Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA)

Advice to Support Management

Advice under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)

i

Document version control SNH ref A1998954

Version Date Author Reason / Comments

Version 1 28/05/15 Karen Taylor 1st draft

Version 2 01/06/15 Emma Philip Edits for consistency across suite

Version 3 04/06/15 Emma Philip Updated fisheries and renewables

Version 4 05/06/15 Emma Philip Draft Conservation Objectives added

Version 5 10/06.15 Greg Mudge Comments to address suite approach.

Version 6

& 7

11/06/15 Angie Thompson & Kathleen Cummings

Document recovery.

Version 8 15/06/15 Emma Philip Edit to text to address comments from Greg Mudge and Jonathan Swale and consistency across suite.

Version 9 19/06/15 Emma Philip Minor changes.

Version 10 19/05/15 Emma Philip Final draft

22/07/15 Greg Mudge QA completed

13/01/16 Carol Hume Amendments complete from A1819438.

Version 11 09/06/16 Carol Hume Amendments complete from A1980819 (aquaculture changes still to be revised)

Version 12 11/06/16 & 14/06/16

Emma Philip & Carol Hume

Edits for consistency, and replacement of document from A1642322

Version 13 28/06/16 Emma Philip Final version for submission to Marine Scotland

Version 14 24/05/17 Carol Hume Our advice on shellfish aquaculture has been revised further to consultation

ii

Distribution list

Format Version Issue date Issued to

Electronic Version 1 26/05/15 Emma Philip

Electronic Version 3 04/06/15 Katie Gillham, David Donnan, Jonathon Swale & Greg Mudge

Electronic Version 8 15/06/15 Suzanne Henderson

Electronic Version 8 18/06/15 Glen Tyler

Electronic Version 10 19/06/15 Marine Scotland

Electronic Version 11 Emma Philip

Electronic Version 12 14/06/2016 Carol Hume

Electronic Version 13 28/06/2016 Marine Scotland

Electronic Version 14 24/05/17 Emma Philip

iii

Contents

Purpose of advice ............................................................................................................... 1

Site summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

Species distribution within the site ................................................................................... 3

Conservation objectives ..................................................................................................... 5

The role of conservation objectives ................................................................................... 5

Draft conservation objectives ............................................................................................ 5

Management Options .......................................................................................................... 7

Purpose of management options ....................................................................................... 7

Existing species protection ................................................................................................ 9

Overview of activities ......................................................................................................... 9

Introduction to aquaculture activities.............................................................................. 12

Aquaculture – finfish ........................................................................................................ 12

Aquaculture – shellfish .................................................................................................... 16

Introduction to fishing activities ...................................................................................... 19

Fishing – mobile gear ...................................................................................................... 20

Fishing – static gear ........................................................................................................ 24

Navigational dredging and disposal ................................................................................ 26

Ports and Harbours activities .......................................................................................... 29

Recreational activities ...................................................................................................... 31

Introduction to renewables activities .............................................................................. 34

Tidal energy .................................................................................................................... 35

Summary of management options ................................................................................... 38

Annex 1. Background to the advice contained in this paper ........................................ 42

Annex 2. Map showing protected areas that overlap or are near to the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA .................................................................................................... 44

iv

Further information on Special Protection Areas, the wider network and protected areas management is

available on the Scottish Natural Heritage website.

The following documents provide further information about the features, evidence and assessment on the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA

marine extension and should be read alongside this paper:

Site selection document

Marine SPA stakeholder workshop summary report

Consultation overview document.

1

Purpose of advice

This is a working document that has been produced to support initial discussions with stakeholders about potential future management of activities associated with this pSPA during the formal consultation. It sets out the draft conservation objectives for the qualifying features and these provide the starting point for considering whether additional site management is required. This document also sets out management options based on our current understanding of the sensitivities of the qualifying bird species and their supporting habitats to marine activities. The development of site management is an ongoing process which will continue after classification.

This paper covers a range of different activities and developments but is not exhaustive. It focuses on where we consider there could be a risk in terms of achieving the conservation objectives. The paper does not attempt to cover all possible future activities or eventualities (e.g. as a result of accidents), and whilst it identifies activities that could contribute to cumulative effects relating to the qualifying species, we do not at this stage have the information to carry out detailed assessments.

Site summary

Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA) comprises an area of 38.23 square kilometres (km2). The site lies between the islands of Unst, Yell and Fetlar in the north east of Shetland. The pSPA includes the marine waters stretching from the north coast of Yell, east to Winna Ness on Unst and down through Colgrave Sound, as far as White Hill of Vatsetter (see Map 1).

The qualifying feature of the pSPA is:

Red-throated diver (breeding)

The sounds between the islands are quite shallow with sea depth increasing rapidly east and south of Fetlar. Sandy bays offer shelter and the mixed sediments (mud, sand and gravel) of the sea bed supports a diversity of invertebrates and fish, as well as nursery areas for species such as sandeels, providing excellent foraging habitat for divers.

The site supports 15%1 (approximately 190 pairs) of the British breeding population of red-throated diver. During summer, divers nest at the edges of freshwater lochs and peatland pools on the islands and within easy flying distance of their coastal feeding grounds. Red-throated divers primarily forage by surface diving usually less than 10m deep, in shallow coastal waters within 9km of the nest location while breeding. They feed on a range of fish species including cod, herring and a number of small species such as gobies as well as crustaceans and marine worms. In Shetland, sandeels form an important part of the diet. One third of the UK’s red-throated divers breed in Shetland (Dillon et al 2009) and most disperse from Shetland waters during winter.

The main activities within these waters are fishing and finfish aquaculture.

1 The population estimate refers to the mean maximum value for the red-throated diver and has been rounded to

the nearest 10. The % population has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Further information on the source of the population estimate is provided in the Site Selection Document.

2

Map 1. Location of Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA

3

Species distribution within the site

The area of predicted usage of red-throated diver within the site is illustrated in Map 2. The area of predicted usage is based on the maximum foraging range from known nest sites (2006). We have not attempted to display densities; these are available in the Site Selection Document. Species densities are not uniform within the boundaries and we anticipate that some locations within the site boundary will be more, or less important than others.

The red-throated diver is protected throughout the whole site.

4

Map 2. Predicted important foraging areas for breeding red-throated diver

5

Conservation objectives

The role of conservation objectives

This section sets out the draft conservation objectives for the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA. These have been developed by SNH and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) in consultation with Marine Scotland. The draft conservation objectives endeavour to comply with the European Commission’s guidance note (2012) on setting conservation objectives.

The conservation objectives set out the essential elements needed to ensure that the qualifying features are maintained or restored on the site. The conservation objectives are designed to ensure that the obligations of the Birds and Habitats Directives can be met; that is, if all the conservation objectives are met, then the integrity of the site will be maintained, and deterioration or significant disturbance of the qualifying interests avoided.

The conservation objectives form the framework for establishing appropriate management measures and assessing of all future plans and projects that have the potential to affect the qualifying features of the site. Should the site be classified, the management requirements and any future plans or projects would be assessed against these conservation objectives.

