Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application
Environmental Supporting Information
Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution plc
Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001
Xodus Group Xodus House, 50 Huntly Street Aberdeen, UK, AB10 1RS
T +44 (0)1224 628300 E [email protected] www.xodusgroup.com
Environmental Supporting Information A100487-S00
Client: Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution plc Document Type: Report Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001
A02 24/04/2018 Reissued for Use RP EH JH
A01 20/04/2018 Issued for Use RP EH JH
R01 11/04/2018 Issued for Review MB/JH EH EH
Checked Approved Client Rev Date Description Issued By By By Approval
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 ii
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS 6
1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Introduction 8 1.2 Work completed to date 9 1.2.1 Marine surveys 9 1.3 Project description 12 1.3.1 Route Overview 12 1.3.2 Submarine cable installation 15 1.3.3 Intertidal cable installation 16 1.3.4 Vessels 18 1.3.5 Schedule 18 1.4 Consent requirements and relevant legislation 18 1.4.1 Marine Licence and supporting information requirements 18 1.4.2 Scottish National Marine Plan 19 1.4.3 Shetland Islands’ Marine Spatial Plan 21 1.5 Stakeholder consultation 22 1.6 Environmental assessment scope 22
2 ECOLOGICAL PROTECTED SITES 24
2.1 Introduction 24 2.2 Consultation 24 2.3 Internationally important sites 25 2.3.1 Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) 25 2.3.2 Special Areas of Conservation (SPAs) and Ramsar sites 29 2.4 Nationally and locally important sites 31 2.5 Potential impacts 34
3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING SEABED CONDITIONS) 36
3.1 Introduction 36 3.2 Legislation and policy context 36 3.3 Consultation 36 3.4 Physical environment description 36 3.5 Potential impacts 39
4 BENTHIC AND INTERTIDAL ECOLOGY 40
4.1 Introduction 40 4.2 Legislation and Policy Context 40 4.2.1 European Habitats Directive 40 4.2.2 Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 40 4.2.3 Biodiversity Action Plan (BAPs) 41 4.2.4 Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan 41 4.3 Consultation 41 4.4 Benthic and intertidal ecology description 42 4.4.1 Subtidal area 42 4.4.2 Intertidal areas 45 4.5 Potential impacts to benthic and intertidal ecology 48
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 iii
4.5.1 Potential impacts during cable installation 48 4.5.2 Potential impacts during cable operation and maintenance 49 4.5.3 Impact, management and mitigation summary 50
5 MARINE MAMMALS, FISH, BIRDS AND OTTERS 51
5.1 Introduction 51 5.2 Legislation and Policy Context 51 5.3 Consultation 51 5.4 Receptor description 51 5.4.1 Cetaceans 51 5.4.2 Pinnipeds 54 5.4.3 Otters 55 5.4.4 Fish ecology 55 5.4.5 Ornithology 58 5.5 Summary of potential impacts 60
6 MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY 62
6.1 Introduction 62 6.2 Legislation and policy context 62 6.2.1 International/ EU legislation and policy 62 6.2.2 UK legislation and policy 62 6.2.3 Scottish legislation and policy 63 6.2.4 Local planning policy 63 6.2.5 Codes of practice, professional guidance and standards documents 63 6.3 Consultation 64 6.4 Sources of information 64 6.4.1 Desk-based assessment 65 6.5 Assessment Methodology 65 6.5.1 Desk Based Assessment 66 6.5.2 Receptor evaluation 68 6.6 Site characterisation 69 6.6.1 Potential for submerged landscapes and prehistoric sites 69 6.6.2 Shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks 69 6.6.3 Unexploded ordinance (UXO) 72 6.7 Potential Impacts 72 6.7.1 Direct damage to or destruction of known marine historic environment assets 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 Potential indirect damage to or destruction of known and unknown marine historic environment assets including unexploded ordnance 72 6.8 Mitigation 73 6.8.1 Mitigation by design 73 6.8.2 Direct damage to or destruction of known and unknown marine historic environment assets and unexploded ordnance 73 6.8.3 Mitigation during installation 73 6.8.4 Mitigation during operation 74 6.9 Residual Impacts 74
7 CONCLUSIONS 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 77 7.3 Compliance with the NMP 77
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 iv
8 REFERENCES 79
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 v
ACRONYMS AtoN Aid to navigation BAP Biodiversity Action Plan CAR Controlled activity regulation CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CIfA Chartered Institute for Archaeologists CLV Cable lay vessel CMS Convention for Migratory Species of Wild Animals DBA Desk-based assessment DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DSV Dive support vessel DTI Department of Trade and Industry ECoW Ecological Clerk of Works EIA Environmental impact assessment EMF Electromagnetic fields EPS European Protected Species ERM Environmental Resources Management Ltd. ESG Environmental Scientifics Group EU European Union EUNIS European Nature Information System FLMAP Fishing Liaison Mitigation Action Plan GES Good Environmental Status HMPA Historic Marine Protected Areas HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee LDP Local Development Plan LNCS Local Nature Conservation Sites LSE Likely Significant Effects MHWS Mean High water Springs MLWS Mean Low water Springs MMO Marine Mammal Observer MMPP Marine Mammal Protection Plan MPA Marine Protected Area MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 6
NAFC Natural Environment Research Council NBN National Biodiversity Network NCMPA Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area NMP Scottish National Marine Plan NMPI National Marine Plan Interactive NNR National Nature Reserve NRHE National Record of the Historic Environment OHL Overhead lines OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic PMF Priority Marine Feature pSPA proposed Special Protection Area ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle RPSB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds SAC Special Area of Conservation SAT Shetland Amenity Trust SCANS Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SHEPD Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution plc SIMSP Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan SMR Shetland Sites and Monuments Record SMRU Sea Mammal Research Unit SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest UK United Kingdom UKBAP United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan UKHO UK Hydrographic Office UNCLOS United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea UXO Unexploded Ordinance
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 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 installation of a replacement 33kV submarine electricity cable (hereinafter referred to as the cable) from Mossbank to Hoga in Yell within the Shetland Isles (the ‘Project’). The purpose of this report and the separately produced Fishing Liaison Mitigation Action Plan (FLMAP) is to provide information on the proposed works for the cable installation and present the environmental information required in support of the Marine Licence application. The environmental supporting information has been based on publicly available information including that available through the National Marine Plan Interactive (NMPI) website platform and the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) website. As further information becomes available through additional marine surveys planned for May to June 2018, the potential impact of the proposed cable operations on environmental sensitivities will re-evaluated. The conclusion drawn from the environmental information available is that the proposed cable operations will not significantly impact the environment or protected features in the Project area. For specifically sensitive environmental receptors mitigation plans have been produced. The existing 33 kV cable between Mossbank and Yell was installed in 1984 and is nearing the end of its operational life. This has been verified through existing asset records and following recent visual inspections by Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) of the cable. The replacement of this cable is essential to maintaining SHEPD power supplies to the island of Yell and supports the security of supply to Unst and Fetlar. The existing cable for replacement is shown in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1 Existing cable for replacement
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 8
1.2 Work completed to date
1.2.1 Marine surveys SHEPD previously appointed a Contractor to conduct marine surveys along the proposed cable route and surveys were undertaken between September and October 2015. The main objectives of the marine survey was to identify: Seabed conditions (e.g. sand, rock, mud) to optimise the proposed cable route (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, UXO etc. 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 in line with SNH comments. The surveyed corridor was centred along the existing cable route and was selected following a review of potential cable landing points on Mossbank and Yell, from previous ROV inspections of the existing cable and following an assessment of current and proposed sea user activities in the area. The presence of an existing in-service 33kV cable and the island of Samphrey to the East also influenced the positioning of the survey corridor and routeing of the proposed cable. The extent of the surveyed corridor was decided taking into consideration the survey cost, impact on environmental species from the survey equipment and also disruption to sea users from the survey works. Centring the survey corridor on the existing cable provided the ability to route the proposed cable East or West to allow some micro-routing following assessment of the survey data. The data acquired along the surveyed route (Figure 1-2) highlighted that rock is prevalent throughout the full extent of the surveyed corridor. This is evident from the highly tidal location which has scoured the seabed leaving minimal overlying sediment on the seabed. There is a short section North of Samphrey showing a shallow veneer of sediment, however this is insufficient for cable burial. From the 2015 marine survey data it is evident from the rocky geology and shallow water depths around Samphrey that this area should be avoided for the proposed cable installation as it may affect cable health and impact on cable stability. The water depths would present significant challenges for the cable installation works with vessel positioning and underkeel clearances. By routeing the proposed cable to the West potential impacts are also minimised on the nearby Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in and around Samphrey. Furthermore, rocky areas are present at the intertidal areas around the shore at both Mossbank (Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4) and Yell which was further verified by site visits and site investigations. On Mossbank the rocky coastline extends West and with the nearby jetty and village of Mossbank to the East, a decision was made to re-use the existing landfall location with an offset from the existing cable. Similarly, on Yell, the coastline is rocky to the North continuing to the ferry terminal at Ulsta. With the nearby ferry route from Toft to Ulsta this limited cable routeing to the West. Sub-Bottom Profiling (SBP) was utilised to map the seabed surface to allow identification and determination of the extent of the sediment types. This survey technique is useful for identifying areas that may be suitable for direct cable burial within the seabed along the route or to help to inform alternative cable protection methods, if deemed required. The SBP data indicated a lack of sediment along the extent of the surveyed corridor. The extent of geotechnical surveys was therefore restricted to seabed grab sampling at selected intervals. A number of grab sample attempts during the survey works failed to recover sufficient material due to a lack of sediment. The purpose of this sampling was to enable a benthic characterisation assessment
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 9
combined with Particle Size Distribution (PSD) analysis of the material at the seabed surface. The geotechnical sampling methods were intrusive in that there is a physical interaction between the sampling device and the sediments. Further and more intrusive geotechnical surveying would normally be required where direct cable burial is required along the route. This would provide information on soil conditions and suitability of burial equipment, however as there is minimal sediment present, direct cable burial is not achievable. Any cable protection needed would be in the form of rock placement, rock filter bags or concrete mattressing placed directly over the cable. The pre-installation surveys have allowed SHEPD to optimise the cable route within the survey corridor and helped to identify feasible installation and cable protection methods. The routeing has been refined following a review of seabed conditions, bathymetry, stakeholder views, seabed use and any other identified seabed features. It has also informed the decision to undertake further marine surveys during the summer of 2018 to better refine and assess the engineering viability and environmental impact of the proposed cable route and installation works.
Figure 1-2 2015 Survey Bathymetry between Mossbank and Yell As part of this additional survey, drop-down video and imagery surveys will also be undertaken to better understand the range of potential habitats and their geographic spread. The methodology in relation to the surveys was developed through discussion with SNH. The survey outputs from the drop-down video surveys will be shared to evidence the habitats and features present along and in the vicinity of the proposed cable.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 10
To support the marine licence and the proposed cable installation methodology a Cable Burial Risk Assessment (CBRA) and cable stability assessment will be completed to determine the level of cable protection needed and to evaluate the impact of the proposed cable installation. The additional surveys may influence the final cable installation design and routeing to help minimise the impact on the habitats and seabed features present on the route. This will allow identification of mitigation measures in the form of cable re-routing where appropriate, crossing locations for protected habitats, cable burial in areas suitable for burial and also use of rock bag placement to stabilise the proposed cable to minimise movement along the seabed.
Figure 1-3 Mossbank Shoreline viewing West
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 11
Figure 1-4 Mossbank shoreline viewing East
1.3 Project description
1.3.1 Route Overview The Project aims to install a replacement 33 kV distribution cable between Mossbank and Yell. The existing submarine cable will be left in-situ on the seabed once taken out of service. At each shore end landfall, the existing land-based distribution network will be connected to the submarine cables. The potential impacts from the onshore construction activities have been assessed separately via an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey and terrestrial ecology desk study, which will be used to inform the construction contractor of any potential environmental issues to be aware of and/or specific working methods to adhere to. Following a review of the marine survey data outlined in Section 1.2.1, an optimum route for the proposed cable has been identified as shown in Figure 1-5. The proposed cable will be 4.4 km (3.4 km within the marine environment) in length between the two termination points with the Overhead Line (OHL), which are located inshore from the Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) limit. However, the length of cable to be submitted as part of the marine licence application is 4.0 km to allow for obstacle avoidance during cable lay and tolerances with the cable lay operations. The proposed cable route lies within the 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. However, there are no known PMFs in the immediate vicinity of the Project area, except for kelp (NMPI, 2018). This is discussed further in Section 4.4. The proposed cable retains the existing shore end landfall at Mossbank and Yell. Alternative landfall positions were reviewed but discounted due to a number of factors; on Mossbank a nearby jetty constrains the area to the East, the coastline around Yell is rocky and this extends to the ferry terminal at Ulsta. The proposed cable route is located adjacent to the West of the existing cable. An offset will be used to allow safe installation, operation, future maintenance and ongoing inspection of the cable(s).
