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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• None.

• None.

• Displacement impacts.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Relocation of anchorages/ mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

There are 21 finfish aquaculture sites within the boundary of the FTH proposed MPA. These are Balta Island, Baltasound Harbour, Baltasound Pier, Bastavoe North, Bastavoe South, Bow of Hascosay, Brecknagarth, Djubawick, East of Holm Heogland (Burkwel), Kirkabister, Mula, Pier, Rockfield, Sandwick, Swarta Skerry, Turness, Uyea Isle, Vee Taing, Wick of Belmont, Wick of Vatsetter and Winna Ness. All of these sites directly overlap with the Black Guillemot feature under all scenarios. There is an additional finfish farm within 1km of the proposed MPA boundary under all scenarios (Wick of Garth). There is one pending aquaculture site within the boundary of the FTH proposed MPA, Bunya Sand, which directly overlaps with the Black Guillemot feature under all scenarios.

There are four aquaculture sites, Balta Island, Baltasound Harbour, Baltasound Pier and Swarta Skerry, which directly overlap with the circalittoral sand and coarse sediment communities feature under all scenarios. There are two additional sites, Djubawick and Turness, are located within 1km of this feature under all scenarios.

One aquaculture site, Sandwick, directly overlaps with the Horse mussel bed feature under all scenarios. Bastavoe North and Kirkabister aquaculture sites are located within 1km of this feature under all scenarios.

Bastavoe South aquaculture site directly overlaps with the Kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities under the lower and intermediate scenarios. A further eight sites are located within 1km of this feature under the lower and intermediate scenarios (Bastavoe North, Brecknagarth, East of Holm Heogland, Kirkabister, Rockfield, Sandwick, Uyle Isle and Vee Taing).

Ten Aquaculture sites (Balta Island, Bow Hascosay, Brecknagarth, East of Holm Heogland , Pier, Rockfield, Sandwick, Swarta Skerry, Turness and Uyea Isle) directly overlap with the maerl bed feature under all scenarios. A further six sites are located within 1km of the feature under all scenarios (Baltasound Harbour, Djubawick, Kirkabister, Mula, Vee Taing, and the Wick of Vatsetter).

Balta Island, Turness, Uyea Isle, Vee Taing and Winna Ness all directly overlap with the feature tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves under the upper scenario only. Nine are located within 1km of the feature under the upper scenario only (Brecknagarth, East of Holm Heogland, Pier, Rockfield, Turness, Uyea Isle, Vee Taing, Wick of Vatsetter and Winna Ness), and five are located within 1km of the feature under all scenarios (Balta Island, Baltasound Harbour, Kirkabister, Swarta Skerry and Wick of Belmont ).

There is no public information on potential future development within the proposed MPA. In the absence of infomation on potential future developments, the assessment has focused on the costs associated with obtaining new CAR licences. A national assessment of the costs of obtaining planning permission for new developments is provided separately.

• 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.

There are ten shellfish aquaculture sites within the boundary of the FTH proposed MPA. These are Baltasound Harbour, Baltasound Voe, Basta Ness, Bastavoe Yell, Buness, Camb Mid Yell, Croo Taing, Hawksness, Kirkabister and Port Henry and all directly overlap with the Black Guillemot feature under all scenarios (lower, intermediate and upper). There is an additional shellfish farm (North Ayre ) within 1km of the proposed MPA boundary under all scenarios.

Three shellfish farms, Baltasound Harbour, Baltasound Voe and Buness, directly overlap with Circalittoral sand and coarse sediment communities under all scenarios. There are no additional sites within 1km boundary of the proposed MPA feature.

There are two shellfish aquaculture sites, Hawksness and Kirkabister, within the FTH proposed MPA boundary which directly overlap with the Kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities on sublittoral mixed sediment feature under the lower and intermediate scenarios. There is an additional shellfish farm (Basta Ness) within 1km of the proposed MPA boundary under the lower and intermediate scenarios.

One shellfish farm, Croo Taing, directly overlaps with the interest feature Maerl Beds under all scenarios. Three additional shelffish farms (Baltasound Harbour, Basta Ness and Hawksness) are within 1km of this feature under all scenarios.

