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

This is Appendix E for the pMPA Impact and Sustainability Report containing the detailed site by site reports. Published separately due to size.


Fetlar to Haroldswick ( FTH)

Site Area (km 2): 241

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives [ FTH]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features
Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment, horse mussel beds, maerl beds, shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves, black guillemot, circalittoral and coarse sediment communities.

Geodiversity Features
Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Shelf Seabed - components to be confirmed by SNH
Site Description
The Fetlar to Haroldswick MPA proposal covers the area around Fetlar and off the east coast of Yell in the north of the Shetlands. The MPA encompasses the majority of the existing Fetlar SPA area.
Summary of confidence in presence, extent and condition of proposed protected features and conservation objectives
Proposed Protected Feature Estimated Area of Feature (by scenario) (km 2) Confidence in
Feature Presence
Confidence in
Feature Extent
Confidence in
Feature Condition
Conservation Objective and Risk
Biodiversity Features
Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment *Lower: 16.67
Intermediate: 16.67
Upper: 16.67
Yes (Marine Scotland Science & Marine Scotland survey data, 2011 & 2012) Partial - few or scattered records Not known Conserve
Horse mussel beds Lower: 7.82
Intermediate: 7.82
Upper: 7.82
Yes ( MNCR survey data, 1987, 1988) Yes Not known Conserve
Maerl beds Lower: 22.41
Intermediate: 22.41
Upper: 22.41
Yes ( MNCR survey data, 1987, 1988) Yes Not known Conserve
Shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves Lower: 4.68
Intermediate: 4.68
Upper: 63.42
Yes (Marine Scotland Science & Marine Scotland survey data, 2011 & 2012) Partial - few or scattered records Not known Conserve
Black guillemot Lower: 203.79
Intermediate: 203.79
Upper: 241.27
Yes (Seabird 2000 census) Yes Not known Conserve
Circalittoral and coarse sediment communities Lower: 78.58
Intermediate: 96.24
Upper: 96.24
Yes (Marine Scotland Science & Marine Scotland survey data, 2011 & 2012) Yes Not known Conserve
Geodiversity Features
Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Shelf Seabed - components to be confirmed by SNH Yes All Not known Conserve
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data
References:
Area of Feature: GeMs
Confidence in feature presence and extent: SNH (2012c)

Summary of Costs and Benefits

Table 2a. Site-Specific Economic Costs on Human Activities arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (present value of total costs over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ FTH]
Human Activity Cost Impact on Activity
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Aquaculture (Finfish) 0.016 0.066 0.066
Aquaculture (Shellfish) See national costs See national costs See national costs
Commercial Fisheries* 0.000 0.000 0.030
Ports and Harbours 0.014 0.014 0.014
Total Quantified Economic Costs 0.030 0.081 0.111
Non-Quantified Economic Costs
Aquaculture (Finfish)
  • 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
Aquaculture (Shellfish)
  • 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
Commercial Fisheries
  • None.
  • None.
  • Displacement impacts.
Ports and Harbours
  • 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.
Note: For detailed information on economic cost impacts on activities, see Table 4.
* These estimates (present value of total change in GVA) assume zero displacement of fishing activity and hence are likely to overestimate the costs.
Table 2b. Site-Specific Public Sector Costs arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ FTH]
Description Public Sector Costs
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Public Sector Costs (Discounted)
Preparation of Marine Management Schemes None None None
Preparation of Statutory Instruments None None None
Development of voluntary measures National assessment National assessment National assessment
Site monitoring National assessment National assessment National assessment
Compliance and enforcement National assessment National assessment National assessment
Promotion of public understanding National assessment National assessment National assessment
Regulatory and advisory costs associated with licensing decisions 0.001* 0.001* 0.001*
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs 0.001 0.001 0.001
Non-Quantified Public Sector Costs
None identified.
* Regulatory and advisory costs of finfish and shellfish aquaculture assessed at national level.
Table 2c. Summary of Social Impacts and Distribution of Quantified Impacts arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ FTH]
Key Areas of Social Impact Description Scale of Expected Impact across Scenarios, Average (mean no. of jobs affected) Distributional Analysis
Location Fishing Groups Predominantly Affected Social Groups Affected
Region Port Rural/ Urban/ Island Gear Types Most Affected Vessels most affected Crofters Ethnic minorities With disability or long term sick
No social impacts are expected.
Table 2d. Site-Specific Benefits arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ FTH]
Benefit Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits) Relevance Scale of Benefits
Non-use value of natural environment Moderate - High Low - Moderate
Other Benefits
Tourism Higher biodiversity due to designation, and presence of designations, may attract more tourism activity to local economy.
Contribution to ecologically coherent network See report Section 7.5.
Note: For detailed information on ecosystem services benefits, see Tables 9 and 10. For detailed information on other benefits, see Table 5 (activities that would benefit) and Table 8 (contribution to ecologically-coherent network).

