Planning Scotland's Seas: 2013 - The Scottish Marine Protected Area Project – Developing the Evidence Base for Impact Assessments and the Sustainability Appraisal Final Report - Appendix E - Marine Site Reports

• Costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs associated with potential future development; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Displacement impacts.

• Displacement impacts.

• Displacement impacts.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• See national costs.

• See national costs.

• See national costs.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high sensitivity.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity.

• Cost of anchorage relocation.

• Cost of anchorage relocation.

• Cost of anchorage relocation.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features.

• Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features; and
• Additional survey costs incurred once every 10 years (2019 & 2029) to inform new CAR licence applications.

• Additional assessment costs for new CAR licence applications to assess impacts to MPA features; and
• Additional survey costs incurred once every 10 years (2019 & 2029) to inform new CAR licence applications.

• Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application.

• Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application; and
• Additional baseline visual survey costs -£1.6k per CAR licence application

• Additional assessment costs for CAR licence once every 10 years (2019, 2029) of £500 per CAR licence application; and
• Additional baseline visual survey costs -£1.6k per CAR licence application

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

One Shellfish aquaculture site (Lamlash mussel farm) is located within the ARR proposed MPA. This aquaculture site directly overlaps with the feature 'ocean quahog aggregations' under all scenarios (lower, intermediate and upper). The site is within 1km of this feature under all scenarios and within 1km of tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves, seagrass beds under the upper scenario only.

There is no public information on potential future development within the ARR proposed MPA. In the absence of information on potential future developments, no site specific assessment has been possible. A national assessment of the costs of obtaining planning permission for new developments is provided separately.

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• N/A

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Possible costs associated with potential future development. A national assessment of additional assessment and survey costs for potential future development is provided separately; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, Nephrops trawls, dredges and other gears (over-15m) and nephrops trawls, pots, dredges and hand fishing (under-15m) operate within the ARR proposed MPA. The value of catches from the ARR area was £706,000 (over-15m vessels) and £246,000 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m vessels are predominantly into Campbeltown (58% by value), Troon and Saltcoats (13%) and Troon (10%). For the over-15m fleet, nephrops trawlers operate in particular in the outer part of the ARR proposed MPA (further from the Arran coast), while dredgers operate across the inner part (closer to the Arran coast).

Management measures for the scenarios have been developed based on the sensitivity and vulnerability of the features to the pressures caused by different gear types and SNH recommendations.

Provisional ScotMap data indicate that the annual average earnings from the ARR proposed MPA was £276,000, with over 70% of this from nephrops trawls. The spatial distribution of value from nephrops trawls indicates that the majority of value in the ARR proposed MPA and surrounding area is derived from the Firth of Clyde in the area north of the southern tip of the Mull of Kintyre and Girvan on the mainland. Since ICES rectangle 39E4 covers a wider area than this, it is likely that the ICES rectangle estimate for the cost impact on <15m nephrops trawls is an under-estimate. ScotMap data would indicate an annual cost impact of around £0.200 million on <15m nephrops trawls under the Upper Scenario. The coverage for ScotMap interviews in the region was 63.8% (total value of reported landings from the Fisheries Information Network for those vessels included in the ScotMap value analysis expressed as a percentage of the total reported landings for all vessels <15m). Therefore the ScotMap estimate is likely to under-represent the value of fishing by under-15m vessels, and the spatial representation of the value of fishing is less robust than in regions where coverage is higher.

VMS data indicate that there are no foreign vessels fishing within the ARR proposed MPA.

Unlike most other sectors, the potential cost of designation on commercial fisheries is a loss or displacement of current (and future) output, caused by restrictions on fishing activities. Any decrease in output will, all else being equal, reduce the Gross Value Added ( GVA) generated by the sector and have knock-on effects on the GVA generated by those industries that supply commercial fishing vessels. The costs estimates for this sector have therefore been estimated in terms of GVA.

