STAFFIN PIER AND SLIPWAY PROPOSAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTFor

Staffin Community Trust

June 2014

This report was part-financed by the Scottish Government, the Highland European Fisheries Fund programme and the Highland Council.

STAFFIN PIER AND SLIPWAY PROPOSAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Contents

Section Title Page1 Introduction 22 Description of Development 23 Site Description

Marine Land Ecology and Environment

3

4 Scoping and Consultation Policy Species affected Otter use of proposed slipway site Seal use of proposed slipway site Other marine mammals Consultation and discussion

4

5 Screening of potential ecological impacts Characterisation Identification of impacts Screening of ecological impacts

11

6 Assessment and Conclusions 167 Mitigation measures

Licencing Mitigation measures

17

References 21Contacts 21Legislation 22

Prepared by

Duncan Bryden

Qualifications:

BSc (Hons) Ecological Science (Wildlife and Fisheries Management); CBiol, MSB (Chartered Biologist – Member Society of Biology).

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Staffin pier and slipway (shown in Figure 1) are owned by the Highland Council. In 2000 capital improvements were made to the pier and slipway but it is reported that these were restricted by available funding. The Staffin Community Trust is keen to have the slipway developed further.

1.2 This report is a scoping Environmental Impact Assessment to support further development plans for the pier, slipway and vicinity.

Figure 1 Existing pier and slipway

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

2.1 SCT supplied the following description of the proposed development and the concept schematic shown in Figure 2. It is proposed that the new development will be sufficient to facilitate vessels with a minimum of seven metres at low tide to guarantee 24/7, 365 days berthing opportunities. It is likely to comprise of:

Existing pier extension topped by concrete; Artificial breakwaters created by deposition of large qualities of stones; Marine basin constructed behind the breakwater; Dredging? Pontoons.

2.2 As a minimum the pier development should be capable of accommodating:

2

2 x fishing boats/live fish carriers with 6m displacement, 54m length, 12m breadth;

10 x Inshore Fishing Boats 3m displacement, 10m length, 6m breadth; 20 x Yachts & Motor Cruisers: 3m displacement 15m length, 4m breadth.

Figure 2 Schematic of proposed developments

2.3 Indicative landside facilities may include:

Processing plant; Storage; Accommodation – bunk house; Sailing club and launch area; Car park, maintenance and cleaning areas; Fuel and oil storage.

These are only indicative and have not been included in the screening process.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

Marine

3.1 The site is located near the village of Staffin, in Trotternish on the north east coast of Skye. The bay where the pier and slipway are located is named Ob nan Ron on the OS map. This is a fast flushing coastal area adjacent to the Sound of Raasay and the Minch. Staffin island lies just offshore. The bay where the slipway is located is relatively shallow and much seaweed is exposed at low tide. This places limits on the type of vessel that can use the slipway. Currently it is used during the summer months by a small range of commercial craft, mainly creel boats and wildlife tour boats.

3

Land

3.2 The pier and slipway are accessed off the A855 between Staffin and Stenscholl by a minor single track public road with passing places. The surrounding land is owned by SGRIPD and under crofting tenure. The bay has historically been accessed by foot along a well-engineered path from Staffin village. One of the more sheltered bays in the district, there has been a long history of local people using this site for taking to the sea in boats and fishing. It is within the Trotternish NSA and the slipway head sits on a raised beach, backed by a steep basalt cliff.

3.3 In recent years, it has become a popular place for visiting camper vans to stay overnight and from May to September there could be up to 10 vans per night parked either at the slipway head or in the layby 250m back along the access road. The layby also contains a Ceumannan interpretive panel for the Dinosaur Footprint site on the shore below. Approximately one in five visitors will have a dog that they exercise along the shore, discouraging use by otters at this time.

Ecology and Environment

3.4 A brief site (600m north and south from the existing slipway head) walk over survey on the 7/8 May 2014, with an overnight stay at the site, provided evidence of a range of mammal and birds. Survey work for other species (plants and invertebrates) was not undertaken. Three mammals in particular were noted. There were signs of Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) and reports of grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and common seal (Phoca vitulina). The bay where the slipway is located is called Ob nan Ron meaning Bay of the Seals and suggesting a historical association with seal species. American mink have been reported in the area.

