FinalThesis_WithTurnitin_x2

Department of Naval Architecture,
Ocean and Marine Engineering
Drawing the Line between Environmental Impact
Assessment and Risk Assessment in
Commercial-Scale Tidal Development Projects
Author: Amy Crum
Supervisor: Dr Iraklis Lazakis
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirement of the degree
Master of Science
Sustainable Engineering: Offshore Renewable Energy
2016

i
Copyright Declaration
This thesis is the result of the author’s original research. It has been composed by the author
and has not been previously submitted for examination which has led to the award of a
degree.
The copyright of this dissertation belongs to the author under the terms of the United Kingdom
Copyright Acts as qualified by University of Strathclyde Regulation 3.49. Due acknowledgement
must always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this dissertation.
Signed: Date: 23.08.16

ii
Abstract
The inevitable expansion of marine energy calls for more stringent environmental
policies and management for offshore development projects. Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) proves a viable tool in deciding whether or not a project is
environmentally and socially sound. Risk assessment ensures that risks surrounding
the project are predicted and controlled. In offshore developments risks are high
while the environmental impacts are comparatively low, essentially blurring the lines
between the two disciplines. This project investigates whether or not these risks are
of a comparable significance to the environmental impacts, and ultimately if they
should be considered in the planning decisions of offshore renewable development
projects.
To address these issues, two quantifiable approaches are combined: Hazard
Identification (HAZID) through the use of risk matrices in risk assessment, and
Impact Significance Evaluation through the use of the Leopold Matrix in EIA. By
incorporating HAZID into EIA, the variables ‘importance’, ‘magnitude’ and
‘probability’ are redefined to compare the significance of risks and impacts.
Using the Brims Tidal Array as exemplar, the relative significance of risks and
environmental impacts becomes clear. In essence, probability is the key defining
factor. While the environmental benefits of tidal developments with regards to
climate change and sustainability are long-lasting and of high significance currently,
high magnitude risks in offshore industrial work are considered temporary and small-
scale, even more so as they are often controllable and thus very unlikely to occur.
With environmental mitigation designed into the devices and stringent risk control
measures, the Brim Tidal Array proves to be an acceptable development project, with
a net benefit to the environment and society.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Iraklis Lazakis, for his helpfulness,
guidance and unwavering patience throughout this project. Thanks also go to Elsa Joao for
her enthusiasm in teaching the Environmental Impact Assessment class from which I gained
many ideas. Some thanks must be given to the graduates at SSE Hydro who expressed
interest in the project and encouraged me to pursue it.
Appreciation is also due to the Offshore Renewable Energy Britannia Scholarship Fund,
without which it would not have been possible for me to pursue this MSc.
Finally I thank my close friends for their opinions regarding impact significance; my parents,
Matt and Marie Crum, for motivating me to work hard; my Aunt, Mhairi Crum, who fuelled
my final days with coffee and biscuits, and my flatmate, Nicole Gorrie, for her patience and
help tying things up.

iv
Table of Contents
Copyright Declaration............................................................................................................... i
Abstract.................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Appendices................................................................................................................. vii
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................viii
1. Project Outline ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Project Aims............................................................................................................. 4
1.3. Project Objectives .................................................................................................... 4
2. Literature Review............................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Environmental Impact Assessment.......................................................................... 5
2.2. Risk Assessment Methodologies ........................................................................... 13
3. The Brims Tidal Array................................................................................................... 14
3.1. Project Location..................................................................................................... 14
3.2. Technology ............................................................................................................ 16
3.3. Local Impacts......................................................................................................... 17
3.4. Policies & Legislation............................................................................................ 17
3.5. Current Status......................................................................................................... 18
4. Methodology.................................................................................................................. 19
5. Matrix Methodologies.................................................................................................... 20
5.1. Environmental Impact Matrices............................................................................. 20
5.2. Risk Matrices ......................................................................................................... 21
5.3. Comparison of Matrix Methods............................................................................. 22
5.4. Benefits and Drawbacks......................................................................................... 22
6. Impact Analysis of the Brims Tidal Array..................................................................... 24
6.1. The Impact Recognition Matrix............................................................................. 25
6.2. The Leopold Matrix ............................................................................................... 25
6.3. Impact Evaluation.................................................................................................. 26
6.4. The Probability Matrix........................................................................................... 31

v
6.5. The Significance Matrix......................................................................................... 31
7. Determining the Most Significant Impacts .................................................................... 32
7.1. Findings from the Leopold Impact Matrix............................................................. 32
7.2. Findings from the Significance Matrix .................................................................. 35
8. Mitigation and Contingency........................................................................................... 39
9. Discussions .................................................................................................................... 40
9.1. Key Findings.......................................................................................................... 40
9.2. Uncertainty............................................................................................................. 41
9.3. Conclusive Statement............................................................................................. 42
9.4. Suggestions for Further Work................................................................................ 42
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 43
Appendices............................................................................................................................. 49

vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Tidal Stream resource distribution in Europe. See that the UK has the most
extensive resource. Image taken from Aquaret (2012)............................................................ 2
Figure 2: Wilcox's Five Levels of Participation, as adapted by Elsa João (João, 2016) from
Wilcox's Guide to Effective Participation. (Wilcox, 1994) ..................................................... 7
Figure 3: The Mitigation Hierarchy, adapted from (IAIA, 2013)............................................ 9
Figure 4: The North of Scotland with the Pentland Firth outlined. Note the high spring flows
(indicated by yellow colouring) as opposed to the surrounding waters. Image from ABP
Marine Environmental Research (ABP mer, 2014)............................................................... 14
Figure 5: Revised location of BTA, and possible location of necessary additional structures.
Image from Brims Exhibition Boards (SSE & OpenHydro, 2013) ....................................... 15
Figure 6: OpenHydro turbine as contracted for Brims tidal project. Image from (OpenHydro,
2015)...................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: Exemplar Segment of Leopold Matrix.................................................................. 21
Figure 8: Net Significance of Impacts on Relevant Conditions for the BTA Project, as
determined by the Leopold Matrix......................................................................................... 32
determined by the Leopold Matrix, disregarding corporate factors....................................... 33
Figure 10: Net Significance of Impacts over the BTA project lifecycle, as determined by the
Leopold Matrix. ..................................................................................................................... 34
determined by whole significance assessment....................................................................... 35
whole significance assessment............................................................................................... 37
whole significance assessment, disregarding impacts in the operation phase. ...................... 38
List of Tables
Table 1: Necessary permissions for project approval ............................................................ 18
Table 2: Probability Quantification Categories ..................................................................... 31

vii
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Impact Matrices: 49
 A(1) – Impact Recognition Matrix 49
 A(2) – Leopold Impact Matrix 50
 A(3) – Risk Probability Matrix (Scoring prior to quantification) 51
 A(4) – Resultant Significance Matrix 52
Appendix B – Discussion on Impact Significance Scoring 54
Appendix C – Defining Probability Quantification Values 68
Appendix D – Suggestions for Mitigation, Control and Contingency 70
Appendix E – Turnitin Originality Report 77

viii
List of Abbreviations
BTA Brims Tidal Array
CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment
EcRA Ecological Risk Assessment
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMEC European Marine Energy Centre
EMS Environmental Management Systems
EnRA Environmental Risk Assessment
ES Environmental Statement
FAD Fish Aggregation Device
GIS Geographical Information Systems
GVA Gross Value Added
HAZID Hazard Identification
HIA Health Impact Assessment
HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current
IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment
IEA UK Institute of Environmental Assessment UK
MPA Marine Protected Areas
RIAM Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix
SA Sustainability Assessment
SCOPE Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
S-E Socioeconomic
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SIA Social Impact Assessment
SNH Scottish Natural Heritage
SSSI Sites of Specific Scientific Interest
UK BAP United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan

1
1. Project Outline
1.1. Introduction
The stochasticity of renewable energy resources is among the core aspects which limit the
renewable penetration in today’s energy economy. Nevertheless, we depend on renewable
expansion to reach carbon reduction targets of 80% by 2050 (from 1990 levels (Committee
on Climate Change, 2015)). This random nature is, however, not definitive. Storage is the
quintessence of energy research fields, and predictability is also a priority – if we have a
reliable, predictable baseline then dependence on renewables becomes conceivable. While
wind, wave and solar are relatively erratic, tidal flows have natural predictability. Tidal
barrage systems and lagoons rival hydro storage systems in their dispatchability, allowing
them to balance the grid while remaining renewable. Therefore, tidal energy, though often
considered ‘immature’ and ‘financially unviable’, might be a major component in the UK’s
future energy mix.
Tidal systems make use of the movement of large bodies of water caused by the gravitational
pulls of the sun and moon. This is a transverse motion, not to be confused with vertical
movement of water particles as associated with wave energy. Tidal barrage systems and tidal
lagoons utilise this movement by maintaining water which has entered at high tide, and
releasing it through turbines at low tide, similar to water exiting a dam in hydro schemes.
Tidal stream devices, on the other hand, utilise tidal fluxes in the instances where a narrow
‘stream’ joins two large bodies of water and the tide moves back and forth between them.
There are a variety of tidal stream devices. Most common forms are horizontal and vertical
axis direct turbines (similar to wind turbines in functionality); oscillating hydrofoils; funnels
(causing pressure differences for air-driven turbines); sea kites (carrying turbines), and
helical screws. All are viable technologies, but direct turbines are the most common.
However, the exploitation of renewable sources such as tidal energy comes at a cost.
Economically, the cost is considerably higher than the continued exploitation of fossil fuels.
Environmentally, there is controversy over their carbon neutrality due to offshore
maintenance, transport and construction processes. Socially, there are contrasting opinions
from local communities, political views on climate change and economic benefits for project
proponents. Legislatively, there are regulations which delay planning permission and
construction. However, these legislative ‘barriers’ may also be considered a means of
tackling all these factors via the process of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

2
While the UK’s onshore renewable potential is unwavering, with some of the greatest wind
resource in the world, the offshore potential cannot be ignored. Figure 1 overleaf shows
identified tidal stream opportunities in the UK compared to the rest of Europe, emphasising
the UK’s potential. It is estimated that 20% of the UK’s electricity demand could be
provided by wave and tidal generation (DECC), creating jobs for over 20,000 people by
2020. (RenewableUK, 2013) With regards to 2050 emission targets, the Carbon Trust
suggests that wave and tidal energies have the potential to contribute 27.5GW to the UK
grid, creating 68,000 jobs by 2050. It is predicted that 9GW of this figure would come solely
from tidal streams. (Carbon Trust, 2011) With this forthcoming expansion in tidal energy
generation it is therefore necessary to develop and practice more stringent EIA methods with
respect to the marine environment.
EIA has become a blanket term for many different impact assessment practices. Ultimately,
it is a method of assessing a project’s viability prior to decision making, such that it can be
executed in the most environmentally, politically, socially and economically sound way.
This involves assessing all significant positive and negative impacts, determining mitigation
measures and ensuring a net positive outcome over the whole project lifecycle. However,
there lie challenges with respect to analysis of impact magnitude and significance in that
Figure 1: Tidal Stream resource distribution in Europe. See that the UK has the most
extensive resource. Image taken from Aquaret (2012).

3
these measures are highly subjective to opinion, complex and difficult to communicate and
quantify. There are many tools and methods which aid these judgements.
This project will explore environmental impacts and risks surrounding tidal stream
developments, investigating the Brims Tidal Array (BTA) as a case study. The BTA project
is a combined effort between SSE Renewables and OpenHydro Group Ltd. to build an array
of tidal stream devices amounting to a 200MW contribution to the UK electricity grid. It is
currently undergoing EIA and is proposed for construction beginning in 2019.
The project website provides the reports to date in full, allowing the public to read and
develop their own opinions. This includes the Environmental Scoping Report, which lists the
impacts which are expected to occur throughout four life-cycle stages: Installation,
Operation, Maintenance and Decommissioning. There has also been a two-day exhibition in
local areas, once in 2013. Despite the decisions being made, there is no evidence of in-depth
impact significance evaluation – the report states that:
“The ES of the EIA will assess the magnitude of all likely impacts and will identify
appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts to an acceptable level.”
However, potential impacts that are less likely are not included. This stands open to question.
Potential impacts of lower likelihood may be more accurately termed ‘risks’, and more
appropriately considered in risk assessment. This project will attempt to un-blur the lines
between EIA and Risk Assessment to ensure that no significant impacts are overlooked. A
case study will be used to demonstrate how, by taking into account all elements, the most
impacting activities can be identified and prioritised.

4
1.2. Project Aims
Ultimately, this project aims to demonstrate using a case-study the similarities and
differences between EIA and Risk Assessment practices, and will ideally illustrate the
possibility of integrating these practices therefore a) reducing administrative work across the
board, and b) ensuring no impacts are overlooked thus making a true judgement on the
project. Control and mitigation plans for significant impacts will also be explored, and the
identified impacts will be scored such that the lifecycle stage with the highest overall impact
will be determined.
1.3. Project Objectives
Before addressing the aforementioned aims in full, this project must cover a series of
objectives. Essentially, this project will:
1. Through a review of literature and case studies, evaluate EIA and Risk Assessment
scoping procedures, highlighting the differences and similarities between practices.
2. Build a detailed matrix of offshore impacts for each lifecycle stage of the BTA
project which combines EIA and Risk Assessment systems.
3. Use the aforementioned matrix to identify activities which need the most attention
with regards to contingency and mitigation plans.
4. Rank the life-cycle steps accordingly, identifying the project phase which is most
harmful to the environment.

