Scapa Flow Proposed Historic Marine Protected Area (MPA) Partial Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA)

4. Step Four – Assessment:

4.1 Does your assessment identify any unique impacts on island communities?

No data has been collected from stakeholders or revealed within the BRIA which would indicate that there are any unique or significant impacts on island communities that are required to be considered.

The following sectors have been identified in the BRIA as present (or possibly present in the future) within the proposed Scapa Flow Historic MPA, and/or potentially interacting with the marine historic assets in some way:

• Aquaculture (finfish and shellfish)
• Coastal defence and flood protection
• Mineral extraction
• Commercial fisheries
• Energy generation and energy/communications transmission
• Oil and gas
• marine traffic
• recreational boating
• diving industry
• salvage industry
• public sector

Summaries of the potential impacts that the proposed Historic MPA might have on each of these sectors in Orkney has been provided below:

4.1.1 Aquaculture

There are no current finfish or shellfish aquaculture sites within the boundaries of the proposed Scapa Flow Historic MPA and no known developments are being planned. Any proposals to develop new aquaculture installations within the proposed boundaries or extend existing sites into the proposed boundaries would be expected to undertake seabed surveys (incurring a small one-off cost) to map marine historic assets and to demonstrate that impacts can be avoided. However, the proposed boundary areas of the Historic MPA are mostly small and should be avoidable through development planning.

4.1.2 Coastal defence and flood protection

The most likely location within Scapa Flow where coastal defence or flood protection works might potentially be required are the Churchill Barriers. However, as these are not part of the proposed designation, no impacts are expected on the Local Authorities ongoing maintenance of these. Any proposals for coastal defences within the proposed boundaries would be expected to undertake seabed surveys (incurring a small one-off cost) to map marine historic assets and to demonstrate that impacts can be avoided/minimised.

4.1.3 Mineral Extraction

The areas proposed for designation are not currently subject to any maintenance dredging, and there are no known live development proposals for capital dredging. Any proposals to develop new areas for mineral extraction/dredging within the proposed boundaries would be expected to undertake seabed surveys (incurring a small one-off cost) to map marine historic assets and to demonstrate that impacts can be avoided. However, the proposed boundary areas of the Historic MPA are mostly small and should be avoidable through development planning.

4.1.4 Commercial Fisheries

Engagement with Orkney Fisheries Association indicates that Scapa Flow is used by around 10 to 12 commercial fishing vessels and is a particularly important fishery during winter or bad weather. Within the proposed area, scallop diving and static gear is in use around the wrecks, particularly close inshore around Cava. There is little use of mobile gear around the German wrecks for fear of snagging and damage to fishing gear (with the exception of a localised trawl fishery for queenie scallops on the north end of Cava, which works around four of the wrecks but avoids the wrecks themselves).

Designation would not result in a change to existing practices regarding scallop diving or static gear so there are no impacts expected on these either in terms of loss of value of catches or displacement impacts. Operational advice for the proposed Historic MPA is for mobile gear vessels to take steps to avoid damage to marine historic assets by avoiding wrecks, structures and areas of foul ground. However, as little of this activity takes place anyway and fishers normally avoid such seabed hazards for fear of damaging or losing gear, this is not expected to result in any significant impacts either.

4.1.5 Energy generation and energy/communications transmission

There is no current energy generation activity in the areas proposed for designation. The only charted cabling which runs through the proposed area appear to terminate offshore and are likely to be redundant wartime cables. Any proposals to develop new areas for energy generation within the proposed boundaries would be expected to undertake seabed surveys (incurring a small one-off cost) to map marine historic assets and to demonstrate that impacts can be avoided/minimised. However, the proposed boundary areas of the Historic MPA are mostly small and should be avoidable through development planning.

4.1.6 Oil and gas

The oil and gas installation of Flotta Oil Terminal is located on the island of Flotta in Scapa Flow. None of the proposed designated areas are located within the charted prohibited entry area around Flotta terminal and do not overlap with any other oil and gas interests. Any proposals to develop new oil and gas installations within the proposed boundaries or extend existing sites into the proposed boundaries would be expected to undertake seabed surveys (incurring a small one-off cost) to map marine historic assets and to demonstrate that impacts can be avoided. However, the proposed boundary areas of the Historic MPA are mostly small and should be avoidable through development planning.

