alcatel submarine network - aqua commsaquacomms.com/wp-content/themes/aquacomms/eia... · alcatel...

Intertek Energy & Water Consultancy Services Exchange House, Station Road, Liphook, Hampshire GU30 7DW, United Kingdom

P2228_R4693_Rev0 | July 2019

ALCATEL SUBMARINE NETWORK

Havhingsten Fibre Optic Telecommunications Cable

Volume 1 - Non-technical summary Isle of Man

Intertek Energy & Water Consultancy Services Exchange House, Station Road, Liphook, Hampshire GU30 7DW, United Kingdom

P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

ALCATEL SUBMARINE NETWORKS

Havhingsten Environmental Statement ‐ Isle of Man Non‐Technical Summary

Alcatel Submarine Networks Havhingsten Environmental Statement - Isle of Man Environmental Statement - Isle of Man Non-Technical Summary

I P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

Alcatel Submarine Networks P2228_R4784_Rev0

Havhingsten Environmental Statement - Isle of Man

Non-Technical Summary

Author/s Charlie Cameron

Project Manager Authoriser

pp Patricia Adams Anna Farley

Rev No Date Reason Author Checker Authoriser

Rev 0 30/07/2019 For Issue CC EH ALF

Intertek Energy & Water Consultancy Services is the trading name of Metoc Ltd, a member of the Intertek group of companies.

DOCUMENT RELEASE FORM

Alcatel Submarine Networks Havhingsten Environmental Statement ‐ Isle of Man Environmental Statement ‐ Isle of Man Non‐Technical Summary

II P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

DOCUMENT RELEASE FORM I

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Project 1

1.2 Project Need 4

2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES 5 2.1 Introduction 5

2.2 Connection options 5

2.3 Landing options 6

2.4 Marine route selection 9

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 11 3.1 Introduction 11

3.2 Indicative marine installation programme 11

3.3 Pre‐installation works 12

3.4 Installation operations 12

3.5 Connection to the cable landing station 13

3.6 Operation and emissions 13

3.7 Cable maintenance and repair (post‐installation) 13

3.8 Decommissioning 14

3.9 Embedded mitigation 14

4. APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT 16 4.1 Environmental impact assessment guidance 16

4.2 Method of environmental assessment 16

4.3 Screening for environmental impact assessment 16

5. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 18 5.1 Physical Conditions and Marine Processes 18

5.2 Intertidal and Benthic Ecology 20

5.3 Fish & Shellfish 21

5.4 Birds 22

CONTENTS


III P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

5.5 Marine Mammals and Reptiles 23

5.6 Nature Conservation 24

5.7 Commercial Fisheries 25

5.8 Shipping and Navigation 26

5.9 Offshore Infrastructure and Other Marine Users 27

5.10 Marine Archaeology 28

6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 30 6.1 Methodology 30

6.2 CEA Results 31

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 32


IV P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

Tables Table 6‐1 Projects within 10km of the Project for consideration within the CEA 30

Figures Figure 1‐1 Havhingsten telecommunication cable ‐ proposed route (DWG P2228‐LOC‐001) 2

Figure 1‐2 Havhingsten telecommunication cable ‐ Isle of Man route (P2228‐LOC‐002) 3

Figure 2‐1 Landing options considered 7

Figure 2‐2 Port Erin landfall option 8

Figure 2‐3 Port Grenaugh landfall option 9

Figure 2‐4 Castletown landfall option 9

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES


1 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

1. INTRODUCTION This document presents the Non‐Technical Summary (NTS) of the supporting Environmental Statement (ES) which documents the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and conclusions as carried out in support of an Application for Authorisation under the Submarine Cables Act 2003 for the installation of the Havhingsten fibre optic telecommunication cable (hereafter referred to as ‘Havhingsten cable’) within Isle of Man waters. It has been prepared by Intertek Energy & Water Consultancy Services (Intertek) on behalf of Alcatel Submarine Networks (ASN) and Aqua Comms.

1.1 The Project The Havhingsten Telecommunication cable is an open cable system that will span more than 940km linking Isle of Man (IOM), Ireland (IRE), United Kingdom (UK) and Denmark (DK). The cable will connect to data centres within each jurisdiction which will allow access to telecommunication companies and internet service providers assisting with data speeds and increased capacity.

The marine elements of the Havhingsten cable are proposed to cross the Irish Sea from Loughshinny (north of Dublin in Ireland) to Squires Gate Lane (south of Blackpool on the west coast of the UK). Two marine cable route branches from the Irish Sea section to the IOM are included in the Havhingsten cable system to offer separate routes at two distinct landing points at Port Erin and Port Grenaugh (Figure 1‐2, DWG P2228‐LOC‐002). The marine cable route will then continue from Seaton Sluice (on the east coast of the UK), to Houstrup (on the west coast of the Jutland peninsular in Denmark) (Figure 1‐1, DWG P2228‐LOC‐001). The total length of the cable (including both branches) within IOM territorial waters is approximately 75km. A 500m wide corridor is being applied for along this length. The fibre optic cable will occupy up to 40‐49mm width of the seabed following installation.

The ES covers the IOM marine component of the proposed cable route from mean high water springs (MHWS) at landing sites at Port Erin and Port Grenaugh in the south of the Island to the UK/IOM median line. As part of the same project, separate permits and consent are being sought from the Irish, UK and Danish authorities for sections of the Havhingsten cable within their jurisdictions.

HAVHIN

GSTEN

TELECO

MMUN

ICATIO

NS CAB

LEROU

TE OVER

VIEW

Chris G

oode

Emma La

ngley

Wedne

sday, Ju

ne 5, 20

19 15:2

1:41WG

S_1984

_UTM_

Zone_3

0N

D_WGS_

1984

UKHO; D

CCAE; C

DA; ESR

I; ASN

WGS_1

984

NOTE:

Not to

be use

d for Na

vigation

Service

Layer C

redits:

Esri, Ga

rmin, G

EBCO, N

OAA NG

DC, and

other c

ontribu

tors; Co

ntains

public s

ector i

nforma

tion, lic

ensed u

nder th

e Open

Gover

nment

Licenc

e v2.0, f

rom the

UKHO

, 2018.

; © Co

pyright

Depar

tment o

f Comm

unicati

ons, Cli

mate A

ction an

d Enviro

nment

(DCCAE

); Cont

ains dat

a from

UKOG

D;

Paula D

aglish

0 0

500000

500000

100000

0

100000

0

5500000

5500000

6000000

6000000

6500000

6500000

Legend H

avhings

ten Cab

le Rout

e12n

m Terri

torial S

ea Limit

Median

Line

050

100150

200km

© Meto

c Ltd, 2

019.

All righ

ts rese

rved.