3.5 A range of bird species were sighted on the walk over survey close to the slipway head including:

Shag (fishing in the bay); Oyster catchers (3 pairs on shoreline); Curlew (on shoreline); Fulmar (2 pairs on cliff); Raven; Eider duck; Heron; Graylag geese (1 pair); Various gull species.

3.6 This is an incomplete list and other significant species reported by local users but not seen during the survey include peregrine (nest on cliff west of slipway), red throated diver (on the bay) and arctic terns (nest on Staffin island).

4.0 SCOPING AND CONSULTATION

4

Policy

4.1 The Highland wide Local Development Plan (HWLDP), adopted April 2012 contains policies relevant to the proposed development including:

Policy 28 Sustainable design makes reference to impacts on species and habitats;

Policy 43 Tourism makes reference to safeguarding natural heritage features;

Policy 49 Coastal development in near shore water makes reference to not having an unacceptable impact on natural heritage;

Policy 57 Natural, Built and Cultural Heritage refers to features of local, national and international importance;

Policy 58 Protected Species – see below; Policy 59 Other important species – refers to Annex 2 and 5 of EC

Habitats Directive and species on UK, Scottish and Local Biodiversity Action Plan lists;

Policy 60 Other important Habitats and Article 10 Features – refers to Annex 1 of EC Habitats Directive and species on UK, Scottish and Local Biodiversity Action Plan lists;

Supplementary guidance includes:

Guidance on Development and Biodiversity – Highland’s Statutorily Protected Species November 2011;

Coastal Development Strategy May 2010.

4.2 HWLDP Policy 58 Protected Species

Where there is good reason to believe that a protected species may be present on site or may be affected by a proposed development, we will require a survey to be carried out to establish any such presence and if necessary a mitigation plan to avoid or minimise any impacts on the species, before determining the application.

4.3 The HWLDP notes that development that is likely to have an adverse effect, individually and/or cumulatively, on European Protected Species will only be permitted where:

There is no satisfactory alternative; The development is required for preserving public health or public safety

or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; and

The development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, species listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended.

5

4.4 The otter is listed in annex II and IV of the Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC which has implications and obligations for developers. The Habitat Directive implies that otters and where they live, including corridors connecting them, must be considered in EIAs.

4.5 Further constraints apply to other protected plants and animals including badgers. Badgers are not known to be present on the site. Grey and Common seals are protected in UK waters, principally by the Conservation of Seals Act (1970), Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), and the EU Habitats and Species Directive (1992).

4.6 The HWLDP records that similar constraints apply to protected bird species listed in Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive, regularly occurring migratory species listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive and birds of conservation concern.

Species affected

4.7 Of particular relevance to the site are otters and seals. Other marine mammals have been reported nearby and the site is used by a range of bird species. This report has not screened for terrestrial plant or invertebrate species or benthic species and fish assemblages in the intertidal and sub tidal zones. Further studies maybe required as appropriate.

4.8 The Eurasian otter is wide spread and relatively numerous in Skye with the distribution mainly in the coastal areas. Otter have been recorded throughout Skye, at densities that are high compared with Scotland as a whole Yoxon and Yoxon (1990) and Strachan (2007). Yoxon (2000) also noted a correlation between otter density and geology with the landslip topography of Staffin supporting in the order of 0.82 otters per km, second only to areas of Torridonian base rock. Otter biology is well documented by Chanin (1985, 1994) and Kruuk (2006).

4.9 Otter habitats cover both fresh water and coastal wetlands and coastal marine ecosystems. Habitat generally comprises the water body plus a movement strip of bank or coast at least a 100 m wide. Where there are natal holts this distance, especially in coastal areas like Skye, can be much greater. SNH note the home range of coastal otters in Scotland as requiring only 4-5km of coast line because of the ready supply of fish and crustaceans. More otter die crossing roads than from any other threat.