One shellfish farm, Croo Taing, directly overlaps with the interest feature tide-swept coarse sand with burrowing bivalves under the upper scenario only. There are two additional shellfish farm (Hawksness) within 1km of this feature, Hawksness under the upper scenario only and Baltasound Harbour under all scenarios all scenarios.

There are two shellfish farms (Bastavoe Yell and North Aye) within 1km of Horse mussel beds under all scenarios.

There is no public information on potential future development within the proposed MPA. In the absence of infomation 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 landings statistics, pelagic trawls, dredges, whitefish trawls and seines and other gears (over-15m) and pelagic trawls, dredges, lines, pots and other gears (under-15m vessel) operate within the FTH proposed MPA. The value of landings from the FTH area was £158,000 (over-15m vessels) and £51,500 (under-15m vessels, indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m vessels are into Ijmuiden, The Netherlands (29% by value), Lerwick (16%), Out Skerries (15%), Cullivoe (9%), Yell and Fetlar (8%) and Whalsay (7%). VMS data indicate that there were 12 non- UK vessels present within the FTH proposed MPA - 1 Danish vessel (purse seiner); 4 French vessels (1 bottom trawler, 3 unknown gear type); 1 German vessel (bottom trawler); 2 Dutch vessels (pelagic trawlers) and 4 Norwegian vessels (unknown gear type). Since the site is within 6nm, these vessels would not have been fishing and may have been transiting to Yell port. Provisional ScotMap data do not cover the Shetland Islands. For the over-15m fleet, dredgers operated in particular in the eastern part of the proposed MPA, while various trawlers operated across the area.

Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation have implemented a series of areas with known maerl beds, horse mussel beds and eel grass beds which are closed to scallop dredging. Therefore maerl beds within the MPA proposal are already protected from scallop dredging. This was originally done on an informal basis but is now underpinned by a statutory fishing order. Equally, it is unlikely that trawling would be taking place over these habitats and suction dredging is prohibited (comment from NAFC). Black guillemot, the other proposed designated biodiversity feature for the site, are not thought to be sensitive or vulnerable to pressures from fishing gears. Management measures are therefore only assessed under the upper scenario.

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.

• No cost impacts expected.

• No additional management.

• Closure to dredges across horse mussel beds and maerl beds; and
• Reduce 50% of pressure from mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish trawls and seines, nephrops trawls and seines, other trawls and seines, dredges, beam trawls) across shallow tide-swept coarse sands.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Whitefish trawls (0.001);
• Dredges (0.001).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• Other trawls (<0.001);
• Other affected gears (0.003).

• None.

• None.

• 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.

Three ports/harbours (Mid Yell, Baltasound and Yell and Fetlar) overlap the boundary of the FTH proposed MPA. The three ports/harbours overlap the MPA feature black guillemot under all three extent scenarios ( i.e. lower, intermediate and upper). Baltasound overlaps the MPA feature circalittoral sand and coarse sediment communities under all three extent scenario. Yell and Fetlar overlaps the OSPAR designated MPA feature tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves under the upper extent scenario only. Therefore, management costs may be incurred under the assumption that small ports/harbours will undergo one new development within the relevant time frame (2014-2033), assumed for the year 2024.

There are four anchorages/mooring areas within the FTH proposed MPA boundary, although only two overlap features of potential designation. One anchorage/mooring area overlaps the feature kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities on sublittoral mixed sediment, whilst the other overlaps tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves, both under all scenarios. Costs may be expected to relocate anchorages/mooring areas to less sensitive areas, although any associated costs are non-quantifiable.

• Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to 3 in total); and
• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from all features with a high sensitivity.

• Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to 3 in total); and
• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from all features with a high or medium sensitivity. If not possible to relocate away from medium-sensitivity features, relocate to more representative areas.

• Additional licensing costs for small port developments (up to 3 in total); and
• Relocate anchorages/mooring areas away from all features with a high or medium sensitivity. If not possible to relocate away from medium-sensitivity features, relocate to more representative areas.

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2024 (Mid Yell, Baltasound and Yell and Fetlar).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2024 (Mid Yell, Baltasound and Yell and Fetlar).

• Additional assessment costs for licence application - £6.75k per licence application. Application(s) estimated to be submitted in 2024 (Mid Yell, Baltasound and Yell and Fetlar).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.

• Relocation of anchorages/mooring areas away from features of high and medium sensitivity; and
• Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment.