Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA)

Advice to Support Management

Advice under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and Regulation 18 of the Offshore Marine

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended)

Document version control

Version Date Author Reason / Comments

Version 1 16/04/15 Emma Philip First draft of text & template for pSPAs.

Version 2 18/06/15 Malcolm Fraser First draft continued

Version 3 24/06/15 Malcolm Fraser First draft continued

Version 4 26/06/15 Malcolm Fraser First draft completed

Version 5 27/06/15 Emma Philip Final draft

Version 6 21/07/15 Greg Mudge QA completed

Version 7 17/12/15 Malcolm Fraser Management option changes and map changes

Version 8 18/02/16 Emma Philip Update conservation objectives & final draft

Version 9 26/02/16 Emma Philip Version for SPA stakeholders workshop

Version 10 14/06/16 Malcolm Fraser Revised to address comments from SPA stakeholders workshop.

Version 11 26/06/16 Emma Philip QA’d & final version for submission to Marine Scotland

Version 12 03/10/16 Emma Philip & Erica Knot

Renewables section updated.

Distribution list

Format Version Issue date Issued to

Electronic Version 4 26/06/15 Emma Philip

Electronic Version 5 27/06/15 Marine Scotland, Julie Black (JNCC), Greg Mudge, Katie Gillham

Distribution list

Electronic Version 8 18/02/16 Greg Mudge

Electronic Version 9 26/02/16 Marine Scotland

Electronic Version 9 26/02/16 Marine Scotland, Marine Scotland Science and JNCC

Electronic Version 10 14/06/16 Emma Philip

Electronic Version 11 27/06/16 JNCC

Electronic Version 12 28/06/16 Marine Scotland

Electronic Version 13 03/10/16 JNCC & Marine Scotland

ii

Contents

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

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

Species distribution within the site ................................................................................... 5

Conservation objectives ................................................................................................... 13

The role of conservation objectives ................................................................................. 13

Draft conservation objectives .......................................................................................... 13

Management Options ........................................................................................................ 16

Existing species protection .............................................................................................. 18

Overview of activities ....................................................................................................... 18

Introduction to fishing activities ...................................................................................... 21

Fishing – mobile gear ...................................................................................................... 22

Fishing – static gear ........................................................................................................ 26

Harvesting – intertidal shellfish and bait ......................................................................... 28

Navigational dredging and disposal ................................................................................ 30

Ports and Harbours activities .......................................................................................... 34

Development or expansion of ports and harbours ........................................................... 35

Recreational activities ...................................................................................................... 37

Introduction to renewables activities .............................................................................. 41

Wind energy .................................................................................................................... 42

Summary of management options ................................................................................... 46

Annex 1. Background to the advice contained in this paper ......................................... 50

Annex 2. Map showing overlapping and neighbouring existing protected areas ....... 52

iii

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 of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay

Complex pSPA 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 proposed Special Protection Area (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

The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA comprises an area of 2,720.68 kilometres square (km2). The pSPA stretches from Arbroath to St. Abb’s Head and encompasses the Firth of Forth, the outer Firth of Tay and St. Andrews Bay. The site extends beyond the 12nm boundary of territorial and offshore waters to encompass the feeding areas of some seabirds (Map 1).

The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA attracts one of the largest and most diverse concentrations of marine birds in Scotland. In winter, it provides important wintering grounds used for feeding, moulting and roosting by eight species of non-breeding inshore waterfowl (divers, grebe and seaduck). This wintering waterfowl assemblage includes the largest red-throated diver and common eider populations in Scotland. The Firth of Forth is also notable for its concentrations of four species of wintering gulls, including little gull. Black-headed gull, common gull and herring gull use the inshore waters predominantly to roost, although some foraging activity will also occur. In the non-breeding season these together with black-legged kittiwake, common guillemot, European shag and razorbill contribute to an assemblage of over 40,000 seabirds using the site.

The site also encompasses feeding grounds for breeding common tern, Arctic tern and European shag nesting at SPA colonies within the site. During the breeding season black-legged kittiwake, gannet, herring gull, common guillemot, puffin, and Manx shearwater also contribute to a major assemblage of over 100,000 seabirds.

The qualifying species of the proposed SPA are listed within Table 1.

2

Table 1. Qualifying species and numbers within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA1,2

Species Number of

birds % of British population

Red-throated diver (non-breeding) 850 5

Slavonian grebe (non-breeding) 30 3

Little gull (non-breeding) 126 2

Common tern (breeding) 890 pairs

Arctic tern (breeding) 540 pairs

Common eider (non-breeding) 21,550 36[2]3

Long-tailed duck (non-breeding) 1,950 18

Common scoter (non-breeding) 4,680 5

Velvet scoter (non-breeding) 770 31

Goldeneye (non-breeding) 590 3

Red-breasted merganser (non-breeding) 370 4

Northern gannet (breeding) 10,950 3 [1]3

Manx shearwater (breeding4) 2,890 1

European shag (breeding (b) & non-breeding (nb))

2,400 (b) 2,430 (nb)

3 [2]3 2

Black-legged kittiwake (breeding (b) & non-breeding (nb))

12,020 (b) 3190 (nb)

2 n/a

Common guillemot (breeding (b) & non-breeding (nb))

21,970 1

Atlantic puffin (breeding) 61,090 5

Black-headed gull (non-breeding) 28,120 (b)

26,830 (nb) n/a 1

Common gull (non-breeding) 14,650 2

Herring gull (breeding (b) & non-breeding (nb))

3,040 (b) 12,310 (nb)

1 2

Waterfowl assemblage (non-breeding) >20,000

Seabird assemblage (Breeding & non-breeding) >20,000

The Firths of Forth and Tay are major landforms created during flooding of the land by the sea at the end of the last glaciation. Offshore in the mid Firth of Forth lies a belt of mud-rich sediments. On either side of this along the shore are sandy gravels

1 Further information on source of population estimates is provided in the Site Selection Document

2 ‘Number of birds’ represents the mean maximum value for each species and has been rounded to

the nearest 10. The % population has been rounded to the nearest whole number. 3 The % of the biogeographic population of common eider is given in parentheses.

