Internship Report

Finding the gaps: a UK-based assessment of the Perth Wave Energy Project

Raeanne Miller, in partnership with Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd.

NERC Marine Renewable Energy Knowledge Exchange Programme Internship

Finding the Gaps: A UK-based assessment of the Perth Wave Energy Project

Project Report

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. and the Perth Wave Energy Project ...... 3 2 Key environmental legislation and approvals for wave energy developments ...... 6 2.1 Australia ...... 6 2.1.1 Western Australia ...... 8 2.2 Europe ...... 11 2.3 UK ...... 11 2.3.1 Scotland ...... 13 3 Comparative analysis of consenting environment ...... 15 3.1 Political drivers and support for renewable energy ...... 15 3.2 Marine planning ...... 17 3.3 Environmental legislation ...... 19 3.4 The consenting process ...... 20 3.4.1 Timeframe ...... 21 3.4.2 Licensing conditions ...... 22 3.4.3 Compliance and auditing ...... 23 3.5 Summary ...... 24 4 Perceived environmental impacts of wave energy devices ...... 26 4.1.1 Physical environment and water quality ...... 29 4.1.2 Benthic habitats and communities ...... 30 4.1.3 Fish ...... 31 4.1.4 Marine mammals and basking sharks ...... 32 4.1.5 Seabirds ...... 34 4.1.6 Elasmobranchs ...... 35 4.1.7 Marine Turtles ...... 36 4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts ...... 37 5 UK assessment of the Perth Wave Energy Project ...... 40 5.1 Approach ...... 40 5.2 Assessment of environmental effects ...... 41 5.3 Legal and conservation relevance of impacts: UK (Scotland) and Australia (Western Australia) ...... 44 5.4 Analysis of impacts – PWEP and pre-commercial array in the UK ...... 53 5.4.1 Physical environment ...... 53

5.4.2 Benthic habitats and communities ...... 54 5.4.3 Fish ...... 55 5.4.4 Marine Mammals and Basking Sharks ...... 56 5.4.5 Seabirds ...... 58 5.4.6 Elasmobranchs ...... 61 5.4.7 Marine Turtles ...... 61 5.5 Summary ...... 62 5.5.1 Shoreward reduction in wave energy affecting nearshore physical processes and habitat provisioning ...... 63 5.5.2 Interactions between marine mammals and basking sharks and CETO devices, particularly in storm conditions ...... 64 5.5.3 Entanglement of marine mammals and basking sharks with midwater electrical cables……...... 65 5.5.4 Interactions with diving seabirds foraging around submerged device components.... 66 6 Joint industry-research projects for addressing pressing areas of EIA uncertainty around CETO installations in the UK ...... 67 6.1 Wave energy extraction and changes to coastal geomorphology and habitat provisioning 67 6.2 Operational noise effects on marine mammals...... 68 6.3 Biofouling ...... 69 6.4 Further projects ...... 70 7 Summary and conclusions ...... 71 8 Literature cited ...... 75 9 Appendices ...... 83 9.1 Marine Scotland Environmental Impact Assessment Process Map...... 84 9.2 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Listed Marine Habitats relevant to wave energy developments ...... 85 9.3 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Listed Marine Species relevant to wave energy developments ...... 87 9.4 Summary tables of stressors, receptors, and impact consequences for a PWEP-type array (3-5x CETO 5) and a pre-commercial array (25x CETO 6)...... 91 9.4.1 Physical environment and water quality ...... 91 9.4.2 Benthic habitats and communities ...... 92 9.4.3 Fish and fisheries ...... 93 9.4.4 Marine mammals and basking sharks ...... 94 9.4.5 Seabirds ...... 95 9.4.6 Elasmobranchs ...... 96

9.4.7 Marine Turtles ...... 97

List of Acronyms

AA – Appropriate Assessment ARENA – Australian Renewable Energy Agency AUD – Australian Dollar BOEM – Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (United States Government) BPPH – Benthic Primary Producing Habitat CCAMLR – Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CIA – Cumulative Impact Assessment CITES – Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora DECC – Department for Energy and Climate Change (UK Government) Defra – Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (UK Government) EC – European Community EMEC – European Marine Energy Centre EEZ – Exclusive Economic Zone EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment EMF – Electromagnetic Field EPA – Environment Protection Authority (Government of Western Australia) EP Act – Environment Protection Act 1986 EPBC Act – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Government of Australia) EU – European Union FLOWBEC – FLOW and Benthic Ecology 4D HRA – Habitats Regulations Appraisal IEA – International Energy Agency IEEM – Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature JNCC – Joint Nature Conservation Committee MMO – Marine Management Organisation MRSea – Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental Assessment (software package) MW – Megawatt NearCoM – Nearshore Community Model NERC – Natural Environment Research Council (UK) NNMREC – Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Centre nm – nautical mile NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (United States) OEPA – Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (Government of Western Australia) PCoD – Population Consequences of Disturbance PWEP – Perth Wave Energy Project R&D – Research and Development RPA – Remotely Piloted Aircraft SAC – Special Area of Conservation SAMS – Scottish Association for Marine Science SEA – Strategic Environmental Assessment SPA – Special Protected Area UNCLOS – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme WA – Western Australia

1. Introduction

1 Introduction

Worldwide, the push to achieve reductions in CO 2 emissions amidst rising energy demands has encouraged the acceleration of renewable energy technology development. Many countries not only look to achieve environmental targets, but also energy security from power generation at home through renewable and other resources. Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested in 2011 that close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by 2050, if supported by appropriate legislation and public policy (IPCC 2011). Wind and solar power continue to lead the way in terms of market share, while ocean energy technologies represented only 0.01% of electricity production from renewable sources in 2013. Recently the International Energy Agency suggested that an enhanced focus on research and development for ocean power and other promising new technologies is needed to improve performance and competitiveness (IEA 2013).

In the current energy market, wave power is considered a relative newcomer, lacking the mature technology found in other forms of renewable energy generation (e.g. wind and solar). Once the optimal technology solutions have been tested on device and array scales, however, the wave energy sector has the ability to upscale rapidly. Wave energy technology also has the potential to make great improvements in energy efficiency and energy capture which may not be available to other renewable energy technologies. This represents a similar opportunity to solar/photovoltaic technology, which has improved its energy capture efficiency from 17% to 30% (Krohn et al. 2013).

Wave energy technology is also vastly exportable, and it has been estimated that wave energy conversion could provide between 15% and 66% of energy demand worldwide (Cruz 2008), the greatest proportion of development to date has taken place in the United Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland. The UK considers itself a global leader in both wave and tidal energy development and is home to the majority of installed full-scale wave and tidal energy device prototypes (Energy and Climate Change Committee: House of Commons 2012). Scotland possesses 75% of the UK’s wave resource and to date has been the focus of most UK-based wave energy projects, both at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) test site and elsewhere.

Wave energy extraction is by no means limited to British waters, however, and several groups are developing and testing wave energy converters worldwide. For example, this internship’s project partners, Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd., are in the process of deploying an array of three 240kW CETO 5 devices off Garden Island, Western Australia, as part of their Perth Wave Energy Project (see Section 1.1) and have fully funded development of their commercial CETO6 technology. Furthermore, the USA and Canada have substantial wave resource and the USA in particular is developing a research base and testing centre (National Marine Renewable Energy Centre, NNMREC) to support their nascent industry. Other projects are also underway across Europe and South America.

In spite of the proliferation of international and country-specific ‘green energy’ targets, investment in renewable energy has decreased worldwide since 2012 as a result of investor unease around future investment prospects, resulting from policy changes in Europe and North America (UNEP

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 1

1. Introduction

2013). While marine energy currently makes up only a very small proportion of this investment, global new investment in the sector declined by 40% in 2013, while the overall cost per MWh of generation increased between 2009 and 2014 (UNEP 2014). Continued support from the UK government, however, has ensured ongoing, if slow, progression towards commercial-scale wave energy projects in the UK such as the recently consented 40 MW Aquamarine Power wave farm off the Isle of Lewis. Progression of the wave energy industry in the UK is now attracting inward investment, though investor confidence around the UK government’s commitment to renewable energy and the sector’s ability to deliver on commercial projects must be maintained (Krohn et al. 2013). If investor confidence in the UK is lost, there is a real risk that the UK could lose out to ongoing development around the world, forfeiting its ‘world leader’ status, or worse, the further progression of the global industry as a whole.

No single marine energy array has been deployed in the UK, and many projects remain in the consenting phase, where the time and financial resources associated with satisfying consenting requirements are unpredictable, and represent substantial risk to investment. In particular, RenewableUK cites environmental consenting challenges as one of the largest risks to the industry, stating that environmental evidence gathering and monitoring ‘ could take up a disproportionate part of project costs ’ (Krohn et al. 2013).

A diversity of devices are currently under development (Figure 1.1), including point absorbers, surface attenuators, oscillating water columns, overtopping devices, and wave surge converters. In this report, the focus will be on ‘offshore’ wave energy converters, and so excludes shoreline devices such as the Islay LIMPET overtopping device. There has been little convergence of technologies to date (compared with wind turbine design, for example), and consequently greater inherent flexibility is needed within environmental legislation and policy regimes to account for differences relating to varying device architecture. To an extent, wave energy developers have sought first to differentiate themselves from tidal energy projects, with whom they are often compared, in order to highlight the differing environmental and consenting concerns of the two industries. There has also been a perceived lack of preparedness on the part of statutory consenting bodies to deal with the variety of projects (size, technology, location, scope) proposed by developers within the wave energy sector, but this will continue to improve in parallel with continued development of the industry.

Figure 1.1: Idealised representations of various wave energy device designs. A) Submerged pressure differential device, B) floating point absorber, c) surface attenuator, D) oscillating wave surge converter, E) floating oscillating water column device, F) overtopping wave device. Parts in bright yellow are surface piercing.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 2

1. Introduction

In most developed nations worldwide, a degree of environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required for construction projects which have potential to cause changed to the marine environment. In Europe this is a direct result of the adoption of the EIA Directive (85/337/EC) in 1985, which mandates EIA for certain developments, and gives national authorities discretion to decide whether an EIA is needed for a further range of public and private projects.

Wave energy extraction is still a nascent industry and many uncertainties still exist in associated EIA, reflecting not only a lag in scientific understanding of the consequences of deploying structures in coastal environments (Shields et al. 2011, Miller et al. 2013), but also insufficient baseline information about proposed sites. This makes statistically robust assessments of environmental effects within consenting timeframes difficult (O'Hagan 2012). For international developers seeking to invest in the UK, this is compounded by ambiguity around the applicability of foreign EIA processes to UK consenting requirements.

This NERC Marine Renewable Energy Knowledge Exchange Programme Internship aimed to address this issue, in partnership with an Australian wave energy developer, Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. (Carnegie). As a collaboration between a wave energy developer and an academic institution (the Scottish Association for Marine Science), the internship represented an opportunity for an unbiased, rigorous assessment of the environmental status of a demonstration wave energy array in the natural and regulatory environments of the UK. In this report, the focus will be on the marine environment, though much of the legislation and some of the impacts discussed will also be relevant to the terrestrial environment.

This report begins with a comparative overview of the regulatory requirements associated with the installation of wave energy converters in the UK (focussing on Scotland) and in Australia (focussing on Western Australia), and then summarizes the perceived environmental impacts of wave energy devices. This is then followed by an in-depth assessment of the environmental monitoring procedures and plans produced by Carnegie for the Perth Wave Energy Project against UK and Scottish requirements for a hypothetical CETO development off the west coast of Scotland. Areas for further study and monitoring are identified from gaps in Carnegie’s environmental monitoring plans, and developed into a set of potential research studies to improve the current state of understanding around environmental responses to wave energy developments.

1.1 Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. and the Perth Wave Energy Project

Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. is an Australian listed company and owner of the patented CETO wave energy technology. The CETO technology has been in development for over 10 years (Figure 1.2), and the company has spent over $100m AUD on research and project development to date. Technology development progressed through multiple stages, from a small-scale array of 3 x 1 kW devices, to testing of a larger 80 kW autonomous CETO 3 device at an exposed oceanic location off Garden Island, Western Australia in 2011. Construction of Carnegie’s grid and water connected Perth Wave Energy Project (PWEP) is now complete and has begun operation. The Project involves the installation and operation of 3 x 240kW fully submerged CETO 5 units, some 3km offshore and in

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 3

1. Introduction

25m of water. This project will be the world’s first complete, grid and water infrastructure connected wave energy array.

The PWEP is located just offshore of Garden Island, Western Australia. The island is approximately 10 km long, and sits approximately 45 km to the southwest of Perth, Western Australia, and is bordered by the Indian Ocean along its western coast. Garden Island is also home to Australia’s largest naval base, HMAS Stirling, to which the PWEP will supply electricity and fresh water under commercial supply agreements. The Shoalwater Islands Marine Park lies approximately 1 km to the south of Garden Island, while the Marmion Marine Park lies 30 km to the north. Garden Island is also a Commonwealth Heritage listed place, noted for its cultural value as the first site of settlement in Western Australia, as well as for its geology, wildlife, and vegetation (Australian Government 2004).

Figure 1.2: Development timeline for CETO technology. Courtesy of Carnegie Wave Energy Limited. ©Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. 2014.

Carnegie, in consultation with key stakeholders, had developed a series of Environmental Management Plans to support the PWEP, including Terrestrial, Marine, and Construction Environmental Management Plans. These Environmental Management Plans formed the basis for obtaining necessary environmental approvals from the Australian Department of Defence and the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia, and as such potential environmental impacts of the PWEP are to be managed under these plans.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 4

1. Introduction

Here, Carnegie’s Marine Environmental Management Plan (supported by the construction and terrestrial plans), will be assessed against UK and Scottish environmental regulations for marine renewable energy developments to determine the outcome of a PWEP-type project in the UK, and in Scotland in particular. As the company progresses towards development of pre-commercial and commercial arrays in Western Australia and other locations worldwide, this analysis should provide valuable insight into the rigour of foreign environmental assessment procedures when compared with Australia, and specifically with Western Australia.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 5

2. Environmental legislation and approvals

2 Key environmental legislation and approvals for wave energy developments

Sustainable development alongside protection of the environment are becoming global concerns, apparent in a growing body of literature, policy, legislation, and regulation at international, national, regional, and local scales. The marine environment now faces unprecedented pressures from demand on natural resources and growing coastal populations. At least one in 10 people lived in low-lying coastal zones in 2000, and of those more than half lived in urban settlements (McGranahan et al. 2007), and these numbers continue to grow. With an increase in ‘competing users’ of coastal and marine areas, marine planning is becoming essential for resolving conflicts between users and to manage environmental impacts on the sea (Douvere and Ehler 2009). Legislation and policies around environmental impact assessment and conservation of biodiversity can be seen as a direct response managing these impacts.

Established in 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) instigated many national and international agreements around preservation of the marine environment. By consolidating the complexity of international maritime law under a single framework, UNCLOS defined the jurisdiction and responsibilities of coastal states, and served as a catalyst for legislation around climate change, pollution, over-fishing, and growth in coastal populations (Joyner 2000). Article 21 and other agreements made at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Treaty, which came into force in 1993, provided further principles on which to base marine environmental legislation and policy. These include the ‘polluter pays’ approach and the ‘precautionary principle’, which are conceptually significant to environmental impact assessment.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UN ECE) Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, or the Espoo Convention, provides a legal framework for transboundary EIA. The convention is focussed on the UN ECE region, which includes member States in Europe, and also in North America (United States and Canada), Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) and Western Asia (Israel). Located outside of Europe, Australia is not a member of the UN ECE. This convention entered into force in 1997, and sets out that EIA is to be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that are subject to a decision of a competent national authority. It also declares that ECE states shall share relevant information on activities which may have significant transboundary effects on the environment (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 2001).

2.1 Australia

Environmental impact assessment and consenting of marine developments is required at a national level by Commonwealth legislation, primarily in the form of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 . Many of the key elements of the EPBC Act 1999 are based on international treaties to which Australia is a signatory, including:

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 6

2. Environmental legislation and approvals

• The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1975 • The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as Waterfowl Habitat 1975 (Ramsar Convention) • The Convention on Biological Diversity 1993 • Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement • China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement • Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement • The Convention on the conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) • The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1976 (CITES) • The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

The EPBC Act (1999) states that where an action could have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance it must be referred to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Heritage for approval. Matters of National Environmental Significance protected by the EPBC Act include:

• World heritage properties • National heritage places • Wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention) • Listed threatened species and ecological communities • Migratory species protected under international agreements • Commonwealth marine areas • The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park • Nuclear actions (including uranium mines) • A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development

The guidelines for assessment under the EPBC Act 1999 (Australian Government 2013b) describe a significant impact as ‘ an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity ’. The mention of ‘context’ allows for the consideration of the cumulative impacts of a development. To be a ‘likely’ significant impact, ‘ it is not necessary for a significant impact to have a greater than 50% chance of happening; it is sufficient if a significant impact on the environment is a real or not remote chance or possibility ’, and if there is uncertainty about impacts, the precautionary principle is applicable. Specific significant impact criteria for each matter of National Environmental Significance are provided by the Department of Environment to assist proponents with their EIA and the process of referral under the EPBC Act 1999.

Once a proponent has referred an action to the Minister, the Minister must make a binding decision on whether or not the proposal must be assessed under the EPBC Act 1999 within a statutory timeframe of 20 working days. If the action requires assessment and approval, the Minister, underpinned by the Department of Environment, will consider the environmental assessment of the proposal and decide if the action is to be approved, and whether any conditions should be imposed.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 7

2. Environmental legislation and approvals

The independent environmental consultants, Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, reviewed the PWEP against Commonwealth matters of National Environmental Significance and determined that the project was unlikely to have significant impacts as defined by the EPBC Act 1999 and associated legislation (Oceanica 2012). As such, the project was not referred under the EPBC Act 1999.

The Commonwealth EPBC Act runs in parallel to relevant state/territory EIA legislation. States and territories have jurisdiction over local and regional matters of significant, and any overlap is addressed by bilateral agreements or Commonwealth accreditation of state processes. In the marine environment, states and territories have jurisdiction out to 3 nm from shore, while the Commonwealth marine environment (matter of National Environmental Significance) extends from 3 nm from the coast of Australia and associated territories, to the boundary of the Australia Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nm).

2.1.1 Western Australia

Carnegie’s PWEP is situated off the coast of Western Australia (WA) within the 3 nm jurisdiction of state waters, and so was subject to approval by the Western Australia Minister for the Environment, via the WA Environment Protection Authority (EPA, a five member board appointed to conduct EIA, initiate measures to protect the environment, and advise the minister on environmental matters). The WA EPA is supported by the Office of the Environment Protection Authority (OEPA). The primary marine environmental approval for the PWEP was given under the WA Environmental Protection (EP) Act 1986; this and other relevant environmental legislation is summarised in Table 2.1 .

The OEPA supports the Environment Protection Authority (EPA, a five member board) to undertake EIA. Proponents in Western Australia must refer to the WA Minister for the Environment and the WA EPA for approval under the WA EP Act 1986. The EIA of proposals is undertaken in accordance with the WA EP Act 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures 2012, where a proposed project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, or where the proposal is of a strategic nature.

Following referral, the EPA has a statutory 28 days to make a decision as to whether or not to assess a proposal under the EP Act 1986, and whether any further advice or conditions will be applied. If a proposal is to be assessed, the level of assessment will be indicated. Depending on the type of assessment, further review of the proponent’s application is carried out, culminating in an assessment report submitted to the Minister for the Environment by the EPA. The EPA’s assessment is made solely on the basis of environmental impacts, but the Minister, in consultation with other decision-making authorities (e.g. Government Ministers, including Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Regional Development, Planning, Parks and Wildlife, Transport, and Fisheries), must reach an agreement on whether implementation of the proposal can go ahead (Government of Western Australia 2012) based on a wider set of criteria.

Western Australia is moving towards a system of ‘outcome based conditions’ to be recommended at the time of proposal approval and implementation, as outlined in the Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 11 (Government of Western Australia 2013b). Conditions applied to projects are to

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 8

2. Environmental legislation and approvals regulate ‘‘what’ should be achieved, not ‘how’ it should be achieved’. Setting measurable conditions which are legally enforceable may be one of the greatest challenges of the Western Australian environmental approval and impact assessment system (Hans Jacob, Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, pers. comm. ).

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 9

2. Environmental legislation and approvals

Table 2.1: Environmental legislation and associated approvals relevant to the PWEP in Western Australia

Title Description Jurisdiction Relevant Authority Associated Approval Western Australian Minister for Principal legislation in Western the Environment and the WA Western Australian Australia (WA) for control of State lands and waters to 3 nm Environmental Protection Decision to assess the project Environmental Protection Act pollution, conservation, offshore Authority, supported by the WA under the Act. 1986 management, and protection of Office of the Environmental the environment. Protection Authority Principal legislation governing Western Australian Land State lands and waters to 3 nm Western Australia Department Seabed Lease and Easement use of the seabed in WA state Administration Act 1997 offshore. of Lands Agreements waters. Western Australian Marine Act Maritime Safety Agreement for Regulates navigation and Western Australia Department 1982 and Navigable Waters State waters to 3 nm offshore the seabed lease and easement shipping in WA state waters of Transport Regulations 1958 area. Principal legislation in WA Western Australian Planning Western Australian Planning governing planning and State lands and waters to 3 nm Approval of development Commission, Development and Development Act 2005 development at regional, offshore application and plans. Assessment Panels metropolitan, and local levels. Australian Government Control Provides for the protection of Proclaimed naval waters within of Naval Waters Act 1918 (as installations or land owned or 5 nm of an installation or within amended by the Proclamation used by the Commonwealth for 2 nm of defence land without Department of Defence License 14/12/2009) purposed related to defence. an installation. Agreement for onshore

Australian Department of components of project, Provides for the naval and Defence Department of Defence military defence and protection Environmental Clearance of the Commonwealth. The Australian Government Defence Waters 3 nm to 200 nm Certificate Defence Act also requires Act 1903 offshore. assessment of environmental impacts against the criteria of the EPBC Act.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 10

2. Environmental legislation and approvals

Under the system of environmental approvals in Western Australia, the outcome of Carnegie’s referral of the PWEP to the EPA under the EP Act 1986 was ‘Not Assessed – Public Advice Given’. In practice, this decision suggests that the EPA is of the view that potential impacts on the environment are not significant, and that they can be effectively managed under Carnegie’s Marine Environmental Management Plan.

The PWEP development was approved by the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel under the Western Australia Planning and Development Act 2005. In Western Australia the PWEP must also comply with the Western Power Regulations under the Electricity Corporations Act 2005 and the Electricity Network Access Code 2004. Offshore tenure of the project site is also required in the form of a lease and easement under the Lands Administration Act 1997.

2.2 Europe

In Europe, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) sets out that member states must achieve ‘good environmental status’ in Europe’s seas (to the limit of Member States’ UNCLOS jurisdictions) by 2020, which includes the sustainable use of marine resources. This builds on the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC), which has the objective of the improvement and protection of water environments in Europe, out to an offshore limit of 1 nm. These two Directives are also complemented by the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC), which designate European sites of interest and protected areas: Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) in the case of the Habitats Directive, and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in the case of the Birds Directive. The Directives state that Member States must ensure that conservation measures are in place to manage SACs and SPAs and ensure appropriate assessment of plans and projects which could have significant effects on the protected areas. Furthermore, the Birds Directive provides for ‘maintenance of the populations of all wild bird species across their natural range ’, while the Habitats Directive ensures ‘ strict protection of species listed on Annex IV ’ of the Directive.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EC) calls for the mandatory or determinant assessment of environmental impacts for ‘Annexed’ projects. Under the Directive, Annex 1 projects include large scale developments including power stations, motorways, and bridges, and must undergo mandatory EIA. Annex 2 projects are smaller in scale, and Member States are given discretion to determine whether such projects will be subject to EIA. The present smaller scale of wave energy developments means that they are likely to fall under Annex 2, though these projects are almost always assessed because of ongoing uncertainty around environmental impacts. In the EU, the EIA Directive is complemented by the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC), which encompasses the assessment of large infrastructure projects plans and programmes.

2.3 UK

Marine licensing is the umbrella under which environmental approvals for marine infrastructure projects occur in the UK. Following the adoption of the Marine Scotland Act in 2010, Marine

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 11

2. Environmental legislation and approvals

Scotland became the competent authority for environmental consents and licensing in Scotland. Licensing and environmental regulations in Scotland differ slightly than in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and differences are discussed in a separate section below.

In the England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the marine licensing system is governed by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which has been in force since 2011. Under this Act, a marine licence is required for activities which involve a deposit or removal of a substance or object in the UK marine area, works or improvements at sea, or the use of explosives at sea. This is likely to include all wave energy installations. For wave energy installations with a capacity > 1 MW, consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 is also required in addition to a marine licence (Table 2.1). When an installation reaches a capacity of 100 MW or more, it is considered to be a ‘nationally significant infrastructure project’, and are subject to procedures outlined in the Planning Act 2008 which are intended to facilitate the approval of such projects (Table 2.1). Marine licensing and EIA for nationally significant infrastructure projects is currently carried out by the Infrastructure Commission, rather than the MMO (Vantoch-Wood et al. 2012).

Table 2.1: Licensing and consenting requirements for wave energy developments of various sizes.

< 1 MW 1 MW – 100 MW > 100 MW Marine Licence


Section 36 Consent

Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Project?

