mammals Cetaceans A total of 19 species of cetacean have been recorded in UK waters (Reid et al., 2003). Cetaceans regularly recorded in the North Sea include the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena, bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus, minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata, killer whale Orcinus orca, Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus and white-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris. Rarer species that are occasionally observed in the North Sea include fin whale Balaenoptera physalus, long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas, Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus and the short beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis (NMPI, 2017; Reid et al., 2003). Sightings of cetacean have been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed works (Hammond et al., 2004; Reid et al., 2003). Table 5.5 describes the behaviour of the species that are the most likely to occur in this area. Table 5.5 Occurrence of cetaceans likely to be most regularly observed in the vicinity of the proposed new cable route (Hammond et al., 2004; Reid et al., 2003)

Species Description of occurrence

Harbour porpoise Harbour porpoises are frequently seen across the North Sea all year long and are confined to shelf waters. They typically occur in small groups of 2 to 3 individuals but they may aggregate Phocoena phocoena when feeding resources are good. They do not appear to migrate. White-beaked dolphins are frequently seen in the central and northern North Sea, they are White-beaked dolphin present all year round in the UK near-shore waters at depths of 50 - 100 m, but are observed Lagenorhynchus albirostris more frequently between June and October. They are usually found in small groups of 10 or less, but have also been observed in large groups of 50 and more. Bottlenose dolphins are usually seen in groups of 2 to 25, and occasionally much larger groups in Bottlenose dolphin deeper waters. They are common near-shore the North-East Scotland, and in the UK the greatest Tursiops truncatus numbers have been observed between July and October, but are present near-shore all year long. Minke whales are distributed in the northern and central North Sea, at water depths of 200 m or Minke whale less, and are often sighted single or in pairs, and sometimes aggregate into larger groups of up to Balaenoptera acutorostrata 15 individuals when feeding. Additionally, they appear to return to the same seasonal feeding grounds.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 48

Species Description of occurrence The Atlantic white-sided dolphins are mostly confined to the North Atlantic but have been Atlantic white-sided dolphin observed in the North Sea in a number of surveys, particularly in the western part of the North Sea. Their presence is seasonal and peaks between May and September. They are usually Lagenorhynchus acutus observed in groups of tens to hundreds, sometimes up to 1,000 offshore, forming subgroups of 2- 15 individuals.

Killer whale Killer whales are widely distributed across the North Sea all year round. They are seen in both inshore waters (April to October) and the deeper continental shelf (November to March) and Orcinus orca appear to move inshore to target seals seasonally.

Risso’s dolphin Risso’s dolphins typically form groups of 6-12 individuals in the continental shelf of UK waters. They are observed mainly in the northern North Sea, and more rarely in the central North Sea Grampus griseus with most sightings occurring in July and August. In the North West of Europe, pilot whales are mostly distributed in the north of Scotland and the Long-finned pilot whale Faroe Islands, with most records in waters deeper than 200 m and a few occurrences in Globicephala melas shallower waters. The median group size ranges from 10 to 15 and up to 200 individuals between May and August, with higher pod sizes from September to April (median 20-25, maximum 1000). The harbour porpoise and the white-beaked dolphin are the most frequently recorded cetaceans in the vicinity of the proposed works with sightings in eight months of the year which is reflective of those being the most abundant and widely distributed cetaceans in the North Sea (Reid et al., 2003). These two species are listed as Scottish PMF (SNH, 2014). The Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea (SCANS- II) density estimates of harbour porpoises for Orkney and Shetland is of 0.274 x 10-6 per m2 (EMEC, 2014). In the UK, there are two known resident populations of bottlenose dolphins, one of which is in the Moray Firth (Thompson et al., 2011). This local population is typically restricted to the inner Moray Firth, and along the north-east coast of Scotland. The inner Moray Firth has been designated as a SAC due to the presence of this species. Sightings of bottlenose dolphin in and around the proposed works have only been recorded in low numbers (JNCC, 2016a) and are rarely seen outside coastal waters though it is thought that they may move offshore during winter (Hammond et al., 2004). The following species are also listed as Scottish PMFs: Atlantic white-sided dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, killer whale, long-finned pilot whale and minke whale (SNH, 2014). However, based on the available information, the UK Continental Shelf Block in which the proposed new cable route lies (5/27) has low cetacean density and is not considered to be significant for feeding, breeding, nursery or migrating cetaceans (Hammond et al., 2004; JNCC, 2016a; Reid et al., 2003). The mobile nature of cetaceans means it is unlikely there will be any potentially significant impacts to marine mammals from the proposed works. Pinnipeds Although not afforded the strict protection of EPS through the Habitats Directive, pinniped species (seals) occurring in UK waters are listed in Annex V (and hence Schedule 3 of the Habitats Regulations) such that they are defined as species of community interest and taking in the wild may thus be subject to management measures. Grey and harbour seals are also listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (and therefore Schedule 2 of the Habitats Regulations) as requiring protection through the designation of SACs and are protected while at 194 haul sites around Scotland under Part 6 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The Act also includes provisions for Scottish Ministers to designate “seal conservation areas”. These include areas previously covered by the Conservation of Seals (Scotland) Orders which include Orkney and the East Coast of Scotland. In these areas Marine Scotland must not grant a seal licence authorising the killing or taking of seals in a seal conservation area unless they are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative way of achieving the purpose for which the licence is granted, and that the killing or taking authorised by the licence will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of any species of seal at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (within the meaning of Article 1(e) of the Habitats Directive) (SNH, 2015). Grey and harbour seals will feed both in inshore and offshore waters depending on the distribution of their prey, which changes both seasonally and annually. Both species tend to be concentrated close to shore,

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 49

particularly during the pupping and moulting season. Harbour seals haul out every few days on tidally exposed areas of rock, sandbanks or mud. Pupping and moulting seasons occur from May to August, during which time seals will be ashore more often than at other times of the year (Hammond et al., 2004). Orkney and its islands is a stronghold for internationally important populations of both grey and harbour seal. There are two SACs for grey and harbour seals in Orkney, the Faray and Holm of Faray SAC and the Sanday SAC, both located outside of the proposed new cable route. While grey seals tend to breed on sand or shingle beaches at the foot of cliffs on wave-exposed rocky coasts, often on relatively remote islands, harbour seals prefer more sheltered locations. Grey seals have much larger foraging ranges than harbour seals, often travelling a distance of a few 100 km from haul out sites, compared to harbour seals which generally forage close to (within 50 km) their selected haul out sites. In order to understand the abundance and distribution of harbour and grey seal throughout Scotland, the Scottish Government commissioned the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) to carry out a study to produce estimates of mean density for grey and harbour seals based on the number of seals per 5 x 5 km grid cells. Results from this study, which involved using data collected in aerial survey counts at haul out sites to scale up movement patterns from electronically tagged seals to populations levels, have been plotted in a series of seal usage maps. Grey seal density in the vicinity of the cable route is high, at >100 animals per 25 km2, whilst harbour seal density is moderate at approximately 10 – 50 animals per 25 km2. From landfall to landfall along the proposed route, there is little variability in seal occurrence. Harbour seal populations in the Northern Isles (Orkney and Shetland) have been and are continuing to decline. Reasons for the decline are not known but studies indicate that there could be a number of contributing factors including climate change (affecting distribution and abundance of prey), increased predation from other species e.g. killer whale, increased competition for food and shooting. Under Section 117 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, Scottish Ministers, consulting with the NERC, are permitted to designate specific seal haul out sites to provide additional protection for seals from intentional or reckless harassment. A total of 194 designated seal haul outs occur around the Scottish coast (Marine Scotland, 2017). The existing landfall on Stronsay goes through the ‘Greenli Ness Seal Haul out’, and is located to the west of the ‘Bay of Holland East and Tor Ness Seal Haul out’ located across the bay. Otters Two otter sightings have been recorded by the OBRC in 2012 within 1,300 m of the Shapinsay landfall. While otters have not been sighted directly within the Project area, an old otter spraint was found 50 m south of the cable landfall on Shapinsay (ERM, 2018) and signs of otter activity were found at Stronsay – two spraints were found, one close to the Project area. Otters are classified as EPS under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), it is therefore an offence to recklessly kill, injure, capture, harass or disturb an otter or the places they use to shelter. It is also designated as Scottish PMF and UK BAP species, and is listed on the Annex II of the Habitats Directive. Advice on the protection of EPS and the associated legal requirements can be found on the SNH website (SNH, 2017).

5.4.2 Fish ecology Most fish species are highly mobile. It is therefore highly unlikely that cable installation activities and cable presence would have any impact on the majority of fish species. It is only those species that are either directly dependent upon the seabed environment for important life-stages (e.g. spawning) or are considered to be sensitive to noise generated during cable installation or from electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted from the installed cable that could potentially be impacted by the project. Spawning grounds Spawning areas for most species are not rigidly fixed and fish may spawn either earlier or later from year to year. In addition, mapped spawning areas represent the widest known distribution given current knowledge and should not be seen as rigid unchanging descriptions of presence and absence (Coull et al., 1998). Whilst most species spawn into the water column of moving water masses over extensive areas, benthic spawners have very specific habitat requirements, and as a consequence their spawning grounds are relatively limited

