Draft Fisheries Assessment – North-West Orkney NCMPA: 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 considers whether the fishing activity would be capable of impacting the protected features of an NCMPA or any ecological or geomorphological process on which the conservation of any protected feature is dependent. 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. Activities potentially capable of impacting the protected features were identified where there was both 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 fisheries assessment stage (Part B) to determine whether the fishing activity in question would or might hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives.

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

• The pressure-feature interactions were not included for Part B:
  • If the feature is not exposed to the pressure, and is not likely to be in the future; or
  • If the effect/impact of the pressure is non-existent or insignificant..
• The pressure-feature interactions were included for assessment in Part B:
  • If the feature is exposed to the pressure, or is it likely to be in the future; and
  • If the pressure is capable of impacting the feature; or
  • If it is not possible to determine whether pressure is capable of impacting the feature.

Part B of the assessment considers the potential for activities to impact the feature 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 would or might hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives for the site.

Consideration of exposure to and the effect of a pressure on a protected feature of the NCMPA 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 Conservation Advice Package for North-west Orkney NCMPA, Management Options paper for North-west Orkney NCMPA. and JNCC and NatureScot sandeel management guidance has been used to inform this assessment. These are the most recent assessment packages available.

Where appropriate, this advice has been supplemented by information on feature sensitivity the Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool (FeAST) and pressures associated with fishing activity from the JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022.

2.2 Activities taking place within North-west Orkney NCMPA

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 North-west Orkney NCMPA from 2015 – 2019 were analysed to identify the gear types being used in the site. The data showed that anchored nets/lines, boat dredges, demersal seines, demersal trawls, pelagic fishing and pots and traps (creels) occurred within the site during the assessment period. Types and codes are detailed in Table 1.

2.3 Potential pressures exerted by site fishing activity

The potential pressures that could be exerted by fishing activities (anchored nets/lines, boat dredges, demersal seines, demersal trawls, pelagic fishing and trap/creel fishing were determined using information on activity-pressure relationships in the JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022. The potential pressures that could be exerted by pelagic fishing, demersal trawls, seines, boat dredge, anchored nets/lines and traps/creels are summarised in Table 2.

The aggregated gear type of ‘anchored nets/lines’ spans two categories in the PAD: set (fixed) net fishing and line fishing. Subsequently, potential pressures for this aggregated gear type were listed under the two PAD categories (Table 3). The risk profiling of pressures was the same for set (fixed) net fishing and line fishing within PAD, confirming that these categories could be considered together under the aggregated gear type of ‘anchored nets/lines’ in later sections of the assessment.

Within the PAD, boat dredges were considered to have a low risk of introduction of microbial pathogens however this pressure only applies to native oyster populations, which are not part of sites feature, and so this pressure was excluded from Table 2. The above water noise and collision above water pressures both had low risk profiles for all five aggregated fishing activity types, however these pressures were not considered capable of impacting the subtidal sands and gravels feature and were excluded.

2.4 Significance of effects/impacts to protected features

In the absence of a JNCC Advice on Operations advice package for this site, the Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool (FeAST) was used to determine the potential sensitivity of sandeel and sandbanks, sand wave fields and sediment wave fields (Table 3) to the pressures exerted by the relevant fishing activities (Table 2) within North-west Orkney NCMPA.

Table 3 identifies the pressures from particular gears that could be capable of impacting each feature. Where a pressure from a particular gear is identified as being capable of impacting a feature, justification is provided.

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 being capable of impacting a feature but which do interact with the feature are considered in the in-combination aspect of the assessment (Part C).

Considering both the information on the pressure activity association (Table 2) and the sensitivity of the sandeel and sandbanks, sand wave fields and sediment wave fields (Table 3), pressures that have the potential to impact the feature are summarised in Table 4.

Pressures that are not relevant to demersal trawls, demersal seines, boat dredges, traps, and anchored nets/lines (pressures that are not exerted by that fishing activity: ‘not relevant to the activity’ in Table 2) 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 2 & 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 3). Pressures from the FeAST sensitivity for sandeel and sand wave fields and sediment wave fields, that was ‘not sensitive ‘ or ‘not exposed’ 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 FeAST assessed the feature as being sensitive, medium sensitivity or high sensitivity have the potential to impact the feature.

Of all the pressures considered, four were found to have medium-high risk profiles from the fishing activity occurring within the site (PAD) and the feature was found to have medium-high sensitivity (FeAST): abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed; changes in suspended solids (water clarity); penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed, including abrasion and smothering and siltation rate changes (light) (Table 4). These four are subsequently considered to have the potential to impact the sandeel feature. All four of these pressures are exerted by demersal trawls, demersal seines and boat dredges with anchored nets/lines, and traps and creels found to exert abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed only. Pelagic fishing was shown to have no or low risk profiles and was therefore not considered further as the there was no potential to impact the sandeel feature.

To ensure the effects of fishing activities in-combination with other activities (including other fishing activities) are fully assessed, the pressures from fishing activities (pelagic fishing) which were not considered capable of impacting the feature but which do interact with the features are considered in the in-combination aspect of the assessment (Part C).

2.5 Part A Conclusion

Considering the information on pressures and sensitivity above, demersal trawls, demersal seines, boat dredges has the potential to impact the sandeel and feature in North-west Orkney NCMPA, through abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed; changes in suspended solids (water clarity), penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed, including abrasion; removal of target species, and smothering and siltation rate changes (light).

Static demersal fishing (including anchored nets/line and traps and creels) has the potential to impact the sandeel feature within North-west Orkney NCMPA through removal of target species.

Pelagic fishing does not have the potential to impact sandeel and sandbanks, sand wave fields and sediment wave fields feature within North-west Orkney NCMPA.

No fishing activities were assessed to impact the sandbanks, sand wave fields and sediment wave feature.

The five pressures considered to have the potential to impact the sandeel feature are taken through to Part B of the assessment.