4 Manx shearwater regularly occur in large numbers during the breeding season although they are not

directly associated with a breeding colony.

3

and shell material. As the estuary widens towards the outer firth, there are extensive areas of sandy and gravelly muds and fine sediments. In contrast the Firth of Tay contains clean sands and gravel with only small areas of muddy sediments.

Offshore of both the Forth and the Tay lie large areas of muddy sand carried out of the estuaries, as well as gravelly sand and clean shell sand. Water depth is variable but large areas of both Firths are shallow and less than 10metres (m) deep.

The area supports a wide variety of both pelagic and demersal fish.

Red-throated divers and mergansers feed on a wide variety of fish, which they catch by diving from the surface and pursuing their prey underwater. Slavonian grebe and little gull feed on small fish species, as well as on marine invertebrates such as small amphipods and other crustaceans. Black-headed gull, common gull and herring gull use the inshore waters primarily for roosting, although some day time foraging in intertidal areas will also take place. When foraging in intertidal areas black-headed gulls and common gulls will eat a variety of molluscs, crustaceans, fish and marine worms, whilst herring gulls, will take fish (including fisheries discards) and larger invertebrates including crabs and starfish.

Eider, scoters and long-tailed duck feed almost exclusively on molluscs and small crustaceans, diving from the surface to pluck their prey from the sea bed. Common goldeneye also feed mainly on invertebrates such as molluscs, worms, and crustaceans but will take also small fish. Eider are resident throughout the year, and breed on islands in the Firth of Forth, but long-tailed duck, common and velvet scoters and goldeneye migrate long distances from their northern breeding grounds to reach wintering grounds in Britain.

The abundance of sandeels is of particular importance to colonial seabirds including terns, shags, puffins, guillemots and kittiwakes which breed in colonies within and close to the pSPA, including the Isle of May. Northern gannet also feed on sandeels but are capable of taking a wider range of fish, including larger species such as herring and mackerel. Terns and kittiwake feed on prey close to the water surface, whereas shags, puffins, razorbills, guillemots and gannet will also pursue prey underwater, in some cases to great depths

Large numbers of Manx shearwaters also use the offshore waters for feeding. These birds are not associated with specific breeding colonies but occur within the site during the breeding season (summer). The status of the birds is uncertain but they are likely to be a mixture of breeding adults from distant colonies, sabbatical or pre-breeding age birds and possibly failed breeders, with the majority being in the latter categories after June. Manx shearwater feed mainly by pursuit-plunging and pursuit-diving on small shoaling fish, but also take squid and crustaceans.

These waters are exceptionally busy, supporting a wide range of human activities including: fishing; ports and harbours and associated commercial shipping; renewable energy generation and export cable routes; boating, water sports and other recreational activities; navigational dredging and disposal; coastal protection and flood defence.

4

Map 1. Location of Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA

5

Species distribution within the site

The distributions of qualifying species within the site are illustrated in Maps 2a to 2g. Spatial species distributions for red-throated diver, eider, long-tailed duck, red-breasted merganser, velvet scoter, common scoter, guillemot, kittiwake, puffin, gannet, shag, little gull, Arctic tern and common tern are delineated using the species-specific boundaries illustrated in the Site Selection Document. They show the areas where densities exceeded a modelled threshold (maximum curvature/hotpot). Birds are likely to be present outwith these areas in lower numbers. We have not attempted to display densities of the species within the species-specific boundaries, these are available in the Site Selection Documents. Species densities are not uniform within the boundaries and we anticipate that some locations within the individual boundaries will be more, or less important than others.

For species where only shore count data are available the point symbols on the distribution maps represent each count sector used during the shore based surveys. Where the point symbols identify that numbers of an individual species are relatively high and exceeded the modelled threshold, this will be true for the length of the count sector area. There is no spatial seaward distribution identified for these species.

There are no species-specific boundaries for Manx shearwater, black-headed gull, herring gull, common gull or razorbill in the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA, therefore no distribution maps are provided for these species.

All species are protected throughout the whole site irrespective of the species-specific distributions. For species where species-specific boundaries are available, these distributions represent our most recent knowledge of areas with high densities of the non-breeding qualifying species within the pSPA as a whole, and are the focus for protection. Accordingly, we have based our management options advice on the species-specific boundaries. When considering future plans or projects, these distributions will be the starting point for making an assessment of the impacts of proposals and would be informed further by surveys.

6

Map 2a. Distribution of important foraging areas for breeding common tern and Arctic tern within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

7

Map 2b. Distribution of main concentrations of non-breeding red-throated diver and red-breasted merganser, and relative distributions of non-breeding red-breasted merganser and Slavonian grebe within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA5

5 Point symbols represent shore based counts with larger symbols showing points where relatively high numbers of birds were recorded

8

Map 2c. Distribution of main concentrations of black-legged kittiwake and Northern gannet during the breeding season within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

9

Map 2d. Distribution of main concentrations of non-breeding common eider and long-tailed duck within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

10

Map 2e. Distribution of main concentrations of non-breeding common guillemot, common scoter and velvet scoter and relative distributions of non-breeding goldeneye and velvet scoter within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay pSPA4

11

Map 2f. Distribution of main concentrations of Atlantic puffin and European shag with approximate distribution of razorbill during the breeding season within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay pSPA

12

Map 2g. Distribution of main concentrations of non-breeding little gull within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay pSPA

13

Conservation objectives

The role of conservation objectives

This section sets out the draft conservation objectives for the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex 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 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 Annex 1 birds and regularly occurring migratory birds6, to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution.

The conservation objectives are set out in bold with supplementary advice provided in the boxes below. Our intention is to provide policy guidance on the conservation objectives which will provide more site-specific advice.

This pSPA has been specifically selected to protect:

This proposed SPA has been specifically selected to protect:

foraging areas used by seabirds breeding at nearby colony SPAs;

areas used by non-breeding divers, grebes, sea ducks and gulls; and

areas used by birds contributing to a waterfowl assemblage (non-breeding) and seabird assemblages (breeding and non-breeding).

6 Article 4 of the Birds Directive requires important areas for rare and sensitive birds (identified in

Annex 1 of the Directive) and regularly occurring migratory birds to be classified.

14

The conservation objectives for the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA 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.

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, Slavonian grebe, long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, common goldeneye, red-breasted merganser, common guillemot, Atlantic puffin, black-legged kittiwake, Arctic tern, common tern, herring gull, black-headed gull, common gull and Manx shearwater. It also supports 1% or more of the biogeographical population of common eider, Northern gannet and European shag and is an important multi-species area supporting over 20,000 non-breeding waterfowl and over 20,000 breeding and non-breeding seabirds, including razorbill. The non-breeding population of seabirds also supports the largest Scottish population of little gull.

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.

15

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. The qualifying species 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.

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

16

Management Options

This section sets out SNH and JNCC’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 or JNCC 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 sea bed), 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 FEAST7 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 2 if any of the qualifying species of the site are assessed as having a high or medium sensitivity to the pressures arising from the activity. These activities therefore present a risk to achieving the conservation objectives.

Management options to manage the risk are recommended for each activity with specific details provided in the following sections. Overlap between different activities/known developments and the proposed qualifying features are described

7 Feature, Activity, Sensitivity Tool

17

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 species.

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 and JNCC have 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.

18

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).

Common eider, long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye and red-breasted merganser are existing qualifying features of the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SPA. Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common eider, long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter, goldeneye, and red-breasted merganser are existing qualifying features of the Firth of Forth SPA. For some activities occurring adjacent or close to these existing SPAs, the conservation requirements of these species will be covered to some extent by existing requirements for assessments.

European shag, black-legged kittiwake and razorbill are existing qualifying features of the St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA. Arctic tern, gannet, European shag, black-legged kittiwake, razorbill and Atlantic puffin are existing qualifying features of the Forth Islands SPA. Common tern is a qualifying feature of the Forth Islands SPA and Imperial Dock loch, Leith SPA. The proposed SPA represents important marine foraging areas for these birds.

Marine site protection in addition to existing colony protection recognises the true value of the foraging areas for breeding birds and provides SNH, JNCC 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 SNH and JNCC 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.

Overview of activities

Table 2 lists the activities that currently take place and are likely to occur in the future within or close to the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA.

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 2 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

19

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 not covered by this document 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/JNCC and/or the relevant competent authority is recommended to ensure HRA requirements for plans and projects are scoped appropriately and unnecessary costs are avoided.

Table 2. Overview of activities with potential to affect the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA

Activities considered likely to affect the qualifying features

Activities not considered likely to affect the qualifying features (other than insignificantly)8

Fishing - mobile gear

Mechanical and hydraulic benthic dredging

Benthic trawls

Pelagic trawls and seines Fishing – static gear

Drift nets

Bottom set nets (including fyke nets) Harvesting – intertidal shellfish and bait Navigational and maintenance dredging

Existing maintenance dredging

Dredge spoil disposal

Capital dredging Ports and harbours

New development - St Abbs, Cove, Dunbar, North Berwick, Port Seton, Fisherrow, Port of Leith, Newhaven, Granton, Burntisland, Pettycur, Kinghorn, Kirkcaldy, Dysart, West Weymss, Methil, Elie, St Monans, Pittenweem, Anstruther, Crail, St Andrews, Port of Dundee, Arbroath

Ship to ship transfer Recreational users

Wildfowling

Anchorages & moorings Aquaculture – finfish (research sites) Aquaculture – shellfish (Berwick lobster hatchery) Coastal protection and flood defence Fishing – static gear

Creels (including lobster, crabs and Nephrops)

Fishing – mobile gear

Line fishing (including jigging) Infrastructure – cables, pipelines, outfalls

Power interconnectors

Gas and oil pipelines

Outfalls

8 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).