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 50

and potentially vulnerable to seabed disturbance and change. In the UK, Cefas, via Ellis et al. (2012) has published, and allows access to, GIS data on the predicted distribution of spawning sites for these species. This data updates the original Coull et al. (1998) data on spawning grounds with additional information obtained from ichthyoplankton surveys (surveys to identify the distribution of the planktonic stages of fish eggs) and from fisheries independent groundfish trawl surveys. The data indicated that a number of species of commercial and conservation importance make use of the seabed in the project area, either throughout or during spawning season: anglerfish Lophius piscatorius, herring Clupea harengus, lemon sole Microstomus kitt, saithe Pollachius virens, sandeel Ammodytidae and sprat Sprattus sprattus. Although both Coull et al. (1998) and Ellis et al. (2012) indicate that sandeel spawning grounds are present throughout the entire Project area, it is unlikely that these are key spawning grounds (Ellis et al., 2012). Ellis et al. (2012) indicate that the Project area is intensively used by anglerfish as spawning ground. However, maps from Aires et al. (2014), which provide higher resolution data on juvenile fish aggregation, show that the likelihood of aggregations of anglerfish in the first year of their life in the Project area is low. Nursery grounds Fisheries sensitivity maps produced by Aires et al. (2014) for Marine Scotland Science detail the likelihood of aggregations of fish species in the first year of their life (i.e. group 0 or juvenile fish) occurring around the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS). The data indicate that the Project area is a nursery ground for a number of fish species: sandeel Ammodytidae, sprat Sprattus sprattus, spurdog Squalus acanthias, cod Gadus morhua, common skate Dipturus batis, spotted ray Raja montagui, whiting Merlangius merlangus, blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou, ling Molva molva, hake Merluccius merluccius and mackerel Scomber scombrus (Ellis et al., 2012). However, the nursing intensity for these species is low in the Project area (Ellis et al., 2012), and the probability of presence of juvenile sprat Sprattus sprattus is estimated to be low in this area (Aires et al., 2014). Data also indicate that the Project area is a nursery ground for saithe Pollachius virens (Coull et al., 1998), but no information on the intensity of spawning for this species is available at the time of writing. Noise sensitive species The ability of fish to detect sound depends on whether or not they have a swim bladder and whether the swim bladder is located near to a fish’s ear. Hawkins and Popper (2014) have divided fishes into several different categories based on the structures associated with hearing. The functional groups include: > Low sensitivity to noise - fishes without a swim bladder (these can only detect kinetic energy – e.g., sharks, common skate complex, mackerel, whiting); > Medium sensitivity to noise - fishes with a swim bladder that is far from the ear and thus not likely to contribute to pressure reception, so the fishes are primarily kinetic detectors (e.g., salmon, sea trout) and eggs and larvae that are less mobile than adult fish and therefore not able to readily move away from the noise source; and > High sensitivity to noise - fishes where the swim bladder or other air bubble is close to the ear and enables sound pressure to be detected, broadening the hearing range and increasing hearing sensitivity (e.g., herring, sprat, cod). There is potential for a number of noise sensitive species such as herring or sprat to be present along the subsea cable route. Species of fish that are most vulnerable to the effects of EMF are elasmobranch species (sharks and rays), which possess specialised electroreceptors; and other electro-sensitive species (usually migratory species), which are able to detect induced voltage gradients associated with water movements and geomagnetic emissions (e.g. Atlantic salmon).

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 51

Information on the distribution and migration patterns of many of these species is limited and often the patterns are widespread and not limited to specific areas. Data shows that the proposed new cable route goes through areas defined as potential nursery grounds for two elasmobranch species: common skate Dipturus batis and spotted ray Raja montagui, however the nursing intensity of these species is considered to be low in this area (Ellis et al., 2012). The common skate Dipturus batis is critically endangered according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. The most up to date source on Atlantic salmon migration patterns around Scotland is Malcolm et al. (2010), though the exact routes they take to and from feeding and spawning grounds are not known and population estimates also have a degree of uncertainty inherent within them. The Malcolm et al. (2010) study details the likelihood of Atlantic salmon from rivers on the east coast of Scotland migrating initially north and east, ultimately towards the Faroe Islands and west Greenland. Fish returning to Scotland are most likely to come from a north westerly direction and the lack of historic Atlantic salmon fisheries in Orkney and Shetland suggest the Pentland Firth as the most likely migration route. The use of the Pentland Firth as a key migratory route is supported by a recent Atlantic salmon tagging study undertaken by Godfrey et al. (2014). Based on analysis conducted by Xodus in support of the collision risk modelling in the Environmental Statement for the MeyGen Tidal Energy Project Phase 1, it is estimated that 10% of the returning grilse and adult salmon that originate from east coast rivers return via Orkney waters, with the remaining 90% migrating through the Pentland Firth; this equates to 27,745 grilse and 20,930 adult salmon passing through Orkney waters per year (MeyGen, 2012). Basking sharks Basking sharks are the second largest fish in the world, reaching up to 12 m in length (average length is usually 6 - 8 m). They are widely distributed in cold and temperate waters and feed predominately on plankton and zooplankton e.g. barnacles, copepods, fish eggs and deep-water oceanic shrimps by filtering large volumes of water through their wide-open mouth. They typically move very slowly (around 4 miles per hour). In the winter, they dive to great depths to get plankton while in the summer they are mostly near the surface, where they the water is warmer. Hotspots for basking shark sightings include Eynhallow located between mainland Orkney and Rousay Island, and off the Old Man of Hoy in the south-western part of the Orkney archipelago (Orkney.com, 2017). Basking sharks were hunted in Scotland up to 1995. However, they are now protected in UK waters principally under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. The biggest risk of the project to basking sharks is potential collision with vessels involved in cable installation. Given that basking sharks are slow to mature and have a long gestation period, the species can be slow to recover if populations are rapidly depleted.

5.4.3 Ornithology With regards to birds on the shore at the cable landfalls, all wild birds in the UK are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and under this Act it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly: kill, injure, take, damage, interfere, disturb or harass wild birds listed on Schedule 1 and 1A. This applies to their nests, eggs and young. Cable installation activities will be undertaken between June and August 2018, within the main breeding season (Table 5.6).

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 52

Table 5.6 Seabirds breeding seasons and nest occupancy periods in the Scottish marine environment (SNH, 2009)

Protected seabird species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Arctic Tern Common guillemot M M M M Kittiwake Arctic Skua Fulmar Great skua Red-throated diver M M M M Razorbill M M M M European shag Slavonian grebe Common eider M M M Long-tailed duck Velvet scoter Red-breasted merganser M M M Black-headed gull Great black-backed gull Black guillemot M M M M Common gull Lesser black-backed gull Cormorant Puffin M M Black-headed gull Northern gannet Common tern Storm petrel Key: Black = breeding season White = not present in significant numbers Dark blue = breeding site attendance M = flightless moult period Light blue = non-breeding period

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 53

The OBRC holds a significant amount of habitat and species information. A data request was submitted to OBRC to inform the Terrestrial Environmental Desk Study for Shapinsay-Stronsay (OBRC, 2017). The data request covered all species records within 1,000 m of the proposed landfall site for the past 10 years, including the intertidal area. The records that were returned were from Recorder 6 and MapMate, which are two databases used for the collation and exchange of species records. The search on Shapinsay returned 318 records, the majority of records were for bird species (223) and plant species (91). The search on Stronsay returned 314 results again with the majority being for plant species (246) and bird species (68). Table 5.7 details all species of conservation interest that have been sighted within 1,000 m of each of the proposed landfalls in the last 10 years. Sightings returned from the OBRC for qualifying species of the North Orkney pSPA, Annex I species and European Protected Species (EPS) were plotted using ArcGIS in order to gain an insight on how they relate to the proposed works areas. No sightings were recorded within the proposed works areas. The closest sightings (numerous species in same location) were recorded approximately 32 m north of the proposed works area on Shapinsay. The OBRC data also included sightings of otter Lutra lutra, with the closest sighting to the proposed new cable route recorded 1,300 m west from the Project area on Shapinsay. The sensitivity of this species is further described in Section 2.1.6. Table 5.7 Species records within a 1 km buffer of each proposed landfall site for the last 10 years (OBRC, 2017)

Species Shapinsay sightings Stronsay sightings Protection

Peregrine falcon Nine sightings with the One sighting in 2013 Listed on Annex I of the Birds (Falco peregrinus) most recent in 2009 Directive

Red throated diver Three sightings with the Two sightings with the most recent in Qualifying feature of the North (Gavia stellata) most recent in 2011 2014 Orkney pSPA Listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive

Golden plover Five sightings with the One sighting in 2012 Listed on Annex I of the Birds (Pluvialis apricaria) most recent in 2011 Directive

Red-necked One sighting in 2010 - Listed on Annex I of the Birds phalarope Directive (Phalaropus lobatus)

Goshawk (Accipiter Two sightings with the - Listed on Annex I of the Birds gentilis) most recent in 2012 Directive

Hen harrier (Circus Seven sightings with the - Listed on Annex I of the Birds cyaneus) most recent in 2011 Directive

Sparrowhawk Seven sightings with the - Listed on Annex I of the Birds (Accipiter nisus) most recent in 2011 Directive

Snowy owl (Nyctea Two sightings in 2009 - Listed on Annex I of the Birds scandiaca) Directive

White tailed eagle One sighting in 2012 - Listed on Annex I of the Birds (Haliaeetus albicilla) Directive

Sandwich tern Two sightings in 2008 One sighting in 2012 Listed on Annex I of the Birds (Sterna Directive sandvicensis)

Ruff (Calidris Three sightings with the - Listed on Annex I of the Birds pugnax) most recent in 2010 Directive

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 54

Species Shapinsay sightings Stronsay sightings Protection

Arctic tern (Sterna Three sightings in 2012 Qualifying feature of the Auskerry paradisaea) SPA

Curlew (Numenius Three sightings with most - UK BAP species arquata), recent in 2011

House sparrow One sighting in 2009. - UK BAP species (Passer domesticus)

Twite (Linaria 14 sightings with most - UK BAP species flavirostris) recent in 2011

Common starling Three sightings with the One sighting in 2012 UK BAP species (Sturnus vulgaris) most recent in 2007

Common linnet Five sightings with the - UK BAP species (Linaria cannabina) most recent in 2009

Sky lark (Alauda One sighting in 2009 - UK BAP species arvesis)

Common scoter Two sightings with the - UK BAP species (Melanitta nigra) most recent 2010

Lapwing (Vanellus One sighting in 2009 - UK BAP species vanellus)

Red necked One sighting in 2010 - UK BAP species phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus)

Black tailed godwit One sighting in 2010 - UK BAP species (Limosa limosa)

White fronted goose Two sightings with the - UK BAP species (Anser albifrons) most recent in 2010