5
2. Literature Review
2.1. Environmental Impact Assessment
The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) in collaboration with the
Institute of Environmental Assessment UK (IEA UK) define Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) in their ‘Principles of Best Practice’ as:
“…the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social,
and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and
commitments made.” (IAIA, IEA UK, 1999)
This definition is widely used, and suggests focus on the biophysical and social effects (more
appropriately ‘impacts’), and the need for mitigation (the core deliverable of EIA). Though
vague in its wording it captures the heart of EIA as a decision-making tool, as also suggested
by Dr Elsa João:
“EIA is a process that examines (in a transparent way) the environmental consequences of a
proposed project in advance to aid decision making”. (João, 2016)
Both these definitions focus on the need for EIA in the planning stages of a project. What
they lack is emphasis that it is crucial for EIA to consider all stages in a project’s lifecycle
(pre-construction and planning, construction, operation and decommissioning) such that
when the project is implemented there is already an environmentally sound plan for its
decommissioning.
A more recent definition from IAIA delivers a specific and detailed meaning:
“Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a decision support tool employed to identify
and evaluate the environmental (in a broad sense, not just biophysical but also social and
cultural) consequences of planned developments in order to facilitate informed decision-
making and sound environmental management.” (IAIA, 2013)
Reference to ‘environmental management’ connotes the ongoing, lifecycle need for EIA, and
the consideration of impacts beyond biophysical impacts makes this definition a
comprehensible introduction. It does, however contrast with Environmental Management
Systems (EMS) – a form of EIA which essentially involves auditing of the project to ensure
mitigation measures are not neglected. This blurs the border between traditional EIA –

6
addressing lifecycle steps in advance (prior to development decisions), and EMS –
throughout lifecycle steps (during/after development decisions).
Morgan (2012) discusses the different branches of EIA, such as EMS, as having arisen from
‘dissatisfaction’ with EIA itself. There was a common opinion that EIA alone was not
sufficient, and held solely a ‘biophysical point of view’. Further forms of EIA discussed
include Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA). (Morgan, 2012)
SIA in particular has a plethora of current research topics. IAIA provide guidelines to good
SIA practice, highlighting that the social impacts must be considered early as, unlike
biophysical impacts, they ‘can happen the moment there is a rumour that something might
happen.’ (Vanclay, et al., 2015) Furthermore, the integration of SIA into EIA is the subject
of most current EIA academic research, as no specific model or methodology has yet been
created to ensure effective integration while social complexities are becoming more
influential. (Domínguez-Gómez, 2016) (Dendena & Corsi, 2015)
Further SIA research strongly focusses on public participation. Transparency is known as the
prime ethical consideration in SIA (and in EIA as suggested in João’s aforementioned
definition), but has its challenges in publicity. The Aarhus Convention was the initial link
between human and environmental rights, and proposed what are known as the ‘three pillars
of public participation’, notably:
o ‘Access to information’ such that the public may seek and receive information and
authorities’ are obliged to provide information, ideally prepared without need for
request.
o ‘Public participation’ in decision making; development of plans, programmes and
policies, and preparation of legislation.
o ‘Access to justice’ such that the public may enforce environmental laws if necessary.
(Economic Commission for Europe; United Nations, 2000)
To aid public participation further, an eight-step ‘ladder’ was introduced which explores the
varying degrees of public participation on a spectrum. With ‘citizen control’ on the preferred
end where the public are empowered, and ‘manipulation’ on the low end, as the public may
be exploited and manipulated by project proponents. This is simplified in practice by
Wilcox’s ‘Five Levels of Participation’ as represented in Figure 3 overleaf. (Wilcox, 1994)

7
Ultimately, public participation poses challenges, as the costs associated with public decision
making may be at the loss of the proponents.
Further questions of priorities and bias arise when discussing lifecycle assessment. The
practice of lifecycle assessment is core to the success of EIA as one of its prime deliverables
is notably sustainability – hence the development of Sustainability Assessment (SA). This is
the focus of many research topics, as proposed by Pope et al. (2004), Morrison-Saunders et
al. (2006) and Bond et al. (2015)
Sadler (1996) discussed sustainability assessment in depth, highlighting that the decisions
made in accordance with the EIA should result in sustainability of both the environment and
the project. The need for sustainability to be effectively integrated into EIA was brought to
light by Lawrence (1997). Sustainability assessment is traditionally associated with SEA as a
means of ensuring success both environmentally and economically thus a measurement of
EIA effectiveness.
However, the matters of weak and strong sustainability now come into play. Ethics become a
key role in EIA, as the professional(s) carrying out the EIA may be put under pressure to
bias towards project approval, focusing on the business needs as opposed to the biophysical
impacts. This would be taken as weak sustainability, ironically putting the project at risk just
Figure 2: Wilcox's Five Levels of Participation, as adapted by Elsa João (João, 2016) from
Wilcox's Guide to Effective Participation. (Wilcox, 1994)
Increased level of public participation
Agency supports public to do what they want
Agency acts together with the public
Agency decides together with the public
Agency asks public's opinion
Agency informs public

8
for financial and timesaving purposes. Strong sustainability may be more ethical, but
difficult to achieve. It is essentially a question of perspective and balancing ecological, social
and economic values. (Lawrence, 1997)
The processes which lead to decision making are common among all impact assessment
disciplines under the EIA ‘blanket’ and can be separated into five stages, notably: screening;
scoping; preparation of an Environmental Statement (ES); planning applications, and
decision making. Screening decides whether or not EIA is necessary – small scale, private
projects would often not require a full EIA as outlined in the Town and Country Planning
Regulations (2011). These regulations state the conditions under which projects require EIA,
and are composed of several ‘schedules’. Schedule 1 notes projects for which an EIA is
necessary, and schedule 2 discusses projects for which further information would be
required. Schedule 3 provides direction on further screening practice. (UK Government,
2011)
The second stage, scoping, decides the impacts which would need to be investigated in the
EIA for a screened-in project. All impacts are identified as having air, soil, water, visual,
and/or noise effects, and they must be considered from environmental, political, economic
and social perspectives to establish their significance and magnitude. (João, 2016)
Both positive and negative impacts need to be considered to give fair judgement on the
appropriateness of the project. These however have complexity within themselves which
arises not only in the uncertainty when predicting the future, but also the quantification of
significance. Thisis difficult to achieve as determination of significance is often subjective
and has many contributing factors: duration, reversibility, probability and public opinion to
name a few. (João, 2016) Furthermore, this does not only apply to direct impacts, but there
must also be consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts must also be considered. The
former may refer to the wider environment or impacts which are neither immediate nor local.
The latter – cumulative impacts – can be additive, negating or synergistic: they can
collaborate with impacts that may have been scoped out; impacts associated with other
proposed projects, or impacts accumulated over a period of time. (DEAT (Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism), 2006) Cumulative and indirect impacts are best
explored through the development of network diagrams, but this in turn does not quantify the
impact significance. From this arises the practice of Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA),
a further specialised branch of EIA. (João, 2016)

9
Following the scoping stage, an ES is constructed to present the impacts and advise
appropriate action. It is required by law to develop an ES in all but two United Nation
member countries for every major development project. (João, 2016) (Hammar, 2014) By
making a fair and unbiased assessment of impact significance, an ES will ultimately result in
acceptance or rejection of a project, potentially with alternative actions or modifications
proposed. Thus it is the key reason for EIA to aid in mitigation against negative impacts.
The Mitigation Hierarchy is gospel to EIA. Idyllically, all negative impacts will be avoided.
Where this is not possible the most appropriate action is to reduce, then restore (or repair)
them. Finally, compensation measures are sought (in kind preferably, or by other means).
(Rio Tinto, 2008) (UNEP, 2002)
Research on enhancement as common practice within EIA suggests enhancement as top
priority, a illustrated in Figure 3, such that ideally a project will cause more positive impacts
than negative. (IAIA, 2013) However, this gives rise to complications. Traditionally, impacts
will be measured against a baseline – what would occur if the project were not to go ahead.
With opportunities for enhancement also considered in EIA, the position of this baseline
must be reassessed, adding to the complexity of the process.
Figure 3: The Mitigation Hierarchy, adapted from (IAIA, 2013)

10
Enhancement opportunities could occur on a project scale, local area scale or wider area
scale (described as the Enhancement ‘Hierarchy’). (João, et al., 2011). They can therefore
also be considered indirect or cumulative mitigation measures.
It appears therefore that EIA is a well-practiced and reviewed field of study. However in the
context of offshore and marine EIA there is a higher level of complexity. Any project
involving international waters will have major environmental considerations as marine
environments are stochastic and widespread. Concerning renewable marine project
developments, for any previous offshore project an EIA will have been carried out.
However, there are less than a dozen tidal projects currently operational in the UK, with
most others awaiting consent (thus with an incomplete ES). (RenewableUK, 2015) With
regards to tidal stream projects, the BTA is the first commercial scale project and so there is
not yet an equivalent scale ES to compare with.
An overview of impacts common among offshore sites is provided by Frid et al (2012). This
review considered the effects of devices on marine life but as it is not site specific it is
limited, particularly in its consideration of socio-economic factors. Similar reviews are
provided by Papathanasopoulou (2015) et al., Wiesebron et al. (2016), and Frid et al. (2012).
Bonar et al. published an article which provides an overview of the ecological and social
impacts that can occur which may provide a basis for many offshore SIAs – introducing the
importance of public opinion, public engagement and external costs in the case of offshore
energy generation. (Bonar, et al., 2015) Detailed SIAs on tidal generation sites are very
limited. Surfers Against Sewage published a report giving their own (somewhat biased)
opinion on the real impacts of wave and tidal energy systems on recreational areas. (Surfers
Against Sewage, 2009) The Royal Yachting Association (RYA) published their own
guidelines on the precautions which must be taken when planning offshore projects with
regards to spatial planning and liaising with recreational communities. Further recreational
data is location specific and limited in the area surrounding the proposed site for this project.
There is a trend in that marine project ESs focus on ecological factors with disregard to
social perception. This is unsurprising, as often offshore projects are far from social issues
with the exception of visual impacts (for example, from offshore wind turbines). However,
with many upcoming tidal projects it is likely that there will be frequently more near-shore
locations. Therefore, it is necessary that, similarly to onshore EIA, SIA must become an
integrated practice for offshore development projects. This presents the question of risk

11
assessment crossover – offshore projects often have risk assessments which tackle issues
with shipping and fishing, and with near-shore locations risks associated with recreational
activities must also be included, bringing EIA and risk assessment to the same issues.
Recent offshore projects have taken care to involve the public where possible with by means
of workshops, comment forms and exhibitions (often at least through online comment forms,
see Brims Tidal Array (SSE Renewables, 2016) and East Anglia Wind (Scottish Power
Renewables, 2016) for example). There appears to be a correlation between public
acceptance of a project and local area enhancement. The Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project is
a stellar example of a project which prioritized public participation and enhancement. The
website hosts a downloadable interactive map, illustrating the size and location of the
lagoon. It shows not only a safe housing for the turbines, but also major enhancement
measures, such as the development of Landward Ecological Park, suggestion of the lagoon
walls as a cycle or walking route with art projects and shelters, Seaward Park (for
recreational fishing) and a maritime farm – all features which were not available prior to
development. While these developments were costly, they were core to public acceptance of
the project, such that the benefits outweighed the costs. (Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay, 2014)
However, with recreational activities in such close proximity to offshore technologies, the
risks must also be revisited and perhaps incorporated into EIA.
There are five rudimentary approaches to carrying out an EIA: matrices, networks,
checklists, ad-hoc methods and geographical information systems (GIS). There is very little
research on their relevance to risk assessment in an environmental context. All methods have
their advantages and drawbacks. (João, 2016)
For example, a Leopold impact matrix provides a convenient means of presenting the
impacts in an organised and subjective format. However, given the complexity of the marine
environment, a network may provide a more appropriate level of detail for cumulative
impacts. Furthermore, transboundary impacts must also be considered when addressing the
marine environment, which further adds to this complexity. (ch2m, 2015) Further discussion
on matrices is included in Chapter 5.
Ad-hoc methods are by far the most common means of developing a detailed EIA, and the
easiest method in which to incorporate new techniques. While there is always room for
human error, and often contrasting opinions, it proves to be the most effective way of
comparing impacts and finding suitable mitigation measures. Ad-hoc methods include

12
progress through workshops and meetings. Apart from workshops for specific projects,
ad-hoc methods may extend to conferences and subject-based research work. A detailed
summary of all possible impacts from tidal energy developments was composed in a
three-day workshop organised by the US Department of Commerce. This includes
environmental effects from all stages in the project lifecycle, also taking into account
accidents and energy effects. It again lacks social considerations, but may provide the basis
for a site-specific checklist from a bio-physical perspective. (Polagye, et al., 2011)
Geographical Information Systems are another convenient tool for EIA. Map overlays will
allow for a comprehensible understanding of the geographical location and of nearby
protected areas, risk areas and viewpoints (for visual impact assessment). It also illustrates
clearly what other projects and developments may rise to cumulative impacts. Taking GIS a
step further, interactive platforms by which geographic and visual information may be shared
and made public are an ideal way of ensuring transparency and full community
understanding. The James Hutton Institute in collaboration with SAMS developed a coastal
visualisation tool solely to aid community engagement with tidal and wave development
projects, by which energy devices can be transposed into UK marine environments, and
workshops with communities will enhance public participation. (Wang, et al., 2016)
Regardless of the method and findings, EIA is generally seen by project developers as a
‘regulatory hurdle’ – a legislative barrier to be faced before a project is approved. In some
ways this rings true. EIA is required by law worldwide, and there are numerous criteria,
directives and regulatory bodies which must be consulted when preparing an ES. Often,
however, it is seen only as regulation, which proves problematic across the board. An
exemplar scenario may be seen regarding the Torr Head Tidal Array (Northern Ireland),
where certain marine species were neglected as they were not permanently resident of a
designated conservation site. (ch2m, 2015) This reinstates the necessity of transboundary
impact assessment in marine EIA.
General regulations and practices may be used for EIA reviews, for example, compliance
with the Mitigation Hierarchy may be ensured by reviewing in accordance with the IAIA
principles of best practice, the IEMA Review Criteria and/or the IEMA EIA quality mark.
The final challenge therefore is ensuring compliance throughout the project lifecycle. Means
of doing so are proposed by Adaptive EIA, follow-up methods and Environmental
Management practices such as EMS.

