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.

• 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.

• 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, whitefish trawls, nets, lines and pelagic trawls (over-15m) and whitefish trawls and other gear (pots, nets, lines, pelagic trawl, other trawl and pots) (under-15m vessels) operate within the FSS proposed MPA. The value of catches from the FSS area was £947,000 (over-15m vessels) and £657,000 (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 Scrabster (41% by value), Kinlochbervie (20%), Ullapool (14%), Peterhead (8%) and Lochinver (6%). For the over-15m fleet, nets operate in particular along the south east edge of the proposed MPA in the area of subtidal sands and gravels, while whitefish trawlers operate mainly in a central belt towards the south west of the proposed MPA over areas of ocean quahog and deep sea sponge aggregations.

Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 59 non- UK vessels were active in the FSS area in 2012: 28 from Norway; 14 from France; 5 from the Faroe Islands; 5 from Spain; 4 from Germany; and 1 from each of Denmark, Greenland and the Netherlands. The Dutch vessel fishes with pelagic gear (pelagic trawls) and therefore is unlikely to be affected by the management scenarios. 5 French vessels and 2 German vessels fish with bottom trawls and therefore may be affected by the proposed management measures under all scenarios; 1 German vessel and 5 Spanish vessels fish with lines, which may be affected under the upper scenario. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian, Faroe Islands or Greenland vessels was available.

Information submitted by the French ministry indicated that 4 vessels in 2008, and 3 vessels in 2011, fished in the proposed MPA area. In 2008, these were all >40m demersal trawlers, targeting Greenland halibut, blue ling and saithe, with catches worth €0.543 million. In 2011, these comprised >40m demersal and pelagic trawlers, and <12m potters. The vessels originated from Boulonge-sur-Mer, Lorient, Fécamp and Cherbourg ports, but had their home ports at Lochinver, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Ullapool, Ijmuiden and Portbail. Between 1 and 4% of their turnover was dependent on fishing in the proposed MPA area, and they accounted for 50-66 FTE jobs on board.

Provisional ScotMap data coverage does not extend as far as Shetland, therefore there is no indication of possible under-15m vessel activity in the FSS proposed MPA from this source. 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.

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 excludes mobile bottom-contact gear but not static gear use on deep-sea sponge aggregations has also been included.

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 the deep sea sponge feature extent.

• Closure to all bottom-contact gear (trawls, seines, dredges, nets, lines and pots) across the recorded deep sea sponge feature extent;
• Closure to beam trawls and dredges (gears likely to impact on ocean quahog) across the ocean quahog feature extent; and
• Reduce other mobile bottom contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines) pressure by 50% across the offshore subtidal sands and gravels feature.

• Closure to mobile bottom-contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across the offshore subtidal sands and gravels feature (full extent of MPA); and
• Closure to all bottom-contact gear (mobile and static) across the likely deep sea sponge feature extent ( i.e. 400-600m depth).

• None.

• None.

• None.

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.005).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.057).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.236).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.127).

• Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0. 527).
• Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
• All affected gears (0.344).

• Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using mobile bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (5 vessels), Germany (2 vessels), possibly Norway (28 vessels), Greenland (1 vessel), Faroe Islands (5 vessels)); 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 (5 vessels), Spain (5 vessels), Germany (3 vessels), possibly Norway (28 vessels), Greenland (1 vessel), Faroe Islands (5 vessels)); 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 (5 vessels), Spain (5 vessels), Germany (3 vessels), possibly Norway (28 vessels), Greenland (1 vessel), Faroe Islands (5 vessels)); 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.

7.615

5.6

The FSS proposed MPA boundary encompasses five known hydrocarbon fields that overlap with the proposed protected features. Three of these fields are currently producing (Schiehallion, Foinaven, Loyal) while the other two are under development (Laggan, Tormore). There are 69 licensed oil and gas blocks within the proposal boundary that overlap with offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios. Feature extents show that 26 of these blocks overlap with ocean quahog aggregations and 35 with offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios. Nine blocks overlap with deep sea sponge aggregations under all scenarios and 26 in the upper scenario only.