Great northern diver One sighting in 2008 - Qualifying feature of the North (Gavia immer) Orkney pSPA Listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive

Long tailed duck One sighting in 2009 - Qualifying feature of the North (Clangula hyemalis) Orkney pSPA Listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive

Arctic skua - Five sightings with the most recent in UK BAP species (Stercorarius 2010 parasiticus)

Reed bunting - One sighting in 2012 UK BAP species (Emberiza schoeniclus)

Kittiwake (Rissa One sighting in 2010 - OSPAR List of Threatened and or tridactyla) Declining Species and Habitats

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 55

The NBN Atlas is a free online tool which reports species and habitat sightings from multiple sources of information. A search was performed using a 750 m buffer from the proposed landfall sites to inform the Terrestrial Environmental Desk Study for Shapinsay and Stronsay. As the search covered the intertidal area and included species using the marine space in the vicinity of the proposed works, the NBN Atlas records have been used in this report. For Shapinsay, the search returned 30 results of 23 different species. Of the 30 records, four were bird records. The bird records were all for corncrake (Crex crex) and were from 1995 or earlier. This species is a UK BAP species and also occurs on Annex I of the Birds Directive, but it not specific to the marine space. The search for Stronsay returned 10 records for 10 species, nine of which were plant species and one bird record. The bird record was recorded in 2012 and was for a green shank (NBN, 2017), a wading bird that can be seen during the breeding season between April and August in northwest Scotland, on land but also on coastal wetlands and estuaries (RSPB, 2017).

5.5 Summary of potential impacts Based on the summary of the biological features provided above, Table 5.8 summarises potential impacts on each receptor as a result of the Project. Table 5.8 Potential impacts on marine mammals, fish, birds and otters

Environmental Management and mitigation and overall impact Potential impacts receptor significance

No potential for significant impacts on cetaceans, due to:

> Marine (vessel) activities will only last up to approximately 15 days; and Cetaceans could potentially be present in the Project area and > Implementation of a Marine Mammal Protection experience short term Plan (MMPP) incorporating the EPS displacement due to vessel management plan (to support the EPS presence. Licence). Whilst there will be no injury or impact on Favourable Conservation Status (FCS), it is possible that a small number of animals may experience some disturbance for a short period that they encounter noise emissions from the vessels and SHEPD will apply for a Marine EPS Licence under Regulation 39(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. Cetaceans No potential for significant impacts on cetaceans, due to:

> The majority of the species likely to be encountered during the surveys will be less sensitive to low frequency sounds, and the potential for impact can be considered lower than in areas dominated by lower frequency Sub-bottom profiling has the cetaceans; potential to injure or disturb marine mammals. > Noise modelling carried out by Xodus (2016) for a typical Knudsen Chirp 3260 sub-bottom profiler system, based on an animal swimming at a constant speed of 1.5 ms-1 from the source of noise, showed that injury may occur at a range of 20 m for most cetaceans and up to 400 m for harbour porpoise – with the adoption of the mitigation measures in the MMPP, which will include a 500 m monitoring zone, no

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 56

Environmental Management and mitigation and overall impact Potential impacts receptor significance

animals will be exposed to injury;

> The sub-bottom profiling will be required for a very limited period of time (1 day of activity with a weather allowance of 3 days) – it is highly unlikely that this would impact upon the FCS of any cetacean. Whilst there will be injury or impact on FCS, it is possible that a small number of animals may experience some disturbance for a short period that they encounter noise emissions from the sub-bottom profiling and SHEPD will apply for a Marine EPS Licence under Regulation 39(2). No potential for significant impacts on pinnipeds, due to Pinnipeds could potentially be present in the Project area and > Marine (vessel) activities will only last up to experience short term physical approximately 15 days; displacement due to vessel Pinnipeds > Landfall operations will not occur within presence (offshore) and landfall recognised seal haul outs at Shapinsay and activities. there will be only limited landfall activity within the landfall at Stronsay; and

> Implementation of a Marine Mammal Protection Plan (MMPP). No potential for significant impacts on otters, due to:

> Baseline data showing highly limited likelihood of otters making use of the landfalls;

> Pre-lay otter surveys will be undertaken; > An Ecological Clerk of Works (EcoW) will be Otters could be present in the present on site to ensure that buffer areas are area of the landfall works and be enforced and check any new otter activity; disturbed during excavation works Otters at the intertidal areas, or when > If there are any activities close to areas of high swimming within the vicinity of the otter density, a Marine Mammal Observer vessels deployed for cable (MMO) will also monitor for the presence of installation works. otters in the water, and delay the start of the activities if any are observed within 100 m of the vessels;

> The proposed cable route will remain flexible in the design route such that the working corridor in the onshore section would allow for micro- routing and avoidance of known holt locations; and

> Limited duration of cable installation activities.

Fish and shellfish Disturbance to sensitive fish No potential for significant impacts on fish and (including habitats such as spawning and shellfish, due to elasmobranchs and nursery grounds. Project area is electro sensitive not considered to sit within critical > spawning or nursery grounds for Marine (vessel) activities will only last up to species) approximately 15 days; any commercially important

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 57

Environmental Management and mitigation and overall impact Potential impacts receptor significance

species. > Any seabed disturbance and suspended

sediments will be highly limited due to the rocky nature of much of the route;

> Project area is extremely small compared to spawning and nursery areas available;

Electro sensitive species could > No particularly sensitive fish habitats are potentially be present in the located in the vicinity of the Project area and no Project area and experience short high spawning intensity in the vicinity of the term physical disturbance / Project area; displacement due to electromagnetic field (iE) created > With distance from the cable the field is by subsea cables. attenuated and drops off significantly (e.g. DECC, 2011); and

Collision risk (Basking shark) > The mobile nature of basking shark and short duration of cable installation. No potential for significant impacts on seabirds, Breeding seabirds could be due to: present in the area of the landfall > Limited duration of cable installation activities works and cable activities and be Seabirds and small area of impact; disturbed by landfall excavation works when foraging within the > Long daylight hours in the summer months, working corridor meaning that extended use of lighting during hours of darkness will not be required (and impacts on night-feeding birds will not occur). Breeding shore birds could be present in the area of the landfall No potential for significant impacts on shore works and be disturbed by landfall birds, due to: excavation works when foraging > Limited duration of cable installation activities Shore birds and other within the working corridor birds and small area of impact; and Other birds using the onshore area around the landfall (e.g. > ECoW engaged to undertake pre-construction peregrine falcon) could also be surveys to confirm the absence of nesting disturbed by activities birds in the habitats.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 58

6 MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY

6.1 Introduction This chapter describes the key characteristics of the marine historic environment along the replacement cable route between the islands of Shapinsay and Stronsay in Orkney (section 6.6), and presents results from an assessment of potential impacts of the Project on these characteristics (section 6.6). This chapter also provides a summary of relevant historic environment legislation (section 6.2) and describes the criteria used to determine the importance or sensitivity of the identified historic environment assets (section 6.4). Where potential direct or indirect impacts are identified, recommendations have been made for mitigating and managing those impacts (section 6.7). Marine cultural heritage in general is considered to encompass submerged landscapes, along with all evidence of human exploitation of maritime resources such as shipwrecks, aircraft wrecks, shipyards, piers, fish traps, anchor sites etc.

6.2 Legislation and policy context The Project is located within Scottish and UK Territorial Waters (within 12 nautical miles of land). There are a number of international legally binding conventions, EU Directives, UK and Scottish legislation, policy frameworks and guidance to consider in relation to the historic environment. Various EU EIA Directives have been incorporated in UK and Scottish legislation, all of which include the requirement to address potential impacts on the historic environment. Relevant guidance and legislation relating to the assessment of impacts on the marine historic environment are discussed below.

6.2.1 International/ EU legislation and policy The following conventions promote the protection of underwater heritage, with provisions for appropriate recording and recovery if disturbance is unavoidable. > The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); > Annex to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001; and > The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised), known as the Valletta Convention.

6.2.2 UK legislation and policy Key UK legislation and policy includes: > The Merchant Shipping Act 1995; > The Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (Section 1 of the Protection of Wrecks Act was repealed in Scotland on the 1st November 2013 and the 8 wrecks around the coast of Scotland designated under this section of the Act are now protected by Historic Marine Protected Areas (HMPAs) as defined in the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010); > The Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 has the principal concern to protect the sanctity of vessels and aircraft that are military maritime graves. Any aircraft lost while in military service is automatically protected under this Act; and > The UK Marine Policy Statement (2011) states heritage assets should be conserved through marine planning in a manner appropriate and proportionate to their significance. Many heritage assets with archaeological interest are not currently designated as scheduled monuments or protected wreck sites but are demonstrably of equivalent significance.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 59

6.2.3 Scottish legislation and policy Relevant Scottish legislation and policy includes: > The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This requires licensing activities in the marine environment to consider potential impacts on the marine environment including features of archaeological or historic interest and defines marine historic assets (Section 73); > The Historic Environment Scotland (HES) Policy Statement 2016; > Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014; > The Scottish Government’s Planning Advice Note (PAN 2/2011) Planning and Archaeology 2011; and > The Scottish Government’s Planning Scotland’s Seas: Scotland’s National Marine Plan (March 2015). HES Policy Statement 2016, SPP 2014. PAN 2/2011 and Scotland’s National Marine Plan all contain the principle that licensing authorities should seek to identify significant underwater historic environment resources in the early stages of the planning process and preserve them in situ wherever feasible. Where this is not possible, licensing authorities should require developers to undertake appropriate recording of the assets before they are lost.

