6. EIA – Management of SA4 Sandeel Fishery

6.1. Introduction

  1. This section considers the potential impacts arising from the management of SA4 sandeel fishery compensatory measure. A characterisation of the physical, biological and human environmental baseline is presented below (Section 6.2) followed by the results of an assessment of potential likely significant effects arising from the proposed compensatory measure (Section 6.3).
  2. The objective of this compensatory measure is to increase productivity and survival of seabirds (namely Kittiwake, Guillemot, Atlantic Puffin and Razorbill) associated with SPA colonies in proximity to the Proposed Development. The Applicant considers there are two options which could be taken to increase sandeel stocks as well as delivering the required level of compensation for the Proposed Development:
  • Option 1: Closure of the SA4 sandeel fishery and monitoring of seabirds (at SPAs within SA4 and SPAs impacted by the Proposed Development outside of SA4) and sandeel (through dredge surveys of key sandbanks in SA4); or
  • Option 2: Ecosystem based approach for management of SA4 and monitoring of seabirds (at SPAs within SA4 and SPAs impacted by the Proposed Development outside of SA4) and sandeel (through dredge surveys of key sandbanks in SA4).
    1. The SA4 sandeel fishery area is located offshore along the east coast of Scotland as shown in Figure 1 Section 2 of the IMP provides a detailed description of the proposed compensatory measure.

6.2. Baseline

  1. Table 6   Open ▸ provides a description of the baseline environment for each receptor which was identified during the scoping stage as potentially being affected by the proposed compensatory measure ( Table 5   Open ▸ ).
Table 6:
The baseline environment for the receptor groups relevant to the management of SA4 sandeel fishery

Table 6: The baseline environment for the receptor groups relevant to the management of SA4 sandeel fishery

6.3. Assessment

6.3.1.    Identification of Impacts and Scope of Assessment

  1. Based on the information presented in this document, the IMP and the FCM Evidence Report, all activities associated with the implementation and management of SA4 sandeel fishery compensatory measure were defined and potential impact pathways identified. The potential impact pathways identified were:
  • Benthic and intertidal ecology:

–      Beneficial effect on benthic ecology receptors through a reduction in habitat degradation

  • Commercial fishing and Socio-economics:

–      Adverse effect on sandeel fishery through restriction of activities

  • Fish and shellfish ecology:

–      Beneficial effect on fish and shellfish ecology receptors through a reduction in habitat degradation

  • Marine mammals:

–      Beneficial effect on marine mammals through an increase in prey resource

  • Offshore and intertidal ornithology:

–      Beneficial effect on seabirds through an increase in prey resource

6.3.2.    Impact Assessment Alone

  1. The assessment for the effects of the compensation alone (that is not combined with any other plans or projects) is presented below:

Benthic and intertidal ecology

Beneficial effect on benthic ecology receptors through a reduction in habitat degradation
  1. The proposed measure will result in a decrease in fishing effort and therefore a reduction in habitat degradation. This would be beneficial to fish and shellfish ecology receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ .
  2. The sandeel fishery in the north sea primarily uses extensive otter trawls with mesh sizes ranging from 10-20mm. While the specific area that is trawled by the fishery is unknown at the time of writing, it is understood that the nets are towed along ridges of sandbars or edges of sandbanks forming typical habitats of sandeels throughout spring and (early) summer. Bottom trawling, including otter trawls, are known to cause significant damage to benthic communities and habitats (Engelhard, et al., 2008; Sciberras et al., 2018), meaning that the existing practice of sandeel fishing causes adverse effects to benthic ecology through direct damage to communities and degradation of the habitat. In 2021 approximately 52,000 tonnes of sandeel were caught within SA4 (ICES, 2022), which is a significant increase from the previous 18 years where it was greatly reduced. The management of the sandeel fishery would reduce the level of trawling in SA4 and therefore have a beneficial effect on benthic ecology through reduction in habitat degradation.  Although, the scale of reduction in fishing that will occur is (at the time of writing) somewhat uncertain, whatever level of reduction that will occur have a beneficial effect.  Assuming a worst case scenario of minimal changes to fishing effort, the magnitude of this effect is considered to be low (beneficial). Due to the potential for significant damage and degradation to be alleviated, the sensitivity in this case considered to be between medium and high (beneficial).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 4), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of medium to high results in a minor or minor to moderate beneficial significance of effect, which is significant (beneficial) in EIA terms.