J:\P222

8\Mxd\

01_LOC

\P22

28-LOC

-001.m

xdCre

ated B

yRev

iewed B

y

Date

Project

ion

Datum

Data So

urce

File Ref

erence

Sphero

id

Approv

ed ByDra

wing N

o: P222

8-LOC-0

01A

HAVHIN

GSTEN

TELECO

MMUN

ICATIO

NS CAB

LEROU

TE OVER

VIEW

Isle of

Man R

oute

Chris G

oode

Emma La

ngley

Thursda

y, April

11, 201

9 08:2

0:55WG

S_1984

_UTM_

Zone_3

0N

D_WGS_

1984

UKHO; D

CCAE; C

DA; Ma

rineFind

; ASN

WGS_1

984

NOTE:

Not to

be use

d for Na

vigation

Contain

s public

sector

informa

tion, lic

ensed u

nder th

e Open

Gover

nment

Licenc

e v2.0, f

rom the

UKHO,

2018.;

Contain

s data f

rom UK

OGD; C

harts fr

om Ma

rineFIN

D.co.u

k © Cro

wn Cop

yright,

2015. A

ll right

s reser

ved. Li

cence N

o: EK00

1-1001

-WEB10

5. Not t

o be us

ed for N

avigatio

n.

Paula D

aglish

375000

375000

400000

400000

5975000

5975000

6000000

6000000

Legend H

avhings

ten Cab

le Rout

e12n

m Terri

torial S

ea Limit

Median

Line

02.5

57.5

10km

© Meto

c Ltd, 2

019.

All righ

ts rese

rved.

J:\P222

8\Mxd\

01_LOC

\P22

28-LOC

-002.m

xdCre

ated B

yRev

iewed B

y

Date

Project

ion

Datum

Data So

urce

File Ref

erence

Sphero

id

Approv

ed ByDra

wing N

o: P222

8-LOC-0

02A


4 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

1.2 Project Need The Isle of Man currently has three telecommunication cables (E‐llan, LANIS and BT) connecting the Island to Northern Ireland and UK. The increasing demand for digital connectivity, high broadband speeds and capacity places high expectation on telecommunication providers. Submarine cable systems do have an end of life, and in order to ensure continuity of next generation carrier class fibre to the IoM and meet demands for an instant and reliable service, improvements are required to telecommunication networks to make them capable of carrying large amounts of data to meet consumer expectations in the future.

Having the correct telecommunication infrastructure in place is essential to meet this ever‐growing need for speed and reliability. Fibre optic cable plays an essential role for meeting data demands and supporting the needs of the web‐scale providers that underpin today’s international cloud industry. The route will not only reduce latency switching time to the USA and Europe but will also enable connectivity for global carriers, cloud‐based networks, data centres, information technology companies and the global media, providing a solution for future growth as well as diversity and continuity for critical national services. The provision of fast and reliable internet connection will support Information and Communication Technologies to foster innovation, economic growth and progress.

The development of IOM telecommunication infrastructure is in line with the IOM Strategic Plan which requires provision to promote sustainable development and “provide services and infrastructure which ensures a better quality of life both now and in the future” (The Cabinet Office 2016). The Havhingsten system, together with existing systems owned and operated by Aqua Comms, will create a resilient, diverse loop‐based system between the US, Ireland, Isle of Man and Europe. Aqua Comms plan to provide a point of presence (POP) for the island at the Cable Landing Station (CLS) location, and work with current and future IOM telecommunication companies on commercial terms for providing capacity as required. The branches to the IOM in this development will provide ‘carrier neutral’ access to European Union (EU) and UK telecommunication networks, allowing interconnection between multiple telecommunication carriers and providers, bringing competitive access from large telecoms providers.

There is increasing demand for high capacity connectivity linking Northern Europe and the Havhingsten project will facilitate this in combination with existing fibre optic routes. Havhingsten will deliver a reliable and resilient connection to support the rise of the European digital economy. For the IOM this will mean highly improved internet connection capable of multi frequency terabits per second, more than 300Tb/s at each landing. It will therefore benefit the socio‐economy of each of the countries in which it lands.


5 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction A full description of the development and alternatives in provided in Chapter 3 of the marine ES. The following sections summarise the key points.

2.2 Connection options A key driver in the Havhingsten cable routing has been to ensure design of an optimal transmission route, enabling reasonable transmission bandwidth with a consideration to minimise signal latency in the system, while taking into consideration environmental sensitivities and stakeholder constraints.

In order to provide an optimum service, the developer has reviewed the existing infrastructure against projected future demands. To enable identification of the most appropriate connection routes, a detailed review of the route was performed to inform the final landing and marine route selection, including the following:

▪ Site visits

▪ Topographic survey

▪ Meetings with local and regional stakeholders

▪ Desktop study of marine route and environmental considerations

▪ Detailed review of marine charts to avoid known obstructions and wrecks

▪ Full marine geophysical and geotechnical survey

▪ Marine environmental survey, including sample analysis

▪ Intertidal survey

▪ Archaeological desktop study

▪ Archaeological review of geophysical survey data

▪ Cable burial assessment

▪ Fisheries desktop study

▪ Fisheries Liaison during all survey operations

Data obtained from the above studies and consultations enabled ASN to engineer the best routes for the Havhingsten cable, selecting optimum landing points in the IOM.

Any obstructions or sensitive areas identified during the survey have been analysed and the route has been micro‐routed to avoid these areas, where possible. Various marine nature reserves (MNRs) exist in IOM waters and it is not possible to avoid these completely. In order to land the cables in the IOM it is necessary to cross the Langness and Port Erin Bay MNR. Care has been taken during the routing phase to minimise impact and care will continue to be taken during the installation phase to protect the seabed and surrounding environment. The route has been engineered to cross these MNRs as directly as possible to minimise the amount of cable within the MNR.

Significant investment has been made regarding diverse landings designed into the system supporting Carrier traffic, ISPs and Data Centres as well as Critical National Services on and off the IoM. Having considered the above information and to ensure Carrier Class service availability as well as optimum


6 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

network performance (thus giving IOM customers the right service continuity), two marine cable route branches to the IOM have been proposed. This will reduce the risk of system traffic disruption / down time in the event of cable fault or damage on one of the branches. The second branch will be able to continue to carry traffic until cable maintenance is possible (which could be a number of months due to weather conditions in winter etc.). The Fronthaul network will utilise a trough running along the railway. This was also chosen to ensure minimal disruption on the island as well and limited impact to the environment and wildlife.

2.3 Landing options Three potential cable landing sites were considered for the IOM (Figure 2‐1). These are Castletown, Port Erin and Port Grenaugh. Landfall site visits were undertaken during the summer of 2018. Following the site visits, subsequent consultation and review of any constraints (i.e. existing infrastructure, protected sites, cultural heritage, access, amenities and other users), ASN selected Port Erin and Port Grenaugh as the preferred locations (Section 2.3.2 and 2.3.3).

HAVHIN

GSTEN

TELECO

MMUN

ICATIO

NS CAB

LEROU

TE EVOL

UTION

Isle of

Man R

oute

Chris G

oode

Emma La

ngley

Monda

y, July 1

5, 2019

16:10

:39WG

S_1984

_UTM_

Zone_3

0N

D_WGS_

1984

Marine

Find; EE

A; ASN;

ESRI;

WGS_1

984

NOTE:

Not to

be use

d for Na

vigation

Charts

from M

arineFIN

D.co.uk

© Cro

wn Cop

yright,

2015. A

ll right

s reserv

ed. Lic

ence N

o: EK00

1-1001

-WEB10

5. Not t

o be us

ed for

Navigat

ion.; ©

Europe

an Envir

onment

Agency

, 2016;

©Esri

Paula D

aglish

Port Er

in

Port Gr

enaugh

Castlet

ownBM

H

380000

380000

390000

390000

400000

400000

5980000

5980000

5990000

5990000

6000000

6000000

Legend C

astleto

wn Lan

ding Site

Option

Havhing

sten Cab

le Rout

e

01

23

4km

© Meto

c Ltd, 2

019.

All righ

ts rese

rved.

J:\P222

8\Mxd\

01_LOC

\P22

28-LOC

-010.m

xdCre

ated B

yRev

iewed B

y

Date

Project

ion

Datum

Data So

urce

File Ref

erence

Sphero

id

Approv

ed ByDra

wing N

o: P222

8-LOC-0

10A


8 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

2.3.2 Port Erin The Port Erin landing site is located within a sheltered bay bordered by the tall cliffs of Bradda Head (to the north). The beach at Port Erin is approximately 500m long with a westerly to north‐westerly aspect with a very gentle slope. It is composed of medium to fine sand with occasional pebbles. The beach is backed by a sea wall promenade and road. A slipway access to the beach runs on to the beach, adjacent to storm drain/river run‐off (Figure 2‐2).

The port area provides a haven behind a sea wall for a small number of small fishing vessels / pleasure craft. The port area partially dries at low tide. The remains of the breakwater and harbour area in the approaches to Port Erin can be easily avoided therefore allowing a straightforward installation operation.

Port Erin offers an excellent technical solution for landing a telecommunication cable allowing a direct shore end operation meaning the cable can be installed directly from the main cable lay vessel. This allows for an efficient shore end installation with minimal disturbance on the beach.

Figure 2‐2 Port Erin landfall option

Note: The above images were taken during site visits. Left – Port Erin beach slipway access looking toward Bradda Head; Right – Port Erin fishing / pleasure craft behind the harbour wall.

2.3.3 Port Grenaugh Port Grenaugh is located on the island’s southeast coast and is a small bay with an entrance width of approximately 100m across at the narrowest point of entry and is bounded by steep rocky cliffs (Figure 2‐3). Port Grenaugh landing point was selected as it offers diversity from the Port Erin; it is a few kilometres away from the Port Erin marine route therefore offering route diversity and an alternative route for traffic in case of cable damage on one of the branches. The narrowness of the bay provides protection from the strong currents and south‐west swell. The Port Grenaugh route lands at the same beach as the existing LANIS cable system and is therefore a proven landing point with good track record due to minimal cable faults during operation and minimal repairs. The experience of landing the LANIS cable has been analysed, including consultation with the asset owner, and lessons learnt will be mitigated by careful installation of the shore end, including manipulation of the cable to shore at the beach landing site.

Based on the installation of LANIS, ASN is proposing additional cable protection at Port Grenaugh in the form of Double Armoured Sheathed (DAS) cable type to reduce the risk of abrasion. ASN has optimised the cable routing to ensure the cable follows natural depressions where possible and avoids seabed features. ASN will also attempt deeper burial at target 1.5m below the seabed to reduce the risk of cable exposure.


9 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

Figure 2‐3 Port Grenaugh landfall option

Note: The above images were taken during site visits. Left – Port Grenaugh beach at low tide; Right – Port Grenaugh beach rock revetment and Grace’s stream

2.3.4 Castletown During visits to the landing site (July 2018), an additional potential landing site was identified at Castletown (Figure 2‐4). Castletown was subsequently not selected to be taken forward for development as it is considered to be more demanding (exposed to strong currents, swell, potential for coastal erosion risk along the beach and additional rock protection requirements within shallower waters on the approach to the landfall). In addition, the distance from the installation vessel to the shore is not direct, requiring a greater distance and the use of divers to install around the rocky outcrops.

Figure 2‐4 Castletown landfall option

Note: The above images were taken during site visits. Left – Castletown beach at low tide; Right – Castletown beach carpark and airport.

2.4 Marine route selection The marine cable routes and project design have been developed and refined through two main stages:

▪ Marine cable route study (CRS) – detailed review of all factors affecting the routing of the cable, including physical, environmental, socioeconomic, and regulatory aspects; and

▪ Marine cable route survey – surveys of the inshore and offshore sections of the route.

2.4.1 Cable route study (CRS) A CRS was produced to inform pre‐survey route planning and marine cable route survey. It provides comprehensive and accurate information for cable engineering, system installation and identification of constraints that may lead to increased maintenance during the 25‐year design life of the Havhingsten system.

As part of the CRS, site visits to all possible landing points were undertaken to gather information and meet with local stakeholders. Consultation has been a key element in the development of the


10 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

Havhingsten cable and has enabled the Havhingsten Project to consider the design of the project to minimise impacts from the installation and has also informed the scope of the ES. The consultation conducted to date is outlined in Section 4.3.2.

Factors considered during route development include seabed sediments, gradients, coastal erosion, currents and tides, fishing intensity and other marine users, restrictions and artificial hazards, territories, environmental designations and security of the jurisdictions through which the cable is to be routed.

2.4.2 Marine cable route survey

2.4.2.1 Marine geophysical and geotechnical survey A marine survey campaign was undertaken (October – November 2018) across a 500m wide corridor, within which the cable is proposed to be installed. The 500m wide corridor was positioned around a centreline for each branch, developed by the cable route study.

The route survey was split into three segments covering the IOM (Figure 1‐2) as follows:

▪ Segment 1.2: Beach Manhole (BMH) Port Erin to Branching Unit (BU) Port Erin 35.3km

▪ Segment 1.3: BU Port Grenaugh to BU Port Erin 27.6km

▪ Segment 1.4: BMH Port Grenaugh to BU Port Grenaugh 31.0km

The marine cable route survey comprised of the use of multibeam echosounder (MBES), side scan sonar, sub bottom profiling, magnetometer, cone penetrometer tests and core sampling. The objective of the campaign was to acquire all appropriate data for the confirmation of the most feasible and economically sound marine cable route, giving the cable the optimum protection. This included detailed mapping of nearshore shallow geological and seabed character; mapping of seabed relief and features along offshore sections; and baseline environmental mapping along the entire route corridor.


11 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 3.1 Introduction

This section provides a description of the marine component of the proposed cable route within IOM waters (from the territorial limit up to the mean high‐water springs (MHWS) at both landing sites, Port Erin and Port Grenaugh). A separate onshore application has been prepared which covers the cable route from the MHWS to the cable landing station (CLS); this will be submitted to the Department of Infrastructure Planning Inspectorate as part of the onshore application. Separate permits are also being sought for Irish, UK and Danish sections of the marine cable route under the relevant national legislation. A high‐level description of the entire route has been provided in the following sections, where necessary, for context.

The section describes the aspects of the project relating to the installation and operation (including repair and maintenance) of the cable.

3.2 Indicative marine installation programme Subject to the award of installation consents, the cable installation is scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter of 2019 and is expected to be operational by the end of 2019. Following installation, the cable is expected to be operational for at least 25‐years.

The exact timing of the landfall works will be dependent upon the offshore works, licensing work permits and conditions that will be part of the project design to limit the potential for impacts on features of conservation interest. Cable landing and use of divers will require to be undertaken in relatively good weather. Table 3‐1 below details the current proposed installation schedule.

Table 3‐1 Current planned cable installation schedule for IOM marine route

Installation activity Estimated timescale Comments

Pre‐installation works (seabed preparation and pre‐lay grapnel run)

4‐5 days EEZ: PLGR operation completed in June 2019. TW: PLGR operation to start before cable installation.

Offshore installation, ploughing and cable lay

10‐12 days ‐

Offshore installation, post‐lay inspection and burial (PLIB)

7‐10 days PLIB at pipelines, power cables, fibre optic cables and final splice locations where plough burial was not performed.

Rock protection material at crossings Post‐lay rock dump 1 day/site

Post‐lay rock dumping at all pipelines/power cables, following cable installation and PLIB.

Shore‐end tie‐in 2‐3 days and up to 7 days post burial nearshore

Shore end to be installed prior to the offshore cable installation.

Seaward duct installation Up to 7 days To be carried out in advance of the shore‐end landing. Expected August & September 2019


12 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

Installation activity Estimated timescale Comments

Beach Manhole (BMH) construction 12‐14 days (curing time is up to 4 weeks after casting)

To be completed after the tourist season. Expected August & September 2019

The system will be operational in IOM once the cable system has been fully installed between Ireland and UK West (Blackpool), with the branch connections completed. Tests will be run on the system to confirm the installation has been successful before the first transmission is made. Following installation, the cable is expected to be operational for at least 25 years.

3.3 Pre‐installation works

3.3.1 Seabed preparation In general, little or no preparation of the seabed is required prior to cable installation. The route centreline has been optimised to avoid large boulders and any smaller boulders will be removed during pre‐installation ploughing.

3.3.2 Pre‐lay grapnel run Prior to the start of marine cable installation, it is essential to ensure the marine cable route is clear of obstructions that may hinder the installation works. This will be achieved by towing a heavy grapnel with a series of specially designed hooks, or grapnels, approximately 1m width and 0.5m – 1m penetration depth (subject to seabed conditions) along the centre line of the cable route by either a work boat or the cable lay vessel. The purpose of the pre‐lay grapnel run is to clear any surface debris that could impact on the cable burial operations, such as lost fishing gear, from the cable route. Debris retained by the grapnel will be collected on board and disposed of appropriately through licensed onshore facilities. The pre‐lay grapnel run will be conducted over the length of the proposed cable route prior to installation commencing at a target rate of 25km per day. The grapnel will not be used within 250m of an existing asset (e.g. third‐party cable or pipeline).

3.4 Installation operations

3.4.1 Cable burial and protection ASN will be installing the Havhingsten cable. It is planned to bury all cables within IOM waters. The target depth for burial is 1.5m below the seabed.

Different cable installation techniques and burial methods can be used depending on geological seabed conditions, water depth and environmental considerations along the cable route, in particular the suitability of seabed soil types (granulometry, cohesiveness, density) and maximum operational soil shear strength. The cable burial assessment indicates that it is expected that the cable in IOM waters will be installed, using a submarine cable plough. However other potential methods of installation that may be required include jetting and trenching within the intertidal areas. The burial progress speed is relatively slow and is normally between 0.5 – 1.0km/hour and subject to seabed type, burial depth and weather (ASN 2018).

3.4.2 Cable landing and nearshore installation

3.4.2.1 Beach manhole (BMH) The BMH is where the interface, the beach joint, between the marine cable and the terrestrial cable will be permanently housed. At both Port Erin and Port Grenaugh the BMH will be constructed above


13 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

MHWS ahead of the marine installation and will consist of an underground chamber with internal dimensions of 3.4 x 2.4 m (8.2 m2). They will be constructed level with the road surface. The BMH roof will be reinforced strength to support the weight of vehicles that may be required to use the space above the BMH. It is expected that casting the BMH will take approximately 1‐2 weeks on site, with up to four weeks curing time after casting.

From the BMH seaward ducts will be installed at Port Erin and Port Grenaugh to provide conduits for the cable to be installed from the beach to the BMH. Seaward ducts will consist of a 100mm diameter PVC or HDPE pipe buried in a trench to a depth of approximately 1.25m on leaving the BMH increasing to 1.5 – 2.0m at the beach end. Bentonite cement will be used at the end of the duct on the beach to provide stability.

At Port Erin the seaward ducts will be installed from the BMH to cross through the sea wall, to an end point on the beach side of the sea wall above the mean high water springs line (MHWS). The end of the seaward ducts is expected to be at 54 05.0975 N; 04 45.6319 W (DDM).

At Port Grenaugh the seaward ducts will be constructed from the BMH along the public beach access track to an end point just above the MHWS line. The end of the seaward ducts is expected to be at 54 06.1863 N; 04 34.6278 W (DDM).

The seaward ducts will be constructed in advance of the marine cable installation. It is planned to stop the ducts at points from where the reminder of the cable on the beaches can be easily trenched. The cable then will be installed within beach sediments which will be re‐instated soon after the cable landing operations.

3.5 Connection to the cable landing station Once the cable enters the BMH through the seaward duct, it is then connected to existing terrestrial infrastructure known as the fronthaul. The connection to the cable landing station will be made from the BMH via a terrestrial cable installed through ducts. A 50mm duct will be required between the BMH and the cable landing station location. The ducts will be installed in the grass verge alongside the road until the rail network is reached, at which point existing ducts running along the rail track will be used. The dimension of the trench for the cable along the roads will be 0.3m in width and 0.6‐1.0m in depth.

3.6 Operation and emissions The proposed cable installation is ‘unrepeatered’ meaning that there is no power supply to the cable. For cable systems less than approximately 350km in length, the optical signal does not need to be repeated to reach its destination. Therefore, operation of the cable is not expected to emit any electric induced, magnetic fields or heat to the surrounding sediment or seabed and there are no anticipated impacts of cable operation to the environment.

3.7 Cable maintenance and repair (post‐installation) Post burial surveys using a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) will be carried out at cable crossings to establish the as‐built situation. This information is especially important should the local environmental conditions change or in areas of high tidal or wave energy. ASN will be responsible for cable repairs and maintenance during the installation and warranty phase, which is 5 years from completion of cable installation. After the warranty period the System Operator will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the cable.

During operation there may be a potential requirement for maintenance work such as cable repair at fault locations due to unexpected damage. If required, cable intervention activities will have a similar impact to the installation activities, however they will be on a smaller extremely localised scale, and


14 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

as such are not expected to have any significant impacts. Any impacts will be less than those identified for installation operations.

For land‐based repairs, the equipment and methods will be the same as for the shore end cable installation works.