The conservation objectives will be finalised at the time of site classification.

Draft conservation objectives

The purpose of this proposed SPA is to enable the application of special conservation measures concerning the marine habitat of an Annex 1 species2 (red-throated diver), to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution.

This pSPA has been specifically selected to protect:

foraging habitat used by important numbers of breeding red-throated divers.

The conservation objectives for the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA are:

To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, subject to natural change, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained in the long-term and it continues to make an appropriate contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive for each of the qualifying species.

Marine bird species are exposed to a range of wider drivers of change. Some of these are natural (e.g. population fluctuations/ shifts or habitat changes resulting from natural processes) and are not a direct result of human influences. Such changes in the qualifying species’ distribution and use of the site which are brought about by entirely natural drivers, directly or indirectly, are considered compatible with the site’s conservation objectives.

2 Article 4.1 of the Birds Directive requires important areas for rare and sensitive birds (identified in

Annex 1 of the Directive) to be classified.

6

There may also be wider ranging anthropogenic impacts driving change within the site, such as climate change or in some cases fisheries stock management, which cannot be managed effectively at site level.

In reality any assessment of whether a change is natural will need to be assessed in the context of each individual site.

This contribution will be achieved through delivering the following objectives for each of the site’s qualifying features:

a) Avoid significant mortality, injury and disturbance of the qualifying features, so that the distribution of the species and ability to use the site are maintained in the long-term;

The purpose of this objective is to avoid significant mortality, injury or disturbance of qualifying species that negatively affect the site on a long-term basis. Such an impact would have a detrimental effect on the contribution that this site makes to the maintenance of qualifying species at appropriate levels (Article 2 of the Birds Directive) in their natural range in UK waters and therefore should be avoided.

This site supports 1% or more of the GB population of red-throated diver.

For this site “significant” is taken to mean anthropogenic mortality, injury or disturbance that affect the qualifying species distribution and use within the site such that recovery cannot be expected or effects can be considered lasting. An appropriate timeframe for recovery will need to be considered in the context of the life history traits of the species and the impact pathways being assessed.

All birds require energy which they obtain from food, to survive and to breed. Significant disturbance can include displacement and barrier effects on the species. Where such disturbance is brought about by human activities which affect the qualifying species’ distribution and use of the site, such that their ability to survive and/or breed is compromised in the long-term, it is considered significant.

For each qualifying species, the ability to use the site should be maintained.

Further advice on ecological use of the site including: occupancy, foraging areas, flightless moulting periods and appropriate recovery timeframes will be provided in policy guidance to support the interpretation of the conservation objectives.

b) To maintain the habitats and food resources of the qualifying features in favourable condition.

The qualifying bird species using the site require sufficient food resource to be available. Red-throated diver can eat a variety of pelagic and benthic prey and these should be maintained at a level able to support species populations. Some of these prey species have particular habitat requirements and where this is the case, the site needs to be managed to ensure the extent and quality of the habitats are sufficient to maintain these prey species.

7

For the purposes of Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) consideration of the conservation objectives will be required for plans / projects inside and outside the site.

Management Options

This section sets out SNH’s advice on management. This provides a starting point for discussing any management that might be required. Should the site be classified discussions on management will be led by the relevant authority and will involve stakeholders.

Purpose of management options

Management options are developed where we consider that some form of management may be necessary to achieve the conservation objectives for each qualifying feature. The approach to identifying management options for each activity is risk-based; i.e. we are focused on providing advice where we believe there is a risk to achieving the conservation objectives for the site. To do this we are using the best scientific data available at the time of writing. The management options may be informed by discussion with stakeholders. If new information becomes available during the consultation, the management options may be revised.

The information below (at pre-classification stage) is general and not exhaustive, and is provided to assist and focus stakeholders and authorities in their consideration of the management of these operations. All new plans and projects will still need to be considered by the relevant competent authority, and detailed advice from SNH on such proposals will be provided on a case by case basis (further detail is provided in Annex 1). The level of any impact will depend on the location, scale, nature and intensity of the relevant activity.

Management options are focused on the activities that cause an effect (a pressure) that a feature is sensitive to. Pressures can be physical (e.g. abrasion of the seabed), chemical or biological. Different activities may cause the same pressure, e.g. fishing using bottom gears and aggregate dredging both cause abrasion which can damage the seabed habitats of the prey species that marine birds depend upon.

An assessment of the sensitivities of qualifying bird species to various pressures is provided in FEAST3 available on the Marine Scotland website. Similar assessments for supporting habitats are also available in FEAST. These sensitivities reflect our current general understanding of the associations between activities, pressures and features, and support the first steps of the assessment of risk to the features in the pSPA. In some cases, there is not enough evidence to quantify the level of sensitivity that a feature has to a particular pressure however a potential sensitivity is still recognised. This advice along with the supporting databases should be used by authorities to inform the management of any activity impacting upon the site’s features or supporting features.

Marine activities are listed in Table 1 if the qualifying feature of the site is assessed as having a high or medium sensitivity to the pressures arising from the activity and if that activity. These activities therefore present a risk to achieving the conservation objectives.

3 Feature, Activity, Sensitivity Tool

8

Management options to manage the risk are recommended for each activity with specific details provided in the following sections. Overlap between different activities/potential developments and the proposed qualifying features are described and where appropriate mapped. The text focuses on interactions in terms of physical overlap but the assessment of risk in future should also take account of the intensity, frequency of activities within the site and condition of the qualifying feature.

Our advice in relation to disturbance is not about preventing or reducing the disturbance of individual animals per se, but about ensuring that any disturbance that does occur is not at a level that disrupts or prevents the key life-cycle activities of the proposed qualifying species, including continued access to the site and the resources upon which they depend. To simplify discussion in this document, we use the term ‘risk to the conservation objectives’ as a short hand for this. Where we are describing known effects on individual animals as part of the evidence behind our advice, then we make this clear.

SNH has identified a range of management options that may be applied:

management to remove or avoid pressures

management to reduce or limit pressures

no additional management required

Where we advise ‘reduce or limit’ pressures, there are choices around how this could

be achieved for a given activity e.g. we could reduce the intensity of an activity

and/or limit the activity to certain parts of a site.

We have identified management options and stated whether they are ‘recommended’ or should be ‘considered’ where:

Recommended - highlights that an activity-feature interaction exists, there is a reasonable evidence base and a specific recommendation for action can be made / justified.

Considered - highlights that an issue exists, but a lack of evidence upon which to base an assessment of risk means that a specific recommendation for action cannot / or need not be made at this point. However, there is sufficient cause to make managers aware of the issue and for them to investigate possible further work to better understand the issue, including whether a management measure or best practice guidance may be helpful in achieving conservation objectives.

This approach has been agreed with Marine Scotland to ensure consistency in our advice between different sites and features.

We recognise that stakeholders can provide local environmental knowledge and more detailed information on activities, including in relation to intensity, frequency, and methods. This additional information will help us to develop more specific management options, focused on interactions between features and activities. Management options for the site will be agreed with stakeholders following classification of the SPA.