Commercial fishing and Socio-economics

Adverse effect on sandeel fishery through restriction of activities
  1. Under the worst-case scenario for commercial fisheries, the proposed measure will result in a closure of the SA4 sandeel fishery indefinitely. This could have an adverse effect on the commercial fishing industry that currently uses this area. This section examines the potential adverse effect on the UK commercial fishing industry, with transboundary effects on commercial fishers outside of the UK assessed within Section 9.3.4. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ . Under this MDS, the fishing industry would not receive financial compensation for the closure and would not be displaced elsewhere.
  2. The value of UK sandeel landings within SA4 in 2018 was £150,016 (ABPmer. 2021). However, it is the Scottish government’s policy not to allocate any TAC for UK vessels and sandeel fishing by UK vessels within SA4 will no longer occur. Therefore, under the worst-case scenario with a long-standing closure, there would be no loss of annual income to UK vessels as they would not otherwise be allowed to fish for sandeel within SA4. Furthermore, it has been noted by Natural England that the increase in sandeel populations may result in a benefit to the commercial fishing industry due an increase in more valuable species that prey on sandeel (recent prepublication study for Defra (unpublished). Therefore, with respect to the UK fishery it is anticipated that the magnitude is negligible (adverse) as no TAC is currently allocated to UK vessels and there is no indication that this policy will change. The sensitivity is anticipated to be negligible (adverse) due to the limited potential for loss of income.
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Fish and shellfish ecology

Beneficial effect on fish and shellfish ecology receptors through a reduction in habitat degradation
  1. The proposed measure will result in a decrease in fishing effort and therefore a reduction in habitat loss and degradation. This would be beneficial to fish and shellfish ecology receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ .
  2. The sandeel fishery in the north sea primarily uses extensive otter trawls with mesh sizes ranging from 10-20mm. While the specific area that is trawled by the fishery is unknown at the time of writing, it is understood that the nets are towed along ridges of sandbars or edges of sandbanks forming typical habitats of sandeels throughout spring and (early) summer. Bottom trawling, including otter trawls, are known to cause significant damage to benthic communities and habitats (Engelhard, et al., 2008; Sciberras et al., 2018), meaning that the baseline practice of sandeel fishing causes adverse effects to fish and shellfish ecology receptors through damage to the habitat and direct capture in the nets. In 2021 approximately 52,000 tonnes of sandeel were caught within SA4 (ICES, 2022), which is a significant increase from the previous 18 years where it was greatly reduced. The management of the sandeel fishery would reduce the level of trawling in SA4 and therefore have a beneficial effect on fish and shellfish ecology through reduction in habitat degradation and reduction in capture.  Although the scale of reduction in fishing that will occur is (at the time of writing) somewhat uncertain, whatever level of reduction that will occur will have a beneficial effect.  Assuming a worst case scenario of minimal changes to fishing effort, the magnitude of this effect is considered to be low (beneficial). Due to the potential for significant damage and degradation to be alleviated, the sensitivity in this case considered to be between medium and high (beneficial).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 4), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of medium to high results in a minor or minor to moderate beneficial significance of effect, which is significant (beneficial) in EIA terms.

