REGIONAL NW INSHORE MPA MANAGEMENT FORUM
THE NEW DRUMOSSIE HOTEL INVERNESS
07 and 08 October 2014
EAST MINGULAY SAC
1. The assemblages of the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa within this area are
unique in the inshore waters of Scotland and are extremely sensitive to physical
disturbance.
2. Management option one proposes zonal management for all mobile and static
gear, not pelagic, with a 400m buffer around all reefs (stony and Lophelia). The
buffer is sufficient to protect the reefs from damage and sedimentation.
3. Plotter data has been provided by local fishermen which almost perfectly fits
with the proposed zones. The areas open to fishing will be open to vessels
<100GRT. Larger boats tend to avoid this area anyway.
4. Option two proposes a full closure of the area to all trawlers. VMS indicates there
is no scallop dredging in this area but it has been included in the measures as a
precaution. Zonal management would still apply for static gear.
5. Surface net fishing is not mentioned in the management document because it
does not affect benthic features. *AP clarify this point in the text*
6. Could be more advantageous to create a ‘knowledge permit scheme’ only
allowing boats which know the area to fish here, however this would be hard to
set up and enforce, spatial management is easier.
7. All VMS pings are from prawn trawlers, not dredgers. Vessels trawl for prawns in
summer, with creel vessels active in winter.
8. If option 2 is selected this will have a negative knock on effect on the Barra
economy. Most of the catches are either taken by Barra vessels and/or are
landed to the Barra processing plant. Option 1 is considered a better balance
between feature and economic protection.
9. Suggestion to keep the zonal management but to close off some of the narrow
channels as they are extremely close to buffer boundaries. Others felt it better to
leave channels open to prevent boats turning in areas they wouldn’t normally do,
which would increase risk of damage to protected features.
10. There is concern that boats who are new to fishing in this area wouldn’t be able
to accurately navigate through these channels to avoid the protected features
and their buffers. Industry said that skippers generally do not fish in an area they
are not familiar with due to fear of damaging their gear; they can use sonar and
plotter data to avoid high risk areas.
11. The industry would prefer not to work with ‘straight line’ boundaries as this
often cuts off available fishing grounds. More complex boundaries would be easy
to adhere to due to vessels tracking/plotting technology. This also agrees with
recent ICES advice regarding protected areas zonal management.
1
SMALL ISLES
1. The burrowed mud, northern sea fan and sponge communities will need more
consideration in the 2nd round of management.
2. Industry stated that trawling effort in this area has decreased by 78% over the
last few years (11000hrs effort in 2008 down to 4000hr effort in 2013) and feel
this alone should deliver the conservation objective of burrowed mud.
3. Three options being presented, key points relevant to all are a) limit the size of
vessels allowed to fish in the MPA to <150GT and b) suction dredging is
prohibited in entire area.
4. Option 1 has been proposed by Mallaig based fishermen through the
displacement study. Option 2 proposed by SElink, with an extended area
around Sound of Canna to protect more of the key features. Option 3 was
proposed by SNH.
5. Environmental groups want to ensure total protection for the sponge, seafan and
seapen communities and would like to see tall seapen upgraded to a
remove/avoid feature.
6. SNH advice for Nothern Seafan and Sponge Communities has changed from “no
additional management” to “remove / avoid pressure” for demersal mobile gear.
This means that option 1 will not achieve the conservation objective.
7. GRT limit on vessels to prevent increase in large vessel activity, which has
become more frequent on the inshore grounds of the west coast over previous
years.
8. Option 2 could be extended to the south but reaches too far into the northern
section; this expanse has been suggested based on historical sponge data. The
idea is to allow for recovery and expansion of fan mussel aggregations and
northern sea fan and sponge communities. SE link believe that fishing pressure
has constrained these.
9. Industry stated that the area to the north of the sound of Canna is very
productive fishing grounds. In their view Option 2 was excessive.
10. Option 3 does not include the area next to the coast of rum; this is an important
scallop ground and does not include any protected features. It also does not
extend as far north as Option 2.
11. Industry would be keen to see option 1 taken forward with a view to assess and
expand over a longer period of time; this does not take into account Northern
seafans.
12. There are three single records of the rare burrowing anemone Arachnanthus
sarsi on the North side of Canna, however there is no evidence of significant
aggregations and so this species is not considered a MPA protected feature.
13. Industry suggests looking at plotter data from coming up with a new option 4
2
SMALL ISLES – Part 2
1. New option falls between previous options 1 and 3. A buffer of 200m around
northern seafan and sponge communities has been drawn. The boundary has
been made more complex where there is significant fishing plotter data.
2. Some felt that the buffer was too small for the deeper areas. However it was also
noted that in some shallower places the buffer was bigger than would normally
be used.
3. Industry noted that there were fishing grounds within the proposed closed area
which did not fall within the buffers around the protected features. *AP Need
more information on exact towing areas at consultation if a case for access
is to be made.
4. There will still be measures needed for burrowed mud and other areas of
Northern Seafan and Sponge Communities in the 2nd batch of measures.
5. Industry would like to make it clear that there has been a significant reduction in
effort in the area over the last 5 years.
6. The 2014 VMS data will be released in February 2015 in time for the 2nd round of
measures.
7. Option 3 from yesterday and the new option presented today will go forward to
consultation.
WESTER ROSS
1. Two protected features with ‘recover’ objectives: Maerl beds and flame shell
beds.