While the UK marine area consists of the area from below the mean high water springs mark out to the edge of UK territorial waters (200 nm), marine licensing is implemented independently by each of the devolved governments in the UK. In England, the Secretary of State, via the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is the competent authority responsible for marine licensing. Natural Resources Wales is the licensing authority for Wales, while the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland is the responsible licensing authority for Northern Ireland. Prior to application for a marine license, the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulation 2009 requires that consultation is carried out with the relevant bodies on preliminary details for the EIA process. In England, for example, these might include the Environment Agency, English Heritage, Natural England, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture science (CEFAS), and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

From an environmental perspective, the UK transposition of the EIA Directive, the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, seeks to ensure that the consenting authority (the MMO, Natural Resources Wales, Department of Environment for Northern Ireland, or Marine Scotland) for a particular project makes its decision in the knowledge of any possible significant effects on the environment. Significant environmental effects could be indicated by a breach of the UK Habitats Regulations, or other environmental legislation at national, European, or international levels including, but not limited to: the Water Framework Directive, OSPAR Convention, Biodiversity Action Plan Species, Priority Marine Features (Scotland), etc.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 12

2. Environmental legislation and approvals

In the UK, the Habitat Regulations represent the transposition of the EU Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC) and the EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EC) in to UK law via the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007, which are applicable in the area beyond territorial waters (12 nm to 200 nm. Within the territorial waters of England and Wales, the EU directives are implemented through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which state that the MMO is required to assess whether a project will have a significant effect on a designated European site (individually, and cumulatively with other projects). Under these regulations, permission to pursue a project requiring a marine license can only be given if adverse effect on protected site can be ruled out through parallel assessment processes: the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) and Appropriate Assessment (AA). While an EIA will always be carried out as part of the marine license application process, HRA and AA need only be carried out if the project is likely to affect protected European sites or species. The HRA process considers developments likely to affect European sites (e.g. Natura 2000, Ramsar), and must take into account the conservation objectives of those sites. The first element of HRA involves establishing any ‘likely significant effects’ on the European sites in question. If significant effects are likely, or if there is uncertainty around the potential for a likely effect to be significant, an AA of those effects must be carried out. An AA must be tailored to each designated site and each relevant interest feature of the site which could be affected effect. AA will be carried out by the ‘competent authority’ (MMO, Natural Resources Wales, Department of Environment Northern Ireland, or Marine Scotland) based on the information provided in the developers’ HRA, and outcomes should be associated with a high degree of certainty. Useful guidance and information on HRA and AA can be found in the Marine Scotland Licensing and Consents Manual for marine renewables (Scottish Government 2010).

2.3.1 Scotland

Following the adoption of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 by the Scottish Government, Scottish Ministers were given the responsibility for marine planning around Scotland’s coasts out to the territorial limit of 12 nm. The UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 also provides executive devolution for marine planning, licensing, and conservation for Scottish offshore waters, out to 200 nm. As a result, the Scottish Government is now the regulatory authority for Marine Licenses, Section 36 consent under the Electricity Act 1989, and for European Protected Species and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) listed on Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive, and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the EC Wild Birds Directive. Marine Scotland acts on behalf of the Scottish Ministers as a ‘one-stop shop’ for licensing and consenting of marine projects, including offshore renewable energy (Figure 2.1).

Renewable energy developers must apply to Marine Scotland for both a Marine License and Section 36 Consent (where the capacity of the project is > 1 MW). Marine Scotland must also consider whether any proposal for a marine renewable energy development will have a significant effect on the marine environment under the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment)(Scotland) Regulations 2000, and whether any European protected sites, species, or habitats (under the EU Birds Directive and EU Habitats Directive) are likely to be affected. As in the rest of the UK, environmental impacts will be assessed at the discretion of the regulatory authority (Marine Scotland) through the processes of EIA, HRA, and AA.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 13

2. Environmental legislation and approvals

Decommissioning and navigation are not devolved matters, and Marine Scotland must liaise with the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) with regards to these elements of a marine licence application.

Figure 2.1: UK offshore wave energy Crown Estate leasing areas and draft plan areas of search in relation to marine environment related UK Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 14

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

3 Comparative analysis of consenting environment

The UK is a market leader in wave energy technology, but few devices have emerged from the testing phase and progressed to commercial-scale developments. Numerous wave energy technologies have been in development for at least a decade in the UK, yet Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. in Australia, as of November 2014, have now completed construction of the Perth Wave Energy Project and are in the operational phase. The CETO devices have been scaled up from 1 kW to 240 kW across 6 years, and planning is underway for deployment of an array of commercial scale 1 MW devices in 2016. The pace of this development is unmatched in the UK, and differences in consenting environments between Western Australia (and the Australian Commonwealth) and the UK and its devolved nations may be one reason for the comparatively rapid development of Carnegie’s wave energy projects.

The consenting environment for wave energy is shaped by political drivers and support for renewable energy, marine planning, environmental legislation, and the consenting process itself. These are compared across Australia and the UK in the following sections. While the consenting environments within the UK devolved nations are relatively similar, subtle differences in the aforementioned topics may have contributed to the levels of wave and tidal energy development within each country. Where appropriate, these are highlighted in the sections below.

3.1 Political drivers and support for renewable energy

Political and government support for renewable energy is a key component of successful industry development worldwide. For example heavy public investment in Scotland has helped to ensure its ‘world leader’ status in the wave and tidal energy market, while significant investment from the US government through NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association), BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) and other bodies has led to rapid set of test centres and a nascent industry in the USA.

In Australia, the Commonwealth Government’s Department of the Environment set a renewable energy target in 2010 of achieving 20% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020. Western Australia, on the other hand, does not have a stated percentage-based renewable energy target, but has committed to the achievement of the national target of 20% by encouraging investment in renewable energy.

The national target includes both large- and small-scale generation targets, where the large-scale generation target provided incentive for the development and growth of renewable power generating stations. As of 2014, the renewable power percentage from large-scale generation was 9.87% (http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/About-the-Schemes/About-the-renewable-power- percentage, accessed 01 July 2014). This target, overseen by the Clean Energy Regulator, is currently under review and will be reported on in mid-2014. There is some controversy currently surrounding the targets, as Australian renewable energy generation is projected to reach more than 20% by 2020 (Australian Government 2012a, Roam Consulting 2014), exceeding government targets and

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 15

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments suggesting government overspending in the eyes of some stakeholders. Following the current review, the Australian renewable energy target could be reduced, with particular effect on the largest renewable energy industries: wind, hydro, biomass, and landfill gas. While marine energy only represents 0.001% of renewable electricity generation in Australia (Clean Energy Council 2013), political uncertainty exists following the Australian Government announcement of its intention to abolish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), a primary funder of renewable energy projects, and to transfer its responsibilities to the Department of Industry by tabling the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Repeal) Bill 2014

Both the European Union and the UK and devolved nations have similar renewable energy targets stating the percentage of electricity generation that should originate from renewable sources by 2020. The EU has set a target to achieve 20% of energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020, which has been taken on by Member States in the form of binding legislation under the Renewable Energy Directive (Council Directive 2009/28/EC 2009). Under this legislation, the UK as a whole has set a target to reach 15% of electricity consumption from renewable energy sources by 2020, both to help meet EU targets, and to increase energy independence from international oil and gas markets (UK Government 2013). In 2014, the EU also set a binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below the 1990 level by 2030 and is currently developing a includes proposals to increase the share of renewable energy consumption to 27% and to increase energy efficiency by 30% (European Commission 2014).

Scotland has set a more ambitious target than the other UK devolved nations: to generate an equivalent 100% of electricity consumed in Scotland from renewable sources by 2020, most of which currently comes from wind or hydro power sources. Though the sector makes up a relatively small percentage of renewable energy generation, Scotland considers itself to be a world leader in marine energy, and this has led to greater momentum around the marine renewable energy industry in Scotland. The Scottish Government continues to offer support to the wave industry, in particular, through the Marine Renewables Commercialisation Fund, worth £18m, and other funding streams (Scottish Government 2013).

Government funding is also available for marine energy development outside of Scotland, and can come from a variety of sources, such as the Technology Strategy Board, the Carbon Trust, and the Green Investment Bank. While the Welsh government does not have marine energy-specific funding, they operate a number of business funding programmes which operate in parallel to private investment. The Sustainable Development Fund can also be accessed on a local level in Wales to support projects, including marine energy. Similar business-led funding streams are available in England and Northern Ireland.

Political uncertainty can substantially influence both investor and industry confidence in the marine renewable energy industry. Within the UK, this is evident in the size and pace of development of the wave and tidal energy industries in Scotland in tandem with the greater availability of innovation funding and government policy support, alongside a high natural resource (Vantoch-Wood et al. 2012). Recent UK Government support for shale gas (UK Government 2014) and other non- renewable technologies has created some concern around government backing of the renewable energy industry. This is particularly true in England, which lacks a devolved government, and has

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 16

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

influenced uncertainty within the growing wave and tidal sector. Furthermore, a recent study by Leete et al. (2013) suggested that an unpredictable and changing policy landscape is a major concern for investors, who could otherwise be encouraged to invest by government-led strategic financing.

In Australia, on the other hand, wave and tidal energy comprise an even smaller component of the renewable energy industry, but one which also relies on support from the Australian Commonwealth Government. Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd., for instance, received further funding of $11m AUD through ARENA’s Emerging Renewables Program in June 2014 to support development of the CETO 6 project further offshore from the current PWEP site at Garden Island. The move by the Australian Government to dismantle ARENA could significantly alter the innovation landscape for renewable energy in Australia, particularly for nascent technologies and developers new to the marketplace which depend on public-sector grants for start-up R&D and business funding. This could play to the advantage of mature developers who are able to overcome the period of investment risk between demonstration and commercial scale projects. Development and innovation from smaller ventures and technology transfer from international markets into Australia, however, may be discouraged by a lack of government support.

3.2 Marine planning

Even where there is strong political support for marine renewable energy development, the progress of development is also related to the approach to marine planning taken by the responsible government. Marine planning plays a strong role in offshore development by providing developers with information about appropriate locations on development along with associated conditions and restrictions. In the UK, and Scotland in particular, marine planning has explicitly included renewable energy development in both territorial and EEZ waters.

In Scotland, the Marine (Scotland) Act (2010) and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 require the Scottish Government to develop a National Marine Plan. While national and regional marine plans are under development, sectoral planning is also underway for offshore renewable energy. This iterative approach to marine planning takes into account each offshore sector independently; it has already been completed for offshore wind energy, and is currently underway for wave and tidal energy (Davies and Pratt 2014). A strategic environmental assessment was carried out for each industry under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, and is followed by four stages:

• a scoping stage to identify and provide guidance on potential areas for development • strategic environmental and socio-economic assessments • statutory consultation • production of a final plan and project licensing

By addressing environmental, socio-economic, and other concerns specific to the industry at the planning stage, this approach has been cited as reducing developer risk while increasing stakeholder confidence in offshore renewable energy development. Scotland has hence advanced much more quickly in terms of marine renewable energy development.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 17

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

In the rest of the UK, marine planning is less advanced. Regional marine plans are under development in England, and Northern Ireland commenced work on developing a national marine plan in 2012. Wales issued a Statement of Public Participation for the Welsh National Marine Plan in 2014 (Welsh Government 2014), and have previously undertaken a Marine Energy Infrastructure Study and developed the Marine Renewable Energy Strategic Framework to guide development of wave and tidal energy in Wales.

The Commonwealth Government of Australia published its Oceans Policy in 1999, which ‘ sets in place the framework for integrated and ecosystem-based planning and management for all of Australia’s marine jurisdictions’ (Commonwealth of Australia 1998). The Policy provided guidance for marine planning and management, and at the time of publication was considered by many to be the most advanced marine planning development worldwide. The development of Regional Marine Plans is central to the Oceans Policy. The Oceans Policy states that Regional Marine Plans are to be based on large marine ecosystems, and that they are binding on all Commonwealth agencies.

Following the EPBC Act 1999, four plans have been published as Marine Bioregional Plans, and primarily focus on the conservation of biodiversity in each region of Commonwealth Waters. The plans have objectives consistent with the EPBC Act 1999 (Australian Government 2012c, b). Two marine bioregional plans span the coastline of Western Australia: the South-west Marine Bioregional Plan (Australian Government 2012c) and the North-west Marine Bioregional Plan (Australian Government 2012b). The plans contain advice on potential risks to the environment for key ecological and environmental features, marine renewable energy developments are cited as a potential pressure to the marine environment, but specific guidance or advice is not provided for developments in any offshore industry.

Similar to national marine planning, the Government of Western Australia has taken an approach of developing coastal marine planning around biodiversity hotspots. The Marine Parks and Reserves Authority came into being in 1997 with the remit of developing marine reserves across all state waters. The remainder of the coastal area (to 3 nm) is managed by specific departments and consultation with the appropriate competent authorities. In Western Australia, the Planning and Development Act 2005 requires local governments to have due regard to the State Coastal Planning Policy, which includes provisions for the sustainable use of the coast (Government of Western Australia 2003). The Policy states that:

‘Western Australia’s planning system does not directly engage in planning for the marine environment. However, the need for integrated marine planning is acknowledged, and will be assisted by the preparation of a State marine planning strategy.’

As of 2012, a State Marine Planning Strategy was still listed as an ‘outstanding task’ (Western Australia Planning Commission and Department of Planning 2012), leaving a gap in planning provision between the nearshore coastal environment (stretching from 500 m offshore to the first road, Government of Western Australia 2013c) and the extent of waters (3 nm).

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 18

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

The specific integration of marine renewable energy development in Scottish marine planning is a result of the government support for the industry, and has been cited as one of the reasons for Scottish leadership in the UK and worldwide in the marine energy sector. Forward-thinking development of geographically seamless marine planning (e.g. from coastlines to the edge of exclusive economic zone waters), such that it makes provision for offshore renewable energy could help to make particular countries or regions more attractive to investment and industry development.

3.3 Environmental legislation

Governance of the marine environment is surprisingly similar across the UK and Australia, and both nations have a similar group of legislative instruments and regulations which serve to protect the environment and encourage sustainable development. For example, both nations list marine species and habitats which are protected within their waters, many of which are drawn down from international agreements such as the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species. Many species are offered similar protection: cetaceans, for instance, are protected in the UK under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and in Australian offshore waters as part of the Australia Whale Sanctuary, under the EPBC Act 1999. Specific complementary legislation or regulations on protected species, environmental impact assessment, invasive species, pollution and contamination, navigation, and seabed ownership are listed in Table 3.1.

While many legislative instruments are predominantly similar in purpose, many UK instruments and regulations are directly transposed from European Union legislation. There is a strong framework for litigation in Europe, meaning that institutions may be more cautious of developments, for fear of being taken to court. Meanwhile, Australian Commonwealth legislation reflects interpretation of international agreements, but does not stem directly from the governing activities of a larger body. This may mean that Australia has more flexibility in regulating development in line with its own needs when compared to the UK, which may be more stringent in regulating marine developments as a result of its liability to meet European Union regulations.

While Australian state waters extend only to 3 nm from shore, UK devolved nations waters extend to 12 nm. Scotland has devolved powers for most types of development in its waters out to 200 nm. This suggests that at the state or devolved nation scale, the UK devolved nations may have more autonomy and interest in governing their marine environment in order to ensure both conservation of the environment and sustainable resource use for economic development. The greater density of users within the UK marine environment may be one instigator for a strong marine planning framework in the UK and its devolved nations in comparison with Australia and its states. The Australian Government has, however, developed bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and state governments which effectively creates a ‘one stop shop’ for environmental approvals at state level. These agreements give state governments the power to assess projects requiring approval both at state and Commonwealth level, and should facilitate EIA, particularly for projects which span state and Commonwealth waters.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 19

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

Table 3.1: A selection of complementary statutory instruments

Subject UK Australia Protected The Conservation of Species and Endangered Species Protection Act Species Habitats Regulations 2010 1993 (Commonwealth) Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (Western Australia) Environmental Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007 EPBC Act 1999 (Commonwealth) Impact Environment Protection Act 1986 Assessment (Western Australia) Invasive Species Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Quarantine Act 1908 (Commonwealth, Wildlife and Natural Environment to be replaced by the Biosecurity Bill (Scotland) Act 2001) 2014), EPBC Act 1999 (Commonwealth) Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 and Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 (Western Australia) Pollution and Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Contamination The Water Environment (Water Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 Framework Directive)(England and (Commonwealth) Wales) Regulations 2003 Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Water Environment and Water Substances Act 1987 Services (Scotland) Act 2003, The Water Environment (Controlled Activities)(Scotland) Regulations 2011 Navigation Energy Act 2004 Sea Installations Act 1987 Electricity Act 1989 Navigation Act 2012 (Commonwealth) Navigable Waters Regulations 1958 (Western Australia) Seabed Crown Estate Act 1961 Sea Installations Act 1987 * ownership (Commonwealth), Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (Commonwealth, )Land Administration Act 1997 (Western Australia) Planning and Development Act 2005 (Western Australia) *The Sea Installations Act 1987 was amended in 2014, and the Sea Installations Levy Act 1987, which established a permit scheme governing sea installations, was repealed. Most activities requiring permits are now covered by the EPBC Act 1999. A number of other provisions including maritime safety, and customs and immigration will continue under the Sea Installations Act 1987 (Australian Government 2014).

3.4 The consenting process

Getting environmental consent for development in the marine environment is a substantial hurdle which offshore wave energy developments must overcome. In the UK, the primary environmental consent is given in the form of a marine licence and an approval under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (developments > 1 MW), while in Australia, projects are either referred for approval to the

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 20

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

Commonwealth Department of Environment under the EPBC Act 1999, or referred to the Western Australia OEPA for approval under the Environment Protection Act 1986.

In all jurisdictions, the final decision maker is a minister(s) within the appropriate government, who makes their decision based on a recommendation from the associated licensing body. In the UK, and in Scotland in particular, the licensing body takes into account socio-economic factors during the licensing process. In Australia the decision-making authority for environmental approvals focusses solely on environment and conservation issues. Once a recommendation is passed to the Minister for his/her consideration, socio-economic elements may be taken into account through consultation with other ministers and government departments.

3.4.1 Timeframe

In England, licensing is not constrained by statutory timeframes, allowing the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to be flexible in processing applications (Marine Management Organisation 2011). Estimated timeframes for application processing have been agreed with Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra), though there is a minimum timeframe for environmental scoping and screening applications of 28 days, which is extended to 42 days for applications requiring an environmental impact assessment. Marine Scotland have also included in their guidance on marine licensing for renewables an estimated time of 2-5 years for environmental impact assessment, and preparation of the environmental statement and license application (Appendix 9.1). For marine renewable energy developments in Scotland, pre-application consultation is only required if the development area is greater than 10,000 m 2 (Scottish Government 2014a). This element of the pre-application process is very much under the control of the developer and their consultants, with steer from the consenting and advisory bodies. Given that steps in the consenting process in Wales and Northern Ireland are similar to those in England and Scotland, consenting timeframes should be similar.

The decision making authorities for environmental approval in Australia (at Commonwealth and State level) do not provide pre-referral timelines, but for a given project, these could be relatively similar to in the UK. This will depend on the extent of pre-application environmental data gathering and monitoring, and community consultation carried out by the proponent, and the degree of advice sought from the decision making authority.

Upon referral (Australia), or submission of the application for a marine license (UK), the process of assessment begins to have an influence on perceived consenting risk. Where a proposal in the Commonwealth marine environment is referred to the Minister of the Environment via the Department of the Environment, the minister must make a decision as to the level of assessment the application will undergo within 20 business days, including a public consultation period of 10 days (Australian Government 2010). Similarly, at state level, a proposal referred to the state Minister for the Environment via the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) must also have a decision on assessment level within four weeks, unless the OEPA asks for further information within that time period (Government of Western Australia 2012). The short time period between referral to the decision making authority and receiving an indication of the assessment level may serve to

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 21

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments reduce risk to developers and their investors by providing greater transparency into the assessment process. The level of assessment is clarified within one month, providing guidance to the developer on the overall likely outcome, as well as further indicative timelines, which depend on the level of assessment.

Marine Scotland provides indicative timelines for the application stage of the marine licensing process, once an application is received from a developer (Appendix 8.1). Generally, it is suggested that should the application be satisfactory, the application stage should last approximately 9 months, including a consultation and issue resolution period and a legal and policy review. However, this period could be substantially extended should requirements not be met by the developer, the consultation period take longer, or should there be a public inquiry on the final ministerial decision. The internal timeframes published by the MMO (England) are similar to those of Marine Scotland, and again depend to an extent on the quality of the application, the consultation period, and on public responses and issue resolution around the application. Timeframes for an individual project should be similar across the UK devolved nations, though considerable onus is put on UK developers to produce a thorough application which addresses potential environmental and social issues in order that the application period can be expedited to minimise investment risk.

While the possible levels of environmental assessment differ somewhat at state level and at a national level in Australia, following referral, proposals are assessed based on reporting by either the developer, the department (Department of the Environment, OEPA), or by public inquiry: there are no indicative timeframes for these processes, and the relevant department may request further information from the developer if deemed necessary. Following on, once a recommendation report has been prepared by the department, the Minister must make an approval decision within 20-40 business days depending on the type of assessment. Given the potential for public comment and departmental review during the assessment process, this process could have similar duration to marine licensing in the UK, though an initial element of certainty around process and requirements will have been given in the form of the referral decision. By providing clarity in assessment at the time of referral, the Australian environmental approval process may help developers bridge the ‘consenting gap’ in the eyes of investors.

3.4.2 Licensing conditions

Licensing conditions may be applied to an environmental approval or consent in both countries. These must be adhered to by the proponent in order that the environmental consent or marine license is valid. They are typically agreed between the regulator, advisors, and stakeholders and the developer as the project evolves during the development process. In the UK, the proponent must accept the licensing authority’s (e.g. MMO, Marine Scotland, DoE Northern Ireland, Natural Resources Wales) terms and conditions before commencing development. In Scotland, Marine Scotland issues two mandatory conditions to every licence: the production of, and adherence to, a construction statement and a marine environmental management plan. Further conditions may be issued in addition to these two. For example, the marine license obtained by MeyGen Ltd. to develop an array of no more than 61 tidal turbines in the Pentland Firth incorporated numerous conditions relating to navigational safety, cabling, pollution, and other elements of the project

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 22

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

(Scottish Government 2014b). A similar approach is taken by the MMO in England and Wales, who are now recommending that a standardised marine monitoring plan be included as an annex in all new licences for offshore wind energy developments, which will also likely be applied to new wave energy developments (Marine Management Organisation 2014).

For proposals determined to be ‘not assessed’ at Australian state level (e.g. under the EP Act 1986 in Western Australia), recommendations, rather than conditions may be applied to the proposal. Two conditions were applied to the Perth Wave Energy project, which was determined to be ‘not assessed, public advice given’, and included implementation of the Marine Environmental Management Plan prepared by Carnegie. This decision was driven by extensive consultation before submitting a referral, to ensure all view points on the environmental management of the project were considered in the environmental management plans, In this case, this condition was included on the lease and easement granted to Carnegie for the development area, making this condition legally enforceable. Were the proposal to be assessed under the EP Act 1986 and approved with conditions, these conditions would have been outcome-based, rather than prescriptive, as is set out in the EP Act 1986 Administrative Procedures (Government of Western Australia 2012). Discussion with staff at the OEPA highlighted that wording conditions in such a way that they are legally enforceable is a major challenge in processing environmental approvals, and could be improved (Hans Jacob, OEPA, pers. comm ).

The application of licensing conditions is done is a similar fashion for projects seeking approval under the EPBC Act 1999, dependent on whether or not the proposal is determined to be a ‘controlled action’, and at what level it is assessed.

3.4.3 Compliance and auditing

The audit and compliance of activities in the marine environment with associated conditions is carried out in all jurisdictions. In the UK devolved nations, the developer may be required to submit regular monitoring reports in line with any conditions applied. Under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, Scottish Ministers are responsible for enforcement of any conditions applied to a marine license via the Marine Scotland Licensing and Operations Team, who monitor compliance with the conditions (Scottish Government 2010). In the rest of the UK, the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 was adapted into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 for the marine environment. The MMO regularly reviews marine licences for English inshore and offshore waters and Welsh and Northern Irish offshore waters, reviewing 10% of high risk licenses annually. No licence is reviewed more than once every 5 years (Marine Management Organisation 2011). Specific review of environmental aspects and post-consent monitoring data of marine renewable energy developments, however is carried out in a more ad-hoc manner, depending on licensing conditions. This is often carried out by a panel of stakeholders and experts including bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology, statutory nature conservation bodies, and academic experts.

Compliance and audit of environmental approvals under the EP Act 1986 in Western Australia is similar to that of the UK devolved nations; proponents are required to submit regular compliance

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 23

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

assessment reports to the OEPA, who monitor compliance with conditions associated with approvals. The Commonwealth Government of Australia Australian Government (2013a) issued a Compliance and Enforcement Policy in 2013, stating that randomly selected, targeted, and/or strategic monitoring of developments could occur. Auditing of Commonwealth environmental approvals could occur in a similar fashion to the MMO’s annual review of licenses, but may also incorporate patrols, sample collection, and site visits (Australian Government 2013a).

3.5 Summary

In both the UK and Australia, the renewable energy industry is faced with an uncertain political climate as both national governments move to decrease public funding investments and promote alternative forms of resource extraction (e.g. shale gas). Scotland, however, maintains consistently strong political support and engagement with renewable energy, particularly in the form of offshore renewables, even as the country heads towards a referendum on independence in September 2014. Amidst other unease around successfully obtaining environmental consents, this has helped to maintain the engagement of investors, developers, and other stakeholders.