Marine mammals

Beneficial effect on marine mammals through an increase in prey resource
  1. The proposed measure will result in an increase in sandeel populations, which act as a prey resource for several marine mammal species. This would be beneficial to marine mammal receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ .
  2. Harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, minke whale, harbour seal, and grey seal are all known to have sandeel as regular parts of their diet, to varying degrees of importance (Pierce et al., 2007; Santos et al., 2001; Pierce et al., 2004, Wilson and Hammond, 2016; SCOS, 2017). It is anticipated that the increase in sandeel as a prey resource would be a significant beneficial effect for marine mammals and therefore the sensitivity is considered to be high (beneficial). Under and ecosystem-based approach to management TAC will always be adjusted to facilitate for a positive response from seabirds populations so the magnitude of an increase in prey (which marine mammals will also benefit from) is considered to be medium and high (beneficial). 
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 4), a magnitude of high and sensitivity of high results in a major (beneficial) significance of effect, which is significant in EIA terms.

Offshore and intertidal ornithology

Beneficial effect on seabirds through an increase in prey resource
  1. The proposed measure will result in an increase in sandeel populations, which act as a prey resource for several bird species. This would be beneficial to offshore and intertidal ornithology receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1   Open ▸ .
  2. Sandeel make up part of the diet of a wide range of seabird species, with arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), common tern (Sterna hirundo), kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), common guillemot (Uria aalge), great skua (Stercorarius skua), puffin (Fratercula arctica), razorbill (Alca torda), and red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) being of notable importance. While there is a potential loss of prey resource with respect to discards from fishing vessels, it is anticipated that the increase in natural sandeel as a prey resource would be a significant benefit (FCM Evidence Report) and have a greater beneficial effect than the adverse effect associated with the loss of discards. Therefore it is considered that the beneficial effect for offshore and intertidal ornithology results in a sensitivity of high (beneficial). Under and ecosystem-based approach to management TAC will always be adjusted to facilitate for a positive response from seabirds populations so the magnitude of this effect is considered to be medium and high (beneficial). 
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of high and sensitivity of high results in a major (beneficial) significance of effect, which is significant in EIA terms.

6.3.3.    Cumulative Effect Assessment

  1. Based on the nature and scale of effects associated with the management of SA4 sandeel fishery compensatory measure, it is considered that the scope of the cumulative effects assessment should consider other plans or projects which have the potential to significantly affect the sandeel fishery or sandeel populations within SA4. 
  2. The Applicant has considered the effects of all plans or projects, within or in proximity to SA4, that fall within the following categories:
  • Oil and gas;
  • Cables and pipelines;
  • Offshore wind farms;
  • Tidal energy;
  • Wave energy; and
  • Seismic / geophysical surveys
  • Government Policy
    1.  The Applicant has found no other plans/ initiatives to expand the existing ‘sandeel box’ (which is already a closed area) or impose any other restrictions/ closures in the remaining sandeel fishery SA4.  It is therefore considered that there are no other projects which have the potential to interact in a cumulative fashion with the proposed compensatory measure.

6.3.4.    Transboundary Impacts

  1. The closure of SA4 will have a transboundary impact by affecting fishers from other countries that currently fish in this area.  The vast majority of fishing vessels that catch sandeels in SA4 are of Danish origin and therefore it is predicted that the effect on fishing vessels described in Section 9 would primarily affect Danish vessels rather than UK vessels. However, only 6% of the total sandeels fished by Danish vessels have historically been from within SA4 and therefore it is considered that there would only be a minor impact on the Danish Fleet under the full closure option for the management of SA4 fishery compensatory measure. It should also be noted that the whole Danish fishery was 952,000 tonnes in 2020 and only 2% of the total fish caught and landed in Denmark was sandeels from SA4 in 2020 (Statistics Denmark, 2022). Therefore it is considered that for this impact the magnitude is medium (adverse) and the sensitivity is low (adverse).
  2. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of medium and sensitivity of low results in a minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.


