Priority Marine Features Guidance
Guidance on handling development proposals with potential to impact Priority Marine Features (PMFs) in Scotland.
Published 2016
Purpose
This note provides NatureScot staff with guidance on handling development proposals with potential to impact Priority Marine Features (PMFs). In particular:
- Identifying proposals that may have significant impact on the national status of PMFs in the ‘wider seas’. A ‘significant impact on national status’ is equivalent to an issue of national interest (NatureScot National Interest Guidance), and hence could trigger an objection.
- Identifying proposals that do not have a significant impact on the national status of PMFs but still cause effects that merit ‘advice only’ comments.
While the detail of the guidance is targeted at development casework, the principles may also be applied when giving advice on the potential for other proposals or activities to affect PMFs.
1.Introduction
The PMF list and background information are available on the NatureScot website. The list was formally adopted by Scottish Ministers in July 2014. Some PMFs are already protected features of designated sites or are protected under species legislation (e.g. cetaceans, basking sharks). This guidance addresses the policy requirement to conserve PMFs as ‘wider seas’ biodiversity as established through:
- The Scottish Government Strategy for Marine Nature Conservation
- The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy 2020 Challenge
- Scotland’s National Marine Plan (NMP) – see policy below.
NMP Policy, GEN 9 Natural heritage: Development and use of the marine environment must: (a) Comply with legal requirements for protected areas and protected species. (b) Not result in significant impact on the national status of Priority Marine Features. (c) Protect and, where appropriate, enhance the health of the marine area.
In most casework involving PMFs, NatureScot will be providing advice to regulators and developers. Usually the regulator will be Marine Directorate Licensing Operations Team (MD LOT), but we also provide advice to other regulators (SEPA, Planning Authorities, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and Transport Scotland).
This guidance will be reviewed in the context of:
- The progress of Regional Marine Planning.
- Advancement of working-relations with Marine Directorate Science and regulators.
- The development of standing advice to regulators and planners.
2.Complementary guidance
Some PMFs also receive legal protection, for example as European Protected Species or as protected features of a marine protected area1 . This guidance does not duplicate or replace existing guidance on these matters, and should be used only to assess impacts not addressed through existing protection measures. Further supporting information is provided on the NatureScot website regarding the provision of advice on PMFs as wider seas biodiversity alongside their protection through species legislation or as features of designated sites.
One of the objectives for this guidance is to aid application of the National Interest Guidance. It also complements, but does not replace or duplicate, our guidance on Development Management and the Natural Heritage and the Application of Balancing Duties.
Our advice may also be guided by other relevant policies within the NMP, Regional Marine Plans (once they are developed) or sectoral plans (statutory or non-statutory). Staff should familiarise themselves with relevant marine plans and ensure that any advice is provided within the context of these policies.
1The term ‘marine protected area’ refers to all types of site within the network, including SACs and marine SPAs. MPAs designated under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 are explicitly prefixed as Nature Conservation (NC) MPAs.
3.The role of NatureScot
We should provide the regulator with clear advice on:
- whether the proposed activity and/or development will have an impact on PMFs;
- whether the proposal may have a significant impact on the national status of any PMFs; and
- any options for mitigation.
The JNCC provides advice for beyond 12 nm from the shore. The PMF list contains features listed for territorial (<12nm) or offshore (>12nm) waters only, or both. We must liaise with JNCC over proposals which could affect PMFs beyond 12 nm, copy JNCC into relevant correspondence and ensure our advice is aligned or any differences clearly justified. It may be appropriate to provide joint advice in some cases.
4.Sources of information
We should direct developers and regulators to sources of information on the presence, abundance and/or extent of PMFs. These are detailed as Supporting Information on the NatureScot website. See also below, Section 9 - Sources of Information, which gives further details. For NatureScot staff the key internal resource is geo.View; further information on data sources, as well as training slides on PMFs, are available on the Specialist Work Pages of the Intranet - see PMF Training.
For external access our data is periodically updated to National Marine Plan interactive (NMPi). In cases subject to statutory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), much of this information should also have been included and interpreted within an Environmental Statement (ES).
5.Providing proportionate advice on PMFs
It is important that our advice regarding PMFs is proportionate to the likely impacts.
Work is on-going to identify those case-types for which it can be readily determined that there will be no impacts, or insignificant impacts only, on PMFs as wider-seas biodiversity interests. This is likely to be the case for many small-scale proposals requiring a marine licence. In due course we expect to either (a) not be consulted on these cases, by way of establishing agreements with regulators, or (b) triage out these cases via our internal Swift Sift process.
For some small-scale developments it will be necessary to examine additional details to determine if there is a potential for impacts upon PMFs. Further work will examine the potential for a simple filtering tool to help case-officers in reaching this decision quickly and consistently. In due course this should help limit the number of cases for which full application of this guidance is necessary, and aid scoping out of trivial issues at the pre-application stage.
In the interim, case officers should make informed judgements (with support from Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Coasts and Seas teams advisers as appropriate) about cases for which there is intuitively no potential for impacts on PMFs.
6.Handling PMF casework
There are no legally prescribed tests for assessing impacts upon PMFs, but a checklist is available (Annex 1) to help you reach conclusions and to ensure that a structured audit trail is kept. Case officers should complete the checklist for all casework with potential to impact PMFs in order to ensure consistency of approach.
The recommended approach provides a stepwise assessment. The checklist allows transparent justification of the decisions reached according to available information and, where necessary, expert judgement.
A partially completed checklist (Section 1: Proposal details) accompanying any requests for advice from specialist advisers provides a concise proposal summary and encourages advisers to follow a standard approach.
The checklist should record our confidence in the judgements made, stating whether real (qualitative/quantitative) or modelled data (including statistical confidence where available), or indicators, proxies or other expert opinion have been used.
Depending on the complexity of the case, input may be required from several specialist advisers. The following box provides some taxon-specific considerations for advisers in applying the following steps. After the provision of advice from different advisers, the case officer may wish to compile the information in to a single checklist.
Taxon-specific considerations for PMF casework
This is not an exhaustive list; advisers may wish to consider other factors.
Benthic habitats and low-mobility species
- Extent, quality (condition or age/size profile) and fragmentation of habitats / species aggregations may be important considerations.
Ecosystem services / functional value of habitats (e.g. carbon sink, wave attenuation/coastal defence, supporting biodiversity, nursery habitat, etc).
Where a PMF habitat is comprised of multiple component biotopes, consider differing ecology and trends of each component.
Fish (and crustaceans)
Consider habitat associations. Species with very specific requirements (e.g. sandeels, spawning herring) may be more sensitive to change. Consider habitat quality and extent.
Review function of location as potential spawning and/or nursery ground. Consider ground extent, availability and specificity of species requirements.
For diadromous species, also consider known / likely migratory routes and feeding areas.
Marine mammals
Likely functional link between the site and regular/seasonal use of the site by the PMF?
For constrained channels, are alternative routes available for passage?
Use available information on foraging range, locations & behaviour.
6.1 Key assessment stages
The PMF checklist (Annex 1: Sections 2a-2d) poses 4 key questions to guide the assessment of potential impacts upon PMFs. These questions relate closely to the questions within the NIG checklist, and the text can be transferred to it for presentation to the NatureScot National Interest Panel if and when this is required. The checklist does not prejudge whether there are issues of national interest/significant impacts on national status.
These questions focus upon using the available evidence to come to a conclusion on the magnitude of any change (including cumulative impacts) and its significance:
2a) Which PMF(s) may be impacted? Also note available information about the PMF(s) at the location of the proposal.
2b) How is/are the PMF(s) potentially impacted?
2c) What’s the magnitude of change?
2d) What is the significance of the impacts?
Applying these steps should allow you to describe the risk of impacts to PMFs, including the scale of impacts and consideration of cumulative or incremental impacts with other projects. It is important to record whether there are likely to be impacts and whether they may have a significant impact on the national status of any PMFs. We may also provide advice on proposals that may impact PMFs without having a ‘significant impact on national status’.
