i

Solway Firth proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA)

(a composite of the existing Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA and a proposed marine extension)

Advice to Support Management

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

Document version control

Version Date Author Reason / Comments

Version 1 12/06/15 Chris Eastham Second draft

Version 2 22/06/15 Jonathon Warren

Added harvesting and wildfowling information. Local check on other activities

Version 3 23/06/15 Emma Philip Add hydrocarbons

Version 4 26/06/15 Emma Philip Amend with comments from Natural England. Final draft.

Version 5 27/07/15 Greg Mudge QA completed

Version 6 22/01/16 Chris Eastham Updated with additional comments.

Version 7 13/06/16 Chris Eastham Updated after workshop

Version 8 28/06/16 Emma Philip QA and final draft

Distribution list

Format Version Issue date Issued to

Electronic Version 1 12/06/15 Emma Philip

Electronic Version 1 22/06/15 Jonathon Warren

Electronic Version 2 22/06/15 Emma Philip

Electronic Version 4 24/06/15 Jennifer Lewis, Natural England

Electronic Version 5 26/06/15 Marine Scotland, Greg Mudge and Katie Gillham

Electronic Version 8 29/06/16 Marine Scotland

Contents

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

Roles of Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, Scottish Government and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ....................................................... 1

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

Conservation Objectives .................................................................................................... 6

The role of conservation objectives ................................................................................... 6

Draft conservation objectives ............................................................................................ 6

Management Options .......................................................................................................... 9

Purpose of management options ....................................................................................... 9

Existing species protection .............................................................................................. 11

Overview of activities ....................................................................................................... 11

Harvesting – intertidal shellfish and bait ......................................................................... 20

Navigational dredging and disposal ................................................................................ 22

Ports and Harbours activities .......................................................................................... 26

Recreational activities ...................................................................................................... 28

Introduction to renewables activities .............................................................................. 31

Tidal energy .................................................................................................................... 32

Wind energy .................................................................................................................... 33

Summary of management options ................................................................................... 36

Annex 1. Background to the advice contained in this paper ........................................ 40

Annex 2. Map showing overlapping and neighbouring protected areas. ..................... 42

ii

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 proposed marine extension to the Solway

Firth SPA 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 the marine features of this proposed SPA during the formal consultation. It sets out the draft conservation objectives for the qualifying marine 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 marine 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.

Roles of Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, Scottish Government and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Natural England (NE) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) role is to advise Scottish Government (Marine Scotland) and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on options for developing management for the proposed qualifying features of the Solway Firth pSPA. In doing this, our aim is to ensure the Conservation Objectives for the qualifying features are met.

Marine Scotland in conjunction with DEFRA will lead the discussions on management with stakeholders. They will consider advice and will lead on the development of specific management measures. They will be responsible for making recommendations to Scottish Ministers and the Minister of State for farming, food and the marine environment in England on these measures. Scottish Ministers and the Minister of State for farming, food and the marine environment 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 Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, Scottish Government and DEFRA. This will contribute to the development of well-designed and effective management measures if the site is approved by Scottish Ministers and the Minister of State for farming, food and the marine environment.

Site summary

Solway Firth proposed Special Protection Area (SPA) comprises an area of 1,393.39 km2. The site is a large estuarine/marine site on west coast of Great Britain. The proposed SPA includes the existing Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA with

2

extensive areas of intertidal mudflats, fringing saltmarshes and grazing marshes. The offshore sediments of the proposed marine extension are substantially sand, associated with mud and gravel towards the edges of the firth, especially in the smaller tributary estuaries. The series of sandbanks north-east of the Isle of Man is the result of strong currents and an abundant supply of sand. The inner firth is shallow, as is Wigtown Bay, but further west towards the north-eastern Irish Sea the water deepens steadily to over 40 m. Table 1. Qualifying species and numbers in the Solway proposed SPA1,2

Species and season Number of Birds

% of British Population

Proposed marine features:

Red-throated diver (non-breeding) 530 3

Common scoter (non-breeding)3 1,590 2

Goosander (non-breeding)3 150 1

Proposed additional SPA review features:

Lapwing (non-breeding)3 5,040 1

Ringed plover (non-breeding) 980 1*

Cormorant (non-breeding) 580 2

Black-headed gull (non-breeding) 13,730 1

Common gull (non-breeding) 12,490 2

Herring gull (non-breeding) 3,030 0.4

Existing qualifying features of terrestrial SPA:

Barnacle goose (non-breeding) 12,300 100**

Golden plover (non-breeding) 3,380 2

Bar-tailed godwit (non-breeding) 4,800 8

Pink footed goose (non-breeding) 14,900 100***

Shelduck (non-breeding)3 1,600 2

Teal (non-breeding)3 1,400 1

Pintail (non-breeding) 1,400 6

Shoveler (non-breeding)3 120 1

Scaup (non-breeding) 2,300 57

Goldeneye (non-breeding)3 300 2

Whooper swan (non-breeding) 250 4

Oystercatcher (non-breeding) 33,850 12

Knot (non-breeding) 15,300 7

Grey plover (non-breeding)3 720 3

Dunlin (non-breeding)3 11,900 3

Sanderling (non-breeding)3 260 2

Redshank (non-breeding) 2,100 3

Turnstone (non-breeding)3 600 1

Curlew (non-breeding) 6,700 7

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 Named qualifier of the waterbird asseemblage

3

* % of biogeographic population. ** 100% of the Svalbard population, all of which winters in Britain. *** 14% of the Icelandic population, all of which winters in Britain.

The extensive mudflats and sandflats of the Solway support a typical estuarine fauna including a mix of polychaetes worms and bivalves, together with vast numbers of the burrowing amphipods. A wide range of pelagic and demersal fish also occur in the area, which acts as spawning grounds or nursery areas for a number of species. Red-throated diver and goosander move to coastal areas in winter from their breeding sites and feed on a wide variety of fish, which they catch by diving from the surface and pursuing their prey underwater. The fish species taken will be influenced by what is locally most readily available, but the diet of divers and goosanders can include haddock, cod, herring, sprats and gurnard along with smaller species such as sand-eels, pipefish, gobies, flatfish and butterfish. Common scoter feed almost exclusively on molluscs and small crustaceans, diving from the surface to pluck their prey from the seabed. Diving activity varies among species but average foraging dive depths for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander is shallower than 15m. The presence of high densities of non-breeding waterfowl at this site is indicative of the productivity and availability of prey these shallow waters and their habitats provide.

The main activities within these waters are fishing, shellfish harvesting, recreational activities and marine renewable energy generation.

This management options paper covers the proposed marine qualifying features (i.e. red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander).

Species distribution within the site

The distributions of red-throated diver and common scoter within the site are illustrated in Map 2. There is no distribution map available for goosander. Spatial species distributions are delineated using the species-specific boundaries illustrated in the Site Selection Document. We have not attempted to display densities of the species within the species-specific boundaries. Species densities will not be uniform within these boundaries and we anticipate that some locations within the individual boundaries will be more or less important than others.

We have based our management options advice on the species-specific boundaries. These represent our most recent knowledge of high species distributions within the pSPA as a whole and are the focus for protection.

4

Map 1. Location of Solway Firth proposed SPA

5

Map 2. Non-breeding distributions of important aggregations of common scoter and red-throated diver

6

Conservation Objectives

The role of conservation objectives

This section sets out the draft conservation objectives for the Solway Firth 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 birds4, 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 proposed SPA has been specifically selected to protect:

areas used by non-breeding red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander.

The conservation objectives for the Solway Firth 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.

4 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.

7

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, common scoter and goosander and is part of an important multi-species area supporting over 20,000 non-breeding waterfowl.

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

All birds require energy which they obtain from food, to survive and to breed.

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

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

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

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

8

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.

9

Management Options

This section sets out SNH’s and NE’s advice on management options. This provides a starting point for discussing any management that might be required. Should the site be classified, discussions on site management will be led by the relevant authority and will involve relevant 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. All new plans and projects will still need to be considered by the relevant competent authority and detailed advice from SNH or NE 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 and intensity of the relevant activity. This advice is provided to assist and focus stakeholders and authorities in their consideration of the management of these operations.

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

An assessment of the sensitivities of qualifying bird species to various pressures is provided in FEAST5 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/potential developments and the proposed qualifying features are described

5 Feature, Activity, Sensitivity Tool

10

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 in conjunction with NE 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 in conjunction with DEFRA.

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.

11

Existing species protection

Marine bird species are protected in the UK 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).

Overview of activities

Table 2 below lists the activities that currently take place and are likely to occur in the future within or close to the Solway Firth proposed SPA.

The focus of this document is to provide advice on the qualifying species of the marine extension to the Solway Firth pSPA; red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander. For the purpose of this document therefore, when we refer to ‘all qualifying species’, we mean red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander only.