As an island nation with over 60 million residents, the UK is already dense with competing users of the marine environment, each with overlapping and potentially conflicting interests. Western Australia, on the other hand, has a population of just over 2.5 million but occupies 10 times the land area of the UK. The majority of Western Australia’s population (approximately 80%) lives in the coastal Perth metropolitan area, an area of dense population and high use of the marine area. This leaves the remainder of Western Australia sparsely populated. The intensity of coastal use and so cumulative impacts on the marine environment (particularly outside the Perth Metropolitan area) are likely less in Western Australia, which may facilitate environmental approvals for ‘first mover’ renewable energy developments for the near future.

Despite a high user density in the marine environment, a strong national framework for marine planning, focussing on sustainable use of the sea has encouraged development of the industry in the UK. In Scotland, inclusion of specific sectoral plans for offshore renewable energy has been particularly effective in this regard, and may have led to Scotland’s lead in marine renewable energy development amongst the UK devolved nations. These plans are joined up, and extend from within the boundary of onshore planning to the edge of the Scottish offshore waters (200 nm from the coast). Marine planning in Australia’s offshore region focuses primarily on the conservation of biodiversity by first identifying areas to protect, and then planning for use of the remaining areas across multiple sectors. Western Australia has taken a similar approach to coastal planning, introducing the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and legislation for the designation of marine reserves in 1997. Following on, the remainder of the coastal zone (to 3 nm) can be used by other sectors, provided that environmental approvals are met. The UK’s ‘sectoral’ approach to marine planning allows even small sectors such as marine renewable energy to be conspicuously involved in the marine planning process amidst a high density of coastal use. On the other hand, at low levels of development a more general approach to planning may be more streamlined, shortening timeframes for environmental approvals in Australia.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 24

3. Comparative analysis of consenting environments

Legislation governing the marine environment in Australia, Western Australia, the UK, and its devolved nations is very similar in terms of roles played by particular legislative instruments. The greater extent of jurisdictional waters around the UK’s devolved nations (to 12 nm offshore, in comparison with 3 nm for Western Australia), may encourage these nations to take greater interest in the marine environment. Scotland, for instance, has negotiated devolved powers to govern its territorial and offshore waters out to 200 nm, while the offshore waters around the rest of the UK remain governed by the UK government (not the devolved nations). The culture of litigation in Europe, however, may mean that European nations, including the UK, may regulate use of the marine environment more tightly. Often the onus is on developers to complete detailed baseline environmental studies and thorough environmental impact assessments in order to obtain environmental consent in the form of a marine license within a desired timeframe.

The low density of coastal users in the Australian marine environment may have led to lower concern around cumulative environmental impacts to date, and may have facilitated the environmental approvals process for the first developers of marine renewable energy. It has previously been suggested that cumulative impacts were only included in a limited manner in EIA in Western Australia (Sánchez and Morrison-Saunders 2011), but increased emphasis on cumulative impacts by the WA OEPA in recent years has sparked discussion around methods for identifying and measuring the cumulative impacts of marine developments in Australian waters. Scotland, on the other hand, has developed a strong planning framework to accommodate a multiplicity of users of the sea, enabling development of the renewable energy industry in spite of social and environmental challenges. Strong government support has given further confidence to the industry, and may be a prominent reason for Scotland’s world leading position in the marine renewable energy sector. England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are in the process of developing similar approaches

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 25

4. Assessment of environmental effects

4 Perceived environmental impacts of wave energy devices

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is commonplace for offshore developments, including renewable energy projects, around the world. In Europe, it is necessary in some form under the EU EIA Directive (85/337/EEC), while in Australia the need for EIA is determined by the appropriate statutory authority under state or commonwealth jurisdiction. Environmental Impact Assessment for marine developments is challenging because of the dynamic, complex environment, where physical, biological, and chemical properties interact across multiple spatial and temporal scales (Garel et al. 2014). In the case of wave energy production, the industry is relatively new, and only a handful of modelling studies and short-term monitoring studies around single devices provide context for EIA. The environmental impacts of single offshore wave energy devices have been shown to be small in intensity, timeline, and spatial extent (Garel et al. 2014), but uncertainty around EIA for wave energy arrays remains relatively high. It has been suggested, however, that offshore wave energy development may have the least natural heritage impact of any marine renewable energy technology (Scottish Natural Heritage 2004). As one of the first arrays of wave energy converters worldwide, the Perth Wave Energy Project and its associated environmental monitoring programme could substantially increase the current knowledge base in terms of EIA for wave energy arrays.

Environmental Impact Assessment often uses a framework which identifies the stressors, receptors, effects, and impacts of a development (Boehlert and Gill 2010, Garel et al. 2014). Stressors are features or characteristics which may cause environmental changes, while receptors are elements of the environment which respond to the stressor. Effects describe the mechanisms by which stressors affect the environment, but do not assess intensity or significance. Impacts, on the other hand, describe the severity, intensity, or duration of the effect (Garel et al. 2014). Impacts can be a direct response of a receptor to a stressor, but they may also be an indirect response, mediated by other receptors. It is important to note that though there may be evidence for some environmental effects of wave energy conversion, these may or may not represent biologically significant impacts, causing significant population-level changes or changes in physical or ecological processes.

Some potential environmental effects of wave energy extraction are briefly outlined in Table 4.1 with respect to the following stressors:

1. Physical presence of wave energy device / array 2. Changes in hydrodynamics and sediment dynamics 3. Release of chemicals 4. Generation of noise 5. Generation of electromagnetic fields 6. Cumulative impacts of devices

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 26

4. Assessment of environmental effects

And receptors:

1. Physical environment and water quality 2. Benthic habitats and communities 3. Fish and fisheries 4. Marine mammals and basking sharks 5. Birds 6. Elasmobranchs 7. Marine Turtles

Taxonomically, basking sharks are classified as elasmobranchs, but in this document they are considered together with marine mammals, as the mechanism of impact on the animal is often similar. For example, models of collision risk between animals and renewable energy infrastructure are often applied to both cetaceans and basking sharks. Marine mammals and basking sharks are both Annex IV European Protected Species, and in each of the UK’s devolved nations this protection is legally transposed under the same pieces of legislation: the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 for inshore waters (up to 12 nm), and the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 2007 for offshore waters (out to 200 nm). The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 also state that it is an offence to ‘intentionally or recklessly disturb a dolphin, whale or basking sharks’ . For these reasons these species are often considered together for EIA of marine developments in UK waters.

While often considered as a subset of fish during the EIA process, in this document elasmobranchs are assessed independently to fish and fisheries. This is because research underpinning impacts on these animals tends to focus on one group or the other (not both), and because the mechanisms for impact may differ in relation to the physiology of each type of organism. Furthermore, fish are often assessed with respect to their commercial importance, while the scale of recreational fishery for elasmobranchs is substantially smaller.

In the sections below, the potential environmental impacts of wave energy developments are briefly outlined in relation to the effects in Table 4.1. The current scientific understanding around each effect and possible impact is also reviewed. This section is intended to be a general review of the potential environmental effects associated with wave energy deployments of all types which have been discussed in both academic literature and government and consultancy reports, mainly in a UK context. A more focussed assessment of the PWEP and CETO devices can be found in section 4.2.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 27

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Table 4.1: Potential environmental effects of offshore wave energy devices, after Garel et al. (2014). Stressors are along the top row, while receptors are found in the left-hand column. The severity and magnitude of these effects are discussed in each associated section of the text. Cumulative impacts are not included, but are discussed in section 5.1.8.

Physical presence of Changes in hydrodynamics & Release of Generation of Gener ation of devices sediment dynamics chemicals noise electromagnetic fields Physical Habitat creation, loss, or Scour, altered seabed and beach Pollution, site environment & replacement; artificial topography, changed sediment contamination water quality reefs loading, wave dissipation, array ‘wakes’ Benthic habitats Habitat creation, loss or Exposure or burial of sessile Pollution, site Changes in behaviour, and communities replacement increase in organisms, increase in abrasion, contamination interference with larval diversity, stepping stone changes in larval settlement rates, development and effect habitat loss settlement Fish & fisheries Aggregation around Hearing injuries, Species -specific site devices, habitat creation, site avoidance, avoidance, altered feeding enhancement, acoustic masking migration patterns barrier to migration, no- take zone Marine mammals Collision risk, site Site avoidance, & basking sharks avoidance, altered habitat hearing injuries, use, obstruction of stress increase, migratory route acoustic masking Birds Rest sites (surface - Detraction/enhancement of feeding Site avoidance piercing devices), collision areas risk, site avoidance Elasmobranchs Habitat creation, feeding Attraction to site, or site enhancement avoidance, barrier to movement, feeding and hunting behaviour changes Marine turtles Collision risk, site Site avoidance, Altered migration patterns avoidance, obstruction of hearing injuries migratory route

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 28

4. Assessment of environmental effects

4.1.1 Physical environment and water quality

Installing new structures in the sea will inevitably cause changes to the physical environment of the surrounding seascape for the extent of the project lifetime, and possibly beyond. Construction activities may alter the seabed and re-suspend mobile sediments (Miller et al. 2013), though wave energy devices are often placed in highly energetic areas where seabed processes are dynamic and highly variable, so the extent to which construction activities will act as stressors to the physical environment is debatable. Devices, cabling, substations and other structures represent the addition of new vertical relief, particularly in areas of otherwise featureless seabed. Where installed in areas of soft sediments (e.g. sand, mud), submerged structures represent new hard habitat for the development of hard bottom communities which would have been previously absent. Scour and changes in the transport of sediment may also occur around fixed structures, modifying the distribution and availability of sedimentary habitats up to 50 m from the device (Amoudry et al. 2009, Miller et al. 2013). However, population-level impacts of these changes may not be discernible in comparison with the highly energetic background environment. If floating structures are anchored by mooring systems, the presence of floating elements provides new habitat or shelter for hard- substrate communities and fish, and could act as fish aggregating devices (Langhamer and Wilhelmsson 2009).

Further afield, it is possible that an array of wave energy devices could reduce wave energy and wave heights in its lee (Woolf et al. 2014), with the potential to affect the amount of wave energy reaching shorelines. It has been suggested that such effects could occur up to 20 km from a device or array (Amoudry et al. 2009), though this is a highly conservative estimate based on 100% energy extraction. More recently, a modelling study of Portuguese wave farms using one or two rows of the Pelamis device demonstrated a decrease in significant wave height immediately downstream of the wave farm of 10-20 %, affecting a considerably larger area as the size of installation increased. However, at nearshore locations, significant wave height reduction was rarely as much as 5% (Rusu and Guedes Soares 2013). For wave energy devices situated closer to the shoreline than Pelamis (e.g. Aquamarine Power’s Oyster device or Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd.’s CETO device) reductions in nearshore wave heights could be more substantial. Even so this will be dependent on device architecture, and different wave energy converter designs (Figure 1.1) are likely to have different impacts on nearshore wave climate.

A reduction in wave energy reaching the shore will reduce the amount of breaking waves and coastal turbulence, which are highly influential properties in determining the makeup of near-shore and onshore biological communities (Burrows 2012). Changes in onshore wave energy, therefore, could have substantial consequences for biological communities living in wave exposed coastal environments, but it is uncertain how great a reduction in wave energy in nearshore environments would be needed for these effects to become apparent. These effects are currently under investigation in relation to wave energy converters in both the UK and Australia.

The transport of sediment (suspension, export, accretion, and longshore drift) in many coastal areas also depends on wave energy and direction (Komar 1971). Localised changes wave climate directly resulting from wave energy extraction could therefore affect beach morphology and nearshore bathymetry in areas near to wave energy developments (Woolf et al. 2014). For example, in the

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 29

4. Assessment of environmental effects previously mentioned study of Pelamis wave farms substantial decreases in longshore current velocities were predicted with increasing levels of energy extraction. The authors suggest that an array of 10 Pelamis devices in two rows could reduce velocities by approximately 8% (Rusu and Guedes Soares 2013).

These effects are not expected to extend substantially beyond the area in the lee of the wave energy device or array, and it must be noted that regional wave energy and direction can vary considerably on an inter-annual basis (Woolf et al. 2002), and that this variation may be increasing as a result of climate change (Wolf and Woolf 2006). It may be difficult to distinguish changes in wave climate resulting from wave energy developments from this natural variability, and it is important to consider this impact in the context of the need for low carbon energy supply and a changing climate (Woolf et al. 2014).

4.1.2 Benthic habitats and communities

Physical changes to the seabed environment will affect benthic communities living in the vicinity of wave energy installations, across the project life cycle. During construction, mobile benthic species may avoid the area and associated seabed disturbance, while sessile or less mobile species may experience episodic burial or smothering from sediment re-suspension. Particularly vulnerable species include filter feeding organisms and biogenic reefs (Last et al. 2011, Miller et al. 2013). The installation of seabed-mounted wave energy converters and associated infrastructure (cabling, substations) represents an area of habitat loss: while the actual footprint of these structures is unlikely to be large, such loss of habitat may be important for rare, vulnerable, or ecologically important communities such as kelp forests (Macleod et al. 2014). On the other hand, as mentioned in the previous section the presence of devices throughout its operational life can also represent new habitat for hard substrate communities, increasing species diversity (Langhamer and Wilhelmsson 2009, Langhamer et al. 2009). It is important to note that these communities are often characterised by lower species richness and diversity when compared with natural hard habitat, and that these structures may be more conducive to colonisation by invasive/non-native species (Bulleri and Airoldi 2005, Glasby et al. 2007), with detrimental ecosystem effects.

Seabed disturbance fundamentally alters habitat provisioning for animals living in and on the seabed (Miller et al. 2013). For example, seabed-mounted renewable energy devices may create a hydrodynamic ‘shadow’, reducing flow speeds and changing turbulence levels in the immediate vicinity of the device, which could result in deposition of mobile sediments in nearby hard-substrate communities (Neill et al. 2009), though such changes are less likely to occur for wave energy extraction than for tidal energy extraction. More likely will be the effects of the previously mentioned scouring of sediments around seabed-mounted infrastructure, up to 50 m from structures (Amoudry et al. 2009). Increased suspended sediment and erosion around structures can not only expose animals living within the seabed, but can also increase abrasive stress on nearby organisms, which can reduce propagule settlement success and adult feeding ability, impacting nearby benthic communities (Shields et al. 2011, Miller et al. 2013). It has also been suggested that benthic habitats could suffer abrasion caused by mooring lines of floating devices dragging or rubbing across the seabed (Krivtsov and Linfoot 2012), which could be particularly severe in high- energy wave-exposed environments.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 30

4. Assessment of environmental effects

No benthic marine invertebrates are known to be electrically sensitive, but some may be able to detect magnetic fields. However, there is little scientific consensus around how these animals interact with man-made sources of magnetic fields (Gill et al. 2014 and references therein), so at present the significance of this impact is difficult to assess.

A reduction of wave energy in the lee of a wave energy development may also affect associated near-shore subtidal and intertidal benthic communities. Wave energy is an important determinant of subtidal and rocky shore community makeup (Burrows et al. 2008, Burrows 2012), and many species are adapted to specific levels of wave energy and turbulence. Where wave energy is reduced, subtidal and intertidal communities may shift towards organisms dominant in less wave- exposed environments, though there remains substantial uncertainty around the detection of such impacts amidst other complicating factors such as climate change and inter-species competition (Want et al. 2014).

4.1.3 Fish

The installation and operation of wave energy devices could have effects on many fish species, with potential positive or negative effects on associated fish populations and commercial fisheries. In this report ‘fish’ encompasses species of bony marine fish (Osteichthyes), excluding elasmobranchs such as sharks, skates. Elasmobranchs are discussed in a separate section.

During the construction phase, effects on fish populations are likely to stem from construction noise and seabed disturbance, while during the operational period these structures may act as artificial reefs or fish aggregating devices.

Fish detect underwater noise and vibrations using their inner ear structures and lateral line organ, and species which have connections between the inner ear and swim bladders will be most susceptible to underwater noise (Thomsen et al. 2006), while other fish such as elasmobranchs and flatfish do not have swim bladders, so will be less susceptible (Goertner et al. 1994). Some migratory fish have also been shown to respond to artificial electromagnetic fields such as those caused by exposed subsea cabling, which could cause changes in migration patterns. However at present there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not these responses could represent a biologically significant effect (Gill et al. 2012).

Floating devices and artificial reef effects may benefit both benthic and pelagic fish species by providing additional food, habitat and shelter (Langhamer et al. 2009). Seabed mounted structures in shallower water (<40-50 m) may act as artificial reefs and attract pelagic fish, while floating structures are more likely to act as fish aggregation devices for pelagic fish, as they do not have the same degree of architectural complexity throughout the water column (Wilhelmsson and Langhamer 2014). Fish using wave energy devices as artificial reefs may feed on biofouling associated with the structure, such as blue mussels and other associated fouling organisms (Langhamer et al. 2009). Without fouling communities, however, artificial reef effects may not be apparent for fish, as food resources would need to be obtained throughout a much larger area than the designated array (Maar et al. 2009).

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 31

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Excluding fisheries from wave energy arrays will also create de-facto no-take zones for commercially fished species, though these areas are often more useful for less-migratory or stationary species which are not as likely to travel outside the no-take zone. Increases in fish biomass might be expected within these areas as a result of decreased disturbance from fishing particularly for previously commercially fished species, but currently evidence to support this is weak (Wilhelmsson and Langhamer 2014).

4.1.4 Marine mammals and basking sharks

Interactions between marine mammals and renewable energy devices represent one of the greatest consenting threats to wave energy developments, given the protected status of many marine mammals and the ‘show-stopping’ nature of any marine mammal fatalities demonstrated to be associated with wave energy conversion. Consequently, the research base around marine mammal – renewable energy device interactions is rapidly growing as pilot wave energy device deployments and monitoring strategies begin to provide results. Furthermore, some insight into the effects of installations on marine mammals and basking sharks can be gleaned from other industries such as commercial shipping and oil and gas extraction. Interactions with basking sharks are also discussed in this section, as they are likely to interact with developments in a similar fashion. Interactions between marine mammals and basking sharks and wave energy developments can be divided into three general categories: noise; collisions, entanglement and entrapment; and site avoidance.

4.1.4.1 Noise

Sound emitted during installation and operation of wave energy devices may affect both individual behaviour and population health of marine mammals in the vicinity of a development, so the measurement of noise generated from associated activities and possible effects on populations of marine mammals will make up an important part of project EIA. Basking sharks are unlikely to be affected by marine noise to the same extent as marine mammals.

In the UK, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) suggests that impact criteria should be used to assess the effects of noise on populations of marine mammals, for example, those set out by Southall et al. (2007). Noise impacts on marine mammals is less well understood for wave energy developments, and effects will depend on the characteristics of the sound and the hearing sensitivity of the animal in question (Southall et al. 2007). Echolocating porpoises and beaked whales may be the most sensitive to noise effects, and may be the first group of animals to show behavioural responses to noise, including area avoidance, and changes in social interactions and feeding patterns (Tyack et al. 2011). Perhaps the most significant noise-related threat occurs during the installation phase of devices, particularly where pile driving is used to secure the foundations of a device to the seabed. Piling activities may only cause injury or hearing damage to animals < 100 m from the site, but behavioural responses may occur up to 15 km from piling locations (Brandt et al. 2011). Many wave energy converters will be fixed to the seabed using other technologies such as mooring lines, however, and so disturbance during the construction phase may be substantially reduced.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 32

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Wave energy converters, by their nature, are sited in highly energetic environments which may have existing high levels of background noise. Less is understood about the noise-related effects of operating wave energy converters, which may be generated by the gearbox, generator motion, hydraulics motion, internal turbine blades, and mechanical faults (Wilson et al. 2014). Noise is often device-specific and both background and device noise is strongly related to sea state and environmental conditions, and will be highly variable in comparison with other sources of marine noise (Lepper et al. 2012). If animals are unable to detect sounds related to operational wave energy converters above ambient noise, then associated ecological effects should be minimal. However, if operational noise is detectable by marine mammals and causes a response, disturbance in the form of behavioural changes to resting, feeding, or social interactions and displacement away from habitat may occur over the duration of the device operational period. Even so, marine mammals may also rely on acoustic cues to detect operating devices and to avoid collisions, and close monitoring of existing installations may help us to better understand how animals interact with devices upon approach (Wilson et al. 2014).

4.1.4.2 Collisions and entanglement

Many marine mammals are highly mobile swimmers and are likely to be able to effectively avoid and evade wave energy devices, provided that they are able to detect the structures, either visually or acoustically. At close proximity, marine mammals tend to use visual cues to navigate obstacles and forage. The vision capabilities of cetaceans and pinnipeds is skewed to the blue-green region of the spectrum, so the underwater coloration of wave energy devices may be important in reducing collision risk (Wilson et al. 2006). Where large numbers of wave energy devices are deployed in arrays the spacing of devices will also influence the risk of collision and the availability of escape options to approaching animals. However, some marine mammals and basking sharks may be attracted to wave energy installations by enhanced feeding opportunities if the structures cause increases in local biological productivity (Scheidat et al. 2011), which may increase collision risk. Pinnipeds may also use surface-piercing devices as haul out sites, offering a new resting place to these animals, though they may be at risk of injury from exposed moving parts while attempting to haul-out or leave structures (Wilson et al. 2006).

Collisions may not only occur as a result of animals swimming into wave energy converters, but may also occur when structures pitch downwards onto animals in heavy seas (Wilson et al. 2006). Species vulnerable to collisions include otters, pinnipeds, basking sharks and cetaceans, though this will depend on the location of device infrastructure in the water column and on the importance of the installation area to the species in question.

Where devices have floating elements, collision risks will be highest for animals which are surface- breathing, which could use devices as haul-out locations (e.g. seals and sea lions), or which spend a large amount of time near the surface (e.g. basking sharks). Floating wave energy converters may also have associated mooring lines and cables which extend from the seabed to the surface, and represent a risk for lacerations, blunt trauma, and entanglement, particularly for larger cetaceans (Wilson et al. 2006, Boehlert et al. 2008). This risk may increase should derelict fishing gear become ensnared around wave energy device infrastructure.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 33

4. Assessment of environmental effects

The population consequences of injuries resulting from collisions and entanglement with wave energy converters are hard to quantify, as little to no information exists on how often porpoises might encounter wave energy arrays, let alone interact with them. In Scotland, researchers have modelled the potential encounter rates of harbour porpoises with commercial-scale tidal turbine arrays (Wilson et al. 2006). While the results from this study cannot be extrapolated to wave energy arrays, which are situated in very different environments to tidal turbine arrays, a similar method could be used to predict marine mammal and basking shark encounters with wave energy devices. It must be remembered, however, than an encounter does not represent a collision or entanglement. An encounter with a wave energy device will only lead to a collision or entanglement event if the animal fails to detect, avoid or evade the object (Wilson et al. 2006).

4.1.4.3 Site avoidance

Beyond noise impacts and collisions, behavioural responses to the presence of wave energy arrays are likely to have little ecological effect on marine mammals and basking sharks unless they result in habitat exclusion (Wilson et al. 2006). This could include exclusion from important breeding areas, feeding sites, resting locations, or migration routes. The effects of displacement of essential activities are poorly understood, but it has been suggested that animals could experience reduced feeding and reproductive success with adverse effects at the population level, though the degree to which populations are impacted will be highly species- and site-specific (Thompson et al. 2013).

4.1.5 Seabirds

Installed wave energy converters represent new structures placed into seabird foraging habitats, and may have both positive and negative effects on seabirds, many of which depend on the architecture of installed devices. As with marine mammals, it remains unclear how wave energy installations will affect seabird population levels, but current thinking suggests that any impacts, positive or negative, are likely to be mediated through seabird foraging success, which is influential on reproductive success and individual survival (Scott et al. 2014).

Foraging behaviour is influenced by prey availability, which is often related to the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment such as topography and current flows. Potential physical changes to the ocean environment from wave energy converters are discussed in section 4.1.1, and these changes could either increase or decrease prey availability for seabirds.

There is evidence that seabird foraging hotspots are often associated with topographic features, including seamounts and shelf-edges, and other areas associated with high sub-surface primary productivity (Scott et al. 2010). In coastal regions, these areas can often be found at surface fronts (e.g. tidal fronts, Hunt et al. 1999). All of these features are associated with the level of mixing within the water column (at small and larger scales), which may be altered by wave energy developments, with knock-on effects on seabird foraging. The foraging behaviour of many seabirds is still poorly understood, so it remains difficult to quantify how the presence of wave energy devices and arrays could affect seabird populations in this respect.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 34

4. Assessment of environmental effects

During the breeding season, seabirds are also energetically constrained to balance foraging, resting, and flying periods with feeding their young. It has been demonstrated that some seabirds actively avoid offshore wind farms while others are attracted to them (Lindeboom et al. 2011), though these effects have not been demonstrated for wave energy developments. Similarly, modelling studies have shown that avoidance of wind farm areas could cause changes in survival rates of some seabirds because of changes in energy expenditure and intake (Kaiser et al. 2005). Energy budgeting by seabirds, however, is highly species-specific, and depends on the flying method, foraging efficiency, diving behaviour, and the time spent on each activity, so it is important to identify the particular species which make use of any area proposed for wave energy development (Scott et al. 2014).

Offshore wave energy devices all have submerged components which may influence the diving behaviour of seabirds through the physical presence of structures, changes in prey behaviour, hydrodynamics, and water column turbidity (Scott et al. 2014). For example, if fish aggregate around submerged devices, they may become easier to capture by diving seabirds (Enstipp et al. 2007). As tagging and tracking devices for seabirds and other acoustic technologies (e.g. FLOWBEC, Williamson et al. 2014) improve, it will be possible to quantify seabird diving characteristics simultaneously with oceanographic data to better quantify how various wave energy devices and arrays could affect seabird foraging behaviour. At present, however, it remains difficult to assess how this might affect seabird populations as a whole.