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 12
The proposed cable route and method of installation has been identified based on a combination of desk studies, marine seabed surveys and stakeholder views. Prior to the cable installation, SHEPD’s appointed contractor will undertake a final review of the marine survey data to confirm the seabed conditions and finalise the exact cable route within the consented corridor and techniques to be employed. Further to this, a review of the existing shore end landfall locations and land-based infrastucture was undertaken and verified with site visits on both Mossbank and Yell to confirm the shore end landing points and the method of cable installation above the Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) limits. This was necessary in order to assess the suitability for site access and the logistical constraints for plant and machinery but also to better understand the environmental and landowner contraints.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 13
Figure 1-5 Proposed Cable Route (including marine survey corridor)
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 14
1.3.2 Submarine cable installation A new distribution submarine electricity cable is proposed to be laid on the seabed between MLWS on the Mossbank and Yell coasts. As described in Section 1.3.1., the new cable will be laid along a similar route to the West of the existing cable to allow for safe installation and inspection. The new cable will have an outer diameter of 127 mm and will be installed from a Cable Lay Vessel (CLV). It will be installed within a defined corridor anticipated to be 200 m width (100 m either side of the new cable route), 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/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. Initially, the proposed submarine cable will be surface laid on the seabed across the length of the route. Due to the strong tidal currents the majority of the proposed cable route will be across rocky seabed with very little overlying sediment. Due to the limited sediment direct cable burial will not be possible. By initially surface laying the cable this minimises the footprint in these areas however cable mobility on the seabed may increase the footprint and impact on the seabed habitat. To minimise the impact of the cable on the seabed during and after installation, SHEPD plan to lay rock filter bags (each with a seabed footprint of approximately 2.0 m by 2.0 m) in spot locations on the cable to pin the cable to the seabed (Figure 1-6). Only clean washed stone will be used to fill the rock bags and no cementitious material will be used. 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. Positioning of the rock bags will help stabilise the cable. A cable stability assessment will be undertaken to provide information on cable stability throughout the proposed route with a view to minimising the amount of rock bags required to pin the cable whilst ensuring cable stability following the installation. From Mossbank, rock filter bags will be placed on the cable at approximately 50 m intervals within the marine environment. A maximum of 80 rock filter bags will be used. Example rock filter bags and mattresses are shown in Figure 1-6 and Figure 1-7 respectively. The risk of installing the rock bags directly onto the cable could cause subsequent damage from point loading dependent on the seabed and lay of the cable. A post lay inspection of the cable after it is installed will identify the potential risk to placement of the rock filter bag directly onto the cable and confirm exact locations.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 15
Figure 1-6 Example rock filter bag
Figure 1-7 Example protection mattress
1.3.3 Intertidal cable installation Due to the suitability of the existing shore end landfall locations and following assessment of alternative areas, the proposed cable will be installed adjacent to the existing cable at both Mossbank and Yell. It is proposed to install the cable by using an open-cut trench method of installation inshore from the MLWS tidal limits at both shore end landfall locations.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 16
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 1-8. 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 shown in Figure 1-5. At the Mossbank landfall, the marine cable will be installed by an open cut trench method above the MLWS limit. The marine cable will be installed within a ducted conduit through the nearby road. To complete the shore end installation works there will be some underground cabling from the transition joint location with the marine cable and minor modifications to the existing 33kV overhead line. The trench will be excavated alongside the existing cable using a terrestrial-based mechanical excavator during low spring tide. The excavated material will be placed to one side of the trench for later reinstatement. Using a mechanical winch and cable rollers, the cable will be manoeuvred into the bottom of the trench and then covered with the excavated material using the mechanical excavator. The trench width will be minimised where possible however will be dependent on ground stability but will typically be 1 m wide. The target depth of the trench will be 1.25 m. Temporary trench shoring may be required to prevent collapse of the trench wall. The footprint of the excavator may be up to 5 m, and a working width, including for the temporary storage of removed material, would be in the order of 10 m. On either shore where sufficient burial cannot be achieved, cast iron split pipe will be fitted around the cable for additional protection in the event of exposure. This will be installed down to MLWS mark. It is proposed to install a maximum of 100 m of split pipe protection on each shore from MWHS to MLWS in the event that sufficient cable burial cannot be achieved to protect the cable. The split pipe is an articulated cast iron shell design that locks around the cable and fixed with bolted end clamps. Each shell has 8 mm wall thickness, with an effective length of 391 mm.
Figure 1-8 Typical open cut trench cross-section inshore of MLWS.
The submarine cable crossing the intertidal area will be connected to the terrestrial cable in a transition joint pit buried in the ground located above the MHWS limit at each end. At the Mossbank end, from MHWS limit the cable will be buried onshore for approximately 40 m through the road and connect into the existing OHL. On the Yell shore, from the MHWS limit the cable will be buried for
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 17
Figure 6 – Open cut trench shore end installation
approximately 1000 m through the field and connect in to the OHL. This will permit the dismantling of 12 spans of existing OHL. On completion of jointing and cabling works, spoil material will be backfilled into the trenches and the shore will be reinstated; grassed areas will be left to re-seed naturally. The SHEPD Project Description (SHEPD Section ID150, Project Description Mossbank - Yell, undated) provides further details on the proposed methods to install the cable between Mossbank and Yell.
1.3.4 Vessels For the cable laying activities, a standard small cable lay vessel will be used. An additional smaller support vessel is likely to be required at each of the shallower shore locations; this is likely to be a multicat / DSV. This may require deployment of an anchor spread, such as a four-point anchor system, prior to and during the works in the nearshore region. An anchor handling vessel will be required to lay out the anchors, which would be within a radius of 100 m from the DSV. Where there is sensitive habitat close to shore, the anchor pattern would be designed so that it targets areas where sensitivity is reduced, thereby minimising the potential impact. A guard vessel is also likely to be used during the cable lay operations to ensure other vessels remain outside the area of operations, thereby reducing collision risk. The design of the anchor spread and the area to be impacted is discussed further in Section 4.5.
1.3.5 Schedule SHEPD propose to complete the submarine cable and onshore connection works during the period December 2018 – February 2019 or before if the necessary consents have been secured. The planned duration of the proposed cable works are no greater than 30 days, exclusive of weather. A Marine Licence is required for the period of October 2018 to March 2019. The onshore cabling works on both Mossbank and Yell will be completed prior to the main submarine cable installation works. This will include the ducted road crossing on Mossbank situated between the shore line and the existing OHL in the nearby field. The minor modifications required to the existing OHL networks will be carried out during commissioning of the submarine cable to the SHEPD network.
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 2017. 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 Mainland Shetland to Yell Cable Replacement Project and will be used to implement environmental management measures for the Project.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 18
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. Survey works along the proposed cable route are ongoing, therefore this document provides the results of a desk based environmental assessment.
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. Sectoral policies are also outlined in the Plan where a particular industry brings with it issues beyond those set out in the general policies. For the Project, the policies covering sea fisheries and submarine electricity cables are of particular relevance. SHEPD has taken all the policies outlined below into consideration when developing the replacement cable route and assessing the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. Discussion on how compliance and alignment with the NMP has been achieved is provided in the Conclusions (section 6 of this report). General Planning The general planning policies of particular relevance to the 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 Priority Marine Features (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.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 19
Sea Fisheries With respect to sea fisheries, the NMP sets out a number of policies. Those that are relevant to the Project include: ‘Fisheries 1’: Taking account of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, Habitats Directive, Birds Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive, marine planners and decision makers should aim to ensure: Existing fishing opportunities and activities are safeguarded wherever possible; Protection for vulnerable stocks (in particular for juvenile and spawning stocks through continuation of sea area closures where appropriate); That other sectors take into account the need to protect fish stocks and sustain healthy fisheries for both economic and conservation reasons; and Mechanisms for managing conflicts between fishermen and/or between the fishing sector and other users of the marine environment. ‘Fisheries 2’: The following key factors should be taken into account when deciding on uses of the marine environment and the potential impact on fishing: The cultural and economic importance of fishing, in particular to vulnerable coastal communities; The potential impact (positive and negative) of marine developments on the sustainability of fish and shellfish stocks and resultant fishing opportunities in any given area; The environmental impact on fishing grounds (such as nursery, spawning areas), commercially fished species, habitats and species more generally; and The potential effect of displacement on: fish stocks; the wider environment; use of fuel; socio- economic costs to fishers and their communities and other marine users. ‘Fisheries 3’: Where existing fishing opportunities or activity cannot be safeguarded, a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy should be prepared by the proposer of development or use, involving full engagement with local fishing interests (and other interests as appropriate) in the development of the Strategy. All efforts should be made to agree the Strategy with those interests. Those interests should also undertake to engage with the proposer and provide transparent and accurate information and data to help complete the Strategy. The Strategy should be drawn up as part of the discharge of conditions of permissions granted. The content of the Strategy should be relevant to the particular circumstances and could include: An assessment of the potential impact of the development or use on the affected fishery or fisheries, both in socio-economic terms and in terms of environmental sustainability; A recognition that the disruption to existing fishing opportunities/activity should be minimised as far as possible; Reasonable measures to mitigate any constraints which the proposed development or use may place on existing or proposed fishing activity; and Reasonable measures to mitigate any potential impacts on sustainability of fish stocks (e.g. impacts on spawning grounds or areas of fish or shellfish abundance) and any socioeconomic impacts. Submarine Cables With respect to submarine cables, the NMP sets out a number of key objectives. Those that are relevant to the Project include:
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 20
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. There are three marine planning policies laid out in the NMP that are relevant to the project: ‘Cables 1’: Cable and network owners should engage with decision makers at the early planning stage to notify of any intention to lay, repair or replace cables before routes are selected and agreed. When making proposals, cable and network owners and marine users should evidence that they have taken a joined-up approach to development and activity to minimise impacts, where possible, on the marine historic and natural environment, the assets, infrastructures and other users. Appropriate and proportionate environmental consideration and risk assessments should be provided which may include cable protection measures and mitigation plans. Any deposit, removal or dredging carried out for the purpose of executing emergency inspection or repair works to any cable is exempt from the marine licensing regime with approval by Scottish Ministers. However, cable replacement requires a marine licence. Marine Licensing Guidance should be followed when considering any cable development and activity. ‘Cables 2’: The following factors will be taken into account on a case by case basis when reaching decisions regarding submarine cable development and activities: Cables should be suitably routed to provide sufficient requirements for installation and cable protection; New cables should implement methods to minimise impacts on the environment, seabed and other users, where operationally possible and in accordance with relevant industry practice; 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 not to be feasible, cables may be suitably protected through recognised and approved measures (such as rock or mattress placement or cable armouring) where practicable and cost-effective and as risk assessments direct; and Consideration of the need to reinstate the seabed, undertake post-lay surveys and monitoring and carry out remedial action where required. ‘Cables 4’: When selecting locations for land-fall of power and telecommunications equipment and cabling, developers and decision makers should consider the policies pertaining to flooding and coastal protection in Chapter 4 (of the NMP), and align with those in Scottish Planning Policy and Local Development Plans.
1.4.3 Shetland Islands’ Marine Spatial Plan The Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan (SIMSP) provides an overarching policy framework to guide marine development and activity. This SIMSP is based on Scottish Ministers’ commitment to making marine management more efficient, inclusive and accessible. Areas of constraint and/or opportunities for development have been identified in order to reduce potential conflicts between marine activities and encourage co-existence between multiple users. The SIMSP aims at providing an approach to the management of the sea around Shetland; facilitating an integrated and better informed decision- making process regarding the future distribution of activities and resources; and enabling the long- term protection and use of the marine environment. Section 4 of the SIMSP sets out the legislative requirements that need to be considered for any development proposal. This section covers marine and works licences, planning permission,
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 21
controlled activity regulation (CAR) authorisation, seabed agreement for lease, electricity regulations, EIA, cumulative impacts and consultation with stakeholders. Section 5 of the SIMSP sets out a number of general policies that ensure that the SIMSP is contributing to the high-level government targets that are supporting a clean and safe, healthy and diverse, and productive marine environment. Those that are most relevant to this Project include: underwater noise, navigational safety, cables and pipelines, climate change, coastal defence and flood protection, protected species, nature conservation designations, marine recreation and invasive non-native species.