9

Existing species protection

Marine bird species in Scotland are protected everywhere from intentional/deliberate or reckless killing or injuring under the provisions of Article 5 of the Birds Directive and Article 1(1) of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended).

The pSPA overlaps with the existing Fetlar SPA which is classified for Arctic skua, Arctic tern, dunlin, fulmar, great skua, red-necked phalarope and whimbrel. Red-throated diver is not a qualifying feature of the Fetlar SPA.

Red-throated diver is an existing qualifying feature of the Otterswick and Graveland SPA, which lies within foraging range of the proposed SPA. The proposed SPA is likely to be an important marine foraging area for these birds. For these birds, a large part of the conservation requirements is already covered by existing requirements for assessments against existing SPAs.

Marine site protection in addition to existing SPA protection recognises the true value of the foraging areas for breeding birds and provides JNCC, SNH and regulators with opportunities to work together with stakeholders to review the management required to safeguard the relevant qualifying species. It also provides the levers for ensuring these positive management measures are undertaken if required. Furthermore site protection of the foraging area places a statutory duty on JNCC and SNH to monitor its use and condition regularly. This means that any damage to the habitat can be identified relatively early and management measures put in place compared to the current situation. In addition, this monitoring requirement will mean that the success of existing management measures can be verified.

A map showing overlapping designated sites is provided in Annex 2.

Overview of activities

Table 1 lists the activities that currently take place and are likely to occur in the future within or close to the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA.

Activities that we consider likely to affect the proposed qualifying features are explored in more detail in the sections on individual activities. Activities that the proposed qualifying features are not thought to be sensitive to will not be considered further within this document. Table 1 is not exhaustive, further discussions with those who use the area are required to improve our understanding of current activities (e.g. locations, extent and intensity). New or other activities not identified within the table would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For the purposes of our initial advice, we have concentrated on those activities most likely to occur within the proposed SPA.

The initial advice provided in this document does not preclude the requirement for all new projects and plans to undergo a Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) by the relevant competent authority. Equally it does not preclude the requirement for competent authorities to carry out a review of existing consents, permissions and/or licences (see Annex 1 for further details). We would however, anticipate that for activities in the right hand column of Table 1 and for existing activities where we have identified no additional management, that impacts from these activities on the qualifying features can be scoped out at an early stage of the HRA. Early engagement with SNH and/or the relevant competent authority is recommended to

10

ensure HRA requirements for plans and projects are scoped appropriately and unnecessary costs are avoided.

11

Table 1. Overview of activities with potential to affect the qualifying features of the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA

Activities considered likely to affect the qualifying features

Activities not considered likely to affect the qualifying features (other than insignificantly)4

Aquaculture

Finfish farming

Shellfish farming

Fishing - mobile gear

Benthic trawls

Mechanical and hydraulic benthic

dredging

Pelagic trawls and seines

Fishing – static gear

Bottom set nets (incl. fyke nets)

Drift nets

Navigational and maintenance dredging

Existing maintenance dredging

Dredge spoil disposal

Capital dredging Ports and harbours

New development

Belmont, Burravoe, Cullivoe, Gutcher, Mid Yell, Oddsta and Uyeasound

Recreational users – increase in activities

Angling

Boating

Kayaking Renewables

Tidal energy developments

Wave energy developments

Anchorages & moorings Fishing – static gear

Creels (including lobster, crabs and Nephrops)

Fishing - mobile gear

Long-line fishing (including jigging)

4 Only the specific examples of activities listed in the table have been excluded, rather than the

broad activity types. New plans or projects will still need to be considered by the relevant competent authority (see Annex 1 for further details).

12

Introduction to aquaculture activities

There are thirteen active finfish and 6 active shellfish aquaculture sites within the boundary of the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA, most of which are situated within Bluemull, Hascosay and Uyea Sound as well as Basta Voe and off the north coast of Fetlar. There are an additional 2 finfish and 1 shellfish sites within 1km of the boundary (Map 3).

Aquaculture – finfish

Red-throated divers are considered sensitive to pressures associated with finfish aquaculture. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures:

Mortality – by-catch through entanglement Red-throated divers are sensitive to entanglement in nets in the water column.

Disturbance – vessel movement and displacement from foraging areas. Red-throated divers are considered to have a high sensitivity to visual disturbance during the breeding season showing avoidance behaviour from vessels with flight responses.

Loss or damage to supporting habitats Red-throated divers are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that could reduce the extent of or damage supporting habitat for prey species and therefore, have the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources.

The key pressures associated with finfish aquaculture are disturbance and the potential to cause mortality of red-throated divers through entanglement in nets as they pursue their prey in the water column. Finfish aquaculture activities pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated divers to entanglement, disturbance and reduction in prey availability through damage or loss of prey supporting habitat. Existing finfish aquaculture Diving birds are considered to be highly sensitive to pressures associated with nets set in the water column, including cage nets, external anti-predator nets deployed to deter seals or set (gill) nets (for recapture of escaped fish5). Red-throated divers may be especially sensitive as aggregations of wild fish may be attracted to the vicinity of aquaculture cages.

The use of set (gill) nets for capture of escaped farm fish should be avoided. In reality the contingency is rarely used as most fish are beyond capture in the time it takes to deploy nest. No additional management should be required to manage entanglement risk with anti-predator nets provided continual application of best practice, informed by

5 As currently identified as a contingency in some ‘Escape Prevention and Recapture Strategy’ plans.

13

rigorous monitoring and reporting of incidences of bird entanglement at fish farms, to ensure that cage mesh sizes and tensioning are appropriate to minimise entanglement risk and to govern use of anti-predator nets.

Red-throated diver are sensitive to disturbance associated with vessel movements. However, current patterns and levels of vessel movement associated with finfish aquaculture are not anticipated to pose a risk to conservation objectives.

New finfish farms or extension to existing farms

In addition to entanglement risk, new or extensions for existing farms pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver to disturbance and reduction in prey availability through damage or loss of prey supporting habitat.

The seabed footprint, including the Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE), associated with fish farms also has the potential to exert pressures on birds through reduction in extent of accessible foraging areas and/or loss or damage to supporting habitat for prey species.

Any new proposals to extend existing finfish farms or develop new sites within the pSPA will be required to undergo a HRA. To inform a HRA, it is likely that a bird survey will be required to determine the potential for disturbance to red-throated diver. In addition, a benthic survey of the seabed habitats within the site footprint may also be required to determine what the impact of the loss of supporting habitat on the qualifying species would be in terms of loss of area and prey resource to the birds (including barrier effects).

HRAs of proposals falling within areas used by red-throated diver should also include development of appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that disturbance is not at a level that disrupts or prevents the key life-cycle activities of this species, including continued access to foraging areas.

Appropriate mitigation to remove or avoid/reduce or limit pressures associated with proposals for new finfish farms or extensions to existing farms may include:

Prohibiting of the use of set (gill) nets for capture of farm fish in the event of escape.

Application of best practice, informed by rigorous monitoring and reporting of

incidences of bird entanglement at fish farms, to ensure that cage mesh sizes

and tensioning are appropriate to minimise entanglement risk and to govern

use of anti-predator nets.

Seasonal limitations and/or defining routes for maintenance vessels (particularly to avoid important foraging areas for red-throated divers).

Spatial limitations to avoid damaging or restricting access to prey supporting habitat of the qualifying species. Should future research establish a clear relationship between a specific management activity and displacement of divers, grebes and seaducks from foraging areas, we will review all relevant information and provide advice on a management option.

14

Recommended management option:

Remove or avoid pressures – existing and new finfish farms - seasonal: Prohibiting the use of set (gill) nets for recapture of escaped farmed stock within the pSPA between April to October each year is recommended. No additional management – existing finfish farms: There should be no additional management required for existing finfish farms providing management of entanglement pressures at finfish farms within the pSPA follow current and evolving best practice with respect to cage mesh size and tensioning and use of anti-predator nets. Reduce or limit pressures – proposed new finfish farms: Reduce or limit entanglement pressures associated with new finfish farms or undeveloped consents as well as the expansion or relocation of existing fish farms through application of best practice is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures associated with disturbance by maintenance vessels is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures associated with the reduction (extent and accessibility) of prey supporting habitat through careful consideration of locations.

Proposed way forward: We will continue discussions with those involved with aquaculture within or adjacent to the proposed SPA to help us to understand more about the interactions between finfish farms and red-throated divers.

Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with the relevant industries and scientific organisations. Marine Scotland and/or the relevant authority will lead on the development of specific management measures.

15

Map 3. Aquaculture sites in relation to the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA.

16

Aquaculture – shellfish

Shellfish farms require relatively shallow, sheltered waters. These areas are likely to

coincide with aggregations of red-throated divers, which could be impacted by

associated pressures.

Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures:

Mortality – by-catch through entanglement

Breeding red-throated divers are considered to have a high sensitivity to

entanglement in nets in the water column

Disturbance - vessel movement, auditory deterrents and displacement from

foraging, sheltering and / or roosting areas.

Breeding red-throated divers are considered to have a high sensitivity to visual

disturbance. This species displays avoidance behaviour from vessels by flight

response.

Loss or damage to supporting habitats

Breeding red-throated divers are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that

could reduce the extent of or damage supporting habitat for prey species and

therefore, have the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources.

The key pressures associated with shellfish aquaculture are disturbance and the

potential to cause mortality of the qualifying species through entanglement in

protective netting designed to deter predation.

Breeding red-throated divers show a clear avoidance of areas with high shipping

intensity and can take flight of small vessels approaching within 1km of them

foraging. There is potential for red-throated divers to show avoidance behaviours

from auditory or other deterrents deployed by shellfish farmers to deter predators.

Shellfish aquaculture activities pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of

the sensitivities of red-throated divers to entanglement, disturbance and reduction in

prey availability through damage or loss of prey supporting habitat.

Existing shellfish aquaculture

No additional management should be required to manage entanglement risk with

anti-predator nets provided continual application of best practice, informed by

rigorous monitoring and reporting of incidences of bird entanglement at shellfish

farms, to ensure that cage mesh sizes and tensioning are appropriate to minimise

entanglement risk and to govern use of anti-predator nets.

17

Divers are sensitive to disturbance associated with vessel movements. However,

current patterns and levels of vessel movement associated with shellfish aquaculture

are not anticipated to pose a risk to conservation objectives.

Proposals for new shellfish farms or extension to existing farms

In addition to entanglement risk, new or extensions for existing farms pose a risk to

the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated divers to

disturbance through vessel movement and to the reduction in prey availability

through damage or loss of prey supporting habitat.

The sea bed footprint associated with shellfish farms also has potential to exert

pressures on diving birds through reduction in extent of accessible foraging areas

and/or loss or damage to supporting habitat for prey species.

Any new proposals to extend existing shellfish farms or develop new sites within the

pSPA will be required to undergo a HRA. To inform a HRA it is likely that a benthic

survey of the sea bed habitats within the site footprint will be required to determine

what the impact of the reduction in area of prey supporting habitat accessible to

these red-throated divers would be in terms of reduction in prey resource to the

birds.

HRA of proposals falling within areas used by red-throated divers sensitive to

disturbance from vessel movements and deterrants should also include development

of appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that any such disturbance is not at a

level that disrupts or prevents the key life-cycle activities of this species, including

continued access to food resources.

Should future research establish a clear relationship between a specific

management activity and displacement of divers from foraging areas, we will review

all relevant information and provide advice on a management option.

Appropriate mitigation to remove or avoid/reduce or limit pressures associated with

these activities on the qualifying feature may include:

Application of best practice, informed by rigorous monitoring and reporting of

incidences of bird entanglement at shellfish farms to govern use of anti-

predator nets.

Seasonal or spatial restrictions on use of auditory or other deterrents to

ensure that associate disturbance is not at a level that disrupts or prevents the

access to red-throated diver foraging areas.

Spatial limitations to avoid damaging or restricting access to prey supporting

habitat of the qualifying species. Should future research establish a clear

relationship between a specific management activity and displacement of

18

divers from foraging areas, we will review all relevant information and provide

advice on a management option.

Recommended

management option:

No additional management – existing shellfish

farms:

There should be no additional management required

for existing shellfish farms providing pressures

associated with the use of any anti-predator netting at

shellfish farms within the pSPA follow current and

evolving best practice with respect to use of anti-

predator nets.

Reduce or limit pressures – proposed new shellfish

farms:

Reducing or limiting pressures associated with the use

of anti-predator netting at shellfish farms within the

pSPA by following best practice, as above, is

recommended.

Reduce or limit pressures associated with disturbance

by maintenance vessels and predator deterrents is

recommended.

Reduce or limit pressures associated with the reduction

(extent and accessibility) of prey supporting habitat

through careful siting of new farms should be

considered.

Proposed way forward: We will continue discussions with those involved with

aquaculture within or adjacent to the proposed SPA to

help us to understand more about the interactions

between shellfish farms and the qualifying features.

Where management measures are required, the

development of these would be undertaken via

discussion with the relevant industries and scientific

organisations. Marine Scotland and/or the relevant

authority will lead on the development of specific

management measures.

19

Introduction to fishing activities

In providing our advice on management options for fishing activities, we have focused on what we know about the sensitivities of the proposed qualifying features to different types of fishing activity and whether or not that fishing activity may affect the achievement of the site’s conservation objectives. More information on the specific characteristics of the various fisheries and therefore their specific interactions with the qualifying species is required. Discussions with those involved with fishing within or adjacent to the site will be important for completing the assessment of the extent to which these features may actually be affected by fishing activities.

Our current understanding of fishing activities within the pSPA is limited to the information provided in the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) for the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA. The BRIA identifies some whitefish trawling, seine netting and scallop dredging operating within the boundary of the pSPA.

Activities not considered further: Pelagic long-line and bottom-set long-line fisheries are largely restricted to offshore waters and therefore at present pose a low risk to red-throated divers. Fishing using creels is likely to be widespread throughout the site. The occurrence of red-throated diver entanglement is rare and therefore we consider this method poses a low risk to the qualifying species.

20

Fishing – mobile gear

This section considers fishing by mechanical or hydraulic dredging, benthic trawling, pelagic trawling and seines. Benthic dredges and trawls

Benthic dredging includes both hydraulic dredges and simple mechanical dredges used for targeting scallops, mussels and other bivalves, including cockles. Benthic trawls include the various types of bottom-contacting, active gears, such as otter (single-rig and multi-rig, pair trawling, semi-pelagic), beam and bottom contacting seines e.g. Scottish seine/anchor seine.

Red-throated divers are considered sensitive to pressures associated with benthic dredging and trawls. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with these fisheries:

Mortality – by-catch through entanglement Red-throated diver is sensitive to entanglement in fishing nets. However,

numbers caught as by-catch in benthic trawls is considered to be low.

Disturbance - Vessel movement (see all mobile gear – vessel movement).

Removal of prey species Red-throated diver is considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that have

the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources, particularly sandeel.

Abrasion to supporting habitats for prey species Red-throated diver is considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that could

reduce the extent of or damage to supporting habitat for prey species and therefore have the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources.

The key pressure associated with dredging and benthic trawling is the potential to reduce the amount and/or quality of prey available to red-throated diver through removal of their prey species, including fish and crustaceans. Benthic dredging and trawling therefore pose a risk to the conservation objectives if these activities cause a significant reduction in prey availability, either by direct removal or changes to the prey-supporting habitat.

Sandeels are an important prey species for red-throated diver and are known to be highly sensitive to the pressures associated with targeted sandeel fishing i.e. sandeel abundance can be affected by targeted fishing. There is currently no targeted fishery for sandeels within the pSPA, this position should be retained.

Benthic dredging can also cause abrasion to the seabed surface which has the potential to affect the availability of suitable prey species for red-throated diver. However, because we know less about the extent of interactions between benthic fisheries and prey species and their supporting habitats, we have not currently identified a site-based management option. We recommend that a principal

21

objective of the management of the relevant fisheries should be to ensure that the fishing activity does not cause damage to the benthic habitats and associated prey species such that it adversely affects the availability of prey to red-throated diver.

It is possible that on the basis of future research, additional site-based management may be required but based on our current understanding, we think it is appropriate that management continues to take place at a wider scale.

Pelagic trawling and seines Diving birds such as the red-throated diver that pursue fish prey in the water column are considered sensitive to pressures associated with pelagic trawls and seines. However, recorded incidences of entanglement in these gears are few and therefore, on the basis of the current evidence, we consider that these methods pose a low risk to red-throated diver. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with these fisheries:

Mortality – by-catch through entanglement Red-throated diver is sensitive to entanglement in fishing nets. Numbers however caught as by-catch in pelagic trawls and seines are considered to be low.

Disturbance – vessel movement (see all mobile gear – vessel movement).

Removal of prey species Red-throated diver is indirectly sensitive to the removal of fish prey as targeted species from fisheries activities.

The key pressure associated with pelagic trawling and seines is the potential to reduce the amount of prey available to red-throated divers through removal of prey species from the water column. Pelagic trawls and seines therefore pose a risk to the conservation objectives if these activities cause a reduction of prey availability. Whilst we know that fishing activity will reduce the amount of prey species, we do not know enough about what level of stock reduction would cause a significant reduction in prey availability that would then pose a risk to conservation objectives. However, prey species are mobile and, consequently so is bird foraging activity. We have therefore not identified a site-based management option for pelagic fisheries because management of these fisheries takes place at a wider scale. All mobile gear fisheries - vessel movement Fishing boat movement can also cause pressures through visual disturbance to red-throated divers. Red-throated divers are considered to have a high sensitivity to visual disturbance during the breeding season. Red-throated divers show a clear avoidance of areas with high shipping intensity and can take flight of small vessels approaching within 1km of them foraging.

22

Fishing poses a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver to disturbance. However, current patterns and levels of vessel movement associated with fisheries activities are not anticipated to pose a risk to conservation objectives. Recommended management option:

Proposed way forward:

Remove or avoid pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with fishing for sandeels is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with fishing that has the potential to damage sandeel habitat should be considered. We have not identified a site-based management option for pelagic fisheries because management of these fisheries takes place at a wider scale.

We have not identified a site-based management option for benthic fisheries because there is currently insufficient information available.

Pelagic fishing for herring/sprat may occur within or around the pSPA. We recommend that a principle objective of the management of the fishery should be ensuring that the fishing activity does not prevent or disrupt the availability of prey species for red-throated diver i.e. it should be considered as part of a broader ecosystem-based approach to management of this fishery. Similarly, whilst we know less about the extent of interactions between benthic fisheries and prey supporting habitat, we recommend that a principal objective of the management of the relevant fisheries should be to ensure that the fishing activity does not cause such damage to the benthic habitats that it adversely affects the availability of prey to red-throated divers.

Additional research is required to better understand the relationships between the impact of dredging and benthic trawling on supporting habitats, their ability to support suitable prey and any consequential effect this may have on the birds. Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with the relevant industries and scientific organisations. Marine Scotland and/or the relevant authority will lead on the development of specific management measures.

23

Relationship with existing management:

Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (SSMO) regulate commercial fisheries for lobster, crabs, king and queen scallops, whelks, razorfish, cockles, mussels and oysters. This covers all of the six mile limit around the Shetland Isles. Hydraulic dredges are not permitted within the SSMO controlled areas. There is one closed area within the pSPA.

24

Fishing – static gear

This section considers fishing using drift nets, bottom set nets and fyke nets whether bottom set or in the water column.

Red-throated divers are considered sensitive to pressures associated with fisheries using static nets.

Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with these fisheries:

Mortality – by-catch through entanglement Red-throated divers are sensitive to entanglement in set nets.

Disturbance – vessel movement Red-throated divers are considered to have a high sensitivity to visual disturbance during the breeding season showing avoidance behaviour from vessels with flight responses.

Removal of prey species All fish-eating birds, including red-throated divers are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that have the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources.

The key pressure associated with static gear fisheries is the potential to cause mortality of red-throated diver through entanglement in nets as red-throated divers pursue their prey in the water column. All diving birds are considered to be highly sensitive to pressures associated with set nets including drift nets, fixed salmon nets, bottom set nets (possibly including fyke nets). Drift nets set in the water column present the highest risk to diving birds, particularly those which pursue fish in the water column such as red-throated diver.

Fishing using drift nets, fixed salmon nets, bottom set nets and fyke nets pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver to disturbance, by-catch entanglement and removal of fish prey.

Consideration of management measures to remove or avoid pressures associated with these activities on red-throated diver may include:

Spatial restrictions to avoid static gear within foraging dive ranges of the red-throated diver. Red-throated divers forage in depths of less than 10m. The extent to which bottom-set nets set deeper than 10m impact on red-throated divers is unclear and requires further consideration.

Seasonal restrictions, avoiding fishing during the summer months when red-throated divers are present.

Vessel movement

Red-throated divers are sensitive to disturbance associated with vessel movements. However, current patterns and levels of vessel movement associated with static gear fisheries activities are not anticipated to cause an adverse effect on site integrity.

25

Recommended management option:

Remove or avoid pressures - seasonal: Prohibiting the use of drift nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver between April to October each year is recommended. Prohibiting the use of fixed bottom set nets and fyke nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver between April to October each year is recommended.

Proposed way forward: Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with the relevant industries and scientific organisations. Marine Scotland and/or the relevant authority will lead on the development of specific management measures.

26

Navigational dredging and disposal

This section encompasses periodic maintenance dredging which is already carried out at established areas and, the disposal of dredge material at recognised disposal sites. It also provides management advice on changes to current practice and future proposals for capital dredging projects.

Red-throated diver are considered sensitive to pressures associated with dredging and disposal activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures:

Disturbance – vessel movement Red-throated divers are considered to have a high sensitivity to visual

disturbance during the breeding season showing avoidance behaviour from vessels with flight responses.

Removal of prey species Red-throated divers are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that have

the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources.

Abrasion and smothering of supporting habitat for prey species Red-throated divers are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that could

reduce the extent of or damage to supporting habitat for prey species and therefore, has the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources.

Navigational dredging and disposal activities pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver to disturbance and the potential reduction in prey availability, either by direct removal or changes to the prey supporting habitat.

Existing periodic maintenance dredging and spoil disposal Red-throated divers are sensitive to removal of either crustacean and/or fish prey from the sea bed associated with dredging, and also abrasion of supporting sea bed habitats caused by dredging, and smothering caused by dredge spoil disposals. Periodic maintenance dredging of harbour basins and around piers within the pSPA for navigational reasons are established activities which at their current scale we consider do not require additional management. This is because, the supporting sea bed habitats at these established dredging areas will already be regularly disturbed so will have limited foraging value to red-throated diver. There is one closed disposal site within the pSPA shown on Map 4. However, we would recommend that all maintenance dredging is treated as a plan or project and the Statutory Harbour Authority, as a competent authority, despite current license exemption, carries out a HRA to satisfy themselves that baseline activities have no adverse effect on site integrity. This approach will also have the advantage of giving a baseline to inform any new capital and associated projected maintenance dredging against. To ensure there is sufficient protection for the site, as set out in Regulation 48 of the ‘Habitats Regulations’ the HRA should also cover realistic worse-case scenarios, e.g. providing contingencies for ‘emergency’ operations.

27

Capital dredge operations or new disposal sites Capital dredge projects and/or new disposal sites within the pSPA, including future associated maintenance dredging should be considered as a new plan or project and undergo a HRA. The level of potential impacts and therefore management advice depends on the scale, location, and type and intensity of use of any future proposals. To inform a HRA it is likely that a benthic survey of the seabed habitats and bird surveys will be required in the area to be dredged and/or used for spoil disposal.

Appropriate mitigation to reduce or limit pressures associated with these activities on the qualifying species may include:

spatial limitations to avoid damaging supporting habitat within foraging dive ranges of red-throated diver and/or;

seasonal restrictions.

Most foraging activity for the qualifying species occurs in waters shallower than 10m.

We advise that in developing any proposals within the pSPA, the applicant should enter into early discussions with both Marine Scotland and SNH to ensure that a HRA is scoped adequately, including considerations regarding the potential for cumulative impacts and therefore, unnecessary costs avoided.

Recommended management option:

No additional management – existing maintenance dredging (ports and harbours): There should be no additional management requirements for established maintenance dredging.

Reduce or limit pressures: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with new capital dredging projects, associated maintenance dredging and new disposal sites should be considered.

Proposed way forward: All new plans and projects will require a HRA. Early discussions with both Marine Scotland and SNH to ensure that a HRA is scoped adequately, including considerations regarding the potential for cumulative impacts is recommended.

Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with Statutory Harbour Authorities, Marine Scotland and SNH.

28

Map 4. Dredge material disposal sites within the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA

29

Ports and Harbours activities

This section encompasses ports and harbour related activities both existing and

potential future proposals that occur within harbour and port statutory limits and

could affect red-throated divers of the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA.

The coastal boundary of the pSPA follows the mean low water springs (MLWS). All

permanent man-made hard structures (infrastructure) that protrude from land i.e.

jetties, piers, harbour walls, ferry terminals, slipways and docks within statutory limits

are excluded from the pSPA.

Anchorages with floating buoys or moorings are not excluded from the pSPA

boundary as these are floating structures around which the qualifying species can

still forage, preen, loaf or roost.

Red-throated divers are considered sensitive to pressures associated with various ports and harbour activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures:

Disturbance – vessel movement and new development Red-throated divers are considered to have a high sensitivity to visual disturbance during the breeding season showing avoidance behaviour from vessels with flight responses.

Loss or damage to supporting habitat for prey species – new development Red-throated divers are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that could reduce the extent of or damage to supporting habitat for prey species and therefore, has the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources.

New developments within port and harbour limits pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver to disturbance and the reduction in prey availability through damage or loss of prey supporting habitat.

Existing ports and harbour operations

Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA encompasses the ports and harbour limits of Belmont, Burravoe, Cullivoe, Gutcher, Mid Yell, Oddsta and Uyeasound ports.

It is not anticipated that any additional management measures will be required for the current level and range of operations and licenced activities within existing port and harbour limits.

Vessel movement

Red-throated divers are sensitive to disturbance associated with vessel movements and show a clear avoidance of areas with high shipping intensity. However, current patterns and levels of vessel movement associated with ports and harbours activities are not anticipated to pose a risk to the conservation objectives.

.

30

Development or expansion of ports and harbours

All new development, expansion proposals and/or changes in intensity of use should be considered as a new plan or project and undergo a HRA. The level of potential impacts and therefore management advice depends on the scale, location, type and intensity of use of any future proposals. Such development or expansion has the potential to impact upon the pSPA. To inform a HRA it is likely that a benthic survey of the seabed habitats and bird surveys will be required in the area proposed for development. Appropriate mitigation to reduce or limit pressures associated with new development proposals on red-throated divers may include:

spatial limitations to avoid damaging supporting habitat within foraging dive ranges of red-throated diver and/or;

seasonal restrictions on construction activities to avoid periods when birds are present.

We advise that in developing any proposals within or adjacent to the pSPA, the applicant should enter into early discussions with both Marine Scotland and SNH to ensure that a HRA is scoped adequately, including considerations regarding the potential for cumulative impacts.

Activities not considered further:

Anchorages & moorings

Beyond pressures associated with the vessel movement (covered above), we are not aware of any further pressures that have the potential to cause an adverse effect on the qualifying features.

Recommended management option:

No additional management – existing operations There should be no additional management requirements for established activities at ports within Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA.

Reduce or limit pressures – new development: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with new development proposals or expansion of ports and harbours within or adjacent to the pSPA should be considered.

Proposed way forward: All new plans and projects will require a HRA. Early discussions with both Marine Scotland and SNH to ensure that a HRA is scoped adequately, including considerations regarding the potential for cumulative impacts is recommended.

Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with Harbour Authorities, Marine Scotland and SNH.

31

Recreational activities

Current recreational activities within the pSPA such as recreational boating, sea kayaking and angling are low key and restricted in distribution (Map 5).

Red-throated divers are considered sensitive to pressures associated with recreational activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures:

Disturbance - through displacement from foraging areas Red-throated divers are considered to have a high sensitivity to visual disturbance during the breeding season showing avoidance behaviour from vessels, including small recreational crafts, with flight responses.

The key pressure associated with recreational activities is disturbance to red-

throated diver around areas they use for foraging. Disturbance of birds from these

areas can be costly for the bird, requiring them to use valuable energy reserves

getting away from the activity.

Increase in activities

Most water-borne activities occur during the summer when breeding red-throated diver are present. This is a growing industry. Should evidence of pressures at particular locations and/or if there is major increase in intensity of these pursuits within the pSPA there may be a requirement to consider reducing pressures.

Activities not considered further:

Existing sea kayaking, yachting and angling

Current patterns and levels of these recreational activities are not anticipated to pose a risk to the conservation objectives.

Recommended management option:

No additional management – existing sea kayaking, recreational boating and angling: There should be no additional management requirements’ providing the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code is followed by water-borne recreational users.

Reducing or limit pressures – increase in activities Reducing or limiting disturbance of red-throated divers by water-borne recreational activities should be considered if in the future there is evidence of existing pressures at particular locations and/or if there is major increase in intensity of these pursuits within the pSPA.

Proposed way forward: Continue to promote best practice guidance and raise awareness of avoiding disturbance to breeding birds with representatives from relevant organisations.

Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with the relevant industries and scientific organisations.

32

Marine Scotland and/or the relevant authority will lead on the development of specific management measures.

Relationship with existing management:

Recreational boat users generally view wildlife as a positive part of their experience on the water. If disturbance does occur, this is often as a result of lack of understanding of the bird’s behaviour or how human activities can affect a bird’s well-being. Awareness-raising and education are therefore an important part of existing management. The following best practice guidance is available:

The Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code (SMWWC) highlights why breeding birds are sensitive to disturbance and offers practical advice on how to avoid disturbance. More information on the Code can be found at www.marinecode.org .

33

Map 5. Recreational activities within the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA.

34

Introduction to renewables activities

Renewable marine energy encompasses offshore wind (fixed and floating technologies, wave and tidal (stream and barrage) developments. Development areas have been identified through previous Crown Estate leasing rounds, option areas in the draft Sectoral Plans produced by Marine Scotland and or individual developers prospecting and locating suitable sites, particularly for small scale demonstration sites.

Offshore wind technology is a proven technology; however more recently drivers to reduce build costs have introduced more novel technology in terms of turbine types and also in the foundations being used. Wave technology is still being developed and whilst there have been some applications for commercial scale arrays, the technology is still in its infancy and only small scale demonstration and prototype devices have been successfully deployed to date. Tidal stream is further advanced than wave technology but it is still reasonably novel with considerable areas of uncertainty surrounding how animals interact with turbines. Interest in Scottish waters for tidal barrage schemes is considerably lower than in the rest of the UK.

This section provides information on marine renewable interests - both existing and planned that could affect the qualifying interests of Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA. Consideration has been given to the draft Sectoral plans - any identified options areas, leasing rounds, applications and also any consented developments.

There are no offshore wind, wave or tidal draft option areas identified in respect of the draft Sectoral plans that overlap with the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA. Existing and planned tidal renewable activities occur in the pSPA.

Red-throated diver is considered sensitive to pressures associated tidal renewable activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with tidal renewables:

Mortality – through collision Red-throated divers are considered to be sensitive to collision risk with tidal turbines. Tidal stream turbines pose a risk to red-throated divers, but as the risk is a novel one it is not possible to quantify.

Disturbance - through displacement from foraging areas. Red-throated divers are considered to be sensitive to disturbance from tidal stream turbines. Birds may avoid this area due to the presence of tidal stream turbines, therefore reducing areas of accessible foraging either directly or by creating a barrier to foraging areas. Repeated disturbance associated with maintenance activities may also cause displacement.

Loss or damage to supporting habitat for prey species Red-throated divers are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures associated with the loss or damage of supporting habitat for prey species and therefore potential reduction in food resources. Construction and installation of supporting infrastructure such as cables on the seabed has the potential to cause an impact on red-throated divers however, the risk is considered to be low.

35

Tidal energy

Consented tidal developments

There is a consented tidal array within Bluemull Sound which is currently going through commissioning, but when fully operational will have 5 tidal stream turbines (see Map 6).

We have provided advice on both the initial single turbine deployment and the current consented array of 5 turbines.

These consented, but not yet commissioned tidal arrays pose a risk to the conservation objectives. Marine Scotland will be required to review existing consents should the pSPA be classified.

New tidal energy developments

New tidal energy proposals within the pSPA pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated divers to collision, disturbance and damage or loss of prey supporting habitat. All new proposals should be considered as a new plan or project and undergo an HRA. The level of potential impacts and therefore management advice depends on the scale, location, type and intensity of use of any future proposals including extensions to the existing site. To inform an HRA it is likely that a bird survey will be required in the area proposed for development. Appropriate mitigation to reduce or limit pressures associated with new tidal array proposals on red-throated diver may include:

spatial limitations to avoid particularly high predicted density areas of the red-throated diver.

We advise that in developing any new tidal array proposals, the applicant should enter into early discussions with both Marine Scotland and SNH to ensure that an HRA is scoped adequately, including considerations regarding the potential for cumulative impacts and therefore, unnecessary costs avoided. This advice will take account of emerging evidence as this technology develops and lessons learned from research and monitoring at deployments from elsewhere can be considered.

Recommended management option:

No additional management – consented, at commissioning stage:

No additional management required for the Bluemull 5 device array scheme.

Reduce or limit pressures – new tidal proposals:

Reduce or limit pressures through effective mitigation measures.

Advice to reduce or limit pressures might be required depending on the proposal and its scale, duration and location. Reducing or limiting collision and displacement

36

pressures in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver should be considered.

Proposed way forward:

All consented developments should be reviewed to identify if any additional mitigation and / or research is required.

Should any new proposals be brought forward within the pSPA area then these would need to be considered on a case by case basis.

Where management measures are required, the development of these should be in discussion with the developer, regulator Marine Science Licensing and Operations Team (MS LOT) and advisers Marine Scotland Science (MSS) and SNH.

37

Map 6. Tidal energy activities within the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA.

38

Summary of management options

Aquaculture - finfish Remove or avoid pressures- seasonal: Prohibiting the use of set (gill) nets for the purpose of fish recapture in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver between April to October each year is recommended. No additional management – existing finfish farms: There should be no additional management required for existing finfish farms providing management of entanglement pressures at finfish farms within the pSPA follow current and evolving best practice with respect to cage mesh size and tensioning and use of anti-predator nets. Reduce or limit pressures – proposed new finfarms: Reduce or limit entanglement pressures associated with new finfish farms or undeveloped consents as well as the expansion or relocation of existing fish farms through application of best practice is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures associated with disturbance by maintenance vessels is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures associated with the reduction (extent and accessibility) of prey supporting habitat through careful consideration of locations.

Aquaculture - shellfish No additional management – existing shellfish farms: There should be no additional management required for existing shellfish farms providing pressures associated with the use of any anti-predator netting at shellfish farms within the pSPA follow current and evolving best practice with respect to use of anti-predator nets. Reduce or limit pressures – proposed new shellfish farms: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with the use of anti-predator netting at shellfish farms within the pSPA by following best practice, as above, is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures associated with disturbance by maintenance vessels and predator deterrents is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures associated with the reduction (extent and accessibility) of prey supporting habitat through careful siting of new farms should be considered.

Fishing – mobile gear Remove or avoid pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with fishing for sandeels is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures:

39

Removing or avoiding pressures associated with fishing that has the potential to damage sandeel habitat should be considered.

Fishing – static gear Remove or avoid pressures- seasonal: Prohibiting the use of drift nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver between April to October each year is recommended. Prohibiting the use of fixed bottom set nets and fyke nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver between April to October each year is recommended.

Navigational dredging and disposal

No additional management – existing maintenance dredging (ports and harbours): There should be no additional management requirements for established maintenance dredging. Reduce or limit pressures: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with new capital dredging projects, associated maintenance dredging and new disposal sites should be considered.

Ports and harbours No additional management – existing operations

There should be no additional management requirements for established activities at ports within Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA.

Reduce or limit pressures – new development: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with new development proposals or expansion of ports and harbours within or adjacent to the pSPA should be considered.

Recreational No additional management – existing sea kayaking,

recreational boating and angling

There should be no additional management requirements’ providing the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code is followed by water-borne recreational users.

Reducing or limit pressures – increase in activities

Reducing or limiting disturbance of red-throated divers by water-borne recreational activities should be considered if in the future there is evidence of existing pressures at particular locations and/or if there is major increase in intensity of these pursuits within the pSPA.

Renewables – tidal No additional management – consented, at commissioning stage:

No additional management required for the Bluemull 5 device array scheme.

Reduce or limit pressures – new tidal proposals:

Reduce or limit pressures through effective mitigation

40

measures.

Advice to reduce or limit pressures might be required depending on the proposal and its scale, duration and location. Reducing or limiting collision and displacement pressures in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver should be considered.

Cumulative effects: Potential cumulative effects are recognised for all new or

increased activities identified under ‘Activities considered likely to affect the qualifying features’ in Table 1, and for activities sharing the following pressures: Mortality:

Finfish aquaculture – through entanglement in anti-predator nets and/or contingency set nets for recapture of escaped fish.

Fishing with mobile and static gear– through by-catch entanglement.

Tidal energy – through collision with turbines. Disturbance:

Finfish aquaculture – through displacement from foraging areas and increased vessel activity.

Fishing with mobile gear and static gear – through increased vessel activity.

Navigational dredging – through increased vessel activity.

Ports and harbours – through increased vessel activity and new developments.

Recreational activities – through displacement from foraging areas.

Tidal energy – through displacement from foraging areas.

Reduction in prey availability:

Fishing with mobile gear – through direct removal of prey and potential damage to prey supporting habitat.

Navigational dredging – through direct removal of prey and potential damage to prey supporting habitat.

Ports and harbours – through potential damage to supporting habitat.

Before any firm recommendations are made, discussions should be held with stakeholders to ensure that there is a good understanding of the features and the likely interactions with activities. Marine Scotland will lead the discussions on management with stakeholders. These discussions will start during the formal consultation and, if necessary, may continue after the consultation. The discussions should lead to an improved understanding of the risk to the proposed qualifying features. The options presented here will then be reviewed by SNH and a preferred

41

way forward may be recommended. This will form the basis of advice from SNH to Marine Scotland on the management measures required for this site should it be classified as an SPA.

Marine Scotland will be responsible for making recommendations to Scottish Ministers on any management measures that may be required. The development of these measures will be done through discussion with stakeholders after the formal consultation on the pSPA. Should any management measures require statutory underpinning, Marine Scotland will undertake further consultation.

42

Annex 1. Background to the advice contained in this paper

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended),

commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations, transpose the EC Directive

92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora

(Habitats Directive) into domestic legislation. Regulation 33(2) gives Scottish Natural

Heritage a statutory responsibility to advise other relevant authorities as to the

conservation objectives for European marine sites in Scotland, and any operations

which may cause deterioration of natural habitats or the habitats of species, or

disturbance of species for which the site has been designated.

This document presents the Regulation 33 advice, plus supporting information, for

the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA to assist relevant and competent

authorities, local interest groups and individuals in considering management

(including any management scheme) of the site. This advice will also help to

determine the scope and nature of any “appropriate assessment”, which the Habitats

Directive requires to be undertaken for proposed plans and projects that are not

connected to the conservation management of the site and are considered likely to

have a significant effect. Where necessary Scottish Natural Heritage will also

provide more detailed advice to relevant, and other competent, authorities to inform

assessment of the implications of any such plans or projects.

Relevant and competent authorities

Within the context of a marine SPA, a relevant authority is a body or authority that

has a function in relation to land or waters within or adjacent to the site (Regulation

5) and include: a nature conservation body; a local authority; water undertakers; a

navigation authority; a harbour authority; a lighthouse authority; a river purification

board (SEPA); a district salmon fishery board; and a local fisheries committee. All

relevant authorities are competent authorities.

A competent authority is defined in Regulation 6 as “any Minister, government

department, public or statutory undertaker, public body of any description or person

holding a public office”. In the context of a plan or project, the competent authority is

the authority with the power or duty to determine whether or not the proposal can

proceed.

The role of relevant authorities

The Habitats Regulations require relevant authorities to exercise their functions so

as to secure compliance with the Habitats Directive. A management scheme may be

drawn up for each European marine site by the relevant authorities as described

under Regulation 34. For marine SPAs and SACs with overlapping interests, a

single management scheme may be developed.

Where a management scheme is in place the relevant authorities must ensure that

all plans for the area integrate with it. Such plans may include shoreline

management plans, local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and sustainable

development strategies for estuaries. This must occur to ensure that only a single

43

management scheme is produced through which all relevant authorities exercise

their duties under the Habitats Regulations.

Plans and projects

The Habitats Regulations require that, where an authority concludes that a

development proposal is unconnected with the nature conservation management of

a Natura site and is likely to have a significant effect on that site, it must undertake

an appropriate assessment of the implications for the qualifying interests for which

the area has been designated.

Review of Consents

Competent authorities are required by the Habitats Regulations (Regulation 50) to

undertake a review of relevant consents and permissions for activities affecting the

site as soon as reasonably practicable after it becomes a European site.

44

Annex 2. Map showing protected areas that overlap or are near to the Bluemull and Colgrave Sounds pSPA