20

Activities considered likely to affect the qualifying features

Activities not considered likely to affect the qualifying features (other than insignificantly)8

Jet skiing

Wildlife tour operators, surfing, diving, angling, kayaking, boating

Renewables

Wind energy development

Existing management

The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA overlaps two existing nature conservation sites. Marine Scotland are currently considering potential management measures for the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and the Isle of May SAC.

The Firth of Forth Nature Conservation Order 2006 currently prohibits fishing of cockles by any means other than for personal or scientific purposes. This Order applies to eight intertidal sections of coastline in the outer Firth of Forth.

The North-east UK sandeel fishery closure (CA1) (EC No. 40/2008) currently prohibits sandeel fishing with the exception of a commercial monitoring fishery with a precautionary Total Allowable Catch.

A map showing neighbouring and overlapping protected areas is provided at Annex 2.

21

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 Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA. The BRIA identifies Nephrops trawls, dredges, other trawls, whitefish trawls, pots, lines and other gears operating within the pSPA. Nephrops trawls mainly operate across the central and southern parts and dredges operate mainly in the north-east and south-west parts 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 the qualifying species.

Fishing using creels is likely to be widespread throughout the site. Whilst there is the potential for some mortality through entanglement for some species such as shag, the occurrence is rare and therefore we consider this method poses a low risk to the qualifying species.

22

Fishing – mobile gear

This section considers fishing by benthic (mechanical or hydraulic) dredges, benthic trawls, pelagic trawls 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.

All of the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA 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. All qualifying species are 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 movements).

Removal of prey species. All qualifying species are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that have

the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources, particularly bivalves and crustaceans (seaduck), and sandeel (red-throated diver, grebe, merganser and all seabirds).

Abrasion to supporting habitats for prey species. All qualifying species are 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 benthic dredging and trawling is the potential to reduce the amount and/or quality of prey available to all qualifying features through removal of their prey species, including bivalves, crustaceans and/or fish. 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. Black-headed gull, common gull and herring gull use the inshore waters primarily for roosting and therefore reduction in the availability of marine prey poses a low risk to these qualifying species. Sandeels are an important prey species for divers, grebe, shag, merganser, terns, kittiwake, gannet, auks (puffin, guillemot and razorbill), Manx shearwater and gulls. Sandeel are known to be highly sensitive to the pressures associated with targeted sandeel fishing i.e. sandeel abundance can be affected by targeted fishing. The

23

pSPA lies within the North-east UK sandeel closure (CA1) area, 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 such as bivalves, crustaceans and sandeel. The prey supporting habitats of seaducks are relatively fixed and prey species are not particularly mobile which means that consideration of site-based management in the future may be appropriate. However, because we know less about the extent of interactions between benthic fisheries and the key prey species and their supporting habitats, we have not currently identified a site-based management option. We recommend that a principal 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 bottom-feeding seaducks. 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 trawls and seines Species such as red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, red-breasted merganser, shag, gannet, guillemot, razorbill and puffin that pursue fish prey in the water column are considered to be most sensitive to pressures associated with pelagic trawls and seines but all qualifying species are potentially at risk of entanglement in specific circumstances. However, recorded incidences of entanglement in these gears are few and therefore, on the basis of the current evidence, we consider that these methods poses a low risk to the qualifying species. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with these fisheries:

Mortality – by-catch through entanglement All qualifying species, and in particular red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe,

red-breasted merganser, shag, gannet, guillemot, razorbill and puffin are potentially sensitive to entanglement in pelagic fishing nets. Numbers however caught as by-catch in pelagic trawls and seines are low.

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

Removal of prey species Divers, grebe, merganser, shag, gannet, guillemot, razorbill, puffin, Manx

shearwater, kittiwake, terns and gulls are indirectly sensitive to the removal of fish prey as targeted species from fisheries activities.

The key pressure associated with pelagic trawls and seines is the potential to reduce the amount of prey available to all fish-eating species 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.

24

Black-headed gull, common gull and herring gull use the inshore waters primarily for roosting and therefore reduction in the availability of marine prey poses a low risk to these qualifying species. 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 which will often take place beyond the boundary of the site. 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 direct pressures through visual disturbance to the qualifying features. Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot are considered to have a medium sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement. All species display avoidance behaviour with flight responses varying between species. All other qualifying species are considered to be either not sensitive (gulls) or have a low sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement. For eider however, during periods of flightless moults their ability to avoid vessel movement will be reduced. Fishing poses a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot to disturbance. However, current patterns and levels of vessel movement associated with fisheries activities are not anticipated to cause an adverse effect on site integrity.

Recommended management option:

Proposed way forward:

Remove or avoid: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with trawling for sandeels is recommended. The current position should be retained. Remove or avoid pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with benthic dredging that has the potential to damage sandeel habitat is recommended.

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

25

prey species for red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, red-breasted merganser, shag, little gull, Arctic tern, common tern, northern gannet, Manx shearwater, black-legged kittiwake, common guillemot, razorbill and Atlantic puffin 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 bottom-feeding seaduck.

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.

26

Fishing – static gear This section considers fishing using drift nets, fixed salmon nets, bottom set nets and fyke nets whether bottom set or in the water column. All qualifying species of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA are considered to be sensitive to pressures associated with fisheries using static nets. Whilst there is the potential for some mortality of surface feedings birds, such as terns, gulls and Manx shearwater, through entanglement the occurrence is rare and therefore we consider static gear poses a low risk to these species. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with these fisheries:

Mortality – by-catch through entanglement. All diving species (divers, grebe, seaducks, shag, gannet and auks) are

sensitive to entanglement in set nets.