Two Floating Production and Storage Offloading Vessels ( FSPO) are present in the MPA proposal boundary (Schiehallion and Petrojarl Foinaven) that overlap with offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios). One of the platforms (Petrojarl Foinaven) overlaps with ocean quahog aggregations under all scenarios and deep sea sponge aggregations under the upper scenario only. However, both platforms are within 1km of ocean quahog aggregations (all scenarios) and deep sea sponge aggregations (upper scenario only). A decommissioning programme for the Schiehallion FPSO has been approved, with work expected to begin in mid-2013.

There are 69 pipeline sections within the FSS proposed MPA boundary, all of which overlap with offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios. Forty-six of the pipeline sections overlap with ocean quahog aggregations under all scenarios and deep sea sponge aggregations under the upper scenario only. A further 19 pipeline sections are present within 1km of the proposed protected features.

There are 248 wells within the MPA proposal that overlap with features proposed for designation. Feature extents for deep sea sponge aggregations show overlaps with 142 wells under the upper scenario only and 11 under all scenarios. Under all scenarios all 248 wells overlap with offshore subtidal sands and gravels and 142 with ocean quahog aggregations. An additional three wells outside of the MPA boundary are within 1km of the proposed protected features.

A further 16 and 36 licence awards granted under the 26 ^th and 27 ^th UK oil and gas licensing rounds respectively are present within the proposed MPA boundary that overlap with proposed protected features. Of the 26 ^th round awards, all 16 overlap with feature extents for offshore subtidal sands and gravels, 11 also overlap with ocean quahog aggregations and five overlap with deep sea sponge aggregations under all scenarios. Six of the 26 ^th round blocks also overlap with deep sea sponge aggregations under the upper scenario only. Four of the 26 ^th round awards are wholly within the MPA site while the rest overlap the boundary.

All 36 blocks awarded in the 27 ^th round overlap with offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios. Twenty-seven overlap with feature extents for ocean quahog aggregations and 16 with deep sea sponge aggregations under all scenarios. Nine of the 27 ^th round blocks overlap with feature extents for deep sea sponge aggregations under the upper scenario only. Eighteen of the 27 ^th round awards lie wholly within the MPA site while the rest overlap the boundary.

There have been four significant discoveries within the FSS proposed MPA boundary; all of which lie 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 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 ^th round awards);
• Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
• Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of reduced sponge density, drawing on 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 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 ^th round awards);
• Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
• Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of reduced sponge density, drawing on 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 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 ^th round awards);
• Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
• Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas outside of the area of deep sea sponge aggregations (the 400-600m depth contours);
• Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of more representative habitat types for offshore subtidal sands and gravels and offshore deep sea muds using data held by JNCC and collected by operator; and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings.

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (16 wells (2016) and 33 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016), 16 wells (2018) and 33 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k 4k per well (3 wells (2016), 16 wells (2018) and 33 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024)); and
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (16 wells (2016) and 33 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016), 16 wells (2018) and 33 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016), 16 wells (2018) and 33 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024)); and
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024)).

• Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (16 wells (2016) and 33 wells (2018));
• Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016), 16 wells (2018) and 33 wells (2020));
• Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2016), 16 wells (2018) and 33 wells (2020));
• Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024));
• Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024)); and
• Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (3 wells (2022) and 3 wells (2024));
• Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (2 wells (2016), 9 wells (2018), 20 wells (2020) and 2 wells (2022));
• Re-routing of new pipelines for Phases 4 - 6 - £2m per additional km of pipeline (10% of distance, 2 wells (2022));
• Survey costs for additional pipeline length - £580k per well (2 wells (2022)); and
• Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (2 wells (2016), 9 wells (2018), 20 wells (2020) and 2 wells (2022)).

• 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.

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Fraserburgh (72%), Kirkwall (22%)

xx

Coastal and Island

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

0.7-9.9 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

x

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