Depending on the feature and the pressure(s), impacts may arise from proposals of any scale (i.e. an impact does not necessarily need to be widespread to merit the provision of NatureScot advice). This is more likely where the impact magnitude is large, if a given region or locality is known to support a disproportionately large or valuable portion of this PMF in Scotland, or where trend data shows the population is threatened and/or declining.
The checklist also guides consideration of any requests for additional data or information (Section 3 of checklist), and potential conditions and recommendations (Section 4 of checklist).
6.1.1 Question 2a - Which PMF(s) may be impacted?
This section should name the PMFs which will be assessed further. Record any information about the PMF at the location being considered. This may include:
- Condition / quality, i.e. patchiness; structural complexity of habitats; species richness/diversity within habitats.
- Abundance of species aggregation / extent of habitat.
- Specific biotopes present for habitat features.
- Particular life stages for mobile species.
6.1.2 Question 2b - How is/are the PMF(s) potentially impacted?
Record the sensitivity of features. Sensitivity is a combination of the capacity to (a) tolerate a pressure (resistance) and (b) recover from a pressure (resilience). FEAST and MarLIN provide online sensitivity tools which help us to determine the sensitivity of features to physical, chemical and biological pressures. The sensitivity assessments are based on defined pressures where possible (referred to as benchmarks), providing consistency across the range of different features. Note if the magnitude of the pressure exceeds the benchmark and, where required, seek specialist advice; this will need to be considered further in the next step of the assessment.
6.1.3 Question 2c - What’s the magnitude of change to the PMF?
This section combines the feature information (2a) and feature sensitivity (2b) with an understanding of the magnitude of pressures associated with the proposed activity. You should consider the intensity, spatial extent, patchiness, duration and frequency of relevant pressures and note if the applicant has provided sufficient information to understand these. This part of the appraisal should allow you to identify, quantitatively where possible, the magnitude of change to the PMF(s).
It is also important to consider if there are likely to be any cumulative impacts either in combination with other proposals and/or existing developments/activities.
6.1.4 Question 2d – What is the significance of the impacts?
This step guides you to determine the significance of impacts, considering the above assessment of magnitude of change (2c) against aspects of policy, spatial context and other factors that influence how we regard the relative conservation importance of different features.
The checklist subsequently asks you to record whether:
(i) there is a significant impact on the national status of any PMF/PMFs,
(ii) there is an impact on PMF(s) but without significant impact on national status, or
(iii) there are no impacts or insignificant impacts only.
Considerations include:
- Policies, objectives and/or targets relevant to the PMF, at the national, regional and local level. In due course, more detailed and regionally-specific policies regarding PMFs may emerge from Regional Marine Plans and Local Development Plans.
- Factors influencing relative conservation importance, generally and specifically within the area in which it may be impacted. For example: - Functional role e.g. key predator or prey interactions; supporting habitat for other biodiversity / commercial species; carbon storage; wave attenuation/coastal protection; supporting key life stages of mobile species. - Proportional importance in the UK/wider context i.e. do Scottish territorial waters contain a significant proportion of the UK/wider resource? - Distribution and status e.g. rare, declined, threat of decline.
- Relevant spatial context for framing the assessment of impacts, including recognition that the interpretation of ‘national’ or ‘regional’ scale may differ between PMFs. In particular:
- If the feature being assessed is identified as a PMF within both Scottish territorial waters and offshore (>12 nm), then consideration at a ‘national’ scale should include offshore waters. For example, the burrowed mud PMF is listed as a PMF across the whole of Scotland’s seas and is widely distributed within both inshore waters and the offshore continental shelf. Consequently, it is likely that, to determine a significant impact on the national status of burrowed mud would require an impact upon a very large extent of habitat, or on an area of very high quality or functional importance.
- If the feature has a very limited distribution (e.g. Limaria beds largely restricted to westcoast territorial waters), this should be accounted for in any assessment of significant impacts on national status of a PMF. It is therefore possible that a relatively small-scale change to Limaria beds would have significant impact on national status.