2. Vessels restricted to <150 GRT.
3. No creel management proposed but should restrictions be considered for
recovery of the maerl beds?
4. The main creelers in this area target prawns and are fishing on burrowed mud
habitat, not maerl beds. An option could be to manage creel vessels in this area
via a permit and licence scheme aimed at providing historic creel vessels with a
fishing permit. An influx of effort into the area once mobile gears measures are
in place would be detrimental to both the environment and current industry.
5. It would be beneficial to have a greater understanding of how impact on features
is related to effort. *AP Look into commissioning more surveys in
conjunction with the industry*.
6. There is not a lot of data available relating to the interaction between flame shell
beds and creels; this is on the list of research questions.
7. Option 1 deals with maerl beds and flame shell beds only by introducing zonal
management, more measures needed in 2nd batch for remaining features.
8. Option 2 introduces spatial measures for all features and an additional capacity
restriction to vessels<100GRT in the inner part of the MPA.
9. Option 3 has increased spatial protection over option 2 but has no inner capacity
restriction.
10. Local community do not want to see scallop dredging in the MPA
11. Scallop management restrictions already in place for inshore waters: i.e.
restricted to 8-a-side.
3
12. If evidence was collected that showed maerl beds in the coastal areas near
Achiltibuie then this area would be managed for recovery of the habitat because
it is a protected feature.
13. Industry would like to see the voluntary measures (based on depth) go forward
as an option and to be made statutory. Feels that if the area is closed there
would be huge negative socio-economic impact.
14. This may not allow for recovery of maerl beds which is why it was not included
as an option at this stage. When the voluntary measures were agreed the
industry was made aware they would not achieve the conservation objective in
the long term but would prevent physical disturbance in the interim.
15. Even changing the voluntary measures slightly to cover the existing maerl may
allow recovery; areas need to be larger and deeper.
16. SElink wants to keep the purple line and would like to see it extended to areas
where maerl is expected to recover and expand. A recommended a depth of
30m was stated in SNH report CR764.
WESTER ROSS – Day 2
1. The new option which has been developed has extended the line around the
areas which are potential maerl beds, the islands are still joined to deliver the
burrowed mud conservation objective.
2. Industry not happy that the area has been extended to included non-confirmed
maerl beds, and still no access to the Dornie Sound. Without plotter data this
cannot even be considered.
3. In there a case for prohibiting static gear along with mobile as prawn fishermen
do not set creels on maerl? However crab and lobster fishermen do fish on the
harder ground adjacent to the Summer Isles maerl beds
4. Depth related management still favoured by the scallop dredge industry. Do not
want a permit scheme as that could be too restrictive. Using data loggers on
vessels would be acceptable to the industry if it would result in greater access to
historical fishing grounds.
5. There is a possibility of other restrictions based on a curfew and number of days
etc that might come through the scallop consultation.
6. Contrary to available data boats do fish up to the flashing light going into
Ullapool, will need to be taken into consideration for management.
7. Option 1 and the new option to go forward for consultation, with additional
questions; Should static gear be restricted? And; Should there be zonation by
depth for mobile gear?
4
LOCHS DUICH, LONG AND ALSH MPA / SAC
1. MPA for flame shell beds and burrowed mud and a SAC for reef habitat. All
burrowed mud biotopes are present.
2. Area subject to license restrictions; and is also part of a wider seasonal
restriction.
3. Option 1 would replace the licence condition but prohibit used of mobile gear in
Loch Duich permanently.
4. Option 2: Prohibit trawling and dredging throughout the whole area. There are
parts of reef habitat which are outside the SAC area. This is proposed to be used
as a study site to monitor the effects of static gear on reef habitat.
5. The Industry fully support option 1 but does not support option 2 with the
suggestion that the area should be closed and used as a demonstration and
research MPA.
6. Thought behind the research suggestion is to target the reef outwith the SAC
with creels to assess the impact on the habitat which is a knowledge gap. Could
use the findings in the future for more targeted management options for other
areas. National Trust for Scotland (NTS) and Marine Conservation Society (MCS)
are very supportive of this option on the grounds of nature conservation alone.
7. If option 2 went forward it would have to be more precise research specification.
Mobile gear sector would only consider this if it was a fully worked up
Demonstration and Research proposal.
8. This would be a valuable study but couldn’t use the results to make decisions on
the whole of the Scottish inshore sites, could only be used to make decisions on
site with a similar composition of protected features.
9. Under option 1 could cut some area to the South and include reef in the North
whilst keeping the buffer round the reefs. Option 1 will go forward to
consultation with consideration of potential small alterations to the nonrestricted area.
ST KILDA SAC
1.
2.
3.
4.
This is also a marine world heritage site and has reef habitat.
Little or no mobile or static fishing activity.
One option: Prohibit use of mobile gear in SAC.
Everyone is in favour of this option, but a suggestion that a precautionary ban on
set nets be considered.
LOCH LAXFORD SAC
1. Mosaic of habitats: sands, gravels, burrowed mud, maerl beds, bedrock reef and
boulder reef.
2. There is very little fishing in the area. This may be due to a number of fish and
mussel farms which were in place before the SAC was designated.
3. One option: to prohibit demersal mobile gear in SAC. At the moment only one a
handful of boats which fish at the mouth of the Loch, this will not be affected.
SUMMARY

Small Isles: option 3 and new option to go forward to consultation
5
6