Summary of Overlaps and Interactions between Proposed Designated Features and Human Activities

Table 3. Overlaps and Potential Interactions between Features and Activities under different Scenarios, indicating need for Assessment of Cost Impacts on Human Activities from Designation of the Site as an MPA [ FTH]
Aggregates Aquaculture (Finfish) Aquaculture (Shellfish) Aviation Carbon Capture & Storage Coastal Protection Commercial Fisheries Energy Generation Military Activities Oil & Gas Ports & Harbours Power Interconnectors Recreational Boating Shipping Telecom Cables Tourism Water Sports
Biodiversity Features
Black guillemot - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U L/I/U - - L/ I/ U L/I/U L/I/U - - L/I/U L/I/U
Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment - L/I L/I - - - L/I/U L/I/U - - L/ I/ U L/I/U L/I/U - - L/I/U L/I/U
Horse mussel beds - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U L/I/U - - L/I/U L/I/U
Maerl beds - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U L/I/U - - L/I/U L/I/U
Shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves - U U - - - L/I/U L/I/U - - L/ I/ U L/I/U L/I/U - - L/I/U L/I/U
Circalittoral and coarse sediment communities - L/I/U L/I/U - - - L/I/U - - - L/ I/ U - L/I/U - - L/I/U L/I/U
Geodiversity Features
Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Shelf Seabed - components to be confirmed by SNH Not considered to be sensitive at the levels of exposure expected from human activities; thus, not considered in the context of management.
Note: L = Lower Scenario; I = Intermediate Scenario; U = Upper Scenario. Normal font indicates that there is an overlap between the activity and proposed designated feature under that scenario, bold indicates that the overlap results in a potential interaction between the activity and proposed designated feature that has resulted in cost impacts under that scenario.
For detail of management measures assessed under each scenario for each activity, and results of the cost estimates, see Table 4.

Human Activity Summaries

Human activities that would be impacted by designation of the site as an MPA

Table 4a. Aquaculture (Finfish) [ FTH]

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.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • 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.
Description of one-off costs
  • 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.
Description of recurring costs
  • None
  • None
  • None
Description of non-quantified costs
  • 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.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.022 0.092 0.092
Average annual costs 0.001 0.005 0.005
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.016 0.066 0.066
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period.
Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20).
Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.
Table 4b. Aquaculture (Shellfish) [FTH]

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.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
Description of one-off costs
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
Description of recurring costs
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • N/A
Description of non-quantified costs
  • 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.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) See national costs See national costs See national costs
Average annual costs See national costs See national costs See national costs
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) See national costs See national costs See national costs
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period.
Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20).
Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.
Table 4c. Commercial Fisheries (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) [ FTH]

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.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • 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.
Description of one-off costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of recurring costs
  • 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).
Description of non-quantified costs
  • 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.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.000 0.000 0.098
Average annual costs 0.000 0.000 0.005
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.000 0.000 0.072
Economic Impacts (£Million)
Total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 0.000 0.040
Average annual change to GVA 0.000 0.000 0.002
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.000 0.000 0.030
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment 0.0 jobs 0.0 jobs 0.1 jobs
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period.
Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20).
Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.
Total change in GVA (2014-2033) = The change in direct GVA in the sector for the site summed over the 20 year period.
Average annual change to GVA = Total change in direct GVA in the sector for the site divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20).
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) = Total change in direct GVA in the sector for the site discounted to current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment = The average (mean) reduction in direct employment in the sector plus the indirect reduction in employment on the sector's suppliers.
Table 4d. Ports and Harbours [ FTH]

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.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • 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.
Description of one-off costs
  • 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).
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of non-quantified costs
  • 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.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.020 0.020 0.020
Average annual costs 0.001 0.001 0.001
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.014 0.014 0.014
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period.
Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20).
Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.