- When assessing impacts on cetaceans it is important to consider the management units for cetaceans as defined by the Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group (IAMMWG), providing a geographic-scale for population level impact assessments2 . A Marine Ecosystems or Sustainable Coasts and Seas team adviser should be consulted for further advice on the relationship between management units and the regional/national scales, and subsequent implications for assessing impacts. For seals it may also be appropriate to consider the Seal Management Areas; Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Coasts and Seas teams specialists can advise further.
- The default position for benthic habitats and species should be to regard ‘regional’ as equating to the area covered by the relevant Regional Marine Plan (RMP) (i.e. the Scottish Marine Region).
- Some fish populations are known to have geographically distinct spawning stocks (e.g. herring: Buchan / Orkney-Shetland stocks) or sub-populations (e.g. Moray Firth cod). It would be appropriate to adjust the definition of ‘regional’ to match these areas for assessing impacts on relevant fish PMFs. A Marine Ecosystems or Sustainable Coasts and Seas team adviser should be consulted.
If there is insufficient information to reach a judgement on impacts, use Section 3 in the checklist to guide these considerations.
2Basking sharks are also PMFs; considering their wide-ranging nature, they should be considered according to similar principles as those applied to cetaceans. However, there is not a defined ‘management unit’ or geographic context for population-level impacts, nor is there a robust population estimate.
6.2 Requests for additional information or survey
Many locations will lack good spatial information on PMFs; specialist advisers may therefore consider the likelihood of occurrence of PMFs based on the physical environment, predictive modelling and any other indicators/proxies of likely PMF presence or quality/condition. Only request that the developer conducts targeted surveys when there is a risk that a proposal may significantly impact national status of a PMF (section 3 of the checklist provides a space for detailed recording of this justification). Marine Ecosystems and Sustainable Coasts and Seas teams specialists can also advise on survey design, including for subsea cables and pipelines and for marine renewables developments
7.Conditions and modifications
Section 4 in the checklist guides users to consider if mitigation or modifications are required (to avoid an outright objection) or recommended (advice only). If there is a risk of significant impact on national status of PMFs but uncertainties cannot be resolved by additional survey or information, consider an adaptive management approach with phased development and/or monitoring. This can allow impacts to be measured to inform further mitigation or phased consenting stages.
8.Response types and NatureScot position
Section 5 of the checklist guides the selection of a response type and NatureScot position that should be used in our consultation response, referring to possible outcomes shown in suggested wording provided on the NatureScot website. These reflect the style and approach within the NatureScot Development Management Guidance.
NatureScot will only object3 to proposals that may have significant impact on the national status of PMFs.
Proposals that will impact PMFs but without significant impact on their national status may still be relevant for giving ‘advice only’ positions, including recommended mitigation or modifications if appropriate.
3 With some regulators we may establish an agreed alternative to using an ‘objection’.
9.Annexes and supporting information
Annex 1 - PMF Casework Checklist
Please download the printable checklist at the bottom of this page.
Annex 2 - PMF casework flowchart and possible outcomes
Supporting information - PMFs as protected species and protected features/qualifying interests of designated sites.
Some PMFs also receive legal protection, for example as European Protected Species (EPS) or as protected features of a marine protected area1 . The PMF guidance does not duplicate or replace existing guidance on these matters, so should be used only to assess impacts not addressed through existing protection measures. The information below provides further information on simultaneously considering PMFs as protected species or features of designated sites, as well as ‘wider seas’ interests.
When PMFs are also protected features /qualifying interests of designated sites:
Impacts to features of designated sites are appraised separately (NC-MPAs; Natura; SSSIs). However, where these features are also PMFs, it may also be appropriate to assess impacts on the wider status of the PMF through application of this guidance. We use the term protected feature throughout this section to refer to all features protected within various different marine designations.
In the consideration of a proposal, assessment of a species/habitat as both a protected feature and a ‘wider-seas’ PMF will only be appropriate if the species/habitat and the relevant pressure(s) extend beyond the boundary of the designated site. If the extent of an impact or the feature is limited to a designated site, any conclusion reached in the statutory assessment of a designated site is unlikely to be exceeded in the consideration of broader (PMF) impacts. In cases of doubt, Marine Ecosystems or Sustainable Coasts and Seas teams' advice should be sought.
