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

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
• Displacement impacts.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
• Displacement impacts.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
• Displacement impacts.

• See national assessment.

• See national assessment.

• See national assessment.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Costs of mitigation measures;
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Costs of mitigation measures;
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, pelagic trawls, otter trawls and lines (over-15m vessels) and whitefish trawls, pelagic trawls, lines and a small amount of pots and nephrops trawls (under-15m vessels) operate within the BHT proposed MPA ( UK vessels). The value of catches from the BHT area for over-15m vessels ( VMS data) cannot be disclosed as there were fewer than 5 vessels. The value of catches for under-15m vessels was £563,000 (indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). For the over-15m fleet, lines and whitefish trawls operate in particular in the eastern part of the proposed MPA across the area of offshore subtidal sands and gravels. Landings from the over-15m vessels are predominantly made into Peterhead (36% by value), unspecified Norwegian port(s) (13%) and Egersound (12%).

Seamount communities are in the western part of the proposed MPA in the seamount area, with burrowed mud, offshore deep sea muds, offshore subtidal sands and gravels in the central and eastern part. 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 based on JNCC recommendations. A lower scenario which does not exclude static gear use on seamount communities has also been included.

Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 84 foreign vessels were active in the BHT area in 2012: 32 from Norway; 24 from Ireland; 11 from France; 8 from the Netherlands; 6 from Spain, and 1 from each of Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Germany. The majority are pelagic trawls or purse seines and therefore are unlikely to be affected by management measures under any scenario. There were 6 French vessels fishing with bottom trawl, 4 Irish vessels fishing with bottom trawl or seine; and 1 Danish vessel fishing with bottom trawl, which may be affected by the management measures assessed under all scenarios. Six Spanish vessels fish with nets, and could be impacted under the intermediate and upper scenarios. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian, Greenland or Faroe Islands vessels was available.

Information submitted by the French ministry indicated that 12 vessels in 2008, and 10 vessels in 2011, fished in the proposed MPA area. They were predominantly demersal trawlers, targeting anglerfish, black scabbardfish, grenadiers and hake, with catches worth €1.639 million (in 2011). The vessels originate from Lorient, Concarneau and Fécamp ports, but have their home ports at Lochinver, Lorient, Concarneau, Killybegs and Ijmuiden. 8% of their turnover is dependent on fishing in the proposed MPA area, and they account for 122 FTE jobs on board.

Provisional ScotMap data do not indicate any under-15m vessel activity in the BHT proposed MPA. The cost estimates for the under-15m sector may be overestimates, as the 'under-15m' length group in the ICES rectangle landings data may include cases where information on vessel length and/or administrative port is missing from landings returns.

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 across the lower scenario feature extent for the seamount.

• Closure to all bottom contact gear (static and mobile) (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls, and dredges, nets, lines and pots) across a portion of the seamount area (down to 1500m) (for seamount communities); and
• Closure to mobile bottom contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls, and dredges) across burrowed mud and offshore subtidal sands and gravels, excluding two depth-based fishing corridors (300-600m and 1200-1400m) where all gears are allowed.

• Closure to all bottom contact gear (static and mobile) (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls, and dredges, nets, lines and pots) across the whole seamount area (for seamount communities); and
• Closure to mobile bottom contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls, and dredges) across burrowed mud and offshore subtidal sands and gravels.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• None.
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.006).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (fewer than 5 vessels; value not presented).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.318)

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (fewer than 5 vessels; value not presented).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.432)

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using mobile bottom-contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (6 vessels), Ireland (4 vessels), Denmark (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (32 vessels) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); and
• 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.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (6 vessels), Spain (6 vessels), Ireland (4 vessels), Denmark (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (32 vessels) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); and
• 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.

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (6 vessels), Spain (6 vessels), Ireland (4 vessels), Denmark (1 vessel), and possibly Norway (32 vessels) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); and
• 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.

Five military practice areas: Fleet Exercise Area ( PEXA X5501; miscellaneous fleet exercises) and four submarine exercise areas overlap with the BHT proposed MPA.

The Fleet Exercise Area overlaps with burrowed mud, offshore deep sea muds, offshore subtidal sands and gravels, orange roughy and seamount communities (all scenarios). All submarine exercise areas overlap with burrowed mud and offshore deep sea muds (all scenarios). One submarine area also overlaps with offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios) whilst the fourth submarine area overlaps with orange roughy and seamount communities (all scenarios).

The features proposed for designation which overlap with the 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.

• Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 ^th and 27 ^th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks).

• Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 ^th and 27 ^th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks);
• Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
• Micro-siting in areas of reduced seapen density using data held by JNCC and collected by operators; and
• Treat cuttings that use oil-based muds on site.

• Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 ^th and 27 ^th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 only (as no significant discoveries present within awarded blocks);
• Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
• Micro-siting in areas of reduced seapen density using data held by JNCC and collected by operators;
• Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of more representative habitat types for offshore deep sea muds and offshore subtidal sand and gravels using data held by JNCC and collected by operators; and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings.

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (8 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (8 wells (2020)); and
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (8 wells (2020)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (8 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (8 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (8 wells (2020)); and
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (8 wells (2020)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (8 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (8 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (8 wells (2020));
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (8 wells (2020)); and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (8 wells (2020)).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Costs of some mitigation measures should be covered by industry best practice;
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• Costs of some mitigation measures should be covered by industry best practice;
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
• Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.

• 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
• Cul t ur e a nd her i tag e - change in traditional fishing patterns/ activities.

xx

North-East
West
North-West

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Fraserburgh (96%), Ayr (2%), Lochinver (2%)

xx

Coastal

Urban and Rural

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

0.1-6 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

x

North-West

x

Kinlochbervie

x

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