4.1.7 Marine traffic

The boundaries of the proposed Scapa Flow Historic MPA lie within the area of responsibility of Orkney Marine Services, as statutory harbour authority. None of the areas proposed for designation lie within ship anchorage priority zones. Although some marine historic assets are located within shipping channels, designation would not affect surface navigation.

4.1.8 Recreational boating

Yachting is a popular activity in Orkney and it is not anticipated that the designation of the proposed Historic MPA will impact this. The areas proposed for designation generally lie outside of charted anchorage areas and no changes would be required to surface navigation or sea angling practices.

4.1.9 Dive industry

Designation would not alter the existing ability of dive boat operators to dive on the wrecks and would not change existing permit requirements (which are delivered through Orkney Marine Services).

4.1.10 Salvage industry

Commercial-scale salvage operations are understood to have last been carried out at Scapa Flow in 1979 and there are no known current proposals to carry out any salvage work. However, through consultation the agent of the owner of four of the wrecks claimed that their existing status as scheduled monuments is impacting the owner’s interests by restricting opportunities for salvage or sale of the wrecks for this purpose. HES’ view is that the proposed Historic MPA would effectively be delivering the same level of protection to the four wrecks as the existing scheduling status, meaning that there would not be an additional impact to that already perceived by the owner’s agent to be the case. However, additional protections would be added to the, currently undesignated, site of the Bayern turrets which are also owned by the same person.

4.1.11 Public sector

The proposal to designate the Scapa Flow Historic MPA would result in costs being incurred by the public sector, for example through site monitoring and enforcement, regulatory and advisory costs (such as granting permits) or the preparation of management plans. Some of these impacts would fall at the national level (for example to Scottish Government and HES) but some are existing costs at the local level (such as issuing dive permits) which would need to take account on the Historic MPA, should it be designated.

4.2 Does your assessment identify any potential barriers or wider impacts?

No additional barriers or wider impacts have been identified through engagement with stakeholders, responses to the consultation or revealed through the BRIA.

4.3 How will you address these?

No significantly different impacts for island communities are expected therefore no specific mitigations have been put in place to address these.

4.4 Does the evidence show different circumstances or different expectations or needs, or different experiences or outcomes (such as different levels of satisfaction, or different rates of participation)?

Following feedback from Orkney Islands Council, HES have proposed that the designation could be accompanied by a non-statutory management plan and/or supplementary guidance developed to support management of the proposed Historic MPA. Any plan or guidance could focus on the management of dive tourism in the area.

4.5 Are these different effects likely?

Any management plan would be developed by stakeholders following designation and would have the aim of maximising the potential positive effects of designation.

4.6 Are these effects significantly different?

No, given the limited level of impacts anticipated from designation of the Scapa Flow Historic MPA it is not felt that these impacts would be significantly different for island communities.

4.7 Could the effect amount to a disadvantage for an island community compared to the mainland or between island groups?

No, given the limited level of impacts anticipated from designation of the Scapa Flow Historic MPA it is not felt that these impacts would amount to a disadvantage for an island community compared to the mainland or between island groups.

4.8 Do you consider a full Islands Community Impact Assessment (ICIA) to be required?

In preparing this partial ICIA, I have formed the opinion that our policy, strategy or service is NOT likely to have an effect on an island community which is significantly different from its effect on other communities (including other island communities). The reason for this is detailed below in Section 4.9.

4.9 What are the reasons for or not completing a full ICIA?

Having considered the results of the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment, engagement with stakeholders likely to be affected by these proposed designations, and responses to the formal consultation, there is no evidence currently to suggest that the proposed designations will have an effect on the island community which is significantly different from its effect on other communities. Therefore, we do not consider that a full ICIA is required.

Screening ICIA completed by: Gordon Forbes

Position: Marine Protected Areas Policy Officer

Signature:

Date completed: 15 October 2024

ICIA approved by: Caro Cowan

Position: Deputy Director Marine Environment

Signature:

Date approved: 17 October 2024