4.10 Otters produce spraints (scats, faeces) which are characteristic of the species. Their presence is a simple and reliable indicator for otter presence. Spraint numbers cannot be used to determine otter numbers; Yoxon and Yoxon (2014) for two sites in Skye, noted three times as many spraints in winter as in the summer. However, sprainting sites with several spraints of different age may indicate the use by otters over a period of time; single or a few very old spraints may originate from transient animals.

6

Figure 3 Typical Spraint site – Site 2 – beside freshwater on upper shore – Camper vans 300 m away at slipway head (Blue arrow). Binoculars for scale.

Otter use of proposed slipway site

4.11 The site walkover survey (7/8 May 2014) identified three spraint sites (see Figure 4) Site 1: 100m from top of slipway (three spraint – not fresh); Site 2: Burn 2 (SE of slipway) – 300m – older spraint site but typically

green; Site 3: Hill slope below end of rocks marking car park - spraint site; Burn 1 (SE of slip) – 117m – no spraint but nearest fresh water (fresh

water is important for otters and a lack of otter sign may suggest activity at the slipway head displaces otters to Burn 2 some 200m further away) .

7

Figure 4 Spraint sites

4.12 Two spraint sites (2&3) showed evidence of otter use over time and one (1) on the rock armour of the slipway confirms local reports that otters use the slipway and hide in the rock armour from time to time. Crab remains have frequently been seen on the slipway, but remains are then removed by the tide or by scavenging gulls. A careful search of the shoreline revealed no obvious other otter signs (tracks, rolling places, trails, food remains). Possible resting up places may exist in the boulders below the road, but as previously noted, this is a popular area for dog walkers – an activity likely to discourage otters from lingering, at least in the summer months.

Figures 5&6 Spraint on rock armour above the slipway - Site 1 (location above the high water mark so not removed by the tide)

8

1

2

3

Burn 1

4.13 However, it was noted on the walkover in May there was no tall vegetation cover along the shore to be used as couches and grass was very short (see Figure 3). Sheep and cattle graze to the tideline and above the high water mark the ground was trampled and poached. Sheep feed on seaweed on the shore.

4.14 Local boat users report otters are regularly seen on Staffin island (500m from the site) and they may breed there. No inspection was carried out of Staffin island. Otters are also seen at the entrance to Kilmartin River, 1km to the west of the slipway.

Seal use of proposed slipway site

4.15 The status of seals at the site is harder to establish without a longer survey period. Local users report that common seals use the reef (Sgeir nam Faoileann) to the east of the slipway to haul out. Under the proposed plans, this reef would be included as part of the breakwater (see Figure 2). Seals are believed not to breed on Staffin island, but they do use Floddigary island where 70 plus animals have been reported. It is considered by regular local users of the slipway that seal use of the slipway site is mainly transient.

4.16 The Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust (HWDT) record visual sightings of marine mammals and consider the rugged coastline of north Skye a particularly important site for common and grey seals. This area has extensive suitable habitat and prey species. Local boat operators confirm their presence in the area.

Figure 7 Location (red) of seal haul outs and Staffin island (otters). Blue proposed breakwater, slipway extension and building

9

4.16 According to SNH, recent figures show that common seal numbers are declining around Scotland, although west coast populations are still remaining stable. In contrast, grey seal populations are not declining anywhere in Scotland. SNH consider threats to seals arise from excessive pollution, toxic chemicals, shooting at fish farms and angling rivers, entanglement in fishing nets and subsea turbines.

4.17 UK CEED (2000) and Young (1998) review the impacts of recreational activities on seal sites. Both note the growth of commercial wildlife watching and recreational activities in the vicinity of seal colonies. The UK CEED (2000) report notes that the sensitivity of the species differs according to whether a haul out site is for breeding, pupping or resting. Common seals are breeding and moulting between June and August which coincides with periods of greatest outdoor recreational activity. However, the bay is believed to be predominantly only a resting site and breeding is unlikely to be affected, but increased recreational activity may affect transient animals.