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 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 and/or the relevant competent authority is recommended to ensure HRA requirements for plans and projects are scoped appropriately and unnecessary costs are avoided.

12

Table 2. Overview of activities with potential to affect the qualifying features of the Solway Firth proposed SPA

Activities considered likely to affect the qualifying features

Activities not considered likely to affect the qualifying features (other than insignificantly)6

Fishing - mobile gear

Mechanical and hydraulic benthic

dredging

Benthic trawls

Pelagic trawls and seines

Fishing – static gear

Drift nets

Salmon nets and bottom set nets (including fyke nets)

Harvesting – intertidal shellfish, bait and blue mussel fishery. Navigational and maintenance dredging

Existing maintenance dredging

Dredge spoil disposal

Capital dredging Ports and harbours

New development

Recreational users

Angling, boating, wildlife tours & kayaking (increase in activities)

Wildfowling, jet skiing Renewables

Wind (consented)

Tidal (lease area)

Anchorages & mooring Coastal protection and flood defence

Commercial shipping7

e.g. ferries, cargo/ tanker vessels Fishing – mobile gear

Line fishing (including jigging) Fishing – static gear

Creels (including lobster, crabs and Nephrops)

Infrastructure – cables, pipelines, outfalls

power interconnectors

gas and oil pipelines

outfalls

Existing management

The inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles)(Solway Firth) (Scotland) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/319) currently prohibits fishing of cockles by any means within the Solway Firth Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and existing SPA in Scottish

6 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).

7 Vessel activity associated with specific developments or with fishing activity are covered under

those activities. This category refers to commercial vessels that pass through the MPA proposal following pre-defined routes.

13

waters. This has previously been managed under a Regulating Order and Territorial Users Rights Fishery (TURF) systems. Total Allowable Catches (TAC) have been managed through cockle stock assessment and modelling of the prey requirements for key qualifying bird species of the existing SPA to ensure appropriate levels of cockle prey are maintained. Future TAC cockle fishery management is likely to be for hand gathering only as a sustainable fishery compatible with the conservation objectives of the existing SPA.

14

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. This initial advice is based on expert judgement. More information on the specific characteristics of the various fisheries and therefore their specific interactions with the qualifying species is required. Our advice therefore for all fisheries activities is to consider the proposed management option. 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 Solway Firth pSPA. The BRIA identifies pots, dredges, Nephrops trawls, beam trawls, hand fishing, whitefish trawls and other gears operating within the boundary of the Solway Firth 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, the occurrence is rare and therefore we consider this method poses a low risk to the qualifying species. 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 Solway Firth 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.

15

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 sandeel.

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 reduction in prey availability, either by direct removal or changes to the prey-supporting habitat. Sandeels are an important prey species for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander and are known to be highly sensitive to the pressures associated with targeted sandeel fishing, i.e. sandeel abundance can be affected by targeted fishing. There is currently no targeted fishery for sandeels within the pSPA, this position should be retained.

Benthic dredging can also cause abrasion to the seabed surface which has the potential to affect the availability of suitable prey species such as bivalves, crustaceans and sandeel. The prey supporting habitats of common scoter 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 common scoter. 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, common scoter and goosander that pursuit fish prey in the water column are considered 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.

16

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, common scoter and

goosander are sensitive to entanglement in fishing nets. Numbers however

caught as by-catch in pelagic trawls and seines are considered to be low.

Removal of prey species

Red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander 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 red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander through removal of prey species from the water column. Pelagic trawls and seines therefore pose a risk to the conservation objectives if these activities cause a reduction of prey availability. Whilst we know that fishing activity will reduce the amount of prey species, we do not know enough about what level of stock reduction would cause a significant reduction in prey availability that would then pose a risk to conservation objectives. However, prey species are mobile and, consequently so is bird foraging activity 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, common scoter and goosander 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. Fishing poses a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander 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:

Remove or avoid pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with fishing for sandeels is recommended. Remove or avoid pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with fishing that has the potential to damage sandeel habitat is recommended.

17

Proposed way forward:

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 principal objective of the management of the fishery should be ensuring that the fishing activity does not prevent or disrupt the availability of prey species for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander 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 common scoter.

Additional research is required to better understand the relationships between the impact of dredging and demersal 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 the development of specific management measures.