Disturbance – vessel movement. Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-

breasted merganser and guillemot are considered to have a medium sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement. All species display avoidance behaviour with flights responses varying between species.

All other qualifying species are considered to be either not sensitive (gulls) or

have a low sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement. For eider however, during periods of flightless moults their ability to avoid vessel movement will be reduced.

Removal of prey species. All fish-eating birds, in particular gannet, guillemot, razorbill and puffin 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 all qualifying species through entanglement in nets as they dive for their prey. 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 especially those that pursue their prey in the water column such as auks, red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, gannet, merganser and shag. Bottom-feeders such as eiders, long-tailed ducks, goldeneye, velvet and common scoters are likely to be most sensitive to nets set close to accessible areas of sea bed that support their principal prey species. 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 all qualifying features to by-catch entanglement, the sensitivities of fish-eating birds to the removal of prey and the sensitivities of red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot to disturbance. Black-headed gull,

27

common gull and herring gull use the inshore waters primarily for roosting and therefore reduction in the availability of marine prey poses a low risk to these qualifying species. Consideration of management measures to remove or avoid pressures associated with these activities on the qualifying species may include:

Spatial restrictions to avoid static gear within foraging dive ranges of the qualifying species. Most diving species, with the exception of guillemot, velvet scoter and shag, forage in depths of less than 15m. The extent to which bottom-set nets set deeper than 15m impact on these diving birds is unclear and requires further consideration.

Vessel movement Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot 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 pose a risk to conservation objectives. Recommended management option:

Remove or avoid:

Prohibiting the use of all set nets in areas identified as being important for sea duck, divers, grebe, auks, gannet and shag 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. The relevant authority will lead on the development of specific management measures.

28

Harvesting – intertidal shellfish and bait

The Firth of Forth Nature Conservation Order 2006 currently prohibits fishing of cockles by any means other than for personal or scientific purposes. This Order applies to eight intertidal sections of coastline in the outer Firth of Forth.

Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, eider, long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter and goldeneye are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures associated with shellfish harvesting. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with shellfish harvesting activities:

Disturbance – human presence and vehicles

Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser are considered to have a medium sensitivity to visual disturbance.

All other qualifying species are considered to have low sensitivity to visual disturbance associated with shellfish harvesting.

Removal of prey species

Eider, long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter and goldeneye are considered indirectly sensitive to pressures that have the potential to reduce the availability of important food resources.

The key pressure associated with commercial and non-commercial harvesting of shellfish is the potential to reduce the amount of prey available to bottom-feeding seaduck. However the extent to which this impact has an effect on suitable prey availability is not clear. Shellfish harvesting poses a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of eider, long-tailed duck, common scoter, velvet scoter and goldeneye to the reduction in prey availability and, the sensitivities of red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter and red-breasted merganser to disturbance. New proposals or changes of existing use Any new proposals for commercial shellfish harvesting or proposals to extend or alter existing practice within the pSPA should be considered as a new plan or project and undergo a HRA. 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 harvested.

Appropriate mitigation to reduce or limit pressures associated with these new harvesting proposals on the qualifying features may be possible through a combination of spatial, temporal and technical measures.

Bait collecting or cockle harvesting by foot or vehicle can also cause displacement of birds from foraging areas through visual disturbance. Current patterns and levels of shellfish harvesting activities are not anticipated to pose a risk to the conservation objectives.

29

Recommended management option:

Reduce or limit pressures: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with new commercial or non-commercial harvesting of shellfish should be considered.

Proposed way forward: We will continue discussions with those involved with shellfish harvesting within or adjacent to the proposed SPA to help us to understand more about the interactions between prey removal/recruitment and the qualifying features.

Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with aquaculture interests and regulators and informed by any detailed information that can be made available. Marine Scotland and/or the relevant authority will lead the development of specific management measures.

30

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.

All of the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA are considered sensitive to pressures associated with dredging and disposal activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures:

Disturbance – vessel movement Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-

breasted merganser and guillemot are considered to have a medium sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement. All species display avoidance behaviour with flight responses varying between species.

All other qualifying species are considered to be either not sensitive (gulls) or

have a low sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement. For eider however, during periods of flightless moults their ability to avoid vessel movement will be reduced.

Removal of prey species All qualifying species 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 All qualifying features 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.

Changes in water clarity All qualifying features rely on underwater visibility to capture prey and/or

forage on the sea bed. Guillemot, razorbill and puffin have a medium sensitivity to reduction in water clarity which has the potential to reduce their ability to pursue prey. Red-throated diver, grebe and shag exhibit a low sensitivity to this pressure. Information on potential impacts of water clarity changes on sea duck however is sparse.

Navigational dredging and disposal activities pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of all qualifying species to the reduction in prey availability, either by direct removal or changes to the prey supporting habitat and the sensitivities of guillemot, razorbill and puffin to reduction in water clarity. There is also a risk to the conservation objectives through potential disturbance to red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot.

31

Black-headed gull, common gull and herring gull use the inshore waters primarily for roosting and therefore reduction in the availability of marine prey poses a low risk to these qualifying species.

Existing periodic maintenance dredging and spoil disposal

All qualifying species are sensitive to removal of either bivalve, 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, and disposal of dredge material (including capital material) at existing disposal sites 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 and licensed disposal sites will already be regularly disturbed or smothered by spoil so will have limited foraging value to all qualifying species. Existing licensed disposal sites are shown on Map 3.