6.2.4 Local planning policy The Orkney Local Development Plan (2017) Policy 8: Historic Environment and Cultural Heritage, along with The Orkney Local Plan’s Supplementary Guidance: Historic Environment and Cultural Heritage 2017 contains the principle that development should strive to protect and where possible enhance Orkney’s cultural heritage resources. Development that has an adverse impact on historic environment assets will only be permitted either if appropriate measures are taken to mitigate this effect, or if an effect that cannot be mitigated is outweighed by other significant benefits. The pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan 2016 (PFOW MSP) has been adopted as non-statutory planning guidance by Orkney Islands Council and therefore is a material consideration in the determination of relevant planning applications. General Policy 6: Historic Environment includes that development with potential to have an adverse effect on the significance of heritage assets, will be expected to demonstrate that all reasonable measures will be taken to mitigate any loss of significance, and that any lost significance which cannot be mitigated is outweighed by social, economic, environmental, navigation or safety benefits.

6.2.5 Codes of practice, professional guidance and standards documents The following codes of practice, professional guidance and standards documents informed this assessment: > The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Codes, Standards and Guidance (various) http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/cifa ; > The Crown Estate. (2010.) Model Clauses for Archaeological Written Schemes of Investigation: Offshore Renewables Projects. Wessex Archaeology Ltd (Ref 73340.05) for The Crown Estate; > English Heritage. (2012). Ships and Boats: Prehistory to Present. Designation Selection Guide. Swindon: English Heritage. > Gribble, J. & Leather, S. for EMU Ltd. (2011). Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector. Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference GEOARCH-09); > The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee and Crown Estate. (2006). Maritime Cultural Heritage & Seabed Development: JNAPC Code of Practice for Seabed Development. York: CBA;

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 60

> Plets, R., Dix, J., & Bates, R. (2013). Marine Geophysics Data Acquisition, Processing and Interpretation: Guidance Notes. Swindon: English Heritage Publishing; > Wessex Archaeology. (2014). Protocols for Archaeological Discoveries http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/protocols-archaeological-discoveries-pad . Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology; > Wessex Archaeology. (2006). On the Importance of Shipwrecks: Final Report Volume 1. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology; > Wessex Archaeology. (2011a). Assessing Boats and Ships 1860-1913 Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology; and > Wessex Archaeology. (2011b). Assessing Boats and Ships 1914-1938 Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.

6.3 Consultation SHEPD has undertaken consultation with statutory and non-statutory bodies. No correspondence of relevance to marine archaeology was received in response to the Pre-Application Consultation material.

6.4 Sources of information A review was undertaken of existing literature, data sources and databases to identify known sites in the area, and the potential for unidentified marine cultural heritage sites and areas. Marine survey data (geophysical data) for the Project area was also reviewed to identify the potential presence of marine historic assets in the survey area. These reviews were combined to give an overview of the characteristics of the marine historic environment in the Project area.

6.4.1 Desk-based assessment The results of a desk-based assessment (DBA) of potential submerged cultural heritage in the study area prepared by Scientific Underwater Logistics And Diving (SULA Diving) on behalf of ORCA Marine is incorporated into this report. The appraisal was confined to a review of key existing data sources of known submerged sites in the Project area. Historic environment assets that could be sensitive to the Project, if present, may include shipwrecks, aircraft wrecks, submerged landscapes and other marine cultural features such as marine dumping and mine areas. The principal reference sources examined for this appraisal were: > The National Record of the Historic Environment (NRHE) of Scotland, using the Canmore and Pastmap database websites (https://canmore.org.uk/ ; http://pastmap.org.uk/ ); > The Orkney Sites and Monuments Record; > Statutory lists, registers and designated areas, including List of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Designated Wrecks and Historic Marine Protected Areas; > UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) wreck register and relevant nautical charts; > Marine Scotland National Marine Plan interactive https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/ ; > Project Adair database for Orkney and the Pentland Firth held by ORCA Marine and in the process of being added to Canmore and Orkney SMR; > Aviation Research Group Orkney and Shetland http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/orkney-projects; > https://wrecksite.eu/ database; > Flemming, N.C., (2003). Strategic Environmental Assessment of Continental Shelf Area SEA4 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Prepared for the Dept of Trade & Industry;

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 61

> Larn, R., & Larn, B., (1998). The Ship Wreck Index of Great Britain & Ireland Vol.4 Scotland. London: Lloyds Register of Shipping; > Lamb, G., (2007). Sky over Scapa 1939-1945. Kirkwall: Bellavista Publications; > Whittaker, I.G., (1998). Off Scotland: a comprehensive record of maritime and aviation losses in Scottish waters. Edinburgh: C-Anne Publishing; > Fergusson, R.M., (1988) Shipwrecks of Orkney, Shetland and the Pentland Firth. Newton Abbot: David & Charles; > Heath/Ferguson private wreck database, which contains material not published by Ferguson (see Ferguson, 1988) and has been added to by Heath and Ferguson as new discoveries of wreck sites have been made; > Further information on wrecks and on minesweeping and mine-laying activities was followed up in the National Archives Admiralty files, based at Kew in Surrey, which have holds ship log books and casualty reports from wrecks (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/); > Other readily available archaeological and historical reports, databases, websites and publications were consulted for information about the study area and, where used, are cited in the report. They are listed in the reference section.

6.4.2 Field surveys Data from the following surveys have been reviewed to inform a robust assessment of the potential impacts of cable installation on the marine historic environment in the Project area: > Briggs Marine Contractors LTD 2015 MBES survey (route shown on Figure 1.1). Data reviewed as post processed XYZ data in *. txt file format; > Further geophysical surveys undertaken in June 2017 by Envision to augment the MBES data at targeted locations using a Kongsberg GeoSwath Plus unit, a system that provides swath bathymetry and side scan seabed mapping in shallow water environments. This data was reviewed by Kevin Heath of SULA Diving to feed into this report; and > An emergency geophysical and ROV survey was conducted in May 2018 in response to a fault in the current cable (route shown on Figure 1.1). This geophysical survey data has not been reviewed since the survey corridor is almost completely contained within the 2015 survey corridor. It is intended that the 2018 ROV footage will be reviewed by a marine archaeologist prior to laying the replacement cable, or that an archaeologist will be onboard the installation vessel with access to ROV imagery prior to cable lay.

6.5 Assessment methodology This assessment identifies, where possible, any marine sites of archaeological or cultural heritage significance in the Project area, and assesses whether there is potential for these sites to be affected by the Project. Where potential impacts are identified, recommendations for mitigating and managing these potential impacts are provided. It is assumed that standard mitigation by avoidance will be incorporated into the Project design where appropriate and possible.

6.5.1 Desk Based Assessment The DBA reviewed key existing data sources of known submerged sites within a 1 km wide corridor along the replacement cable route (the study area) to MHWS at landfall in order to capture information on the

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 62

approximate Position Approximate5 cultural heritage and other sites with unknown locations that have the potential to be in the area6 (Figure 6.1). The DBA has been completed in accordance with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Standard and Guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment (revised January 2017).

6.5.2 Field surveys The 2015 geophysical data was reviewed to identify anomalies within a 500 m wide corridor along (250 m on either side of) the replacement cable route (Figure 6.1) to identify and assess any anthropogenic anomalies. The MBES rasters were reviewed and possible anthropogenic targets identified. These were then targeted by Envision’s GeoSwath survey. This data was then assessed to understand the nature of the identified MBES anomalies. There are geophysics survey data gaps near shore, because the waters are too shallow to be able to survey.

5 United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) term, used on UKHO charts, to indicate an approximate position of a wreck, where precise location is not known. 6 Sites with unknown locations are often placed at the SW corner of the 1 or 5 km grid square in which they may be located, as in the Canmore database.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 63

Figure 6.1 Distribution of all sites identified

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 64

6.5.3 Receptor evaluation The importance of the marine historic environment asset is determined by the criteria as described in Table 6.1 based on the professional guidance and standards documents listed in Section 6.2.5 above. It should be noted that a site that has not been statutorily designated can still be of high importance / significance. Features that would require considerable further work to interpret them are recorded as of uncertain significance / importance. Table 6.1 Definitions for importance / significance of the marine historic environment asset

Importance Criteria

Archaeological and historical sites, submerged prehistoric landscapes and deposits, wrecks, wreck cargos, or areas of relative international or national importance, including world heritage sites, designated wrecks (designated under UK or Scottish legislation) or HMPAs. Shipwrecks dating to the prehistoric, Norse and Medieval periods, which are very rare; wreck cargos that contain rare artefacts or artefacts representative of a particular area or time period; and High vessels, including aircraft lost in international conflicts which may have involved large losses of life. Shipwrecks involved in national or international trade, which were lost before 1913, a period during which the shipping industry was a major element in Britain’s world influence, particularly if their cargo survives, or the remains provide evidence of changes in construction technology or vessel design would also be considered of high importance.

Archaeological and historical sites, wrecks, wreck cargos and areas of relative regional importance. This would involve shipwrecks, shipwreck cargos, anchorages and fishing areas from before 1913 that would have been involved in Medium regional industry and trade. Wrecks and cargos considered representative of the changes in naval engineering or support the identification and preservation of the diversity of vessels from this period are considered of medium importance.

Archaeological and historical sites, wrecks, wreck cargos and areas of relative local importance. Shipwrecks dating from after 1913 relating to fishing, ferrying or Low other coastwise trade. Wreck cargos of limited intrinsic, contextual or associative characteristics, or that are commonly recovered are considered of low importance / significance.

Features that have been recorded but assessed as having little or no archaeological or historical interest, such as recent wrecks, or those wrecks Negligible whose structure or cargos have been so damaged that they no longer have any historical merit.

Features that cannot be identified without detailed work, but potentially of some interest. Also, for example, if the date of construction or rarity of a vessel is not known, but is potentially of some interest. Findspots, which may represent an Uncertain isolated find, or could represent the location of a hitherto unknown site. Unidentified geophysical anomalies are also of uncertain importance and are evaluated further in Table 6.1.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 65

The potential for geophysical anomalies to be anthropogenic, and perhaps therefore of heritage value is determined as described in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Definitions for level of geophysical potential

Level of Geophysical Criteria Potential

Anomaly appears anthropogenic (atypical in its context); or there is identifiable High cultural material; or it is in the area of a known archaeological site, or another anomaly identified to be of high potential

Anomaly lies in an area of intensive human activity such as near ports or areas of peat and other features relating to submerged landscapes. It would also be Medium considered for an anomaly that is possibly anthropogenic, but which has no definite identification.