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, Table 1-1. 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 Mossbank-Yell. Table 1-1 Consultations
Timing Organisation Consultation undertaken August Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open door event held in Cullivoe Hall, Yell 2016 sector and non-governmental organisations August Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open door event held at the Shetland Power 2016 sector and non-governmental organisations Station, Lerwick August Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open door event held in Mossbank Hall 2016 sector and non-governmental organisations August Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open door event held in Baltasound Hall, 2016 sector and non-governmental organisations Unst October Scottish Natural Heritage Clarification meeting to discuss issues raised 2016 in 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 April 2017 Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open door event held at the Shetland sector and non-governmental organisations Museum, Lerwick April 2017 Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open door event held at the Shetland sector and non-governmental organisations Museum, Lerwick April 2017 Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open door event held in Cullivoe Hall, Yell sector and non-governmental organisations April 2017 Legitimate sea users, SHEPD customers, public Open door event held in Baltasound Hall, sector and non-governmental organisations Unst
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;
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 22
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. The cable route from Mossbank, mainland Shetland, to Yell has a small discrete footprint in Yell Sound. 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 significant1: Protected sites and species associated with those sites; Physical environment; Benthic and intertidal ecology; and Other species, including mammals, fish, shorebirds and otters. Fisheries and other sea users are considered in the FLMAP and are not discussed further in this document.
1 Note: The 2017 changes to EIA legislation give effect to the amended European Union EIA Directive (1), which clarifies that ‘population and human health’ factors should be included in the environmental topics considered by EIA. As a result of the limited scale of the proposed activities and, given that the proposed activities are routine and are well-controlled by Industry- standard procedures, no potential impacts on public health have been identified. Therefore, no further discussion on population and human health factors is presented herein.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 23
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 Yell Sound Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Figure 2-3). The site, which extends along the coast within the Yell Sound, is designated for the presence of harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and European otter (Lutra lutra), both listed on the Annex II of EU Habitats Directive.
2.2 Consultation SHEPD has undertaken consultation with statutory and non-statutory bodies. Correspondence of relevance to ecologically protected sites is summarised below in Table 2-1 (taken directly from the written correspondence). Table 2-1 Consultation Summary
Consultee Consultation Comment
Ecological protected sites
The Yell Sound Coast SAC designation protects otter and harbour seal populations. Otter surveys are required at Yell shore end and at Samphrey if crossing the area. Scottish Pre-Application Around Samphrey are a number seal, otter, storm petrel, Artic Natural Consultation events terns and other sea bird populations, so locals have asked to Heritage 16th to 18th August be considerate of their breeding seasons when installing, (SNH) 2016, Shetland islands protecting or surveying cables. Otter populations at the cable landing point on Yell were also of local interest. Also, harbour seal pupping and haul out sites require a 500 m separation distance between the working area and the pupping/haul out sites boundaries.
In terms of the SPA designation, there could be an impact on red-throated diver breeding season April to mid-September. Avoiding these times means that there is unlikely to have significant impact on site integrity.
Scottish Pre-Application This SAC designation is for common seal and otters. The Natural Consultation event, 5th otter population means that if crossing Samphrey and on Yell Heritage October 2016, shore end would require Otter surveys. There is survey (SNH) Inverness 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.
Common seals pupping and haul out is June-Aug and 500m from haul out zone boundary
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 24
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. The closest NCMPA is the Fetlar to Haroldswick NCMPA, located 11.4 km north-east of the Yell landfall (Table 2-2). The site is protected for the following features: Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) (breeding); Circalittoral sand and coarse sediments; Horse mussel beds; Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediments; Maerl beds; Shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves; Geomorphology of the Scottish shelf seabed (SNH, 2014). Horse mussel beds, 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 (11.4 km), impacts on these protected features are highly unlikely. The black guillemot is protected during the breeding season (May to July) within the NCMPA, when they spend more time ashore at the nesting sites (Ewins, 1985). The recorded foraging range for this species is 55 km (Scottish Government, 2011), therefore this species is likely to forage within the Project area. However, the small discrete footprint of the proposed works and the temporary, short- term nature of the proposed works between Yell and Mossbank landfalls mean that impacts on breeding black guillemot are 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 (JNCC, 2009). There are currently 10 SACs in Shetland that are designated for the presence of Annex I habitats and Annex II species, six of which have a marine component: Yell Sound Coast, Papa Stour, Sullom Voe, The Vadills, Mousa and Fair Isle. The closest offshore SAC to the Project are is the Yell Sound Coast SAC, as the Yell landfall is located within the site. The features that are primary reasons for designating these sites are presented below in Table 2-2. Scotland is recognised as a stronghold for the otter in Europe, and is the most significant terrestrial mammal in Shetland. Along with harbour seal, the Yell Sound Coast SAC has been designated for the presence of European otter (L. lutra). The site supports approximately 80 otters with the highest densities in Britain, thus representing 2.5% of the UK population. One sighting of otter (L. lutra) has been recorded approximately 600 m north-west of the proposed Yell landfall in June 2012 (NBN Atlas, 2018). An otter survey was undertaken at the Mossbank landfall by the Shetland Amenity Trust (SAT) and revealed that active holts are located over 100 m from the proposed works at Mossbank landfall, therefore impacts are likely to be limited to temporary disturbance of commuting and feeding otters in the area (Figure 2-1) (ERM, 2018). However, otter activity was high at the Yell landfall, with three otter holts recorded at 3.25 m, 4 m and 23 m to the west of the proposed trenching works. Two of these holts are complex and highly active, with numerous holes identified and abundant spraints (Figure 2-2) (ERM, 2018). However, several mitigation measures are proposed to avoid otter holts. The proposed cable routes between Mossbank and Yell remain flexible in the design route such that the 100 m wide working corridor in the onshore section (± 50 m from the centre of the cable routes) and the 500 m corridor (± 250 m) in the offshore section would allow for micro-routing and avoidance of known holt locations.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 25
An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) would most likely be present on site to ensure that buffer areas are enforced and check any new otter activity. If there are any activities close to areas of high otter density, as found during the SAT survey at the cable landfalls, a Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) will also monitor for the presence of otters in the water, and delay the start of the activities if any are observed within 100 m of the vessels. Considering the mitigation measures to avoid otter holts and prevent disturbance of otters whilst in the water, and that otters are known to accommodate a discrete, and short-term disturbance (the proposed works are expected to extend over approximately 30 days), with otter activity being high in the wider Yell Sound Coast SAC, no significant impact on otters are expected. The Yell Sound Coast SAC is the only designated site with potential for any connectivity with the proposed Project.
Figure 2-1 Otter holts recorded at the Mossbank landfall (ERM, 2018)
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 26
Figure 2-2 Otter holts recorded at the Yell landfall (ERM, 2018)
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 27
Figure 2-3 Protected areas in the vicinity of the Project
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 28
Table 2-2 SACs and NCMPAs located in the vicinity of the Project area
Distance and Potential connectivity Site name Description and qualifying features direction from Project with the Project Yes Yell Sound Otter (L. lutra) The Yell landfall is The landfall at Yell may be Coast SAC Harbour seal (P. vitulina) located within this site. used by otters and harbour seals. No Sullom Voe Large shallow inlets and bays (Annex I 2.6 km NW of Proposed activities will not SAC habitat) Mossbank landfall impact this site. Black guillemot C. grylle (breeding) No Circalittoral sand and coarse sediments Proposed activities will not impact this site. Horse mussel beds Fetlar to Kelp and seaweed communities on 11.4 km NE of Yell Haroldswick sublittoral sediments landfall NCMPA Maerl beds Shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves Geomorphology of the Scottish shelf seabed No The Vadills 24.4 km SW of Yell Coastal lagoons (Annex I habitat) Proposed activities will not SAC landfall impact this site. No Pobie Bank Annex I Reefs 34.5 km E of the Reef SAC replacement cable Proposed activities will not route impact this site.
2.3.2 Special Areas of Conservation (SPAs) and Ramsar sites The waters around Shetland 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 Shetland Islands, there are 12 designated SPAs, 11 of which protect seabirds with a marine component. The closest SPA to the Project area is the Fetlar SPA, located approximately 11 km to the north-east of the Yell landfall. The Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla field SPA is located approximately 28 km to the north of the Project area, Papa Stour SPA 29 km to the south-west, Noss SPA 33 km to the south-east, and Foula SPA is located 55 km to the south-west (see Figure 2-3). There is also a proposed SPA in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cable route, the East Mainland Coast proposed SPA (pSPA), which stretches from Fish Holm and Lunna Ness in the north southwards and encompasses Whalsay to the north coast of Bressay. This pSPA is located directly to the south-east of the proposed cable route between Mossbank and Samphrey. The designation of this site as an SPA is proposed for the presence of the following Annex I bird species: Great northern diver (Gavia immer) (non-breeding); Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) (breeding); and Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus) (non-breeding). It also supports migratory populations of European importance of common eider (Somateria mollissima), long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), and red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator).
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 29
The red-throated diver typically breeds in small waterbodies within areas of open moorland, and nesting occurs in lightly forested areas (JNCC, 2012). Its breeding season extends from April to mid- September (SNH, 2009). Since the works are currently planned to occur sometime during the period between October 2018 and March 2019, the breeding season for red-throated diver will be avoided and any disturbances to these birds during breeding season are unlikely. The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas is a free online tool which reports species and habitat sightings from multiple sources of information. A search was performed using a 1 km buffer for each of the proposed cable landfall points. Of the species that are features of the East Mainland Coast pSPA, the search at Mossbank returned a total of 47 red-throated divers, 10 common eiders, seven red-breasted mergansers, four long-tailed ducks and three great northern divers were recorded. At Yell, the NBN Atlas search returned five records of common eider and three records of red-breasted merganser (NBN Atlas, 2018). In the context of an ornithological monitoring programme in Shetland, winter counts of sea duck and diving seabirds are conducted every year. Table 2-3 presents the counts of wintering birds that are features of the East Mainland Coast pSPA, recorded in the last five winters. Winter counts of great northern diver are low in the southern Yell Sound area, with eight individuals recorded in winter 2017/2018 and a maximum of 12 individuals were recorded in the last five winters (Table 2-3). The Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan (SIMSP) shows a single record of a small flock of great-northern diver at the southern entrance of the Yell Sound (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). Winter counts of common eider were also low in the last three winters (Table 2-3). There is a single record of Slavonian grebe in the southern islands of the Yell Sound in winter 2017/2018 as shown in Table 2-3 (Heubeck et al., 2018), and there are no records of flocks in the vicinity of the proposed works, the nearest being in the north of Fetlar, over 22 km north-west (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). The SIMSP shows that two flocks of red-breasted merganser of medium size were recorded to the north of Mossbank, however this species is well distributed around the mainland Shetland coastline, with the largest flocks of the Yell Sound observed at Sullom Voe, 5 km to the north of the proposed cable route (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). A single individual red-breasted merganser was observed around the southern Yell Sound island in the winter 2017/2018, and up to 12 individuals were recorded in the last five winters in that area which encompasses the Project area. In comparison, 97 individuals were recorded at Sullom Voe in winter 2017/2018 in the centre of the Yell Sound (Table 2-3) (Heubeck et al., 2018). Long-tailed duck was the only species showing high numbers of individuals in the southern Yell Sound area, with 80 individuals recorded in the last winter (Table 2-3). However, the SIMSP does not show any records of flocks in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cable route. The large numbers of individuals recorded in the southern Yell Sound area in the last five years may be linked to two large flocks noted by the SIMSP to the south of Linga (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015).