13
2.2. Risk Assessment Methodologies
SCOPE (1980) highlights what appears to be a flaw in ‘human understanding’ in that Impact
Assessment and Risk Assessment are seen to be mutually exclusive. EIA methods however
pose many similarities to those of risk assessment. In essence, activities have consequences
(or ‘impacts’) and these have associated likelihoods. Both processes analyse the severity and
magnitude of impacts. Both involve multi-criterial decision making, with issues such as
probability and uncertainty, and both are highly objective. (Chou & Ongkowijoyo, 2014) So
what distinguishes the two disciplines?
SCOPE (1980) suggests that EIA has a tendency to scope out very unlikely impacts and
focus solely on the probable ones – ‘events that are certain to occur’, regardless of
magnitude. Risk assessment, alternatively, looks at impacts that are not definite but
likely-to-unlikely – ‘events that may possibly occur’, identified through a process called
Hazard Identification (HAZID). There is therefore some cross-over between the two
disciplines such that risk assessment tools may be ideal in finding which impacts in the
likely-to-unlikely range should be scoped into EIA. (SCOPE, 1980)
Furthermore, disciplines such as Environmental Risk Assessment (EnRA) and Ecological
Risk Assessment (EcRA) are often recognised as subsets of EIA. The former is known to be
similar to EIA, but with focus on engineering and toxicology aspects – concerning risks to
human health and the natural environment; the latter is considered to be more receptor-
focused – concerning human activities and their impact on the natural environment.
(Burgman, 2005) (Suter, 1992)

14
3. The Brims Tidal Array
3.1. Project Location
The BTA is proposed for the Pentland Firth, between the Orkney Islands and the Scottish
Mainland (see Figure 4). The site was originally suggested as Cantick Head, running the
south coast of Longhope island, mapped as the South-East coast of Hoy in Stromness. This
location has already been revised and moved west towards Brims following measurements of
surrounding tidal flows, hence the revised name of “Brims Tidal Array”. This move was
solely to maximise resource availability. This BTA site is indicated in red in Figure 5
overleaf. Other outlined areas include potential onshore and transmission component sites.
(SSE & OpenHydro, 2013)
Figure 4: The North of Scotland with the Pentland Firth outlined. Note the high spring
flows (indicated by yellow colouring) as opposed to the surrounding waters. Image from
ABP Marine Environmental Research (ABP mer, 2014)
Pentland Firth
Mainland
Scotland

15
This area impacts the South of Hoy (Cantick head, Longhope and Brims), and is also visible
from the North coast of mainland Scotland; from popular ferry routes to the Orkney Islands,
and from the uninhabited islands of Swona to the East and Stroma to the South-East. Swona
and Stroma were abandoned due to isolation from the mainland as a result of the surrounding
tidal stream and are now considered designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
Both islands are common for shipwrecks, and often inaccessible except in slack tides,
emphasising the strong flows which make the Pentland Firth ideal for tidal energy projects.
However, this can also been seen as perhaps the opposite – a danger to maintenance and
installation crews – as suggested by Salter (2012).
While the impacts from this project alone may be minimal, as the European Marine Energy
Centre (EMEC) is based in Orkney, the cumulative effects alongside other projects must be
considered.
Figure 5: Revised location of BTA, and possible location of necessary additional structures.
Image from Brims Exhibition Boards (SSE & OpenHydro, 2013)

16
3.2. Technology
The BTA is to have two stages in its development – an initial capacity of 60MW, followed
by an increase to 200MW in a second phase if the first instalment proves successful. In total,
this would result in 200 x 1MW open-centre, bi-directional turbines, as developed by
OpenHydro and illustrated in Figure 6. (SSE & OpenHydro, 2013)
These turbine models measure 20m in diameter and, including the base structure, reach to
only 27m above the seabed. The depths in the specified location are greater than this total
height, and so the devices would be invisible from the surface. If not indicated, those
uninformed could be completely oblivious to the turbines’ existence – both a positive and
negative aspect. The open centre and slow rotational speed make these turbine models more
robust, and minimises environmental impact on marine life. (OpenHydro, 2015)
The turbines are supported on a gravity base structure, therefore no drilling is required.
There are environmental impacts associated with the decommissioning of these structures,
notably due to their aptitude for benthic adaptation and growth. Conveniently, they allow for
the device to be re-floated for ease of maintenance, and the gravity base may also be re-
floated for removal. There are also several environmental impacts associated with base
structure removal, for example the space required for demolition and dumping onshore (as
offshore dumping is prohibited in the UK), and the energy associated with demolition and
transport of heavy structures. (OGP, 2012)
Figure 6: OpenHydro turbine as contracted for Brims tidal project. Image from
(OpenHydro, 2015)

17
3.3. Local Impacts
The scoping report discusses scoped-in impacts prior to determination of significance and
magnitude. This project will take into account all possible impacts, as detailed in Chapter 6
(with further discussion in Appendix B).
With reference to the human environment (population, economy, land-use) no negative
impacts are recognised on the onset. The key impacts on the human environment relate to the
potential influx of workers for the project, increasing population. This may be considered
temporary and reversible, therefore will not likely be of major significance in the long term.
Irreversible potential effects may come from the interference with shipwrecks at the
suggested location. While not directly impacting the communities, such a movement may be
frowned upon by those with historical and anthropological interests. The most significant
social impacts are expected to be regarding offshore recreational activities.
With reference to ecological impacts, the proposed location for the BTA will potentially
affect 29 designated Special Protection Areas (SPAs). (SSE Renewables, OpenHydro, 2013)
These are detailed in Chapter 6.
3.4. Policies & Legislation
Legislatively, consent is required from a number of governing bodies. Policies and
legislation crucial to the project are outlined in the scoping report. These can be summarised
as:
1. Scotland’s Renewable Energy Policy – The project should strive to aid in reaching
renewable expansion targets to 15% of all energy by 2020.
2. Climate Change (Scotland) Act – The project should strive to minimise greenhouse
gas emissions and promote clean energy production.
3. Marine Planning Policy – The project should comply with the marine project
planning regime which ensures effective management of the marine environment
with regards to noise and navigational risks, and also shoots to facilitate the
renewable marine energy developments. (Marine (Scotland) Act1
)
1
The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 was created to ‘streamline’ the licensing and consenting
process, such that multiple offshore project applications can be managed via one governing
body.

18
4. Marine Spatial Planning – The project should take into account spatial planning to
manage conflicting demands in the marine environment. (Marine (Scotland) Act)
5. Marine Protected Areas – The project must avoid, where possible, specifically
protected areas. (Marine (Scotland) Act, Scottish Natural Heritage)
6. Terrestrial Planning Policy – Onshore construction elements of the project must be
executed in accordance with the National Planning Framework. (Town and Country
Planning (Scotland) act)
7. Electricity Works (EIA) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 – The project must ensure
compliance with the EU directive 1985 in the need for any project generating over
1MW to undergo EIA.
More specific permissions which are necessary for project approval are summarised in Table
1 below.
Table 1: Necessary permissions for project approval
Act Section Details
Electricity Act 1989 Section 36 Consent for tidal power projects exceeding 1MW
Electricity Act 1989 Section 37 Consent for construction of overhead power lines
Marine Licence Section 16 consent for structures below or attached to the seabed
Town and Country
Planning (Scotland) Act
1997
Section 57 Planning permission for onshore components of the
project.
Energy Act 2004 Sections 105-
114
Ensuring there are environmentally sound plans for
decommissioning of offshore projects.
Conservation of Natural
Habitats 1994
Offshore
Marine
Conservation,
2010
A Habitats Regulation Appraisal (HRA) will be
undertaken, where likely significant effects on marine
habitats will be assessed.
Conservation of Natural
Habitats 1994
Regulation 39 The necessity of a European Protected Species (EPS)
license for this project will be advised by SNH.
3.5. Current Status
A scoping report for the BTA project was published in 2013 and is available on the project
website. Two public exhibitions were also held in 2013, at which the public had an
opportunity to learn about the project and gain contact details for questioning and posing
opinions. The project is currently undergoing EIA, with hope for granted permissions and
the aim to begin construction in 2019. The non-technical summary has been completed, and
is also available on the project website.

19
4. Methodology
There are four key stages to this project as outlined below. The backbone of this research
depends on a full understanding of matrix methodologies in EIA and HAZID. Reviewing
what is already known and exploring relevant concepts is therefore the first stage, followed
by applying both to the BTA project. This will then allow combination of both risk and EIA
aspects, resulting in an overall evaluation inclusive of all impacts. Thanking into account
both risk and environmental impacts, activities which are most impacting can be identified
and, in turn, the life cycle stage which requires the most attention can be recognised.
Details of what will be covered in each step are as follows:
1. Matrix Methodologies
 Compare matrix methods created for EIA and HAZID purposes.
 Draw conclusions on the similarities and differences between disciplines.
 Determine the best method of combining these matrices.
2. Impact Analysis of the Brims Tidal Array
 An initial matrix will be built by identifying the relevant condition/activity
relationships from the standard 8800 relationships presented by the Leopold
Matrix and marking each analysable relationship with an 'x'.
 Leopold scoring methods will be used to rate the impacts from 1-10 in terms
of magnitude and importance.
 HAZID quantification and scoring methods will be used to assess the
aforementioned impacts in terms of likelihood and frequency.
3. Determining most significant impacts
 The matrices will be combined to determine which impacts need the most
attention.
 Using the BTA as exemplar, the most impacting lifecycle stage of a tidal
stream project will be defined.
4. Mitigation and Contingency
 Mitigation measures for all impacts in the project will be suggested through
comparison with environmental statements and risk assessments in similar
development projects.

20
5. Matrix Methodologies
5.1. Environmental Impact Matrices
As discussed in Chapter 2, matrix methods provide a thorough and quantifiable presentation
and evaluation of impacts. Scottish Natural Heritage pose the use of a ‘significance matrix’,
through which impacts are scoped in and out of EIA depending on the ‘magnitude of change’
caused by the action, and the ‘sensitivity’ of the receptor(s). These two aspects combine to
define an impact as major, moderate, minor or negligible. (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013)
Alternatively, the DHI Group presents the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) – a
software system which builds and evaluates impact matrices in a format unique to the
software. This, unlike the SNH method, provides a ‘semi-quantitative’ assessment by which
team members may alter standardised ‘scores’ for importance and magnitude criteria (see
similarities with Leopold Matrix in the following section). Further criteria are included, such
as permanence, reversibility and cumulative effects. Environmental components must be
defined by the software user, and should be categorically physical, biological, sociological or
economic. While this software appears to be the ideal tool for this project, it is not accessible
out-with the institution.
However, the most practiced matrix methodology would be the Leopold Impact Matrix. This
is by far the most common and thorough EIA matrix method used to date.
The Leopold Impact Matrix
The Leopold Matrix cross-references the ‘activities’ which have an impact, and the
‘conditions’ that could be affected – for example, where gaseous emissions are an activity,
air quality and human health would be impacted conditions. The boxes where an activity
impacts a condition is split diagonally as illustrated in Figure 7 overleaf.
Within this cross-reference location, a two-criterial evaluation is made between magnitude of
the impact and its importance. These are assigned numerical ‘scores’ from 1-10. This is most
often a score from 1-10 for magnitude (a), where ‘1’ indicates small magnitude, and a score
from 1-10 for importance (b) of the same effect where ‘10’ is very important. The
highlighted box shows an impact with high magnitude and high importance.

21
Figure 7: Exemplar Segment of Leopold Matrix
Ultimately, these values should be combined using matrix methods such that the overall
impact of the project can be expressed quantifiably. Traditionally, this would be the
multiplication of values within a box, and the summation of all these figures (i.e.
(a1*b1)+(a2*b2)=c, total impact=T=Σc). The total impact (T) may then be compared with
other alternatives and/or with the same project with mitigation measures in place to decide
on an acceptable impact level. Positive impacts should be identified and the total will
therefore reflect a net positive impact (enhancement) or net negative impact.
5.2. Risk Matrices
Risk Assessment is a well-explored field and has many different methodologies and
processes. Mirroring EIA, it also has a scoping stage that determines which risks need
evaluated. In Risk Assessment this stage is termed ‘Hazard Identification’ or ‘HAZID’.
There are few methodologies specific to HAZID, but it is common to create a ‘risk matrix’
(or ‘criticality matrix’) to aid in decision making. These commonly take into account
magnitude (or ‘severity’) and likelihood (or ‘probability’) in a similar manner to the Leopold
Impact Matrix.
A criticality matrix will score the risks across a scale according to how probable the risk is,
and then apply an appropriate quantification. This probability is usually quantified in a way
which is appropriate for the scale and characteristics of the development. This quantification

22
of probability does not feature in EIA matrices to such an extent, and so it may be possible to
incorporate these methods into impact matrices such as the Leopold matrix.
5.3. Comparison of Matrix Methods
As previously discussed, the core difference between EIA scoping matrices and HAZID
matrices is the lack of depth in EIA matrices with regards to probability, and in turn
HAZID’s neglect of importance. This is of course due to the unlikeliness and high magnitude
of risks compared with environmental impacts, but as the design of tidal turbines become so
environmentally sound the likelihood of high-magnitude impacts become more relevant in
risk assessment.
With the commonalities of risk matrices and the Leopold matrix, it may be possible to
combine these models to provide a comprehensible presentation which will ultimately aid in
recognition of which impacts should be prioritised without immediately making an overall
judgement of the project. Where the methods differ is in their determinants. The combined
matrix would therefore take into account three well defined variables:
1. Magnitude – the significance of the impact from the perspective of the affected
condition or stakeholder.
2. Importance – the scale of the impact and its reversibility.
3. Probability – The likelihood of the impact and how often/the timescale for which it
occurs.
How these variables were used in the matrices to determine impact significance is discussed
in Chapter 6.
5.4. Benefits and Drawbacks
Matrix methods, such as the Leopold Matrix, have a scientific benefit in that they present the
basis for quantitative analyses methods. However, as the assignment of numerical values is
ultimately objective and decided by an assessor (or board of assessors) there is no guarantee
that it is an accurate value. While the impacts are compared against a no-action baseline (no
impact: importance=0 and magnitude=0) a matrix for each alternative may need to be
created, such as for different locations or sizes of project. This results in huge volumes of
data for comparison.