Finally, underwater and above water noise emitted from the installation and operation of wave energy converters has been suggested as a further source of disturbance and/or habitat exclusion to foraging sea birds, but very little is known about how birds respond to noise, particularly underwater (McCluskie et al. 2012). Impacts are likely to be limited to areas immediately adjacent to devices, though marine noise may also have impact on fish, and may alter the distribution of prey species for foraging seabirds.

4.1.6 Elasmobranchs

Over 30 species of elasmobranchs (sharks, skates and rays) can be found in UK waters. Eight are classified as ‘priority marine features’ in Scotland, and 15 are UK Biodiversity Action Plan species (Appendix 9.3), and so are considered to be of particular importance to Scotland’s seas. Furthermore, all species of elasmobranchs are listed by OSPAR as Threatened and Declining Species.

Elasmobranchs are able to detect and respond to electric fields, using them for orientation, and to detect prey and locate mates (Collin and Whitehead 2004). While no evidence is available from wave energy devices, wind farms have been shown to produce electromagnetic fields within the detectable range of intensities for benthic elasmobranches, though no positive or negative effect on elasmobranches could be demonstrated (Gill et al. 2009). A more recent study suggested that sharks could learn to ignore and/or adapt to anthropogenic EMF within small spatial and temporal fields, but that at larger scales they may ‘forget’ these adaptations (Kimber et al. 2014). How

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 35

4. Assessment of environmental effects behavioural adaptation and the scale of wave energy developments interact to affect individual animals and whole populations, though, is impossible to determine at present.

Beyond the effects of electromagnetic fields, the potential impacts of offshore renewable energy, let alone wave energy, on elasmobranchs are rarely discussed. As previously mentioned for fish, benthic and pelagic habitat creation and associated increases in local biomass may attract predatory elasmobranchs seeking food. Seabed-mounted components may also provide additional shelter for benthic elasmobranchs, while fish aggregation around mid-water or floating components may represent additional foraging opportunities, so elasmobranchs may also aggregate around structures or within wave energy development areas. There may be some risk of collision in the vicinity of moving components of structures, particularly for basking sharks which spend a large amount of time feeding near the surface (Wilson et al. 2006).

4.1.7 Marine Turtles

Seven species of marine turtles are found in the world’s oceans, and all are included on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. Four of these species are occasional visitors to UK waters: Leatherback, Loggerhead, Kemp’s Ridley, and Green turtles, though loggerhead turtles are by far the most frequent (Baxter et al.). In Europe, marine turtles are listed as European Protected Species, and are protected in England and Wales under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), and the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 in Scotland. In the UK, they are seasonal visitors, often spotted on the surface, feeding on jellyfish, though Leatherback turtles spend approximately 80% - 94% of their time submerged and can dive to depths of 1000 m (Lutcavage and Lutz 1997).

As the most common species found in UK waters, interactions between wave energy converters and marine turtles are most likely for Leatherback turtles, and include indirect and direct effects. Indirect effects are often those that are chronic and sub-lethal. These include changes in foraging behaviour, and short and long term site avoidance, resulting from construction noise, operational noise, and the physical presence of devices in the sea, which may result in increased stress on the animal, reducing feeding success and survival. No studies have been carried out on the effects of pile driving on marine turtles, but they are known to avoid loud noises, as has been demonstrated using airguns by McCauley et al. (2000).

Marine turtles, are also known to be magnetosensitive and may orient themselves using magnetic fields (Lohmann et al. 2008). It has been suggested that EMF generated by wave energy devices will have minimal impact on marine turtles (e.g. minor disorientation), unless installations are in the vicinity of sea turtle nesting sites (potential for altered nesting patterns and demographic shifts, Lohmann et al. 2008, Frid et al. 2012).

As for marine mammals, birds, and elasmobranchs, there is some risk of collision and entanglement between wave energy converters and marine turtles, particularly when turtles are foraging at similar depths to wave energy infrastructure (Boehlert et al. 2008, Frid et al. 2012). The risk of collision and

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 36

4. Assessment of environmental effects entanglement may be increased during storm conditions, when sensory input for marine turtles may be limited or confusing (Henkel et al. 2014).

4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative Impact Assessment, or CIA, is required of projects in Europe in order that they meet the requirements of the European Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Habitats, and Wild Birds Directives. These directives have been transposed into UK legislation, and CIA must be carried out for projects in the UK. In Australia and Western Australia, CIA is also required as part of the EIA process for proposed projects (Government of Western Australia 2013a).

Assessment of the cumulative impacts of a project on a receptor (organism or habitat) incorporates the combined effects of multiple stressors, and includes stressors which may arise from activities out with the development area. Stressors from sources outside the project scope can be both of natural and anthropogenic origin. It is important to consider the geographical and temporal scales of cumulative impact assessment in the context of the activities occurring and the range or extent of the species or habitat in question. The European Commission guidelines state that CIA implies ‘impacts that result from incremental changes caused by other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project’ (European Commission 1999).

The UK’s wave energy resource is concentrated on the western coastlines, exposed to the northern Atlantic Ocean. These areas include south-western England, and the west coast of Northern Ireland. In Scotland, four broad regions are highlighted as potential areas for wave energy developments: west of the Outer Hebrides; north west of Cape Wrath; Orkney and Shetland; and the north Sutherland Coast (Davies et al. 2012). Stressors outside individual wave energy developments in these areas may differ between regions, for example shipping traffic may be more relevant of the north Sutherland Coast while recreational use of the coastlines may be more relevant in other areas such as south-western England. Furthermore, for some species at the southernmost extent of their natural ranges, external pressures such as climate change may also be important.

The assessment of cumulative impacts is challenging. The impacts of multiple projects or activities must be considered, yet many ‘reasonably forseeable’ projects are often relatively undefined in scope, making quantitative CIA difficult. For the same reason, selecting which projects and receptors to include can be problematic. Some guidance on selecting receptors for CIA for marine energy projects has been provided in the UK through the Crown Estate’s Cumulative Impact Assessment in Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters report (Crown Estate 2013). Figure 4.1 illustrates this guidance. Early scoping for CIA is often considered to be beneficial to the CIA process, though a balance must be struck as scoping too far in advance can mean that the CIA is no longer relevant at the time of application for project approval by the relevant authority (Crown Estate 2013).

Once a CIA has been scoped for projects and receptors to be included, an appropriate and transparent methodology must be selected for assessment of cumulative impacts, though this process may not be straightforward. Limited species-specific knowledge and understanding of

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 37

4. Assessment of environmental effects complex marine systems means that assumptions are often made in the CIA process, many of which may not have been empirically tested (Driessen et al. 2010).

Often, spatial and temporal variability of impact can confound CIA, decreasing the technical quality of the assessment (Masden et al. 2010). For many species there is a lack of information about the spatial scale of habitat use by individuals and populations, which is often heterogeneous across the species range, and which can make defining the spatial scale for CIA difficult. Additionally, population dynamics are often temporally variable, and for some species the relevance of cumulative impacts may change on a monthly, seasonal, annual, or long-term basis, so the impacts of projects considered in CIA may change over the project timeframe. For example, some species may become habituated to a development over time, while the impacts on other species may not be initially apparent because of the timing of life-cycle events such as breeding (Driessen et al. 2010). The relatively long operational life of many renewable energy developments and ongoing nature of the resource may mean that CIAs will also need to be reviewed periodically, or as new projects are developed. It has been suggested that CIA should therefore be an iterative process, but in practice it cannot be ongoing indefinitely as CIA would become unduly onerous (Crown Estate 2013).

Figure 4.1: Flow chart to assist selection of receptors for inclusion in CIA. From Crown Estate (2013).

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 38

4. Assessment of environmental effects

An initial approach to CIA of offshore renewable energy was developed by King et al. (2009). In their 2010 report, Driessen et al. (2010), build upon this approach for wave and tidal energy, specifically in the context of marine birds. These reports highlight the importance of spatial scale and inclusion of all regulated projects (of any type) within an assessment area in CIA. Researchers have begun to address the problem of spatial and temporal variability by using statistical modelling techniques which are now being made freely available to the developer community. A good example is the MRSea package (Marine Renewables Strategic environmental assessment, Scott-Hayward et al. 2013), developed using the open source R software platform (R Development Core Team 2011). The MRSea package allows users to use a spatially explicit modelling approach in baseline characterisation of development sites and EIA.

For marine mammals, the recent protocol for implementing the population consequences of disturbance (PCoD) approach developed by Harwood et al. (2014) is another useful interim strategy for carrying out quantitative CIA. Even so, the authors of that report state that the PCoD approach should still be refined and further developed as more information becomes available about the species and development sites in question.

Many of the UK-based reports mentioned above highlight the poor availability of accepted principles and methodologies for assessing in-combination impacts. Furthermore, they suggest that the absence of significance thresholds for managing cumulative impacts is a barrier to producing robust assessments. In this respect, guidelines which contain even semi-quantitative thresholds for impact assessment, such as those produced by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority and the Australian Government Department of the Environment can represent a useful benchmark (e.g. benthic primary producing habitats, Government of Western Australia 2009). Where thresholds and quantitative guidelines are provided, however, they must be underpinned by the best available knowledge of ecology, the physical environment, and socio-economic goals for sustainable resource use. In this way, the development of guidelines and thresholds must be iterative, and must continually feed into the production of CIAs alongside improvements in baseline ecological understanding.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 39

4. Assessment of environmental effects

5 UK assessment of the Perth Wave Energy Project

5.1 Approach

In order to assess the environmental implications of a project similar to the Perth Wave Energy Project (PWEP) sited in UK waters, installation of a similar-size array to the PWEP is considered at a Scottish leasing site, outside of the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC). EMEC has produced a set of guidelines for developers operating within their site (see http://www.emec.org.uk/about- us/media-centre/downloads/), and carried out EIAs for their grid-connected test sites during the development of the EMEC site, and data collection and monitoring at these sites is ongoing. Outside of EMEC, uncertainty around environmental effects and impacts increases, as often less background or baseline information is available.

This report discusses the implications of installation at a site in Scotland, and it is important to note that while there are some legislative and procedural differences between project consenting in Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, many of the environmental impacts and regulations will be similar across the devolved nations and will be subject to EU regulation.

Similar to the Perth Wave Energy Project the array of CETO devices considered here will be comprised of 3 x 240 kW CETO 5 devices situated approximately 3 km offshore, with power generation via pumping of hydraulic fluid to an onshore unit. The potential environmental effects of up-scaling to a larger pre-commercial array will also be considered. This will consist of an offshore array of up to 25 x 1 MW CETO 6 devices, with offshore power generation, situated 8-10 km from the coast in approximately 35 m water depth. Figure 4.1 illustrates the key differences between CETO 5 and CETO 6 technology.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 40

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Figure 4.1: Illustration of CETO 5 (left) and CETO 6 (right) technology. Key differences in CETO 6 include increased buoyant actuator diameter from 11 m to 20 m, offshore power generation internal within buoyant actuator, increased power generation capacity to 1 MW, and deeper water capability. The illustrated CETO 6 has a moored midwater electrical cable, but alternative options are being considered, including a distributed buoyancy module system which limits cable bend to a minimum radius of 8 m. Source: Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. ASX Announcement, 21 March 2014.

5.2 Assessment of environmental effects

The marine environment is naturally dynamic, particularly in highly energetic, wave exposed locations such as those which will be used for wave energy arrays. The significance of the predicted impacts, then, must be assessed in the context of the background environmental variability and the variability in species distributions and abundances (where appropriate). The Scottish Natural Heritage has produced guidelines on assessment of environmental impacts and significance (Scottish Natural Heritage 2013), which assess the consequences of impacts as a combination of the magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor. However it must be noted that the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) provides a different approach to environmental impact assessment, which takes into account a value or importance of a receptor and its geographical context (Institute of Ecology and Enviornmental Management 2006). The focus is to conserve the resource (receptor) at the geographic scale at which it is considered to be important (e.g. international, national, regional, local), and to assess whether receptors are sufficiently important for impacts to be significant. Rather than assessing all potential impacts at the same level, more emphasis is put on assessing resources that are subject to more detailed consideration. More generally, the European Commission has provided guidance on EIA and more specifically the review of environmental statements (European Commission 2001).

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 41

4. Assessment of environmental effects

The relevance of impacts with regards to conservation objectives and legal status is discussed in section 4.2.2, and this should be considered when taking the IEEM approach to impact assessment as well as an HRA. Section 4.2.3, however, is a more general assessment of the potential impacts of CETO installations to the marine environment in the UK, and so for some receptors value and/or geographical scale will be site-specific. For example, depending on the installation site, locally significant marine habitat may be present, but this may not be part of a larger regional network of habitats of conservation importance, such as Natura 2000 sites. These features will be important for EIA or Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) of a project.

It is noted that the definitions of ‘significant impact’ in an EIA and of ‘likely significant effect’ in HRA are different. In EIA, the significance of impacts is determined by considering both the magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor (Scottish Government 2010). The HRA process is specific to features designated as European protected habitats or species under the European Habitats Directive or the Wild Birds Directive, and associated regulations. In the context of HRA, a ‘likely significant effect’ reflects ‘ any potential connectivity or interaction with a European site(s) with the potential to affect the qualifying interest(s) of the site(s) in terms of their conservation objectives ’ (Scottish Government 2010).If a likely significant effect is identified, then an Appropriate Assessment (AA) must be carried out.

The following sections of this report will address impacts in the context of EIA, but should not be read as an EIA of any specific project. As a general assessment of potential impacts, this report uses an approach similar to Macleod et al. (2014), for broad, overarching assessment of impacts specific to CETO installations in the UK.

The magnitude of predicted impacts will include the duration and physical extent of the impact, as well as whether the impact is immediate, episodic, or ongoing. Where possible, the magnitude should be described quantitatively, for example, in terms of percentage of habitat affected or population gains or losses (Scottish Natural Heritage 2013). In the case of wave energy developments substantial uncertainty means that this is not always possible, and so the degree of uncertainty will also be stated. The level of magnitude of changes in the marine environment will be classed as ‘substantial’, ‘moderate’, ‘slight’, ‘negligible’, or ‘positive’.

Positive effects are included in Table 4.2 as the EU Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC) includes the assessment of the possible significant positive and negative effects at all stages of a project. Positive impacts can be defined as enhancements to ecosystem services or population parameters, for example habitat enhancement (EMEC Ltd. 2013) or an increase in prey species availability (Driessen et al. 2010). Positive impacts have also been defined as those which ‘are judged to provide some environmental, economic, or social gain ’ (Scottish Government 2010).

For the purposes of this assessment, sensitivity is a measure of a receptor’s tolerance to an impact, as well as its ability to recover. This will be specific to the species or environmental feature in question. A ‘weight’ or ‘value’ may also be applied to the receptor likely to respond to an impact, which is often based on an opinion or the judgement of the assessor. Sensitivity levels are defined in Table 4.3.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 42

4. Assessment of environmental effects

A matrix is often used to express the consequences of impacts, which combines the magnitude of the effect, and the sensitivity of the environment or receptor. This matrix is outlined in Table 4.4.

Table 4.2 Standard terminology and criteria for level of magnitude of an impact (Scottish Government 2010). When applied to specific, well defined projects, these criteria would need modification to reflect specific sensitivities of the local environments or receptors.

Level of Definition Magnitude Substantial Significant change in environmental conditions causing breaches of legislation. Likely to impact on receptors of national or international importance. Likely to affect a large-scale area or a large population on frequent or permanent basis. May be an irreversible decline. Moderate Unlikely to cause a breach of legislation but likely to impact on a receptor of regional or local environmental importance. Likely to affect a small number of resident and/or visiting species on a permanent basis. Slight Likely to impact an area or feature of loc al interest or importance. Likely to have a temporary impact on a small number of individuals, or be a recoverable impact. Negligible An imperceptible change to a low number of species or a habitat of low ecological importance, or with immediate recovery rates. Positive A positive impact on receptor populations or habitat.

Table 4.3 Definitions for level of sensitivity of a receptor in the context of reference habitat or a reference population.

Level of Definition Sensitivity Very high Lethal conseque nces to individual organisms, populations and/or habitats have no capacity to avoid, adapt to, accommodate, or recover from the impact High Potentially lethal consequences to individual organisms, populations and/or habitats have a limited capacity to avoid, adapt to, accommodate, or recover from the impact Medium Non -lethal consequences to organisms identified, population health and/or habitat functioning may be affected despite some ability to avoid, adapt to, accommodate, or recover from the impact Lo w No consequences identified, populations and/or habitats are able to accommodate and/or recover from the impact. Negligible Organisms, populations, and/or habitats are generally tolerant of the anticipated impact.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 43

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Table 4.4 Consequence of impact, as assessed using the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of impact.

Sensitivity Very High High Medium Low Negligible Substantial Major Major Major Moderate Minor Moderate Major Major Moderate Minor Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible

Positive Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Magnitude Magnitude

First, the relative importance of the potential environmental effects and receptors is compared across the UK/Scotland and Western Australia, and any substantial differences are highlighted. Then, potential effects are discussed in the context of a PWEP-type array or a larger pre-commercial array in Scotland, and within an Environmental Impact Assessment framework, as set out below. Finally, these are summarised, and areas of specific uncertainty are highlighted for further discussion in section 5.

5.3 Legal and conservation relevance of impacts: UK (Scotland) and Australia (Western Australia)

The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management approach to environmental impact assessment necessitates that a ‘value’ is assigned to the resource or receptor (species or habitat) under assessment for a particular environmental impact. Ecological ‘valuation’ is the process of assigning values to ecological features and resources, and includes those which have been designated for their conservation interest (Institute of Ecology and Enviornmental Management 2006).The ecologically significant impacts of a project should be considered together with the value of that resource at an appropriate geographical scale, and incorporated into the assessment process above (Scottish Government 2010). In this section the environmental values of the identified stressors and receptors associated with wave energy developments are highlighted in tabular format (Table 4.5), including both the legal and conservation status of each. Socio-economic and cultural values of environmental receptors are not discussed here, as these should be assessed alongside other socio-economic and cultural interests and impacts of a particular development.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 44

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Table 4.5 Legal and conservation relevance of wave energy development impacts to environmental receptors in Australia/Western Australia and Scotland

Receptor Stressor Value and relevance to Australia / Western Australia Value and relevance to Scotland Physical Physical presence Loss of seabed habitat resulting from placement of devices Loss of seabed habitat resulting from placement of wave environment and of wave energy and infrastructure may affect benthic communities, habitat, energy device and infrastructure is important for habitats of water quality device/array and coastal processes, which are relevant factors cited by the conservation interest. WA EPA for consideration in the environmental approval process. Impacts on benthic primary producing habitat, are ‘Sea floor integrity’ is EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive managed by the WA EPA’s Environmental Assessment Descriptor 6, to ensure the structure and function of Guideline No. 3 (Government of Western Australia 2009). ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems are not adversely affected. In Commonwealth waters, modifying, destroying, isolating, or disturbing an important or substantial area of habitat to Many of these habitats have legal status as defined by Annex 1 adverse effect on marine ecosystem functioning or integrity is of the EU Habitats Directive, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan considered to be a matter of National Environmental (Section 8.2), and the OSPAR convention. Significance under the EPBC Act 1999. Physical Changes in The maintenance of the morphology of the subtidal, intertidal, Reduction in wave energy shorewards of devices will reduce environment and hydrodynamics and and supratidal zones and the geophysical processes that shape sediment resuspension, breaking waves and turbulence, water quality sediment dynamics them is a stated environmental objective of the WA EPA altering longshore sediment transport, beach morphology, and relating to the EPA’s environmental factor ‘Coastal Processes’. shallow water substrates and topography.

In Commonwealth waters, modifying, destroying, isolating, or Changes in shallow water topography could pose a disturbing an important or substantial area of habitat to navigational risk to mariners, while many habitats of adverse effect on marine ecosystem functioning or integrity is conservation interest are dependent on hydrodynamic and considered to be a ‘significant impact’ on the Commonwealth sedimentary processes. Changes to hydrodynamic conditions marine environment: a Matter of National Environmental are also included in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Significance under the EPBC Act 1999. Directive, Descriptor 7. Physical Release of ‘Marine Environmental Quality’ is a relevant environmental Leaching or leaking of chemicals could result in localised environment and chemicals factor for the WA EPA. Leaching or leaking of chemicals which pollution and site contamination, affecting water and habitat water quality could result in pollution and site contamination could be a quality. Examples could include leaks or spills of drilling fluid concern, and must be addressed in the EIA process. and leaching of antifouling chemicals.

Additionally, the State Water Quality Management Strategy The EU Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Document No. 6 (2004) outlines the Environmental Quality Framework Directive both have aims to improve the chemical Management Framework, which addresses the effects of quality and ecological quality of marine environments. The EU pollution on environmental quality in State waters and Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Descriptor 8 details implements the National Water Quality Management Strategy. contaminants and pollution in the marine environment.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 45

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Receptor Stressor Value and relevance to Australia / Western Australia Value and relevance to Scotland Benthic habitats Physical presence Loss of seabed habitat, including sensitive Benthic Primary Loss of seabed habitat resulting from placement of wave and communities of devices Producer Habitat (BPPH), which includes seagrass beds, energy device and infrastructure is important for habitats of macroalgae, turf, mangroves, corals and surrounding conservation interest, e.g. UK BAP habitats, Section 8.2. substrate. The Western Australia EPA has produced cumulative loss guidelines for BPPH (Government of Western Potential for formation of new hard-substrate habitat by Australia 2009), which limit loss of this habitat type to 10% in seabed-mounted infrastructure, with possible artificial reef areas designated for development. effects. Beneficial for some species of conservation interest. Possible habitat for non-native species. If a development is in the vicinity of a listed critical habitat or ecological community under the EPBC Act 1999, these may be Management of non-native species is governed by the Wildlife of concern, though at present the only listed benthic and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Wildlife community is the Giant Kelp Forests of South Eastern and Countryside Act 1981. Australia. Benthic habitats Changes in Benthic habitats and communities designated as important Hydrodynamic conditions and sedimentary regime are and communities hydrodynamics and under the Western Australia EPA’s Environmental Assessment important for benthic species of conservation interest. This is sediment dynamics Guideline (EAG) 3, or benthic primary producer habitats, are particularly true for benthic filter-feeders including cup corals often linked to the physical characteristics of the area. As such, and changes in hydrodynamic conditions and sedimentary regimes causing changes to habitat extent, or smothering or abrasion Habitats of conservation interest in energetic coastal marine of associated benthic primary producers may be of particular regions are often linked to sediment dynamics and can be concern to environmental impact assessment. influenced by changes in sediment transport.