Other marine mammals

4.18 Other marine mammals recorded by the HWDT around North Skye include harbour porpoise (Annex 2 species), common dolphin and minke whale. (Protected under schedule 5 W&CA and NC Scotland Act 2004.) Basking sharks (protection under schedule 5 W&CA and NC Scotland Act 2004) are encountered around the Trotternish peninsula between May and October. These species occur mainly further off shore and are unlikely to be affected by proposed development in the bay. Although, the number and frequency of boat movements would probably increase and the situation should be kept under review. The frequency with which these species come close to the proposed development site is uncertain and unpredictable.

Birds

4.19 The site is not considered to be a significant area for important bird assemblages. The presence of American mink and probably rats suggests ground nesting birds like oyster catchers, curlews and eiders may be vulnerable to predation. The bay is a useful feeding and sheltering ground for species like eider and red throated diver. Some birds may rest on exposed reefs. Most other bird species like shag and gull species are opportunistic and mobile with regard to food supply. Peregrines are believed to nest on the cliff behind the slipway site. Sea eagles pass through the site from time to time and it is believed there are active nest sites in the wider Staffin/Trotternish area.

Consultation and discussion

4.20 Consultation and discussions on the seasonal presence, absence, frequency and distribution of key species were held with local people who use the site on a regular basis and local agency staff including:

SNH - Area Officer; Local experts and users - Fishermen, boat owners and residents.

10

The general view from local users was that the development would have little or no effect on the conservation of key species at the site.

5.0 SCREENING OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Characterisation

5.1 As a result of the proposed construction and operation activities of the slipway scheme potential ecological impact are characterised and assessed under the following terms:

Identification of impact – nature and extent; Magnitude of impact in quantitative terms; Duration – Short term (< 5 years), Medium term (5 – 10 years) or Long

term (> 10 years); Reversibility - Temporary (during construction only; reversible) or

Permanent (during construction and operation; irreversible); Timing – At what stages of construction/time of year will the impact

occur; Frequency – How often is the impact likely to occur; Certainty of impact occurring; Cumulative impact – what the outcome of several impacts actually

completed might be; and Combined impacts – consideration of the possible effects of other plans,

proposals or projects.

Identification of impacts

5.2 The assessment of the impact by proposed developments on ecological functionality of coastal habitats, adjacent areas and otter populations must take into account: food species and feeding areas, including the movements and migrations

of the food species; resting sites within the home range; breeding areas including natal holts, i.e. dens where cubs are born; corridors for movement and dispersal; access to fresh water.

5.3 Seals may potentially be affected by proposed developments that impinge upon:

Breeding activity; Resting areas; Feeding behaviour.

5.4 Birds may potentially be affected by proposed developments that impinge upon:

11

Feeding behaviours; Resting areas.

5.5 There is extensive literature studying the potential impact of human disturbance on bird populations. In a literature review, the BTO (2008) suggest six factors affect the response of water birds and waders to human activity

Distance between birds and source and nature of activity; Species difference in their tolerance of activities; Predictability of disturbance is important; The greater the food supply the more likely the bird will resist disturbance; Larger flocks are more prone to disturbance; Distance from alternative sites.

5.6 Fitzpatrick and Bouchez (1998) showed oystercatcher, curlew and redshank had greater vigilance on higher rocky shores, but when disturbed, flight distance was low. They also suggested undisturbed birds were feeding slowly and prey capture rates of oystercatcher and curlew increased with moderately close human disturbance.

5.7 In addition to potential impacts on mammals and birds the proposed developments could impinge upon marine habitats by:

Altering tidal water flow in the locality due to new breakwaters; Some physical loss of intertidal areas.

5.8 Specifically ecological impacts may be caused by factors during constructions and afterwards during the operational phase. Relevant construction and operational factors with potential to cause impact alone or in combination include:

Point source and diffuse pollution from:o engine emissions – hydro carbonso antifouling paintso sewage and other wasteo litter o accidental discharge

Boat movements impacts – defined by:o Frequencyo Characteristics of movemento Speedo Soundo Sizeo Turbidityo Collision risk

Habitat loss and fragmentation and loss of holt sites; Creating barriers to movement and accidental entrapment;

12

Creation of site offices/compound, access tracks, hard standing and assembly/storage areas (removal on completion);

Deconstruction of existing structures; Disturbance:

o Construction noise and disturbance e.g. drilling, piling, dredging, blasting

o Storage and redistribution of materials – rocks, sediment o Operations requiring artificial lighto Fire – shoreline vegetation

Site access - increased traffic movement risk during and after construction i.e. mortality on road;

Increased recreational activity including dog walking.