23
The Leopold quantification method also suggests that magnitude and importance are
interchangeable in that impacts of high magnitude and low importance are quantifiably the
same as impacts with low magnitude and high importance (where importance also concerns
likelihood and duration). The criticality matrix often uses quantifiably more complex values,
based on probability. This third determinant may be useful in emphasising the impacts which
are most likely to occur, or those which occur more frequently. There should therefore be
less uncertainty when combining this with the Leopold scores.
Beyond these quantification uncertainties, there is an issue in that matrix methods are not
suitable for every project. In the case of tidal energy projects, matrices are arguably not
detailed enough for the whole EIA process due to transboundary, indirect and cumulative
impacts that may not be accounted for. Furthermore, if the project is carried out over a long
time period, some impacts may vary in magnitude and importance throughout the project
lifecycle – these changes are also not incorporated into most impact matrices, but are often
discussed when addressing mitigation. (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1996) (Leopold,
et al., 1971)

24
6. Impact Analysis of the Brims Tidal Array
Three matrices were built for the BTA project: one initial impact and risk recognition matrix
(highlighting the relationships before investigating significance); one Leopold matrix
concerning impact magnitude and importance, and one probability matrix considering impact
likelihood (using HAZID quantification methods). These were combined to create a resultant
‘Significance Matrix’. The matrices are included in full in Appendix A(1-4).
The ‘actions’ were categorised over four lifecycle stages: installation, operation,
maintenance and decommissioning. It is expected that the devices in the BTA will have
extended periods of operation with remote monitoring and minimal maintenance work, and
so is considered to be separate from maintenance. The ‘operation’ phase will technically
refer to several phases interspersed with short-term maintenance phases, and the
‘maintenance’ phase is of the same nature. They are treated as two distinct phases despite
both having numerous occurrences.
In each of these phases the actions differ slightly. As the development is remote and
operation and maintenance has been separated, the operation phase has comparatively few
actions associated with it. Installation, maintenance and decommissioning phases all involve
offshore development impacts and risks, and are more complex as a result.
The ‘conditions’ are traditionally categorised as:
 Abiotic – Chemical changes (e.g. impacts on air and water).
 Biotic – Ecosystem and biodiversity changes (e.g. impacts on flora and
fauna).
 Socioeconomic (S-E) – Cultural and social changes (e.g. impacts on people
of the local community or nation).
In this assessment, a fourth category – ‘socioeconomic (corporate)’ – is included. This refers
to factors which are also (on the most part) socio-economic, but where the stakeholders are
primarily the proponents and workers as opposed to the local communities.
The proponents and corporations that are involved directly in the project will be liable for
any shortcomings of the project. Therefore they also have to take possible risks into account
– impacts that are likely to have been scoped out of an EIA. Such indefinite impacts are
usually scoped out of an EIA despite their relevance to the environment, especially social
impacts, but with such low environmental impacts in tidal developments these risks might
even prevail.

25
Risks most often result from poor planning, inadequate staff training or unpredictable
circumstances, and are most likely to occur in the installation, maintenance and
decommissioning phases. The need for maintenance will be rare due to the simple design of
the turbine, with no gearboxes, oils nor lubricants. (Emera & OpenHydro, 2015) The
turbines themselves have specialised transport vessels, which have specific safety conditions,
and may be installed and retrieved from their foundations in a matter of hours. This is all
accounted for in the evaluation.
6.1. The Impact Recognition Matrix
The standardised Leopold Matrix is composed of 88 conditions (rows) and 100 actions
(columns) amounting to 8800 possible interactions. The interactions which are applicable to
the BTA project were identified and marked with an ‘x’, reducing the standard Leopold
Matrix to that shown in Appendix A(1).
6.2. The Leopold Matrix
The identified relationships were assigned scores from 1-10 for magnitude and importance,
reflecting the following definitions:
 Magnitude – the significance of the impact to the condition. For example, an
unforeseen fatality would be considered high magnitude (10) as the stakeholders
would be the individual (the deceased) and the project proponents (who are likely to
be considered indirectly the cause).
 Importance – the scale and reversibility of the impact. For example, the destruction
of archaeological sites is of high importance (7) as such an action would be
impossible to reverse (though in the case of the BTA, the relevant archaeological
sites are of minimal archaeological interest and so considered less important).
Taking these variables into account, the Leopold matrix was scored as shown in
Appendix A(2). This matrix does not take into account mitigation measures beyond those
designed into and already proposed for the project.

26
6.3. Impact Evaluation
The matrices were completed objectively using similar research from a number of offshore
development projects; consultation with legislation; local area biodiversity data, and
information about the BTA development plans available on the project website. The
identified affected conditions are summarised as follows. In-depth discussions on how the
scores were reached are included in Appendix B.
Affected Conditions
Abiotic (Physical & Chemical)
Coastal geology
 Description – physical characteristics of the seabed.
 Actions – weighting on seabed (laying foundations, installing cabling)
 Possible impacts – destabilising seabed structure; seabed collapse.
Hydrodynamics (& Salinity)
 Description – movement of sediment and chemical composition of water.
 Actions – disruption from works; tidal stream blocked by foundations and/or
reduced by device.
 Possible impacts – energy loss therefor reduced chemical exchanges with
neighbouring waters; sediment build-up on foundations.
Water quality
 Description – cleanliness and chemical composition of water.
 Actions – spills from operational vessels; leakages from devices.
 Possible impacts – reduced quality may poison marine life or deposit at recreational
coastal locations.
Air quality
 Description – cleanliness and chemical composition of atmosphere.
 Actions – vessel transport and other fossil-fuel consuming work.
 Possible impacts – contribution to GHG levels and climate change.

27
Biotic (Flora & Fauna)
Benthos
 Description – fauna residing on sea floor.
 Actions – disturbance of sea floor.
 Possible impacts – destruction of habitats on installation; creation of artificial habitat
on foundations; destruction again on decommissioning; restored to natural state.
Fish
 Description – fish communities residing in project area.
 Actions – habitat changes.
 Possible impacts – collision with turbines; noise; destruction of habitats; creation of
shelter.
Marine mammals
 Description – marine mammals in the project area include cetaceans and seals.
 Actions – habitat changes; magnetic fields from transmission cabling.
 Possible impacts – collision with turbines; noise; destruction of habitats; creation of
shelter; navigational confusion.
Marine Birds
 Description – nearby bird communities.
 Possible impacts – collision with turbines when diving, disruption during
installation, maintenance and decommissioning.
Aquatic Plants
 Description – flora residing on the sea floor.
 Possible impacts – destruction of habitat.
Socioeconomic (Cultural)
Conflict of Uses – Fishing
 Description – fishing activities in Orkney waters.
 Actions – presence of devices; boating restrictions; habitat changes.

28
 Possible impacts – loss of grounds at project sites; increased activity around ports;
changes in species abundance.
Conflict of Uses – Transit Barrier (Shipping, Fishing and Navigation)
 Description – activity around ports and project location.
 Actions – presence of devices; boating restrictions; overuse of ports.
 Possible impacts – limitations on transit over project location; increased activity
around ports.
Conflict of Uses – Recreation
 Description – recreational activities in Orkney waters.
 Actions – presence of devices; boating restrictions.
 Possible impacts – limitations on transit over project location; increased activity
around ports; prohibited recreational activity at project location.
Conflict of uses – Ministry of Defence (MOD)
 Description – MOD activities in Orkney waters.
 Actions – presence of devices.
 Possible impacts – limited activity at project location.
Conflict of uses – Future Developments
 Description – influence on future projects at (or near) location.
 Actions – success or failure of project.
 Possible impacts – proves (or disproves) viability of commercial-scale tidal stream
projects.
Economy – Local
 Description – local employment and economy.
 Actions – creation of jobs; increased/decreased spending on tourist facilities.
 Possible impacts – enhanced local economy as workers make use of otherwise
vacant facilities; less tourist charm due to negative perception of development.
Economy – National
 Description – national employment and economy.
 Actions – creation of jobs; contribution of renewable energy to national grid.
 Possible impacts – financial benefits; employment.

29
Archaeology
 Description – ship wrecks in project area.
 Actions –foundation and/or cabling installation.
 Possible impacts – irreversible destruction of archaeological point-of-interest.
Perception
 Description – perception of development on local, national and visiting scales.
 Actions – change of location’s usage.
 Possible impacts – contrasting impacts: negative (destruction of wilderness) or
positive (symbolic of growth and sustainability).
Visual Impact
 Description – visibility of development from nearby coastlines.
 Actions – work during installation, maintenance and decommissioning phases;
indicators during operational phase.
 Possible impacts – changed perception from locals and tourists.
Noise
 Description – audibility of development from nearby coastlines.
 Actions – work during installation, maintenance and decommissioning phases.
 Possible impacts – changed perception from locals and tourists.
Socioeconomic (Corporate)
Personnel safety – Illness
 Description – illness among workers.
 Actions – change in surroundings (motion sickness, change in air or water quality);
Overcrowding on ships (air quality, poor hygiene), and/or stress induced illness from
demanding work.
 Possible impacts – poor employee livelihood; may lead to several sicknesses
therefore delay in the timescale of proposed work.
Personnel safety – Injury & Fatality
 Description – injury or fatality of worker(s)

30
 Actions – improper use of tools; turbulent sea conditions; dropped/swinging
equipment; cargo shifting; collisions from increased traffic; flooding; workman
falling overboard, capsizing.
 Possible impacts – poor employee livelihood; delay in the timescale of proposed
work.
Device - Operation (damages)
 Description – damages to device
 Actions – incorrect handling; collisions; corrosion; bio-fouling.
 Possible impacts – reduced efficiency; loss of financial viability; failure of project.
Device – Efficiency (wear & tear)
 Description – operational efficiency reductions
 Actions – poor design choices; over-exertion of device.
 Possible impacts – reduced efficiency; loss of financial viability; failure of project.
Device - Foundation damage
 Description – damage to support structure.
 Actions – corrosion; bio-fouling; partial burial.
 Possible impacts – reduced efficiency; complications on decommissioning; seabed
collapse; loss of financial viability; failure of project.
***
Other corporate conditions which are not included in the matrices are ‘Finances’ and ‘Time’.
These are both major considerations in planning a development project such as this, and may
be impacted by any factor at any stage.
Finances
Finances are at risk throughout the entire project, as the project not only has a high capital,
but there are also many opportunities for changes to the plan at later stage which will
ultimately increase expenditure. Beyond usual risks, as the project is the first of its kind there
is also the risk that unforeseen circumstances may result in reduced output and devaluation.
(Altran, 2011)
Time
Ultimately, mistakes and other unforeseen circumstances (e.g. seabed collapse, turbulent
water, poorly positioned device) will take time to rectify. This will delay the project,
postponing profits and increasing expenditure on equipment leases and workers’ wages.

31
Increasing the project’s timeframe unexpectedly will be perceived by the public as careless
planning; the projects viability will be questioned and in turn may inhibit acceptance of
future developments.
6.4. The Probability Matrix
The probability matrix for the BTA project is included in Appendix A(3). The scores in
Appendix 1(3.a) correlate to quantifications as described in Table 2. Explanations of how
each of the quantification values was decided are included in Appendix C.
Table 2: Probability Quantification Categories
Category Description Quantification
1 Once/twice in project lifetime 0.000033
2 One in every 10 devices or once per year 0.000375
3 Once per device in project lifetime 0.003333
4 Once per device per year 0.083333
5 Seasonally (3 months in a year or equivalent) 0.25
6 Constant impact 1
6.5. The Significance Matrix
Leopold matrix methods use the multiplication of magnitude and importance values to
determine impact significance as described in Chapter 2.1 such that each relationship field
only holds one value. This resultant matrix is then multiplied with the quantified probability
matrix (Appendix A(3.b)) to create a more comprehensible determination of impact
significance. This resultant ‘Significance Matrix’ with the magnitude, importance and
probability now considered is included in Appendix A(4).

32
7. Determining the Most Significant Impacts
7.1. Findings from the Leopold Impact Matrix
The graph displayed in Figure 8 shows the significance of impacts as determined by the
Leopold matrix. It is clear that corporate risks outweigh the environmental factors greatly, in
particular the risk of ‘fatality’ among workers. This is a result of the high magnitude
(significance to the deceased) and the high importance (project viability). This highlights the
importance of considering likelihood and probability, and the difference in the practices of
risk and environmental assessment. Therefore, the risk of fatalities must be absolutely
minimised through firm safety control measures.
determined by the Leopold Matrix.
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
CoastalGeology
Hydrodynamics(&Salinity)
WaterQuality
AirQuality
Benthos
Fish
MarineMammals
MarineBirds
AquaticPlants
Fishing-lossofgrounds
Fishing-changeinspeciesabundance
TransitBarrier(Shipping,Fishingand…
Recreation
MinistryofDefence
FutureDevelopments
Local
National
Archaeology
Perception
VisualImpact
Noise
Illness
Injury
Fatality
Devicedamage
Efficiency
FoundationDamage
QuantifiedNetImpactSignificance
Net Impact on Condition

33
For a clearer representation of the environmental impacts, this graph is reproduced removing
the corporate factors as in a traditional EIA. The resultant net impact significance is
represented in Figure 9.
determined by the Leopold Matrix, disregarding corporate factors.
Figure 9 shows the impacts on environmental conditions in more detail. The core negative
impacts are biotic, especially the destruction of benthos habitats; destruction of fish habitats,
and the possibility of collision with fish and marine mammals. The latter of these issues are,
however, considered very unlikely especially with the turbine design. Similarly, air quality
benefits as a result of device operation are almost negligible despite their importance.
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
CoastalGeology
WaterQuality
AirQuality
Benthos
Fish
MarineMammals
MarineBirds
AquaticPlants
TransitBarrier(Shipping,Fishingand…
Recreation
MinistryofDefence
FutureDevelopments
Local
National
Archaeology
Perception
VisualImpact
Noise