For inshore and submarine cable repairs, equipment and methods would again be similar to those outlined for cable installation. The repair works process for shore end and marine works is outlined below:

1. Terminal testing: Testing from cable station terminal, to try and determine fault location as precisely as possible using optical or electrical characteristics of the submarine cable;

2. Initial Inspection: Cable and seabed will be inspected using Side Scan Sonar, ROV or divers where appropriate to determine the precise fault location and nature if unknown. If the cable is buried, tracking equipment will be used;

3. Cut faulty cable, buoy off, recover to vessel: If necessary, to cut the cable at the fault area, either an ROV or grapnels will be used, or, if feasible, divers. Divers use hand‐jetting and ROV use a jetting technique to uncover buried cable. Grapnels penetrate the seabed without jetting to pick up, cut and recover the cable. The cable ends will be recovered to the vessel, using divers, ROV or gripper grapnels. While one cable end is repaired on the vessel, the other cable end will be attached to a rope that is lowered to the seabed and this rope will be attached to a buoy to mark its location.

4. Cable splice and repair: Damaged cable section will be cut out. First, one end will be spliced to the spare repair cable section and electrical and optical testing will be conducted to ensure the integrity of the splice and cables. Then the second cable end will be picked up and spliced back to the repair cable section. Upon completion, the cable integrity will be confirmed through end‐to‐end electrical and optical testing.

5. Replacement of repaired cable: Once the cable has been fully repaired and connected, it will be lowered onto the seabed, along the ‘as‐laid’ cable route. Once the repaired cable is in the ‘as‐laid’ cable route alignment, a diver or ROV will perform an inspection of the repair area, including determining the beginning and ending of unburied cable.

6. Post‐Lay Inspection and Burial (PLIB): Should burial at the repair area be necessary, it will be carried out to best endeavours or pre‐determined target depth, using divers or ROV jetting up to 2m. If burial is not possible, other means of protection may be considered such as articulated piping, URADUCT® or other means such as rock dumping. One final diver or ROV inspection will be carried out before repair works are completed.

3.8 Decommissioning ASN recognises the importance of considering the decommissioning process at an early stage, and should decommissioning be undertaken, the operation will be conducted according to the standard industry protocol at the time. The least environmentally damaging option and the usual approach for submarine cables is to leave the cable in‐situ and this is the expected approach for ASN.

3.9 Embedded mitigation Mitigation measures are the actions or systems proposed to manage or reduce the potential negative environmental effects. The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) defines three types of mitigation; primary (inherent design), secondary (foreseeable) and tertiary (inexorable) (IEMA 2016).

The Havhingsten cable installation includes a range of primary mitigation measures that have been ‘designed’ into (or ‘embedded’ in) the project to reduce or prevent significant adverse effects arising.


15 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

Tertiary measures such as legislative compliance and best practice are also included in the embedded mitigation. The assessment of effects has therefore considered all embedded mitigation that form part of the project which ASN is committed to implementing. The embedded mitigations are detailed within each assessment Section of the ES (where relevant to the topic) and gathered together in a Schedule of Mitigation in Section 17 of the ES.


16 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

4. APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT 4.1 Environmental impact assessment guidance

The EIA methodology will draw upon numerous guidance documents and regulations, including:

▪ The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Environmental Impact Assessment guide to: Delivering quality development (2016).

▪ The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment, 2004.

▪ The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland ‐ Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine, 2018.

▪ Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) A handbook on environmental impact assessment: Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and others involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process in Scotland, 2013.

4.2 Method of environmental assessment The assessment process will follow the following main steps:

The steps are described in more detail below and are followed and presented within the receptor topic chapters of the ES.

4.3 Screening for environmental impact assessment

4.3.1 Pre‐application The Isle of Man Department of Infrastructure (DOI) does not require a scoping process under the extant legislation for an EIA to support the Havhingsten Cable licencing process. However, during pre‐application, ASN conducted a voluntary scoping process as recommended by the DOI, to allow stakeholders to understand the proposed project and comment prior to EIA. This will also ensure that


17 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

the project complies with the Marine Infrastructure Management Act (MIMA) 2016 should a change in legislation occur during the licence determination period.

4.3.2 Approach to scoping and consultation The aim of the scoping process has been to assist ASN in identifying the key environmental pressures surrounding their proposal. Consultation has been undertaken with statutory consultees, stakeholders and interest groups during the pre‐application stage of the project and in requesting scoping opinion. Consultation, including scoping, aimed to:

▪ Provide statutory and non‐statutory consultees as well as landowners and other stakeholders with the opportunity to inform the development of the project and the final offshore route design; and

▪ Provide statutory consultees with the opportunity to comment on the proposed specialist studies commissioned to inform the EIA, and the approach to, and scope of the ES.

The Scoping Report was submitted to the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) (ports division) on 5th November 2018 and distributed to the Isle of Man Territorial Seas Committee (TSC) which includes to following:

▪ Department of Infrastructure ▪ Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture ▪ Department for Enterprise ▪ Cabinet Office ▪ Attorney General’s Chambers ▪ Manx Utility Authority The scoping opinion of the TSC was received on 20th December 2018. The scoping report was subsequently distributed to the following organisations from January 2019 as the project would be of interest or has been identified to have potential effects to the organisation’s interests:

▪ Port Erin commissioners; ▪ Santon commissioners; ▪ Mr A Lloyd; ▪ Bangor University; ▪ AFBI; ▪ Manx Birdlife; ▪ Manx Wildlife Trust; ▪ Manx Whale and Dolphin watch; ▪ Manx Basking Shark Watch; ▪ Manx Fish Producers Organisation; ▪ Manx Seasearch; ▪ Northern Lighthouse Board; ▪ RNLI Port Erin; ▪ RYA – 7th Wave RYA Training centre; ▪ Shona Boat Trips; and ▪ Port Erin Paddleboarders

A summary of the consultation responses received up to the completion of the final application (May 2019) relevant to each topic, is outlined at the start of each chapter of the ES.


18 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

5. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

5.1 Physical Conditions and Marine Processes

5.1.1 Existing Baseline

5.1.1.1 Wind The prevailing wind direction for the IOM is from the southwest, with localised effects caused by the topography of the island (Figure 6.1). The greatest wind speeds are expected during the winter months from October until March. Wind directly effects the physical marine conditions in the form of sea state, wave development and temperature.

The Isle of Man has offshore wind speeds between 7ms‐1 and 10ms‐1 at 100m above ground level (Kennington and Hiscott 2018). However, sea surface speeds are likely to be less due to the effects of friction. Windspeed, fetch and duration directly affect the wave climate. Both landing sites on IOM have been chosen for their sheltered landing locations. Port Erin landfall is only affected by winds propagating waves between south westerly to north westerly directions (250 – 310°); Port Grenaugh landing site is only affected by wind propagated waves from between north east and south easterly direction (50 – 110°) (ASN 2018).

5.1.1.2 Currents Sea height variations along the marine cable corridor are dominated by the semi‐diurnal tides which within the Irish Sea differ greatly in range from north east to south west. The highest tidal variation within the Irish Sea are found along the Lancastrian and Cumbrian coasts where mean spring tides can reach 8 m. The lowest tidal ranges are found in the North Channel and along the Irish coast south of Arklow where tidal heights are generally less than 2 m (Kennington and Hiscott 2018).