Additionally, periods of poor underwater visibility resulting from dredging and disposal activities that could prevent feeding in the immediate vicinity are likely to be short-term and therefore not anticipated to pose a risk to the conservation objectives.

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 plan level 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.

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 the qualifying species and/or;

seasonal restrictions (particularly in areas used for foraging by breeding terns and shag, as they will have a restricted foraging range during this season).

Most foraging activity for the qualifying species occurs in waters shallower than 15m (except guillemot, velvet scoter and shag).

32

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.

Vessel movement

Dredge spoil can be relocated on land or at sea. For those cases where the spoil is disposed of at sea, the transit phase will create additional vessel movement in the area between the dredged site and the disposal site. Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot are sensitive to disturbance associated with vessel movements. However, current patterns and levels of vessel movement associated with dredging and disposal activities are not anticipated to pose a risk to the conservation objectives.

Recommended management option:

No additional management – existing maintenance dredging and disposal (ports and harbours): There should be no additional management requirements for established maintenance dredging and licensed disposal sites. This includes seasonal restrictions. 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.

33

Map 3. Dredge material disposal sites within and close-by the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA.

34

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 that

could affect the qualifying features of Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay

Complex proposed SPA.

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.

All of the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA 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 diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-

breasted merganser and guillemot are considered to have a medium sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement and construction activity. All species display avoidance behaviour to vessel movement with flights responses varying between species.

All other qualifying species are considered to be either not sensitive (gulls) or

have a low sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement with some level of habituation occurring. For eider however, during periods of flightless moults their ability to avoid vessel movement will be reduced.

Mortality - ship to ship hydrocarbon transfers

Loss or damage to supporting habitat for prey species – new developments/port expansion

All qualifying features 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 ports and harbour limits pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of all qualifying species to the reduction in prey availability through damage or loss of prey supporting habitat and, the sensitivities of red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot to disturbance.

35

Black-headed gull, common gull and herring gull use the inshore waters primarily for roosting and therefore reduction in the availability of marine prey poses a low risk to these qualifying species. There have been proposals for commercial ship-to-ship hydrocarbon transfers in the Firth of Forth. Ship to ship transfers pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of all qualifying features to oil contamination. Existing ports and harbour operations The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA area encompasses many ports and harbour limits including St Abbs, Cove, Dunbar, North Berwick, Port Seton, Fisherrow, Port of Leith, Newhaven, Granton, Burntisland, Pettycur, Kinghorn, Kirkcaldy, Dysart, West Weymss, Methil, Elie, St Monans, Pittenweem, Anstruther, Crail, St Andrews, Port of Dundee, Arbroath.

These range in size from those associated with small-scale fishing industry through to the largest enclosed deepwater port in Scotland at Port of Leith. Movement to and from other ports and harbours such as Rosyth, Grangemouth and Perth also passes through the pSPA.

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 diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot are sensitive to disturbance associated with vessel movements. 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.

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 (as well as existing SPAs). 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 the qualifying species may include:

spatial limitations to avoid damaging supporting habitat within foraging dive ranges of the qualifying species and/or;

seasonal restrictions 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.

36

Ship to ship transfer New proposals for ship to ship transfer within the pSPA should be considered as a new plan or project and undergo a HRA. The worse-case scenario should be used as baseline for assessing the potential impact on the qualifying species of the pSPA.

The main risk from ship to ship transfer is around oil spill which can have serious consequences for marine birds and therefore oil spill contingency plans need to be stringent and that take full account of the qualifying species.

We advise that in developing further 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.

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 and harbours within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex 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. Reduce or limit pressures – new operations: Reducing the pressures associated with new ship to ship transfers in the pSPA is recommended.

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.

37

Recreational activities

Current recreational activities within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA such as wildlife tour operators, diving, angling, kayaking and yachting are widespread throughout the pSPA. There are many Royal Yachting Association (RYA) sailing areas and cruising routes within the pSPA, as well as many marinas, harbours and anchorages. Jet skiing is known to occur and wildfowling takes place in areas throughout the site. Existing recreational activities are shown in Map 4.

All of the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex proposed SPA are considered sensitive to pressures associated with recreational activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures:

Disturbance - through displacement from foraging, sheltering and / or roosting areas, or disturbance during moulting period for eiders.

Red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-

breasted merganser and guillemot are considered to have a medium sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement and other anthropogenic activity. All species display avoidance behaviour to vessel movement including kayaks and yachts with flights responses varying between species.

All other qualifying species are considered to be either not sensitive (gulls) or have a low sensitivity to visual disturbance created by vessel movement. For eider however, during periods of flightless moults their ability to avoid vessel movement will be reduced.

The key pressure associated with recreational activities is disturbance to red-throated diver, grebes, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser and guillemot particularly around areas they use for shelter, roosting and/or 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. Eiders are also sensitive during their moult when they are flightless and less able to get away.

Jet-skiing and wildfowling Prolonged activity around foraging and roosting areas can also lead to displacement from these areas so reducing the bird’s ability to feed and/or rest.

Jet skiing and wildfowling activities pose a particular risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser to disturbance.

