Draft Fisheries Assessment – Anton Dohrn Seamount SAC: Fisheries management measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

2. Part A Assessment – Fisheries Screening

2.1 Fisheries screening overview

Part A of this assessment meets the ‘likely significant effect (LSE)’ test under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive); for sites within the offshore region under Regulation 28 of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The test for likely significant effect under Regulation 28(2)(b) of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 is not required for activities which are directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. Fishing activities are not considered to be directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site unless otherwise indicated.

In line with the guidance within EU Commission guidance on the Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites; a methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, this assessment considers an LSE as any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that would negatively and significantly affect the conservation objectives established for the protected habitats and species of the protected area. If any likely significant effect of a plan or project cannot be excluded beyond reasonable doubt, then a full appropriate assessment should be undertaken.

In Part A of this assessment the pressure-feature interactions were assessed to determine the potential of LSE and risk to the conservation objectives. This section looks at the pressures exerted by the fishing activity occurring in the site (within the assessment period) in relation to the sensitivities of the protected features. An LSE was identified where there was a medium-high risk of a pressure arising from the fishing activity and if any of the features were considered sensitive to that pressure. These pressure-features interactions were then taken forward to the appropriate assessment stage (Part B) to determine the significance of that interaction within the site.

For each activity assessed in Part A, there were three possible outcomes for each identified pressure-feature interaction:

1. The pressure-feature interactions were not included for Part B:

a. If the feature is not exposed to the pressure, and is not likely to be in the future; or

b. If the effect/impact of the pressure is not likely to be significant.

2. The pressure-feature interactions were included for assessment in Part B:

a. If the feature is exposed to the pressure, or is it likely to be in the future; and

b. If the potential scale or magnitude of any effect is likely to be significant; or

c. If it is not possible to determine whether the magnitude of any effect is likely to be significant.

Part B of the assessment aligns with the requirements for an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and considers the potential impact to site integrity by assessing the impact of fishing gears identified in Part A. This involves determining the potential level of interaction between the feature and the fishing activity, assessing the potential impact on the feature, and subsequently if fishing activities are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site and thus the integrity of the site

This involves determining the level of interaction between the feature and the fishing activity, assessing the potential impact on the feature, and subsequently if fishing activities are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site and thus the integrity of the site.

Consideration of exposure to and the effect of a pressure on a protected feature of the SAC includes the consideration of exposure to and the effect of that pressure on any ecological or geomorphological process on which the conservation of the protected feature is wholly or in part dependant.

The JNCC Advice package, Advice on Operations and JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022 has been used to inform this assessment. This is the most recent assessment package available.

2.2 Activities taking place within Anton Dohrn Seamount SAC

To screen out fishing activities that were not taking place within the site or likely to take place in the future, vessel monitoring system (VMS) data within Anton Dohrn Seamount SAC from 2015 – 2019 were analysed to identify the gear types being used in the site and the aggregated gear method (Table 1)The gear types identified from 2015-2019 VME data align with those included in the Anton Dorhn SAC Conservation Advice package from the JNCC Site Information Centre. The fishing gears screened out at this stage were not taken forward to Part B of the assessment.

With the majority of the SAC residing at a depth below 600 m, there are existing management measures which apply within Anton Dohrn Seamount SAC. Under Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 (as amended by S.I 2019/1312 and S.I. 2020/1542), fishing with bottom-set gillnets, entangling nets, and trammel nets below 200 m is prohibited for the protection of deep-water shark species. Secondly, under Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 the use of bottom trawls is prohibited below 800 m depth across all UK waters. This prohibition applies across the area of the Anton Dohrn Seamount SAC where the depth falls below 800 m.

2.3 Potential pressures exerted by site fishing activity

For the fishing activities taking place within the site (demersal trawl), the potential pressures that could be exerted by fishing activities considered capable of affecting the Annex I reef were determined using the information on activity-pressure relationships in the JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022. The potential pressures exerted by demersal trawl are summarised in Table 2.

