Scottish MPA Project

Management options

SMALL ISLES POSSIBLE MPA

This is a working draft that has been produced to support initial discussions with stakeholders about management of activities in the possible MPA. The development of site management is an ongoing process which will continue after the conclusion of the formal consultation. We will make changes to reflect any relevant information that becomes available e.g. through stakeholder discussions.

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 does not consider likely cumulative effects that could result from different types of activities being carried out within the possible MPA. This document should therefore be considered as the starting point for discussions about management relating to the possible MPA. The following documents provide further information about the features, evidence and assessment of the possible MPA and should be read alongside this Management Options Paper:

• Site summary • Data confidence assessment • Detailed assessment against the MPA Selection Guidelines

These documents are available on the Scottish Natural Heritage website.

2

Document version control

Version Date Author Reason / Comments Version 1 06/02/2013 Siobhan Mannion Insertion of relevant activities data

(subject to refinement). Version 2 02/04/2013 Morven

Carruthers and Owen McGrath

New format and added/updated detail following discussion with Katie Gillham

Version 3 11/04/2013 Katie Gillham Updated following discussion with David Donnan and Kirstie Dearing and to take account of comments received from Michael McLeod and Sebastian Howell.

Version 4 1/05/2013 Katie Gillham Review/general edits. Version 5 12/06/2013 Morven

Carruthers Updated maps

Version 6 16/06/2013 Katie Gillham New section on aquaculture added. Version 7 22/07/2013 Sarah

Cunningham Revised anchorage text.

Version 8 24/07/2013 Katie Gillham Insert habitat polygon mapping and address QA comments

Distribution list

Format Version Issue date Issued to Electronic Version 2 09/04/2013 Michael McLeod, Sebastian Howell and

David Mallon Electronic Version 4 21/05/2013 Discussed at Regional Fisheries event

in Mallaig Electronic Version 5 17/06/2013 Michael McLeod Electronic Version 8 25/07/2013 SNH web publication

[B1209345 / 13(#20)]

3

DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE SMALL ISLES POSSIBLE MPA

Introduction

The Small Isles possible Marine Protected Area (MPA) encompasses the island communities of Rum and Canna. Enclosing the busy Canna port, the Small Isles possible MPA is important for commercial fishing, tourism and recreational sailing. The Small Isles hold important fishing grounds and the harbour at Canna is on a popular cruising route. The Small Isles possible MPA also provides an opportunity to conserve an important part of Scotland’s seas. Further details of the possible MPA can be found in the site summary.

This document has been produced to provide background information on the development of management for the Small Isles possible MPA. It will be used during discussions as part of the formal consultation. The aim of these discussions is to explore current activities and the potential interactions these may have with the proposed protected features. Future activities may also be considered.

The document describes the known location and extent of protected features and the current knowledge of where various activities take place. It also presents the preferred management option for each of those activities that are considered capable of having an effect on the protected features. The document provides those with an interest in the area a chance to input into the early stages of working out appropriate management of activities to ensure that the Small Isles possible MPA makes a genuine and long-lasting contribution to the protection of Scotland’s marine environment.

Map 1 shows the location of the Small Isles possible MPA.