Increase in activities Most water-borne activities occur during the summer when most non-breeding waterfowl (except eider and breeding shag) are not present. Most breeding species are particularly sensitive to disturbance at their colony. Terns and shag however have a restricted foraging range during the breeding season and therefore are potentially more sensitive to localised increase in water-borne activities around the colony. 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.

38

Activities not considered further:

Sea kayaking, yachting, angling and wildlife tour operators Current patterns and levels of these recreational activities are not anticipated to a pose a risk to the conservation objectives.

Recommended management option:

Reduce or limit pressures – jet-skiing and wildfowling: Reducing or limiting disturbance of qualifying species from jet-skiing and wildfowling should be considered. No additional management – existing wildlife tours, yachting, angling and kayaking: There should be no additional management requirements’ providing the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code is followed by water-borne recreational users and Wildlife tour operators. Reduce or limit pressures – increase in activities Reducing or limiting disturbance of red-throated diver, grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser, guillemot and moulting eider by water-borne recreational activities should be considered if in the future there is evidence of impacts at particular locations and/or if there is major increase in intensity of these pursuits within the pSPA. There would be potential for some zonation of measures across the site given distribution of sensitive species within the site

Proposed way forward: Continue to promote best practice guidance and raise awareness of avoiding disturbance to non-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. Marine Scotland and/or the relevant authority will lead on the development of specific management measures.

Relationship with existing management:

Wildfowling is regulated through byelaws at Aberlady Bay Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and John Muir Country Park, both in East Lothian

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

39

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 non-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 .

40

Map 4. Recreational activities within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

41

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 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 the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA. Consideration has been given to the draft Sectoral plans - any identified options areas, leasing rounds, applications, consented and any operational developments.

There are no offshore wind, wave or tidal option areas identified in the respective draft Sectoral plans that overlap with the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA. However, there is one offshore wind lease area and a number of proposed and consented wind renewable developments, as well as the operational site at Methil.

All of the qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA are considered sensitive to pressures associated with wind renewable activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with wind and wave renewables:

Mortality – through collision Common tern, Arctic tern, gannet and kittiwake are all considered to have a

high sensitivity to collision risk with wind turbines. Red-throated diver and Slavonian grebe are considered to have a medium to

high sensitivity to collision risk with wind turbines. Divers display some avoidance behaviour to offshore wind farms but Slavonian grebe are reported to migrate during the night (poor visibility) and therefore this increases collision risk.

Black-headed gull, common gull, herring gull, Manx shearwater, guillemot,

razorbill and puffin are considered to have a medium sensitivity to collision risk with wind turbines.

Disturbance - through displacement from foraging, sheltering and / or roosting areas.

42

Eider, common scoter, velvet scoter, long-tailed duck, goldeneye, Arctic tern,

common tern, razorbill, puffin and kittiwake are considered to have a medium sensitivity to disturbance and displacement from wind farms indicating that artificial structures may act as a barrier to movements.

Loss or damage to supporting habitat for prey species All qualifying species 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 sea bed has the potential to cause an impact on the qualifying features however, the risk is considered to be low.

Wind energy Lease areas and new wind development The pSPA overlaps partially with one offshore wind lease area – Round 3 Zone 2 – Sea Green. There is an active application for a further renewable wind project at the Methil – Forthwind - 2Be demonstration site. We are also aware of the potential for future phases of the Methil and Seagreen sites. New wind energy proposals within the lease area pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of common tern, Arctic tern, gannet, kittiwake, red-throated diver, Slavonian grebe, black-headed gull, common gull, herring gull, Manx shearwater, guillemot, razorbill and puffin to collision, and the sensitivities of eider, common scoter, velvet scoter, long-tailed duck, goldeneye, Arctic tern, common tern, razorbill, puffin and kittiwake to disturbance. All new development 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. To inform a 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 wind energy proposals on the qualifying features may include:

spatial limitations to avoid particularly high density areas of the qualifying features and/or;

seasonal restrictions during construction to avoid periods when birds are present.

We advise that in developing any proposals within the lease areas, 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.

43

Schemes under further consideration Several marine wind energy schemes in the outer Forth and Tay were consented in October 2014, but have not yet commenced construction. Neart na Gaoithe is located partly within the pSPA, whereas Inch Cape and Seagreen Phase 1 are located near to the pSPA and their export cables will pass through the site. These three developments have been challenged through Judicial Review and therefore are subject to further consideration. These offshore wind sites have the potential to cause a negative impact on the qualifying features through the selection of the export cable route, construction, operation and maintenance. Construction and installation of supporting infrastructure such as cables on the sea bed has the potential damage prey supporting habitat, whilst operation and maintenance activities can cause disturbance to birds. Should the developments go ahead, Marine Scotland will be required to review existing consents if the pSPA is classified. Due to the short term timescale required for the construction of the export cable and limited spatial extent required we consider that pressures can be reduced through effective mitigation.

Operational development There is also one operational energy generation development within the pSPA boundary. The Methil (ORE Catapult turbine) has been operational since October 2013. It is not anticipated that any additional management will be required.