Anomaly is likely to be a natural formation such as a sand dune or bedrock Low formation. It could also be a processing error of the geophysical data.

6.6 Site characterisation

6.6.1 Potential for submerged landscapes and prehistoric sites Submerged landscapes are where human beings and early hominids previously lived or hunted on terrain which was at that time dry land, or where they exploited fish and shellfish on the coast which is now submerged The study area is within Zone 4 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Continental Shelf (Flemming, 2003). In the SEA, Flemming notes the potential for the survival of submerged landscapes and prehistoric sites in the study area is influenced by various physical factors, processes and topography with sheltered areas with lower seabed water movements, deep sediment deposits in rocky gullies and depressions and sea caves often providing conditions suitable for good site preservation (Flemming, 2003: 15 – 21). The survival of submerged landscapes and in particular submerged peat deposits and woodland remains that contain organic microfossils (e.g. pollen, diatoms, foraminifera) and macrofossils (e.g. seeds, wood, buds, insects) are important resources in reconstructing former landscapes, the activities of past human communities and sea level change, shown by the ongoing research by the Rising Tide Project and Dr Scott Timpany (Bates et al., 2013; Timpany et al., forthcoming). Recent research and modelling indicates that the relative sea level was perhaps 20 m lower 10,000 years ago, before rising comparatively quickly up to 7,000 years ago by which time Orkney had essentially divided into the islands we know now. The relative sea level rise slowed down, reaching roughly current levels 5,000 years ago (Dawson & Wickham-Jones, 2007; Wickham-Jones et al., 2016). Analysis of the geophysical surveys and view of some of the onboard dropcam images indicate that the seabed along most of the central cable route comprises areas of hard-packed sand and stone, with sand ripples indicating a more dynamic seabed towards both ends of the route, and exposed bedrock at the Stronsay landfall. In the eastern half of the route there are also areas of deep sand with sand ripples, larger sand waves and the Dowie Sand sandbank. Therefore, the indications are that the potential for submerged deposits to survive near the seabed surface is low.

6.6.2 Shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks This section discusses the shipwrecks and aircraft recorded in national and local inventories along the replacement cable route, and the potential for as yet undiscovered remains to be present. Shipwreck inventories and documentary sources are usually biased towards the 18th century and later when more

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 66

systematic reporting began (Pollard et al., 2014). Therefore, there are few known historical records of medieval and earlier wrecks. The coastal archaeological evidence suggests exploitation of the marine environment within the Project area for fishing and transport purposes from prehistoric times. As a maritime nation with a reliance on marine based trade and exchange, there have been countless shipwrecks around UK waters from all periods – many of which remain unreported. As such, there is a high probability for unknown, unrecorded vessels to have sunk in the Project area over the centuries, although most will have been destroyed by the marine environment. Additionally, the remains of such vessels and their associated artefacts may not always be visible in geophysical data due to them being constructed from materials that do not provide strong geophysical or magnetic returns or buried beneath the surface of the seabed. However, based on results from the desk-based and marine surveys conducted, the nature of the seabed, and the narrow width of potential disturbance (up to 8 m), the risk of impacting unknown remains have been reduced to low. No marine cultural heritage statutory designations have been identified in the Project area; the nearest designated sites are the wrecks of the High Seas Fleet in Scapa Flow that are protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeology Areas Act 1979. The modern period of World War 1 (WW1) and World War 2 (WW2) has the greatest potential for the preservation of wrecks and aircraft sites. Not only is this due to their size, relative age and their metal construction but also that the area around northern Scotland, Orkney and Shetland was an active battlefield where the blockade of WW1 and WW2 against Germany was maintained and prosecuted by major elements of the Royal Navy using the base at Scapa, Orkney and squadrons based in Shetland. This blockade in turn was contested by Germany using surface raiders, U-Boats and mines. There are nine wreck sites listed on the Canmore database and Whittaker (1998) that may be in or close to the study area (Table 6.3 ). The precise locations of only three of these sites are known (the Boy Graham and the non-sub contacts). The locations of the rest are unknown and therefore are not shown on Figure 1.1. However, descriptions included within details of their circumstance of loss indicate the possibility of being located along the cable route. The significance assigned to the wrecks, if found, assumes that they are found in reasonable condition. One wreck from the 20th century is lost within the study area (Figure 6.1). This wreck is considered to be of negligible importance: > MFV Boy Graham, a wooden motor fishing vessel 44 GT foundered after a pipe burst in the engine room. The crew were saved. This wreck has been searched for by local dive groups in the charted position and was not found. A scallop diver in 1983 reported seeing Boy Graham and the vessel was still semi buoyant and appeared that the vessel was being moved across the seabed by the tide. Therefore the position as shown on Figure 6.1 is potentially outdated and is recorded by the UKHO as Position Approximate. There are five wrecks from the 19th century potentially lost within the study area. All these wrecks are considered to be of medium importance. These wrecks include: > Agil was a 220 ton barquentine of Prince Edward Island, Canada, that drove ashore on Little Green Holm 05/10/1877 and was abandoned by the crew. A few days later the vessel drifted of the Holm and stranded on Rothiesholm Head and broke up; > Laura was a 185 ton brigantine from Swansea, en route from Runcorn to Newcastle with salt. She was driven ashore on the west side of the Bay of Holland 19/01/1884 in a southerly force ten storm and became a total wreck; and > Festina Lente was a 1068 ton Norwegian barque, en route to Dublin with ice when she struck Ingale Skerry in a storm, and was then driven onto the shore near Torness Point. One crew member was lost. > Sylph was a 191 ton snow from Blyth. The bow of the wreck came ashore on Copinsay. A name board with other wreckage came ashore on Shapinsay. All crew were lost.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 67

> Unknown 1826. Wreckage was reported as being washed ashore on Stronsay and Shapinsay in December 1826. Records show that the only wreck at this time was the Midas on the Lowther on South Ronaldsay, and it is possible that wreckage drifted from there. A gale of wind was also reported where many local boats were damaged. > Two sites are non-sub contacts (NSC) located by the Royal Navy in May 1941. These were surveyed in 2007 by Netsurvey and considered to be sand waves (Figure 6.1). The UKHO database has amended the entries to Dead. There are no recorded losses of aircraft along the actual cable route but there is one known aircraft loss that could be located in the study area. Aircraft are automatically protected under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 if lost on active service and therefore considered to be of high importance. > SB2U Vindicator piloted by Ensign Page Knight with Radioman ARM2c James F. Thompson on the 8th May 1942 took off from Hatston on a routine flight to conduct engine test dives from 13,000 feet between Shapinsay and Stronsay, Orkney and it was during one of these test dives that the aircraft suffered a catastrophic mid-air break up. The pilot managed to bale out, but his radioman was never found. Several other aircraft are listed as ‘’missing’’ off Orkney and there is always the potential to find aircraft remains on the seabed. However, these listings are too vague and generic to include, and further research outside the scope of this work would be needed to identify if it was at all possible to narrow down the locations further. The likelihood of the Project chancing across one of these is considered negligible-low so no further research is proposed. The impact is assessed in section 6.6.2 and the mitigation of reporting protocol is included in section 5.7.2.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 68

Table 6.3 List of possible wreck sites within 1 km of the Project area

Proximity to Name UKHO Canmore Type Circumstance of loss Date Lost Importance Source development

Agil N/A 227832 Barquentine Stranded on Green Holm then Rothiesholm Head 05/10/1877 Unknown Medium 1,2,7,9

Laura N/A 227980 Brigantine Stranded in a storm 19/01/1884 Unknown Medium 1,2,8,9

Festina Lento N/A 22867 Barque Struck Ingale Skerry then Torness Point 14/03/1898 Unknown Medium 1,2,7,9

SB2U Vindicator N/A N/A Aircraft US Navy Lost while conducting engine test dives. 08/05/1942 Unknown High 10,11

3.75 km north Boy Graham 507 227581 MFV Engine room flooded 07/10/1981 Negligible 1,2,4,5,7 (approximately)

Unknown 1826 N/A 327436 Unknown craft Wreckage found on Shapinsay and Stronsay. 1826 Unknown Medium 1,7,9

Sylph N/A 269939 Snow Headboard from wreck found on Shapinsay. 18/12/1849 Unknown Medium 1,7,9

NSC 1 479 N/A Non Sub Contact 700 m south Negligible 4,12

NSC2 477 N/A Non Sub Contact 1 km south Negligible 4,12

Sources: 1 = Whittaker (1998); 2 = Larn & Larn (1998); 3 = Lloyds Register; 4 = UKHO; 5 = Ridley (1998); 6= Ferguson (1988); 7 = Project Adair; 8 = Canmore; 9 = BNA Archive; 10 = National Archive Kew 11 = ARGOS Archive; 12 Wrecksite.eu.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 69

6.6.3 Unexploded ordinance (UXO) During both World Wars a large amount of ordnance, both offensive and defensive, was used in the seas around the Orkney Islands. Some of these munitions still exist and are regularly found by divers or fishermen. These finds are taken very seriously by the MOD who immediately deploy a bomb disposal team to assess and deal with the items located. They are usually detonated where they are found as it is considered too dangerous to move them. In WW1 mine-laying U boats were very active off the entrance to Kirkwall from the east. Shapinsay Sound was regularly mined as was Mull Head, Deerness and Auskerry Sound and these were regularly swept. No mines were laid along the proposed cable route, but there is a possibility that swept mines could have been sunk in the area. For example, a swept German contact mine was found off the north coast of Shapinsay in Veantrow Bay in 2006, and was blown up by the Royal Navy. This study for the potential of UXO in the study area was carried out for the purposes of this historical and cultural assessment only and does not replace the UXO identification study that SHEPD will undertake prior to cable installation to ensure there is no risk of encountering any UXO during the installation activities.