4

Map 1 Location of the Small Isles possible MPA

5

Roles

SNH’s role is to advise Scottish Government on management options for the Small Isles possible MPA. In doing this, our aim is to ensure the conservation objectives for the protected features are met. Marine Scotland will lead the discussions on management with stakeholders. They will consider SNH’s advice and will lead on the development of specific management measures. They will be responsible for making recommendations to Scottish Ministers on these measures. Scottish Ministers will decide whether to implement these measures. Stakeholders can provide additional evidence to support the development of management options including local knowledge of the environment and of activities. Discussions with stakeholders will be one way of highlighting the implications of any management options to both SNH and Scottish Government. This will contribute to the development of well-designed and effective management measures if the site is approved by Scottish Ministers. Protected features and conservation objectives The Small Isles possible MPA is being considered as part of a network of new Nature Conservation MPAs. These are being established to help conserve a range of Scotland’s important marine habitats, wildlife, geology and landforms. The location and extent of the proposed protected features within the Small Isles possible MPA are shown on Map 2. Conservation objectives set out the desired quality of the protected features within each Nature Conservation MPA. They will form part of the designation order for Nature Conservation MPAs and will therefore be in place at the time that a site is formally designated. A conserve objective is used where evidence exists that a protected feature of an MPA is in good condition or where limited evidence exists and therefore there is uncertainty concerning the condition of a feature. A recover objective will be used where evidence exists that a species or habitat of an MPA is declining and/or damaged, to the point where it is not considered to be in a good condition. We have recommended that the conservation objectives for the protected features within the Small Isles possible MPA are ‘conserve’ for all features. The maps in the rest of this document have been produced using the point data shown in Map 2. We have also used these data to produce a predictive map of the habitats within the possible MPA (see Annex 1). The predictive map has been produced using a combination of different types of data (including on depth, seabed type and the locations of habitats and species). The map will be used to help inform discussions on management by highlighting the expected distribution and extent of habitats within the possible MPA so that this can be discussed alongside information on activities. Additional data will help us to improve the accuracy of this map in future.

6

Map 2 The distribution of protected features within the Small Isles possible MPA

7

Overview of activities

Table 1 below lists the activities that take place within or close to the Small Isles possible MPA. Further discussions with those who use the area are required to improve our understanding of these activities (e.g. distribution and intensity etc). Those activities that the protected features are sensitive to are explored in detail in the next section. Activities which the protected features are not thought to be sensitive to (i.e. any connection between the activity and the features is considered to be minimal) will not be considered further within this document. New or other activities not identified within the table would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Table 1: Overview of existing activities believed to take place within or close to the Small

Isles possible MPA. Activities considered capable of affecting the protected features

Activities not considered capable of affecting the protected features*

Marine disposal sites • Sound of Canna and Port Mor, Isle of

Muck

Ports and harbours • Canna Port

Anchorage areas • specific sites as described in following

section

Ferry routes • Mallaig-Eigg-Muck-Rum-Canna vehicle

ferry Fishing – demersal mobile/ active gear

• Trawling for fish and Nephrops • Dredging for scallops and other bivalve

molluscs.

RYA cruising routes • 10 cruising routes

Fishing – static gear • Static creels/pots for crabs, lobsters and

Nephrops.

RYA sailing areas • the North West Scotland sailing area

Aquaculture - finfish • Possible future development

Commercial shipping

Fishing - pelagic Fishing – hand collection of bivalves *Only the specific examples of activities listed in the table have been excluded, rather than the broad activity types.

8

Development of management options Management options are being developed where we consider that some form of management may be necessary to achieve the conservation objectives for each proposed protected feature. The approach to identifying management options for each activity is risk-based i.e. we are focusing on providing advice where we believe there is a risk to achieving the conservation objectives. To do this, we are using existing data and information on protected features and relevant activities, and also our understanding of the relationships between the proposed features and activities. The management options may be informed by discussion with stakeholders. If new information becomes available during the consultation, the management options may be revised. Management options are focused on the activities that cause an effect (a pressure) that a feature is sensitive to. Pressures can be physical (e.g. abrasion of the seabed), chemical or biological. Different activities may cause the same pressure, e.g. fishing using bottom gears and aggregate dredging both cause abrasion which can damage the surface of the seabed. The protected features of a possible MPA are considered sensitive to activities that could adversely affect them (because of the associated pressures) especially if they are unable or very slow to recover. The online sensitivity tool FEAST1 will be available on the Marine Scotland website. It reflects our current understanding of the interactions between activities, pressures and features and supports the first steps of the assessment of risk to the features in the possible MPAs. The tool highlights that activities can give rise to a range of pressures, which the protected features of the possible MPA may be sensitive to. Sensitivity is characterised by a feature’s tolerance (response to change) and its ability to recover. Please use the online tool on the Marine Scotland web site for more detailed information including the evidence we have used in developing our recommendations. We have identified risks to achieving the conservation objectives where there is an overlap between protected features and activities associated with pressures that the features are sensitive to. We have recommended management options to manage these risks. Specific details of the recommended management options for each activity are provided in the following sections. Overlap between different activities/potential developments and the proposed protected features is described and where appropriate mapped. The text focuses on interactions in terms of physical overlap but the assessment of risk in future should also take account of the intensity and frequency of activities within the possible MPA. SNH has identified a range of management options that may be applied, including:

- management to remove or avoid pressures - management to reduce or limit pressures - no additional management

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.

1 Features, Activities, Sensitivities and pressures Tool

9

Marine disposal sites There are two licensed marine disposal sites located to the south-east of Canna within the possible MPA (Sound of Canna HE025 and Port Mor Isle of Muck HE080). These sites overlap with fan mussel aggregations and horse mussel beds (Map 3). Both of these features have high and medium sensitivities to pressures associated with dredge spoil disposal (e.g. siltation rate change) and if pressures are not removed, there is a high risk that the conservation objectives for horse mussel beds and fan mussel aggregations would not be met. Map 3 Overlap between licensed marine disposal sites and proposed protected features.

Map scaled to show detail in Sound of Canna.

Recommended management option:

Remove or avoid pressures – the removal of marine disposal sites from areas of fan mussel aggregations and horse mussel beds within the Sound of Canna is recommended.

10

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

disposal within or adjacent to the possible MPA. These should focus on considering the relocation or removal of the two licensed marine disposal sites so that they do not overlap with the horse mussel beds and fan mussel aggregations or compromise the conservation objectives of the other protected features. Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team. Marine Scotland will lead the development of specific management measures.

11

Anchorages Within the possible MPA, the recreational and commercial anchorages are located at Canna Harbour, Canna; Loch Scresort, Rum; Port Mor in the NE of the inlet, Muck; and between the old pier and the north end of Eilean Chathastail, Eigg. Anchorages are used occasionally at Gallanach (Bagh a' Ghallanaich), Muck; Poll nam Partan about 800m north of Eilean Chathastail, Tarbert Bay, Canna; and between Hyskeir and Garbh Sgeir, Hyskeir. None of the protected features overlap with any of anchorage areas (Map 4) and therefore are not exposed to the pressures associated with this activity. No additional management for anchorages is likely to be required in order to meet the conservation objectives. Map 4 Overlap between anchorages and proposed protected features (a) at scale of

MPA proposal and (b) with insets overleaf showing detail at specific anchorages. Legend (a) applies to both maps.

(a)

12

Recommended management option:

No additional management required because none of the anchorages overlap with proposed protected features.

Proposed way forward: No further consideration required.

(b)

13

Aquaculture – finfish

This section discusses possible future aquaculture development. We have not produced a map of overlap with the proposed protected features because there are currently no finfish farms or applications for new finfish farms within the Small Isles possible MPA. Finfish farming has been included because it is our understanding that there may be future development proposals. Our understanding is that it would be unlikely for new finfish farms to be developed in the Sound of Canna because it is not considered suitable (e.g. because of the depth of water). Therefore we have focused on the potential overlap with proposed protected features outwith the Sound of Canna but relatively close to the coast. Future proposals for finfish farms are likely to overlap with burrowed mud. Burrowed mud is widely distributed around Canna and Rum. It has a medium sensitivity to pressures associated with finfish farming (e.g. organic enrichment, siltation changes). Plans for new finfish farms would require careful consideration. It is also likely that any future developments would be located in waters where black guillemots are likely to forage (i.e. within ~2km of the coast). Black guillemots are considered moderately sensitive to pressures associated with finfish aquaculture such as entanglement in nets (removal of non-target species). Our view is that black guillemot might be expected to still achieve their conservation objectives if the pressures are reduced or limited through following best practice in use of anti-predator netting (e.g. use of well-tensioned nets). In assessing likely impacts of future proposals, our focus will be on the Allowable Zone of Effect (the SEPA modelled area of chemical and waste deposition) and the mooring grid, which together represent the main footprint associated with finfish farms.