34
Therefore, this is still not an accurate representation and would also benefit from
considerations of probability.
Finally, Figure 10 shows the net impact of each action across the four life-cycle phases. This
suggests that the overall impact is similar between installation, maintenance and
decommissioning phases, with installation prevailing. This is as would be expected due to
the subtleness and remoteness of the development during the operational phase. However,
the impacts appear to all be negative. On further investigation, it can be concluded that this is
due again to the significance of possible fatalities and injuries in the workforce (see the
Leopold Matrix, Appendix A(2)). Therefore, it again proves the consideration of probability
necessary.
Leopold Matrix.
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
installingcabling
layingfoundations
placingdevice
presenceofcabling
presenceoffoundations
presenceofdevice
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
maintenanceofcabling
disturbancenearfoundations
refloat/repositioningofdevice
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
removalofcabling
removaloffoundations
removalofdevice
Net Impact of Actions over Project Lifecycle
INSTALLATION OPERATION MAINTENANCE DECOMMISSIONING

35
7.2. Findings from the Significance Matrix
Following multiplication of the Leopold matrix with the quantified probability matrix, the
net impact on each condition is reassessed. Analysing, as before, the net impact per activity,
Figure 11 is produced and the difference is irrefutable. This bar chart presents a considerably
more realistic overview of the impacts. It is clear that corporate risks have reduced
significantly due to their rarity, with only efficiency (reducible due to corrosion and
collisions) significantly impacted.
determined by whole significance assessment.
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
CoastalGeology
WaterQuality
AirQuality
Benthos
Fish
MarineMammals
MarineBirds
AquaticPlants
TransitBarrier(Shipping,FishingandNavigation)
Recreation
MinistryofDefence
FutureDevelopments
Local
National
Archaeology
Perception
VisualImpact
Noise
Illness
Injury
Fatality
Devicedamage
Efficiency
FoundationDamage

36
It is clear from Figure 11 that air quality is now undeniably the most significant impact from
the BTA project. Economic benefits are also notably greater than any negative impact. This
is due to the longevity of these impacts and their featuring in the operational phase. Negative
impacts are more common, but of relatively low significance.
Analysing these impacts over the lifecycle stages as before creates the bar chart shown in
Figure 12. It is clear from this analysis that the operational phase is most impacting, with a
net positive impact, despite the highest magnitude impacts not featuring in this phase. This is
because the impacts in the operational phase have a longer timescale associated with them
therefore their impacts are scaled upwards, whereas impacts which are likely to occur at
most once or twice in the project lifetime are scaled down to incomparable significance
values.
For these reasons, impacts with high magnitudes that almost never occur are overshadowed
by consistent mid-magnitude impacts. The positivity is due to the economic and
sustainability benefits resulting from the operation of the device, combined with the
improved habitats that arise from the presence of the gravity base foundations.

37
whole significance assessment.
To take a closer look at the installation, maintenance and decommissioning phases, Figure 13
shows the same results with the operation phase removed.
-20.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
installingcabling
layingfoundations
placingdevice
presenceofcabling
presenceofdevice
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
removalofcabling
removalofdevice

38
whole significance assessment, disregarding impacts in the operation phase.
Though there is a pattern in these three phases, with the greatest negative impacts arising
from increased traffic and foundation work, they vary still in magnitude. The extent of these
variations is detailed quantitatively in the ‘total’ columns in the Significance Matrix,
Appendix A(4).
***
These results illustrate that the operational phase is by far the most impacting with respect to
the marine environment, with a significant, positive impact. The maintenance stages are the
least impacting, and installation has the most destructive impacts (closely rivalled by the
decommissioning phase).
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
installingcabling
layingfoundations
placingdevice
presenceofcabling
presenceofdevice
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
increasedtraffic
increasedworkforce
removalofcabling
removalofdevice

39
8. Mitigation and Contingency
Mitigation for the BTA project has, on the most part, been worked into the design of the
project. For example, the device is designed to absolutely minimise the environmental
impacts, with the passage for marine life; slow rotational speed; lack of lubricants and oils,
and minimal noise. (OpenHydro, 2015) The concrete gravity support structures are the most
environmentally sound supports, and a specialised vessel was created by Emera and
OpenHydro which will minimise risks when installing the foundations and
lowering/re-floating the devices. (Emera & OpenHydro, 2015)
Where the impacts are of high magnitude but low probability (what would usually be
considered ‘risks’) mitigation depends on avoidance and contingency plans to reduce the
likelihood of the risks further. For example, air-quality checks, hygiene procedures and
scheduled breaks to avoid illnesses among workers; loading sequences should be planned to
ensure the vessel remains balanced, which includes ballasting when the device is being
lowered. While this does not affect magnitude or significance (which assumes the impact
occurs), it reduces probability considerably therefore reduces the overall significance.
Enhancement opportunities are very limited in the case of tidal stream developments.
Essentially, the net positive impacts of the project will be considered overall enhancement of
the environment, but no specific enhancement measures have been included in the plans
(other than the project’s contribution to sustainability and battling climate change). This is
perhaps because the project in itself already has a net benefit to the environment and society,
but this is not to say the project should not strive for further enhancement.
Where the project may be able to accommodate additional enhancement opportunities would
be in the funding of recreational facilities on the coastline. The creation of, for example, a
walking or cycling route with information points about the development may be welcomed
by locals and enhance local tourism. Ultimately, the increased biodiversity which occurs
surrounding the gravity foundations will be considered enhancement also.
Appendix D details appropriate mitigation and control measures for every impact listed in
Section 6.3. These include mitigation, control and enhancement suggestions alongside details
of the aforementioned design features which also mitigate the impacts.

40
9. Discussions
9.1. Key Findings
This project has several key findings relating to the objectives as stated at the beginning of
this document.
Comparing EIA and risk assessment, the matrices allowed impact significance to be
examined per condition and per lifecycle phase. It was expected that for tidal developments
the environmental impacts would be of comparable significance to risks, balancing
magnitudes and probabilities. However, the timescale in the operational phase wholly
determined the net-positive impact of the project. Without the consideration of probability
(as in section 7.1) the results are skewed entirely by the magnitude of corporate risks, and the
project in such a case would be deemed unacceptable. Probability is therefore the defining
factor in this study, and the core difference between risk assessment and EIA.
This is not to say that the Leopold Matrix is redundant. Likelihood and duration are often
considered under the variable ‘importance’. This project aimed to redefine this variable to
focus on society’s perception – importance to society – and also the reversibility of an
impact. With current focus on SIA, it is necessary that public opinion is prioritised for
acceptance and ultimately success of a project. With the consideration of probability as a
separate, quantitative value, risks can be incorporated and significance accuracy is improved.
From these matrices, the most impacting lifecycle phase is identified as the operational
phase, where the positive impacts at a national scale outweigh the corporate risks that are
associated with the installation, maintenance and decommissioning phases. This is expected
to be similar in any viable commercial-scale tidal project.
Examining the conditions individually for the BTA, it is clear that the major positive impacts
(local and national economies, artificial habitats and air quality) outweigh the negative
impacts. This is, again, greatly influenced by the prolonged timescale of the operational
phase. Furthermore, the negative impacts (especially the corporate risks in offshore
developments) are avoidable if control measures and monitoring procedures are followed,
minimising their probabilities and differentiating them again from environmental impacts.
Finally, the process of developing mitigation and control plans was investigated. Essentially,
this reinstated the acceptability of the BTA project, and demonstrated the possibility of
further enhancement and public participation. However, this also validated the need for risk

41
assessment, as the detail of risks in the matrix was not sufficient to create firm control and
contingency plans.
9.2. Uncertainty
The key uncertainties in this project lie in the objectivity in quantification, especially in
scoring the Leopold matrix. The definitions of the variables (as in Sections 6.2 and 6.4) were
consulted on every value, and often adjustments had to be made for cumulative measures.
An example of this would be when regarding the creation of benthos habitats in the
operational phase. These habitats are expected to be more amicable than the natural habitats
on the seabed, and so destruction on decommissioning must be greater that destruction on
installation to compensate. Essentially, while great care was taken to correctly score each
aspect, this in fact not as effective as ad-hoc methods.
Furthermore, the restrictions of an MSc project timeline cannot be overlooked, and is also
the basis of some uncertainty. Conventionally, a full and thorough EIA calls for a
multidisciplinary team with a timescale of several years. The nature of this project would
therefore not allow for a full, in-depth EIA and so the concept has been demonstrated with
some aspects disregarded. These aspects include:
 Transboundary, cumulative and indirect impacts;
 In-depth consideration and analysis of alternatives;
 Impacts associated with onshore elements of the project;
 Impacts associated with a potential offshore substation, and
 Impacts pre-installation and post-decommissioning.
However, in an effort to demonstrate the differences and similarities in the practices of EIA
and HAZID these uncertainties are minor.

42
9.3. Conclusive Statement
This study highlights the core similarities and differences between HAZID in risk
assessment, and impact significance determination in EIA. It is clear from the results that in
methodology the disciplines share similarities in determinants, matrix methods, and
formulation of mitigation and contingency plans. However, the probabilities differ so greatly
that combining methods may not be the most appropriate action, even in the example of a
commercial scale tidal project. Nevertheless, the most impacted conditions and the most
impacting lifecycle phase in tidal development projects have been identified.
The impact matrices created in this project by no means define the impacts to be taken into
account in the official Environmental Statement of the Brims Tidal Array. Ultimately, EIA is
a decision-making tool. With all impacts taken into account, the BTA has a net positive
outcome (even before further mitigation measures) and so is an acceptable development
project.
9.4. Suggestions for Further Work
The significance matrix takes into account ‘probability’. As explained in Appendix C, this is
quantified in terms of likelihood, extent and/or duration. What may be more appropriate is to
consider these variables separately, refining the lines between ‘probability’ in HAZID, and
‘duration’ (as associated with ‘importance’) in EIA, similar to studies by
Josimovic, et al. (2014). This however complicates the combination of these factors.
Polagye et al. (2011) suggested additions that may be made to impact matrices concerning
uncertainty. Their ‘stressor matrix’ considered the actions (‘stressor elements’) and
conditions (‘environmental receptors’) in a similar way to the Leopold matrix. These were
colour coded in accordance with three resulting categories for significance: low, medium or
high. The variable uncertainty is then included as indicators within each field showing low,
medium or high uncertainty. Further work might investigate quantification of this
uncertainty to decide the viability of the resultant significance matrix.

43
Bibliography
ABP mer, 2014. WEBVision - Renewables (Tide). [Online]
Available at: http://vision.abpmer.net/renewables/map_default.phtml
[Accessed 31 May 2016].
Altran, 2011. Risk Quantification and Risk Management in Renewable Energy Projects,
Hamburg: IEA - Renewable Energy Technology Deployment.
Aquaret, 2012. Tidal Stream resource distribution (downloadable images and illustrations).
[Online]
Available at:
http://www.aquaret.com/indexea3d.html?option=com_content&view=article&id=203&Itemi
d=344&lang=en
[Accessed 25th May 2016].
Bonar, P. A., Bryden, I. G. & Borthwick, A. G., 2015. Social and Ecological Impacts of
Marine Energy Development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 47, pp.
486-495.
Bond, A., Pope, J. & Morrison-Saunders, A., 2015. 1. Introducing the roots, evolution and
effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment. In: Handbook of Sustainability Assessment.
s.l.:Edward Elgar, pp. 3-19.
Bratt, G., 2010. Study of Renewable Energy Project Risk Factors Influencing the Insurance
Industry, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.
Britta Reimers, Burcu Ozdirik, Martin Kaltschmitt, 2014. Greenhouse gas emissions from
electricity generated by offshore wind farms. Renewable Energy, Volume 72, pp. 428-438.
Burgman, M., 2005. Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carbon Trust, 2011. Marine Renewables Green Growth Paper, s.l.: s.n.
ch2m, 2015. Review of the Environmental Statement for Torr Head Tidal Array - Northern
Ireland, s.l.: ch2m.
Chou, J.-S. & Ongkowijoyo, C. S., 2014. Risk-based group decision making regarding
renewable energy schemes using a stochastic graphical matrix model. Automation in
Construction, Volume 37, pp. 98-109.
Chris Frid, Eider Andonegi, Jochen Depestele, Adrian Judd, Dominic Rihan, Stuart Rogers,
Ellen Kenchington, 2012. The environmental interactions of tidal and wave energy
generation devices. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Issue 32, pp. 133-139.

44
Committee on Climate Change, 2015. Carbon Budgets and Targets. [Online]
Available at: www.theccc.org.uk
[Accessed February 2016].
David Walwyn, Alan Brent, 2015. Renewable Energy Gathers Steam in South Africa.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 41, pp. 390-401.
DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism), 2006. Guideline 5: Assessment
of alternatives and impacts in support of the environmental impact assessment regulations.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism guideline document, June.
DECC, n.d. 2050 Energy Calculator, s.l.: s.n.
Dendena, B. & Corsi, S., 2015. The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment: a further
step towards an integrated assessment process. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 108,
pp. 965-977.
Domínguez-Gómez, J. A., 2016. Four conceptual issues to consider in integrating social and
environmental factors in risk and impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, Volume 56, pp. 113-119.
Draper, S., 2011. Tidal Stream Energy Extraction in Coastal Basins, s.l.: University of
Oxford.
E. Lozano-Minguez, A. Kolios, F. Brennan, 2011. Multi-criteria assessment of offshore wind
turbine suppport structures. Renewable Energy, Volume 36, pp. 2831-2837.
Economic Commission for Europe; United Nations, 2000. The Aarhus Convention: An
Implementation Guide, New York and Geneva: s.n.
Emera & OpenHydro, 2015. Bay of Fundy tidal energy project, 2015-2020+, Dublin: dcns.
Fanning, T., Jones, C. & Munday, M., 2014. The regional employment returns from wave
and tidal energy: A Welsh analysis. Energy, Volume 76, pp. 958-966.
Food and Agriculture Organization, 1996. 2.6 Methodologies for Predicting Impact in EIA.
In: Environmental impact assessment and environmental auditing in the pulp and paper
industry. Rome: s.n.
Frid, C. et al., 2012. The Envrionmental Interactions of Tidal and Wave Energy Generation
Devices. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 32, pp. 133-139.
gov.scot, 2012. Marine Protected Areas and black guillemot (Cepphus grylle). Edinburgh,
Heriot-Watt University.
Hammar, L., 2014. Power from the Brave New Ocean, Gothenburg: Chalmers University of
Technology.