5.9 This is not an exhaustive list. Species and ecosystems change in time and space and boundaries are dynamic and permeable, hence impacts can and will vary over time. UK CEED (2000) in the introduction to its report ‘A review of the effects of recreational interactions within UK European marine sites’ states that:

It is vital to bear in mind that many types of marine habitats are, by their nature, dynamic systems. They are constantly changing and reshaping through processes such as erosion and accretion. This makes an assessment of their vulnerability to different human activities extremely difficult.

CIEEM (2010 para 5.44) confirms the challenge of assessing impacts in the marine environment.

“In the marine environment it is very difficult to define clear site boundaries; interaction with a wider zone of influence is thus likely. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the impacts on integrity can be evaluated without considering functions and processes acting outside the site’s formal boundary. Thus any predictions should always consider wider ecosystem processes.

Screening ecological impacts

5.10 A significant impact is defined as; an ecologically significant impact is an impact that has a negative, or positive, effect on the integrity of a site or ecosystem and/or the conservation objectives for habitats or species populations within a given geographical area. (CIEEM, 2010 para 5.32).

5.11 Table 1 sets out the criteria used in this assessment to define the magnitude of an impact (based on CIEEM technical guidelines).

Table 1 Magnitude of Impact.

Magnitude

Description

Positive Gains to the integrity and the conservation status of the site, habitat or species are clearly evident.

Neutral Not expected to affect the integrity or conservation status of the site, habitat or species under consideration in any way, therefore no noticeable effects on the

13

ecological resource, even in the short term.Minor Negative

Noticeable effect, but either sufficiently small or short duration to cause no harm to the integrity or conservation status of the site, habitat or species. Detectable in the short term but not in medium term.

Intermediate Negative

Significant but not adverse effects on the integrity or nature conservation status of the site, habitat or species, but would threaten the long-term integrity of the system. Detectable in the short term and medium term. If in the light of full information, it cannot be clearly demonstrated that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on integrity then the impact should be assessed as major negative.

Major Negative

Adverse effects on the integrity or nature conservation status of the site, habitat or species, likely to threaten the long-term integrity of the system. Detectable in the short term, medium term and long term.

5.12 Table 2 presents a matrix in which ecological value and the magnitude of an impact are combined in order to present an overall grade of significance for a particular impact.

5.13 A significant impact is considered to be an overall impact that is classified as Moderate/Major or Critical, while Slight or Neutral impacts are considered insignificant. Mitigation will be identified for significant adverse impacts and a Residual Impact then identified. Where feasible and practical, mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be identified for all predicted impacts.

Table 2 Matrix defining overall grade of significance by geographical scale.

Ecological Value

Magnitude of Impact

Major Negative Intermediate Negative Minor Negative Neutral Positive

International

Critical Adverse Major Adverse Slight Adverse Neutral Beneficial

National Critical Adverse Major Adverse Slight Adverse Neutral BeneficialRegional Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Slight Adverse Neutral BeneficialLocal Slight Adverse Slight Adverse Slight Adverse Neutral BeneficialNegligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

5.14 The only potential significant in combination effect that has been identified at this stage is the possible combination of commercial and recreational activity at the site. Recreational activity in the form of water sports and frequent wildlife watching trips departing from the site could spread the impacts further up and down the coast and to offshore islands – currently little visited. However, it is suggested that any recreational/tourism activity is likely to be small in scale, given distance from markets and a lack of accommodation etc. in the immediate vicinity and will be very seasonal and weather dependent. Development could precipitate additional or more intense visitor activity on coastal walking routes from the site or from people engaged in activities like ‘coasteering’. The presence of camper vans and dog walkers has already been noted, this presence is unlikely to decrease, unless an alternative site is established nearby.