When PMFs are also protected by species legislation:
Some PMFs (cetaceans, otters, basking sharks) are also afforded specific protection under various pieces of legislation, often requiring separate appraisal within casework.
However, it may still be appropriate to consider impacts on these species within the context of this guidance because:
(a) these protection measures do not address all potentially relevant pressures, e.g.:
- EPS legislation seeks to avoid detriment to the favourable conservation status of otters and cetaceans. It provides protection from deliberate or reckless capture, killing, injury or disturbance to animals and damage to their breeding / resting sites, but other pressures (i.e. to supporting habitats or prey sources, or barriers to migration / movement) may not be accounted for.
- Basking sharks are afforded similar protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), as amended through the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Scotland) 2010 (further information on different species protection legislation can be found on the NatureScot website).
(b) while we advise upon species-licensing for potential impacts to individual animals, our final appraisal of impacts on EPS and basking sharks is guided by population-level impacts and the ‘favourable conservation status’ of the species. For cetaceans we consider this according to defined ‘management units’ - Section 6.1.4 provides information on the application of these within PMF casework, which are at various scales according to the species in question.
1The term ‘marine protected area’ refers to all types of site within the network, including SACs and marine SPAs. MPAs designated under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 are explicitly prefixed as Nature Conservation (NC) MPAs.
Supporting information - Suggested wording for cases affecting PMFs
This page sets out suggested wording for use in the summary and/or appraisal sections of NatureScot responses. Letter codes for NatureScot Positions correspond with those in the NatureScot Guidance: Development Management and the Natural Heritage.
The term ‘national status’ is used to reflect the National Marine Plan policy. A ‘significant impact on the national status’ of a PMF (as per National Marine Policy GEN 9) is equivalent to an ‘issue of national interest’ (as per the NatureScot National Interest Guidance).
Introduction of Appraisal
Use of this wording is suggested for all responses (except for NatureScot Position 1: No comment) to introduce your appraisal of effects on PMFs. These features do not have legislative protection, but the basis for protection of their national status across Scottish waters is included in the National Marine Plan.
Suggested wording - Appraisal
“The proposal may impact Priority Marine Features (PMFs). <Name of regulatory authority> should consider the effect of the proposal on the PMF(s) before it can be consented.”
Conclusion of assessment
1. No potential for impact on PMF(s)
NatureScot position
E. No comment
Suggested Wording PMF response 1
"In our view, the proposal has no potential for interaction with PMFs, either directly or indirectly. Further assessment of PMFs is therefore not required.”
[Provide brief reasons to support this decision if appropriate].
Conclusion of assessment
2. Potential for interaction with PMF(s), but insignificant impacts only.
NatureScot position
A. Advice only
Suggested Wording PMF response 2
“While there is potential for interaction with PMFs, in our view, any impacts from the proposal are insignificant for PMFs.” If appropriate, include: “Our appraisal below [reference section/annex] provides further information.”
It may be appropriate to insert advice on recommended mitigation as good practice, i.e. “However, we recommend the following good-practice measures to further reduce the impact…”
Conclusion of assessment
3. Insufficient information to determine impact on PMF(s), but unlikely to have significant impact on national status.
NatureScot position
A. Advice only
Suggested Wording PMF response 3
"There is insufficient information to complete an impact assessment for PMFs. However, in our opinion the proposal is unlikely to have significant impact on the national status of any PMFs. Our appraisal below [reference section/annex] provides further information.”
“It is for the relevant authority to decide, within the context of its own policies, whether to request further information to help them assess the impacts and inform any mitigation/enhancement measures.”
It may be appropriate to insert advice on recommended mitigation, i.e. “However, we recommend the following mitigation / good-practice measures to further reduce the potential impact…” and “It is for the relevant authority to determine, within the context of its own policies, whether conditions are necessary to secure any mitigation”.
Conclusion of assessment
4. Insufficient information to complete impact assessment, but could potentially have a significant impact on the national status of a PMF/PMFs.