18

Fishing – static gear This section considers fishing using drift nets, salmon nets, bottom set nets and fyke nets whether bottom set or in the water column. All of the qualifying features of the Solway Firth 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 gulls 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 qualifying species are sensitive to entanglement in set nets.

Disturbance – vessel movement. Red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander 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.

Removal of prey species. All fish-eating birds, in particular red-throated diver, common scoter and

goosander 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 non-target species through entanglement in nets as the qualifying features 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, particularly those which pursue fish in the water column such as divers and goosander. Bottom-feeding sea ducks such as common scoter are likely to be most sensitive to nets set close to the seabed or in areas close to rocky substrates, where they forage for bivalves and crustaceans. 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 the by-catch entanglement and removal of prey, and the sensitivities of red-throated diver, common scoter, and goosander to disturbance. 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 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.

19

Seasonal restrictions to avoid times when non-breeding waterfowl are present within the pSPA between mid-August and May each year.

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

Recommended management option:

Remove or avoid pressures: Prohibiting the use of all set nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander is recommended. Remove or avoid pressures – seasonal – non-breeding birds: Prohibiting the use of drift nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander between mid-August and May each year is recommended. Prohibiting the use of bottom set nets and fyke nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander between mid-August and May is recommended.

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

20

Harvesting – intertidal shellfish and bait

Red-throated diver, common scoter and goosande 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, common scoter, and goosander are considered to have a medium sensitivity to visual disturbance.

Removal of prey species

Common scoter and goosander are considered indirectly sensitive to

pressures that have the potential to reduce the availability of important food

resources.

Red-throated diver is not considered sensitive to shellfish harvesting. The key pressure associated with commercial and non-commercial harvesting of shellfish is the potential to reduce the amount of prey available to common scoter and goosander. 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 common scoter and goosander to the reduction in prey availability and, the sensitivities of red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander 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 by Marine Scotland 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 cause an adverse effect on site integrity.

Recommended management option:

Reduce or limit pressures: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with tractor dredging and hand-harvesting of shellfish should be considered.

21

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

22

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 Solway Firth pSPA are considered sensitive to pressures associated with dredging and disposal activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures:

Disturbance – vessel movement Red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander 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.

Removal of prey species All qualifying species of the marine extension 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.

Navigational dredging and disposal activities pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of all qualifying species disturbance and to the reduction in prey availability, either by direct removal or changes to the prey supporting habitat.

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. There are currently no existing licensed disposal sites within or close-by the pSPA (Map 3).

However, we would recommend that all maintenance dredging is treated as a plan or project and the Statutory Harbour Authority, as a competent authority, despite current license exemption, carries out a HRA to satisfy themselves that baseline

23

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.

Most foraging activity for the qualifying species occurs in waters shallower than 15m.

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, common scoter and goosander 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.

24

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.

25

Map 3. Dredge material disposal sites close-by the Solway Firth pSPA

26

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 Solway Firth pSPA. The coastal boundary of the pSPA follows the mean low water springs (MLWS). All permanent man-made hard structures (infrastructure) that protrude from land i.e. jetties, piers, harbour walls, ferry terminals, slipways and docks within statutory limits are excluded from the pSPA. Anchorages with floating buoys or moorings are not excluded from the pSPA boundary as these are floating structures around which the qualifying species can still forage, preen, loaf or roost. All of the qualifying features of the Solway Firth pSPA 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, common scoter and goosander 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.

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 port and harbour limits pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of all qualifying species to disturbance and the reduction in prey availability through damage or loss of prey supporting. Existing ports and harbour operations The Solway Firth pSPA area encompasses many port and harbour limits. 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, common scoter and goosander 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.

27

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

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

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

28

Recreational activities

Current recreational activities within the pSPA, such as recreational boating, kayaking and angling, are low key and restricted in distribution. There are three light and seven medium movement cruising routes for recreational boating intersect with the pSPA. Jet skiing is known to occur and wildfowling takes around the coast. Known recreational activities at the time of writing are shown in Map 4. All of the qualifying features of the Solway Firth pSPA 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.

Red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander 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.

The key pressure associated with recreational activities is disturbance to red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander, 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. Jet skiing and wildfowling Prolonged activity around foraging and roosting areas can also lead to displacement from these areas and 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, common scoter and goosander to disturbance. Increase in activities

Most water-borne activities occur during the summer when most non-breeding waterfowl are not present. This is a growing industry. Should evidence of pressures at particular locations and/or if there is major increase in intensity of these pursuits within the pSPA there may be a requirement to consider reducing pressures. Activities not considered further: Sea kayaking, yachting, angling and wildlife tour operators

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

29

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, common scoter and goosander 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 Caerlaverock National Nature Reserve (NNR) on the inner Solway and within the Wigtown Bay Local Nature Reserve (LNR). Recreational boat users generally view wildlife as a positive part of their experience on the water. If disturbance does occur, this is often as a result of lack of understanding of the bird’s behaviour or how human activities can affect a bird’s well-being. Awareness-raising and education are therefore an important part of existing management. The following best practice guidance is available: The Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code (SMWWC) highlights why 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

30

Map 4. Recreational activities within the Solway Firth pSPA.

31

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 Solway Firth pSPA. Consideration has been given to the draft Sectoral plans - any identified options areas, leasing rounds, applications, consented and any operational developments.

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

There are both tidal and wind draft option areas located within or closed to the pSPA but no wave energy draft option areas. There is also one operational offshore wind farm in the Solway Firth. Marine renewable energy activities at the time of writing are shown in Map 5.

All of the qualifying features of the Solway Firth pSPA are considered sensitive to pressures associated with wind and wave renewable activities. Our initial assessment identifies the following pressures associated with wind and wave renewables:

Mortality – through collision Red-throated diver are considered to have a medium to high sensitivity to

collision risk with wind turbines. Divers display some avoidance behaviour to offshore wind farms

All qualifying species are considered to be sensitive to collision risk with

underwater artificial structures such as tidal turbines. Tidal energy devices

32

pose a risk to all species through underwater collision with artificial structures, but as the risk is a novel one it is not possible to quantify.

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

Red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander are also sensitive to pressures associated with deployment of wind turbines, notably displacement from foraging areas. Displacement could arise from avoidance of wind turbines either directly or by creating a barrier reducing access to feeding areas. Repeated disturbance associated with installation or maintenance activities may also cause displacement.

Tidal energy developments also pose a risk to all species through

displacement, but as the risk is a novel one it is not possible to quantify.

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. Tidal lagoons may result in the loss of foraging habitat caused by changes to hydrological processes. 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.

Tidal energy

Lease areas – tidal stream The tidal stream lease area stretches between the Mull of Galloway and the Isle of

Whithorn outside of the pSPA. It is not considered that there is any specific

requirement to consider this option area further in respect of the pSPA qualifying

interests.

New proposals - tidal lagoon

We are aware that there is interest in a tidal lagoon proposal in English waters on the

southern side of the Solway Firth pSPA.

New tidal lagoon proposals pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the potential sensitivities of all qualifying species to disturbance, collision and the potential loss of foraging habitat. 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 tidal proposals on the qualifying features may include:

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

33

We advise that in developing any proposals within the lease areas, the applicant should enter into early discussions with the relevant authority and statutory nature conservation bodies to ensure that a HRA is scoped adequately, including considerations regarding the potential for cumulative impacts.

Wind energy

There is one offshore wind draft option area (OWSW1) within the pSPA and another outside of the pSPA to the west. Lease areas – new proposals or expansion of existing wind energy developments New wind development proposals pose a risk to the conservation objectives because of the sensitivities of red-throated diver to collision and the sensitivities of all qualifying species to displacement from foraging areas. 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 tidal proposals on the qualifying features may include:

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

We advise that in developing any proposals within the lease area, the applicant should enter into early discussions with the relevant authority and statutory nature conservation bodies to ensure that a HRA is scoped adequately, including considerations regarding the potential for cumulative impacts.

Operational developments – Robin Rigg There is an operational offshore wind farm in the Solway Firth – Robin Rigg. This wind farm comprises approximately 30 turbines and provides up to 60MW. The export cable runs south to the English coastline. It has been operational since 2010 and in 2015, 2 turbines were removed, but are likely to be replaced. As outlined above there is an existing wind farm within the Solway Firth pSPA. Post consent monitoring has been taking place at this this site for several years, see - http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/scoping/Robin-Rigg It is unlikely that any additional management will be required to those in the existing consent conditions.

34

Recommended management option:

No additional management – operational schemes: No additional management required for the Robin Rigg wind farm. Remove or avoid pressures– new proposals (wind or tidal lagoon): Removing or avoiding collision pressures associated marine renewables for all qualifying species is recommended until such time as research and monitoring provide further information on this potential impact pathway in this area. Removing or avoiding displacement pressures associated with marine renewables 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. Reduce or limit loss of foraging habitat pressures associated with tidal lagoons in areas identified as being important for non-breeding waterfowl should be considered.