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 30
Table 2-3 Counts of wintering birds features of the East Mainland Coast pSPA around the Southern Yell Sound islands (Heubeck et al., 2018)
Wintering bird Winter Winter Winter Winter Winter features of the East 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 Mainland Coast pSPA Common eider 57 83 21 13 9 Long-tailed duck 73 82 23 90 80 Red-breasted 5 12 2 4 1 merganser Great northern diver 2 2 4 12 8 Slavonian grebe 4 1 0 0 1 Although it is possible that the migratory species that are listed in the conservation objectives of the East Mainland Coast pSPA occur within the Project area, the low occupancy of the Project area by these species, with the small, discrete area impacted and the short-term nature of the proposed works will not result in significant impacts on these species. Therefore, the proposed cable installation activities between Mossbank and Yell will not compromise the objectives of the East Mainland Coast pSPA. There is one Ramsar site designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance for wetland habitats and wetland species in Shetland, the Ronas Hill-North Roe and Tingon site (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). However, given the distance to this protected wetland from the Project area (12 km north-west), 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 (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 2-4. The majority of sites are located at a significant distance from the area of works (closest 2.5 m north-west) and vessels associated with the Project will not be present in the waters adjacent to these sites. Harbour seal density is estimated as medium along the majority of the proposed cable route, between 5 and 10 animals per 25 km2 (Jones et al., 2015). A small section of the cable route near the Mossbank landfall is within an area of high harbour seal density, with over 100 animals per 25 km2 (Jones et al., 2015). Harbour seal are known to occur in the vicinity of the Yell landfall (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015), which led to the designation of the Yell Sound Coast SAC as shown in Table 2-2 in Section 2.3. Grey seal density is estimated as low (1 - 5 animals per 25 km2) along the majority of the proposed cable route, with a small section of the cable route near the Mossbank landfall, located within an area of medium grey seal density (5 - 10 animals per 25 km2) (Jones et al., 2015). The area of higher harbour seal and grey seal densities at Mossbank landfall is not located within any seal haul-out site, the closest to the Project area being located 2.5 km to the north-west as shown in Table 2-2.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 31
Table 2-4 Seal haul outs located in the vicinity of the Project area (NMPI, 2018)
Site name Designated features Distance by sea from the Project Sligga Skerry & North End of 2.5 km NW Bigga Seal haul-out Skerries of Neapaback Seal haul- 2 7.5 km NE out Grey seal 3 Tinga Skerry Seal haul-out Harbour seal 5.4 km NW Little Roe Seal haul-out 5.7 km NW Lamba Seal haul-out 7 km NW Nationally important sites include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are 78 SSSIs in Shetland, including 31 for marine biological features and 36 coastal sites for geological and morphological features, although five of these the geological interest does not extend down to mean high water springs (MHWS) (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). A further two geological sites are within 100 m of MHWS (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). The closest SSSI is the Yell Sound Coast SSSI, covering the same area as the Yell Sound Coast SAC presented in Table 2-2, thus also located within the Project area at the Yell landfall. This site is designated as SSSI for the presence of the otter (L. lutra). The North Feltar SSSI is located over 18 km north-east of the Project area, and is designated for a breeding seabird assemblage comprising Arctic tern, Arctic skua, great skua, red-necked phalarope and whimbrel, and for harbour and grey seal. There are eight RSPB Reserves in Shetland, the closest of which is Yell (13 km north) (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. Additionally, there are 49 designated Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) in Shetland, highlighting sites with natural heritage features considered of national importance. However, there are no LNCS with marine components occurring within the immediate vicinity of the Project area, the closest being located approximately 4 km north-west from the Yell landfall and protecting geodiversity (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015).
2 Grey seal foraging rage is typically over 100 km (SCOS, 2014). 3 Harbour seal foraging range is typically 40 – 50 km (SCOS, 2014).
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 32
Figure 2-4 Designated seal haul outs in the vicinity of the Project (NMPI, 2018)
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 33
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 below summarise 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
There is not considered to be the potential for Likely Significant Effects (LSE) on harbour seals from the Yell Sound SAC that may be present in the Project area due to the following: Marine (vessel) activities will be temporary (approximately 30 days); Slow speed of vessels (maximum of few knots per hour) will minimise disturbance impacts; Pre-construction surveys undertaken to confirm Harbour seals and otters presence or absence of otters in the vicinity of the from this SAC could landfall works; potentially be present in the An ECoW will ensure distance to otter holts is at Project area and be least 30 m from the proposed works, and will look Yell Coast SAC – temporarily disturbed by for any evidence of new otter activity; Harbour seal and vessel presence and noise. Potential for accidental release of pollutants is very otter interests Risk from accidental low; pollution e.g. from oil In the event that potential impacts on otters at the seepage, hydraulic fluid cable landfall cannot be avoided, any disturbance release, vessel fuel release will require a European Protected Species (EPS) licence and specific mitigation implemented in order to minimise impacts, such as the implementation of an otter species protection plan; Implementation of a Marine Mammal Protection Plan (MMPP), which will include a 100 m mitigation zone for seals; Vessel SOPEP details procedures and description of actions to be taken in the event of an oil pollution incident; Operating instructions in place for all hazardous substances including hydraulic oil. There is not considered to be the potential for Likely Significant Effects (LSE) on red-throated diver as the st Temporary and short term proposed works will occur between 1 October 2018 st physical disturbance / and 31 March 2019, which is outside of their breeding displacement of breeding season (April – mid September). red-throated diver and non- There is no potential for LSE on the non-breeding breeding waterfowls (great waterfowls which are protected within this site due to the northern diver, Slavonian following: East Mainland Coast grebe, common eider, long- pSPA tailed duck and red- Marine (vessel) activities will be temporary breasted merganser) due to (approximately 30 days); vessel presence and noise Slow speed of vessels (maximum of few knots per (offshore) and presence of hour) will minimise disturbance impacts; heavy machinery and Potential for accidental release of pollutants is very vehicles at landfall. low. Vessel SOPEP details procedures and description Accidental fuel release. of actions to be taken in the event of an oil pollution incident; and Operating instructions in place for all hazardous
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 34
Environmental Management and mitigation and overall impact Potential impacts receptor significance
substances including hydraulic oil.
No potential for significant impacts on seals, due to: SHEPD will ensure the Contractor is aware of the Scottish Government advice and responsible behaviour around designated seal haul outs which states “New activities taking place near seal haul-outs, which present no Grey and harbour seals Sligga Skerry & significant disturbance to the seals, or where could be disturbed from North End of Bigga the disturbance is low level (a few seals) and/or their haul due to activities in designated seal haul short term (over a short time period), will adjacent waters – however out for protection for normally be acceptable. This may require the vessels involved in the grey and harbour some monitoring of the seals to avoid the risk decommissioning works will seals coming ashore of potentially causing a significant proportion of not require to move this far to rest, moult or seals on a haul-out site to leave that site either from the work area during breed (2.5 km to more than once or repeatedly or, in the worst the decommissioning north west of the cases, to abandon it permanently.” activities and therefore no Project) (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00452869. impacts are predicted pdf); In the event that potential impacts on seals at the cable landfall cannot be avoided, any disturbance will require an EPS licence and specific mitigation implemented in order to minimise impacts.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 35
3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING SEABED CONDITIONS)
3.1 Introduction This section of the report provides detail on the physical environment 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.
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 Shetland climate. The mean wind speed is 6.5 – 7.5 m/s during the year, with gales occurring on an average of 58 days per year. During the period 1965- 1973, 75% of the time the hourly mean wind speed was more than 4.25 m/s, and for 0.1% of the time it was more than 21.5 m/s, which are the highest wind speed values recorded in Britain. Predominant winds come from south and west, and there is a pronounced minimum for easterly winds. Northerly winds are commonest in summer and southerly winds in winter (Barne et al., 1997). Tidal streams around the Shetland Islands generally move southwards on the flood tide, and northwards on the ebb, at speeds ranging between 0.5 to 1.25 m/s. In some places, notably the Yell Sound where the proposed Mossbank to Yell cable route is located, Muckle Flugga, Linga Sound,
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 36
Bluemull Sound and near Sumburgh Head, tidal streams can reach considerably higher velocities up to 4 m/s (Barne et al., 1997; Wolf et al., 2015). The tides in the Shetland Islands are the result of interaction between the two independent tidal systems in the North Atlantic and the North Sea. The mean spring tidal range is approximately 1.5 m in Shetland, with variations in the tidal bays and enclosed areas (Barne et al., 1997). The coastline of Shetland offers a wide range of exposure, with the west coast of Shetland being exposed to much stronger wave action than most of the Scottish coast. The mean significant wave height recorded 10% of the time directly to the west coast of Shetland was 3.0 m, and 2.5 m to the east coast. However, 75% of the time mean wave height 1.5 m to the west of Shetland and was 0.5 m directly to the east (Barne et al., 1997). The Shetland Islands are surrounded by waters with salinity exceeding 35 g / kg in both winter and summer, reflecting the Atlantic Ocean origin of these waters. The land area is too small for freshwater runoffs to have significant impacts on salinity, dilution of waters only occurring in surface waters in enclosed areas during periods of heavy rain (Barne et al., 1997). The mean surface temperature in summer is 12.5°C along the east coast of the Shetland islands. In winter, mean surface temperature to the south of Shetland is 7.0°C, and 7.5°C in waters surrounding the northern islands of Shetland (Barne et al., 1997). The seabed slopes steeply away from the mainland and the northern islands of Shetland to 80 m depth, marking the base of the submerged Shetland hillsides and the limit of the islands as a feature on the continental shelf. Beyond 10 km from the islands the sea floor lies more than 100 m below mean sea level, with local depression exceeding 140 m depth (Barne et al., 1997). SHEPD previously commissioned Briggs to conduct marine surveys centred within a 1,000 m corridor centred on the existing cable route between Mossbank and Yell, in order to identify seabed conditions, potential geological constraints or hazards, and areas of ecological importance (ESG, 2015). The survey consisted of the deployment of multi beam echo sounder (MBES), single channel marine seismic reflection profiling, Hamon grab sampling of sediments, and topographic survey of the beach landings to the high-water position. From the Mossbank shoreline, the route gradually increased to reach a depth of 35 m at approximately 800 m from Mossbank, before gradually reducing in depth closer to Samphrey. At approximately 1,500 m from the Mossbank shoreline the water depth reduced to less than 5 m. Beyond Samphrey heading towards Yell water depth was approximately 20 m between 2,000 – 2,400 m from Mossbank, before gradually reducing to a maximum water depth of 51 m at 2,800 – 3,200 m from Mossbank, prior to steadily reducing in depth up to the Yell shoreline (ESG, 2015). Figure 3-1 shows the bathymetry along the proposed cable route.
Potential impacts and mitigation and management measures with regards to the physical environment are summarised in Table 3-1.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 37
Figure 3-1 Bathymetry along the existing and proposed cable routes (ESG, 2015)
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 38
3.5 Potential impacts 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. 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 No potential impacts and hydrology N/a
Increased suspended sediment No potential for significant impacts on water quality, in the water column over the due to: short period of the underwater activities resulting from cable Underwater activities will be temporary (approximately installation activities where 30 days) and any increase in suspended sediments trenching may occur in the will quickly revert back to background levels; and intertidal areas (the length of cable within the intertidal area All cable landfall works undertaken in line with is estimated to be 22 m at standard best practice and general environmental Mossbank and 36 m at Yell) management plans provided by SHEPD. Water quality No potential for significant impacts on water quality, due to:
Pollution prevention measures in place; Risk from accidental pollution e.g. from oil seepage, hydraulic Potential for accidental release of pollutants is very fluid release, vessel fuel low. Vessel SOPEP details procedures and 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.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 39
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. There are no records of marine and coastal habitats as listed in Annex I of the Directive within 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. These are also designated features of the Fetlar to Haroldswick NCMPA, located 11.4 km NE of Yell landfall.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 40
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 Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan The Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan (SIMSP) provides an overarching policy framework to guide marine development and activity. This SIMSP is based on Scottish Ministers’ commitment to making marine management more efficient, inclusive and accessible. Areas of constraint and/or opportunities for development have been identified in order to reduce potential conflicts between marine activities and encourage co-existence between multiple users. The SIMSP aims at providing an approach to the management of the sea around Shetland; facilitating an integrated and better informed decision- making process regarding the future distribution of activities and resources; and enabling the long- term protection and use of the marine environment. Section 4 of the SIMSP sets out the legislative requirements that need to be considered for any development proposal. This section covers marine and works licences, planning permission, controlled activity regulation (CAR) authorisation, seabed agreement for lease, electricity regulations, EIA, cumulative impacts and consultation with stakeholders. Section 5 of the SIMSP sets out a number of general policies that ensure that the SIMSP is contributing to the high-level government targets that are supporting a clean and safe, healthy and diverse, and productive marine environment. Those that are most relevant to this Project include: underwater noise, navigational safety, cables and pipelines, climate change, coastal defence and flood protection, protected species, nature conservation designations, marine recreation and invasive non-native species.
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 (taken directly from the written correspondence). Table 4-1 Consultation Summary
Consultee Consultation Comment
28th November 2016, SEPA SEPA has no objection to this application and in this instance, has Perth no site-specific advice or comment to make;
SNH advised that they have no benthic data along the cable route 5th October 2016, but expect to see horse mussel beds there; SNH Inverness Benthic surveys will be required along the cable route to inform the ecology of the route.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 41
4.4 Benthic and intertidal ecology description This section provides an initial desk-based assessment of the intertidal and benthic habitats along the proposed cable route corridor. This is based on published resources as the collection of seabed survey data is ongoing (marine surveys scheduled for May to June 2018), therefore this assessment will be reviewed once survey data have been obtained in order to better quantify existing and/or identify further impacts and mitigation measures.