5.15 No cumulative effects have been identified with respect to proposed coastal developments or other projects in the near vicinity.

14

Screening

Feature Affected

Possible effect of development

Likely significant effect Duration Discussion Screening outcome

Otter Construction activity close to known otter habitat

Disturbance during construction to otters feeding, moving and resting

Greater during construction period

Construction will cause some disruption in the local area on a temporary basis. Otters likely to avoid area but plenty additional suitable habitat nearby

Minor negative –Slight adverse impact on Annex 2 species

Permanent structure on otter home range

Loss of feeding area and minimal displacement of individual animals

Permanent Very minor section of coastal home range lost

Neutral

Increase in commercial activity. Boats and vehicles moving 24/7

Larger vessels using site more frequently increased likelihood of pollution and waste entering marine environment. Greater potential for significant incident – oil spill

On-going but year round

Wildlife tends to be more tolerant and adaptable to regular patterns of work. Fish processing may provide additional food sources. New breakwaters may provide new habitats for food (fish and crustaceans)

Minor negative –Slight adverse impact on Annex 2 species

Increase in recreational activity small scale recreational craft – kayaks, sailing craft etcPossible increase in camper vans and associated dog walking

Increase in more irregular disturbance to otter behaviour. Otters may choose to make less use of the area for feeding and to pass through the area more rapidly

On-going but highly seasonal

The site may become a significant target destination for visitors. More people will be walking along the shore and exercising dogs but visitor disturbance is likely to be highly seasonal. Small craft activity is generally unpredictable and may increase casual visitation to Staffin island

Minor negative –Slight adverse impact on Annex 2 species

Common Seal

Increase in commercial and recreational activity

Potential of disturbance to seals feeding, moving and resting. Removal of natural haul out sites.

Greater during construction period then permanent

Loss of natural haul out sites on reef. Potential to adapt to new breakwater structures

Minor negative –Slight adverse impact on Annex 2 species

Grey Seal Increase in commercial and recreational activity

Disturbance to seals feeding, moving and resting

Seals maybe attracted by potential for additional feeding from fish scraps

Neutral effect on Annex 2 species

Birds Minor loss of foreshore Disturbance to small number of feeding birds like oystercatchers and curlew – unlikely to be significant. Potential increase in opportunist species – gulls and corvids.

During construction period then permanent

Birds can adapt to increase levels of activity and there are a range of other locations close by with equivalent feeding opportunities

Neutral

Marine mammals

Increase in commercial and recreational activity

More vessel movements – but impacts unlikely to be significant

Permanent Larger marine mammals tend to be found further offshore

Neutral

15

6.0 ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposed new breakwaters and slipway extension will have a footprint some 5 -10 larger than the current structure. Intended activity at the site will be substantially greater with year round activity replacing the current seasonal use.

6.2 Otters and seals do use the bay, but on a transient basis. Otters feed in and around the slipway, but it is deemed to be a small part of their assumed home range. The presence of people and their camper vans and regular dog walking may already discourage otters from lingering near the slipway from May to September.

6.3 The proposals have been screened in Section 5. Despite a large increase in size, the development footprint remains small relative to a coastal otter home range size of 3-4km. There are long lengths of good otter habitat in the undeveloped coastline north and especially to the south of the site. The conservation status of the species in the area will be favourably maintained.

6.4 There may be a neutral to positive effect in that the breakwater structure could increase opportunities for small fish and crustacean that make up otter diet and gap between the rock armour could provide more cover for otters to use.

6.5 Otters and seals will adapt to regular commercial use better than irregular recreational use. However, recreational use is likely to be very seasonal and weather dependent and will mainly take place during periods when wildlife already generally avoids the site. Good operational practice measures will be required to deal with risks of pollution and accidental disturbance. These can be imposed through planning conditions.

6.6 In the screening process it was found that the proposed new development would give rise to some minor negative effects for otters and seals species which are of European qualifying interest. Other species (in so far as this initial survey could establish presence) have been screened out.

6.7 From the screening, for species identified, it is concluded that there will be short term effects during construction; but it is not considered that these effects will be significant in their extent or duration.