7. EIA – Rat Eradication: Handa

7.1. Introduction

  1. This section considers the potential impacts arising from the rat eradication at Handa. A characterisation of the physical, biological and human environmental baseline is presented ( Table 7   Open ▸ ) followed by the results of an assessment of potential likely significant effects arising from the proposed compensatory measure (Section 7.3).
  2. This compensatory measure proposes to eradicate the brown rat from Handa, an island off the northwest coast of Scotland, as shown in Figure 1 Following eradication the Applicant will implement biosecurity measures, implement appropriate seabird habitat management, undertake monitoring and address any re-incursions. The objective of this measure is to increase black-legged kittiwake, common guillemot, Atlantic puffin, and razorbill populations on the island through the removal of predation pressure from brown rats.

7.2. Section 3 of the IMP provides a detailed description of the proposed compensatory measure. Baseline

  1. Table 7   Open ▸ provides a description of the baseline environment for each receptor which was identified during the scoping stage as potentially being affected by the proposed compensation measure ( Table 5   Open ▸ ).
Table 7:
The baseline environment for the receptor groups relevant to the rat eradication at Handa compensatory measure

Table 7: The baseline environment for the receptor groups relevant to the rat eradication at Handa compensatory measure

7.3. Assessment

7.3.1.    Identification of Impacts and Scope of Assessment

  1. Based on the information presented in this document and the IMP and CCM Evidence Report, all activities associated with the rat eradication at Handa compensatory measure were defined and potential impact pathways identified. The potential impact pathways identified are presented here with respect to the relevant receptor groups:
  • Infrastructure and other users:

–      Impacts to tourism due to biosecurity measures

  • Offshore and intertidal ornithology:

–      Potential for disturbance from human activity due to eradication and immediate monitoring phase of the programme;

–      Potential for disturbance from human activity due to long-term monitoring phase of the programme;

–      Beneficial effect on seabird populations from reduced predation on eggs/juveniles.

  • Onshore ecology:

–      Impacts to onshore plants and animals other than the targeted rat species;

–      Habitat disturbance as a result of increased human activity due to implementation of eradication programme e.g. regular setting of baits or traps and monitoring work; and

–      Beneficial effect on onshore ecology from reduced predation from rats

  • Shipping and navigation:

–      Potential disturbance to usual operating procedures to factor in biosecurity measures

  • Socio-economics:

–      Beneficial effect on local industry resulting from increased birds on site

–      Impacts to tourism operators due to biosecurity measures

7.3.2.    Impact Assessment alone

  1. The assessment for the effects of the compensation alone (that is not combined with any other plans or projects) is presented below:

Infrastructure and other users

Impacts to tourism due to biosecurity measures
  1. The proposed measure will involve the implementation of a biosecurity plan to ensure that no new rodents are brought onto the island. At the time of writing, details on the biosecurity plan have not yet been established, however it will be compatible with the Biosecurity for LIFE guidance (Biosecurity for Life, 2022). The plan is likely to include measures such as requiring boat operators to regularly check vessels for stowaways, storing waste securely in rodent proof bins, storing personal food in mouse-proof containers, using rat guards on mooring lines and anchor chains, deploying chew cards or wax chew blocks on the vessel, and not landing at the destination if a stowaway is spotted on board. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1.
  2. Given the nature of the anticipated measures, following the IMP and the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022), it is anticipated that the disturbance to tourism from these additional measures is likely to be minor as the only vessel going the island is the ferry, therefore the measures will only involve additional management from the ferry operator, or small adjustments from individuals regarding personal food storage. However, the inclusion of the advice to not land at your destination if there is a stowaway on board could result in people’s visits not continuing, having a strong negative impact on the tourism receptor. However, this is considered to be relatively rare as the remainder of the measures as part of the biosecurity plan will aim to prevent stowaways from being on the vessel in the first place. Therefore, this potential effect has a high potential vulnerability but a low likelihood, enabling the magnitude of the proposed compensation measure to be low (adverse). The proposed steps within the biosecurity plan (following the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022)) are not novel suggestions for biosecurity, and they are implemented for other projects, with the ferry operator likely to already familiar with them. Therefore, given the low impact of the majority of the measures within the biosecurity plan, the considered rarity of the highest impacts where the trips are completely cancelled, and the adoption of the measures elsewhere in the industry, the sensitivity of receptor is considered to be low (adverse).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 2), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Offshore and intertidal ornithology

Potential for disturbance from human activity due to eradication and immediate monitoring phase of the programme
  1. The proposed measure will involve the placement of approximately 1300 bait stations during the eradication phase, and visits every two days to the stations for maintenance and monitoring purpose for the first four months. There is a potential for disturbance to offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors from these trips, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to birds on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
  2. The spatial extent of disturbance would be small, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is also anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of hours). When factoring in the small spatial and temporal extent and the comparatively low numbers of birds on the island (Table 10), it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of low (adverse). As the eradication and immediate monitoring phases will be undertaken within the winter period (November to March), it therefore avoids the breeding season for offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors. Additionally, kittiwake are often found in and around human population centres so it is considered that they have a moderate level of resilience to human disturbance, especially on Handa island where there are approximately 9,000 visitors to the site per year. Therefore, it is considered that the receptors have a sensitivity of negligible (adverse).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Potential for disturbance from human activity due to long-term monitoring phase of the programme
  1. The proposed measure will involve the monitoring of the approximate 1300 bait stations every four weeks for two years. There is a potential for disturbance to offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors from these trips, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to birds on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
  2. The spatial extent of disturbance would be small, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is also anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of hours). When factoring in the small spatial and temporal extent and the comparatively low numbers of birds on the island (Table 7), it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of low (adverse). As the long-term monitoring phase will be undertaken year-round, and it therefore includes the breeding season for offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors, therefore having a greater potential sensitivity than during other times of the year. Additionally, kittiwake are often found in and around human population centres so it is considered that they have a moderate level of resilience to human disturbance, especially on Handa island where there are approximately 9,000 visitors to the site per year Therefore, it is considered that the receptors have a sensitivity of low (adverse).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Beneficial effect on seabird populations from reduced predation on eggs/juveniles
  1. The proposed measure will result in reduced rat populations, and therefore a reduction in the predation on offshore and intertidal ornithological receptors at Handa Island. This would be a beneficial effect to the ornithological receptors. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
  2. The proposed measure is anticipated to result in a significant increase in the population of kittiwakes, puffin, razorbill and guillemot on the island, ( Table 8   Open ▸ – taken from the CCM Evidence Report) and therefore it is considered that the magnitude of activities is high (beneficial). Given the high sensitivity of the receptors to predation of eggs/juveniles from rats on the island, it is also considered that their sensitivity is high (beneficial).
Table 8:
Preliminary conservation targets and associated increases for each key species on Handa Island. All numbers are expressed as single birds.

Table 8: Preliminary conservation targets and associated increases for each key species on Handa Island. All numbers are expressed as single birds.

 

  1. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of high and sensitivity of high results in a major beneficial significance of effect, which is significant in EIA terms.