Pressures that are not caused by the activities (those listed as ‘Not relevant’ in Table 2) will not be considered further in the assessment. According to the PAD methods document, for pressures with ‘low’ risk profiles, these pressures generally do not occur at a level of concern and should not require consideration as part of an assessment unless there are evidence-based cases or site-specific factors that increase the risk, or uncertainty on the level of pressure on a receptor. For pressures with ‘medium-high’ risk profiles, these pressures are commonly induced by the activity at a level that needs to be considered further as part of an assessment.

2.4 Significance of effects/impacts to protected features

To determine whether each pressure is likely to have a significant effect on the site’s features, the sensitivity assessments and risk profiling of pressures from the JNCC conservation advice package and the JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022 were used.

Table 3 identifies the pressures from the relevant gears (demersal trawl) that could have a likely significant effect on each feature. Where a pressure from a particular gear is identified as not having a likely significant effect on a feature, the descriptors to justify this are described below.

Table 4 provides an overview of the gears and the subsequent pressures and the potential for those pressures to cause a likely significant effect to each protected feature. This takes into account the level of risk of a pressure occurring from the specified gear type, and the sensitivity of the protected feature to that pressure. Where a medium-high level of risk of the pressure occurring from the gear type corresponds with features sensitivity, an LSE has been identified.

To ensure the effects of fishing activities in-combination with other activities (including other fishing activities) are fully assessed, the pressures from fishing activities which were not identified as having a likely significant effect but which do interact with the features are considered in the in-combination aspect of the assessment where gears exerting those pressures have not been identified as requiring management (Part C).

Considering both the information on the pressure activity association (Table 2) and the sensitivity of the features (Table 3), pressures with the potential to cause likely significant effects are summarised in Table 4.

Pressures that are not relevant to demersal trawls or demersal seines (pressures that are not exerted by that fishing activity: ‘not relevant to the activity’ in Table 3) do not need to be considered further in the assessment. According to the PAD methods document (Robson et al., 2018), pressures with low risk profiles (i.e. ‘low’ risk profile for the activity: Tables 3 and 4) generally do not occur at a level of concern and should not require consideration as part of an assessment, unless there are evidence-based case or site-specific factors that increase the risk, or there is uncertainty on the level of pressure on a receptor. Pressures with ‘medium-high’ risk profiles are commonly induced by the activity at a level that needs to be considered further as part of an assessment.

Pressures that were not relevant to the feature, do not need to be considered further in the assessment (Table 4). Pressures where the feature was ‘not sensitive’ (Table 3) can also be screened out. Any pressures that do not have a sensitivity assessment (either ‘not assessed’ or ‘no evidence’) should be considered as this does not mean that the feature is not sensitive, only that there is insufficient evidence to make an assessment.

Pressures with a medium-high risk profile in PAD and to which the feature is sensitive would meet the definition of a likely significant effect (“any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that would negatively and significantly affect the conservation objectives established for the habitats and species significantly present on the site”: EU Commission, 2021). Of all the pressures considered, five have a medium-high risk profiles where the feature is also sensitive, or sensitivity is unknown (i.e. no sensitivity assessment exists due to insufficient evidence): abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed; penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed, including abrasion; smothering and siltation rate changes (Light); removal of target species and removal of non-target species. These five pressures are subsequently considered to have the potential to have likely significant effects (LSE) on the Annex I feature.

2.5 Part A Conclusion

Considering the information on pressures and sensitivity above, and guidance within the EU Commission guidance on the Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites; a methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC in relation to European Sites, demersal trawls (bottom otter trawl and multi-rig trawl) have the potential to have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the reef feature within Anton Dohrn SAC, through the following pressures: abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the seabed; penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed, including abrasion; smothering and siltation rate changes (light); removal of target species and removal of non-target species. Accordingly, these five pressures will be taken through to Part B of the assessment.