6.8 To be certain that proposals will satisfy policy requirement (a) and (b) below:

(a) HWLDP Policy 58 Protected Species

Where there is good reason to believe that a protected species may be present on site or may be affected by a proposed development, we will require a survey to be carried out to establish any such presence and if necessary a mitigation plan to avoid or minimise any impacts on the species, before determining the application.

16

(b) Supplementary Guidance which employs three tests for development that is likely to have an adverse effect, individually and/or cumulatively, on European Protected Species.

1. There is no satisfactory alternative;2. The development is required for preserving public health or public

safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; and

3. The development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, species listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended

The following assessment is offered.

6.9 Tests 1 and 2 are to be answered in the feasibility study and economic assessment of the development.

6.10 Test 3 requires an understanding of what is required for the conservation status of the population of otters and seals to be favourably maintained in their natural range. In response to this test:

This assessment considers that there is a viable population of otters and seals in the area and there is a wide distribution and extent of habitat that supports these species in the surrounding area.

This assessment considers that the development will not contribute too likely effects from in combination or cumulative factors.

This assessment concludes the development will have no likely significant effects on the integrity and conservation status of these species.

7.0 MITIGATION

Licensing

7.1 Construction works require a European Protected Species Licence when impacts cannot be avoided or minimised. It is not considered that a licence will be required for this development.

Mitigation measures

7.2 To address the minor negative impacts identified during the screening process the following measures (with the outcomes they are intended to achieve) are proposed:

Specific mitigation measures during the Construction Phase shall include:

17

1. A named person shall be appointed to an ‘environmental clerk of works’ post or role with a remit to seek further advice from environmental experts as required.

Outcome: A named person will be responsible for environmental and wildlife matters on the site.

2. They shall have clear written duties and responsibilities to ensure mitigation works are carried out and monitored to a satisfactory standard.

They should be able to themselves or appoint a suitably briefed third party equipped with binoculars and the skill to identify key species. During major construction operations the individual should position themselves at a suitable viewing point and take appropriate action to halt works as required if animals appear in and around the site.

Outcome: The named person will have a clear set of responsibilities and duties for environmental and wildlife matters on the site.

3. All persons involved in construction and vehicle movements onto and off the site shall be briefed on the potential presence of otter and any other relevant environmental issues.

Outcome: All persons working on the site will have a collective responsibility for sound and appropriate responses to environmental and wildlife matters on the site.

4. Construction work on the site shall be limited to between the hours of 0800 and 1800 or 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset, whichever is the later.

Outcome: To give otters some time to move around the site and reach other parts of their home range.

5. Proposed works out with these hours linked to, for example, tidal conditions shall be assessed individually, with additional advice sought as required. Any temporary lighting required for construction purposes shall be screened to direct light tightly onto the works area.

Outcome: To give otters some time to move around the site and reach other parts of their home range.

6. Any machinery or materials left unattended on the site shall be secured so as to not present a danger to otters. (e.g. all exposed pipes shall be capped, pits covered or furnished with an escape route)

Outcome: To prevent otters being trapped within the site works.

7. Hazardous chemicals and materials shall be handled correctly to prevent leaks and spills and stored securely out of reach of wildlife. Emergency

18

response procedures in the event of any leaks and spills shall be established.

Outcome: To prevent accidental discharge and contamination.

8. Appropriate signage shall be erected, maintained and on completion of the construction phase, permanently established on the approach road, reminding drivers to look out for otters crossing.

A review will be carried out to examine if there is any necessity for the approach road to have diversion walls (@1m high) directing animals to underpasses.

Outcome: To prevent otters being killed on injured on the approach road.

9. Effective pollution prevention measures relating to vehicles, mobile plant and machinery including washing facilities shall be in place.

Outcome: To prevent accidental contamination of the site and marine environment.

10. All materials will be correctly stored and secured and waste and surplus materials removed from the site on completion of the works. The site shall be swept for litter on a regular basis.

Outcome: To maintain a clean and tidy site.