Proposed way forward: Should any new proposals be brought forward within the pSPA area then these would need to be considered on a case by case basis. Where management measures are required, the development of these should be in discussion with the developer, regulator Marine Science Licensing and Operations Team (MS LOT) and advisers Marine Scotland Science (MSS) and SNH.

35

Map 5. Wind and tidal renewable energy activities within the Solway Firth pSPA.

36

Summary of management options

Fishing – mobile gear

Remove or avoid pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with fishing for sandeels is recommended. Remove or avoid pressures: Removing or avoiding pressures associated with fishing 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.

Fishing – static gear Remove or avoid pressures: Prohibiting the use of all set nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander is recommended. Remove or avoid pressures – seasonal – non-breeding birds: Prohibiting the use of drift nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander between mid-August and May each year is recommended. Prohibiting the use of bottom set nets and fyke nets in areas identified as being important for red-throated diver, common scoter and goosander between mid-August and May is recommended.

Harvesting – intertidal

shellfish and bait

Reduce or limit pressures: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with tractor dredging and hand-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.

37

Ports and harbours

No additional management – existing operations There should be no additional management requirements for established activities at ports and harbours within the Solway Firth pSPA. Reduce or limit pressures – new development: Reducing or limiting pressures associated with new development proposals or expansion of ports and harbours within or adjacent to the pSPA should be considered.

Recreational

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, common scoter and goosander 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.

Renewables – wind &

tidal

No additional management – operational schemes: No additional management required for the Robin Rigg wind farm. Remove or avoid pressures– new proposals (wind or tidal lagoon): Removing or avoiding collision pressures associated marine renewables for all qualifying species is recommended until such time as research and monitoring provide further information on this potential impact pathway in this area. Removing or avoiding displacement pressures associated with marine renewables 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

38

area. Reduce or limit loss of foraging habitat pressures associated with tidal lagoons in areas identified as being important for non-breeding waterfowl should be considered.

Cumulative effects: Potential cumulative effects are recognised for all new or increased activities identified under ‘Activities considered likely to affect the qualifying features’ in Table 2, and for activities sharing the following pressures:

Mortality:

Fishing with mobile and static gear – through entanglement.

Wind & tidal energy – through collision with turbines.

Disturbance:

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

Harvesting (shellfish and bait) – through human presence and vehicles.

Recreational activities – through displacement from foraging, sheltering and / or roosting areas.

Navigational dredging - through increased vessel activity.

Ports and harbours – through increased vessel activity.

Wind & tidal energy – through displacement from foraging, sheltering and / or roosting areas, or disturbance.

Reduction in prey availability:

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

Harvesting (shellfish and bait) – through direct removal of prey.

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

Wind & tidal 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 in conjunction with 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 in conjunction with Natural England and a preferred way forward may be recommended. This will form the basis of advice from SNH and Natural England to

39

Marine Scotland and DEFRA on the management measures required for this site should it be classified as an SPA.

Marine Scotland and DEFRA will be responsible for making recommendations to Scottish Ministers the Minister of State for farming, food and the marine environment on any management measures that may be required. The development of these measures will be done through discussion with stakeholders after the formal consultation on the pSPA. Should any management measures require statutory underpinning, Marine Scotland will undertake further consultation. . For cross-border management measures, relevant English and Scottish authorities will endeavour to work together to produce a joined up management approach.

40

Annex 1. Background to the advice contained in this paper

‘The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)’, commonly referred to as the Habitats Regulations and ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)’, transpose the EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) into domestic legislation in Scotland and England respectively. Regulation 33(2) of ‘The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)’ and regulation 35(3) of ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)’, gives Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Natural England respectively, a statutory responsibility to advise other relevant authorities as to the conservation objectives for European marine sites in Scotland and England respectively, and any operations which may cause deterioration of natural habitats or the habitats of species, or disturbance of species for which the site has been designated.

This document presents the Regulation 33 and 35 advice, plus supporting

information, for the Solway Firth 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 or Natural England 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; a district salmon fishery board; and a local fisheries committee. All relevant

authorities are competent authorities.

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

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

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

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

proceed.

The role of relevant authorities

The Habitats Regulations require relevant authorities to exercise their functions so

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

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

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

single management scheme may be developed.

41

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.

42

Annex 2. Map showing overlapping and neighbouring protected areas.

43