Human activities that would benefit from designation of the site as an MPA

Table 5. Human Activities that would Benefit from Designation of the Site as an MPA [ FTH]
Activity Description Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Tourism Coastal areas are well represented when considering the locations of various tourist related sites within Scotland with a range of site types present in all regions including the North. Where significant impacts to recreational boating or water sports have been identified for the site, there could also be consequential impacts on tourism. Tourism may benefit from the designation of the MPA as an added attraction to the destination. In addition, there may also be indirect benefits to tourism as a result of benefits to some water sports activities, for example, recreational angling and diving. The intermediate management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower estimate. The upper management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower and intermediate estimates.
Water Sports - Sea Angling Sea angling is carried out along most of the Scottish coastline within 6nm ( SSACN). FTH proposed MPA is a coastal site with the majority of the site being located within 6nm of the UK coastline. Therefore sea angling overlaps with all features and there corresponding extents within the proposed MPA. No management restrictions upon this activity are required. Sea anglers could benefit from any on-site positive effects resulting from the MPA designation and corresponding management restrictions on sector activities including an increase in the size and diversity of species which in turn is expected to increase the attraction of a site for anglers (Fletcher et al. 2012). The intermediate management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower estimate. The upper management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower and intermediate estimates.
Water Sports - Scuba diving There is one submarine wreck dive site (E49) located within FTH proposed MPA. The dive site overlaps with 'Circalittoral sand and coarse sediment communities' and 'Black Guillemot' under the lower, intermediate and upper scenarios. No management restrictions upon this activity are required. The added protection offered by an MPA designation and management measures placed upon sector activities may increase the aesthetic attraction of the dive sites through an improved marine ecosystem and a reduction in degradation to the wreck sites. The intermediate management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower estimate. The upper management measures applied to sector activities will result in an increase of the beneficial impacts seen in the lower and intermediate estimates.

Human activities that are present but which would be unaffected by designation of the site as an MPA

Table 6. Human Activities that are Present but which would be Unaffected by Designation of the Site as an MPA [ FTH]
Activity Description
Energy Generation The 5km buffer zone of the Bluemull Sound (Nova Innovation, 30kW capacity) potential tidal energy generation developments overlaps the MPA features tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves, horse mussel beds and maerl beds under all scenarios ( i.e. lower, intermediate and upper extent) within the FTH proposed MPA boundary. All three features are OSPAR designated and the latter two are also BAP designated. The potential tidal array also overlaps the MPA features black guillemot and kelp and seaweed sublittoral communities on sublittoral mixed sediment under all scenarios. Maerl beds 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). Black guillemot is of medium sensitivity to barrier to species movement, death or injury by collision, sub-surface abrasion/penetration, underwater noise and changes in water clarity and water flow (tidal current). Horse mussel beds are of high sensitivity to physical change (to another seabed type). Therefore, additional management measures may be required. However, deployment is likely to be completed before 2014 and, therefore, no additional costs are anticipated ( i.e. costs effectively sunk) following any decision to designate the site an MPA in 2014.
Power Interconnectors Two existing power interconnectors overlap with the FTH proposed MPA. An additional power interconnector is also within 1km of the MPA. The two existing power interconnectors directly overlap with Black Guillemot (all scenarios), horse mussel beds (all scenarios), kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral mixed sediment (all scenarios) and maerl beds (all scenarios). One of the existing power interconnectors is also within 1km of tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves (all scenarios). An additional power interconnector is also within 1km of the Black Guillemot feature (all scenarios). No cost impacts are foreseen, as it is assumed that there will be no review of the existing consents.
Recreational Boating One light traffic cruising route intersects the FTH proposed MPA boundary and overlaps with features proposed for protection, although it is not expected to incur any management or assessment costs. There are eleven anchorages for recreational boating (and associated 100m buffer zones) that overlap with the feature extent for black guillemot under the upper scenario, although black guillemot are not considered sensitive to pressures associated with anchoring. Under the lower and intermediate scenarios, SNH have identified two anchorages that overlap with proposed protected features. The 200m buffer zone of one recreational anchorage overlaps with a horse mussel bed and another is in close proximity to records of maerl beds, although it is unclear of the extent of the maerl bed feature. Due to a lack of geographic overlap between the anchorages and features sensitive to the associated pressures, SNH have recommended that no additional management is required.