Manx Coastal Waters have a relatively large tidal range, increasing from the west coast to the northeast. The large tidal range is capable of generating strong tidal currents especially in the north. This agrees with published data ranges for Port Erin (6.06 m) and Port of St Mary near Port Grenaugh (6.45 m) (Kennington & Hiscott 2018). The National Tidal and Sea Level Facility provides information for recorded tidal maximum and minimum at the Port Erin gauge with range 6.13 m (NOC & NERC 2019).

Tidal derived current at the Calf Sound is of notable strength; south‐going tidal stream begins at HW +03:45, north‐going stream begins at HW ‐01:45 with the maximum current (up to 4 knots / 2 ms‐1) occurring around HW and LW. The minimum current occurs around half‐tide. Kennington and Hiscott (2018) note that the current speeds in confined channels, such as between the Calf of Man and the Isle of Man, can exceed 4ms‐1.

5.1.1.3 Waves Wave heights are determined by the strength and duration of wind, the distance over which it applies (fetch length), and the depth of water through which they pass. Waves caused by remote winds or storms are termed swell. Within the project area, the largest waves will occur from those sectors with a long fetch length. The marine cable corridor is exposed to the Atlantic from the southwest and therefore the dominant wave direction (i.e. direction associated with the highest wave energy) over the cable route is from the southwest. Nearshore, in shallow water, waves refract shoreward so that the dominant direction tends to orient perpendicular to the coastline (Acclimatise 2006).


19 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

The department for infrastructure is planning on constructing new coastal defences at seven sites on the Isle of Man, including Port Erin, which will allow for protection against wind driven waves and swell waves until the year 2115 (DOI 2014).

The Havhingsten Meteorology and Oceanology study (ASN 2018b) provides some information about the wave exposure to the project site; predominantly from the south and southwest ranging up to 2.2 m in July and 6.2 m in October, as a representation of climate exposure by season. The Acclimatise report (2006) provides some coarse model information on waves for the Irish Sea; Significant wave heights are indicative of significant wave conditions averaged over a particular period of time. Significant wave heights in the Atlantic are in the order of 2.5 to 4 m, while in the Irish Sea significant wave heights are lower, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 m.

5.1.1.4 Coastal processes The Manx coastline is dominated by wave action that controls the erosion, transport and deposition of beach sediments.

Seabed sediments can be re‐suspended by tidal currents when the frictional drag exerted by the currents exceeds the submerged weight of particles which act to retain the particles on the seabed. If tidally driven sediment suspension does occur, variability in concentration that follows the neap‐spring tides is expected.

While much of the Island’s coast consists of cliffs and rocky outcrops which are subject to very slow erosion on a geological timescale, the sandy cliffs from north of Peel, around Point of Ayre, to Ramsey are subject to much more rapid erosion processes (MMEA 2018) which are outside of our region of interest.

5.1.2 Conclusion The potential significance of installation activities for the Havhingsten cable on the physical environment and marine processes around the IOM has been assessed as slight and not significant. Due to the limited spatial footprint of the installation works and little cable protection required along the cable route the changes to the wave and tidal regime in Manx waters will be imperceptible. The areas of physical change to the seabed will be limited due to the minimal cable protection required. Suspension of sediment caused by the installation works will not cause a significant effect to the surrounding seabed as the majority of sediment will settle close to the trenching corridor and return to its’ baseline conditions within a short period of time.

5.1.3 Project Specific Mitigation proposed

ID Project Specific measure

M1 Cable protection measures (Uraduct type product, rock dumping) will only be deployed where adequate burial cannot be achieved, i.e. at pipeline or cable crossings.

5.1.4 Residual Effects The assessment identified that no potential impacts would have a residual effect on the physical processed IOM waters. The significance of the impacts was reduced by taking into consideration the Best Practice and embedded mitigation measures inherent to the project.


20 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

5.2 Intertidal and Benthic Ecology


Intertidal A total of 17 biotopes were observed across the Port Grenaugh survey area, seven representing sediment biotopes, the remaining ten representing rock associated biotopes, including lichen and algal growth on the upper, mid and lower shore rock substrates. 12 biotopes were recorded across the Port Erin survey area, six representing sediment biotopes and six allocated to rock associated biotopes representing lichen and algal growth on the upper shore rock substrates. With respect to potentially sensitive habitats, The Annex I 'Stony reef' habitat was identified present at Port Grenaugh. The priority habitat ‘Intertidal underboulder communities’, were also considered as potentially present at Port Grenaugh. Despite potentially fulfilling the area extent required for this categorisation, due to the lack of notable understorey fauna and flora, the habitat is unlikely to be of conservational value.

Subtidal A total of seven EUNIS biotopes, four EUNIS biotope complexes and one EUNIS habitat were recorded in the survey area. Most of these were sediment biotopes/biotope complexes or habitats with one rock biotope and one rock biotope complex recorded in the nearshore section of the Port Grenaugh section of the proposed cable route. Many of these biotopes have been previously recorded in the Irish Sea (JNCC 2015). Due to the observation of sea pens (V. mirabilis) and faunal burrows at stations PE_ST07, located on the Port Erin section of the proposed cable route (KP 29.170), there is the potential for the OSPAR listed threatened and/or declining habitat 'sea pens and burrowing megafauna communities' to occur within the survey area. However, although the sediments within the survey area were burrowed, they were not heavily bioturbated by burrowing megafauna and there were no mounds with conspicuous burrows forming a prominent feature of the sediment surface.

Two locations (transect PG_TR01 and station PG_ST01) located in the nearshore area of the Port Grenaugh section of the proposed cable route (KP 0.320 and KP: 1.050) were classified as 'medium' resemblance to stony reef. Outcrops of bedrock were also recorded along transect PG_TR01 was classified as an Annex I reef. A potential Annex I habitat, UKBAP priority habitat and an OSPAR threatened or declining maerl bed was recorded at drop‐down video station PG_ST02, located along the Port Grenaugh section of the proposed cable route (KP 2.200). The majority of the maerl recorded was dead with only a small proportion of live maerl. A potential Annex I habitat, UKBAP priority habitat and an OSPAR threatened or declining M. modiolus bed was recorded at station PG_ST05, located along the Port Grenaugh section of the proposed cable route (KP 22.190). The density of M. modiolus was variable throughout the station and ranged from 7 individuals per m2 to 103 individuals per m2. However, M. modiolus did not form clumps and were found as individuals embedded in the sediments. No other OSPAR threatened and/or declining species and habitats, Annex I habitats or Annex II species, or priority habitats or priority species were observed within the survey area.

5.2.2 Conclusion In conclusion, installation and maintenance of the Havhingsten cable will not cause any significant effects to intertidal nor subtidal benthic habitats within the IOM. While penetration and abrasion will occur along the entire cable route (apart from at third party cable crossings), the footprint of the impact is very small relative to the wider habitat and is expected to recover quickly subsequently. Physical change to the seabed will occur i.e. at cable crossings, the footprint of the change is very small in comparison to the wider available habitat and will in fact lead to increasing local species diversity. Due to the small footprint of the cable corridor, short timeframe of the installation activities, and light smothering depths outside of the cable trench, habitats and species will not be significantly affected. Due to the embedded mitigation measures and lack of contaminants identified along the cable route, the potential for hydrocarbon contamination is imperceptible.


21 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019



M1 Cable protection measures (Uraduct type product, rock dumping) will only be deployed where adequate burial cannot be achieved, i.e. at pipeline or cable crossings.

5.2.4 Residual Effect The significance assessment concluded that there will be no significant residual effects on the intertidal and subtidal benthic habitats and species. Although the activities were assessed to have a Moderate effect on maerl beds, M. modiolus beds, Deep circalittoral sediment (A5.15) and Deep circalittoral sand (A5.26) the effect is considered to be Tolerable due to the short‐term and spatially limited extent of the activities. In addition, the Project Specific Mitigation has been proposed as a matter of best practice to reduce the seabed footprint of the installation activities.

5.3 Fish & Shellfish


5.3.1.1 General overview The majority of marine ray‐finned fish known to occur in the vicinity of the marine cable corridor are demersal and dwell in or near to seabed habitats ranging from muds and sands to gravels and rocky/hard substrates. As described in Chapter 6, all of these physical conditions are reported to be present along the marine cable corridor. For the most‐part the demersal species are commonly found in waters away from the coast, however there are a few exceptions such as the common dab (MarLIN 2016) and conger eel. Conger eel is nocturnal, dwelling in crevices (artificial and natural) or in soft sediment during the day.

Pelagic species occupy the open waters between the coast and the edge of the continental shelf in depths of 20‐400m. These areas are highly productive and supply nutrients for the growth of plankton which forms the food for the smaller pelagic species. This productivity is aided by tidal fronts which are known to form around the south‐western coast of the IOM. This is due to the strong currents and topography of the area. These fronts are visible from the surface as long silvery lines on the waters’ surface (Howe 2018a). The plankton populations these fronts support provide an important source of food for other fish species, marine mammals, seabirds and man. Pelagic fish are highly mobile and migratory, following their food source, and returning to spawning areas. Outside of their spawning period pelagic fish tend to stay away from coastal waters.

Diadromous species are those that migrate between marine and freshwater as part of their lifecycle. They either spawn in freshwater and feed at sea (anadromous fish), such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), sea trout (Salmo trutta) and lamprey (sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus and river lamprey, Lampetra fluviatilis); or feed in freshwater and spawn at sea (catadromous fish), such as European eel (Anguilla anguilla). The Allis and twaite shad (Alosa alosa and A. fallax) also display an anadromous lifecycle. The shads are rare clupeids, or herring‐like fish. All of the species mentioned are present within the Irish Sea. Neither of the streams flowing on to Port Grenaugh and at Port Erin beach are routinely monitored for fish populations. However, European eel are known to be present in both Port Erin and Port Grenaugh streams and sea trout are also known to run at Port Grenaugh (DEFA pers comms). The nearby rivers of Santon Burn and Silver Burn support populations of sea trout, salmon and European eel (DEFA 2016).

A variety of elasmobranchs (sharks, skates and rays) can be found in Isle of Man waters, including basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus), lesser‐spotted dogfish, thornback ray (Raja clavata) and spotted ray (Raja montagui), amongst other species. The Isle of Man is a notable hotspot for the basking shark


22 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

in the UK, due to the high concentration of plankton in its’ waters produced as a result =of the tidal fronts found around the island. Sightings are made around the IOM, with consistently higher numbers of sightings to the west and southwest coast of the island.

The IOM is home to several important shellfish species, some of which are the focus of fisheries protection measures. Important species include king scallop (Pecten maximus), queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis), European lobster (Homarus Gammarus), Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), brown crab (Cancer pagurus), long‐finned squid (Loligo forbesi) and whelk (Buccinum undatum). Scallop are the most commercially important component of the shellfishery.

5.3.2 Conclusion In conclusion, installation and operation of the Havhingsten cable will not cause any significant effects to fish or shellfish within the Isle of Man. While a physical change to the seabed will occur at areas of cable crossings, such areas are small in footprint compared to the wider available habitat and will not significantly reduce the available spawning habitat for species such as herring or sandeel. Due to the small footprint of the cable corridor, short timeframe the installation activities will take, and imperceptible smothering depths outside of the cable trench, species with demersal life stages and visual feeders will not be significantly impacted upon. Changes in underwater noise will not have a significant effect on fish due to the transitory nature of the installation activities and close distance required for fish to be disturbed by the installation noise. Due to the embedded mitigation measures and lack of contaminants identified along the cable route, the potential for hydrocarbon contamination is imperceptible.



M1 Cable protection measures (Uraduct type product, rock armouring or rock and mattresses) will only be deployed where adequate burial cannot be achieved.

5.3.4 Residual Effect The significance assessment concluded that there will be no significant residual effects on fish and shellfish. Project Specific Mitigation has been proposed as a matter of best practice to reduce the seabed footprint of the installation activities.

5.4 Birds


5.4.1.1 General overview The IOM has a diversity of habitats suitable for supporting a variety of different seabirds, with approximately 78 species of seabird and coastal waterbird sighted in inshore IOM waters (Howe et al 2018).

Seabirds and seaduck are those species of bird that depend wholly or mainly on the marine environment for their survival. They spend the majority of their lives at sea, exploiting its surface and the water column to varying depths for food. Most of these species come ashore only to breed in large colonies on rocky shore and cliff areas. There are 25 species of offshore seabird and seaduck nesting regularly within UK waters of which 19 have been recorded nesting at the IOM (JNCC 2019). When these species are not nesting, they disperse to offshore feeding grounds within the Irish Sea and Atlantic. Other breeding species which have a direct connection to the seas and coast include terns, and wading birds.


23 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

Wading birds are generally shoreline birds, which feed within shallow water or on rocky shores. This group of birds includes curlews, godwit, turnstone, sandpiper, woodcock, snipe and phalaropes. Wading birds undertake often long migrations and most sightings of wading birds on the IOM occur during the winter when birds are either stopping off on passage during migration or overwintering. Some wading bird species are resident or nest on the IOM such as oystercatcher, curlew, eider, grey heron, grey plover, lapwing, ringed plover and shelduck.

5.4.2 Conclusion It can be concluded that installation and operation activities relating to the Havhingsten cable will not have a significant effect on the resident and migratory bird populations on the Isle of Man. The species most likely to be affected are the resident peregrine falcon and red‐billed chough, due to the presence of nesting sites for both species at the Port Grenaugh landfall site. While the impact of the works is predicted to be moderate to these species, their temporary nature means any disturbance event will not last long, making the effect tolerable. The other breeding colony seabirds are not expected to be significantly affected by the works due to the slow speeds the installation vessel will be travelling and their already habituated nature to other shipping traffic already present in the area.

5.4.3 Project Specific Mitigation proposed No project specific mitigation for birds in the Isle of Man has been proposed.

5.4.4 Residual Effect The significance assessment identified that no potential impacts would have a residual effect on birds within the IOM. The significance of the impacts was reduced by taking into consideration the Best Practice and embedded mitigation measures inherent to the project.