GVA estimates have been generated by applying fleet segment-specific 'GVA/total income' ratios to the value of landings affected. The GVA ratios have been calculated using data on total income and GVA from the Sea Fish Industry Authority Multi-year Fleet Economic Performance Dataset (published March 2013). Further details on the GVA ratios and the methodology for estimating GVA and employment impacts applied are presented in Appendix C7.

It is important to note that all costs presented below assume that all affected landings are lost, that is, there is no displacement of fishing activity to alternative fishing grounds. In reality, some displacement is likely to occur and hence the cost, GVA and employment impacts presented in this table are likely to overestimate the costs.

• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across seagrass beds.

• Reduce mobile bottom-contact gear pressure (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) by 50% across burrowed mud;
• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gears (see above) across maerl beds and seagrass features;
• Closure to beam trawls and dredges (gears likely to impact on ocean quahog) across the ocean quahog feature extent and reduce pressure from these gears by 50% across tide-swept coarse sands; and
• Limit further expansion of static gears.

• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across full extent of MPA; and
• Limit further expansion of static gears.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.001);
• Dredges (<0.001).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (<0.001);
• Other trawls (<0.001);
• Dredges (<0.001);

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.157);
• Dredges (0.051);
• Other trawls (0.001).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.029);
• Other trawls (<0.001);
• Dredges (0.014).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.492);
• Dredges (0.099);
• Other trawls (0.002).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Nephrops trawls (0.150);
• Other trawl (<0.001);
• Dredges (0.018).

• Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

• Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

• Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.

There are no energy generation activities currently operating within the ARR proposed MPA boundary or corresponding buffer zones. Thus, economic costs and management measures associated with energy generation in this proposed MPA are described in light of known possible future developments.

One cable route for a potential future tidal energy generation within a proposed Area of Search (AoS) could pass through the ARR proposed MPA boundary, overlapping numerous MPA features. Under all scenarios ( i.e. lower, intermediate and upper extent), this potential cable route overlaps ocean quahog and burrowed mud features. The features maerl beds, maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers and tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves also overlap the potential cable route within the MPA under the intermediate and upper scenarios. The MPA feature seagrass beds overlaps the potential cable route, but only under the upper scenario.

As a result of the sensitivity of maerl beds and seagrass beds, additional mitigation measures could be required under the intermediate and upper scenarios. For instance, maerl beds (and maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers) are an OSPAR and BAP designated feature are of high sensitivity to physical change (to another seabed type) and sub-surface abrasion/penetration and of medium sensitivity to water clarity changes and changes in water flow (tidal current). Seagrass beds ( OSPAR and BAP designated) are of high sensitivity to changes in water clarity and of medium sensitivity to permanent change of one marine habitat type to another (through changes in substratum), sub-surface abrasion/penetration and changes in water flow (tidal current). However, it would be expected that mitigation measures for these features would need to be implemented irrespective of any MPA designation and, therefore, the designation would not result in additional costs being incurred in respect of these features.

Under all scenarios ( i.e. lower, intermediate and upper), the potential cable route overlaps 'burrowed mud'; a feature which is not OSPAR or BAP designated. It is possible that additional mitigation measures could be necessary to protect burrowed mud features within the ARR proposed MPA boundary. The conservation objective for burrowed mud is currently to recover and, thus, the SNH management option is to 'remove' the activity. Therefore, seasonal restrictions on cable laying and re-routing of cables may be required under the upper scenarios.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within 1km of proposed activities.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within 1km of cable route; and
• Additional survey costs incurred to inform new licence applications.

• Additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within 1km of cable route;
• Additional survey costs incurred to inform new licence applications;
• Seasonal restrictions on laying cables during the time when ocean quahog larvae are likely to be undergoing settlement (assumed developer could work around these at no additional cost); and
• Re-routing of cables to avoid sensitive features.