4.4.1 Subtidal area Rocky shores in Yell Sound range from steep exposed bedrock to more gradually sloping and extremely sheltered bedrock, boulders and cobbles. The most exposed sites are dominated by barnacle species and mussels in mid-shore, with patches of red algae. The sublittoral fringe comprises kelps, with many areas supporting fucoid algae. The seabed in the centre of Yell Sound has been previously described as mixed substrata of bedrock outcrops, cobbles, pebbles and coarse sand, dominated by horse mussels and brittle stars, with other echinoderms and hydroids (Barne et al., 1997). The EUSeaMap 2016 is a broad-scale seabed habitat map covering European waters, which uses the European Nature Information System (EUNIS) habitat classification and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) predominant habitat classification systems (NMPI, 2018). This map allowed identifying predominant habitat types in the subtidal area of the Project between the Mossbank and Yell landfalls (Figure 4-1). In the subtidal area off the Mossbank landfall, the proposed cable route passes through large areas of infralittoral and circalittoral rock and biogenic reef, with the section of the cable between Yell and offshore of Samphrey crossing an area mainly composed of mixed sediments and coarse sediment habitat (Figure 4-1). High energy infralittoral rock and biogenic reef habitats typically occur on extremely wave-exposed to exposed bedrock and boulders subject to tidal streams ranging from strong to very strong. The proposed cable route is located in an area of strong tidal streams which can reach velocities up to 4 m/s as described in Section 3.4. This habitat typically supports a community of kelp (Laminaria hyperborea) with foliose seaweeds and animals, the latter tending to become more prominent in areas of strongest water movement. Kelp communities are known to occur along a section of the proposed cable route from Mossbank towards Samphrey (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). 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 (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). There are no designated conservation sites that protect biogenic reefs and kelp communities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cable route, the nearest NCMPA being the Fetlar to Haroldswick NCMPA, located 11.4 km NE of Yell landfall, which protects kelp beds and reef forming species including horse mussel beds and maerl beds. Given the distance, any impacts on kelp communities protected within this NCMPA are unlikely, therefore the conservation objectives of the Fetlar to Haroldswick NCMPA are not compromised by the proposed works. During the CBRA survey conducted along the proposed cable route in 2015, rockheads were identified to be exposed over the majority of the crossing with only a few discrete areas of shallow surface sediments predominantly within the bays. Out of the 12 sediment grabs that were conducted, only four sediment samples were recovered and allowed for particle size analysis. This reflects the low sediment coverage on the seabed along the proposed cable route. These samples revealed the presence of coarse sand with gravel and shell fragments. One of the sediment samples was described as slightly silty medium and coarse sand (ESG, 2015). The proportion of sand recorded in these samples ranged between 59% and 92%, with 5% to 36% of gravel, and clay proportion ranged between 1% and 8%. The benthic fauna in the vicinity of the Yell Sound varies with the seabed types. Epifaunal cover is typically extensive, with almost all exposed surfaces colonised by hydroid turf, sponge and bryozoan mats. Where cobbles and boulders were part buried in sand, hydroid turf was the predominant fauna.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 42
The hard seabed was typified by a range of motile animals such as sea urchins, starfish, brittle stars, and squat lobsters. With the exception of kelp there are no other known PMFs in the vicinity of the Project area, particularly reef-forming species such as horse mussel beds or cold-water corals, or any maerl beds (NMPI, 2018; NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). The nearest horse mussel bed record is located 2 km north-west of the proposed cable route, to the south of the island of Bigga (NMPI, 2018). Horse mussel beds are also designated as Annex I habitats under the biogenic reef designation. There are records of the bivalve mollusc ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) within the Yell Sound, with the nearest record to the proposed cable route located 5 km north-west, therefore impacts on this feature of conservation importance are unlikely. A. islandica is on the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species (OSPAR, 2008).
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 43
Figure 4-1 Broad-scale seabed habitat classification in the vicinity of the Project area (NMPI, 2018)
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 44
4.4.2 Intertidal areas 4.4.2.1 Mossbank From the Briggs survey carried out in 2015 along the proposed cable route, rocky shores were identified at the Mossbank intertidal area (ESG, 2015). The proposed cable landfall at Mossbank is a low-lying sand/shingle beach that may potentially support the Annex I habitat 'vegetated shingle' (Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3). The Shetland Oil Terminal Environmental Advisory Group (SOTEAG) monitors the rocky shores of the area surrounding the Sullom Voe Terminal in the Yell Sound. The survey conducted in 2017 comprised survey stations at Croo Taing, located approximately 5 km north-west of the Mossbank landfall, on the mainland Shetland's coast. The species that were recorded as abundant on the shore at Croo Taing were the wrack (Fucus serratus), the rough periwinkle (Littorina saxatilis), amphipods, the polychaete (Spirorbinae), the red algae family Corallinaceae and tar lichen (Verrucaria maura). Sporelings of the kelp family Laminaria were recorded as 'occasional' at this site. There were no Annex I species or habitats, species and habitats listed by OSPAR (2008), or Scottish PMFs recorded on shore at Croo Taing in 2017 (Heubeck et al., 2018).
Figure 4-2 Mossbank shoreline looking West
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 45
Figure 4-3 Mossbank shoreline looking East
4.4.2.2 Yell The western shore of Yell is very exposed, with most shores being rocky and backed with high cliffs, though there are numerous sandy beaches. Site investigations on Yell have identified a low-lying shingle beach at the Yell landfall, that may potentially support the Annex I habitat 'vegetated shingle' (ERM, 2018). Photographs taken near the Yell landfall show the rocky nature of the coastline, which is backed by a peat grassland (Figure 4-4).
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 46
Figure 4-4 Photographs of the Yell landfall
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 47
4.5 Potential impacts to benthic and intertidal ecology
4.5.1 Potential impacts during cable installation Potential impacts that arise from cable installation activities are presented in Table 4-2. Due to the 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 either rock filter bags or concrete mattresses on the cable to pin it 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, whilst each concrete mattress has a footprint of 3.0 m x 6.0 m. A maximum of 80 rock filter bags/concrete mattresses will be placed at roughly 50 m intervals within the marine environment. Therefore, the footprint of concrete mattresses has been used as a worst-case scenario to calculate the total footprint of the Project. From Mossbank shoreline, concrete mattresses/rock filter bags will be placed on the cable at roughly 50 m intervals to maximise the protection in an area of strong tidal currents. Cable burial will be undertaken in the Mossbank and Yell intertidal areas where sediments allow open-cut trenching. However, this will not be possible along the whole length of the cable within the intertidal areas, therefore the cable will be surface laid with additional cast iron protection along a maximum of 100 m at each landfall. At this stage, the actual length of cable which will be buried and surface laid with additional cast iron protection is unknown, therefore the maximum lengths of cable for each installation type have been used to estimate the total footprint. 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 4-anchor system, with each anchor and chain impact 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 chains are 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 anchors, 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 North cable route between Mossbank and Yell is 0.14 2 km .
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 48
Table 4-2 Seabed disturbance from cable installation works
Section of Habitat type Assumptions made in Area of South cable calculation of area disturbance Nature of seabed 2 disturbance disturbed (m )
Between Cable burial in Low-lying sand and Trenching within 582 MHWS and open-cut trench shingle beach intertidal area at MLWS (potential Annex I Mossbank (22.3m) 'vegetated shingle') and Yell (35.9m);
10 m wide working corridor
Between Surface laid cable High energy Maximum of 200 m 28.6 MLWS and with cast iron infralittoral rock cast iron shells (100 MHWS at protection, where m at each landfall); each shore cable burial cannot be Cable diameter is 127 achieved mm;
Cast iron shells have 8 mm wall thickness.
Intertidal Surface laying of High energy Surface laying along 1,872 areas at cable with up to 80 infralittoral rock 3,400 m; Mossbank to concrete Yell mattresses/rock Cable diameter is 127 filter bags mm;
80 concrete mattresses/rock filter bags with a maximum footprint of 6 m x 3 m.
Nearshore DSV anchoring High energy 4-anchor system, 141,300 areas system infralittoral rock each anchor and chain impact an arc of 45° and 150 m radius; and
4 deployments at each landfall. Total area of disturbance (m2) 143,782 Total area of disturbance (km2) 0.14
4.5.2 Potential impacts during cable operation and maintenance The rock bags placed on either side 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
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 49
passes through areas defined as potential nursery grounds for three elasmobranch species of commercial importance: common skate (Dipturus batis), spotted ray (Raja montagui) and spurdog (Squalus acanthias). However, the intensity of use of the nursery ground encompassing the Project area is low (Ellis et al., 2012), as described in Section 5.4.4. 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 above and in Table 4-3 below summarises potential impacts on each receptor as a result of the Project. Table 4-3 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 (0.14 km2); Consideration for use of mid-line buoys to keep the DSV anchor chains off the seabed as much as possible: Seabed disturbance from Intertidal and subtidal physical interaction with the Anchor moves will be minimised as far as ecology seabed, shoreline and their possible; associated habitats Cable installation activities will be short-term (approximately 30 days) 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.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 50
5 MARINE MAMMALS, FISH, BIRDS AND OTTERS
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. Impacts on otters and seals are also considered in Section 2 – Ecological Protected Sites as Yell Coast SAC qualifying features.
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 2-1 in Section 2.2 (taken directly from the written correspondence).
5.4 Receptor description
5.4.1 Cetaceans 5.4.1.1 Overview All species of cetacean (whale, dolphin, porpoise) occurring in UK waters are listed in Annex IV (species of community interest in need of strict protection) of the Habitats Directive as European Protected Species
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 51
(EPS) and fully protected in Scottish territorial waters (out to 12 nautical miles) under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise are also listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive and thus require the SAC designation. 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) (NMPI, 2017; Reid et al., 2003). The most sighted species in the waters around Shetland (North Sea - Block T) during the recent Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea (SCANS III) survey were harbour porpoise, white-beaked dolphin, white-sided dolphin, minke whale and Risso’s dolphin (Hammond et al., 2017). The species present in the vicinity of the Project area in low densities in comparison to other areas of the North Sea are minke whale and white-beaked dolphin. Other species regularly sighted in the area include killer whale, Risso's dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin and long-finned pilot whale (Nature in Shetland, 1994; Seawatch Foundation, undated). The general distribution of the most common species in the UK is as follows; Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise is the most abundant cetacean in Scottish waters (Reid et al. 2003; Hammond et al. 2017). They typically occur in small groups of 2 to 3 individuals but they may aggregate when feeding resources are good and do not appear to migrate (Seawatch foundation, undated). Harbour porpoise occurs on the IUCN Red List for Threatened Species, is listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive, is on the OSPAR list and is also listed as a Scottish Priority Marine Feature (PMF). White-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris White-beaked dolphin are present all year round in the Scottish near-shore waters at depths of 50 - 100 m, but are observed more frequently between June and October (Seawatch foundation, undated). The species occurs in the waters around the northern and central east coast of Scotland and in the central and northern North Sea (Reid et al. 2003; Hammond et al., 2017). They are usually found in small groups of 10 or less, but have also been observed in large groups of 50 and more (Seawatch foundation, undated). White beaked dolphin is listed as a Scottish PMF. Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus In the UK there are two known resident populations of bottlenose dolphins, one of which is in the Moray Firth (north east Scotland) and the other in Cardigan Bay in Wales (north Wales). These populations are typically restricted to the coasts of the regions where these sites are located and individuals from these sites will not be present in the area of the proposed activities. Bottlenose dolphins are usually seen in groups of 2 to 25, and occasionally much larger groups in deeper waters. They occur in near-shore in Scottish waters and the greatest numbers have been observed between July and October, but are present all year long (Seawatch Foundation, undated). Bottlenose dolphin is listed on Annex II of the Habitats directive and is listed as a Scottish PMF. Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke whales are mainly present in Scottish waters in the summer months, both in northern and central east coast of Scotland and in the central and northern North Sea (Reid et al., 2003; Hammond et al., 2017). They prefer water depths of 200 m or less, and are often sighted single or in pairs, and sometimes aggregate into larger groups of up to 15 individuals when feeding. Additionally, they appear to return to the same seasonal feeding grounds (Seawatch Foundation, undated). Minke whale is listed as a Scottish PMF. Killer whale Orcinus orca Killer whales are widely distributed across Scottish waters all year round (Reid et al., 2003). They are seen in both inshore waters (April to October) and the deeper continental shelf (November to March) and appear to move inshore to target seals seasonally. Killer whale is listed as a Scottish PMF.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 52
Risso’s Dolphin Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphins typically form groups of 6-12 individuals in the continental shelf of Scottish waters. They are observed mainly in northern east coast of Scotland and the northern North Sea with most sightings occurring in July and August (Reid et al., 2003; Seawatch Foundation, undated). Risso’s dolphin is listed as a Scottish PMF. Common dolphin Delphinus delphis / Delphinus capensis4 The common dolphin is the name for two species of dolphin, short-beaked and long beaked dolphin, which are often grouped together. The species often occur in groups of 5-20 individuals and are commonly sighted off south-west Scotland to the Isle of Skye (Seawatch Foundation, undated). Sightings usually peak in May to July and decline August onwards (Reid et al., 2003). D. delphis is listed as Scottish PMF. The following sections provide a summary of the most common species in the Project area; 5.4.1.2 Harbour porpoise Nature in Shetland (1994) reports that harbour porpoise is the most common cetacean in Shetland, which is expected as it is also the most common cetacean in UK waters (NMPI, 2018; Hammond et al., 2017; Reid et al., 2003). The relative abundance of cetaceans between 1979 and 1997 provided by the NMPI (2018) show that harbour porpoise is the only species present in high densities in the Project area, these densities remaining high across the entire south coast and medium to high along the east coast of Shetland. Harbour porpoise has been observed in specific locations along the east coast of Shetland including Yell Sound and Bluemull Sound (Nature in Shetland, 1994). The species has been sighted in the vicinity of the cable route (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). The SCANS-III density estimate for harbour porpoise in waters around Shetland is 0.402 animals per km2. This is slightly higher than the average density across the entire survey area (0.351 animals per km2). Reid et al. (2003) found harbour porpoise to be present in Shetland during all months except February, November and December, peaking in distribution in July with an abundance of 1- 10 individuals/h in all Shetland waters and peaking in abundance in January with an abundance of 10-100 individuals/h along the mid-east coast of Shetland. 5.4.1.3 White-beaked dolphin White-beaked dolphin is particularly common along the east coast waters of Shetland with sightings occurring most months of the year, peaking between May and September (Nature in Shetland, 1994; Seawatch, undated). The SCANS-III density estimate for white-beaked dolphin (0.037 animals/ km2), is lower than the average density across the entire survey area (0.30 animals/ km2) (Hammond et al., 2017). Reid et al. (2003) found white-beaked dolphin to be present in southern Shetland at an abundance of 0.01-1 individuals/h in February. In July, the west coast was found to have an abundance of 0.01-10 individuals/h and the east coast had an abundance of 0.01-1 individuals/h. The vicinity of the cable routes was found to have an abundance of 0.01-1.0 individuals/h (Reid et al. 2003). 5.4.1.4 Minke whale Minke whale frequently occurs in the waters around Shetland, often on the east coast, with peak sightings occurring April to November (Nature in Shetland, 1994; Seawatch Foundation, undated). The species has been observed in the area of the Outer Skerries and the Papa Stour to Mainland Shetland cable routes (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). The SCANS-III density estimate for Minke whale (0.032 animals per km2) is higher than the average density across the entire survey area (0.011 animals per km2) (Hammond et al., 2017). Reid et al. (2003) found Minke whale to be present in Shetland June to September. In July, the abundance on the west coast was 0.01-1 individuals/h. In August and September the abundance on the east coast was 0.001-0.01 individuals/h (Reid et al., 2003).