6.6.4 Geophysical anomalies The review of the MBES raster datasets revealed features with low anthropogenic potential. The archaeological analysis of the Briggs Marine survey MBES raster datasets identified two anomalies with low anthropogenic potential (Table 6.4, Figure 6.1). The potential significance and nature of these anomalies were further assessed through the analysis of GeoSwath data conducted by Envision in June 2017, targeting these anomalies. None of the artefacts derived from the MBES data were identified with the GeoSwath side scan data, indicating that in the context of the nature of the seabed in the survey area, the features are natural and not archaeological.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 70

Table 6.4 List of identified MBES anomalies X (WGS84 Y (WGS84 Proximity to Geophysical GeoSwath & Drop- ORCA ID Description Dimensions UTM Zone UTM Zone cable route Potential down survey 30N) 30N) MBES101 Low rhomboid mound 0.05 m in height 83.47 m in 83.47 m x 40.39 517223 E 6545256 N 448.46 m to No archaeological length, 40.39 m in width, aligned NE-SW, in 38.7 m of m NW of contacts seen on side water depth on a slight ripply seabed. proposed Low scan data. Hard- cable route. packed sand and stones observed MBES102 Low sub-circular mound 0,3 m in height, 4 m in 4 m 519525 E 6546508 N 374.32 m to No archaeological diameter, in 24 m of water depth on a slight slope E/SE of contacts seen on side near large, heavily sloping sand waves to the east proposed scan data. Dynamic and north. cable route seabed with areas of Low deep sand, sand ripples, sand waves and a sand bank observed

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 71

6.7 Potential impacts The Project will be designed to avoid existing cultural heritage assets and charted wrecks where possible. The potential impacts to marine cultural heritage are identified below.

6.7.1 Direct damage to or destruction of known marine historic environment assets including geophysical anomalies and unexploded ordnance During construction and installation of the replacement cable, direct impacts to known cultural material on the seabed could be caused by vessel activities, seabed preparation and boulder clearance resulting in the removal of marine cultural heritage or removal of material that forms the context of the site. However, there are no shipwrecks or aircraft with known locations in proximity to the cable route. All geophysical anomalies identified are listed in Table 6.4. These anomalies were further ground-truthed and shown likely to be of natural origin. Therefore, no impacts are predicted on known marine heritage assets.

6.7.2 Direct damage to or destruction of unknown marine historic environment assets including unexploded ordnance During construction and installation, direct impacts to unknown cultural material on the seabed could be caused by vessel activities, seabed preparation and boulder clearance resulting in the removal of marine cultural heritage or removal of material that forms the context of the site. The potential for such an impact has been reduced during Project development by analysis of the geophysical surveys, and is further reduced by the dynamic nature of much of the seabed (meaning the likelihood of survival of cultural remains near the surface is low). Therefore, the likelihood of impact is considered low. Cable burial by post-lay jetting may be used in areas where sediment is suitable and if considered necessary by SHEPD for cable protection. This would use a trencher with an 8 m wide seabed footprint (4 m either side of the cable). To achieve the planned depth of burial (0.75 m) in these sections a depth of trench of approximately 1 m will be required and the width of the trench will be approximately 0.6 m. Post-lay jetting could cause a higher magnitude of direct impact as this would penetrate the surface resulting in the destruction of any cultural heritage beneath and in the immediate vicinity of the cable route. However, based on the results of the surveys, the nature of the seabed, and the depth and width of the potential disturbance, the risk of significantly impacting unknown submerged deposits is low. The cable will be surface laid over the rest of the route, and will be held in place by rock filter bags (each weighing 2 tonnes) in appropriately spaced spot locations to pin the cable to the seabed. This has the potential to cause direct damage to unknown marine cultural heritage through compression. The potential for such an impact has been reduced during Project development by analysis of the geophysical surveys, and is further reduced by the dynamic nature of much of the seabed (meaning the likelihood of survival of cultural remains near the surface is low). Therefore, the likelihood of impact is considered low. The existing cable landfall will be used for the replacement cable, therefore no new impact is predicted below MHWS. Any potential impacts above MHWS have been assessed and will be managed as part of the separate onshore works project. There are six possible shipwreck and airplane sites with unknown locations identified in section 6.6.2 that are of high or medium significance. The potential for impacts on these has been reduced during Project development by analysis of the geophysical surveys, and is further reduced by the dynamic nature of much of the seabed. Therefore, the likelihood of impacting them accidentally is considered low.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 72

6.7.3 Direct damage to or destruction of known and unknown marine historic environment assets and unexploded ordnance During operation and maintenance, it is possible that accidental direct impacts to unknown cultural material on the seabed could be caused by maintenance vessels dropping anchors on the seabed during routine inspections or preventative maintenance. The likelihood of such impacts is considered negligible-low. No known heritage assets were identified, therefore no impacts are predicted on known marine heritage assets. There is potential that movement of the cable could expose areas of seabed which could affect unknown sites of cultural heritage interest (if present). However, such movement will be prevented by the use of rock filter bags at regular intervals to pin the cable in place. Therefore no impact is predicted.

6.7.4 Potential indirect damage to or destruction of known and unknown marine historic environment assets including unexploded ordnance There is the possibility of indirect impacts on marine cultural heritage assets and their associated environment if the Project causes scour on the seabed. Scour occurs on the seafloor when sediment is eroded from an area in response to forcing by waves and currents (Quinn, 2006: 1419). It can be initiated by the introduction of an object to the seafloor such as a shipwreck or cable. Marine features such as shipwrecks and submerged landscape deposits are therefore made vulnerable to erosion due to scouring by currents or waves, and scour processes can ultimately lead to the complete failure and collapse of structures on the seafloor. However, the potential for indirect impacts to cultural material on the seabed as a result of scouring or sediment deposition during operations and maintenance is considered to be negligible, due to the lack of identified sites, the low likelihood of the cable being accidentally laid over unknown sites, and the use of rock filter bags, which prevent scour.

6.8 Mitigation In general terms, it is preferable to manage the presence of cultural heritage sites by locating construction footprints and routing the cable to avoid them. However, where this is not possible various strategies can be put in place, although few are required for this development due to the lack of identified maritime heritage. The mitigation and management measures outlined below will result in the avoidance, reduction or offsetting of any potential impacts on cultural heritage by the Project.

6.8.1 Mitigation by design The potential for significant impacts on marine cultural heritage has been reduced to negligible-low during the development and design of the Project by conducting a DBA and geophysical surveys to identify any marine historic environment assets. Analysis of the May 2018 ROV survey data for the cable lay corridor may be undertaken prior to cable lay to identify any unknown features that could be of marine archaeological interest. In either case, an archaeologist will be onboard the cable lay vessel and will have access to video feed from the ROV. There is no need to review the May 2018 MBES survey data, since it almost completely covers the same area as the Briggs Marine 2015 survey data (see Figure 6.1). As no maritime heritage was identified within the Project area it is unlikely there will be any impacts on cultural heritage. However, the new survey data will be reviewed by SHEPD to inform the final cable routing, which will seek to avoid any anthropogenic seabed features. Furthermore, the use of rock filter bags or mattresses to pin the cable in place will significantly reduce any cable movement and potential scour over the lifetime of the cable.

6.8.2 Mitigation during installation In order to manage the potential for impacting unknown heritage, a reporting protocol will be instigated for the discovery of previously unknown marine cultural material during development. The reporting protocol

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 73

produced by Wessex Archaeology (2014) for the Crown Estate will be sufficient (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/protocols-archaeological-discoveries-pad). Unknown cultural material could come from the presence of wrecks of uncertain location and the potential for submerged landscape material, although as outlined in section 6.6, this a low risk. However, should any cultural heritage sites be reported during the course of the Project, it is recommended that they are investigated by a qualified marine archaeologist as their potential for retaining cultural heritage information could be high.

6.8.3 Mitigation during operation Because the likelihood of impacts during this phase is considered negligible-low, it is suggested that a reporting protocol is kept in place in case anything of interest is observed during maintenance operations. If any cultural heritage sites are reported, it is recommended that they are investigated by a qualified marine archaeologist as their potential for retaining cultural heritage information could be high.

6.9 Residual impacts The reduction of potential impacts by the work conducted during the design and development of the Project, combined with an archaeologist onboard the vessel or reviewing the ROV footage prior to installation and instigating a reporting protocol for the accidental discovery of cultural remains will result in impacts of negligible significance on the marine historic environment.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 74

Table 6.5 Residual impacts on archaeological receptors Likelihood of Residual Receptor Sensitivity Potential Impact Management / Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Known marine Direct: vessel activities, seabed preparation, Low-High None DBA and geophysical surveys has identified none present None heritage assets post-lay jetting, rock filter bag placement Geophysical surveys – none identified. ROV footage Direct: vessel activities, seabed preparation, review or live footage viewing will be undertake to ensure Shipwrecks with Medium post-lay jetting, rock filter bag placement. Low the same. Reporting protocol for accidental discoveries. Negligible unknown locations Indirect: cable movement, scour. Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and scour. Aircraft with Geophysical surveys – none identified. ROV footage unknown locations. review or live footage viewing will be undertake to ensure Direct: vessel activities, seabed preparation, Aircraft are legally the same. Reporting protocol for accidental discoveries. High post-lay jetting, rock filter bag placement. Low Low protected and must Avoidance. Indirect: cable movement, scour. not be disturbed, Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and even accidentally. scour. Direct: vessel activities, seabed preparation, Geophysical surveys. Identified as likely natural. Geophysical Low post-lay jetting, rock filter bag placement. Negligible Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and Negligible anomalies Indirect: cable movement, scour. scour. Geophysical surveys – none identified. ROV footage Direct: vessel activities, seabed preparation, review or live footage viewing will be undertake to ensure UXO High post-lay jetting, rock filter bag placement. Negligible the same. Reporting protocol for accidental discoveries. Negligible Indirect: cable movement, scour. Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and scour. Geophysical surveys – none identified. Reporting protocol Unknown Direct: vessel activities, seabed preparation, for accidental discoveries. submerged Low-High post-lay jetting, rock filter bag placement. Low Negligible Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and deposits Indirect: cable movement, scour. scour. Geophysical surveys – none identified. ROV footage Direct: vessel activities, seabed preparation, review or live footage viewing will be undertake to ensure Unknown cultural Low-High post-lay jetting, rock filter bag placement. Low the same. Reporting protocol for accidental discoveries. Negligible material Indirect: cable movement, scour. Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and scour.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 75

7 CONCLUSION Environmental management and mitigation measures have been identified for the Project to ensure that impacts are avoided, or where they can’t be avoided are minimised as far as possible given the emergency nature of the cable replacement works. Some of this is embedded into the Project design and operational procedures, where as other is specific to the environmental sensitivities in and around the proposed activities.