45
Hilde Toonen, Han Lindeboom, 2015. Dark green electricity comes from the sea:
Capitalizing on ecological merits of offshore wind power?. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews , Volume 42, pp. 1023-1033.
I. Spiropoulou, D. Karamanis, G. Kehayias, 2014. Offshore wind farms development in
relation to environmental protected areas. Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 14, pp.
305-312.
IAIA, IEA UK, 1999. Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice, s.l.: s.n.
IAIA, 2002. The Linkages Between Impact Assessment and the Sustainable Development
Agenda, and Recommendations for Actions, Fargo: s.n.
IAIA, 2013. Mitigation in Impact Assessment. IAIA Fastips, Volume 6.
JNCC & Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries' Biodiversity Group), 2012. UK Post-2010
Biodiversity Framework. [Online]
Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189
JNCC; SNH; Marine Scotland, 2011. MPA search locations overview. Edinburgh, Heriot-
Watt University.
João, E., 2016. Lectures on Environmental Impact Assessment. Glasgow: University of
Strathclyde.
João, E., Vanclay, F. & den Broeder, L., 2011. Emphasising enhancement in all forms of
impact assessment: introduction to a special issue. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
29(3), pp. 170-180.
John Glasson, Riki Therivel, Andrew Chadwick, 2012. Introduction to Environmental
Impact Assessment. 4 ed. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Josimovic, B., Petric, J. & Milijic, S., 2014. The Use of the Leopold Marix in Carrying Out
the EIA for Wind Farms in Serbia. Energy and Environment Research, 4(1), pp. 43-54.
Julia Koller, Johann Koppel, Wolfgang Peters, 2006. Offshore Wind Energy: Research on
Environmental Impacts. Berlin: Springer.
Karsten, R. H., McMillan, J. M., Lickley, M. J. & Haynes, R. D., 2008. Assessment of tidal
current energy in the Minas Passage, Bay of Fundy. Proc. IMechE, 222(Part A: J. Power and
Energy), pp. 493-509.
Lawrence, D. P., 1997. Integrating Sustainability and Environmental Impact Assessment.
Environmental Management, 21(1), pp. 23-42.
Lazakis, I. & Turan, O., 2011. Seakite project: T1.6 Risk assessment for installation and
service operations, s.l.: s.n.

46
Leopold, L. B., Clarke, F. E., Hanshaw, B. B. & Balsley, I. R., 1971. A procedure for
evaluating environmental impact. Geological Survey Circular, Volume 645.
Marine Scotland, 2012. Draft report on ScotMap; the Inshore Fishing Study Pilot in
Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters, s.l.: Marine Scotland.
Marine Scotland, 2016. Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan -
Regional Locational Guidance, s.l.: gov.scot.
Morgan, R., 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment: The State of the Art. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), pp. 5-14.
Morrison-Saunders, A. & Fischer, T. B., 2006. What is Wrong with EIA and SEA Anyway?
A Sceptic's Perspective on Sustainability Assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management, 08(01).
National Geographic, 2011. Ocean Abiotic Factors. National Geographic Education.
OGP, 2012. Decommissioning of offshore concrete gravity based structures (CGBS) in the
OSPAR maritime area/other global regions, London/Brussels: Intarnational Association of
Oil and Gas Producers.
OpenHydro, 2015. images. [Online]
Available at: http://www.openhydro.com/images.html
[Accessed 26 May 2016].
OpenHydro, 2015. OpenHydro - A DCNS company. [Online]
Available at: http://www.openhydro.com/home.html
[Accessed 2016].
Pablo Kaluza, Andrea Kölzsch, Michael T. Gastner & Bernd Blasius, 2010. The complex
network of global cargo ship movements. [Online]
Available at: http://www.wired.com/2010/01/global-shipping-map/
Papathanasopoulou, E. et al., 2015. Energy Systems and their Impacts on Maring Ecosystem
Services. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 52, pp. 917-926.
Polagye, B., Van Cleve, B., Copping, A. & Kirkendall, K., 2011. Environmental Effects of
Tidal Energy Development. Seattle, U.S. Dept.Commerce; NOAA Tech.; NMFS.
Pope, J., Annandale, D. & Dalal-Clayton, B., 2005. SEA and Sustainability Appraisal
(International Experience and Perspectives in SEA), Prague: IAIA.
Pope, J., Annandale, D. & Morrison-Saunders, A., 2004. Conceptualising Sustainability
Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6), pp. 595-616.
Rajvanshi, A., 2008. Mitigation and Compensation in Environmental Assessment. In:
s.l.:s.n., pp. 167-183.

47
RenewableUK, 2013. Working for a Green Britain and Northern Ireland 2013-23, s.l.: s.n.
RenewableUK, 2015. RenewableUK Marine Energy Database, s.l.: Crown Copywrite.
Rio Tinto, 2008. Rio Tinto and Biodiversity - Achieving Results on the Ground, London:
Cousin.
RYA, 2015. The RYA's position on offshore renewable energy developments: Paper 3 (of 4)
- Tidal Energy, s.l.: RYA.
Sadler, B., 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Assessment in
a Changing World, s.l.: s.n.
Salter, S. H., 2012. Are Nearly all Tidal Stream Turbine Designs Wrong?. Dublin,
University of Edinburgh.
SCOPE, 1980. 1. Environmental Risks. In: A. V. W. a. I. Burton, ed. SCOPE 15 -
Environmental Risk Assessment. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-14.
Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013. C.8 Assessing the significance of impacts. In: A handbook
on Environmental Impact Assessment. s.l.:snh.gov.uk, pp. 91-95.
Scottish Power Renewables, 2016. East Anglia. [Online]
Available at: http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/east_anglia.asp
[Accessed 05 2016].
Shapiro, G. I., 2011. Effect of tidal stream power generation on the region-wide circulation
in a shallow sea. Ocean Science, pp. 165-175.
SSE & OpenHydro, 2013. Brims Exhibition Boards. Hoy & Stromness, s.n.
SSE Renewables, OpenHydro, 2013. Brims Tidal Array - Environmental Scoping Report,
s.l.: s.n.
SSE Renewables, 2016 . Non-Technical Summary (Vol 1), s.l.: s.n.
SSE Renewables, 2016. Brims Tidal. [Online]
Available at: http://sse.com/whatwedo/ourprojectsandassets/renewables/brims/
[Accessed Ongoing 2016].
Surfers Against Sewage, 2009. Guidance on environmental impact assessment of offshore
renewable energy development on surfing resources and recreation, Cornwall: s.n.
Suter, G., 1992. 1. Defining the Field. In: Ecological Risk Assessment. Michegan: Lewis
Publishers, pp. 3-14.
Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay, 2014. 3D model, Swansea: Unity.

48
UK Government, 2001. I6: Scoping the Environmental Impacts of Tidal Power
Developments, s.l.: s.n.
UK Government, 2011. Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(Scotland) Regulations 2011. s.l.:Scottish Statutory Instruments.
UNEP, 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment – Training Resource Manual. The United
Nations Environment.
Vanclay, F., Esteves, A. M., Aucamp, I. & Franks, D. M., 2015. Social Impact Assessment:
Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects, Fargo: IAIA.
Walker, G., 2008. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of
energy production and use?. Energy Policy, Volume 36, pp. 4401-4405.
Wang, C. et al., 2016. Visualising Coastal Environments, Aberdeen: The James Hutton
Institute; SAMS.
Weilgart, L., 2007. A Brief Review of Known Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals.
International Journal of Comparative Psychology, Volume 20, pp. 156-168.
Weisebron, L. E., Horne, J. K. & Hendrix, N. A., 2016. Characterizing Biological Impacts at
Marine Renewable Energy Sites. International Journal of Marine Energy, Volume 14, pp.
27-40.
Wilcox, D., 1994. 12. Comunity Participation and Empowerment: Puting theory into
practice. RRA Notes, Issue 21, pp. 78-82.
Wilhelmsson, D. & Langhamer, O., 2014. 5. The Influence of Fisheries Exclusion and
Addition of Hard Substrata on Fish and Crustaceans. In: M. A. Shields & A. I. L. Payne, eds.
Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions, Humanity and the
Sea. Dordrecht: Springer Science, pp. 49-60.

49
Appendices
Appendix A(1) – Impact Recognition Matrix

50
Appendix A(2) – Leopold Impact Matrix

51
Appendix A(3) – Risk Probability Matrix (Scoring prior to quantification)

52
Appendix A(4) – Resultant Significance Matrix

53
Appendix A(4) – Resultant Significance Matrix (cont.)

54
Appendix B – Discussion on Impact Significance Scoring
This section describes in detail the reasoning behind the scores given in the Leopold and
Probability Matrices for each individual condition. A summary of impacts can be seen both
in the matrices and in Section 6.3.
>Coastal geology
Physical changes to the seabed occur both in laying cables and in laying foundations.
Disruption of the seabed will increase sediment movement temporarily and may disrupt
benthos habitats or native fish species’ breeding grounds. (National Geographic, 2011) Both
these factors are discussed in subsequent sections.
As no drilling is necessary for the gravity base foundations proposed by the BTA, there are
minimal impacts on the seabed as well as minimal noise and only short-lasting vibrations.
The biggest impact will be in laying foundations, as indicated by the higher score for
magnitude. Given the unlikely situation where the seabed collapses, this would be of
low/medial magnitude to the geology (as the conditions are unstable at best) and minimal
importance to society as this area is unused. It will, however, be of impact to the proponents,
as discussed subsequently.
>Hydrodynamics (& Salinity)
Extracting power from the tide has dubious effects. Karsten et al. (2008) demonstrated that,
in the case of the Minas Passage, extraction of 2.5GW of power would result in only a 5%
change in tidal amplitudes (and thus minimal change in their effects). For smaller projects, it
is expected that 0.77GW correlates to 1% change. As the BTA projects is rated only
200MW, this would result in less than 0.003% change in tidal power, and so hydrodynamic
changes have minimal impact on tidal behaviour.
The salinity of water is often affected by tidal fluxes. As the energy is extracted by tidal
energy devices the salinity of water in the area may decrease as less is brought through from
the ocean – a ‘disturbance of sedimentation pattern’. While this decrease is likely in tidal
lagoon and barrage developments, it varies in tidal stream developments. Organisms which
are unable to adapt to the potentially reduced salinity levels may suffer. Further studies into
the salinity of water in the Pentland Firth and the affected organisms would be necessary.

55
(UK Government, 2001) (National Geographic, 2011) As the energy extracted is negligible,
such consequences are most likely also negligible, hence they have been scored low
importance and low magnitude.
Laying foundations, cabling and positioning the device will undoubtedly result in
disturbance of sediment from impact. The extent of the disturbance of sediment relies on the
method of placing both the cables and the foundations, and also the ocean conditions. In the
case of the BTA, the sea conditions are turbulent and so it cannot be determined where the
soils may deposit. However, it can also be assumed that the seabed in such turbulent areas is
often subject to movement of this nature, thus reducing the variance from the baseline. It is
important here to recognise, however, that the disturbance from gravity foundations (such as
those associated with the OpenHydro turbines) is notably higher than alternative
foundations.
The final hydrodynamic consideration is the possibility of sediment build-up on the
foundations and support structures of the devices. This has two consequences: sediment
movement is blocked downstream and the build-up may result in partial burial of the
structure and perhaps even the device. The support structure for the OpenHydro turbine is a
triangular frame shape, which will minimise the extent of sediment build-up. Nevertheless,
this impact has been scored higher as, if it occurs, it will have worse consequences.
>Water quality
Further chemical changes may also occur due to increased traffic on installation,
maintenance and decommissioning. At times with more traffic, there is an increased
likelihood of oil and chemical spills – a risk which must always be considered in offshore
projects. These risks are relevant in any offshore project, and usually considered very
unlikely but with high magnitude. A chemical spill in this situation is of low magnitude (as
turbulence may disperse it) but of medial importance due to society’s perception of chemical
spills.
The OpenHydro turbine does not make use of oils nor lubricants, so there is no impact from
the device.
>Air quality
With regards to greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, the UK government states that:

56
“Tidal power developments will have minimal effects local air quality and climate from
machinery and vehicular emissions during the short lived construction and decommissioning
phases only. The use of tidal power in place of electricity generation from fossil fuels will be
positive and a significant move towards the reduction of global carbon dioxide emissions.”
(UK Government, 2001)
It is therefore acknowledged that air quality impacts exist, but the nature of these impacts
amount to a positive impact. Both are accounted for in the matrices, and the air quality
improvements are given high scores due to the significance suggested by the UK
government.
>Benthos
Benthos organisms are perhaps the most impacted by the project. Initially, benthos habitats
are destroyed on the seabed when the foundations are laid. Concrete foundations, such as
those proposed for the BTA, are ideal habitats for benthos – commonly termed an ‘artificial
reef’ (AR). Therefore, while one habitat is destroyed on installation, another is formed. This
essentially repeats on decommissioning as the foundations are removed. The reversible
nature of these disturbances means that, even in the case of large arrays as in the BTA, the
impacts are generally seen to have little importance (though high magnitude). (Hammar,
2014)
ARs are notably different from the natural reefs in the site prior to development. Often,
however, these habitats are specific to certain organisms which may alter the natural
ecosystem on site, either reducing or increasing the biodiversity (both of which can be
considered a negative impact). Such negative consequences may be an increased number of
predators, therefore higher predation on native species. The importance has been considered
medial in some instances to incorporate this. Cabling is also seen to attract predators, but has
no direct effect on benthic communities.
>Fish
The Open Hydro turbine which is proposed for the BTA project has a large open centre
which allows for marine life to pass through. Collision of fish with tidal turbines is often