Social and Distributional Analysis of Impacts from Designation of the Site as an MPA

Table 7a. Social Impacts Associated with Quantified and Non-Quantified Economic Costs [ FTH]
Sector Potential Economic Impacts Economic Costs and GVA ( PV) Area of Social Impact Affected Mitigation Significance of Social impact
Commercial Fisheries No social impacts are expected.
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.
Table 7b. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Location, Age and Gender [ FTH]
Sector/Impact Location Age Gender
Region Ports Rural, Urban, Coastal or Island Children Working Age Pensionable Age Male Female
Commercial Fisheries No social impacts are expected.
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.
Table 7c. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Fishing Groups, Income Groups and Social Groups [ FTH]
Sector/Impact Fishing Groups Income Groups Social Groups
Vessel Category <15m >15m Gear Types/Sector 10% Most Deprived Middle 80% 10% Most Affluent Crofters Ethnic minorities With Disability or Long-term Sick
Commercial Fisheries No social impacts are expected.
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.

Potential Contribution of the Site to an Ecologically-Coherent Network

Table 8. Overview of Features Proposed for Designation and how these contribute to an Ecologically Coherent Network of MPAs [ FTH]
Feature Name Representation Replication Linkages Geographic Range
and Variation
Resilience
Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment Provides representation for kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment in OSPAR Region II. Contributes one of xx replicates within Scottish seas.
Horse mussel beds Provides representation for horse mussel beds in OSPAR Region II. Horse mussel beds are listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining. MPA area may increase resilience.
Maerl beds Provides representation for maerl beds in OSPAR Region II. Represents one of two areas recommended for the protection of maerl beds in OSPAR Region II and one of five in Scottish waters. Maerl beds are listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining. MPA area may increase resilience.
Shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves Provides representation for the shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves in OSPAR Region II. Provides representation for one of two potential MPA areas where it is known to occur in Scotland's seas. Not currently understood for shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves. Shallow tide-swept coarse sands with burrowing bivalves occur in OSPAR Regions II and III in Scotland's seas. This MPA represents a distinct contribution to coverage of the feature's geographic range. Not considered to be threatened and/or declining by the OSPAR commission. Feature only occurs in OSPAR Regions II and III.
Black guillemot Provides representation of black guillemot in OSPAR Region II. One of six potential MPAs recommended for black guillemot. Not currently understood for black guillemot. MPA area is within the core range of black guillemot and the most northerly in the MPA network. Although not listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining, there is evidence of decline. The potential MPA areas may increase resilience.
Circalittoral and coarse sediment communities No information available.
JNCC (pers. comm.); SNH and JNCC. (2012). Assessment of the potential adequacy of the Scottish MPA network for MPA search features: summary of the application of the stage 5 selection guidelines.
Available online from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/engagement/270612.

Anticipated Benefits to Ecosystem Services

Table 9. Summary of Ecosystem Services Benefits arising from Designation of the Site as an MPA [3] [ FTH]
Services Relevance
to Site
Baseline Level Estimated Impacts of Designation Value Weighting Scale of Benefits Confidence
Lower Intermediate Upper
Fish for human consumption High. Support food web and contain nursery habitats. Maerl beds already protected Nil Minimal Low Moderate. Commercially valuable species supported. Nil - Low Moderate, uncertain if habitats need to recover.
Fish for non-human consumption Uncertain Nil Minimal Low
Gas and climate regulation Low, extent of relevant benthic communities uncertain Low, mainly from kelp & seaweed communities Minimal, little change to protection of kelp & seaweed communities. Moderate, social cost of carbon Minimal High
Natural hazard protection Low Low Nil Low Nil High
Regulation of pollution Moderate, benthic communities regulate pollution Low, major water quality issues to be dealt with through WFD Nil Minimal, if protection allows recovery of habitats, service could increase slightly Low, water quality in this area not affecting human welfare Minimal, increase in this service unlikely Moderate
Non-use value of natural environment Moderate - High, variety of protected features, and contribution of the site to MPA network, have non-use value. Non-use value of the site already protected by fisheries order Nil Low, if protection allows recovery of habitats, service could increase slightly Moderate - range of features means strong contribution to halting decline of marine biodiversity. Low - Moderate Moderate, value to society uncertain
Recreation Low 1 active dive site, some angling and recreational boating routes Nil - Minimal, Angling benefits and biodiversity encountered by divers and recreational boaters are already protected from possible decline. Low, some activities, but substitutes are available. Minimal Moderate
Research and Education Low Low, small number of biological features have research value and there are substitutes Nil Minimal, if protection allows recovery of habitats, service could increase slightly Low Low Low - Moderate, extent to which research uses site in future uncertain
Total value of changes in ecosystem services Nil for lower scenario, Low for upper scenarios Minimal Low

Human Activities Which Occur Within Fetlar to Haroldswick

Fishing Activities which Occur within the Propsed MPA Fetlar to Haroldswick

Contact

Back to top