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k. Application estimated to be submitted in 2024 (tidal energy AoS export cable route).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k. Application estimated to be submitted in 2024 (tidal energy AoS export cable route); and
• Additional survey costs - £5k per linear km of development (8.9km).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £12k. Application estimated to be submitted in 2024 (tidal energy AoS export cable route);
• Additional survey costs - £5k per linear km of development (12km); and
• Re-routeing of cable (2026) - £1.01m per km (burrowed mud, 10% of 15km = 1.5km).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

Ten military practice areas (Brodick (X5510), Lamlash (X5513), Pladda (X5522), Stafnish (X5523) and Arran Lamlash Harbour (X5560); and five submarine exercise areas) overlap with the ARR proposed MPA.

The military practice areas Brodick (X5510), Lamlash (X5513) and Arran Lamlash Harbour (X5560) overlap with kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment (all scenarios), maerl beds (all scenarios), maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers (all scenarios), and ocean quahog (all scenarios). In addition Brodick (X5510) overlaps with burrowed mud (all scenarios) and tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves (all scenarios), Lamlash (X5513) overlaps with burrowed mud (all scenarios) and seagrass beds (all scenarios), Arran Lamlash Harbour (X5560) overlaps with tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves (all scenarios), Pladda (X5522) overlaps with burrowed mud (all scenarios) and ocean quahog (all scenarios) and Stafnish (X5523) overlaps with ocean quahog (all scenarios).

The five submarine exercise areas overlap with the features of the ARR proposed MPA to varying degrees under the different extent scenarios.

The features and associated habitats which overlap with military practice areas have not been described as vulnerable to MoD activities in this proposed MPA. It is assumed that management relating to MoD activity will be coordinated through the MoD's Maritime Environmental Sustainability Appraisal Tool ( MESAT) which the MoD uses to assist in meeting its environmental obligations. This process will include operational guidance to reduce significant impacts of military activities on MPAs. It is assumed that the MoD will incur additional costs in adjusting MESAT and other MoD environmental assessment tools in order to consider whether its activities will impact on the conservation objectives of MPAs and also incur additional costs in adjusting electronic charts to consider MPAs. However, these costs will be incurred at national level and hence no site-specific cost assessments have been made.

• See National Assessment.

• See National Assessment.

• See National Assessment.

• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from all features with a high sensitivity.

• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from features with high or medium sensitivity. If not possible to relocate away from sensitive features, relocate to more representative areas.

• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from features with high or medium sensitivity. If not possible to relocate away from sensitive features, relocate to more representative areas.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high sensitivity.

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity.

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity.

A number of anchorages and cruise routes for recreational boating overlap with features proposed for designation within the ARR proposed MPA boundary. There are eight cruise routes intersecting the MPA proposal that overlap with proposed designated features under different extent scenarios; three designated as heavy traffic, three as medium and two as low traffic. Cruising routes are not expected to incur any management or assessment costs.

Under the upper scenario there are seven recreational anchorages that overlap with proposed protected features within the MPA proposal boundary. Overlaps with ocean quahog, kelp and seaweed communities, seagrass beds and shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves have been identified for the anchorages present. Spatial data show three Crown Estate mooring points within the proposed MPA and a larger mooring area with another two mooring points within it. It is noted, however, that this may be an underestimate and additional mooring points may be present within the mooring area that are not represented by the data. Crown Estate moorings overlap with ocean quahog, seagrass beds, maerl beds, maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers, tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves and kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment.

Under the intermediate and lower scenarios, SNH have identified two recreational anchorages that overlap with proposed protected features. A recreational anchorage in Lamlash Bay overlaps with point records of shallow-tide swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves in the 100m zone and kelp and seaweed communities in the 100m and 200m zones. In Whiting Bay, one recreational anchorage overlaps with point records for seagrass beds.