57
specific to species (similarly to birds with wind turbines) and, while fish generally travel at
slower speeds, they also have reduced visibility therefore there is a high uncertainty as to
whether or not collision may occur. (Wilhelmsson & Langhamer, 2014) The BTA device has
a slow rotational speed and wide enough blades held in a casing such that there is minimal
risk for fish and other marine life.
Open hydro states that:
“The design avoids the use of oils, greases or other lubricating fluids that could present a
pollution risk. Tests have also confirmed that the unit produces very low levels of
mechanical noise.” (OpenHydro, 2015)
It should be acknowledged that while the device is designed to be low-noise, the
construction, maintenance and decommissioning phases will still be of impact to fish,
seabirds and marine mammals. While the installation usually would not directly impact fish
other than noise effects, the possibility that the BTA may destroy two shipwrecks makes a
more significant impact – derelict vessels often provide sheltered habitats for fish and other
marine life, and so destroying these vessels essentially destroys a habitat which is unusual in
the Pentland Firth. This is taken into account in the Leopold matrix. (Wilhelmsson &
Langhamer, 2014)
Therefore, it can be concluded that the impacts on fish are limited to altered habitats and
noise from installation, maintenance and decommissioning phases. This is comparatively
minimal compared with other offshore development projects.
>Marine mammals
Alongside harbour seals, the following cetaceans share the area in which the BTA is
proposed:
• Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena*
• Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata
• Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus
• Killer whale Orcinus orca
• Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus
• White-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris
• Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas*
• Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus
• Short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis
*year-long occupants, all other species are seasonal.
(SSE Renewables, OpenHydro, 2013)

58
However, the Pentland Firth in particular has the lowest cetacean count in the surrounding
waters. For other marine mammals, such as seals, the count falls in the mid-low range.
(Marine Scotland, 2016) The relevant impacts of the turbine type on marine life with regards
to safety, noise and contaminants are as detailed in the previous section regarding fish.
Underwater noise in particular is commonly an issue for marine mammals, and elevated
noise levels are proven to lead to chronic stress in such animals. (Hammar, 2014) Tidal
energy devices are considerably louder than offshore wind power and most wave power
devices, and are noted to be ‘audible (but not harmful) to many marine animals’. The
OpenHydro turbine is designed to produce ‘very low levels of mechanical noise’.
Quantitative data on the relative noise level of the OpenHydro turbine is currently not
available.
Marine mammals also suffer from impacts which arise from the subsea transmission cabling.
The BTA project’s cabling method has not yet been decided, but is likely to be of the high-
voltage AC (HVAC) variety, similar to the cables which currently connect the nearby islands
to the Orkney mainland. These HVAC cables prove to have more of an impact than DC
cables, and weak electromagnetic fields will be apparent for several meters above the cable
housing. There is little scientific evidence of the impact of these fields, other than a few
instances of disturbed migration and increased attraction of predators. The impact is
therefore considered low magnitude, but medial importance. (Hammar, 2014)
Despite the aforementioned passage for marine life, the risk of collision must still be
included. This has low likelihood, but high importance and magnitude due to public
perception of marine mammals.
>Marine Birds
The north-west corner of the proposed project site overlaps with designated Special
Protection Areas (SPAs). These specific SPAs concern three protected species’ habitats:
Horse Mussel beds, Maerl beds and the Black Guillemot. The area which overlaps only
concerns the Black Guillemot. (JNCC; SNH; Marine Scotland, 2011) These birds are known
to prey on benthos, but reside in shallow waters and rarely venture far from shore. (gov.scot,
2012) Marine Scotland (2016) suggests that, during breeding season, the risk of such birds
colliding with tidal energy devices is low-medium, and low in the winter season. Therefore,
though of medial/high magnitude and importance, the impact will be very unlikely when
regarding the tidal energy devices and marine environment.

59
Alterations to the coastal environment, such as cabling to an onshore substation may impact
these birds, but the search area for the location of both these aspects fall out-with the
protection area.
>Aquatic Plants
There is no information available concerning the species of plant life, if any, on the floor of
the Pentland Firth. If plant life exists, its destruction will be on a similar level to benthos
destruction. Further investigation would be necessary to make an accurate judgement.
Socio-economic (Cultural)
>Conflict of Uses
Fishing
Between 15 and 27 people are employed as fishermen in the area surrounding the BTA,
however it appears that no fishing activities actually take place in the Pentland Firth.
(Marine Scotland, 2012) Many of the species of fish which are present in the proposed area
are identified as requiring conservation by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP),
which – alongside the turbulent conditions – possibly explains the lack of fishing activities.
There are opposing impacts with respect to availability for fishing following development of
the BTA, as discussed subsequently.
Fishing – loss of grounds
Trawling and gillnetting would be difficult and ultimately too dangerous on the development
site. Therefore there is essentially a loss of fishing grounds – considered a negative impact
for the local fishing industry. However, the intensity of fishing in the Pentland Firth is
extraordinarily low so the impacts are of minimal importance. (Marine Scotland, 2016)
Fishing –change in species abundance
Conversely, there is evidence that the habitats created around arrays of tidal devices give rise
to species population increase. It is expected that the abundant species will proceed to move
out-with the development zone. Therefore quantities of fish near site boundaries may be

60
more so than the current baseline. Essentially, protecting an area in a similar fashion to a
Marine Protected Area (MPA), disallowing fishing has been seen to:
“…on average result in doubled species density, tripled biomass and increase size of
individuals and species diversity relative to unprotected areas.” (Wilhelmsson & Langhamer,
2014)
Therefore, a positive impact on fishing is also apparent, though the importance remains low.
Transit Barrier (Shipping, Fishing and Navigation)
While there is essentially no fishing practiced in the Pentland Firth area, increased traffic
from the ports for offshore installation, maintenance and decommissioning will conflict with
other offshore transit including fishing boats travelling to other locations. Safety around the
site can only be ensured by creating alternative routes for existing transit in the area, the
resulting significance of which is unknown. (SSE Renewables, OpenHydro, 2013) Though
this impact is less frequent in maintenance, it is also less predictable and manageable. This is
considered of high magnitude due to the strain on small ports, and medial importance to the
community.
The devices themselves are said to be safe to boat over, however with turbulence and risks of
capsizing this would have to be advised against. Additionally, surface-level indicators (as
required by the Royal Yachting Association (RYA)) would present further obstruction. This
has a lower impact than port usage, but is by no means negligible.
Recreation
It is stated in the scoping report that:
“The waters around Orkney are regularly utilised for various types of recreation; particularly
sailing, sea kayaking, surfing, kite boarding, angling, diving, power boating and other boat
based activities. Sailing, diving and angling are important contributors to the local economy
and draw large numbers of visitors to the islands throughout the year.”
Therefore this issue is of high magnitude and importance to the community.
From the Spatial Planning document, it seems that the areas assigned to these activities do
not conflict with the assigned project area. However, one recreational sailing route passes
near to the south east border. The proposed site is also located near one RYA sailing area,

61
and given the turbulent conditions it is fair to assume the yachts may deviate from the route
on occasion. Care will therefore have to be taken to ensure navigational safety.
The RYA asserts that compliance with project ESs will be ensured given that sufficient
measures have been taken to guarantee navigational safety; optimised location; plans for
decommissioning, and consultation is made between proponents and the RYA. The core risk
is ultimately collision between device structures and recreational craft. Although this is
unlikely (as there is a clearance of approximately 30-50m between the device and water
surface), it is necessary to account for potential risks such as crew falling overboard and
boats capsizing. For these reasons, RYA requires the proponents to make emergency
response and risk management plans which are specific to the tidal development site. These
are required by the RYA for any development in the 12-nautical-mile limit, which the
entirety of the Pentland Firth is within. (RYA, 2015) (Marine Scotland, 2016)
Ministry of Defence
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has little known activity in Orkney waters. Arial activity is
known to be over the relevant sites, but would not be affected by the development.
Currently, the Pentland first classified as having ‘medium’ risk of interfering with military
practices. Consultation would need to be undertaken between proponents and the MOD
before making impact decisions. (Marine Scotland, 2016)
Future Developments
There is evidence which suggests that the extraction of energy from a tidal stream may
effectively impede the amount of energy available for extraction further downstream, which
in turn may reduce the energy available for other projects. However, this is seen less so in
channels than in open shelf sea and is negligible in the case of the BTA (see also previous
section ‘Hydrodynamics’ discussing energy extraction in sediment deposition). Additionally,
the BTA may cause issues with future development projects where cumulative impact
assessment shows that the projects together results in project rejection. On decommissioning
in 25 years, many BTA impacts will be reversed. As there are no other projects planned in
this particular location, and it takes time for such projects to be planned, approved and
constructed, this impact is negligible.
Positively, the BTA – as the first commercial-scale tidal stream project – is essentially
proof-of-concept for future tidal stream developments. If the project proves successful, it

62
will provide the basis for evaluations on future projects. If the project proves unsuccessful,
other projects will have the opportunity to ‘learn from its mistakes’. There is therefore a net
positive impact for future projects.
>Economy
Local
The economy in Orkney is perhaps the most complex of impact-able conditions. While SSE
perceives the project as an opportunity which will create ‘new jobs, new infrastructure and
[will enhance] sustainable development of the region’, there is some controversy over other
economic aspects. Tourism, for example, contributes massively to the local economy, and
may be influenced majorly by the project, in both negative and positive senses: on one hand,
tourism may boom due to the added point of interest, but it may also fall as the perception of
wilderness decreases.
Another interesting economic contributor with relation to tourism is the potentially
‘increased pressure on temporary accommodation’. This brings conflicting impacts – money
spent on workers’ accommodation may provide for what would otherwise have been vacant,
or if the accommodation would usually be entirely occupied by tourists, less money would
be spent on tourist attractions during the days where workers replace tourists. (SSE
Renewables, OpenHydro, 2013) It is estimated that the gross value added (GVA) in the local
community as a result of this project totals to £330M (SSE Renewables, 2016 ) - though
there is little discussion on the source of this value. As this is the only evidence, the impacts
are identified as net positive, with high magnitudes in installation, maintenance and
decommissioning phases due to increased use of accommodation which will be balanced by
low frequencies. The impacts during operational phases are medial as ultimately money will
be brought to the community, but this is balanced somewhat by unpredictable tourism
income.
National
Ultimately, with regards to the expansion of renewable energy, the Brims Tidal Array has
potential to be a major contributor to the national economy. Tidal stream arrays are cheaper
than tidal barrage or lagoon developments due to the respective infrastructure costs, and so
comparatively an economic means of sustainable generation. (Draper, 2011) As the BTA is
the first commercial-scale tidal development, it will essentially be exemplar for the

63
expansion of tidal energy worldwide, creating approximately 1200 jobs nationally during its
lifecycle.
Fanning et al. demonstrated the economic benefits of installing tidal stream arrays in terms
of the national GVA. In the case of Wales, it is seen that in the installation and
decommissioning phases the GVA is c. £1M/MW, whereas in the operation phase a tidal
stream array may contribute c. £30M/MW to the national economy. (Fanning, et al., 2014)
>Other
Archaeology
Two ship wrecks are known to be in the location proposed for the array, and two further in
the area in which cables may be laid. (SSE Renewables, OpenHydro, 2013) The turbulent
nature of the area suggests that these wrecks are not well preserved, but while the wrecks are
of minimal archaeological value, their destruction may have biological impacts as previously
discussed (see section on Fish in Biotic conditions). Destruction of the wrecks is seen to be
of high importance (as irreversible) but very low magnitude and frequency.
Perception
Currently, the proposed location may be seen to locals and visitors as a wild or remote area,
especially if they are unaware of the surrounding EMEC practices. Perception may therefore
change to recognise this seemingly remote landscape as an industrial area. The consequences
of such a perceptual change may be negative (destruction of wilderness) or positive
(symbolic of growth and sustainability). (SSE Renewables, OpenHydro, 2013)
Fanning et al. (Fanning, et al., 2014) also discussed the different perceptions depending on
locality – while the national view showed a majority ‘openness to renewables’ (especially
with preference to tidal projects above onshore generation), the local communities showed
some opposition.
The success of the EMEC in this area suggests that the local communities are supportive of
the developments and so a net positive impact has been assigned to this condition. This is of
medial magnitude due to the possibility of conflicting perceptions, but high importance as
public acceptance is vital to success of the project.

64
Visual Impact
Visual impacts will be apparent in the installation, maintenance and decommissioning phases
(where maintenance requires re-float of the device). In such cases, the device, measuring
20m in diameter, will be visible from Hoy to the North, and the Scottish mainland to the
South. In operational phases, there will be minimal visual impact as the devices will be
approximately 30-50m below the surface of the water. There may, however, be lights or
indicators of its location for navigational and safety purposes. (SSE Renewables,
OpenHydro, 2013)
Noise
Noise impacts will inevitably occur as a result of industrial work during the installation,
maintenance and decommissioning phases of the project. During the operational phase,
underwater noise from the rotation of the turbine is expected. The effects of noise on marine
life are included in the quantification of biotic impacts, and not taken into account in this
section.
Regarding socio-economic factors, noise will be primarily from vessel activity and
construction work. This is of slightly higher magnitude than the baseline, as shipping in the
Pentland Firth is already apparent. However, it is considered of low importance as it is
normal in this location to have EMEC construction work and shipping. The impacts will be
minimal but not negligible.
Socio-economic (Corporate)
The proponents and corporations that are involved directly in the project will be liable for
any shortcomings of the project. Therefore they also have to take possible risks into account,
which includes impacts that are likely to have been scoped out of an EIA. Such indefinite
impacts are usually not mentioned in an EIA despite their relevance to the environment and
especially social impacts.
Risks are most often corporate factors, resulting from poor planning, inadequate staff
training or unpredictable circumstances, and are most likely to occur in the installation,
maintenance and decommissioning phases. For example, turbulent conditions (which are
very likely in the Pentland Firth) may cause swinging of the device or equipment on cranes,

65
likely to cause injury, or may imbalance the vessel leading to capsizing; increased traffic in
the ports will increase likelihood of collision, and increased workforce may result in
overcrowding and illness. All these factors are included in the matrices and detailed below.
>Personnel safety
The safety of the workforce is only an issue in the installation, maintenance and
decommissioning phases. The need for maintenance will be rare due to the simple design of
the turbine, with no gearboxes, oils or lubricants. (Emera & OpenHydro, 2015) The
turbines themselves have specialised transport vessels, and they may be installed and
retrieved from their foundations in a matter of hours and have specific safety conditions. For
these reasons, the probability scores are very low for all workforce-related impacts.
Illness
Illness among workers may arise as a result of three key factors:
1) Change in surroundings (motion sickness; change in air or water quality);
2) Overcrowding on ships (air quality; poor hygiene), and/or
3) Stress induced illness from demanding work.
(Lazakis & Turan, 2011)
Illness cannot be controlled and is difficult to foresee. Proper vessel sanitary procedures
must be upheld to minimise illness among the workforce.
Injury & Fatality
There are many circumstances in which injury to the workforce may occur at any point in the
installation, maintenance and decommissioning phases. For example, this can be from
dropped/swinging equipment, or movement/imbalance of the vessel when lowering or
removing the device from the water in any of these stages. The conditions in the Pentland
Firth also give rise to many opportunities for injury that would be expected in turbulent and
deep waters, such as workmen falling overboard, cargo shifting, collisions and flooding.
(Altran, 2011) These impacts are scored with high magnitudes and high importance as
human life will universally be considered more important than the development project, thus
impacting the project’s viability. While these impacts are severe, they are also comparatively
unlikely.

