Draft Fisheries Assessment – Stanton 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. 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 designated habitats and species of the protected area. If any likely significant effect of a plan or project cannot be excluded beyond reasonable scientific 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:

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

a. If the features 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

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 Stanton Banks MPA – Conservation Advice 2018 was used to inform this assessment. This is the most recent conservation advice available. Where appropriate, this advice has been supplemented by information on pressures associated with fishing activity from the JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022.

2.2 Activities taking place within Stanton Banks SAC

To screen out fishing activities that were not taking place within the site or likely to take part in the future, VMS data within Stanton Banks SAC from 2015 – 2019 were analysed to identify the gear types being used in the site and the aggregated gear method (Table 2). The fishing gears screened out at this stage were not taken forward to Part B of the assessment.

*Demersal seines only detected in ICES gridded data, indicating presence of foreign vessels where the exact gear type and code are unknown.

2.3 Potential pressures exerted by site fishing activities on protected features

According to the JNCC Stanton Banks SAC Advice on Operations, the activities considered capable of affecting the reef feature are various types of demersal fishing. Pelagic fishing, in particular single mid-water trawls, whilst occurring in the site were not considered capable of affecting the reef feature as these fishing activities do not contact the bottom. 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 static traps/creels) 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 traps/creels are summarised in Table 3.

The above water noise and collision above water pressures both had low risk profiles for all three fishing activity types, however these 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 (Table 4), the sensitivity assessments and risk profiling of pressures from the JNCC Advice on Operations conservation advice package and the JNCC Marine Pressures-Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022 were used.

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).

*Indicates where no information was provided in the Advice on Operations; cross-checks with the JNCC Marine Pressures Activities Database (PAD) v1.5 2022 suggest these scores should be Not Relevant.

**Indicates where no information was provided in the Advice on Operations; cross-checks with MarLIN sensitivity assessments for the two biotopes present indicated scores should be Not Relevant. Further details on these categories are available in the associated methods document.

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 traps/creels (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 from the JNCC Advice on Operations that were, assessed as not being relevant for the Annex I habitat do not need to be considered further in the assessment (Table 5). Pressures where the feature was assessed as not being sensitive can also be screened out.

Pressures with a medium-high risk profile in PAD and to which JNCC Advice on Operations assessed the feature as being sensitive have the potential to cause likely significant effects.

Of all the pressures considered, five have medium-high risk profiles (PAD) and have high sensitivity (JNCC Advice on Operations): 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); and removal of non-target species (Table 5). These five pressures are subsequently considered to the have the potential to have likely significant effects (LSE) on the Annex I reef feature. All five of these pressures are exerted by demersal trawls and demersal seines; static traps/creels are only associated with abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed, and removal of non-target species.

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 (Part C).

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) has the potential to have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the reef feature within Stanton Banks 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); and the removal of non-target species. Static demersal fishing (traps/creels) have the potential to have a likely significant effect (LSE) on the reef feature within Stanton Banks SAC through abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed and the removal of non-target species. The five pressures considered to have the potential for LSE are taken through to Part B of the assessment.