The Western Australia EPA has produced cumulative loss Many of these are defined by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan guidelines for BPPH (Government of Western Australia 2009), (BAP). UK BAP marine habitats are listed in Section 8.2, while which limit loss of this habitat type to 10% in areas designated species are listed in Section 8.2. for development.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 46

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Receptor Stressor Value and relevance to Australia / Western Australia Value and relevance to Scotland Benthic habitats Pollution, For wave energy, the risks of pollution and site contamination For wave energy, the risks of pollution and site contamination and communities accidental site are generally low, and will be primarily associated with are generally low, and will be primarily associated with contamination construction activities, except for any increased turbidity or construction activities, except for any increased turbidity or leaks of hydraulic fluid during operation. The pilot desalination leaks of hydraulic fluid during operation. plant in operation as part of the PWEP in Australia discharges small amounts of hypersaline fluid, and this will be managed in The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), as the same way. transposed in the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 governs pollution in the marine environment. Marine Scotland suggest The State Water Quality Management Strategy Document No. that wave energy developers include pollution prevention 6 (2004) outlines the Environmental Quality Management strategies in their environmental assessments (Scottish Framework, which addresses the effects of pollution on Government 2010). environmental quality in State waters and implements the National Water Quality Management Strategy. For wave In England and Wales, the Marine Strategy Framework energy developments, it is unlikely that contaminant release Directive (2008/56/EC) is implemented as the Marine Strategy would be of a scale that impacts large areas of benthic habitat, Regulations 2010 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. affecting substantial proportions of benthic communities. However, any contamination of this magnitude could be considered a ‘significant impact’ on the Commonwealth marine environment. Benthic habitats Generation of EMF may affect larval development and settlement of benthic EMF may affect larval development and settlement of benthic and communities electromagnetic invertebrates, but uncertainty is high as little research is invertebrates, but uncertainty is high as little research is fields (EMF) specific to renewable energy. No guidance is available on this specific to renewable energy. topic specific to Australia, but if EMF are shown to affect benthic species listed by the EPBC Act, then further EMF may be of importance to impact assessment if species at investigation and mitigation may be necessary. risk are of conservation importance, i.e. UK BAP marine species (Section 8.3), or are commercially valuable. EMF should not be of concern for benthic primary producer habitats, for which the WA EPA has issued environmental objective guidelines.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 47

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Receptor Stressor Value and relevance to Australia / Western Australia Value and relevance to Scotland Fish Physical presence Fisheries exclusion resulting from device presence and Fisheries exclusion resulting from device presence and of devices reef/aggregation effects may create undisturbed areas of reef/aggregation effects may create undisturbed areas of adult habitat and spawning grounds, with potential positive adult habitat and spawning grounds, with potential positive effects, particularly for commercial species. effects, particularly for commercial species. Diadromous fishes are of particular concern around Scotland’s coasts and it has The EPBC Act 1999 lists several species of marine fish as been suggested that devices and arrays could act as barriers to nationally threatened, migratory, or marine species of migration. conservation importance, making them matters of National Environmental Significance. In WA, a number of fish species Key fish species inhabiting Scotland’s coasts which may be of are offered various levels of protection under the Fish concern to wave energy development can be found in the Resources Management Act 1994, ranging from ‘totally Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental protected’ to ‘commercially protected’ or ‘recreationally Assessment (Faber Maunsell and Metoc Plc. 2007). These protected fish’ species. include: cod and haddock (IUCN Red List), sturgeon and twaite shad (protected under European legislation), Atlantic salmon, Where Commonwealth commercial fisheries could be sea trout, and the European eel (draft Priority Marine Features affected, developers are required to consult with the in the UK). Atlantic salmon is also listed under Annex V of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority under the EU Habitats Directive. Fisheries Administration Act 1991. Fish Generation of noise There is little information about the effects of underwater For fish species around Scottish coastlines, pile driving is noise on fish species around Australian coastlines, though for anticipated to have the greatest noise impact for wave energy, wave energy extraction noise generation (e.g. from drilling) while habitat avoidance may occur for some species during during installation is anticipated to have the greatest impact, operation. Herring and cod may be particularly sensitive to and habitat avoidance may occur for some species during noise and are listed by JNCC and SNH as draft Priority Marine operation. Noise criteria for fish species in Western Australia Features. have not been produced, though hearing effects from noise have been demonstrated for endemic pink snapper(Popper and Hastings 2009, Fewtrell and McCauley 2012), squid and trevally (Fewtrell and McCauley 2012). Fish Generation of Unlikely to be of relevance in Australia unless EMF are shown Could be of particular importance for migratory, diadromous electromagnetic to affect the migration or behaviour of species listed under the fishes listed under the UK BAP (Section 8.3) and as draft fields (EMF) EPBC Act 1999 or as ‘threatened’ under the Western Australia Priority Marine Features if EMF fields are shown to disturb Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. migration patterns. Species of concern include Atlantic salmon and European eel, of which the latter is included on the IUCN Red List as a critically endangered species.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 48

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Receptor Stressor Value and relevance to Australia / Western Australia Value and relevance to Scotland Marine mammals Physical presence Australian waters are home to 45 species of whales and Collision, entrapment, entanglement, site avoidance, or and basking of devices dolphins. All species of whales, dolphins, and pinipeds are obstruction may affect populations of marine mammals and sharks listed marine species under the EPBC Act 1999, and many are basking sharks around the UK coasts, for which there may be listed as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable. Within legal consequences, and project risk. Commonwealth waters, it is an offence to kill, injure, or interfere with a listed marine species. Cetaceans, sea lions, These animals are protected under the EU Habitats Directive and fur seals are also given special protection under the (92/43/EC), which stems from international conservation Wildlife and Conservation Act 1950 in Western Australia, legislation. All cetaceans and seals around Scotland are listed administered by the Department of Conservation and Land in Annex II, IV, or V of the Habitats Directive. Cetaceans are Management European Protected Species under Annex IV, and are given strict protection from capture, killing, and deliberate If whales or dolphins were to be substantially impacted (killed disturbance, particularly during periods of migration, / injured / interfered with) by the physical presence of wave breeding, or rearing, and from destruction of breeding places energy projects around Australia, there could be associated or resting sites. legal consequences and project risk. This is transposed into UK law in inshore waters (up to 12 nm) Basking sharks are present along the south coasts of Australia, by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, coincident with high wave resource, and could possibly be at providing protection for European Protected Species, and in risk from collision, entrapment, entanglement, or site offshore waters by the Offshore Marine Conservations avoidance of wave energy devices. These animals are listed as (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007. The Wildlife and ‘vulnerable’ by the IUCN. Australia is a signatory of the Countryside Act 1981 also provides protection for all Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of cetaceans found within territorial waters. Migratory Sharks, which includes the basking shark and which seeks to achieve favourable conservation status for this In Scotland, this is amended by the Nature Conservation species. Basking sharks are listed migratory species under the (Scotland) Act 2004, which makes it an offense to EPBC Act 1999, and so are considered to be matters of ‘intentionally or recklessly disturb a dolphin, whale, or basking national environmental significance. shark’, while the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 introduced increased protection for seals.

There is substantial public interest in these species, and severe impacts to them are considered to be ‘show stoppers’.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 49

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Receptor Stressor Value and relevance to Australia / Western Australia Value and relevance to Scotland Marine mammals Generation of noise Cetaceans, pinnipeds, and basking sharks are listed as marine In addition to the EU, UK, and Scottish legislation for marine and basking and/ or migratory species under the EPBC Act 1999, as mammals and basking sharks listed above, guidance on marine sharks described above, so where noise impacts cause injury to or noise in relation to marine mammals in the UK is provided by interfere with these species, there may be concern with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on piling noise and regards to the environmental permitting process. explosives, and use of impact criteria such as Southall et al. (2007) is recommended. Underwater noise is also a No specific guidance regarding noise exists for offshore component of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, renewables in Australia. The EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 and ‘must be at levels that do not adversely affect the marine (2008) provides some guidance for management of noise environment’. impacts from seismic exploration on baleen and large toothed whales. However, there is no guidance for smaller cetaceans, or for sound sources other than seismic airguns (Erbe 2013).

Seabirds Physical presence Migratory seabirds are listed migratory species under the The EU Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) allows protection of devices EPBC Act 1999 and are given protection as matters of national for all wild birds, their nests, eggs, and habitats within the environmental significance. The Wildlife Conservation European Community. (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2013 also lists a large number of (migratory and non-migratory) sea birds and shore As for the EU Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive is birds for protection under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. transposed into UK law in inshore waters (up to 12 nm) by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, Alteration of foraging habitat of seabirds though potential providing protection for European Protected Species, and in aggregation of prey species or changes in prey species offshore waters by the Offshore Marine Conservations distributions may be the most important effect resulting from (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007. the physical presence of devices. Collision with submerged or floating device components may also be a potential concern The physical presence of wave energy converters may alter for diving sea birds, though there is little evidence to suggest the foraging habitat of seabirds and may represent a possible that this could be a significant impact. collision risk, and so is a concern under these regulations.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 50

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Receptor Stressor Value and relevance to Australia / Western Australia Value and relevance to Scotland Seabirds Changes in Where changes in sediment processes and hydrodynamics As above, habitat for wild birds is protected under the EU Birds hydrodynamics & alter the distribution of prey species, there may be either Directive and its transposed regulations in the UK and sediment dynamics detraction from or an enhancement of foraging habitat for Scotland. seabirds and shorebirds, many species of which are protected under the Australian EPBC Act 1999. The Wildlife Conservation Where changes in hydrodynamics and sediment processes (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2013 also lists a large alter the distribution of prey species, there may be either number of (migratory and non-migratory) sea birds and shore detraction from, or an enhancement of foraging habitat for birds for protection under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. sea birds, which may be important under the EU Birds Directive and transposed legislation. For seabirds, this interaction is likely to occur offshore in the vicinity of devices, while for shorebirds, changes in sediment transport and wave energy shoreward of installation could mediate changes in prey distribution. Seabirds Generation of noise Very little is known about how above water and underwater Very little is known about how above water and underwater noise affects seabirds. Effects on birds may be mediated noise affects seabirds. Effects on birds may be mediated through changes in prey distribution because of underwater through changes in prey distribution because of underwater noise, thus altering foraging habitat. This may be of particular noise, thus altering foraging habitat. This may be of concern importance for migratory seabirds protected under the EPBC under the EU Birds Directive and transposed legislation in Act 1999 and for seabirds nesting in the vicinity of wave Scotland. energy developments.

Noise is unlikely to be of concern for migratory shorebirds protected under the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 and WA EP act, unless substantial noise is being emitted from shore- based components of installations. Elasmobranchs Physical presence Elasmobranchs may be attracted by the presence of wave All species of elasmobranchs are listed by OSPAR as of devices energy devices if prey species aggregate in the area and Threatened and Declining Species, 14 are listed on the UK BAP provide improved feeing opportunities. Several species of priority marine species (Section 8.3), while 8 species are sharks are listed under Schedule 1 of the EPBC Act 1999 as classified as draft Priority Marine Features in Scotland. ‘vulnerable’, three of which are listed by the Western Australia EPA as ‘threatened’. Collisions or entrapment in moving The presence of wave energy devices may attract components of devices during feeding activity or otherwise elasmobranchs seeking prey aggregating around structures, may be of concern. It is unlawful to kill, injure, or disturb these providing increased feeding opportunities. The risk of collision species, though the Government of WA currently has an with moving components during feeding activity is exemption to kill all listed sharks 3 m in length or longer. unquantified, but may be of concern for Priority species.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 51

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Receptor Stressor Value and relevance to Australia / Western Australia Value and relevance to Scotland Elasmobranchs Generation of Elasmobranchs may be particularly sensitive to Elasmobranchs may be particularly sensitive to electromagnetic electromagnetic fields, which may disrupt orientation, prey electromagnetic fields, which may disrupt orientation, prey fields detection, and location of mates. EPBC listed marine sawfish detection, and location of mates. Though impossible to species may be of particular concern, as these have been demonstrate at present, should electromagnetic fields be demonstrated to be highly sensitive to weak artificial electric shown to have deleterious effects on populations of listed fields (Wueringer et al. 2012). elasmobranchs, it may become a greater concern in Scottish waters. Though impossible to demonstrate at present, should electromagnetic fields be shown to have deleterious effects on populations of listed elasmobranchs, it may become a greater concern in Australian waters. Marine Turtles Light impacts Artificial light from onshore and nearshore components of While five species of marine turtles have been recorded in UK wave energy devices can disrupt the behaviour of nesting waters, only one species, the leatherback sea turtle, is thought adult marine turtles and hatchlings. to occur regularly. Leatherback turtles are, however, listed by the IUCN’s Red List and as European Protected Species. As ‘Marine Fauna’ are considered a relevant environmental factor such they are given strict protection against killing, injury, or by the WA EPA, and there is specific guidance on mitigating disturbance. light impacts on marine turtles. Important populations live and breed in Western Australia. They are listed as threatened Leatherback sea turtles do not nest in the UK, and so are not species under the Commonwealth EPBC Act, and under likely to suffer from light impacts of nearshore components of Schedule 1 of the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. wave energy devices.

Australia is also part of the Indian Ocean – South-East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding. Marine turtles are also listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES, Washington 1973), and are protected under the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS, Bonn 1979).

Important populations of marine turtles live and breed in north and northwest of Western Australia, while further south marine turtles are likely to be on migration paths or washed inshore by inclement weather conditions.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 52

4. Assessment of environmental effects

5.4 Analysis of impacts – PWEP and pre-commercial array in the UK

While many of the receptor groups assessed for impacts associated with wave energy projects in the UK and Australia are similar, differences in legislative requirements, in density of coastal development, and in the level of offshore renewable energy growth mean that wave energy developments based on the Carnegie CETO technology may be assessed somewhat differently with respect to the environment in the UK and in Australia. The density of existing coastal users and developments is particularly important, as increasing use of coastal waters increases pressure on marine ecosystems. Given the high existing use of marine areas around the UK’s coastlines, new wave energy developments should be assessed in the context of other pressures on the marine environment, both in terms of relative impact and cumulative impacts across all sectors.

Summary tables of stressors, receptors, and impact consequences for PWEP (CETO 5) and pre- commercial style arrays can be found Appendix 8.4.

5.4.1 Physical environment

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive Descriptors 6 and 7 require Member States to consider the physical environment within their frameworks for reaching ‘good ecological status’ as follows:

Descriptor 6: “Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected ”

Descriptor 7: “ Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems ”

Often this is measured through habitat quality and provisioning, rather than direct physical changes to the environment made by humans. For offshore wave energy, concern around changes to the physical environment fall within these bounds as habitat quality is legislated for under the Habitats directive. This will be most important in proximity of a marine Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The majority of Crown Estate leasing sites have been chosen to minimize impact on SACs, and are often placed away from inshore SAC locations which may be affected by changes in hydrodynamics (Figure 2.1).

In Australia, and particularly Western Australia, the maintenance of morphology of coastlines and the geophysical processes that shape them is a stated environmental objective of the WA EPA relating to the EPAs environmental factor ‘Coastal Processes’. Given the small spatial footprint, Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. has concluded that this installation is unlikely to cause significant changes to the physical environment through changes in hydrodynamics and sediment transport.

Larger installations, however, may reduce downstream wave height substantially enough to alter sediment transport, with the potential to impact coastal processes. At present were a larger project to be approved in Western Australia (e.g. 25 MW or larger), this could become an issue and modelling of wave propagation and sediment transport may become essential to EIA as projects

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 53

4. Assessment of environmental effects scale up. To address this, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) are working with Carnegie to measure and model the potential impacts of wave energy extraction and develop guidelines to assess these in future.

In the UK, a demonstration array of similar magnitude to the PWEP is unlikely to have a perceptible effect on the shoreline physical environment given the natural inter-annual variation of wave energy and direction (Woolf et al. 2014). With project scale-up, however, greater energy extraction may lead to more apparent effects on nearshore geomorphology, with the potential to influence habitat provisioning. Simulation of waves and currents using SWAN (Simulating Waves Nearshore, Booij et al. 1999), NearCoM (Shi et al. 2005) or other models for both the current PWEP projects in Australia and in advance of a UK development could reduce the substantial uncertainty associated with this area. An assessment of aerial images of the installation site at Garden Island between 1967 and 2008 have already provided Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. a good understanding of the coastal geomorphology and processes which occur locally, providing a good baseline for post-installation comparisons. Where available, similar techniques could be used for installations in the UK, including baseline surveys by remotely piloted aircraft, eliminating the need for expensive aeroplane-based surveys.

In both locations legislation has been implemented to control the release of chemicals into the marine environment, and as such major releases or spills of chemicals into the marine environment will be a potentially serious project impact for developments in both locations. While there is some potential for release of drilling fluids, marine grout, and other chemicals during the construction period, there is substantial precedence for preventing, monitoring and mitigating these sorts of impacts in the marine environment. Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. has included measures within their Marine and Construction Environmental Management Plans to minimise contamination and effects on water quality in the marine environment. Furthermore, the nature of wave energy extraction means that projects tend to be sited in highly energetic environments where small amounts of chemicals released into the environments should be quickly diluted and dispersed. As for the PWEP in Australia, the consequences of this type of impact in the UK are likely to be low, both for a PWEP- scale and for a larger offshore development.

5.4.2 Benthic habitats and communities

The benthic habitats in areas for wave energy development are subject to periodic disturbance resulting from the energetic nature of the environment (Miller et al. 2013), and many benthic species are resilient to burial, exposure, and smothering. Appropriate siting of devices will avoid immediate destruction of important benthic habitat features such as biogenic reefs, and can help to ensure that the immediate footprint of structures on benthic habitats is minimal.

The Western Australia OEPA recognises the ecological importance of benthic primary producer habitats (algae, seagrass, mangroves, corals, or mixtures of these), and has released an Environmental Assessment Guideline to provide a framework for managing impacts of marine developments on these habitats. Cumulative loss guidelines are issued within a defined local assessment unit, and no more than 10% of habitat can be lost within a development area. No similar

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 54

4. Assessment of environmental effects guidance for these habitats is provided in the UK. While no species of macroalgae is protected under specific legislation in the UK, nor is kelp habitat listed as a priority marine feature in the UK, several types of kelp habitat are listed under Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive, and so the UK is required to maintain or restore these habitats to Favourable Conservation Status (Council Directive 92/43/EEC 1992). A recent report by Macleod et al. (2014) suggests that kelp communities are fairly resilient to wave energy development, and are likely to recover from habitat loss or replacement, possibly within 2-5 years. Additionally, when clearing kelp for developments, leaving the kelp holdfasts intact when clearing will provide a refuge for the associated kelp fauna, and aid in habitat recovery.

With appropriate prevention and mitigation measures in place in the form of an Environmental Management Plan, the risk of pollution and/or site contamination to benthic habitats should be negligible. Shoreward reduction in wave energy could have minor consequences on nearshore benthic habitats in the lee of a larger pre-commercial development of CETO 6 devices, but uncertainty around this effect is high both for CETO 6 and other wave energy conversion technologies.

To address this uncertainty, outputs of wave and sediment transport models (as discussed in the previous section) could be applied to intertidal and subtidal habitat spatial models (e.g. Burrows et al. 2008, Burrows 2012) to determine how reductions in significant wave height and/or longshore sediment transport may or may not impact nearshore benthic communities. Such modelling work could substantially reduce uncertainty around this topic, and if negligible effects are demonstrated further areas of seabed could be opened to developments (e.g. offshore developments adjacent to nearshore habitats of conservation value). Presently however, unless proposed developments are sited in the vicinity of a UK marine Special Area of Conservation (SAC), these effects are unlikely to result in substantial project risk in comparison with charismatic megafauna of other species subject to European legislation.

5.4.3 Fish

Based on the current state of scientific understanding, it is predicted that the installations of CETO devices proposed here will have negligible impacts on fish populations in UK waters, though there are several areas of substantial uncertainty with regards to interactions between fish and wave energy devices. Bony fish (osteichthyes) are discussed in this section, while elasmobranchs and other cartilaginous fish are discussed in section 4.2.3.6.

Components of installed CETO 5 and 6 devices are likely to act as artificial reef structures and/or fish aggregating devices, as has been cited for other man-made structures in the sea, including wave energy converters (Langhamer et al. 2009). While fish aggregation may provide a valuable foraging resource for seabirds, there is still substantial debate around whether these aggregations are merely a result of fish concentrating around structures, or whether there is increased fish production (population size) in the vicinity of structures, though recent evidence suggests that there may be some increased local production of fish within offshore wind farms (Reubens et al. 2014). If this is the case, in combination with fisheries exclusion, CETO installations could have a positive impact on

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 55

4. Assessment of environmental effects fish species abundance in the vicinity of installations, attracting more predators and having a localised positive effect on ecosystem productivity.

While the PWEP-type installation of CETO 5 devices will not have substantial electrical cabling between devices and the shore (instead using onshore generation from pumped hydraulic fluids), generation of EMF may be of concern for a CETO 6 installation, where power generation occurs offshore, and is then transmitted to land via subsea cabling. Some migratory species such as the European Eel (a Priority Marine Feature in the UK, though not subject to legislative protection) have been shown to be sensitive to weak electric and magnetic fields (Gill et al. 2014). Even so, in several cases the migration of European eels and other fish do not seem to alter their migration patterns in response to subsea electrical cabling (Westerberg and Lagenfelt 2008, Gill et al. 2014). While this would only be an area of concern for a CETO 6 installation, the substantial uncertainty around EMF effects on teleost fish mean that it is difficult to gauge the magnitude of any impacts at present.

5.4.4 Marine Mammals and Basking Sharks

The protected status of whales and dolphins in Australia and the UK makes them of particular importance to impact assessment of wave energy developments in both countries. The legal implications associated with killing, injuring, or interfering these animals is associated with substantial project risk, and can represent a ‘show-stopping’ environmental impact. In the UK and Australia, basking sharks and pinnipeds are afforded similar legal protection to cetaceans and many of the same stressors apply to these species. Sea lions and fur seals are similarly protected in Australian waters. For these reasons, these species groups are often considered together.

While the generation of construction and operational noise may potentially have impacts on marine mammals and basking sharks, these impacts are somewhat better understood because of precedents set by other industrial uses of the sea (e.g. oil and gas, offshore wind energy), particularly for the construction period. Piling of seabed mounted infrastructure is expected to have the greatest impact on these animals. This impact will be episodic and lasting throughout the construction period, and could possibly be of concern in cumulative impact assessments where other nearby construction projects are ongoing.

A comparison of piling noise with sound exposure thresholds for marine mammals (Southall et al. 2007) demonstrated that pile driving could cause injury to marine mammals within the development site (< 100 m away), and could cause avoidance of an area up to 20 km away from the development (Bailey et al. 2010). A variety of mitigation strategies have also been used to address the impacts of piling noise on marine mammals in particular, and guidelines for impact mitigation have been issued by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in the UK (Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2010). An ongoing research study funded by Marine Scotland is currently investigating acoustic deterrence mechanisms for mitigating the impacts of pile driving and lowering collision risk for marine mammals (Thompson et al. 2013).

Many wave energy converters are installed using alternative methods to piling, including seabed drilling and grouting, and gravity-based foundations. This includes CETO devices, which are installed

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 56

4. Assessment of environmental effects using seabed drilling and grouting as often piling is not suitable in more consolidated sediments generally found at suitable wave sites. Furthermore, noise from drilling and grouting is substantially lower than from piling. A study of underwater noise impacts carried out for the Oyster Wave Energy Project on the Isle of Lewis (Kongsberg 2012) predicted that foundation drilling was not likely to cause fatality, hearing damage (permanent or temporary), or aversive behaviour as per Southall et al. (2007) to any marine mammal species found in the project area. However, when background noise levels were low, some harassment of marine mammal species could occur up to 97 m from the impact site.

The operational noise of wave energy converters is less well understood, and will differ with device architecture. It has been suggested that some operational noise may be desirable as it may allow animals to detect the device (Wilson et al. 2014), but beyond a certain threshold (noise amplitude and frequency) operational noise may represent an ongoing disturbance to marine mammals. Acoustic recordings made during the CETO 3 test array and the PWEP could provide further insight into the operational noise impacts of a similar CETO 5 array in the UK, particularly if combined with sound propagation models for the chosen installation site. CETO 6 represents a significant design evolution of the CETO device and an opportunity to minimise potentially noisy components within the structure. As wave energy devices move further offshore and into deeper water, propagation of low frequency operational noise will increase, with potential effects on communication and navigation of larger baleen whales. This may be an issue for offshore CETO 6 projects, though no studies to date have found noise from wind- or wave energy developments to disturb baleen whales, however, and it has been suggested that any effects would only occur within a few kilometres of the development (Masden et al. 2006).

Discussions with Marine Scotland (A. Kafas , pers. comm .) have indicated that noise measurements made as part of an Australian project could provide substantial insight into noise impacts or lack thereof for a UK development, provided that the device architecture is reasonably similar. Furthermore, pre-existing measurements of underwater noise associated with the CETO devices could be incorporated into ongoing playback experiments (Scottish Association for Marine Science and others) investigating the response to seals and porpoises to noise from renewable energy installations.

The physical presence of CETO devices and components could also pose a risk of collision (CETO 5 and 6) to marine mammals and basking sharks, though at present the overall footprint of wave energy installations in comparison with useable habitat is low. There is a possibility that a collision could result in substantial injury or eventual death to an animal, so the receptor sensitivity is high, particularly as these animals are afforded legal protection in the UK at the individual level. The severity of any collision occurring between CETO devices and marine megafauna is likely to be low, as the speed at which the event would happen will be mainly dependent on the rate of travel of the animal. CETO devices are relatively stationary, tethered below the surface using taut lines, and vertical movement of the buoyant actuators is damped, particularly in storm conditions.

The risk of collision between marine mammals and basking sharks and CETO device components is likely to be low (but slightly greater for a larger array of devices), given the mobility and detection abilities of these animals and the stationary nature of the devices. Even so, the current state of

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 57

4. Assessment of environmental effects understanding of animal behaviour around wave energy devices and arrays is poor, so there is substantial uncertainty around associated risk assessments. Risk may increase for some species (e.g. smaller cetaceans) in storm conditions, where animals are receiving confusing sensory input and echolocation may not be as effective (Wilson et al. 2006).

Entanglement, the potential for animals to become caught up, wrapped, or trapped in mooring systems and associated power cables, has been suggested as a potential environmental impact of wave energy converters. Little empirical data exists around entanglement of marine mammals in mooring lines and other flexible risers (e.g. midwater cabling), but a recent report suggests that wave energy converter device moorings are ‘unlikely to pose a major threat’ to marine megafauna (Benjamins et al. 2014). The risk of entanglement will be related to the size of the animal, its feeding modes, and its ability to detect moorings and cabling. The risk of entanglement may hence be greatest for baleen whales (Benjamins et al. 2014). Entanglement risk is also likely to depend on the layout of moorings or cabling (e.g. catenary, with or without accessory buoys, etc.). For a PWEP-type array of CETO 5 devices, no loose cables or mooring lines exist for an animal to become entangled in, so the risk is likely to be negligible. CETO 6 is currently in the design phase, but the cabling system currently under consideration by Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. is likely to minimise entanglement risk by incorporating distributed buoyancy modules into the system, to give the cable a minimum bend radius of 8 m and to increase cable visibility.

A possible increased risk for entanglement could exist both for CETO 5 and CETO 6 developments if derelict fishing gear became entwined with device infrastructure. The probability of this occurring, however, is likely to be lower for CETO devices than for other wave energy device designs, given that CETO has few sharp corners or protrusions and has a single tether (versus multiple moorings) and cable (CETO 6 only) which could retain drifting nets (Benjamins et al. 2014). Even so, there is little available information about the amounts of derelict fishing gear and its ability to become caught on structures in the highly energetic offshore environments targeted by wave energy developers, so it is currently difficult to quantify this risk. Entanglement could also occur if installation mooring lines were left in place; this is highly unlikely as the PWEP is subject to a management requirement ensuring that installation mooring lines are removed from the CETO devices.

For the above effects, the highly mobile nature of these animals means that it is presently difficult to determine what population-level impacts, if any, may result from such interactions between marine mammals and basking sharks, and various wave energy devices. Assessing the population consequences of disturbance to cetaceans, in particular, is a current priority area for research in the UK (Lusseau et al. 2012). An interim approach to assessing the population consequences of disturbance has been developed by Harwood et al. Harwood et al. (2014), but assumptions made in using this approach mean that it is not always an appropriate tool for assessment for many renewable energy projects.