4 Common dolphin is treated as either one or two species depending on the reference used. The NMPI (2018) only includes short beaked common dolphin, The Hebridean Whale and Dolphin trust treats it as two individual species while Reid et al. (2003) and Hammond et al. (2017) treat common dolphin as a single species.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 53
5.4.1.5 Killer whale Killer whale is a common Shetland visitor with most sightings occurring between April and July, however there has also been observed during the winter months (Nature in Shetland, 1994; Seawatch, undated). The species has been sighted in the vicinity of the cable route (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). Reid et al. (2003) found Killer whales to be present in southern Shetland in May at an abundance of 0.01-1 individuals/h and in September at an abundance of 0.001-0.01 individuals/h. Northern Shetland was also found to have an abundance of 0.01-1 individuals/h in May. 5.4.1.6 Risso’s dolphin Risso’s dolphin is widespread and common in Shetland waters with sightings being most common between April and September. Most frequently recorded on the south and east coast of Shetland including Yell Sound and Bluemull Sound, and off the east coast of Unst (Nature in Shetland, 1994). Reid et al. (2003) found Risso’s dolphin to have an abundance of 1-10 individuals/h in northern Shetland in April and 0.01-1 individuals/h in September. 5.4.1.7 Other species Striped dolphin and humpback whale has been sighted in Shetland in the vicinity of the cable route (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). However, these two species have not been reported in the vicinity of the cable routes by Reid et al. (2003) or the NMPI (2018) and thus their presence is viewed as unlikely. 5.4.1.8 Summary Although there is potential for a number of cetacean species to be present along, and in the vicinity of, the cable routes, based on the available information, the areas in which the activities will take place generally exhibit low cetacean density and are not considered to be significant for feeding, breeding, nursery or migrating cetaceans (Hammond et al., 2004; JNCC, 2016; Reid et al., 2003).
5.4.2 Pinnipeds Although not afforded the strict protection of European Protected Species (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. In addition to that they are also listed as Scottish PMFs. 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, 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 between June to July (harbour seals) and October to December (grey seals), during which time seals will be ashore more often than at other times of the year (Hammond et al., 2004). 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.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 54
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 and harbour seal density in the vicinity of the Mossbank to Yell cable route was reported to be between 1 - 10 animals per 25 km2 and 5 and 100 animals per 25 km2 respectively (Jones et al., 2015; NMPI, 2018). Harbour seal are known to occur in the vicinity of the Yell landfall (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015). Recent figures (Duck & Morris, 2014) confirm that 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, in consultation with NERC, are permitted to designate specific seal haul-out sites5 to provide additional protection for seals from intentional or reckless harassment. Section 2 Ecological Protected Sites further describes the conservation areas for pinnipeds.
5.4.3 Otters Otters favour low peat-covered coastlines with a good freshwater supply and shallow, seaweed rich waters offshore. Scotland is recognised as a stronghold for the otter in Europe, and is the most significant terrestrial mammal in Shetland. Otter is a Scottish PMF and listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive. The site supports approximately 80 otters with the highest densities in Britain, representing 2.5% of the UK population. Shetlands Marine National Plan (NAFC Marine Centre, 2015) report that the otter activity at the Mossbank to Yell cable route to be medium to high. One sighting of otter (L. lutra) has been recorded approximately 600 m north-west of the proposed Yell landfall in June 2012 (NBN Gateway, 2018). Otter holts were generally found to be further than 100m from the Mossbank landfall and one otter holt was found within 30m of the proposed Yell landfall (SAT, 2018). Otter conservation, protected sites and mitigation is further discussed in Section 2.
5.4.4 Fish ecology Most fish species are highly mobile and 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 and are considered further here. 5.4.4.1 Spawning grounds and nursery area 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 and potentially vulnerable to seabed disturbance and change. In the UK, Cefas, via Ellis et al. (2012) has published 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
5 Seal haul-outs can be designated for multiple species or just one species of seal. The breeding seal haul-outs within the Project area are specifically for breeding grey seals, whereas the other seal haul-outs are for both grey and harbour seals.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 55
information obtained from ichthyoplankton surveys (surveys to identify the distribution of the planktonic stages of fish eggs) and from fisheries independent groundfish trawl surveys. There are three key species of commercial and conservation importance that may use the seabed in the Project area, either throughout or during spawning season: sandeel (Ammodytidae), lemon sole (Microstomus kitt) and Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) (Coull et al., 1998; Ellis et al., 2012). Coull et al. (1998) reported the area as a spawning ground for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), however the haddock spawning grounds described by Ellis et al. (2012) do not extend over the Project area. Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) has also been reported by Ellis et al. (2012) to spawn in the Project area between February and July, however these appear to be low in intensity. There are five species of sandeels known to occur in the North Sea, with the majority (90%) of the commercial catch made up of the lesser sandeel. Sandeels are shoaling fish which lie buried in the sand during the night, and hunt for prey in mid-water during daylight hours (DECC, 2016). They are restricted to sandy sediments (Holland et al., 2005; DECC, 2016). They feed mainly on planktonic prey such as copepods and crustacean larvae, but they can also consume polychaete worms, amphipods, and small fish including other sandeels. When active, sandeels swim continually in order to remain clear of the bottom (DTI, 2001). Sandeels usually spawn between November and February and lay eggs in clumps on sandy substrates (DECC, 2016). The larvae are pelagic up to approximately two to five months after hatching and are believed to over-winter buried in the sand (DECC, 2016). Sandeel are important not only to commercial fisheries but also are also of ecological significance as they are a vital food source for marine birds and predatory fish (DECC, 2016). According to Mazik, et al. (2015), sandeels are likely to avoid areas with greater than 10% of silt/clay or very fine sand. Although data from both Coull et al. (1998) and Ellis et al. (2012) indicates that sandeel spawning grounds are present throughout the entire Project area, the intensity of sandeel spawning, which occur between November and February, is considered to be low. The seabed within the working corridor is predominatntly rocky and thus sandeels are unlikely to spawn within the Project area. Ellis et al. (2012) has reported the Project area as a high intensity nursery ground for blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou, anglerfish Lophius piscatorius, cod (Gadus morhua) and mackerel (Scomber scombrus). Additionally, the seabed in the Project area appears to be a low intensity nursery grounds for, common skate (Dipturus batis), hake (Merluccius merluccius), herring (Clupea harengus), ling (Molva molva), spotted ray (Raja montagui), spurdog (Squalus acanthias), sandeels and whiting. The following species found in the Project area are Scottish PMFs; anglerfish, blue whiting, cod, skate, herring, ling, mackerel, sandeels, whiting, Norway pout and saithe. The following species are also on the OSPAR list; skate, spotted ray and cod. Table 5-1 Fisheries sensitivities within the Project area (Coull et al., 1998 and Ellis et al., 2012) Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Anglerfish N N N N N N N N N N N N Blue whiting N N N N N N N N N N N N Cod N N N N N N N N N N N N Skate N N N N N N N N N N N N Hake N N N N N N N N N N N N Herring N N N N N N N N N N N N Ling N N N N N N N N N N N N Mackerel N N N N N N N N N N N N Sandeels SN SN N N N N N N N N SN SN Spotted ray N N N N N N N N N N N N Spur dog N N N N N N N N N N N N Whiting N SN SN SN SN SN SN N N N N N Haddock N S*N S*N S*N SN N N N N N N N Lemon sole N N N SN SN SN SN SN SN N N N Norway pout SN S*N S*N SN N N N N N N N N Saithe N N N N N N N N N N N N S = Spawning, N = Nursery, SN = Spawning and Nursery; * = peak spawning ; Shaded = Period of proposed operations, Species =
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 56
High spawning intensity as per Ellis et al, 2012, Species = High nursery intensity as per Ellis et al, 2012; Species = High concentration spawning as per Coull et al., 1998;
5.4.4.2 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 the 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 - fish without a swim bladder (these can only detect kinetic energy – e.g., sharks, common skate complex, mackerel, whiting); Medium sensitivity to noise - fish with a swim bladder that is far from the ear and thus not likely to contribute to pressure reception, so the fish 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 - fish 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). 5.4.4.3 Electro-sensitive species 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 Salmo salar). 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 replacement cable route passes through areas defined as potential nursery grounds for three elasmobranch species: common skate (D. batis), spotted ray (R. montagui) and spurdog (S. acanthias). However, the nursing intensity of these species is considered to be low in this area (Ellis et al., 2012). The common skate is critically endangered according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. 5.4.4.4 Medium and high noise sensitivity species There is some potential for fish species with medium noise sensitivity to be present in the Project area. 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). However, it is uncertain whether Atlantic salmon migrate through the Orkney and Shetland waters or if they prefer the Pentland Firth route or use it exclusively (Malcolm et al., 2010). There are no known salmon rivers in the direct vicinity of the Project area (NMPI, 2018). Atlantic salmon is listed as an OSPAR species, an Annex II species in the Habitats Directive and a PMF, Annex II species and is a Scottish PMF. There is potential for noise sensitive such as herring and cod to be present in the Project area (Coull et al., 1998; Ellis et al., 2012). 5.4.4.5 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
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 57
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. 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 and are classed as Scottish PMF as well as a species on the OSPAR list. Due to their size, slow swimming speeds and preference for swimming in coastal waters during summer months, basking sharks are considered to be at potential risk of collision with installation vessels during 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. Basking sharks seasonally arrive on Scottish shores during spring and leave in autumn. They appear to aggregate in summer to breed, with peak numbers in July and August. They are mainly found around the western isles of Scotland, but at certain times can be found in the northern isles or even on the east coast. The NMPI (2018) reports two sightings of basking shark in the vicinity of the Mossbank to Yell cable route.