Recommended management option:

No additional management – operational schemes: No additional management required for the Methil (ORE Catapult) turbine. No additional management – submitted schemes: Methil – Forth Wind 2 turbine demonstration site, providing agreed mitigation measures are deployed. No additional management – schemes under further consideration: No additional management required for :

- Neart na Goaithe wind farm;

- Seagreen Phase 1 – Alpha and Bravo wind farms; and

- Inch Cape wind farm,

providing agreed mitigation measures as agreed at Forth and Tay Regional Advisory Group (FTRAG) and on a project specific basis are deployed. Remove or avoid pressures– new proposals: Removing or avoiding collision pressures associated with further wind turbines for all qualifying species is recommended until such time as research and monitoring requirements as identified

44

by FTRAG and SPoRRAN provide further information on this potential impact pathway in this area. Removing or avoiding displacement pressures associated with further wind turbines in areas identified as being important for any of the qualifying species is recommended until such time as current research and monitoring requirements provide further information on this potential impact pathway in this area.

Proposed way forward: Any consented, but not yet constructed developments should be reviewed to identify if any additional mitigation and / or research is required.

Any additional advice to schemes currently under further consideration through the Judicial Review process, will be subject to the outcome of the final judgement.

Should any new proposals be brought forward within the pSPA area then these would need to be considered on a case by case basis. 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 should be in discussion with the developer, regulator Marine Science Licensing and Operations Team (MS LOT) and advisers Marine Scotland Science (MSS), SNH/JNCC.

45

Map 5. Wind renewable energy activities within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex pSPA

46

Summary of management options

Fishing – mobile gear Remove or avoid: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with trawling for sandeels is recommended. The current position should be retained. Remove or avoid pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with benthic dredging that has the potential to damage sandeel habitat is recommended.

Fishing – static gear

Harvesting – intertidal shellfish and bait

Remove or avoid:

Prohibiting the use of all set nets in areas identified as being important for sea duck, divers, grebes, auks, gannets and shags is recommended. Reduce or limit pressures: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with new commercial or non-commercial harvesting of shellfish should be considered.

Navigational dredging and disposal

No additional management – existing maintenance dredging and disposal (ports and harbours): There should be no additional management requirements for established maintenance dredging and licensed disposal sites. This includes seasonal restrictions. 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 and harbours within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex 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. Reduce or limit pressures – new operations: Reducing the pressures associated with new ship to ship transfers in the pSPA is recommended.

Recreational activities Reduce or limit pressures – jet-skiing and wildfowling: Reducing or limiting disturbance of qualifying species from jet-skiing and wildfowling should be considered.

47

No additional management – existing wildlife tours, yachting, angling and kayaking: There should be no additional management requirements’ providing the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code is followed by water-borne recreational users and Wildlife tour operators. Reduce or limit pressures – increase in activities Reducing or limiting disturbance of red-throated diver, grebe, common scoter, velvet scoter, red-breasted merganser, guillemot and moulting eider by water-borne recreational activities should be considered if in the future there is evidence of impacts at particular locations and/or if there is major increase in intensity of these pursuits within the pSPA.

Renewables – offshore wind

No additional management – operational schemes: No additional management required for the Methil (ORE Catapult) turbine. No additional management – consented, but not yet constructed schemes: No additional management required for :

- Neart na Goaithe wind farm;

- Seagreen Phase 1 – Alpha and Bravo wind farms; and

- Inch Cape wind farm,

providing agreed mitigation measures as agreed at Forth and Tay Regional Advisory Group (FTRAG) and on a project specific basis are deployed. Methil – Forth Wind 2 turbine demonstration site, providing agreed mitigation measures are deployed. Remove or avoid pressures– new proposals: Removing or avoiding collision pressures associated with further wind turbines for all qualifying species is recommended until such time as research and monitoring requirements as identified by FTRAG and SPoRRAN provide further information on this potential impact pathway in this area. Removing or avoiding displacement pressures associated with further wind turbines in areas identified as being important for any of the qualifying species is recommended until such time as current research and monitoring requirements provide further information on this potential impact pathway in this area.

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 2, and for activities sharing the following pressures:

Mortality:

Fishing with mobile gear – through entanglement.

48

Fishing with static gear – through entanglement.

Ports and harbour operations (ship to ship hydrocarbon transfer) – through oil contamination

Wind energy – through collision with turbines.

Disturbance:

Fishing with mobile gear – through disturbance associated with increased vessel activity.

Fishing with static gear – through disturbance associated with increased vessel activity.

Harvesting shellfish and bait – through human disturbance and vehicle/vessel activity.

Navigational dredging – through disturbance associated with increased shipping activity.

Ports and harbours – through disturbance associated with increased vessel activity.

Recreational activities – through displacement from foraging areas.

Wind 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.

Fishing with static gear – through direct removal of prey.

Harvesting shellfish and bait - through direct removal of prey.

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

Wind energy - through installation of infrastructure causing damage to prey 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 JNCC and a preferred way forward may be recommended. This will form the basis of advice from SNH and JNCC to Marine Scotland on the management measures required for this site should it be classified as an SPA.

49

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 proposed SPA. Should any management measures require statutory underpinning, Marine Scotland will undertake further consultation.

50

Annex 1. Background to the advice contained in this paper

In inshore waters, 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.

In offshore waters, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is asked to

establish Conservation Objectives under Regulation 18 of The Offshore Marine

Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended), referred to as

the ‘Offshore Regulations’, and to advise competent authorities of any operations

which may adversely affect the integrity of the site. The Offshore Regulations

transpose the Nature Directives into law for UK offshore waters

This document presents the respective Regulation 33 and Regulation 18 advice, plus

supporting information, for the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex

proposed SPA 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 SNH

and JNCC 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

51

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

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.

52

Annex 2. Map showing overlapping and neighbouring existing protected areas