Onshore ecology

Impacts to onshore plants and animals other than the targeted rat species
  1. The proposed measure will involve the placement of bait stations during the eradication phase, which will remain in place for up to 5 months (November to March inclusive). There is a potential for non-target species (i.e. any species other than rats) to interact with the bait stations and be adversely affected. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
  2. A Non-Target Specia Management Plan (NTSMP) will be developed, which will consider the timing and location of predator eradication programme to ensure that it is undertaken at the optimal time/location and that it will have a minimal effect on non-target species. The inclusion of the NTSMP will follow current good practise design to minimise impact on sensitive habitats, non-target species and disruption to land use. Therefore, due to the implementation of the NTSMP the magnitude of effect is considered to be negligible (adverse). Furthermore it is anticipated that if any non-target species were to ingest bait or secondarily ingest a poisoned rat, only small numbers of animals would be affected and therefore resulting sensitivity is negligible to low (adverse) sensitivity.
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of negligible and sensitivity of negligible to minor results in a negligible adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Habitat disturbance due to increased human activity due to implementation of eradication programme e.g. regular setting of baits or traps and monitoring work
  1. The proposed measure will involve the placement of bait stations during the eradication phase, and various visits to the stations for maintenance and monitoring purposes. There is a potential for disturbance to any onshore ecology receptors from these trips, as those undertaking the proposed work may cause disturbance and stress to animals on site. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
  2. The spatial extent of disturbance would be small, with any disturbance from human presence being temporary and short-term. The temporal extent is also anticipated to be small, with any disturbance caused being temporary (typically in terms of hours). Based on the small spatial and temporal extent, it is considered that the proposed activities have a magnitude of low (adverse). As the island regularly has visitors, any onshore animals on the island are likely to be used to human foot traffic and therefore it is anticipated that the receptors have a sensitivity of low (adverse).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Beneficial effect on onshore ecology from reduced predation from rats
  1. The proposed measure will involve the removal of rats from the island of Handa, with the aim of 100% eradication. There is a potential for a beneficial effect to onshore ecology receptors from a reduction in predation caused by rats. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
  2. A wide range of species have benefitted from previous eradications at Handa island, including sea rocket Cakile maritima, various Atriplex species, pygmy shrew Sorex minutus, slow worm Anguis fragilis, common lizard Zootoca vivipara, lesser white-toothed shrew Crocidura suaveolens, bank vole Myodes glareolus, and even moths (Thomas et al. 2017). All these species among others increased significantly following previous rat eradication from Handa, and it is possible that a repeated eradication on Handa could result in the same beneficial effects on these species (CCM Evidence Report). However, it is noted that the beneficial effects to plants from previous eradications was short lived as the increase in other onshore ecology receptors results in increased grazing and a subsequent reduction in growth rates (CCM Evidence Report). Therefore the magnitude is considered to be low (beneficial). Given the previous history of eradications being beneficial, it is anticipated that the sensitivity of receptors to this effect is considered to be medium beneficial.
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of low and sensitivity of medium results in a minor beneficial significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Shipping and navigation

Potential disturbance to usual operating procedures to factor in biosecurity measures
  1. The proposed measure will involve the implementation of a biosecurity plan to ensure that no new rodents are brought onto the island. At the time of writing, details of the biosecurity plan have not been established, however following the advice given by the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022), measures to be taken may include regularly checking belongings and vessels for stowaways, storing waste securely in rodent proof bins, storing personal food in mouse-proof containers, using rat guards on mooring lines and anchor chains, deploying chew cards or wax chew blocks on the vessel, and not landing at your destination if you see a stowaway on board. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1.
  2. Given the nature of the anticipated measures, following the IMP and the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022), it is anticipated that the disturbance to shipping and navigation receptors from these additional measures is likely to be minor, as the measures will only affect those vessels planning to land on the island, which would be limited to the ferry service (see impacts to tourism due to biosecurity measures assessment above). The measures would mainly involve additional management from the ferry operator or small adjustments from individuals regarding personal food storage, each of which are not considered to have any noticeable effect on the receptor as a whole. However, the inclusion of the advice to not land at your destination if there is a stowaway on board could result in strong negative impacts on the individual receptors. However, this is considered to be relatively rare as the remainder of the measures as part of the biosecurity plan will aim to prevent stowaways from being on the vessel in the first place. Therefore, this potential effect has a high potential vulnerability but a low likelihood, enabling the magnitude of the proposed compensation measure to be low (adverse). The proposed steps within the biosecurity plan (following the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022) are not novel suggestions for biosecurity, and they are implemented for other projects, with ferry operators likely already familiar with them. Therefore, given the low impact of the majority of the measures within the biosecurity plan, the considered rarity of the highest impacts where the trips are completely cancelled, and the adoption of the measures elsewhere in the industry with no significant effects, the sensitivity of receptor is considered to be low (adverse).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 2), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Socio-economics