5.4.5 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 most likely be undertaken between October 2018 and March 2019, which is out-with the main breeding season (Table 5-2). There is one conservation site for seabirds in the immediate vicinity of the Project area, the East Mainland Coast pSPA. The potential impacts on the features of the East Mainland Coast pSPA and the impact significance are described in Section 2.3.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 58
Table 5-2 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 Lech’s 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
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 59
5.5 Summary of potential impacts Based on the summary of the benthic and intertidal environments provided above Table 5-3 summarises potential impacts on each receptor as a result of the Project. Table 5-3 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 (and pinnipeds), due to
Marine (vessel) activities will only last approximately 30 days; Cetaceans and pinnipeds could Operations to occur outside of the harbour potentially be present in the seal pupping season (June-July); Cetaceans and Project area and experience short Operations will not occur within recognised pinnipeds term physical disturbance / seal haul outs (grey seal and harbour seal); displacement due to vessel Implementation of a Marine Mammal presence (offshore) and noise. Protection Plan (MMPP), incorporating the EPS management plan (to support the EPS Licence); Although no significant impacts are predicted, as there is the potential for disturbance to protected cetacean species an EPS Licence will be applied for. Disturbance to sensitive fish habitats such as spawning and nursery grounds. Project area is No potential for significant impacts on fish and high intensity nursery area for shellfish, due to anglerfish, blue whiting, cod and mackerel. It is also a spawning Marine (vessel) activities will only last ground for sandeels, which are approximately 30 days; benthic spawners. Any seabed disturbance and suspended sediments limited to immediate vicinity of cable retrieval activities; Electro sensitive species (and pinnipeds) could potentially be Project area is extremely small compared to present in the Project area and spawning and nursery areas available; Fish and shellfish experience short term physical No particularly sensitive fish habitats are (including disturbance / displacement due to located in the vicinity of the Project area and elasmobranchs and electromagnetic field (iE) created no high spawning intensity in the vicinity of electro sensitive by subsea cables. the Project area; species) With distance from the cable the field is attenuated and drops off significantly (Gill et al., 2005; DECC, 2011); Low nursing intensity of common skate, spotted ray and spurdog in the Project area;
Collision risk (Basking shark) The mobile nature of basking shark and short duration of cable installation;
Operations will be avoided during summer months basking sharks may be swimming in coastal waters.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 60
Environmental Management and mitigation and overall impact Potential impacts receptor significance
No potential for significant impacts on otters, due to:
Pre-construction surveys undertaken to confirm presence or absence of otters in the vicinity of the landfall works; Otters could be present in the In the event that potential impacts on otters at the area of the landfall works and be cable landfall cannot be avoided, any disturbance disturbed during excavation works will require a European Protected Species (EPS) Otters at the intertidal areas, or when licence and specific mitigation implemented in swimming within the vicinity of the order to minimise impacts; vessels deployed for cable installation works. An EcoW may be present to ensure distance to otter holts is at least 30 m from the proposed works, and to look for new otter activity; Limited duration of cable installation activities; Although otters apparently have no specific breeding season, Kruuk et al. (1987) found that in Shetland a birth peak occurs in June. No potential for significant impacts on shore birds, due to: Breeding and wintering birds could be present in the area of the Avoidance of red-throated diver breeding landfall works and be disturbed by season (April to mid-September), protected Shore birds landfall excavation works when within the East Mainland Coast pSPA that is foraging within the working in the immediate vicinity of the proposed corridor works; and Limited duration of cable installation activities and small area of impact.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 61
6 MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY
6.1 Introduction This chapter describes the key characteristics of the marine historic environment along the replacement cable route between Mossbank in Delting, Mainland and the island of Yell, Shetland (Section 6.5), and presents results from an assessment of potential impacts of the Project on these characteristics (section 6.6). The chapter is a desk study only. Seabed survey data is due to be acquired during 2018 and a review of these data will be undertaken in order to confirm any other potential marine archaeological interests once the data is available. 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
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 62
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.
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 Shetland Local Development Plan 2014 (LDP) contains various policies covering the safeguarding and sustainable management of the historic environment, which includes marine heritage as well as onshore assets. For example, General Policy GP2g that states ‘Development should not adversely affect areas, buildings or structures of archaeological, architectural or historic interest’. Historic Environment Policy HE1 states that there should be a presumption ‘in favour of the protection, conservation and enhancement of all elements of Shetland’s historic environment, which includes buildings, monuments, landscapes and areas’. Historic Environment Policy HE4 includes, as well as the in situ preservation of nationally important cultural heritage resources in an appropriate setting, the policy that ‘All other significant archaeological resources should be preserved in situ wherever feasible. Where preservation in situ is not possible the planning authority should ensure that developers undertake appropriate archaeological excavation, recording, analysis, publication and archiving in advance of and/ or during development.' The Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan 2015 (SIMSP) has been adopted as non-statutory supplementary planning guidance and policy framework by Shetland Islands Council and is a material consideration in the determination of relevant planning applications. This contains similar policies and principles as the LDP, specifically for marine and coastal heritage. The SIMSP recognises that there is potential for the discovery of new sites on the seabed, which itself is of possible paleoenvironmental interest, especially areas that were once dry land, where there is potential for buried deposits of archaeological interest.
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 ;
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 63
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. The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee and Crown Estate. (2006). Maritime Cultural Heritage & Seabed Development: JNAPC Code of Practice for Seabed Development. York: CBA; 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. Correspondence of relevance to marine archaeology is summarised below in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Consultation
Date and type of Consultee Issues raised consultation
With regard to the way that marine archaeological features are 25th April 2017, Open detailed within marine GIS systems, they are often at the nearest Shetland Door at Shetland latitude/longitude intersection on the map where an exact location is Amenity Trust Museum not known. However, Shetland Amenity Trust often have detailed knowledge of these locations.
25th April 2017, Open Noted that no scheduled archaeological sites are shown on GIS Shetland Door at Shetland systems, but Shetland Amenity Trust will do a local site search to Amenity Trust Museum confirm that there are no points of interest along proposed routes.
25th April 2017, Open In terms of marine archaeology, the locations and our micro-siting Shetland Door at Shetland should be held in a confidential appendix to the marine licence, to Amenity Trust Museum prevent looting.
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. It should be noted that the Shetland Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) has not been consulted by ORCA, due to the indication that Shetland Amenity Trust (SAT) will be conducting this local site search and feeding back to SHEPD. As indicated earlier, marine survey data (geophysical data) for the Project area will be reviewed at a later date (once available) to identify the potential presence of marine historic assets in the survey area.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 64
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 Shetland Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) has not been consulted by ORCA, due to the indication that Shetland Amenity Trust (SAT) will be conducting this local site search and feeding back to SHEPD as per Consultation (see Table 6-1). This feedback will be incorporated in time for the marine survey data review. 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; The Shetland Islands Marine Spatial Plan 2015; Marine Scotland National Marine Plan interactive https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/ ; 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; Larn, R., & Larn, B., (1998). The Ship Wreck Index of Great Britain & Ireland Vol.4 Scotland. London: Lloyds Register of Shipping; 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 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.
6.5 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
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 65
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 corridor 1000 m on either side of the replacement cable route (the study area) to MHWS at landfall in order to capture information on the approximate Position Approximate6 cultural heritage and other sites with unknown locations that have the potential to be in the area7 (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 United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) term, used on UKHO charts, to indicate an approximate position of a wreck, where precise location is not known. 7 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.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 66
Figure 6-1 Distribution of all sites identified
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 67
6.5.2 Receptor evaluation The importance of the marine historic environment asset is determined by the criteria as described in Table 6-2 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 6-2 Definitions for importance / significance of the marine historic environment asset
Criteria Importance
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 6-4
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 68
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 SIMSP indicates that the study area has potential for submerged archaeology (Map 5b(xxii)). 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. The likelihood of such material surviving rises in shallow, more sheltered waters close to land. Analysis of the geophysical and DDV surveys will help to assess the nature of the seabed along the route and whether this is potential for any submerged prehistoric sites or landscapes to exist that may be impacted by the cable.
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 systematic reporting began (Pollard et al., 2014, 44). 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. Depending on the results from the geophysical surveys conducted, the nature of the seabed and the narrow width of potential disturbance (up to 8 m), the risk of impacting unknown remains is likely to be low. No marine cultural heritage statutory designations have been identified in the Project area. There are three wreck sites and an obstruction 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 their sinking are unknown and therefore are not shown on Figure 6-1. However, descriptions included within details of their circumstance of loss indicate the possibility of being located along the cable route. All these wrecks are considered to be of negligible importance (either because wreckage ended up washed ashore, or because they are common vessel types. These wrecks are: Obstruction recorded by UKHO that was located in the Bay of Ulsta and removed in 2004. Unknown Craft 1860. “A melancholy accident took place in Yell Sound the beginning of last week. A boat and five men belonging Ulsta had crossed over to Mosabank for the purpose procuring the " yule stores" and had left Mosabank again to return home an advanced hour of the evening; the weather had not been unusually rough, but heavy squalls had been coming at intervals. Two of the men remained at Mosabank. The boat not having returned to Ulsta
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 69
search was made, and a part of the cargo and boat were found driven shore, but no trace whatever was found of the bodies.” (John o' Groat Journal Thursday 19 January 1860). Unknown Craft 1852. “A fatal accident occurred on the 23rd ult., in Yell Sound. A small boat crossing from Mossbank to Samphray, was unfortunately lost, by which two men, a boy, and a woman, were drowned. It is not known how this deplorable accident happened, it was dark at the time. The cries of the sufferers were heard on Samphray, and a boat put off for their assistance, but no trace of them was found. The boat has since come ashore at Yell, it is reported.” (John o' Groat Journal Friday 07 January 1853). Olive Leaf 1906. A wooden smack built in 1885 was stranded at Ulsta, Yell on 19th July 1906. There are no recorded losses of aircraft in the study area, although a number of aircraft did go missing without trace over Shetland. The risk of finding one along the cable route is likely to be negligible-low. Aircraft are automatically protected under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 if lost on active service. These would be considered to be of high importance.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 70
Table 6-3 List of possible wreck sites within 1 km of the Project area
Proximity to Name UKHO Canmore Ship Type Circumstance of loss Date Lost Significance Source development
Obstruction 94 102930 unknown unknown unknown 900m Negligible 3, 5, 8
Small boat upset between Mossbank and Yell, 5 Craft 327125 Small craft 02/01/1860 Unknown Negligible 1, 5, 9 people drowned Small boat upset between Mossbank and Samphray. 4 Craft 290461 Small craft 23/12/1852 Unknown Negligible 1, 5, 9 lost Smack 38 tons, In Olive Leaf 242880 Stranded at Ulsta, Yell Sound. 19/07/1906 Unknown Negligible 1, 2, 5 ballast Sources consulted: 1 = Whittaker (1998); 2 = Larn & Larn (1998); 3 UKHO; 4= Ferguson (1988); 5 = Canmore; 6 = National Archive Kew; 7 = ARGOS Archive; 8 = Wrecksite.eu; 9 = John o’ Groat Journal
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 71
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 Orkney and Shetland. However, no reports of any mine laying in the study area have been found in the Bi-Monthly Minesweeping Reports or in the reports from U Boats operating in the area in both World Wars. There have been no modern reports of discovering wartime UXO in the study area. 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.
6.7 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, and summarised in Table 6-4.
6.7.1 Direct damage to or destruction of known marine historic environment assets 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. 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 will be reduced during Project development by analysis of the geophysical and DDV 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 cable will be surface laid over the route (except at landfall), and will be held in place by rock filter bags/concrete mattresses (each weighing 2 tonnes) in regularly 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 will be reduced during Project development by analysis of the geophysical and DDV 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. At landfall, the cable will be laid in an open cut trench from MLWS. This has the potential to remove unknown cultural heritage material, should any objects or deposits survive below the surface sediment at the shore. The possible shipwreck sites identified in section 6.6.2 have unknown locations. These sites are of negligible significance. The potential for impacts on these will be reduced during Project development by analysis of the geophysical and drop-down camera surveys, and is further reduced by the dynamic nature of much of the seabed. Therefore, the likelihood of impacting them accidentally is considered low.
6.7.3 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
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 72
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 regularly spaced 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 known marine cultural heritage has been reduced to negligible-low during the development and design of the Project by conducting a DBA to identify any marine historic environment assets. Analysis of geophysical survey data will be undertaken once available to identify any geophysical anomalies that could be of marine archaeological interest. As no maritime heritage was identified within the Project area it is unlikely there will be any impacts on cultural heritage, however, the proposed geophysical survey will be used to inform the final cable routing which will seek to avoid any anthropogenic seabed features. Furthermore, the use of rock filter bags/concrete 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 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.
6.8.3 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 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 5.6, 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.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 73
At landfall the cable will be laid in an open-cut trench. The potential impact can be mitigated by conducting a watching brief when trenching and take samples if any buried or submerged archaeological deposits are observed.