7.1 Key receptors The environmental overview identified a number of receptors of concern present in the area, and further assessment has been undertaken in order to identify potential impacts. Protected sites, benthic and intertidal ecology, species of conservation importance and marine archaeological features within the vicinity of the Project area were reported in this document.

7.1.1 Ecological protected sites Potential impacts on the designated features of sites protected for birds (i.e. SPAs and NCMPAs) are not expected as the project is not located within any such sites, and is not located sufficiently close to any sites to interact significantly with birds from those sites. Furthermore: > Marine (vessel) activities will be temporary (approximately 15 days in total); > Vessels will work at slow speeds (maximum of few knots per hour) will minimise disturbance impacts; > The potential for accidental release of pollutants is very low. Vessel SOPEP details procedures and description of actions to be taken in the event of an oil pollution incident; and > Operating instructions in place for all hazardous substances including hydraulic oil. There are no significant effects anticipated on seals that could be features of the protected sites around Orkney (either SACs or NCMPAs). The potential impacts on seals that do occur in the vicinity of the Project area have been minimised through similar mitigation measures as outlined above for birds. The Stronsay landfall works will occur within the Greenli Ness Seal haul out, which is designated to protect grey and harbour seals that comes ashore to rest, moult or breed. Although the operations will occur during the breeding season for grey seals, the breeding site within the haul out is located to the south of the landfall operations and disturbance of such animals should not occur.

7.1.2 Benthic and intertidal ecology There are no designated sites with benthic features in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works. However, some features of conservation interest were observed along the replacement cable route; these include horse mussels, kelp beds, bedrock and stony reefs and sandbanks. The intertidal area may also support the PMF kelp habitat. Potential impacts on benthic and intertidal ecology have been minimised in the following ways: > Very small area of impact on kelp (830 m2), potential Annex I sandbanks (255 m2), potential Annex I reefs (830 m2) and potential horse mussel beds (63.5 m2); > Kelps are highly resilient to physical damage/removal, therefore the very small area of kelp removed during the cable installation works is not expected to result in any adverse effects on kelp communities within the Project area; > Microrouting around features of conservation interest (particularly horse mussels and stony reef) will be undertaken as the cable is laid;

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 76

> Cable installation activities will be short-term (a few weeks) and any increase in suspended sediments will quickly revert back to background levels; and > All cable landfall works undertaken in line with standard best practice and general environmental management plans provided by SHEPD.

7.1.3 Marine mammals, otters, fish and birds A Marine Mammal Protection Plan will be implemented to mitigate any potential impacts on cetaceans and pinnipeds, although no LSE are anticipated. Despite the short duration of the operations and the absence of any impulsive noise generating activities, there is considered to be very limited potential for disturbance to protected cetacean species and an EPS Licence will be applied for. Landfall activities will be away from key areas of otter use, limited in space and time and subject to control measures. Otters will therefore not be significantly impacted. The Project area is potentially used as spawning and nursery ground by a number of fish species of commercial and conservation importance, including sandeels which are benthic spawners. Electro sensitive species could also potentially be present and experience short-term physical disturbance. However, no significant impacts on fish and shellfish species are expected since the seabed is mostly rocky and therefore not suitable for benthic spawners along most of the cable route, the Project area is small compared to the spawning and nursery areas available, the Project area is small compared to the nursery areas available, and the works will be temporary (less than 15 days). Given the emergency nature of the works, it is not possible to avoid the summer months when collision risk with basking sharks is elevated. However, the works will be of short duration and an MMO will be present and will observe for basking sharks. Due to the public interest in replacement of the cable, the works are planned to occur as soon as possible, and will therefore occur in the main breeding season for a number of species. However, the works are largely offshore, and an ECoW will be in place to ensure no impact on nesting sites. No impact on breeding birds at nests is therefore expected. There will be limited disturbance of birds, on water, onshore and in the air, from the cable installation activities. However, the activities will be limited in time, and significant disruption to normal behaviour is not anticipated. Therefore, no significant impact is expected on marine mammals, otters, fish and birds from the proposed cable installation works.

7.1.4 Marine archaeology Management and mitigation measures have been identified for the Project to ensure that impacts are avoided, or where they can’t be avoided are minimised as far as possible. Some of this is embedded into the Project design and operational procedures, whereas others are specific to the sensitivities in and around the proposed activities. No marine archaeological statutory designations have been identified that will be impacted. The key findings are: > There is the potential for one aircraft to be located within the cable corridor. The likelihood of direct impact on this is considered to be negligible-low; > The likelihood of direct impact on five shipwrecks with unverified locations is considered negligible- low since none have been identified in the assessment of the geophysical data, and if identified in review of the ROV footage (either in advance of the works or on the vessel), will be avoided by micro-routing the cable around them; > Geophysical anomalies were identified, but after further investigations are considered to be of natural origin and therefore of no heritage significance; > The likelihood of direct and indirect impacts on unknown submerged deposits and unknown wrecks is considered negligible-low because of the Project design details, because none have been identified in the assessment of the geophysical data, and because of the ROV footage review (either

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 77

in advance of the works or on the vessel), which will allow for micro-routing of the cable to avoid any if identified; > The instigation of a reporting protocol for the accidental discovery of cultural remains is part of the Project mitigation. Implementation of the suggested management and mitigation strategies will eliminate, reduce or manage any potential impacts on marine archaeology, resulting in a negligible impact on the features considered in this report.

7.2 Residual impacts Taking into account the proposed activities, and associated management and mitigation measures, the cable installation activities will not result in any significant impacts, including no potential for Likely Significant Impacts (LSE) on any Natura sites.

7.3 Compliance with the NMP SHEPD has considered all the relevant policies within the NMP when developing the replacement cable. The need to replace the cable is of over-riding public concern as the existing cable has failed and the cable that is currently bearing the load will not continue to do so indefinitely. This means there is high potential of loss of power supply to the island and the consequences this would have on the local communities on the island and further afield. However, the design of the replacement cable route has been carried out in a manner of sustainable development and co-existence with other users of the sea as far as practically possible. The nearest NCMPA to the Project area is the Wyre and Rousay Sound NCMPA, located 13.2 km from the project. Given the distance to this NCMPA, the temporary nature of the proposed works (approximately 15 days) and the small discrete area of seabed impacted, no impacts on the features of the NCMPA are expected and no further assessment was undertaken. The distribution submarine electricity cable installation has been designed to be as short as possible thereby limiting the duration of potential impact and disturbance to sensitive species from man-made noise and physical presence as much as possible. The installation activities are currently scheduled to take place between June and August 2018, which means it may overlap with the breeding seasons of the key bird species (April to mid-September) and harbour seal (June and July). However, the fisheries policies set in the NMP (particularly Fisheries 1, 2 and 3) have been taken into account throughout the cable design process. Engagement with fishermen has been extensive with an aim to understand the extent of commercial fishing within the area and the potential impacts of the cable installation on their livelihoods. Fish spawning and nursery grounds in the area have been assessed and the impact of the cable installation activities on fish stocks and sustain healthy fisheries is considered to be low. The duration of the works, and so exclusion from fishing areas, will be very temporary (a few weeks) and the works will take place on a linear dimension so the whole cable route will not be excluded at the same time. Further assessment is provided in the FLMAP which includes measures to manage any potential conflicts with fishermen and methods of informing them (and other users of the sea) of the installation works and progress throughout the installation campaign. In terms of the submarine cables policies of the NMP, SHEPD has carried out a series of consultation and public engagement exercises with regulators, stakeholders and the general public; these are presented in the Pre-Application Consultation report. As a result, this report documenting and assessing the potential impacts on sensitive receptors and the FLMAP form part of the Marine Licence application that is required for cable replacement activities as part of Cables policy 1 (section 1.4.2). The cable has been designed using best industry practice to ensure it achieves high quality and safety standards and ensures the continued safe distribution of electricity to the inhabitants of Shapinsay and Stronsay. Whilst it is not possible to bury the cable across the whole route due to the rocky nature of the seabed, SHEPD plan to bury the cable where they can in areas of sufficient sediment at the landfalls using jetting

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 78

methods. In the subtidal area, the proposed installation method is surface laying with the use of rock bags in spot locations that will pin the cable to the seabed thereby ensuring it does not move. Not only does this limit the footprint it also ensures that the location of the cable is fully understood and documented accurately on navigational charts. These factors ensure that Cables policy 2 of the NMP has been complied with as far as practically possible. At each shore end landfall, the existing land-based network of OHL connects the submarine cable to the SHEPD network. The proposed cable retains the existing shore end landfall at Shapinsay and Stronsay due to the emergency of the works after the cable faulted on the 12th May 2018. The cable replacement works are therefore a priority to restore safety and reliability of supply in the Orkney islands. The above demonstrates SHEPD has complied with all relevant policies within the NMP, as far as practically possible and relevant to cable installation activities. As the policy requirements of the Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan, relating to the development of subsea cables reflect those of the NMP, it can be concluded that these have been considered in conjunction with the NMP as part of the Project.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 79