66
>Device
Risks which may result in the project not meeting expected standards are given high
magnitude and importance scores as they may result in total failure of the project from all
perspectives. If the project does not, for example, generate as much as it is expected, the
environmental impacts will have been for less benefit, and so the project and its developers
will lose the trust and respect of the affected communities. It is therefore crucial that
measures are taken to absolutely minimise the chance of reduced efficiency.
Operation (damages, wear & tear)
Damage to the device is most likely to occur through incorrect handling and unexpected
collisions. For example, if incorrect handling equipment is used then the device may swing
and collide with another vessel; if the water is turbulent, the device may have high impact
with the water. Any such incident is likely to result in damage to the device, affecting
efficiency and in turn project viability.
Further damages to the device may occur during the operational phases, such as bio-fouling
on blades (the blades acting as an AR causing imbalance and resistance to movement) and
corrosion from particles carried in the water, worsened by the water salinity. (Bratt, 2010) &
(Altran, 2011)
Efficiency
Efficiency of the device may be affected by the aforementioned damages, but also by poor
design choices such as materials and coatings. The choice, for example, of BTA not to use
lubricants may result in reduced efficiency (though is more environmentally sound). Tides
which are more (or considerably less) powerful than expected may also result in over-
exertion of the device with no increased generation, resulting again in reduced efficiency
over time.
Foundation damage
The foundation may be damaged firstly as a result of erosion. This is likely to occur due to
both the turbulent conditions and the salinity of the water, and may result in instability of the
device allowing it to move or rotate marginally thus affecting efficiency. The foundations for
the BTA must be designed in such a way that erosion will be minimised, and instead it acts
and a new habitat for benthos creatures which will, in turn, protect from corrosion. Partial

67
burial from sediment movement is also possible, and may cause complications when
retrieving the foundations in decommissioning. (Bratt, 2010)
A further risk would be the possibility of the seabed collapsing resulting in total loss of the
foundation and perhaps also the device. Though incredibly unlikely, this would be of great
impact and result in irreparable damage; a loss of finances and time, and partial failure of the
project.
***
Other corporate conditions which are not included in the matrices are ‘Finances’ and
‘Time’. These are both major considerations in planning a development project such as this,
and may be impacted by any factor at any stage.
>Finances
Finances are at risk throughout the entire project, as the project not only has a high capital,
but there are also many opportunities for changes to the plan at later stage which will
ultimately increase expenditure. Beyond usual risks, as the project is the first of its kind there
is also the risk that unforeseen circumstances result in reduced output and devaluation.
(Altran, 2011)
>Time
Ultimately, mistakes and other unforeseen circumstances (e.g. Seabed collapse, turbulent
water, poorly positioned device) will take time to rectify. This time will in turn delay the
project, postponing profits and increasing expenditure on equipment and workers’ wages.
Increasing the project’s timeframe unexpectedly will per perceived by the public as shoddy
planning, the projects viability will be questioned and in turn may cause issues for future
developments.

68
Appendix C – Defining Probability Quantification Values
Quantification values were determined with relation to the project scale, similarly to Lazakis
& Turin (2011). This takes into account several variables:
 The number of devices in the project (N = 200)
 The operational lifetime of the project (T = 25 years)
The possible time for which something may impact this project (D) can be calculated in
months as:
D = 12*T*N = 6000
This can be used to create a coefficient of probability (P):
P = 1/D = 0.0000167
This value is essentially the period for which a risk or impact is in effect. It can therefore be
scaled appropriately for each category, the reasoning for each as described for each category
below.
Category 1
Description Occurs only once or twice in project lifetime.
Reasoning P*2 to emphasise on worst-case scenario (occurs twice)
Quantification 0.0000167*2 = 0.0000333
Category 2
Description Occurs approximately every 1/10 devices in project lifetime OR
approximately once per year.
Reasoning P*((0.1*200)+25)/2
Quantification 0.0000167*22.5 = 0.000375
Category 3
Description Occurs once per device in project lifetime.
Reasoning P*200
Quantification 0.0000167*200 = 0.00333

69
Category 4
Description Occurs once per device per year.
Reasoning P*25*200
Quantification 0.0000167*25*200 = 0.08333
Category 5
Description Occurs seasonally (three months per year OR equivalent).
Reasoning P*25*200*3
Quantification 0.0000167*25*200*3 = 0.25
Category 6
Description Constant impact (twelve months per year).
Reasoning P*25*200*12
Quantification 0.0000167*25*200*12 = 1

70
Appendix D – Suggestions for Mitigation and Contingency
Condition Impact Possible Mitigation/Control Measures
Coastal Geology Destabilising seabed
structure; Seabed
collapse
Avoided. The devices should be built on
grounds which will withstand their weight.
This can only be assured with sufficient
surveillance and geological testing.
Hydrodynamics
(& Salinity)
Reduced chemical
exchanges; Sediment
build-up on
foundations
Reduced. Ensure minimal impact via
Environmental Monitoring. Regular checks
around foundations should be carried out to
ensure there is no serious build up.
Water Quality Pollution by
chemical or oil spills
from vessels
Avoided. Proper control measures to ensure no
chemical spills occur. In the case where spills
do occur, these should be cleared immediately
if possible.
Air Quality Air pollution from
increased vessel
activity
Reduced. Several maintenance procedures
should occur simultaneously at scheduled
times to minimise offshore transport.
Regardless, there will ultimately be a net
positive impact on air quality.
Benthos Initial habitat
destruction; Removal of
foundation (habitat
destruction)
Habitat changes will be reversed on
decommissioning. The possibility of updating
legislation regarding offshore dumping may be
worth investigating. In the UK it is illegal to
leave any offshore structure in place on
decommissioning. If the UK were to reflect,
for example, the US legislation on
decommissioning, an environmental
assessment may suggest that it is more
environmentally sound to leave support

71
structures in place given that they demonstrate
an artificial habitat which promotes
biodiversity more so than the natural habitat it
replaced. This would, however, inhibit future
projects in this location.
Fish Collision risks; Habitat
changes
Avoided (or at least reduced) by the turbine
design. The open-centre turbine is designed to
allow safe passage of fish and has low
mechanical noise. Fish Aggregation Devices
(FADs) may be used to detract fish from the
area for short periods of time, such as during
installation and maintenance procedures.
decommissioning.
Marine
Mammals
Collision risks; Habitat
changes
Avoided (or at least reduced) by the turbine
design. The open-centre turbine is designed to
allow safe passage of marine mammals up to
10m width and has low mechanical noise.
None of the local species exceed this
dimension.
decommissioning.
Marine Birds Activity near breeding
grounds therefore
disruption
Reduced. Installation, maintenance and
decommissioning procedures should be
scheduled out-with breeding seasons if
possible.
Aquatic Plants Habitat changes Habitat changes will be reversed on
decommissioning.

72
Socio-economic (Cultural)
CONFLICTOFUSES Fishing Loss of
grounds/prohibited
at project site
Compensated. Increased species abundance
near but out-with designated project area.
Transit Barrier
(Shipping,
Fishing and
Navigation)
Overuse of ports;
Restrictions at
project location
Reduced. Impacts reduced via thorough
planning and management of the ports,
especially Longhope and Lyness, thus
minimising strain on the local communities.
Surface level indicators are necessary for
navigational safety so cannot be removed, and
may be a non-negotiable transit barrier.
Recreation Limitations on
transit over project
location; increased
activity around
ports; prohibited
recreational activity
at project location
Reduced/Compensated/Enhanced. Risks are
reduced by navigational safety procedures as
described by the RYA. In many cases, projects
compensate for this by funding new
recreational facilities. This has not yet been
investigated for the BTA project, but
recreation may benefit from, for example,
improvement of the ports; improved transport
facilities to/from the port, and/or other
recreational developments (such as beach huts,
jetties and information points).
Ministry of
Defence
Limited activity at
project location
Consultation with the MOD will be necessary.
Future
Developments
Influence from
project
Avoided/Reversed/Enhanced. On
decommissioning the area should be
geologically the same as before the
development. All equipment will be removed
and no resource will be exhausted. Ultimately,
BTA will provide guidance for future
commercial-scale tidal stream projects.
Local Creation of jobs;
increased/decreased
Recreational enhancement measures may boost
tourism, contrasting with the possible loss of

73
spending on tourist
facilities
interest (related to destruction of ‘wilderness’
perception). Workers may be granted expenses
to increase local spending. Furthermore, if the
work is well publicised and plans are
transparent, it is more likely to be accepted
locally.
ECONOMY
National Creation of jobs;
contribution of
renewable energy to
national grid.
N/A
Archaeology Destruction of
shipwrecks
Avoided. It is expected that, following further
surveying of the areas, the wreck areas will be
avoided.
OTHER
Perception Conflicting opinions While perception balances with conflicting
views, it may become a net-positive impact
given enhancement measures. It is common for
projects to enhance education in its local
communities through schools and exhibitions.
Furthermore, by publicising the positive local
impacts (other than climate change) the local
perception may be improved further. In the
case of the most negatively impacted local
people (fishermen, port users), monetary
compensation may be the most appropriate
means of mitigation.

74
Visual Impact Lights (indicators)
during operation;
device visible when
above surface
Indication of the project location is necessary
for navigational safety. Major visual impacts
occur during the installation, maintenance and
decommissioning stages when the device is
above the surface and therefore visible. The
only possible way to reduce this impact would
be to schedule such works out-with tourism
seasons, and during regular working times
where fewest people are near the surrounding
coastal areas.
Noise Noise from
industrial work and
increased traffic
impacting Orkney
communities
Reduced. Work should be scheduled only at
appropriate times, as in ‘visual impact’.
Socio-economic (Corporate)
PERSONNELSAFETY
Illness Poor employee
livelihood; may lead
to several sicknesses
therefore delay in the
timescale of proposed
work.
Avoided. Stress illnesses avoided via set rest
schedules and sufficient staffing. Other
illnesses (such as from food and hygiene)
avoided through regular testing of drinking
water and air quality, alongside maintained
cleanliness on-board vessels. Policies should
be in place regarding drugs and alcohol. Time
delays should be accounted for at planning
stages.
Injury Poor employee
livelihood; delay in
the timescale of
proposed work.
Many circumstances may lead to injury or
fatality among the crew.
To avoid injury through use of equipment,
employees should be experienced (and/or
qualified) in using the relevant tools andFatality Poor employee

75
livelihood; delay in
the timescale of
proposed work;
changed perception of
development.
machinery. They should be adequately
managed, following appropriate plans and
procedures, with enough scheduled breaks to
ensure no mistakes are made due to tiredness.
Tools and machinery should be regularly
inspected and suited to the intended work.
Good housekeeping and daily inspections
should ensure no minor injuries occur, and risk
assessments should be carried out for each
individual task. Fire safety precautions should
also be in place.
Vessel instability may arise from both
on-board weighting and turbulent conditions,
and could result in injury of the workforce
from shifting equipment or falling overboard.
An appropriate loading sequence will help
balance the vessel, and further plans should be
made for when the device/foundations/cabling
are removed on installation (and obtained in
decommissioning). There should be a plan in
place for turbulent sea conditions, and weather
predictions should be considered before
procedures begin. The specialised transport
and installation vessel should also minimise
these risks.
Collisions should be avoided through correct
marine spatial planning, constant ‘look-out’ for
other vessels and sufficient communication
through radio and navigational lights.
Time delays should be accounted for at
planning stages.
DEVICE
Operation
(damages)
Reduced efficiency;
loss of financial
viability; failure of
Avoided. Crane operators should be qualified
and experienced in turbulent sea conditions to
minimise impact with water, ensure minimal

76
project. impact when placing on foundations and, most
importantly, avoid impact with the vessel. All
these impacts are mitigated by the use of the
specialised vessel.
Efficiency
(wear & tear)
Reduced efficiency;
loss of financial
viability; failure of
project.
The device model has been tested and deemed
durable enough for a 25 year lifecycle.
Maintenance may be necessary to
clean/unblock blades on occasion.
If a device appears to be over-exerting itself, a
control system should be in place to slow/stop
the blades when necessary (including in
emergencies).
Foundation
damage
Reduced efficiency;
complications on
decommissioning;
seabed collapse; loss
of financial viability;
failure of project.
Bio-fouling on the foundations is inevitable
and should theoretically protect from major
corrosion. The foundations should be checked
periodically for any damages which may
reduce efficiency of the device.
OTHER
Finances Unforeseen
circumstances due to
novelty of
commercial-scale
tidal developments.
The BTA project has reduced its financial risks
by splitting the project into two stages. This
begins with a 60MW instalment which will
then increase to 200MW only if successful.
This way, any financial losses will be
minimised.
Time More time needed to
rectify any unforeseen
circumstances.
The likelihood of delay should be factored into
the planning stages, such that the project may
finish earlier than the public expects, building
trust between proponents and communities.
Or, if the project is delayed further, the impact
is reduced.

77
Appendix E – Turnitin Originality Report

FinalThesis_WithTurnitin_x2

More Related Content

Similar to FinalThesis_WithTurnitin_x2 (20)

FinalThesis_WithTurnitin_x2