5.5 Marine Mammals and Reptiles

5.5.1 Existing Baseline Marine mammals that may potentially be present in the vicinity of the marine cable corridor include cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals). Chelonians (marine turtles) are the only type of reptile that may potentially be encountered in the project area (Hammond et al 2008).

Survey works in Manx waters have shown that five cetacean species are frequently sighted (Howe 2018). These are harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus); Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus); common dolphin (Delphinus delphis); and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Risso’s dolphins and harbour porpoise were reported to occur all around the Island, bottlenose and common dolphins off the south‐west coast, and minke whales offshore.

Two species of seal are resident within Irish Sea waters and maybe observed in the marine cable corridor; grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and harbour (or common) seal (Phoca vitulina). The grey seal is the most commonly sighted seal species in Manx waters whereas harbour seal are rarer. As efficient swimmers, seals are very mobile and capable of deep, long dives and long‐distance migration and therefore regularly leave and enter Manx waters (Howe 2018b).

Seals are protected under the Manx Wildlife Act 1990. They are listed as animals which are protected in Schedule 5 under “Seals (all species) – Pinnipedia”. Grey seal and harbour seal are also listed under Appendix III of the Bern Convention which the IOM is a signatory to via the UK.

Of the world’s seven marine turtle species, five have been recorded in British, Irish and Manx waters: Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea); Loggerhead (Caretta caretta); Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricate); Kemp’s Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii); and the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). The


24 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

leatherback turtle is the most frequently encountered within Manx waters. Loggerhead turtle and Kemp’s Ridley turtle are rare, and sightings are thought to be linked to adverse weather conditions. Turtle sightings are often linked to jellyfish swarms which are the turtles’ main prey item and they will follow swarms to higher latitudes when temperature conditions allow. Unlike hard shelled species, leatherbacks have a thick oily layer under their skin and a unique physiology (including a counter‐current heat exchange system) to protect them and their internal body temperature from the colder sea temperatures of the Irish Sea (Howe 2018c).

5.5.2 Conclusion The IOM is a frequent feeding ground for several cetacean species during the summer months due to abundance of prey availability such as herring. Seal species, in particular grey seals, can be found at various haul out locations around the island and appear well habituated to the presence of humans and vessel traffic, with vessels able to pass at close distances to the seals before any response is noted. Leatherback turtles are also occasionally sighted in summer months, with other marine turtle species only being sighted in very rare occasions. Effects from the project on marine mammals have been assessed as Slight and Not Significant

5.5.3 Project Specific Mitigation proposed No project specific mitigation has been proposed, therefore the effects of underwater noise and visual disturbance on marine mammals remain Slight and Not Significant

5.5.4 Residual Effect No project specific mitigation has been proposed, therefore the effects of underwater noise and visual disturbance on marine mammals remain Slight and Not Significant

5.6 Nature Conservation


5.6.1.1 General overview Manx waters are among the most protected waters in the world with approximately 50% of the 0‐3nm zone around the Isle of Man (IOM) protected as Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs). A total of 10 MNRs have been designated within Manx waters. These 10 MNRs provide the majority of legal protection for Manx waters and supersede previous marine conservation zones and fisheries closed areas.

The Havhingsten cable route passes directly through the Port Erin Bay MNR and Langness MNR. Port Erin Bay was the first restricted fishing zone to be designated in Manx waters; restrictions were put in place to aid the recovery of the local scallop population, a measure which proved extremely successful, prompting the designation of other MNRs. Port Erin Bay MNR superseded a previous smaller experimental area that had been present in Port Erin since 1989 (and extended in 2003 and 2006) (Thomas et al. 2018a). Notable habitat features within the MNR include; scallop beds, kelp forest and brittlestar (Ophiura albida) beds. The invertebrate and fish species of conservation importance identified include dog whelk (Nucella lapillus), ocean quahog (Artica islandica) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), along with the flame shell (Limaria hians) and stalked jellyfish (Calvadosia campanulata). The site is an important feeding ground for gannet (Morus bassanus), shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) and herring gull (Larus argentatus), with harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) also frequenting the site (DEFA 2017).

Langness MNR is home to several important habitat features including areas of maerl bed habitat (Phymatolithon calcareum), horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus) reefs and an eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadow located between Langness Peninsula and Fort Island. Notable invertebrate and fish species


25 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

found in this MNR include the dog whelk (Nucella lapillus), European eel (Anguilla anguilla), ocean quahog (Artica islandica) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). A large herring spawning ground is located to the east of the IOM (Figure 11‐3), which is regarded as the most important spawning site for the species in the Celtic Sea (Howe 2018). The area is also an important feeding ground for fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), the lesser black‐backed gull (Larus fuscus) and herring gull (Larus argentatus). Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) frequent the site in the summer months (Manx Whale and Dolphin Watch 2016), along with the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) which frequent this MNR year‐round (DEFA 2017). Towards the southern coast of the Langness peninsula there is also a grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) haul‐out site.

Other protected area designations in the Isle of Man include Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI), with the project’s landfall at Port Grenaugh being located close to Langness, Derbyhaven and Sandwick ASSI and Santon Gorge & Port Soldrick ASSI. The Port Grenaugh landfall is also situated close to the Parish of Malew Bird Sanctuary, a site established under the 1932 Protection of Birds Act and still in force today for the protection of all wild birds within its’ boundary.

5.6.2 Conclusion The EIA concluded that the significance of installation activities for the Havhingsten cable on the Isle of Man nature conservation sites will be Slight and Not Significant for the majority of pressures. The proposed Port Erin and Port Grenaugh cable routes cross through the Marine Nature Reserves (MNR) of Langness and Port Erin Bay and passes close to several other MNR’s, ASSI’s and a Bird Sanctuary. The significance assessment found that due to the limited spatial and temporal footprint of the installation and maintenance activities, no significant effects to the majority of habitats or species would occur.

The only species that may potentially be significantly affected is maerl within Langness MNR, with a bed being discovered in the benthic characterisation survey within the cable corridor. However, as the majority of the bed discovered was dead, and the minor footprint that the cable trench would be taking through the site, it was determined that the effect on the maerl would be moderate and tolerable.

The integrity of the protected sites will not be adversely affected.


ID Receptor Project Specific measure

M1 Commercial fisheries, benthic and intertidal habitats

Cable protection measures (Uraduct type product, rock armouring or rock placement) will only be deployed where adequate target burial cannot be achieved.

5.6.4 Residual Effect The significance assessment concluded that there will be no significant residual effects. The integrity of the protected sites will not be adversely affected.

5.7 Commercial Fisheries


5.7.1.1 General overview The marine cable corridor passes through important commercial fishing grounds located in the Irish Sea. The Manx fishing industry currently supports approximately 300 jobs and generated an approximate pre‐processing (first sale) value of £2 million in 2016 (Duncan and Emmerson 2018). Manx commercial fisheries are dependent on good, local stocks of molluscs and crustaceans such as


26 P2228_R4784_Rev0 | July 2019

king and queen scallops, whelk, brown crab, lobster and langoustin

alcatel submarine network - aqua commsaquacomms.com/wp-content/themes/aquacomms/eia... · alcatel...

Documents