8 REFERENCES Anatec and Halcrow. Shipping Study of the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters. Report No. A2765-MS-TN-1. November 2012. Prepared for Marine Scotland by Anatec Ltd. And Halcrow. Anatec. Navigation Risk Assessment Update, Fall of Warness. Report No. A2343-EMEC-NRA-1. November 2010. Prepared for European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) by Anatec Ltd. ARGOS (Aviation Research Group Orkney and Shetland). Available at: http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/shetland-projects.http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/ Baird, RN (2003). Shipwrecks of the North of Scotland. Edinburgh: Birlinn. Barne, J.H., Robson, C.F., Kaznowska, S.S., Doody, J.P., Davidson, N.C. and Buck, A.L. (1997). Region 1. Shetland, 207 pages A4 hardback, ISBN 1 873701 75 6. Bates, M. R., Nayling, N., Bates, R., Dawson, S., Huws, D., & Wickham‐Jones, C. (2013). A Multi‐disciplinary Approach to the Archaeological Investigation of a Bedrock‐Dominated Shallow‐Marine Landscape: an example from the Bay of Firth, Orkney, UK. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 42(1), 24-43. BNA (British Newspaper Archive). Available at: http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Coull et al., (1998). Fishery sensitivity maps in British Waters. Published and distributed by UKOOA Ltd. Coull, K., Hohnstone, R. and Rogers, S. 1998. Available from http://cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/29947/sensi_maps.pdf Dawson, S., & Wickham-Jones, C. R. (2007). Sea level change and the prehistory of Orkney. Antiquity, 81(312). Ellis, J. R., Milligan, S. P., Readdy, L., Taylor, N., & Brown, M. J. (2012). Spawning and nursery grounds of selected fish species in UK waters. Sci. Ser. Tech. Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 147, 56. EMEC (2014). EMEC Fall of Warness Test Site: Environmental Appraisal. August 2014. Available online at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0046/00468589.pdf [Accessed 21/06/2017]. Environmental Scientifics Group (2015). SSE Cable Burial Assessment Surveys. Hydrographic, Geophysical and Intrusive Surveys. Report No L5248-15. December 2015. Envision (2017a). Drop-down video survey report. Orkney Distribution Cable Routes. Shapinsay-Stronsay: Orkney. November 2017. Envision (2017b). Intertidal survey report. Orkney Distribution Cable Routes. Shapinsay-Stronsay: Orkney. November 2017. ESG (2015). SSE Cable Burial Assessment Surveys. Hydrographic, Geophysical and Intrusive Surveys. Report No. L5248-15. Evans, P.G.H., Baines, M.E. and Coppock, J. (2011) Abundance and behaviour of cetaceans and basking sharks in the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters. Report by Hebog Environmental Ltd. & SeaWatch Foundation. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 419. Ferguson, D.M. (1988). Shipwrecks of Orkney, Shetland and the Pentland Firth. David & Charles, Newton Abbot. Flemming, N.C. (2003). The scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment of Continental Shelf Area SEA 4 in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains. Available at www.offshore- sea.org.uk/site/scripts/sea_archive.php Godfrey, J. D., Stewart, D. C., Middlemas, S. J., & Armstrong, J. D. (2014). Depth use and migratory behaviour of homing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Scottish coastal waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(2), 568-575.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 80

Hammond, P.S., Lacey, C., Gilles, A., Viquerat, S., Börjesson, P., Herr, H., Macleod, K., Ridoux, V., Santos, M.B., Scheidat, M., Teilmann, J., Vingada, J., and Øien, N. (2017). Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys. May 2017. Hammond, P.S., Northridge, S.P., Thompson, D., Gordon, J.C.D., Hall, A.J., Sharples, R.J., Grellier, K. and Matthiopoulos, J. (2004). Background Information on Marine Mammals Relevant to Strategic Environmental Assessment 5. April 2005. Hawkins and Popper (2014). Assessing the impact of underwater sounds on fishes and other forms of marine life. Acoustics Today. Heath/Ferguson private wreck database, unpublished. Irving, R., (2009). The identification of the main characteristics of stony reef habitats under the Habitats Directive. Summary report of an inter-agency workshop 26-27 March 2008. JNCC Report No. 432. JNCC (2016). Designated offshore SACs and Candidate SACs available online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6541 [Accessed 05/06/2017]. Jones et al. (2018). Grey and harbour seal density maps. Available online at http://marine.gov.scot/information/seal-usage-maps [Accessed 01/06/2018]. Kafas, A., Jones, G., Watret, R., Davies, I., Scott, B. (2012). Representation of the use of marine space by commercial fisheries in marine spatial planning. ICES CM I: 23. KIS-ORCA (2016). Submarine cable routes of the Southern North Sea. Kingfisher Information Service - Cable Awareness. Available online at http://www.kis-orca.eu/ [Accessed 02/05/2017]. Larn, R. & B. Larn (1998). The Ship Wreck Index of Great Britain & Ireland Vol.4 Scotland. London: Lloyds Register of Shipping. Malcolm, I. A., Godfrey, J., & 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, 1(14), 1-72. Marine Scotland (2015). Guidance for Marine Licence Applicants. Version 2 June 2015. Available online at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00479072.pdf [Accessed 22/06/2017]. Marine Scotland, (2017). Haul out sites. Available online at http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine- environment/species/19887/20814/haulouts [Accessed 22/05/2017]. McLeod, CR, Yeo, M, Brown, AE, Burn, AJ, Hopkins, JJ, & Way, SF (eds.) (2005) The Habitats Directive: selection of Special Areas of Conservation in the UK. 2nd edn. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. www.jncc.gov.uk/SACselection. MeyGen (2012) MeyGen Tidal Energy Project - Phase 1. Environmental Statement. Available online at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/MeyGen-2012-ES.pdf [Accessed 26/06/2017]. MMO (2014). Mapping UK shipping density and routes from AIS. Marine Management Organisations. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mapping-uk-shipping-density-and-routes-from-ais- mmo-1066 [Accessed 07/06/17]. Nature in Shetland (1994). Nature in Shetland – Shetland Sea Mammal Group. Whales and Dolphins in Shetland Waters. Available at: http://www.nature-shetland.co.uk/seamammal/cetaceans.htm. [Accessed 3/04/2018]. OBRC (2017). Data request to OBRC to inform the Terrestrial Environmental Desk Study for Shapinsay- Stronsay. Orkney.com (2017). Basking Sharks. Available at http://www.orkney.com/about/nature/sealife/basking- sharks [Accessed 26/06/2017]. Pollard, E., Robertson, P., Littlewood, M., Geddes, G. (2014). Insights from archaeological analysis and interpretation of marine data sets to inform marine cultural heritage management and planning of wave and

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 81

tidal energy development for Orkney Waters and the Pentland Firth, NE Scotland. Ocean & Coastal Management 99 (2014) 39-51. Pollock, C.M., Mavor, R., Weir, C.R., Reid, A., White, R.W., Tasker, M.L., Webb, A. and Reid, J.B. (2000). The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in the Atlantic Frontier, north and west of Scotland. JNCC report. Quinn, R. (2006). The role of scour in shipwreck site formation processes and the preservation of wreck- associated scour signatures in the sedimentary record - evidence from seabed and sub-surface data. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1419-1432. Reid, J.B, Evans, P.G.H and Northridge, S.P. (2003). Atlas of cetacean distribution in north-west European waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Ridley, G. (1998). Dive Scotland Vol III: The Northern Isles and East Coast. London: Underwater World Publications. RSPB (2017). Bird Guide search by species. Available online at https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and- wildlife/bird-and-wildlife-guides/bird-guide/ [Accessed 23/06/2017]. SCOS (2014). Scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal populations 2013. Available online at http://www.smru.st-and.ac.uk/documents/1803.pdf [Accessed 02/05/2017]. Scottish Government (2015). Scotland’s National Marine Plan. Available online at http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/6517/downloads#res-1 [Accessed 19/06/2016]. Scottish Government, (2016). Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics, 2015. Scottish Government. Available online at http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Agriculture-Fisheries/PubFisheries [Accessed 01/05/2017]. SHEPD (2016a). Shapinsay-Stronsay Project Description. Report No. FO-NET-CAB-405-B. SHEPD (2016b). Communications Strategy (including Fishing Liaison Mitigation Action Plan) for Westray- Rousay. June 2016. SNH & JNCC (2012) Advice to the Scottish Government on the selection of Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for the development of the Scottish MPA network. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 547. SNH (2009). Bird breeding season dates in Scotland. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/bird-breeding- season-dates-scotland [Accessed 30/03/2018]. SNH (2012). SPA bird species list. Available online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1419 [Accessed 22/06/2017. Last Updated 24/04/2012]. SNH (2014). Priority Marine Features in Scotland’s seas. Available online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1327320.pdf [Accessed on 01/05/2017]. SNH (2015). Protecting Scotland's nature - protected mammals in Scotland - seals. Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/which-and-how/mammals/seal- protection/ [accessed 04/06/2017]. SNH (2017). Protected Species advice for Developers – Otters. Available online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1959316.pdf [Accessed 27/06/2017; Last updated 22/08/2016]. Thompson, P.M., Cheney, B., Ingram, S., Stevick, P., Wilson, B. and Hammond, P. (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. Wessex Archaeology (2014). Protocols for Archaeological Discoveries http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/protocols-archaeological-discoveries-pad. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. Whittaker, I.G. (1998). Off Scotland: a comprehensive record of maritime and aviation losses in Scottish waters. Edinburgh: C-Anne Publishing

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 82

Wickham Jones, C, Bates, M, Bates, CR, Dawon, S & Kavanagh, E 2016, 'People and Landscape at the Heart of Neolithic Orkney' Archaeological Review from Cambridge, vol 31, no. 2, pp. 26-48. Xodus Group (2016). Western Isles Subsea Cable Link - Specialist Subsea Cable Services and Route Selection Desk Study. Marine Survey Licence Application - EPS Risk Assessment Document Number A- 100336-S00-REPT-007. Xodus Group (2017) Orkney Cable Replacements – Terrestrial Environmental Support. Shapinsay-Stronsay Environmental Desk Study.

Orkney Marine Licence Application – Shapinsay - Stronsay Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A200331-S01 Document Number: A-200331-S01-REPT-002 83