• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Karen Eastwood Registry Department Scottish Environment Protection Agency Graesser House Fodderty Way Dingwall IV15 9XB 21st November 2018 Your ref: CAR/L/1169751 & CAR/L/1169752 Our ref: CNS/CAR/NINH-Orkney (CLC152431&CLC152432) By e-mail only to: registrydingwall@sepa. org.uk Dear Karen Water Environment ( Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 Application for CAR Authorisation for Yinstay East/West, Shapinsay Sound, Orkney Thank you for your email of 18th September consulting us on the above application and for the extension to these consultations. The applications are for two new fish farms at Yinstay East and Yinstay West. The proposals are to install new salmon fish farms comprising 14 x 120m and 12 x 120m circumference cages respectively, both with a central feed barge. Summary The proposals impact on Priority Marine Features (PMFs). The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) should consider the effect of the proposals on the PMF(s) before it can be consented. We would like you to treat this advice as a ‘third party representation’ and give us the opportunity to consider your draft determination before you issue any licence. Background We appreciate and welcome the ongoing pre-application discussions had with Orkney Marine Farms Ltd prior to submission of the CAR applications. We encourage early engagement to help support good development in the right places. These proposals have not yet been subject to planning permission. Scottish Natural Heritage, Eastbank, East Road, Kirkwall, Orkney KW15 1LX Tel: 01463 701670 north@nature. scot www. nature. scot Natural heritage impacts; appraisal and advice National and internationally protected sites The proposed sites lie within the North Orkney pSPA designated for non-breeding wintering waders and divers and breeding Red-throated divers. It is likely that there will be some displacement of species from the proposal area and also a loss of supporting habitat. However, we conclude no likely significant effect due to the low records of species numbers in the area and that there are no other proposed developments or extensions to existing developments within the area. For the purpose of the CAR application, it is unlikely that these applications will have significant effect on features of the North Orkney pSPA Protected species – benthic features The proposals appear to straddle an area of Maerl bed(s) across the bay between Yinstay Head and Rerwick Head. Maerl beds are considered highly sensitive to the pressures associated with aquaculture (Perry & Tyler-Walters, 2018). We don’t have information on the full extent of this area of maerl bed. However, based on the predicted maerl distribution map provided by the developer, we estimate the area of maerl bed >20% live and dead cover to extend to approx. 88ha (this includes an area of approx. 28ha >30% live and dead cover). The remainder of the mapped area is predicted to consist predominantly of sand and maerl with a live and dead cover of <20%. These areas are likely to have a functional role with the areas of maerl bed which are >20% cover. The Autodepomod1 modelling supplied by the applicant predicts that there will be no depositional footprint beneath the cages. This is on account of the strong tidal flows at the site. However, maerl beds are particularly susceptible to trapping sediments due to the complex 3D structure that the maerl creates. It is unlikely the autodepomod footprint will be accurate and we do not feel we can rely on this output to assess potential impacts on the maerl bed habitat. We consider it highly likely that impacts will occur, in the long term, on the maerl beds that are present in the vicinity of this proposal ( Hall-Spencer et al, 2006). We consider it likely that as a minimum, any maerl present directly beneath the cages will be lost as a result of the proposal. However, it seems likely that a considerably larger area may be a risk of being impacted by this proposal. Yinstay East This proposal is located over an area of maerl bed. The density of maerl varies across the site. However, the majority consists of live and dead maerl greater than 20%, and therefore does qualify as maerl bed PMF habitat. Benthic survey shows a diverse infaunal assemblage is present across the site. The samples taken were characteristic of well sorted sand/maerl substrata, known for supporting diverse benthic communities. All stations were species rich. 2 Table 1 Live and dead maerl coverage Yinstay east Definition based on PMF Live and dead maerl Yinstay east - below cages review documents cover Possible maerl habitat 0-10% Maerl habitat 10-20% 18,000m2 / 1.8ha Maerl bed 20-30% 43,200m2 / 4.32ha Maerl bed > 30% 3,600m2 / 0.36ha Based on the information provided with the application we estimate that in a best case scenario i.e. with impacts only occurring on maerl bed located directly beneath the cage group, we could expect the proposal to result in the permanent loss of ~4.68ha of maerl bed. Yinstay West This proposal is located over an area of maerl bed. The density of maerl varies across the site. The majority of the maerl located directly below the cages consists of maerl habitat with live and dead maerl coverage below 20%. The benthic survey shows a diverse infaunal assemblage is present across the site. The proposed fish farm at Yinstay West is situated in waters of approximately 27m deep. The substrata are composed of fine through to coarse sands with maerl and shell fragments. Table 1 Live and dead maerl coverage Yinstay west Definition based on PMF Live and dead maerl Yinstay west - below cages review documents cover Possible maerl habitat 0-10% 21,600m2 / 2.16ha Maerl habitat 10-20% 18,000m2 / 1.8ha Maerl bed 20-30% 12,600m2 / 1.26ha Maerl bed > 30% Based on the information provided with the application we estimate that in a best case scenario i.e. with impacts only occurring on maerl bed located directly beneath the cage group, we could expect the proposal to result in the permanent loss of ~1.26ha of maerl bed. 3 Although the direct effect on this site alone may appear less significant, it is worth noting that this is part of the same maerl bed that extends across the two proposed sites and we do not know to what extent the maerl bed stretches to the west beyond this site. In Combination/ Cumulative impacts The proposals need to be considered cumulatively in combination, the sites being approx. 1.2km apart which, if consented, will be impacting upon the same continuous area of maerl bed. We estimate that that the extent of maerl bed that will be directly impacted under the cages will equate to at least 5.9ha, this being the sum of Yinstay East 4.68ha and Yinstay West 1.26ha of maerl bed (>20% live and dead coverage). This would mean a permanent damage to, or loss of PMF to approx. 6.75% of the ~88ha mapped extent of the maerl bed. In reality it is likely a larger area will be impacted, but we have limited means to predict the actual area of impact that this proposal may result in. In addition, also located directly below the cages, there is a further 1.8ha of maerl habitat between 10-20% live and dead coverage) and 2.16ha with between 0-10% live and dead maerl coverage. The areas below 20% live and dead coverage do not meet the definition of the PMF habitat. However, benthic survey indicates that some of these areas support an equally high benthic diversity as the areas which do qualify as maerl bed. It is likely these areas play a functional role in the maintenance of the maerl bed habitat and we cannot discount the possibility that the extent and distribution of the maerl habitat may change over time, due to the natural redistribution of the habitat. As such we believe these areas of maerl habitat, which do not meet the PMF definition of a maerl bed, should be included in the assessment of significance. Conclusion It is the policy of Scottish Government as set out in the National Marine Plan to prevent significant impact on the national status of Priority Marine Features. This development is predicted to impact on the priority marine feature maerl bed, and therefore the policy protection set out in the National Marine Plan applies. Based on the information provided in the application and our assessment set out above, we consider that it is likely the proposal will lead to the long-term loss of at least 6.75% of the mapped extent of the bed. We feel that the developers’ own assessment significantly underestimates these impacts. Orkney is a stronghold for maerl. It is a globally rare habitat, and is an important component of the marine ecosystem for a wide range of species. This area of Orkney waters has been proposed as an area for improvement and management of maerl. We conclude that, taking account of the predicted extent of loss of maerl from the depositional impacts of this development on the extent and quality of maerl habitat present and its contribution as part of an Orkney stronghold, this proposal is in our opinion likely to have a significant impact on the national status (SINS) of the PMF. 4 Therefore we advise that we cannot support the applications for CAR licences for the two fin fish farms in this location. As such, should these also be the subject of planning applications, and noting that we would have to consider any such applications on their own merits, we would be giving similar advice that fin fish developments could not be accommodated in these sites.

Load more

  6

Copy Link