Draft Fisheries Assessment – Pobie Bank Reef 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; and for sites partially or wholly within the inshore region under Regulation 48(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994. The test for likely significant effect under Regulation 28(2)(b) of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and Regulation 48(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 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 for 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. The potential for an LSE was 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 appropriate assessment stage (Part B) to determine whether the plan or project would have an adverse impact on site integrity.

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 features is not exposed to the pressure, and is not likely to be in the future; or
  • If the effect/impact of the pressure is not likely to be significant.
• 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 potential scale or magnitude of any effect is likely to be significant; or
  • 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 the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994 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

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 joint JNCC-NatureScot advice package ‘Pobie Bank Reef MPA: Relevant Documentation & Conservation Advice 2013’ and JNCC Fisheries Management Options Paper: Pobie Bank Reef Special Area of Conservation has been used to inform this assessment. This is the most recent assessment package and options paper available.

Where appropriate, this advice has been supplemented by information on feature sensitivity from the Advice on Operations Package for Stanton Banks SAC and pressures associated with fishing activity from the JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022. As this site does not contain a published Advice on Operations Package, on the agreement with JNCC, Stanton Banks SAC Advice and Operations Package has been used as a proxy evidence package, due the similarity of features present, including the presence of Annex I reef sub-types ‘bedrock’ and ‘stony’ reef at both sites.

2.2 Activities taking place within Pobie Bank Reef 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 Pobie Bank Reef SAC from 2015 – 2019 were analysed to identify the gear types being used in the site and the aggregated gear method (Table 2). The gear types identified from 2015 – 2019 VMS data broadly align with those included in the JNCC Fisheries Management Options Paper: Pobie Bank Reef Special Area of Conservation. The fishing gears screened out at this stage were not taken forward to part B of the assessment.

Pobie Bank Reef SAC overlaps with the inshore region (0-12 nm) and subsequently inshore fishing activity was also incorporated into the screening stage. Paper logbook data were checked to determine if there were inshore fishing activities occurring within this site. Based on data from 2015 – 2019, under 12 m fishing activity does occur within Pobie Bank Reef SAC including pots and traps, dredges, bottom trawls, and rods and lines. Paper logbook data are self-reported positions and can contain errors; given that there appeared to be errors with the positional information for these data, the decision was made to exclude them from the assessment.

2.3 Potential pressures exerted by fishing activities

According to the JNCC Fisheries Management Options Paper: Pobie Bank Reef Special Area of Conservation, the activities considered capable of affecting the reef feature are various types of demersal fishing. Pelagic fishing, in particular single mid-water trawls and mid-water paired trawls, whilst occurring in the site were not considered capable of affecting the reef feature as these fishing activities do not contact the seabed. Gear types considered capable of affecting the feature were retained in the assessment, gear types not considered capable of affecting the feature were screened out.

The potential pressures that could be exerted by fishing activities considered capable of affecting the Annex I reef feature (demersal trawls, demersal seines, and anchored nets/lines) 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 demersal trawls, demersal seines, and static anchored nets/lines are summarised in Table 3.

The aggregated gear type of ‘anchored nets/lines’ spans two categories in 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. The above water noise and collision above water pressures both had low risk profiles for all four fishing activity types, however these pressures were not considered capable of affecting the reef feature and were excluded.

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 NatureScot and JNCC Conservation Objectives and Advice on Operations conservation advice package and the JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022 were used. A detailed JNCC Advice on Operations Spreadsheet is not available for this site.

A detailed JNCC Advice on Operations Spreadsheet is not available for Pobie Bank Reef SAC, therefore, in consultation with JNCC, the Advice on Operations Package for Stanton Banks was used as a proxy for this site due to the similarity of the features present.

Table 4 identifies the pressures from particular gears 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, 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 having a likely significant effect 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 3) and the sensitivity of the reef feature (Table 4), pressures with the potential to cause likely significant effects are summarised in Table 5.

Pressures that are not relevant to demersal trawls, demersal seines, and anchored nets/lines (pressures that are not exerted by that fishing activity: ‘not relevant to the activity’ in Table 5) 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 & 5) 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 5). Pressures where the feature was ‘not sensitive’ (Table 4) 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 Advice on Operations identified the feature as being 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 the pressures considered, there are six which have medium-high risk profiles for at least one of the fishing gear types and to which the feature is sensitive (Table 5): 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, changes in suspended solids (water clarity), smothering and siltation rate changes (light), removal of target species and the removal of non-target species. Five of these pressures, with the exception of removal of target species, have the potential to be exerted by demersal trawls and demersal seines. The two pressures attributed to anchored nets/lines (set nets and line fishing) abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed and removal of non-target species. These six pressures are subsequently considered to have the potential to have likely significant effects (LSE) on the Annex I reef 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, mobile demersal fishing (including trawls and seines) and static demersal fishing (anchored nets/lines) have the potential to have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the reef feature within Pobie Bank Reef SAC, through 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; changes in suspended solids (water clarity); smothering and siltation rate changes (light); removal of target species and the removal of non-target species. These six pressures are taken through to Part B of the assessment.