Beneficial effect on local industry resulting from increased birds on site
  1. The proposed measure will result in increased bird populations, and therefore there is a potential for increased visits to the island through bird-watching trips. This would be a beneficial effect to local industry and socio-economic receptors, as the main reason visitors go to Handa is for the wildlife. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 2   Open ▸ .
  2. The proposed measure is anticipated to result in a significant increase in the population of seabirds on the island. This is anticipated to increase the number of trips a small amount, as many trips will be undertaken regardless of numbers but a few additional trips may be needed for additional numbers of visitors. Therefore, it is considered that the magnitude of activities on socio-economic receptors is low (beneficial). The various companies and receptors involved in this industry are highly sensitive to the amount of tourist activity so it is considered that their sensitivity is medium (beneficial).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment ( Table 4   Open ▸ ), a magnitude of medium and sensitivity of high results in a minor beneficial significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Impacts to tourism operators due to biosecurity measures
  1. The proposed measure will involve the implementation of a biosecurity plan to ensure that no new rodents are brought onto the island. At the time of writing, details of the biosecurity plan have not yet been established, however it will be compatible with the Biosecurity for LIFE guidance (Biosecurity for Life, 2022), and CRRU. The plan would, in the worst case, include measures such as requiring boat operators to regularly check vessels for stowaways, storing waste securely in rodent proof bins, storing personal food in mouse-proof containers, using rat guards on mooring lines and anchor chains, deploying chew cards or wax chew blocks on the vessel, and not landing at the destination if a stowaway is spotted on board. The assessment presented here is based on the MDS presented within Table 1.
  2. Given the nature of the anticipated measures, following the IMP and the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022) and CRRU, it is anticipated that these measures may cause a minor inconvenience to boat operators and therefore potentially knock-on small scale adverse economic effects. The measures mainly involve minor additional management from the operator regarding personal food storage and waste. However, under a worst-case scenario if a stowaway was spotted on board this could result in the trip not continuing, which may result in a refund for any tourists on the vessel, and a financial loss for the tourism operator.  However, the likelihood of this happening is considered to be relatively rare as the remainder of the measures as part of the biosecurity plan will aim to prevent stowaways from being on the vessel in the first place. Therefore, this potential effect has a high potential vulnerability but a low likelihood, resulting in a magnitude of the effect of low (adverse). The proposed steps within the biosecurity plan (following the Biosecurity for Life programme (Biosecurity for Life, 2022) are standard suggestions for biosecurity, and they are implemented for other projects within Scotland (such as the Isle of May), with tourism vessel operators likely already familiar with them. Therefore, given the low impact of the majority of the measures within the biosecurity plan, the low likelihood of trips being curtailed, and the adoption of the measures elsewhere in the industry, the sensitivity of receptor is considered to be low (adverse).
  3. Following the significance matrix utilised in this assessment (Table 2), a magnitude of low and a sensitivity of low results in a negligible to minor adverse significance of effect, which is not significant in EIA terms.

7.3.3.    Cumulative Effect Assessment

  1. As the potential adverse effects are small in nature (spatial and temporal) with no significant adverse effects alone, no adverse effects are anticipated further afield than Handa island itself, and therefore the scoping undertaken for projects to be considered cumulatively is limited to those with direct spatial overlap with the proposed compensatory measures.
  2. Following on from the above methodology, no projects have been identified for the consideration of cumulative effects. Therefore it can be concluded that there is no potential for any significant cumulative effects between the proposed measure and any other projects.

7.3.4.    Transboundary Impacts

  1. No transboundary impacts are predicted due to the localised and small scale nature of this compensatory measure.