Recommended management option:

Reduce/limit pressures: • associated with new finfish farms in areas where they

would be likely to impact on burrowed mud (particularly in areas with large epibenthic species including tall sea pen).

• associated with the use of anti-predator netting at finfish farms within the possible MPA. This should be done through following best practice. The area over which black guillemots are most sensitive (i.e. within 2km) overlaps with the areas in which aquaculture developments are likely to be located within the possible MPA.

Burrowed mud is widely distributed across the site and therefore it is likely that any management required would be across most, if not the whole, MPA. There is some potential to focus management around locations with large epibenthic species including tall sea pens. Black guillemots are most likely to be foraging in areas within 2km of the coast and therefore management should be focused within this zone.

14

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

farming within the possible MPA to help us to understand more about the interactions between finfish farms and the protected features. We will also continue discussions with public authorities to ensure that any impacts on protected features are considered when they are assessing proposals. Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with finfish farming interests and informed by any detailed information that can be made available. Marine Scotland will lead the development of specific management measures.

15

Introduction to fishing activities Information on the distribution and intensity of fishing activity within and adjacent to the Small Isles possible MPA was not available at the time of writing. Therefore, in providing our advice on management options for fishing activities, we have focused on what we know about the sensitivities of the proposed protected features to different types of fishing activity and whether or not that fishing activity may affect the achievement of the site’s conservation objectives. Our advice below has been presented in the context of three broad management options, which are: remove/avoid pressures, reduce/limit pressures or no additional management. We have indicated the extent to which these options would allow the conservation objectives to be met and have added some site specific comments. Recommended – highlights that an issue of fishery/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 circumstances mean that a specific recommendation for action cannot / or need not be made at this point. However, there is sufficient cause to make fishery managers aware of the issue and for them to consider if a fishery management measure may be helpful in achieving conservation objectives – particularly where there may be a synergy between the benefits of management actions for the fishery and the conservation objectives for the feature. In order to assess the extent to which these features are actually affected by fishing activities in the site, discussions with those involved with fishing within or adjacent to the possible MPA will be important. Note that whilst diver-operated fisheries could in theory target areas including fan mussel aggregations and horse mussel beds, this type of activity is not discussed because within the Small Isles possible MPA these features only occur below the depth limit for diver-operated fisheries.

Fishing – demersal mobile/ active gear The Small Isles possible MPA is subject to fishing activity of a variety of types. We have considered trawling for fish and Nephrops, and dredging for scallops and other bivalve molluscs within the category demersal mobile/ active gear fishing. Protected features located on the seabed are considered sensitive to pressures (i.e. surface damage and abrasion) associated with demersal mobile/ active fishing gear. Map 5 shows the sensitivities of the protected features to pressures associated with demersal mobile/ active fishing. Different management options have been considered, including reduction or removal of pressures. If the pressures associated with demersal mobile/active fishing gear are reduced or limited, the conservation objectives for burrowed mud might be expected to be achieved. However, this may not entirely eliminate the risk of deterioration. (Note that we have not identified a separate management option for circalittoral sand and mud communities because the locations of this proposed protected feature is closely associated with burrowed mud.) If the pressures associated with demersal mobile/active fishing gear are removed or

16

avoided for fan mussels aggregations and horse mussel beds, the conservation objectives would be likely to be achieved. No management options have been identified for northern feather star aggregations on mixed substrata, northern sea fan and sponge communities and white cluster anemones. For northern feather star aggregations, whilst there is no published information on the interaction with mobile/active gear, this feature has a medium sensitivity to one of the main pressures associated with mobile/active gear i.e. surface abrasion. Northern sea fan and sponge communities and white cluster anemones are both recorded in similar types of habitat. Whilst they are both sensitive to surface abrasion, our view is that there is unlikely to be a risk to the conservation objectives for these features from the continued use of mobile/active gear within the possible MPA. This is because fisheries using these types of gear are considered unlikely to be targeting the habitats where northern sea fan and sponge communities and white cluster anemones occur. However, it will be necessary to confirm this view once more detailed mobile fishing activity information is available. Map 5 Sensitivities of the proposed protected features to pressures associated with

demersal mobile/ active gear fishing

17

Recommended management option:

