STAFFIN PIER AND SLIPWAY PROPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
For
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Title
Introduction
Description of Development
Site Description
 Marine
 Land
 Ecology and Environment
Scoping and Consultation
 Policy
 Species affected
 Otter use of proposed slipway site
 Seal use of proposed slipway site
 Other marine mammals
 Consultation and discussion
Screening of potential ecological impacts
 Characterisation
 Identification of impacts
 Screening of ecological impacts
Assessment and Conclusions
Mitigation measures
 Licencing
 Mitigation measures
References
Contacts
Legislation
Page
2
2
3
4
11
16
17
21
21
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:




2.2
Existing pier extension topped by concrete;
Artificial breakwaters created by deposition of large qualities of stones;
Marine basin constructed behind the breakwater; Dredging?
Pontoons.
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
Policy
4
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:


4.2
Guidance on Development and Biodiversity – Highland’s Statutorily
Protected Species November 2011;
Coastal Development Strategy May 2010.
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
2
Burn 1
1
3
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
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:





5.3
Seals may potentially be affected by proposed developments that impinge upon:



5.4
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.
Breeding activity;
Resting areas;
Feeding behaviour.
Birds may potentially be affected by proposed developments that impinge upon:


Feeding behaviours;
Resting areas.
11
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:


5.8
Altering tidal water flow in the locality due to new breakwaters;
Some physical loss of intertidal areas.
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 carbons
o antifouling paints
o sewage and other waste
o litter
o accidental discharge
Boat movements impacts – defined by:
o Frequency
o Characteristics of movement
o Speed
o Sound
o Size
o Turbidity
o Collision risk
Habitat loss and fragmentation and loss of holt sites;
Creating barriers to movement and accidental entrapment;
Creation of site offices/compound, access tracks, hard standing and
assembly/storage areas (removal on completion);
Deconstruction of existing structures;
Disturbance:
12


5.9
o Construction noise and disturbance e.g. drilling, piling, dredging,
blasting
o Storage and redistribution of materials – rocks, sediment
o Operations requiring artificial light
o Fire – shoreline vegetation
Site access - increased traffic movement risk during and after construction
i.e. mortality on road;
Increased recreational activity including dog walking.
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
Positive
Description
Gains to the integrity and the conservation status of the site, habitat or species are
clearly evident.
Not expected to affect the integrity or conservation status of the site, habitat or species
Neutral
under consideration in any way, therefore no noticeable effects on the ecological
resource, even in the short term.
Noticeable effect, but either sufficiently small or short duration to cause no harm to the
Minor
integrity or conservation status of the site, habitat or species. Detectable in the short
Negative
term but not in medium term.
Intermediate 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.
Negative
Detectable in the short term and medium term. If in the light of full information, it
13
Major
Negative
cannot be clearly demonstrated that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on
integrity then the impact should be assessed as 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
Intermediate
Major Negative
Negative
Major Adverse
International Critical Adverse
Critical Adverse
Major Adverse
National
Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse
Regional
Slight Adverse
Slight Adverse
Local
Neutral
Negligible Neutral
Minor Negative
Neutral
Positive
Slight Adverse
Slight Adverse
Slight Adverse
Slight Adverse
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
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 Possible effect of
Affected 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
Minor negative –
Slight adverse
impact on Annex
2 species
Increase in recreational
activity small scale
recreational craft –
kayaks, sailing craft etc
Possible increase in
camper vans and
associated dog walking
Increase in commercial
and recreational activity
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
Potential of disturbance to seals feeding,
moving and resting. Removal of natural haul
out sites.
Birds
Increase in commercial
and recreational activity
Minor loss of foreshore
Marine
mammals
Increase in commercial
and recreational activity
Disturbance to seals feeding, moving and
resting
Disturbance to small number of feeding
birds like oystercatchers and curlew –
unlikely to be significant. Potential increase
in opportunist species – gulls and corvids.
More vessel movements – but impacts
unlikely to be significant
Greater
during
construction
period then
permanent
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)
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
Loss of natural haul out sites on reef.
Potential to adapt to new breakwater
structures
Common
Seal
Grey Seal
15
During
construction
period then
permanent
Permanent
Seals maybe attracted by potential for
additional feeding from fish scraps
Birds can adapt to increase levels of activity
and there are a range of other locations close
by with equivalent feeding opportunities
Larger marine mammals tend to be found
further offshore
Minor negative –
Slight adverse
impact on Annex
2 species
Minor negative –
Slight
adverse
impact on Annex 2
species
Neutral effect on
Annex 2 species
Neutral
Neutral
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:



7.0
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.
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.
18
7. Hazardous chemicals and materials shall be handled correctly to prevent
leaks and spills and stored securely out of reach of wildlife. Emergency
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 2010
http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Technical_Guidance_Series/EcIA_
Guidelines/Final_EcIA_Marine_01_Dec_2010.pdf
Accessed 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=147
accessed 30 June 2014
http://www.snh.gov.uk
accessed 30 June 2014
Contacts
Donnie MacDonald – Local Fisherman operating out of Staffin
Sandy Ogilvie – Staffin Bay Cruising and Fishing
Dougie Ross – SCT member
Alex 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