6.8.4 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, after the geophysical survey review has been conducted, combined with instigating a reporting protocol for the accidental discovery of cultural remains are likely to result in impacts of negligible significance on the marine historic environment, depending on the results of the survey review
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 74
Table 6-4 Residual impacts on archaeological receptors Likelihood of Receptor Sensitivity Potential Impact Significant Management / Mitigation Residual Impact Impact Direct: vessel activities, seabed Known marine heritage assets Negligible preparation, post-lay jetting, rock None DBA has identified none present None filter bag placement Geophysical and DDV surveys to be reviewed and Direct: vessel activities, seabed results used to inform project design and management / Shipwrecks with unknown preparation, post-lay jetting, rock mitigation strategy.. Reporting protocol for accidental Negligible Low Ngligible locations filter bag placement. discoveries. Indirect: cable movement, scour. Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and scour. Geophysical and DDV surveys to be reviewed and Aircraft with unknown locations. Direct: vessel activities, seabed results used to inform project design and management / Aircraft legally protected and must preparation, post-lay jetting, rock mitigation strategy. Reporting protocol for accidental High Negligible Low not be disturbed, even filter bag placement. discoveries. Avoidance. accidentally. Indirect: cable movement, scour. Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and scour. None identified by DBA. Geophysical surveys to be Direct: vessel activities, seabed reviewed and results used to inform project design and preparation, post-lay jetting, rock management / mitigation strategy. Reporting protocol UXO High Negligible Negligible filter bag placement. for accidental discoveries. Indirect: cable movement, scour. Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and scour. Geophysical surveys to be reviewed and results used to Direct: vessel activities, seabed inform project design and management / mitigation preparation, post-lay jetting, rock Unknown submerged deposits Low-High Low strategy. . Reporting protocol for accidental discoveries. Negligible filter bag placement. Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and Indirect: cable movement, scour. scour. Geophysical surveys to be reviewed and results used to Direct: vessel activities, seabed inform project design and management / mitigation preparation, post-lay jetting, rock Unknown cultural material Low-High Low strategy. Reporting protocol for accidental discoveries. Negligible filter bag placement. Use of rock filter bags to prevent cable movement and Indirect: cable movement, scour. scour.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 75
7 CONCLUSIONS 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. 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 receptors of concern present in the area, and further assessment has been undertaken in order to identify potential impacts. The results of the assessment on commercial fisheries and other sea users are reported in the FLMAP. 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 the East Mainland Coast pSPA, the only conservation site with ornithological features located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cable route, will be mitigated by: Avoiding breeding season of red-throated diver, which generally occur between April and mid- September; Limiting the duration of cable installation works; and Limiting the speed of the cable installation vessel to reduce physical disturbance to seabirds. There are no significant effects on otters and seals, features of the Yell Sound Coast SAC which encompasses the cable route corridor around the Yell landfall. The potential impacts on otters and seals that occur in the vicinity of the Project area have been minimised the following ways: Pre-construction surveys undertaken to confirm presence or absence of otters in the vicinity of the landfall works; An ECoW will ensure distance to otter holts is at least 30 m from the proposed works, and will look for any evidence of new otter activity; In the event that potential impacts on otters and seals at the cable landfall cannot be avoided, any disturbance will require a European Protected Species (EPS) licence and will be accompanied by a MMPP and an otter species protection plan; Limited duration of cable installation activities (approximately 30 days). There is one conservation site (Yell Sound Coast SAC) located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cable installation corridor. The qualifying features of this site are otter and harbour seal which may both be present the vicinity of the Yell landfall. However, no significant effects on protected sites are expected from the proposed cable installation works as explained in Table 2-5.
7.1.2 Benthic and intertidal ecology There are no designated sites with benthic features in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works. The main habitats identified in this desk-based assessment were infralittoral rock and infralittoral/circalittoral mixed sediments. The intertidal area may support the Annex I habitat 'vegetated shingle'. No other sensitive habitats or species of conservation importance were identified in the desk-based assessment and the potential impacts on benthic and intertidal ecology have been minimised in the following ways: Very small area of impact (0.14 km2); Underwater activities will be short-term (approximately 30 days) and any increase in suspended sediments will quickly revert back to background levels;
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 76
All cable landfall works undertaken in line with standard best practice and general environmental management plans provided by SHEPD; A corridor 500 m wide (250 m either side of the cable) has been applied for within this Marine Licence application; this will enable micro-routing during installation to avoid key features of conservation interest. Seabed surveys are still ongoing, and the data gathered during these surveys will allow to better quantify existing and/or identify further impacts and mitigation measures.
7.1.3 Marine mammals, fish, birds and otters A Marine Mammal Protection Plan will be implemented to mitigate any potential impacts on cetaceans and pinnipeds, although no LSE are anticipated. As there is the potential for disturbance to protected cetacean species an EPS Licence will be applied for. 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 (approximately 30 days). The proposed works are planned to take place outwith the summer months, therefore the collision risk with basking sharks will be minimised. Therefore, no significant impact is expected on marine mammals, fish, birds and otters from the proposed cable installation works.
7.1.4 Marine archaeology No archaeological features have been identified within the Project area. A reporting protocol will be implemented in case of accidental discovery of cultural remains during maintenance operations.
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 between Mossbank and Yell. The need to replace the cable is of over-riding public concern as without the new cable there is high potential that the existing cable may fail resulting in loss of power supply to the island of Yell 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 Fetlar to Haroldswick NCMPA, located 11.4 km north-east of the Yell landfall. Given the distance to this NCMPA, the temporary nature of the proposed works (approximately 30 days) and the small discrete area of seabed impacted (0.14 km2), 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 (approximately 30 days), 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 in October 2018 to March 2019, which is outwith the breeding seasons of the majority of key bird species (April to mid-September) and harbour seal (June and July). Therefore, any
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 77
impacts on the Yell Sound Coast SAC and the East Mainland Coast pSPA, which are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed cable route between, are unlikely. Fisheries policies (specifically policies 1, 2 and 3 in section 1.4.2) 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 (approximately 30 days) 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 Yell. 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 using jetting methods. Use of rock bags in spot locations 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 (section 1.4.2) 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 Mossbank and Yell. Alternative landfall positions were reviewed but discounted due to a number of factors. On Mossbank a nearby jetty constrains the area to the East. The coastline around Yell is rocky and this extends to the ferry terminal at Ulsta. As the existing electrical infrastructure on Mossbank and Yell is, in the large part, fixed and tied to the distribution of power to homes and businesses, it would be extremely difficult and costly to change the locations of the landfalls. As such, the cable replacement programme has considered the requirements of Cables policy 4. 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.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 78
8 REFERENCES ARGOS Aviation Research Group Orkney and Shetland http://www.crashsiteorkney.com/shetland- projectshttp://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. Coull, K., Johnstone, R. & Rogers, S. (1998). Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters, Published and distributed by UKOOA Ltd. Available online at https://www.cefas.co.uk/media/52612/sensi_maps.pdf DECC (2016). UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment 3 (OESEA3). Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/uk-offshore-energy-strategic-environmental-assessment-3- oesea3 DEFRA (2012). Marine Strategy Part One: UK Initial Assessment and Good Environmental Status. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69632/pb13860-marine- strategy-part1-20121220.pdf [Accessed on 20/03/2018]. DEFRA (2014). Marine Strategy Part Two: UK Marine Monitoring Programmes. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/341146/msfd-part-2-final.pdf [Accessed 20/03/2018]. DEFRA (2015). Marine Strategy Part Three: UK programme of measures. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486623/marine-strategy-part3- programme-of-measures.pdf [Accessed 20/03/2018]. DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2001). Report to the Department of Trade and Industry. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mature Areas of the Offshore North Sea SEA 2. Consultation Document. Ellis, J.R., Milligan, S., Readdy, L., South, A., Taylor, N. & Brown, M. (2012). Mapping the spawning and nursery grounds of selected fish for spatial planning. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from Cefas. Defra Contract No. MB5301, Available online at https://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/techrep/TechRep147.pdf ERM (2018). Scottish Island Cables, Shore Ends. Environmental Appraisal Report. Mossbank – Yell, Shetland. Final version. April 2018. ESG (2015). SSE Cable Burial Assessment Surveys. Hydrographic, Geophysical and Intrusive Surveys. Report No. L5248-15. Ewins, P. J. (1985). Colony attendance and censusing of Black Guillemots Cepphus grylle in Shetland. Bird Study, 32(3), 176-185. 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. 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.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 79
Hawkins, A. D., & Popper, A. N. (2014). Assessing the impacts of underwater sounds on fishes and other forms of marine life. Acoustic Today, 10(2), 30-41. Heath/Ferguson private wreck database, unpublished Heubeck, M., Mellor, M. and Miles, W. (2018). Ornithological monitoring programme in Shetland. 2017 Report. A report to the Shetland Oil Terminal Environmental Advisory Group. February 2018. Holland, G. J., Greenstreet, S. P. R., Gibb, I. M., Fraser, H. M. & Robertson, M. R. (2005). Identifying sandeel Ammodytes marinus sediment habitat preferences in the marine environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 303: 269–282. Howson, C.M., Steel, L., Carruthers, M. & Gilham, K. (2012). Identification of Priority Marine Features in Scottish Territorial waters. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 388. JNCC (2012). Bird species accounts – species list. Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1419 [Accessed 22/03/2018]. Jones, E.L., McConnel, B.J., Sparling, C., & Matthiopoulos, J. (2015). Produce, publish and maintain seal usage maps with confidence intervals. Sea Mammals Research Unit, University of St Andrews, Report to Scottish Government, no. MR 5.1, St Andrews, 6pp. Kruuk, H., Conroy, J.W.H. and Moorhouse, A. (1987). Seasonal reproduction, mortality and food of otters (Lutra lutra L.) in Shetland. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 58, 263-278. 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. MarLIN (2018). The Marine Life Information Network. Habitat list. Available at: https://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats [Accessed 23/03/2018]. Mazik, K., Strong, J., Little, S., Bhatia, N., Mander, L., Barnard, S. & Elliott, M. (2015). A review of the recovery potential and influencing factors of relevance to the management of habitats and species within Marine Protected Areas around Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 771. Available online at http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/771.pdf McLeod, C.R., Yeo, M., Brown, A.E., Burn, A.J., Hopkins, J.J., & Way, S.F. (eds.) (2005). The Habitats Directive: selection of Special Areas of Conservation in the UK. Updated August 2009. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Available at: www.jncc.gov.uk/SACselection [Accessed 02/04/2018]. MSFD (2015). Supporting the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. MSFD. Available from http://www.msfd.eu/index.html [Accessed 20/03/2018]. NAFC Marine Centre (2015). The Shetland Islands' Marine Spatial Plan. Fourth Edition. Available at: http://www.nafc.uhi.ac.uk/research/marine-spatial-planning/shetland-islands-marine-spatial-plan-simsp/ [Accessed 05/12/2017]. NAFC Marine Centre (2015). The Shetland Islands' Marine Spatial Plan. Fourth Edition. Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Report. Available at: http://www.nafc.uhi.ac.uk/research/marine- spatial-planning/shetland-islands-marine-spatial-plan-simsp/ [Accessed 3/04/2018]. 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]. NBN Atlas (2018). National Biodiversity Network. Available at https://records.nbnatlas.org/explore/your-area [Accessed 16/03/2018].
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 80
NMPI (National Marine Plan Interactive) (2018). National Marine Plan Interactive. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/nmpihome [Accessed 3/04/2018]. OSPAR (2008). Case Reports for the OSPAR List of threatened and/or declining species and habitats. OSPAR Commission. Available online at http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00358_case_reports_species_and_habitats_2008.pdf [Accessed on 26/03/2018]. 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 tidal energy development for Orkney Waters and the Pentland Firth, NE Scotland. Ocean & Coastal Management 99 (2014) 39-51. 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. SAT (Shetland Amenity Trust) (2018). An otter survey along four stretches of coastline on Unst, Yell and Mainland, Shetland with regard to SSE cable replacement. 7th February 2018. SCOS (2014). Scientific advice on matters related to the management of seal populations: 2014. Special Committee on Seals. Scottish Government (2011). Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Draft Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters: Appropriate Assessment Information Review. Seabird Foraging and Migratory Baseline Review for the Draft OWE Plan HRA. Appendix D. March 2011. Scottish Government (2016). Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/msfd [Accessed 20/03/2018]. Seawatch Foundation. Undated. Seawatch Foundation. Shetland Biological Records Centre. Cetaceans of Shetland. Available at: http://seawatchfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Shetland.pdf. [Accessed 3/04/2018] 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 (2014). SiteLink - Protected Areas Database. Available at: http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp [Accessed 15/03/2018]. Tyler-Walters, H., James, B., Carruthers, M. (eds.), Wilding, C., Durkin, O., Lacey, C., Philpott, E., Adams, L., Chaniotis, P.D., Wilkes, P.T.V., Seeley, R., Neilly, M., Dargie, J. & Crawford-Avis, O.T. (2016). Descriptions of Scottish Priority Marine Features (PMFs). Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 406 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 Wolf, J., Yates, N., Brereton, A., Buckland, H., De Dominicis, M., Gallego, A. and O'Hara Murray, R. (2015). The Scottish Shelf Model. Part 1: Shelf-Wide Domain. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Volume 7 No. 3.
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 81
Mossbank - Yell Marine Licence Application – Environmental Supporting Information Assignment Number: A100487-S00 Document Number: A-100487-S00-REPT-001 82