5.4.5 Seabirds

The submerged nature of the CETO devices means that risks posed to seabirds are much lower than for other types of marine renewable energy, and for the most part classified as negligible. Seabirds

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 58

4. Assessment of environmental effects may avoid the development area during the construction phase both PWEP-type and pre commercial installations because of increased anthropogenic activity and noise, including piling and/or drilling procedures. However, these effects will often be episodic and limited to the duration of the construction period.

Much uncertainty around the impacts of wave energy devices arises from gaps in understanding of how seabirds use foraging habitat, and how this habitat might be altered by wave energy devices or arrays. The impacts of CETO 5 or 6 installations may be positive on prey species for many foraging seabirds, as prey may aggregate around submerged structures and underneath the buoyant actuator. The foraging efficiency of seabirds could rise around CETO devices, and so many seabirds could experience increased foraging success in the vicinity (Langton et al. 2011, and references therein). Impacts (whether positive or negative) on seabird flying times and foraging success will influence the energetic balance of seabirds, affecting both individual and population fitness and reproductive success, but modelling the consequences of these interactions requires species specific data on seabird energetics and changes in behaviour associated with developments, which is not always available.

A better baseline understanding of the physical causes of prey aggregation may help to elucidate how wave energy devices such as CETO could alter foraging habitat through changes, for example, in turbulence and mixing. Unlike many other wave energy converters, CETO is entirely submerged, and so will not provide seabirds with new resting areas, as many other devices may do. This may mean that the number of species of concern for EIA could be reduced. For example, devices with floating components may provide shags and cormorants additional offshore areas for resting and drying their plumage, expanding their potential foraging range. This will not occur for the submerged CETO devices, and so changes to the foraging habitat of other species such as gannets, puffins, and red throated divers may be more important.

It has been suggested that some seabirds could be at risk of collision with wave energy converters during foraging around installed devices (Wilson et al. 2006, Grecian et al. 2010, Furness et al. 2012). Many diving seabird species common in UK waters dive to depths occupied by moving components of many wave energy devices, including CETO (Figure 4.2). Seabirds should possess the sensory awareness to avoid collisions with device components upon diving and foraging underneath the buoyant actuator, but some researchers have suggested that birds could potentially collide with wave energy devices upon their return to the surface, particularly if they have travelled a distance horizontally underwater (e.g. pursuit divers such as auks and cormorants) and are not aware of the structure above them (Langton et al. 2011). However, in an assessment of seabird sensitivity to wave energy converters, Furness et al. (2012) suggest that even an elevated potential of collision with wave energy converters would probably represent a comparatively low risk when compared with other risk factors including entanglement in netting. At present the risk of sub-surface collision with CETO and other wave energy converters is considered to be low, given the manoeuvrability and visual abilities of most seabirds (Henkel et al. 2014).

Furness et al. (2012) suggest that in Scotland, divers (including the red-throated diver, black- throated diver, and great northern diver) could be the species most sensitive to wave energy developments, though these species still only scored ‘moderate vulnerability’ on their 5-score scale.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 59

4. Assessment of environmental effects

The approach of Furness et al. (2012) is one which could be applied to other locations and species to assess species most likely to be affected by developments. The Flow and Benthic Ecology 4D (FLOWBEC, http://noc.ac.uk/project/flowbec, accessed 16 June 2014) project in the UK is currently developing tools to assess the hydrodynamic habitat preferences of a number of species, including diving seabirds, in relation to tidal energy devices (Williamson et al. 2014). The development or use of similar technology (e.g. the FLOWBEC frame) for wave energy developments could provide substantial insight into how diving birds use foraging habitat in the vicinity of installed wave energy devices, to better assess the how seabirds and their prey respond to environmental conditions associated with wave energy converters, and whether interactions might occur.

Figure 4.2: Estimate of the depths of the moving and static parts of the CETO 5 device when placed in 20 – 25 m water depth, and the foraging depths of diving seabirds. Modified from Langton et al. (2011), and references therein.

Under the EU Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC 2009) populations of designated species must be maintained at appropriate levels, so it is important to understand how the effects on individual birds mentioned above scale across entire populations of seabirds. Langton et al. (2011) suggest that any effects of renewable energy devices on seabird populations will be mediated through adult survival rates, rather than through reproductive output or juvenile survival (though juvenile birds may be more susceptible to impacts, see (Furness et al. 2012)). However, at present it is extremely difficult to identify the effects of wave energy converters on seabirds in the context of broader ecosystem change resulting from overfishing of prey species and climate change. Wave energy converters such as CETO 5 and CETO 6 are likely to pose a relatively low overall risk to seabird populations, though further development of some of the methods outlined above could serve to provide further insight into species sensitivities across a variety of locations and behavioural responses to the presence of CETO arrays.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 60

4. Assessment of environmental effects

5.4.6 Elasmobranchs

The potential impacts of CETO arrays on basking sharks have been discussed above. For other species of elasmobranchs found in the UK, installations of CETO devices in a PWEP-type array and a larger pre-commercial array are unlikely to have substantial impacts on populations, though the uncertainty associated with these impacts is relatively high. All species of elasmobranchs are listed as threatened or declining by OSPAR, and many are UK Priority Marine Features, so while not legally protected, they are of some conservation interest and may be of consequence for EIA. Even so, substantial uncertainty around impacts on elasmobranchs means that it will be difficult to identify and/or quantify the resulting population effects of any interaction.

The presence of CETO devices may attract elasmobranchs seeking prey around structures as a result of prey aggregation (CETO 5 and CETO 6), and possibly because of electromagnetic field (EMF) emissions being misinterpreted as bioelectric fields from potential prey (CETO 6, Gill et al. 2014). Where elasmobranchs are attracted to structures with moving parts, there is a potential collision risk. In their Strategic Environmental Assessment of marine energy in Scottish waters, Marine Scotland consider that collisions between elasmobranchs and wave energy converters is possible, but also suggest that these animals are more likely to avoid structures, and so the risk of collision will be low (Marine Scotland 2013). Furthermore, demersal elasmobranchs such as skates and rays are unlikely to encounter moving elements of devices at mid-water column depths, and so collisions are unlikely to occur.

It is uncertain whether or not elasmobranchs might mistakenly ‘hunt’ anthropogenic electric fields, though instances of sharks biting subsea cables have been recorded (Marra 1989). Cables are normally protected by burial, ducting, jacketing, or rock mattressing, particularly in energetic areas of the seabed such as wave energy sites; while this may prevent damage from the occasional shark bite, it will not reduce the transmission of EMF (Boehlert and Gill 2010, Gill et al. 2014). At present there is no legislation limiting subsea EMF emissions, though regulations do exist in the UK for terrestrial and sea surface EMF.

5.4.7 Marine Turtles

Compared with the UK, marine turtles are common in some parts of Western Australia, and important populations live and breed in northern coastal regions of Western Australian waters. In contrast, only the Leatherback sea turtle is thought to be a rare but regular visitor to UK waters during the summer months; these turtles do not nest anywhere along the UK coastline. Leatherback sea turtles occur most frequently in the southwest of England and Wales, becoming less frequent towards Scotland and the north. As European Protected Species, marine turtles are protected in European waters, but encounters with wave energy installations are likely to be rare given the low level of development and low population density of this species. As such, population consequences of collision and entanglement are deemed to be negligible at present. Furthermore, the lack of nesting sites in the UK suggests that lighting during the construction and operation phases is also unlikely to affect marine turtle populations visiting UK waters to forage.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 61

4. Assessment of environmental effects

5.5 Summary

The relatively new nature of the wave energy industry, combined with an accelerating rate of development, has left marine scientists struggling to keep pace when specifying important environmental interactions. As many wave energy developers have suggested, the physical and ecological conditions are substantially different from tidal energy developments or offshore wind farms, making cross comparisons of impacts across technologies challenging. Furthermore, there is great diversity in device architecture and optimal siting (e.g. onshore/nearshore/offshore), so it is often difficult to generalise on environmental effects, even within the industry. Finally, the lagged development of wave energy technology and slower progression towards commercial-scale projects has meant that much of the published device-specific literature deals with offshore wind or tidal energy, and reviews of literature often extrapolate from these studies to wave energy conversion.

This results in substantial uncertainty around the consequences of impacts of wave energy devices and arrays, from three sources. First, a lack of long term deployments of wave energy converters (and no long term deployments of an array) means that there is little information to validate seasonal models of hydrodynamics and sediment transport in relation to devices and arrays. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess the potential for increased productivity, artificial reef effects, and fish aggregation without seasonal and/or inter-annual datasets.

Second, there remain fundamental gaps in understanding around the natural behaviour and habitat usage of many animals, perhaps most importantly for charismatic and protected megafauna such as pinnipeds, cetaceans, and basking sharks. For example, the behaviour of cetaceans in storm conditions is difficult to study and poorly understood, particularly for small cetaceans. There is some evidence that baleen whales dive longer and deeper during storms, and that mothers and calves may seek shelter inshore, but these behaviours are largely undocumented. This lack of baseline information makes it difficult to interpret how these animals might interact with wave energy arrays in stormy conditions.

Finally, there is a lack of knowledge around precisely how animals will interact with installed devices. The previous two sources of uncertainty are partly responsible for this, but in-situ observations of animal-device interactions are also rare. This is perhaps because the interactions themselves are rare, but the ‘test’ status of many devices and prototypes means that they are frequently connected and disconnected, and the exposure of flora and fauna to devices is periodic, rather than sustained. As such, it is difficult to assess issues such as the development of biofouling and artificial reef communities, animal habituation to or avoidance of devices, and seasonal changes to local hydrodynamic regimes.

Despite ongoing uncertainty, few of the potential impacts cited in the previous sections are associated with severe environmental consequences or have legal implications associated with protected species and habitats. In the preceding analysis, for both installation configurations of CETO devices, four stressor-receptor combinations were identified as having greater than negligible impacts:

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 62

4. Assessment of environmental effects

• Shoreward reduction in wave energy affecting nearshore physical processes and habitat provisioning. Impact consequence is assessed as minor for a pre-commercial CETO 6 array only, and is likely to scale with the scale of installation. • Understanding the behaviour of marine mammals and basking sharks around CETO devices, including responses to prey aggregation and behaviour in storm conditions. • Entanglement of marine mammals and basking sharks with midwater electrical cables. For CETO 6 array only, and may be mitigated by appropriate design elements. • Understanding the behaviour of diving seabirds foraging around submerged device components.

These are described in more detail below.

5.5.1 Shoreward reduction in wave energy affecting nearshore physical processes and habitat provisioning

Impact consequence is assessed as minor for a pre-commercial CETO 6 array only, and is likely to scale with the scale of installation.

The shoreward reduction in wave energy affecting nearshore physical processes and habitat provisioning is likely to be negligible for a PWEP-type installation of CETO 5 devices, given the small footprint of the array (250 m x 300 m). A CETO 6 demonstration array, as proposed for Wave Hub in Cornwall, UK, might be expected to cause a slightly greater reduction in shoreward wave energy than CETO 5 because of the increase in device capacity from 250 kW to 1 MW. However, the footprint of a three-device array will still be relatively small, in comparison with a larger 25-device array of CETO 6. Effects on nearshore wave energy and particularly on longshore sediment drift may become more important for the larger array, as has been demonstrated for other technologies (e.g. Pelamis, Rusu and Guedes Soares 2013). These changes may affect multiple stressors, from the physical environment to rocky shore and sediment-based intertidal and subtidal communities which have developed in relation to specific energetic and sedimentary conditions, which may be of particular concern for habitats listed under Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive (e.g. reefs). Even so, thresholds for changes in physical conditions causing ecological changes to manifest themselves are uncertain, as is the geographical scale at which impacts will be felt.

Few long-term deployments of offshore wave energy devices (and no long-term deployments of offshore wave energy arrays), including CETO, exist to validate models of interactions with the physical environment. The Marine Environmental Management Plan produced by Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. illustrates that nearshore sediment erosion and accretion are highly seasonal at the Garden Island site. Similarly, the effects of the PWEP and a larger installation on coastal hydrography and sediment processers are also likely to have a seasonal signal. A full year of deployment of the PWEP demonstration array provides an opportunity to validate wave analysis models and sediment transport models at that site, with the potential for scaling up and improving physical models of a

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 63

4. Assessment of environmental effects more extensive CETO 6 array. These will, however, still be subject to inter-annual variation, but as more wave energy arrays are installed for longer operational lifetimes, uncertainty around device interactions with the physical environment should decrease as predictive modelling capabilities iteratively improve. Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. are currently working with Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) on mapping and modelling the wave resource at the PWEP site to address some of these issues.

5.5.2 Interactions between marine mammals and basking sharks and CETO devices, particularly in storm conditions

Impact consequences are assessed as moderate, because of the potential for injury or death to a protected species.

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England and Wales and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in Scotland, the deliberate or reckless capture, killing, disturbance, of a European Protected Species is a criminal offence, resulting in a fine or a term of imprisonment. All cetaceans and basking sharks are protected species, and are of substantial concern to renewable energy developers in UK waters, as well as to marine scientists and conservation organisations alike. Impacting these species, many of which are also of substantial public interest, could represent a ‘show-stopper’ for any wave energy project, and could influence the social acceptance of a project or of the industry as a whole.

For these interactions the uncertainty predominantly lies around whether or not the interaction will occur in the first place. Small cetaceans, for example, may be able to detect and avoid CETO devices in most conditions. However, in storm conditions visual and auditory cues could be limited or confusing, and echolocation may be impacted due to high levels of aeration (Dr. Steven Benjamins, SAMS, pers. comm. ). This could mean that it is harder for animals to detect CETO devices in heavy seas, increasing the risk of collision. There is some evidence that baleen whales dive longer and deeper during storms, and that mothers and calves may seek shelter inshore, which may bring them into closer contact with devices and arrays. These behaviours are not well studied, partially because of the challenges associated with deploying equipment in heavy seas.

Encounter modelling combined with population studies of both cetaceans and basking sharks could be used to estimate how often these animals might come into contact with devices, though this does not necessarily represent the risk of collision, which depends much more on the animal’s sensory abilities in a particular sea state. For example, the characterisation of the offshore noise environment in both calm and stormy conditions may improve our understanding of how well cetaceans are able to detect objects in high seas using sound and echolocation, which could then be applied to wave energy devices. Unlike cetaceans, basking sharks do not need to surface to breathe, and they are also capable of diving to depths of several hundred metres for prolonged periods of time (Sims et al. 2003), so they may naturally avoid collisions with the near-surface components of wave energy arrays.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 64

4. Assessment of environmental effects

Small details may also be important: the colour of the CETO device may affect how it is perceived by certain species, while sharp or protruding elements of a structure could make the consequences of a collision more severe than for a smooth surface.

5.5.3 Entanglement of marine mammals and basking sharks with midwater electrical cables

Impact consequences are assessed as moderate, but only for CETO 6 devices, as CETO 5 devices do not have midwater electrical cabling. However, this impact consequence is likely to be further reduced through appropriate design of midwater cabling layout in the development process.

As discussed in the previous section, both marine mammals and basking sharks are listed as European Protected Species, and so are protected under both European and UK legislation. Given that marine megafauna injury and mortality through entanglement in fishing gear is already widespread (Reeves et al. 2013), this could potentially represent a serious conservation concern. It is reported that approximately half of all reported baleen whale strandings in Scotland have been related to entanglement (Northridge et al. 2010). There is also a risk to the social acceptance of projects, should severe injury or death of a charismatic animal occur as a result of entanglement in midwater cabling. There may also be substantial cost involved in repairing midwater moorings and cables damaged by a large animal which has become entangled in the cable, or in other debris (e.g. derelict fishing gear) which is caught in device components.

Larger baleen whales and basking sharks are more likely to become entangled than smaller species such as porpoises and seals, so these will be species at greatest risk. Northridge et al. (2010) suggested that the risk of minke whale entanglement with creel fishery lines could be greatest around the Outer Hebrides, Skye, and Orkney, and these areas could also pose the greatest entanglement risks for wave energy developments. Similar to collision risk, the risk of entanglement may also be exacerbated by storm conditions, when animal vision, hearing, and echolocation abilities may be compromised.

As well as the species of animal making use of the development site, the riser configuration of the CETO 6 midwater electrical cable is likely to influence the risk of entanglement. With appropriate design, the risk of impact is likely to be substantially reduced The modelling process involved in designing the configuration of the CETO 6 midwater cable (e.g.stiffness, tension, accessory buoys) and its expected behaviour could also be used to assess the risk of entanglement with marine mammals and basking sharks, allowing this issue to be addressed in the context of EIA. The distributed buoyancy module system under consideration by Carnegie Wave Energy could substantially reduce and possibly eliminate the risk of entanglement with the midwater cable by increasing the minimum bend radius to 8 m and by increasing the visibility of the buoyancy modules.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 65

4. Assessment of environmental effects

5.5.4 Interactions with diving seabirds foraging around submerged device components

Impact consequences are assessed as minor for CETO 5 array and minor for CETO 6 array. Consequences may scale with installation size.

In UK waters, all wild birds are protected under the EU Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC 2009), as transposed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England and Wales and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in Scotland. Populations of seabirds must be maintained at an appropriate level, so population-level impacts of CETO installations on seabirds will be an important part of environmental impact assessment and monitoring, in combination with the cumulative effects of other stressors such as fishing activity and other renewable energy installations.

Given that juvenile survival and reproductive success may not be as important as adult survival for population maintenance in many seabirds, collisions resulting in adult injury or mortality may pose the greatest risk to seabird populations. However, high uncertainty exists around whether or not collisions will occur, and recent reviews have suggested that there is not presently enough information to estimate collision rates or the implications of collision with submerged devices (Langton et al. 2011). It is likely, however that the risk of changes to foraging habitat and collision with devices will increase with increasing installation size.

The Flow and Benthic Ecology 4D (FLOWBEC, http://noc.ac.uk/project/flowbec, accessed 16 June 2014) project in the UK is currently developing tools to assess the hydrodynamic habitat preferences of a number of species, including diving seabirds, in relation to tidal energy devices (Williamson et al. 2014). The development or use of similar technology (e.g. the FLOWBEC frame) for wave energy developments could provide substantial insight into how diving birds use foraging habitat in the vicinity of installed wave energy devices, to better assess the risk of collision and/or injury.

Foraging habitats of many birds may also change on a seasonal basis, mediated by prey availability, so it will be important to assess how devices such as CETO interact with seabirds throughout the year, as impacts may also be seasonal. As previously mentioned, no wave energy array has been installed and monitored on a year-round basis, so the Perth Wave Energy Project could represent an important opportunity for research in this regard. While the species of seabirds will differ, it could be possible to monitor seabirds aggregating around the installation site, and changes in the availability of prey species around the array resulting from artificial reef effects or changes in hydrodynamic conditions using ‘smart sensors’ similar to the aforementioned FLOWBEC frame, video technology, and opportunistic surveys during installation and maintenance. Similar studies carried out around a UK installation could further strengthen any outcomes from observations at the PWEP, and provide a strong basis for consent of a larger commercial deployment.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 66

5. Joint industry-research projects

6 Joint industry-research projects for addressing pressing areas of EIA uncertainty around CETO installations in the UK

The previous sections have highlighted several environmental considerations important to achieving consent in the form of a Marine License and section 36 consent under the Electricity Act 1980. Many of these issues also represent substantial gaps in scientific understanding, and so are of great interest to marine scientists.

Here, 3 possible studies which could help to reduce consenting uncertainty on the part of CETO-type projects are described in detail. These could be carried out in a partnership between researchers and Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd., either at their Perth Wave Energy Project site at Garden Island, Western Australia, or as part of a similar project developed in the UK.

6.1 Wave energy extraction and changes to coastal geomorphology and habitat provisioning

Rational:

A recent study on various configurations of Pelamis wave energy devices suggested that wave energy extraction, will reduce the amount of breaking waves reaching the shore and coastal turbulence (Rusu and Guedes Soares 2013), which are highly influential properties in determining the makeup of near-shore and onshore biological communities (Burrows 2012). While such effects may not be immediately apparent for a small array such as PWEP, as CETO devices scale up to CETO 6 and commercial-scale arrays, changes in onshore wave energy could have substantial consequences for coastal geomorphology and biological communities living in wave exposed coastal environments. At present, it is uncertain how great a reduction in wave energy in nearshore environments would be needed for these effects to become apparent and the development process of Carnegie Wave Energy’s installations (PWEP, CETO 6, and commercial scale) represent an excellent opportunity for a multidisciplinary study of these effects across two locations (UK and Western Australia).

As part of the Perth Wave Energy Project, Carnegie have obtained a set of historical and recent aerial photographs spanning the time periods between 1967-2008 and 2010-2012 (Oceanica 2012). The historic photographs (1967-2008) indicate that no significant geomorphological changes have occurred over that time period. Images taken in summer and winter between 2010 and 2012 illustrate a seasonal cycle of accretion (winter) and erosion (summer). Following on, any effects of installation of the PWEP and planned CETO 6 arrays may be more prevalent on a seasonal basis.

This study would aim to assess the potential for changes in nearshore wave energy and sediment transport as a result of installation of the PWEP and CETO 6 arrays, and any associated changes on coastal geomorphology and habitat provisioning.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 67

5. Joint industry-research projects

Approach:

This project would take a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating wave and sediment transport modelling, field survey techniques, and ecological assessment and statistical modelling to examine the effects of CETO arrays in Western Australia and a possible UK location. Wave and sediment transport models could be developed incorporating engineering inputs from Carnegie’s device modelling and performance monitoring. Associated seasonal ground-truthing of geomorphological change and benthic habitats could be carried out using Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) fitted with a high-resolution camera and other sensors – a low-cost approach to high-resolution aerial surveys. Models of benthic habitats and species distribution in relation to changing physical characteristics could then be developed incorporating results from physical modelling and RPA surveys. These activities could be undertaken in collaboration with ongoing research projects at CSIRO which focus on the PWEP.

Outputs:

• Development of ground-truthed hindcast and forecast models of shoreward wave energy dissipation and sediment transport to predict changes to the physical environment, for use in consenting and environmental approvals. • Application of these models to coastal morphology and ecological communities of interest. • Demonstration of the use of RPAs as a reliable and low-cost survey technique for wave energy project development. • A comparative assessment of CETO installations in relation to coastal geomorphology and benthic communities in two development locations.

6.2 Operational noise effects on marine mammals

Rational:

Operational noise of wave energy converters is poorly understood, but is of substantial interest to UK regulatory bodies tasked with consenting decisions. Noise emitted by Carnegie Wave Energy’s developments will be specific to the CETO devices installed, and will be strongly related to sea state and environmental conditions. This noise is also likely to be highly variable, depending on sea state, operational condition of the device, and other factors. If operational noise is detectable by marine mammals and causes a response, disturbance of those animals is likely to occur through behavioural changes or displacement away from habitat. Alternatively, marine mammals may rely on acoustic cues to detect devices and avoid collisions.

The PWEP array and other CETO installations represent an opportunity to closely monitor an existing installation to better understand how animals may interact with devices upon their approach. To date, no acoustic information is available with regards to an installed array of wave energy devices, and there is substantial uncertainty around how noise from an operational array would propagate in

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 68

5. Joint industry-research projects

the marine environment. This study would build on previous noise monitoring carried out on CETO 3 by Carnegie to characterise ambient noise and noise from PWEP across varying environmental conditions and assess noise propagation from 1, 2, and 3 installed units, with a view to up-scaling to a 25-unit development.

Methods:

Further measurements of underwater noise would be made in the vicinity of the PWEP at various stages of installation: 1, 2, and 3 devices. Once installation of three devices is complete, seasonal noise measurements made over a variety of sea states could be used to develop noise propagation models for an operational array, with the potential to scale up to a larger array. Potential impacts on specific species will be assessed. Outputs from studies carried out at Garden Island, Western Australia, will then provide insight to noise effects of a PWEP-type or larger commercial project in the UK using a number of methods, for example location-specific noise propagation modelling or playback experiments to free-ranging animals, as are already being carried out for some tidal turbines.

Outputs:

• Development of a noise propagation model for an array of CETO devices at Garden Island and at a chosen UK location (e.g. Wave Hub). • Improved understanding of the sound field associated with an array asynchronous, cyclical movements of individual devices. • An assessment of the potential impacts of discontinuous noise (as per wave devices) on free- ranging animals from noise playback in experimental conditions. • Application of noise propagation models and outputs from playback experiments to up- scaled commercial arrays in the UK and Australia.

6.3 Biofouling

Rational:

As many wave energy devices are still at experimental or ‘proof of concept’ stages, few devices have been left in-situ for extended periods of time. As for any other structure, once installed in the marine environment for an extended period of time wave energy devices will be subject to biofouling. Fouling organisms such as mussels and barnacles accelerate corrosion of surfaces and abrasion of moving parts, and can also have a disproportionately large influence on device and mooring loading and performance (Jusoh and Wolfram 1996, Macleod 2013). Furthermore, the degree of biofouling affecting devices at particular locations can substantially influence device maintenance schedules, in order that structures continue to function effectively over their life- cycles. Biofouling may be of greater concern on some elements of the CETO devices than others, for example on moving parts such as the pump, or at the attachment point between the device and its foundation.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 69

5. Joint industry-research projects

Biofouling may also be of concern with regards to environmental approvals and consenting if offshore renewable energy infrastructure is shown to harbour non-native or invasive species. Recent studies have demonstrated that these structures could act as stepping stones for non-native species (Adams et al. 2014). Methods : This stream of research could incorporate several elements, including: • A comparative assessment of structural loading on the CETO devices from biofouling community development in the UK and Australia, using modelling techniques such as OrcaFlex or computational fluid dynamics modelling • a review of research targeting relevant species focussing on micro-siting and habitat preferences, with application to vulnerability of niche areas on CETO devices to biofouling and development of techniques for biofouling prevention • in-situ biofouling testing of 3D replicas of device-specific micro-environments • an ecological approach to development of a cost-effective device maintenance plan which also reduces biofouling development • Development of high-resolution food-web models of a CETO array in the UK or Australia to test ‘artificial reef’ effects on nearby ecological communities

Output:

• Improved understanding of device performance and survivability with a well-developed biofouling community in place • Specific elements of device architecture highlighted as being susceptible to damage from biofouling, and suggested methods for prevention • A maintenance plan which accounts for biofouling development in a cost-effective manner. • An understanding of whether or not arrays of CETO devices could act as artificial reefs, and have associated benefits to the surrounding environment.