• Relocate anchorages from Whiting Bay which overlap with seagrass beds because this feature has medium sensitivity to surface abrasion pressure associated with anchoring. If not possible to relocate from features, relocate to less sensitive or more representative area; and
• No additional management required for other anchorages in possible MPA area that overlap with shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves and kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment because these features have low sensitivity to surface abrasion associated with anchoring and tend to be more dynamic habitats that can recover quicker from such pressures.

• Relocate anchorages from Whiting Bay which overlap with seagrass beds because this feature has medium sensitivity to surface abrasion pressure associated with anchoring. If not possible to relocate from features, relocate to less sensitive or more representative area; and
• No additional management required for other anchorages in possible MPA area that overlap with shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves and kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment because these features have low sensitivity to surface abrasion associated with anchoring and tend to be more dynamic habitats that can recover quicker from such pressures.

• Relocate anchorages and moorings away from seagrass, maerl or coarse shell gravel with burrowing sea cucumbers and maerl beds because these features have medium and high sensitivities to surface abrasion pressure associated with anchoring. If not possible to relocate from features, relocate to less sensitive or more representative area.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Cost of anchorage relocation.

• Cost of anchorage relocation.

• Cost of anchorage relocation.

• Where cables need replacing, additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within the proposed development footprint.

• Where cables need replacing, additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within the proposed development footprint.

• Where cables need replacing, additional licensing costs to assess potential impacts to features within the proposed development footprint;
• Additional survey costs incurred to inform new licence applications; and
• Re-routing of telecom cable to avoid burrowed mud.

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £10k assumed to be in 2024 (assume only one of existing telecom cables will need replacing over assessment period).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £10k assumed to be in 2024 (assume only one of existing telecom cables will need replacing over assessment period).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £10k assumed to be in 2024 (assume only one of existing telecom cables will need replacing over assessment period);
• Additional survey costs (£5k per linear km of development) - £45k (worst case); and
• Re-routeing of cable to avoid burrowed mud feature (£1.01m per km - approximately 1km of additional cable required).

• None

• None

• None

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Healt h (increase in illness, mental stress, loss of self esteem

• Increase in crime; and
• Reduction in f u ture emp lo y me n t prospects/future earnings.

• Empl o y m e nt - reduced employment due to changes in costs and earnings profile of vessels ( e.g. increased fuel costs, gear development and adaption costs, additional quota costs);
• Conflict/Loss of social cohesion - diminishing fishing grounds may increase conflict with other vessels/gear types, increase social tensions within fishing communities and lead to a loss of social cohesion among fleets. Could also lead to increased operating costs as a result of lost or damaged gear. Equally, gear conflict could reduce where gears are restricted/prohibited;
• Healt h - increased risks to the safety of fishers and vessels and increased stress due to moving to lesser known areas;
• E n v ironmental - increased impact in targeting new areas, longer streaming times and increased fuel consumption; and
• Cultur e a nd her i tag e - change in traditional fishing patterns/ activities.

Future employment opportunities - if the delays deter investments there will be a negative impact on economic activity and future job creation in this sector.

Environment - possible negative impact in relation to climate change and the ability of the Scottish Government to meet its 2020 renewables targets, decarbonisation targets and climate change targets. There would also be consequent financial implications of climate change impacts.

This impact is uncertain and is only likely to arise under the upper scenario. JNCC's current advice is that the intermediate scenario represents their best view on management requirements.

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

West North-West (and Belfast)

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Campbeltown (59%), Ayr (22%), Belfast (11%), Oban (7%)

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if parent loses job/becomes unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if individuals lose job/become unemployed

xx

Potential negative effect if retirees own affected vessels or live in households affected by unemployment.

xxx

0.0-8.7 job losses

Potentially significant negative effect on individuals that lose job/become unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if member of household loses job/becomes unemployed.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

xx

West

xx

Campbeltown Troon and Saltcoates Tarbet Carradale Ardrossan Girven

xx

Coastal

Urban and Rural

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

x

Information only available on average incomes not the distribution of income. Therefore, not clear whether this group will be affected.

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.