NatureScot position
B. Holding objection
Suggested Wording PMF response 4 - Summary
“There is insufficient information to complete an impact assessment for PMFs. In our opinion the proposal could have a significant impact on the national status of a PMF(s). We therefore object to the proposal until further information is provided and considered by the regulatory authority. We will comment further once the additional information is available. Our appraisal below [reference section/annex] provides further information.”
Conclusion of assessment
5. Significant impact on the national status of PMF(s) that can be mitigated with conditions / modifications.
NatureScot position
C. Conditioned objection
Suggested Wording PMF response 5
“In our opinion the proposal would have a significant impact on the national status of a PMF(s), but may be mitigated through conditions / modifications. We therefore object to the proposal unless it is made subject to the following conditions… Our appraisal below [reference section/annex] provides further information.”
Conclusion of assessment
6. Significant and unavoidable impact on the national status of PMF(s).
NatureScot position
D. Outright objection
Suggested Wording PMF response 6 - Summary
“In our opinion the proposal would have unavoidable significant impact on the national status of a PMF(s). We therefore object to the proposal. Our appraisal below [reference section/annex] provides further information.”
Conclusion of assessment
7. Impact on the PMF(s), but without significant impact on national status. We recommend that the impact(s) may be mitigated with conditions / modifications.
NatureScot position
B. Advice only
Suggested Wording PMF response 7 - Summary
“In our opinion the proposal would have an impact on PMF(s), but without significant impact on national status. We recommend measures to reduce the impacts. Our appraisal below [reference section/annex] provides further information. It is for the relevant authority to determine, within the context of its own policies, whether conditions are necessary to secure the mitigation set out below."
Conclusion of assessment
8. Unavoidable impact on the PMF(s), but without significant impact on national status.
NatureScot position
B. Advice only
Suggested Wording PMF response 8 - Summary
“In our opinion the proposal would have an unavoidable impact on PMF(s), but without significant impact on national status. Our appraisal below [reference section/annex] provides further information.”
Supporting information - Sources of information
For NatureScot staff, PMF data sourced from NatureScot and JNCC’s Geodatabase of Marine features in Scotland (GeMS) is available on our internal GeoView application. For external access, this same data is
provided to the internet-based National Marine Plan interactive (NMPi) using web-mapping services (WMS) with periodic updates.
Information on the presence, abundance and/or extent of PMFs may be drawn from various publicly accessible sources as detailed below, to which developers can be referred. In cases subject to statutory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), much of this information should also have been included and interpreted within an Environmental Statement (ES).
- The PMF list and a report with Descriptions of Scottish PMFs are available on the NatureScot website.
- NMPi and MSi - Data on marine habitats and species - Marine Directorate currently have two data portals: National Marine Plan Interactive (NMPi) and Marine Science interactive (MSi). NMPi is Scottish Government's interactive marine planning tool which has been designed to support development of the National Marine Plan and forthcoming work on regional marine planning. MSi
contains environmental data in a number of themes relating to ongoing work in Scotland's seas including monitoring and planning for renewables. - GeoView – NMPi layers can be accessed by NatureScot staff via the external layers tab in GeoView. There is the ability to search for key words within the many layers available.
- Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool (FEAST) - FEAST is an online sensitivity tool which is useful for determining the sensitivity of protected features to various pressures. It may be useful for developers as a tool for exploring information about feature sensitivities in the vicinity of their proposed development/activity. At present only NCMPA protected features are included in FEAST, most of which are also PMFs. For features not addressed by FEAST, the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) may also provide useful sensitivity information. It will often be appropriate to seek specialist advice on features’ sensitivity, but especially when information is limited or unavailable from these sources. See further advice on use of sensitivity tools in Section 6.1.2.
- Regional Marine Plans - When available, Regional Marine Plans should provide an additional source of information, guidance and policy direction on sustainable development priorities at a regional level. Marine Planning Partnerships will provide a forum for liaison between marine users/developers and environmental interests and will be encouraged to develop policies relating to PMFs.
- NatureScot Intranet - The Specialist Work Pages on the NatureScot intranet include further details on sources of information, as well as training slides on PMFs.