6.4 Further projects

Other areas of environmental uncertainty have also been highlighted over the course of this report, and may also be appropriate for further development. For example, wave energy devices are often thought of in the same space as tidal energy developments in terms of consenting in the UK. Here, estimating collision risk between devices and marine mammals is important, but currently difficult to carry out in relation to wave energy developments. For CETO devices, as the buoyant actuator increases in size, the risk of collision (particularly in stormy collisions) will change. Researchers are currently developing sensor arrays which incorporate both echo sounders and hydrophones to record both the presence of marine mammals and prey species around renewable energy developments. These tools could provide relevant information at very fine scales for use in predictive models of animal behaviour around installations. Such a sensor installed at one CETO development site could provide insight into how animals interact with wave energy arrays across all CETO development sites worldwide. This technology could also be applied to diving seabirds and prey, a final environmental concern not addressed in the preceding three research streams.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 70

6. Summary and conclusions

7 Summary and conclusions

The marine renewable energy industry depends on the natural environment as a resource for economic gain. Yet many of the greatest challenges currently facing developers reside around understanding interactions between devices and arrays and the surrounding environment. In the UK, environmental data gathering and monitoring could stand to make up a substantial part of project costs, and there is a need to engage researchers and policymakers on this issue in order that the onus is not solely left on the shoulders of developers. The British wave energy industry is at a critical phase and demonstration projects, moving onwards to commercial arrays must be delivered by 2017 in order to overcome challenges associated with changing government subsidies as part of the UK Energy Market Reform Process.

In Australia too, changing government attitudes to renewable energy subsidies may be a risk to wave energy project development. Obtaining environmental consent for projects, on the other hand, may not be so onerous, as demonstrated by Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd.’s success in developing the Perth Wave Energy Project as the only array of grid-connected wave energy devices worldwide.

By highlighting differences in the approach to wave energy development in each country, the drivers of the industry success in the UK become apparent, as does the substantial opportunity for wave energy development in Western Australia, particularly for ‘first mover’ companies such as Carnegie.

The UK’s world leading wave energy industry has been sustained by ongoing government and political support for development, particularly in Scotland. This has provided a strong base for the positive engagement of investors, developers, and other stakeholders. A marine planning approach which incorporates economic growth alongside nature conservation and biodiversity has also served to development of the industry in a sustainable fashion, despite the substantial density of marine resource users and coastal user groups. However, the highly regulated use of the marine environment stemming from the Habitats Directive and other European Union legislation may cause stymie development, as often, the onus is on developers to complete detailed environmental studies in order to obtain consent. This is reflected in the extended 3-5 year time consenting period experienced by many wave energy projects in the UK (see Appendix 9.1 for estimated timeframes in Scotland). Carnegie Wave Energy have demonstrated that the equivalent process in Western Australia can be completed in 1-2 years, leading to more rapid development and perhaps a lower perceived risk to investors.

In Australia and in Western Australia in particular, the perception of a low density of coastal use may mean that the overall perceived environmental risk of development is low. Despite the PWEP’s location within the densely populated Perth metropolitan area (population density approximately 315 people/km 2, compared with approximately 260 people/km 2 in the UK) there could be a cultural or historical ideology which perpetuates the Australian approach to coastal resource use. Indeed, the relatively recent colonisation of Australia by Europeans and extremely low density of people across the majority of the Australian continent may be an explanation. This view was echoed in meetings with members of the decision making authorities in Western Australia in March 2014, all of

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 71

6. Summary and conclusions whom suggested that the environmental risk to wave energy developments to the environment, though somewhat uncertain, was likely to be comparatively low. Combined with the tendency of environmental decision making authorities to set cumulative thresholds for impact in a particular development area (for example, removal of no more than 10% of total benthic primary producer habitat, Government of Western Australia 2009), there is likely to be tangible benefit in being one of the first companies to develop, as Carnegie’s success to date demonstrates.

As mentioned above, in developing CETO projects in the UK, there may be some areas in the environmental consenting process which are under greater scrutiny than in Australia, given the UK’s obligations to Europe to protect biodiversity and habitats. Four potential issues highlighted in this report were:

o Shoreward reduction in wave energy affecting nearshore physical processes and habitat provisioning. Impact consequence is assessed as minor for a pre-commercial CETO 6 array only, and is likely to scale with the scale of installation. o Understanding the behaviour of marine mammals and basking sharks around CETO devices, including responses to prey aggregation and behaviour in storm conditions. o Entanglement of marine mammals and basking sharks with midwater electrical cables (may be negated to an extent by appropriate cabling and riser design). o Understanding the behaviour of diving seabirds foraging around submerged device components.

Three possible projects which build on monitoring currently undertaken at the Perth Wave Energy Project site were detailed addressing uncertainty around the potential impacts of shoreward reductions in wave energy from arrays, noise emitted from CETO 5 devices, and device biofouling. These projects could be built into existing data gathering and monitoring at the Perth Wave Energy Project and CETO 6 sites in Australia. In the UK, integrated sensor technologies for environmental monitoring are also developing rapidly, and include: • x-band radar for environmental characterisation and erosion monitoring • device-mounted acoustic data loggers for cetacean detection and noise monitoring • sensors and tools to predict and detect biofouling on renewable energy devices • development of remonte sensing tools for site development and prediction of extreme weather conditions • remotely piloted aircraft, drifters, and autonomous underwater vehicles for site surveys, passive acoustic monitoring, and/or cetacean and bird surveys

For most of these, primary research is underway in academic centres in the UK with some industry collaboration, but identification of applications for marine renewable energy technologies has only now come to fruition, as devices begin to undergo longer deployments suitable for the testing of such technologies. If such a sensor has potential to facilitate environmental monitoring at the PWEP without interfering with operational procedures, the PWEP could serve as an ideal test-bed for technologies which could ease consenting and streamline post-consent monitoring for future Australian and UK projects. Through a wider industry-research partnership (see below), complementary work carried out at both an Australian development site and potential UK

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 72

6. Summary and conclusions development sites (e.g. WaveHub) could provide additional insight and/or consenting confidence to a UK development,

These projects could take the form of a collaboration between Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. and the Scottish Association for Marine Science, as well as other partners in Australia (e.g. CSIRO) or the UK (e.g. WaveHub). Possible sources of funding for this type of joint-industry research or knowledge exchange project in the UK include amongst others:

• The Energy Technology Partnership (www.etp-scotland.ac.uk), who provide funding to SMEs to work with Scottish Universities in the Energy Sector. • The Technology Strategy Board Energy Catalyst fund, which supports business and research organisations, including academia, to respond to challenges across the energy sector. The Energy Catalyst funds projects which are based upon innovation and incorporate: technology development; components or systems; integrated whole-system approaches; or enabling technologies for the energy system. • Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (www.ktponline.org.uk), also funded by the Technology Strategy Board. A UK-wide programme helping businesses to improve their competitiveness and productivity through the better use of knowledge, technology and skills that reside within the UK Knowledge Base. • NERC Innovation Projects (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/schemes/innovation-projects/), whose aim is to increase the uptake and impact of NERC funded research output by supporting translational and knowledge exchange activity which delivers a direct, tangible, and demonstrable benefit to end users, particularly businesses. The call will support projects that are likely to generate little or no commercial return, but which will deliver impact. Activities can include products, models, tools, internships, or secondments. • The Royal Society Industry Fellowship Scheme is for academic scientists who would like to work on a collaborative project with industry, and for scientists in industry who would like to work on a collaborative project with an academic organisation. The scheme aims to enhance knowledge transfer between academia and industry and provides holders with a basic salary and a contribution towards research costs.

Innovation-focussed organisations such as the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult and Innovation Centres such as CENSIS (Innovation Centre for Sensor and Imaging Systems) can also act as enablers for developing collaborations and sourcing funding for this type of work. The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult is currently developing their environmental programme of work, taking advice from the UK Natural Environment Research Council marine renewable energy knowledge exchange programme, in order that projects funded immediately address pressing challenges in both the wave and tidal energy industry.

Projects such as these can serve to accelerate development of the wave energy industry both in the UK and in Australia by anticipating and addressing environmental challenges before they become substantial and potentially costly issues during the consenting process. In doing so, the wave energy industry can progress more quickly across the gap between demonstration projects and

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 73

6. Summary and conclusions economically viable commercial projects to become a valuable source of clean, sustainable, and secure ocean energy.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 74

8. Appendices

8 Literature cited

Adams, T. P., R. G. Miller, D. Aleynik, and M. T. Burrows. 2014. Offshore marine renewable energy devices as stepping stones across biogeographical boundaries. Journal of Applied Ecology 51 :330-338. Amoudry, L., P. B. Bell, K. S. Black, G. R. W, R. Helsby, A. Souza, P. D. Thorne, and J. Wolf. 2009. A Scoping Study on: Research into Changes in Sediment Dynamics Linked to Marine Renewable Energy Installations. British Geological Survey, Partrac Ltd., Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory. Australian Government. 2004. Australian Heritage Database, Department of the Environment. Australian Government. 2010. EPBC Act - Environment Assessment Process Fact Sheet. Page 7 in Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities, editor. Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Government. 2012a. Australian energy technology assessment 2012. Page 108 pp. in Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, editor., Canberra. Australian Government. 2012b. Marine bioregional plan for the North-west Marine Region. Page 260 in Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities, editor. Australian Government. 2012c. Marine bioregional plan for the South-west Marine Region. Page 207 in Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities, editor. Australian Government. 2013a. Compliance and Enforcement Policy: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Page 22 in Department of the Environment, editor., Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Government. 2013b. Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Page 36 in Department of the Environment, editor. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia. Australian Government. 2014. The Australian Government Autumn Repeal Day March 2014.32 pp. Australian Government Clean Energy Regulator. 2014. About the renewable power percentage. Clean Energy Regulator: Renewable Energy Target. Bailey, H., B. Senior, D. Simmons, J. Rusin, G. Picken, and P. M. Thompson. 2010. Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60 :888-897. Baxter, J. M., I. L. Boyd, M. Cox, A. E. Donald, S. J. Malcom, H. Miles, B. Miller, C. F. Moffat, and (Editors). 2011. Scotland's Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh. Benjamins, S., V. Harnois, H. C. M. Smith, L. Johanning, L. Greenhill, C. Carter, and B. Wilson. 2014. Understanding the potential for marine megafauna entanglement risk from renewable marine energy developments. Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned Report No 791. Boehlert, G. W. and A. B. Gill. 2010. Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development: A current synthesis. Oceanography 23 :69-81. Boehlert, G. W., G. R. McMurray, and C. E. Tortorici. 2008. Ecological effects of wave energy in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum. Booij, N., R. C. Ris, and L. H. Holthuijsen. 1999. A third generation wave model for coastal regions. Part 1: model description and validation. Journal of Geophysical Research 104 (C4) :7649- 7666. Brandt, M. J., A. Diederichs, K. Betke, and G. Nehls. 2011. Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 421 :205-216.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 75

8. Appendices

Bulleri, F. and L. Airoldi. 2005. Artificial marine structures facilitate the spread of a non-indigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides , in the north Adriatic Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology 42 :1063-1072. Burrows, M. T. 2012. Influences of wave fetch, tidal flow and ocean colour on subtidal rocky communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 445 :193-207. Burrows, M. T., R. Harvey, and L. Robb. 2008. Wave exposure indices from digital coastlines and the prediction of rocky shore community structure. Marine Ecology Progress Series 353 :1-12. Clean Energy Council. 2013. Clean Energy Australia Report 2013. Clean Energy Council. Collin, S. P. and D. Whitehead. 2004. The functional roles of passive electroreception in non-electric fishes. Animal Biology 54 :1-25. Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. Australia's Oceans Policy. Page 48, Canberra, Australia. Council Directive 92/43/EEC. 1992. On the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Official Journal of the European Union 206. Council Directive 2009/28/EC. 2009. On the promotion of the use of energy from renwable sources. Official Journal of the European Union L 140. Council Directive 2009/147/EC. 2009. On the Conservation of Wild Birds. in E. Commission, editor. Official Journal of the European Union L 20/7. Crown Estate. 2013. The Crown Estate: Cumulative Impact Assessment in Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters. Volume 1 - Final Report., AMEC Environment & Infrastructure Ltd, Aquatera,. Cruz, J., editor. 2008. Ocean Wave Energy: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Davies, I. M., M. Gubbins, and R. Watret. 2012. Scoping study for offshore wave energy development in Scottish waters. Marine Scotland. Davies, I. M. and D. Pratt. 2014. Strategic sectoral planning for offshore renewable energy in Scotland. Pages 141-152 in M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne, editors. Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions. Springer Science, Dordrecht. Douvere, F. and C. Ehler. 2009. New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management:77-88. Driessen, J., L. Masden, and S. Zisman. 2010. Assessment methodology for determining cumulative impacts of wave and tidal marine renewable energy devices on marine birds., RPS, Glasgow, UK. EMEC Ltd. 2013. Guidance for developers at EMEC grid-connected sites: Supporting environmental documentation. Energy and Climate Change Committee: House of Commons. 2012. The Future of Marine Renewables in the UK: Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12. UK Government, London. Enstipp, M. R., D. Grémillet, and D. R. Jones. 2007. Investigating the functional link between prey abundance and seabird predatory performance. Marine Ecology Progress Series 331 :267- 279. Erbe, C. 2013. International regulation of underwater noise. Acoustics Australia 41 :12-19. European Commission. 1999. Guidance for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well as impact interactions., Luxembourg. European Commission. 2001. Guidance on EIA: EIS Review. Page 32 pp. in O. f. O. P. o. t. E. Communities, editor. European Commission. 2014. 2030 climate and energy goals for a competitive, secure, and low- carbon EU economy. Press release 22 January 2014. Page 4 pp. Faber Maunsell and Metoc Plc. 2007. Scottish Marine Renewables Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Report Section C SEA Assessment: Chapter C7 Fish and Shellfish., Scottish Executive. Fewtrell, J. L. and R. D. McCauley. 2012. Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64 :984-993.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 76

8. Appendices

Frid, C., E. Andonegi, J. Depestele, A. Judd, D. Rihan, S. I. Rogers, and E. Kenchington. 2012. The environmental interactions of tidal and wave energy generation devices. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 :133-139. Furness, R. W., H. M. Wade, A. M. C. Robbins, and E. A. Masden. 2012. Assessing the sensitivity of seabird populations to adverse effects from tidal stream turbines and wave energy devices. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 69 :1466-1479. Garel, E., C. C. Rey, Ó. Ferreira, and M. van Koningsveld. 2014. Applicability of the “Frame of Reference” approach for environmental monitoring of offshore renewable energy projects. Journal of Environmental Management 141 :16-28. Gill, A. B., M. Bartlett, and F. Thomsen. 2012. Potential interactions between diadromous fishes of U.K. conservation importance and the electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments. Journal of Fish Biology 81 :664-695. Gill, A. B., I. Gloyne-Phillips, J. A. Kimber, and P. Sigray. 2014. Marine renewable energy, electromagnetic (EM) fields and EM -sensitive animals. Pages 61-79 in M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne, editors. Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions. Springer Science, Dordrecht. Gill, A. B., Y. Huang, I. Gloyne-Phillips, J. Metcalfe, V. Quayle, J. Spencer, and V. Wearmouth. 2009. COWRIE 2.0 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMF-sensitive fish response to EM emissions from subsea electricity cables of the type used by the offshore renewable energy industry. COWRIE Ltd. (Collaborative OffshoreWind Energy Research into the Environment) Glasby, T. M., S. D. Connell, M. G. Holloway, and C. L. Hewitt. 2007. Nonindigenous biota on artificial structures: could habitat creation facilitate biological invasions? Marine Biology 151 :887- 895. Goertner, J. F., M. L. Wiley, G. A. Young, and W. W. McDonald. 1994. Effects of underwater explosions on fish without swim bladders. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Weapons Research and Technology Department, Silver Spring, Maryland. Government of Western Australia. 2003. Statement of Planning Policy No. 2: Environment and Natural Resources Policy. Pages 2046-2057 in Western Australian Planning Commission, editor. State Law Publisher, Perth, WA. Government of Western Australia. 2009. Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 3: Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitats in Western Australia's Marine Environment. Page 41 in Environmental Protection Authority, editor. Government of Western Australia. 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) Administrative Procedures 2012. Western Australian Government Gazette 223 :5939- 5959. Government of Western Australia. 2013a. Checklist for documents submitted for EIA on marine and terrestrial biodiversity. Page 6 in E. P. Authority, editor., Perth, Western Australia. Government of Western Australia. 2013b. Environmental Assessment Guidelines No. 11: Recommending environmental conditions. Page 10 pp. in Environmental Protection Authority, editor. Government of Western Australia. 2013c. State Planning Policy No. 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy. Page 22 in Western Australian Planning Commission, editor. State Law Publisher, Perth, WA. Grecian, W. J., R. Inger, M. J. Attrill, S. Bearhop, B. J. Godley, M. J. Witt, and S. C. Votier. 2010. Potential impacts of wave-powered marine renewable energy installations on marine birds. International Journal of Avian Science 152 :683-697. Harwood, J., S. King, R. Schick, C. Donovan, and C. Booth. 2014. A protocol for implementing the interim population consequences of disturvance (PCOD) approach: quantifying and assessing the effects of UK offshore renewable energy developments on marine mammal populations. SMRUL-TCE-2013-04. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science 5.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 77

8. Appendices

Henkel, S. K., R. M. Suryan, and B. A. Lagerquist. 2014. Marine renewable energy and environmental interactions: baseline assessments of seabirds, marine mammals, sea turtles and benthic communities on the Oregon shelf. Pages 93-110 in M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne, editors. Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions. Springer Scientific. Hunt, G. L., R. Mehlum, R. W. Russell, D. Irons, M. B. Decker, and P. H. Becker. 1999. Physical processes, prey abundance, and the foraging ecology of seabirds. Proceedings of the International Ornithology Congress 22 :2040-2056. IEA. 2013. Tracking clean energy progress 2013: IEA input to the clean energy ministerial. International Energy Agency, Paris, France. Institute of Ecology and Enviornmental Management. 2006. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IPCC. 2011. Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2010. Statutory nature conservation agency protocol for minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from piling noise. Page 13, Aberdeen, UK. Joyner, C. 2000. The international ocean regime at the new millenium: a survey of the contemporary legal order. . Ocean and Coastal Management 43 :163-203. Jusoh, I. and J. Wolfram. 1996. Effects of marine growth and hydrodynamic loading on offshore structures. Jurnal Mekanikal 1:77-96. Kaiser, M. J., A. J. Elliott, M. Galanidi, E. I. S. Rees, R. W. G. Caldow, R. A. Stillman, W. J. Sutherland, and D. Showler. 2005. Predicting the displacement of common scoter Melanitta nigra from benthic feeding areas due to offshore wind farms., University of Bangor. Kimber, J. A., D. W. Sims, P. H. Bellamy, and A. B. Gill. 2014. Elasmobranch cognitive ability: using electroreceptive foraging behaviour to demonstrate learning, habituation and memory in a benthic shark. Animal Cognition 17 :55-65. King, S., I. M. D. Maclean, T. Norman, and A. Prior. 2009. Developing guidance on ornithological cumulative impact assessment for offshore wind farm developers. . COWRIE.:41 pp. Komar, P. D. 1971. The mechanics of sand transport on beaches. Journal of Geophysical Research 76 :713-721. Kongsberg. 2012. Underwater noise impact study in support of the Oyster Wave Energy Project, Isle of Lewis. Technical Report 250121-TR-0005-V1. Krivtsov, V. and B. Linfoot. 2012. Disruption to benthic habitats by moorings of wave energy installations: a modelling case study and implications for overall ecosystem functioning. Ecological Modelling 245 :121-124. Krohn, D., M. Woods, J. Adams, B. Valpy, F. Jones, and P. Gardner. 2013. Wave and Tidal Energy in the UK: Conquering Challenges, Generating Growth. RenewableUK, BVG Associates, GL Garrad Hassan, London, UK. Langhamer, O. and D. Wilhelmsson. 2009. Colonisation of fish and crabs of wave energy foundations and the effects of manufactured holes: a field experiment. Marine Environmental Research 68 :151-157. Langhamer, O., D. Wilhelmsson, and J. Engstrom. 2009. Artificial reef effect and fouling impacts on offshore wave power foundations and buoys - a pilot study. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 82 :426-432. Langton, R., I. M. Davies, and B. E. Scott. 2011. Seabird conservation and tidal stream and wave power generation: Information needs for predicting and managing potential impacts. Marine Policy 35 :623-630. Last, K. S., V. J. Henderick, C. Beveridge, and A. J. Davies. 2011. Measuring the effects of suspended particulate matter and smothering on the behaviour, growth and survival of key species found in areas associated with aggregate dredging. Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS).

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 78

8. Appendices

Leete, S., J. Xu, and D. Wheeler. 2013. Investment barriers and incentives for marine renewable energy in the UK: An analysis of investor preferences. Energy Policy 60 :866-875. Lepper, P. A., S. P. Robinson, E. Harland, P. Theobald, G. D. Hastie, and N. Quick. 2012. Acoustic noise measurement methodology for the Billia Croo wave energy test site. EMEC Report. Lindeboom, H. J., H. J. Kouwenhoven, M. J. N. Bergman, S. Bouma, S. Brasseur, R. Daan, R. C. Fijn, D. de Haan, S. Dirksen, R. van Hal, R. Hille Ris Lambers, R. ter Hofstede, K. L. Krijgsveld, M. Leopold, and M. Scheidat. 2011. Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a compilation. Environmental Research Letters 6:035101. Lohmann, K. J., N. F. Putman, and C. M. F. Lohmann. 2008. Geomagnetic impriinting: a unifying hypothesis of long-distance natal homing in salmon and sea turtles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 . Lusseau, D., F. Christiansen, J. Harwood, S. Mendes, P. M. Thompson, K. Smith, and G. D. Hastie. 2012. Assessing the risks to marine mammal populations from renewable energy devices: an interim approach. Page 29. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Lutcavage, M. E. and P. E. Lutz. 1997. Diving Physiology. Pages 277-296 in P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick, editors. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Maar, M., K. Bolding, J. K. Petersen, J. Hansen, and K. Timmerman. 2009. Local effects of blue mussels around turbine foundations in an ecosystem model of Nysted offshore wind farm Denmark. Journal of Sea Research 63 :159-174. Macleod, A. 2013. De-risking structural loading calculations for marine renewable energy devices: NERC Internship Placement Scheme Report., PML Applications Ltd., Scottish Association for Marine Science, SAMS Research Services Ltd. Macleod, A. K., K. K. Orr, L. Greenhill, and M. Burrows. 2014. Understanding the potential effects of wave energy devices on kelp biotopes. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness, UK. Marine Management Organisation. 2011. Marine licensing guidance 1: overview and process. Page 29. Marine Management Organisation. 2014. Review of environmental data associated with post- consent monitoring of licence conditions of offshore wind farms. MMO Project No:1031. . Page 194 pp. Marine Scotland. 2013. Planning Scotland's Seas: SEA of plans for wind, wave, and tidal power in scottish marine waters environmental report.:145 pp. Marra, L. J. 1989. Sharkbite on the SL submarine lightwave cable system: history, causes, and resolution. IEEE Journal of Ocean Engineering 14 :230-237. Masden, E. A., A. D. Fox, R. W. Furness, R. Bullman, and D. T. Haydon. 2010. Cumulative impact assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: developing a conceptual framework. . Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30 :1-7. Masden, P. T., M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack. 2006. Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 309 :279-295. McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M. N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000. Marine seismic surveys - a study of environmental implications. APPEA Journal:692-708. McCluskie, A. E., R. H. W. Langston, and N. I. Wilkinson. 2012. Birds and wave & tidal stream energy: an ecological review. RSPB Research Report No. 42., Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Bedfordshire, UK. McGranahan, G., D. Balk, and B. Anderson. 2007. The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and Urbanization 19 :17-37.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 79