11. Best practice will be followed to minimise wildlife disturbance from any drilling, dredging and blasting operations. This should include:

Checks by a member of the works team prior to works commencing to ensure there are no otters, seals or cetaceans in the immediate works vicinity. A 500m radius from the works area is recommended. Should animals be detected a 30 minute clearing period is recommended before works start or recommence, with a watch kept for possible returns.

In order to avoid disturbance to common and grey seals during the sensitive moult period it is recommended that stock-piling of dredged material and other work in close proximity to seal haul outs, is avoided at the moult time (Common seal typically between June and August). (Grey seals typically between January and March).

It is suggested that, if possible, ducted propellers should not be used on vessels involved in the works to minimise the risk of injury to seals.

Dredged material should be stored above the high water mark to reduce siltation during tidal movement.

19

Blasting operations should generally avoid nesting periods (typically between late March and June) or check for nesting birds with species like peregrine on the nearby cliff being particularly sensitive.

Outcome: To minimise disturbance to otters, seals, other marine mammals and other wildlife.

12. Limit construction activity and access to a clearly defined construction site.

Outcome: No spread of construction activity onto other parts of the foreshore.

Specific mitigation measures for the subsequent operation of the site shall include:

13. Good practice with regard to collection and storage of all types of waste.

14. An emergency pollution management plan is put in place before the facility opens for commercial use. SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines will be followed.

15. Regular monitoring (three months after completion and annually for two years) at the site to identify significant change in key species distribution and behaviour.

20

REFERENCES

British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) 2008 Whiteness Water Bird report: BTO Addenda to Environmental Assessment submitted by the Whiteness Property Company. (Unpublished)

Chanin, P., 1985. The Natural History of Otters. Croom Helm, London

Chanin P., 2011. Otters. (2nd Ed). Whittlet Books, London.

CIEEM 2010http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance_Series/EcIA_Guidelines/Final_EcIA_Marine_01_Dec_2010.pdfAccessed 30 June 2014

Fitzpatrick S and Bouchez B 1998 Effects of recreational disturbance on the foraging behaviour of waders on a rocky shore. Bird Study Volume 45 Number 2 pp157 -171.

Kruuk H 2006 Otter:Ecology, behavious and Conservation

Strachan R 2007 National Survey of otter lutra lutra distribution in Scotland 2003-04. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No 211 (ROAME No. F03AC309).

UK CEED 2000. A review of the effects of recreational interactions within UK European marine sites (UK Marine SACs project) 264 pages.

Young K 1998 Seal Watching in the UK and Republic of Ireland IFAW.

Yoxon P and Yoxon K 2014 Estimating Otter Numbers using Spraints: is it possible? Journal of Marine Biology Vol 2014 Article ID 430683

Yoxon G and Yoxon P 1990 Otter Survey of the Isle of Skye IUCN Otter Specialist Group Bulletin 5 pp70-75

Yoxon P 2000 Geology and Otters IUCN Otter Specialist Group Vol 17(2) pp85-88

http://www.whaledolphintrust.com/species_details.asp?inst=20&species_id=147accessed 30 June 2014

http://www.snh.gov.ukaccessed 30 June 2014

Contacts

Donnie MacDonald – Local Fisherman operating out of StaffinSandy Ogilvie – Staffin Bay Cruising and FishingDougie Ross – SCT memberAlex Turner SNH Area Officer

21

Legislation

The following provides a summary of the offences in the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended), in relation to wild otters.

It is an offence to deliberately or recklessly:

capture, injure or kill an otter; harass an otter or group of otters; disturb an otter in a holt or any other structure or place it uses for shelter or

protection; disturb an otter while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young; obstruct access to a holt or other structure or place otters use for shelter or

protection or to otherwise deny the animal use of that place; disturb an otter in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to

significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species; disturb an otter in a manner that is, or in circumstances which are, likely to

impair its ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or rear or otherwise care for its young.

It is also an offence to:

damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal (note that this does not need to be deliberate or reckless to constitute an offence);

keep, transport, sell or exchange or offer for sale or exchange any wild otter or any part or derivative of one (if obtained after 10 June 1994).

22