Remove or avoid pressures - the exclusion of mobile/active gears from the areas within the site where horse mussel beds and fan mussel aggregations occur is recommended. These features occur at discrete locations, largely within or adjacent to the Sound of Canna. Management should therefore be focused around the Sound of Canna and does not need to be put in place across the whole MPA. Reduce or limit pressures - Management measures to reduce or limit the intensity of towed/active gears on burrowed mud, (particularly where there are aggregations of large, epibenthic species including tall sea pens) should be considered. Burrowed mud occurs widely throughout the MPA. Management should be considered for most of, if not the entire, site. There is some potential to focus management around locations with large, epibenthic species (including tall sea pens). Because of the close relationship between burrowed mud and circalittoral sand and coarse sediment communities, any management put in place for burrowed mud would also contribute to the conservation objectives for circalittoral coarse sand and sediment communities. Further information would be required on the interaction between active/mobile gear and northern featherstar aggregations. Therefore we have not currently identified a management option. Although there is no published information on the interaction with mobile/towed gear there may be a risk resulting from surface abrasion. Northern feather star aggregations on mixed substrata are more widely distributed but, if required, a zoned approach to management for this feature may be possible.

18

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

within or adjacent to the possible MPA to help us to understand more about the interactions between different gear types and the proposed protected features. Scotmap will provide a valuable source of information on inshore fishing activity. The data are currently being validated by Marine Scotland Science but are unlikely to be available far enough in advance of the formal consultation to be included within this paper. It is expected that in future Scotmap will be used to support decision-making on MPAs. Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with fishing interests and fishery managers and informed by any detailed information about fishing activity that can be made available. Marine Scotland will lead the development of specific management measures.

19

Fishing – static gear The Small Isles possible MPA is subject to fishing activity of a variety of types. We have considered static creels / pots for crabs, lobsters and Nephrops. Certain protected features located on the seabed are considered sensitive to pressures associated with the placement of static fishing gear on the seabed. Map 6 shows the sensitivities of the protected features to surface damage or abrasion. Map 6 Sensitivities of the proposed protected features to pressures associated with

static gear fishing activities

20

Recommended management option:

Reduce or limit pressures: • Management measures to reduce or limit pressures

associated with static gear fishing activities in areas with burrowed mud (particularly where there are aggregations of large, epibenthic species including tall sea pens) should be considered.

• Management measures to reduce or limit the intensity of static gears in areas with fan mussel aggregations and horse mussel beds should be considered.

Burrowed mud occurs widely throughout the MPA. Management should be considered for most of, if not the entire, site. There is some potential to focused management around locations with large, epibenthic species (including tall sea pens). Fan mussel aggregations and horse mussel beds occur at discrete locations, largely within or adjacent to the Sound of Canna. Some surface disturbance or abrasion may result from deployment and recovery of gear, and it is likely that the extent of impact would be related to the intensity of fishing. Management could therefore be focused around the Sound of Canna and does not need to be put in place across the whole MPA.

Proposed way forward: We will continue discussions with those involved with fishing within or adjacent to the possible MPA to help us to understand more about the interactions between different gear types and the proposed protected features. Scotmap will provide a valuable source of information on inshore fishing activity. The data are currently being validated by Marine Scotland Science but are unlikely to be available far enough in advance of the formal consultation to be included within this paper. It is expected that in future Scotmap will be used to support decision-making on MPAs. Where management measures are required, the development of these would be undertaken via discussion with fishing interests and fishery managers and informed by any detailed information about fishing activity that can be made available. Marine Scotland will lead the development of specific management measures.

