Download - Ian Davies - Recent experience of Cumulative Impact Assessment in renewables consenting in Scotland
Recent experience of CIA in renewables consenting in
Scotland
Ian Davies
Marine Scotland Science
Planning
authorityLicensing
authority
Science
support
Marine Scotlandrsquos roles in renewable energy
Consents and licences in Scotland
bull Marine Scotland Act and Marine and Coastal Access Act
Licence
bull Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (s36)
bull Section 44 European Protected Species (EPS)
bull Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act
bull Energy Act (2004) Decommissioning issued by DECC
EC EIA Directive Assess effects on
Human beingsFauna and flora
LandscapeseascapeMaterial assets
Cultural heritage
EC Habitats Directive Effects on protected sites and species
SPAsSACs
Requirement for CIA
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and
To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term
bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats
supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species
Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal
Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations
Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process
Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas
Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available
Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments
Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range
Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level
Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving
Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability
Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term
Example output from population model for harbour seals
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Planning
authorityLicensing
authority
Science
support
Marine Scotlandrsquos roles in renewable energy
Consents and licences in Scotland
bull Marine Scotland Act and Marine and Coastal Access Act
Licence
bull Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (s36)
bull Section 44 European Protected Species (EPS)
bull Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act
bull Energy Act (2004) Decommissioning issued by DECC
EC EIA Directive Assess effects on
Human beingsFauna and flora
LandscapeseascapeMaterial assets
Cultural heritage
EC Habitats Directive Effects on protected sites and species
SPAsSACs
Requirement for CIA
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and
To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term
bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats
supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species
Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal
Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations
Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process
Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas
Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available
Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments
Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range
Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level
Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving
Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability
Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term
Example output from population model for harbour seals
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Consents and licences in Scotland
bull Marine Scotland Act and Marine and Coastal Access Act
Licence
bull Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (s36)
bull Section 44 European Protected Species (EPS)
bull Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act
bull Energy Act (2004) Decommissioning issued by DECC
EC EIA Directive Assess effects on
Human beingsFauna and flora
LandscapeseascapeMaterial assets
Cultural heritage
EC Habitats Directive Effects on protected sites and species
SPAsSACs
Requirement for CIA
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and
To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term
bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats
supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species
Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal
Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations
Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process
Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas
Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available
Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments
Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range
Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level
Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving
Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability
Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term
Example output from population model for harbour seals
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
EC EIA Directive Assess effects on
Human beingsFauna and flora
LandscapeseascapeMaterial assets
Cultural heritage
EC Habitats Directive Effects on protected sites and species
SPAsSACs
Requirement for CIA
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and
To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term
bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats
supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species
Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal
Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations
Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process
Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas
Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available
Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments
Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range
Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level
Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving
Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability
Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term
Example output from population model for harbour seals
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and
To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term
bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats
supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species
Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal
Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations
Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process
Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas
Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available
Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments
Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range
Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level
Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving
Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability
Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term
Example output from population model for harbour seals
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features and
To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term
bull (i) Population of the species as a viable component of the site bull (ii) Distribution of the species within sitebull (iii) Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species bull (iv) Structure function and supporting processes of habitats
supporting the species bull (v) No significant disturbance of the species
Bottlenose dolphinHarbour (common) seal
Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations
Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process
Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas
Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available
Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments
Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range
Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level
Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving
Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability
Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term
Example output from population model for harbour seals
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Assessment frameworkMoray Firth developers worked with University of Aberdeen to develop framework for assessing effects of pile driving to harbour seal populations
Got regulatory and SNCB buy in early in the process
Generic enough to allow use for other species in other areas
Draws on available data and supplements with expert opinion where data not available
Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments
Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range
Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level
Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving
Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability
Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term
Example output from population model for harbour seals
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Areas and issues included in cumulative assessments
Carried out at different ldquoregionalrdquo scales for different speciesDefined by population range
Harbour seals assessed at 2 levels Moray Firth (and Firths of Forth and Tay)Bottlenose dolphins assessed at whole east coast level
Main issue considered to be noise from pile driving
Assessments looked at potential effects on survival and reproductive rates based on level of exposure to noiseExposure to PTS had influence on survival and disturbance had effect on reproductive ability
Population modelling used to assess the effect of these changes to survival and reproduction in the long term
Example output from population model for harbour seals
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Monitoringbull Funding of population and demographic data collection for
harbour seals and bottlenose dolphins (Aberdeen and St Andrews universities)
bull Passive acoustic monitoring of dolphins and porpoises on east coast (MSS) to allow assessment of changes to distribution ndash Using CPODs to detect porpoise and dolphin presence and
SM2Ms to record dolphin whistles for species ID
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Moray Firth wind farms
Consented 2014
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Species of negligible concern
Black-legged kittiwake Northern fulmar Great skua and Arctic skua
SNCBs advised no adverse effect on site integrity using a qualitative assessment due to the minimal predicted effects
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Great black-backed gull
Herring gull
Puffin
Razorbill and
Guillemot)
Full quantitative assessment required
Species of greater concern
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
What was the
problem
Displacement
proportion of birds displaced
birds on water using water in flight or all potentially vulnerable
proportion of birds adult
proportion of adults breeding
proportion of adults from Colony X Y and Z
mean peak or mean peak abundance estimate
proportiobn of birds that fail to breed successfully
each displaced bird from a discrete pair
Collision
Avoidance rate
breeding season
nocturnal activity
flap gliding flight
attraction to survey vessles
rotor speed - mean seasonal mean
Apportioning
SNH approach
At-sea flight direction information
GPS tracking data
Starting populations
SPA vs non-SPA colonies
Thresholds Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
Starting population
Maintain +ve trajectory
What is acceptable
f-value for use in PBR
PBR in relation to productivity effects
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Why was it a problem
bull Difficult to identify differences in approaches taken
bull Lack of transparency if different approaches used without clear rationale
bull Unclear whether different values can be combined for CIA
bull May artificially bias conclusions for against one project
bull May result in CIA conclusions being opaque or open to challenge
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
How was it resolved
bull Discussions between developers SNCBs and MSS
bull Aim to reconcile any differences where possible
bull Clarification of reasons for any remaining differences
bull Re-running collision or displacement effect assessments using Common Currency as required
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Assessment of consequencesfor populations
bull SNCBs favoured use of Potential Biological Removal (PBR)
bull MSS developed Acceptable Biological Change (ABC) method
ndash Probabalistic population modelling
ndash Accommodate mortality and productivity
ndash Not result in significant additional risk to the populations of concern
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
Consequences
bull Windfarms licensed on a reduced scale
bull Lessons learned to feed into advice and guidance
bull More strategic approach eg PVAs for key colonies populations estimating effects at a regional scale
bull Post-consent monitoring
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal
bull CIA is a significant hurdle and should be discussed early in the application process
bull Predictable challenges ndash Definition of scope
ndash Timing of projects
ndash Quantification
ndash Underwater collision
ndash Displacement and consequences
ndash Population models and assessment methods
ndash Horizon Basking sharks other protected fish new MPAsSPAs
Lessons for wave and tidal