8. Appendices

Miller, R. G., Z. L. Hutchison, A. Macleod, M. T. Burrows, E. J. Cook, K. S. Last, and B. Wilson. 2013. Marine renewable energy development: assessing the benthic footprint at multiple scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11 :433-440. Neill, S. P., E. J. Litt, S. J. Couch, and A. G. Davies. 2009. The impact of tidal stream turbines on large scale sediment dynamics. Renewable Energy 34 :2803-2812. Northridge, S., A. Cargill, A. Coram, L. Mandleberg, S. Calderan, and B. Reid. 2010. Entanglement of minke whales in Scottish waters; an investigation into occurrence, causes, and mitigation. Final Report to Scottish Government CR/2007/49. Sea Mammal Research Unit. O'Hagan, A. M. 2012. A review of international consenting regimes for marine renewables: are we moving towards better practice? International Conference on Ocean Energy, Dublin, Ireland. Oceanica. 2012. Perth Wave Energy Project Marine Environmental Management Plan. Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd. Popper, A. N. and M. C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 75 :455-489. R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and enviornment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Reeves, R. R., C. M. McClellan, and T. B. Werner. 2013. Marine mammal bycatch in gillnet and other entangling net fisheries, 1990-2011. Endangered Species Research 20 :71-97. Reubens, J. T., S. Degraer, and M. Vincx. 2014. The ecology of benthopelagic fishes at offshore wind farms: a synthesis of 4 years of research. Hydrobiologia 727 :121-136. Roam Consulting. 2014. RET Policy Analysis. Clean Energy Council. Rusu, E. and C. Guedes Soares. 2013. Coastal impact induced by a Pelamis wave farm operating in the Portuguese nearshore. Renewable Energy 58 :34-49. Sánchez, L. E. and A. Morrison-Saunders. 2011. Learning about knowledge management for improving environmental impact assessment in a government agency: The Western Australian experience. Journal of Environmental Management 92 :2260-2271. Scheidat, M., J. Tougaard, S. Brasseur, J. Carstensen, T. van Polanen Petel, J. Teilmann, and P. Reijnders. 2011. Harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) and wind farms: a case study in the Dutch North Sea. Environmental Research Letters 6:1-10. Scott-Hayward, L. A. S., C. S. Oedekoven, M. L. Mackenzie, and E. Rexstad. 2013. MRSea Package: Statistical Modelling of bird and cetacean distributions in offshore renewables development areas., University of St. Andrews: Contract with Marine Scotland: SB9 (CR/2012/05). Scott, B. E., R. Langton, E. Philpott, and J. J. Waggitt. 2014. Seabirds and marine renewables: are we asking the right questions? Pages 81-92 in M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne, editors. Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions. Springer Science, Dordrecht. Scott, B. E., O. N. Ross, J. Wang, G. J. Pierce, and C. J. Camphuysen. 2010. Sub-surface hotspots in shallow seas: fine-scale limited locations of top predator foraging habitat indicated by tidal mixing and sub-surface chlorophyll. Marine Ecology Progress Series 408 :207-226. Scottish Government. 2010. Marine Scotland licensing and consents manual, covering marine renewables and offshore wind energy. Page 144. ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd. , Southampton, UK. Scottish Government. 2013. 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland - update 2013. Page 37. Scottish Government. 2014a. Guidance on Marine Licensable Activities subject to Pre-Application Consulation. Page 6 in Marine Scotland, editor. Scottish Government. 2014b. Licence for Marine Renewables Construction Works Licence Number 04577/14/0. Page 13 in Marine Scotland, editor., Aberdeen. Scottish Natural Heritage. 2004. Marine renewable energy and the natural heritage: an overview and policy statement. Policy Statement No. 04/01. Page 40.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 80

8. Appendices

Scottish Natural Heritage. 2013. A handbook on environmental impact assessment: guidance for competent authorities, consultees, and others involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage. Shi, F., J. T. Kirby, P. Newberger, and K. Haas. 2005. NearCoM Master Program, Version 2005.4: User's manual and module integration. Research Report., University of Delaware, Center for Applied Coastal Research. Shields, M. A., D. K. Woolf, E. P. M. Grist, S. A. Kerr, A. C. Jackson, R. E. Harris, M. C. Bell, R. Beharie, A. Want, E. Osalusi, S. W. Gibb, and J. Side. 2011. Marine renewable energy: The ecological implications of altering the hydrodynamics of the marine environment. Ocean & Coastal Management 54 :2-9. Sims, D. W., E. J. Southall, A. J. Richardson, P. C. Reid, and J. Metcalfe. 2003. Seasonal movements and behaviour of basking sharks from archival tagging: no evidence of winter hibernation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 248 :187-196. Southall, B. L., A. E. Bowles, W. T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L. Gentry, C. R. J. Greene, D. Kastak, D. R. Ketten, J. H. Miller, P. E. Nachtigall, W. J. Richardson, J. A. Thomas, and P. L. Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33 :411-521. Thompson, D., A. J. Hall, M. Lonergan, B. McConnell, and S. Northridge. 2013. Current status of knowledge of effects of offshore renewable energy generation devices on marine mammals and research requirements., Scottish Government, Edinburgh. Thomsen, F., K. Ludemann, R. FKafemann, and W. Piper. 2006. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish., COWRIE Ltd., Hamburg, Germany. Tyack, P. L., W. M. Zimmer, D. Moretti, B. L. Southall, D. E. Claridge, J. W. Durban, C. W. Clark, A. D'Amico, N. DiMarzio, and S. Jarvis. 2011. Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual navy sonar. PLoS ONE 6:e17009. UK Government. 2013. Increasing the use of low-carbon technologies. in Department of Energy and Climate Change and Environment Agency, editors. UK Government. 2014. Policy on providing regulation and licensing of energy industries and infrastructure. Supporting detail: developing shale gas and oil in the UK. UNEP. 2013. Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2013. UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance, Frankfurt, Germany. UNEP. 2014. Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2014. UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance, Frankfurt, Germany. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2001. ECE/MP.EIA/4 Annex XIV Decision II/14. Amendment to the Espoo Convention. Page 144. Vantoch-Wood, A., J. de Groot, P. Connor, I. Bailey, and I. Whitehead. 2012. National policy framework for marine renewable energy within the United Kingdom: Task 4.1.1 of WP4 from the MERiFIC Project. INTERREG IV A, ERDF., United Kingdom. Want, A., R. A. Beharie, M. C. Bell, and J. Side. 2014. Baselines and monitoring methods for detecting impacts of hydrodynamic energy extraction on intertidal communities of rocky shores. Pages 21-38 in M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne, editors. Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions. Springer Science, Dordrecht. Welsh Government. 2014. The Statement of Public Participation for the Welsh National Marine Plan. Welsh Government Consultation Document WG20730. Page 15 in Marine Policy Branch, editor. Westerberg, H. and I. Lagenfelt. 2008. Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel. Fisheries Management and Ecology 15 :369-375. Western Australia Planning Commission and G. o. W. A. Department of Planning. 2012. Status of coastal planning in Western Australia. Perth, Western Australia.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 81

8. Appendices

Wilhelmsson, D. and O. Langhamer. 2014. The influence of fisheries exclusion and addition of hard substrata on fish and crustaceans. Pages 49-60 in M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne, editors. Marine Renewable Energy and Environmental Interactions. Springer Scientific, Dordrecht. Williamson, B. J., B. E. Scott, J. J. Waggitt, P. Blondel, E. Armstrong, C. Hall, and P. B. Bell. 2014. Using the FLOWBEC seabed frame to understand underwater interactions between diving seabirds, prey, hydrodynamics and tidal and wave energy structures. Page 3 in International Conference on Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebredies, Scotland. Wilson, B., R. S. Batty, F. Daunt, and C. Carter. 2006. Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish, and diving birds. Report to the Scotish Executive., Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland. Wilson, B., P. A. Lepper, C. Carter, and S. P. Robinson. 2014. Rethinking underwater sound-recording methods to work at tidal-stream and wave-energy sites. Pages 111-126 in M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne, editors. Marine Renewable Technology and Environmental Interactions. Springer Science, Dordrecht. Wolf, J. and D. K. Woolf. 2006. Waves and cliimate change in the north-east Atlantic. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L06604 . Woolf, D. K., P. G. Challenor, and P. D. Cotton. 2002. Variability and predictability of the North Atlantic wave climate. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(C10) :3145. Woolf, D. K., M. C. Easton, P. A. Bowyer, and J. McIlvenny. 2014. The physics and hydrodynamic setting of marine renewable energy. Pages 5-20 in M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne, editors. Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions. Springer Dordrecht. Wueringer, B. E., L. S. Jnr, S. M. Kajiura, I. R. Tibbetts, N. S. Hart, and S. P. Collin. 2012. Electric Field Detection in Sawfish and Shovelnose Rays. PLoS ONE 7:e41605.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 82

8. Appendices

9 Appendices

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 83

8. Appendices

9.1 Marine Scotland Environmental Impact Assessment Process Map http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/guidance/process, Accessed 30 June 2014

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 84

8. Appendices

9.2 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Listed Marine Habitats relevant to wave energy developments

Details from UK BAP habitats list found at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706, accessed 03 June 2014. Only habitats found in areas relevant to wave energy extraction are included below.

Broad Priority Habitat Definition Corresponding classified habitat s Habitat Littoral Intertidal Areas of boulders (> 256 mm) found from mid -shore down to extreme lower Rock underboulder shore, supporting a diverse underboulder community. These habitats are communities found in exposed, moderately exposed, and sheltered shores with moderate to strong tidal streams. The surrounding substrate can be bedrock, mixed substrata, or muddy sediment. This habitat is not considered to be under threat in Scotland. Sabellaria alveolata Reefs formed by the honeycomb worm, Sabellaria alveolata , which constructs Habitats Directive Annex 1: Reefs reefs tubes packed tightly together with a honeycomb appearance. Reefs are most found in the lower portion of the intertidal environment on hard substrata where there is sufficient suspended sediment (sand) for the formation of tubes. In Scotland, S. alveolata reefs are only found in the Solway Firth, as this is the northern extent of their range. Sublittoral Fragile sponge and Communities found on sheltere d bedrock in close proximity to tide -swept or Habitats Directive Annex 1: Reefs Rock anthozoan wave exposed areas, dominated by large benthic species such as branching communities on rocky sponges and sea fans. This habitat is particularly vulnerable to increases in habitats suspended sediments. Sa bellaria spinulosa Dense, subtidal aggregations of the tubeworm Sabellaria spinulosa . These are OSPAR Habitat: Sabellaria reefs solid, but fragile structures raised above the surrounding seabed which create spinulosa reefs reef habitat allowing other species to become established. S. spinulosa reefs occur most frequently in areas of strong water movement from wave or tidal Habitats Directive Annex 1: Reefs action characterised by suspended sediment for tube building. Sublittoral Sublittoral sands and Sublittoral sand and gravel habitats are found in a wide variety of EU Habitats Directive Annex 1: sediment gravels environments, including in highly exposed conditions. The particle structure of Sandbanks that are slightly these environments depends on the strength of tidal currents and exposure to covered by seawater all the time & wave action. Exposed areas of sublittoral sand and gravel will have lower estuaries

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 85

8. Appendices

Broad Priority Habitat Definition Corresponding classified habitat s Habitat diversity and are inhabited by robust mobile fauna specific to the habitat. Horse Mussel Beds Dense beds of the horse mussel, Modiolus modiolus , often formed at depths OSPAR Habitat: Modiolus modiolus of 5-70 m in fully saline, moderately tide-swept areas. Associated faunal reefs communities can be extremely rich in species. Commonly found in the north- western parts of the UK, particularly in Shetland, Orkney, the Hebrides, and Habitats Directive Annex 1: Large western Scotland. shallow inlets and bays and Reefs Maerl Beds Maerl is the common name for several species of calcareous red seaweeds OSPAR Habitat: Maerl Beds which grow as unattached nodules on the seabed. In favourable conditions and over long periods of time, maerl can form deep deposits, becoming rich Habitats Directive Annex 1: Large habitat for other species. While often found in areas with tidal flows, maerl shallow inlets and bays & beds can occasionally develop in moderately wave exposed areas where sandbanks which are slightly waves remove fine sediments, but are not strong enough to break maerl covered by seawater all the time branches. Blue mussel beds on Beds of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis , on a variety of sediment types and in a sediment range of conditions, including wave exposed and offshore habitats. Mussel beds play a role in coastal sediment dynamics, can be a food source for over- wintering wading birds, and often represent an area of high biodiversity in otherwise sediment-dominated environments.

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 86

8. Appendices

9.3 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Listed Marine Species relevant to wave energy developments

List of species obtained from JNCC, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5167, accessed 03 June 2014

Scientific name Common name Species group England Scotland Wales N. Ireland

Anotrichium barbatum Bearded Red Seaweed alga Y N Y N Ascophyllum nodosum ecad mackaii Wig Wrack or Sea -loch Egg Wrack alga Y N Cruoria cruoriaeformis alga Y Y Y Y Dermocorynus montagnei alga Y Y Y N Fucus distichus a brown algae alga N Y N N Lithothamnion corallioides Coral Maërl alga Y Y Y Y Padina pavonica Peacock’s tail alga Y N Y N Phymatolithon calcareum Common Maërl alga Y Y Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-fan Anemone cnidarian Y Y N N Arachnanthus sarsi Scarce Tube -dwelling Anemone cnidarian N Y N Y Edwardsia timida Timid Burrowing Anemone cnidarian Y N Y N Eunicella verrucosa Pink Sea-fan cnidarian Y Y Y N Funiculina quadrangularis Tall Sea Pen cnidarian Y Y N N Haliclystus auricula cnidarian Y Y Y Y Leptopsammia pruvoti Sunset Cup Coral cnidarian Y N N N Lucernariopsis campanulata cnidarian Y Y Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis cnidarian Y N N N Pachycerianthus multiplicatus Fireworks Anemone cnidarian Y N Pachycordyle navis Brackish Hydroid cnidarian Y N N N Swiftia pallida Northern Sea Fan cnidarian N Y N N Styela gelatinosa Loch Goil Sea Squirt tunicate N Y N N Atrina fragilis Fan Mussel mollusc Y Y Y Y Ostrea edulis Native Oyster mollusc Y Y Y Y Tenellia adspersa Lagoon Sea Slug mollusc N Y Arrhis phyllonyx crustacean N Y N Y

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 87

8. Appendices

Scientific name Common name Species group England Scotland Wales N. Ireland

Gitanopsis bispinosa crustacean N Y N X Mitella pollicipes Gooseneck Barnacle crustacean Y N N N Palinurus elephas Crayfish, Crawfish or Spiny Lobster crustacean Y Y Y Y Ammodytes marinus Lesser Sandeel bony fish Y Y Y Y Aphanopus carbo Black Scabbardfish bony fish Y N Clupea harengus Herring bony fish Y Y Y Coryphaenoides rupestris Roundnose Grenadier bony fish Y N Gadus morhua Cod bony fish Y Y Y Hippocampus guttulatus Long-snouted Seahorse bony fish Y Y Hippocampus hippocampus Short-snouted Seahorse bony fish Y N N N Hippoglossus hippoglossus Atlantic Halibut bony fish Y N Hoplostethus atlanticus Orange Roughy bony fish Y N Lophius piscatorius Sea Monkfish bony fish Y Y Y Merlangius merlangus Whiting bony fish Y Y Y Merluccius merluccius European Hake bony fish Y Y Y Micromesistius poutassou Blue Whiting bony fish Y Y N Molva dypterygia Blue Ling bony fish Y N Molva molva Ling bony fish Y Y Y N Pleuronectes platessa Plaice bony fish Y Y Y Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Greenland Halibut bony fish Y N Scomber scombrus Mackerel bony fish Y Y Solea solea Sole bony fish Y Y Thunnus thynnus Blue-fin Tuna bony fish Y N Trachurus trachurus Horse Mackerel bony fish Y N Y Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke Whale sea mammal Y Y Y Y Balaenoptera borealis Sei Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Balaenoptera musculus Blue Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Balaenoptera physalus Fin Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Delphinus delphis Common Dolphin sea mammal Y Y Y Y

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 88

8. Appendices

Scientific name Common name Species group England Scotland Wales N. Ireland

Eubalaena glacialis Northern Right Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Globicephala melas Long-finned Pilot Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Grampus griseus Risso's Dolphin sea mammal Y Y Y Y Hyperoodon ampullatus Northern Bottlenose Whale sea mammal N Y Y Lagenorhynchus acutus Atlantic White-sided Dolphin sea mammal Y Y Y N Lagenorhynchus albirostris White-beaked Dolphin sea mammal Y Y Y Y Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Mesoplodon bidens Sowerby's Beaked Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Mesoplodon mirus True's Beaked Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Orcinus orca Killer Whale sea mammal Y Y Y Y Phoca vitulina Common Seal sea mammal Y Y Y Y Phocoena phocoena Harbour Porpoise sea mammal Y Y Y Y Physeter catodon Sperm Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Stenella coeruleoalba Striped Dolphin sea mammal N Y Y N Tursiops truncatus Bottle-nosed Dolphin sea mammal Y Y Y Y Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier's Beaked Whale sea mammal Y Y N N Centrophorus granulosus Gulper Shark shark/skate/ray Y N Centrophorus squamosus Leafscraper Shark shark/skate/ray Y N Centroscymnus coelolepsis Portuguese Dogfish shark/skate/ray Y N Cetorhinus maximus Basking Shark shark/skate/ray Y Y Y Y Dalatias licha Kitefin Shark shark/skate/ray Y N Dipturus batis Common Skate shark/skate/ray Y Y Galeorhinus galeus Tope Shark shark/skate/ray Y Y Y Y Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin Mako shark/skate/ray N N Lamna nasus Porbeagle Shark shark/skate/ray Y Y Y U Leucoraja circularis Sandy Ray shark/skate/ray Y N Prionace glauca Blue Shark shark/skate/ray Y Y Y Y Raja undulata Undulate Ray shark/skate/ray N Y Rostroraja alba White or Bottlenosed Skate shark/skat e/ray N Y

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 89

8. Appendices

Scientific name Common name Species group England Scotland Wales N. Ireland

Squalus acanthias Spiny Dogfish shark/skate/ray Y Y Y Y Squatina squatina Angel Shark shark/skate/ray N Y Y N Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle turtle Y Y Y Y Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle turtle Y Y Y Y

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 90

8. Appendices

9.4 Summary tables of stressors, receptors, and impact consequences for a PWEP-type array (3-5x CETO 5) and a pre-commercial array (25x CETO 6).

9.4.1 Physical environment and water quality PWEP-type array (CETO 5) Pre-commercial array (CETO 6)

Project

Receptor Stressor phase* Relevance to CETO technology Receptor sensitivity Evidence base for sensitivity Impact Magnitude Conseqence of impact Uncertainty Impact Magnitude Conseqence of impact Uncertainty C, O Loss of sedimentary area from Physical seabed mounted structures, Negligible High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low presence of infrastructure and cabling. devices/array O Addition of new vertical relief and hard substrate. Negligible High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low C, O, D Episodic sediment suspension during piling and mounting or Low High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low Changes in decommissioning of structure. Physical hydrodynamics/ O Scour and increased turbidity environment sediment around cabling and seabed- Low Medium Negligible Negligible Low Slight Negligible Medium and water dynamics mounted element of the device. O Shorewards reduction in quality Low High Negligible Negligible High Slight Minor High significant wave height. C, O, D Possible release of drilling fluid and marine grout during construction. Accidental spillage Release of of chemicals from associated Low High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low chemicals installation vessels. Potential release of hydraulic fluid from CETO array pipelines, or internal components of CETO 6. *Project phases are defined as C, construction, O, operation, D, decommissioning

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 91

8. Appendices

9.4.2 Benthic habitats and communities PWEP-type array (CETO 5) Pre-commercial array (CETO

6) Receptor Stressor Project Relevance to CETO technology

phase* Receptor sensitivity Evidence base for sensitivity Impact Magnitude Consequenceof impact Uncertainty Impact Magnitude Consequenceof impact Uncertainty Replacement of existing habitat from seabed mounted structures and C, O Medium High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low associated infrastructure with new vertical relief. Physical Artificial reef effects. Increase in benthic presence of O species numbers on seabed mounted Negligible High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low devices/array structures. Smothering of sessile benthic organisms C unable to escape placement of Low High Minor Negligible Low Minor Negligible Low infrastructure during construction. Benthic Episodic burial and smothering during habitats and construction/decommissioning, Changes in C, O, D Low High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low communities hydrodynamics/ scouring of sediments around sediment foundations. dynamics Shoreward reduction in wave energy, O Medium High Negligible Negligible High Minor Minor High affecting nearshore benthic habitats. Release of chemicals from drilling fluid, marine grout, and spillage during construction impacting nearby benthic Pollution, site communities during construction. C, O, D Low High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low contamination Accidental release of hydraulic fluid from CETO 5 pipelines or internal components of CETO 6 impacting benthic communities. *Project phases are defined as C, construction, O, operation, D, decommissioning

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 92

8. Appendices

9.4.3 Fish and fisheries

PWEP-type array (CETO 5) Pre-commercial array (CETO 6)

Project

Receptor Stressor phase* Relevance to CETO technology Receptor sensitivity Evidence base for sensitivity Impact Magnitude Consequence of impact Uncertainty Impact Magnitude Consequence of impact Uncertainty Fish aggregation around Physical presence O submerged elements of CETO Negligible High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low of devices/array devices Episodic disturbance of fish C relating to piling and drilling during Negligible Low Minor Negligible High Minor Negligible High construction. Minimising moving parts suggests that operational noise form CETO Generation of 5 may be minimal except in cases noise of device damage or failure. Fish and O Ongoing device-specific Low Medium Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Medium fisheries operational noise is unknown for CETO 6. Operational noise may mask communication and orientation signals. Of concern for CETO 6 where power is generated offshore and Generation of transmitted onshore via subsea electromagnetic O cabling, particularly if cables are Low Low Negligible Negligible Low Minor Negligible High fields (EMF) not buried, similar to hydraulic pipelines in Perth Wave Energy Project. *Project phases are defined as C, construction, O, operation, D, decommissioning

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 93

8. Appendices

9.4.4 Marine mammals and basking sharks PWEP-type array (CETO 5) Pre-commercial array (CETO

6) Receptor Stressor Project Relevance to CETO technology phase* Receptor sensitivity Evidence base for sensitivity Impact Magnitude Consequence of impact Uncertainty Impact Magnitude Consequence of impact Uncertainty Collision with operational devices, particularly in storm conditions. O Increased risk of injury with sharp or Medium Low Slight Minor High Slight Minor High protruding elements, e.g. ladder on CETO 5, Figure 4.1 . Physical Risk of entanglement in midwater presence of electrical cabling or with derelict devices/array O fishing gear, CETO 6. To be reduced High Low n/a n/a n/a Slight Moderate High through appropriate cabling and Marine mooring design. mammals Attraction to devices/array resulting and basking O from prey aggregation around Low Low Slight Negligible High Slight Negligible High sharks components. Area avoidance or animal injury from C Medium Medium Slight Minor Medium Slight Minor Medium construction noise, e.g. piling. Minimising moving parts suggests that Generation of operational noise form CETO 5 may be noise minimal except in cases of device O Low Medium Slight Negligible Medium Slight Negligible High damage or failure. Ongoing device- specific operational noise is unknown for CETO 6. *Project phases are defined as C, construction, O, operation, D, decommissioning

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 94

8. Appendices

9.4.5 Seabirds PWEP-type array (CETO 5) Pre-commercial array (CETO 6)

Receptor Stressor Project Relevance to CETO technology phase* Receptor sensitivity Evidence base for sensitivity Impact Magnitude Consequenceof impact Uncertainty Impact Magnitude Consequenceof impact Uncertainty Increased foraging opportunities O from prey aggregation around Negligible Low Positive Negligible High Positive Negligible High devices. Risk of collision from submerged Physical O components (e.g. buoyant Medium Low Slight Minor High Slight Minor High presence of actuator) during foraging devices/array Avoidance of development area during construction period, C Low Medium Slight Negligible Medium Slight Negligible Medium increasing flying time, impacting foraging success. Increased vertical mixing in Changes in vicinity of buoyant actuator hydrodynamics Seabirds O encouraging prey aggregation Negligible Low Positive Negligible High Positive Negligible High & sediment and improved foraging dynamics opportunities. Episodic disturbance of seabirds C relating to piling and drilling Low Medium Slight Negligible Medium Slight Negligible Medium during construction. CETO devices are unlikely to Generation of create substantial amounts of noise above surface noise, so this is O unlikely to be a significant Low Low Negligible Negligible High Negligible Negligible High impact. The effect of underwater noise on diving seabirds is poorly understood. *Project phases are defined as C, construction, O, operation, D, decommissioning

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 95

8. Appendices

9.4.6 Elasmobra nchs PWEP-type array (CETO 5) Pre-commercial array

(CETO 6)

Project

Receptor Stressor phase* Relevance to CETO technology Receptor sensitivity Evidence base for sensitivity Impact Magnitude Consequence of impact Uncertainty Impact Magnitude Consequence of impact Uncertainty O Risk of collision increased with attraction Physical presence to devices/array resulting from prey Low Low Negligible Negligible High Negligible Negligible High of devices aggregation around components, particularly buoyant actuator. Elasmobranchs O Of concern for CETO 6 where power is Generation of generated offshore and transmitted electromagnetic onshore via subsea cabling, particularly if Low Low Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible High fields cables are not buried, similar to hydraulic pipelines in Perth Wave Energy Project. *Project phases are defined as C, construction, O, operation, D, decommissioning

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 96

8. Appendices

9.4.7 Marine Turtles PWEP-type array (CETO 5) Pre-commercial array (CETO

6)

Project

Receptor Stressor phase* Relevance to CETO technology Receptor sensitivity Evidence base for sensitivity Impact Magnitude Consequenceof impact Uncertainty Impact Magnitude Consequenceof impact Uncertainty Unlikely in UK waters as no turtle nesting sites Light impacts O Medium High Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Low occur around UK coastlines. Collision with operational devices, particularly in storm conditions. Increased risk of injury Marine O Low Low Negligible Negligible High Negligible Negligible High Physical with sharp or protruding elements, e.g. ladder turtles presence of on CETO 5, Figure 4.1 . devices O Risk of entanglement in midwater electrical cabling, CETO 6. Will be reduced through Low Low n/a n/a n/a Minor Negligible High appropriate cabling and mooring design. *Project phases are defined as C, construction, O, operation, D, decommissioning

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 97

8. Appendices

R.G. Miller 2014 NERC MRE KE Internship Report 98