21

Summary of management options

Marine disposal sites:

Remove or avoid pressures associated with dredge disposal sites from areas of fan mussel aggregations and horse mussel beds within the Sound of Canna.

Anchorages: No additional management required.

Aquaculture - finfish Reduce/limit pressures: • associated with new finfish farms in areas where they

would be likely to impact on burrowed mud (particularly in areas with large epibenthic species including tall sea pen).

• associated with the use of anti-predator netting at finfish farms within the possible MPA. This should be done through following best practice. The area over which black guillemots are most sensitive (i.e. within 2km) overlaps with the areas in which aquaculture developments are likely to be located within the possible MPA.

Burrowed mud is widely distributed across the site and therefore it is likely that any management required would be across most, if not the whole, MPA. There is some potential to focus management around locations with large epibenthic species including tall sea pens. Black guillemots are most likely to be foraging in areas within 2km of the coast and therefore management should be focused within this zone.

22

Fishing – demersal mobile/ active gear:

Remove or avoid pressures - the exclusion of mobile/active gears from the areas within the site where horse mussel beds and fan mussel aggregations occur is recommended. These features occur at discrete locations, largely within or adjacent to the Sound of Canna. Management should therefore be focused around the Sound of Canna and does not need to be put in place across the whole MPA. Reduce or limit pressures - Management measures to reduce or limit the intensity of towed/active gears on burrowed mud, (particularly where there are aggregations of large, epibenthic species including tall sea pens) should be considered. Burrowed mud occurs widely throughout the MPA. Management should be considered for most of, if not the entire, site. The is some potential to focus management around locations with large, epibenthic species including tall sea pens. Because of the close relationship between burrowed mud and circalittoral sand and coarse sediment communities, any management put in place for burrowed mud would also contribute to the conservation objectives for circalittoral coarse sand and sediment communities. Further information would be required on the interaction between active/mobile gear and northern featherstar aggregations. Therefore we have not currently identified a management option. Although there is no published information on the interaction with mobile/towed gear there may be a risk resulting from surface abrasion. Northern feather star aggregations on mixed substrata are more widely distributed but, if required, a zoned approach to management for this feature may be possible.

Fishing – static gear: Reduce or limit pressures: • Management measures to reduce or limit pressures

associated with static gear fishing activities in areas with burrowed mud (particularly where there are aggregations of tall sea pens) should be considered.

• Management measures to reduce or limit the intensity of static gears in areas with fan mussel aggregations and horse mussel beds should be considered.

Burrowed mud is widely distributed throughout the possible MPA. Any management should be focused around locations with large, epibenthic species including tall sea pens. Fan mussel aggregations and horse mussel beds occur at discrete locations, largely within or adjacent to the Sound of Canna. Management should therefore be focused around the Sound of Canna and does not need to be put in place across the whole MPA.

23

Before any firm recommendations are made, discussions should be held with stakeholders to ensure that the 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 protected features. The options presented here will then be reviewed by SNH and a preferred way forward may be recommended. This will form the basis of advice from SNH to Marine Scotland on management requirements for this possible MPA should it be designated as a Nature Conservation MPA. 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 possible MPA. Should any management measures require statutory underpinning, Marine Scotland will undertake further consultation.

Further information The following documents are available for background information:

• Marine Scotland’s MPA consultation document • SNH and JNCC MPA network advice (November 2012) • The draft MPA Management Handbook • Draft fisheries guidance notes

24

Annex 1 Habitat map showing predicted extent of the proposed protected features within the possible MPA

Habitat polygons shown with a dotted infill (as opposed to solid colour) are those for which we have lower confidence in the predicted extent. This is likely to be either because a) the location covered by the polygon has been relatively sparsely sampled or b) the habitat polygon is based on an extrapolation from a neighbouring area with very similar habitat features. It is likely that northern feather star aggregations and northern sea fan communities are more widely distributed than the current polygons suggest. Additional work is currently under way to produce polygons for the burrowed mud components for this possible MPA.