SSMEI Sound of MullAquaculture Workshop

30th October 2008

Present

Alex Adrian – The Crown Estate

Colin Wishart – Highland Council

Jane Dodd – Scottish Natural Heritage

Mark Steward – Argyll and Bute Council

Nick Turnbull – Mull Aquaculture and Fisheries Association

Sally Davies – Scottish SeaFarms

Sheena Warnock – Lighthouse Caledonia

Steve Barlow – Aquasky

Sarah Cunningham – Project Officer

Apologies

Ewan Gillespie – SEPA

Councillor Michael Foxley - Highland Council

Activity 1 – Sector Interactions

Before the meeting SC had collated comments received on the interactions matrix sent out summarising interactions between aquaculture and other sectors/interests in the Sound of Mull (SOM). The group discussed the comments made, whether the interactions identified were appropriate and relevant to the SOM and the Future Management Requirements that were suggested.

Then the group were asked to categorise the interactions in to one of 4 types:

  • Positive – Interest/sector has a positive effect on recreation and tourism
  • Neutral - Interest/sector has neither a positive or negative effect on recreation and tourism
  • Competitive – Interest/sector competing for the same resource (e.g. space, species) that is either managed or unmanaged
  • Incompatible - Interest/sector is not compatible with recreation and tourism and this is not manageable

The interactions presented in the table were replicated on large sheets of paper and pinned around the room. The group were asked to categorise each interaction into one of the 4 types by placing one relevant coloured dot against each interaction (one colour was assigned to each interaction type). A summary of the categorisation of interactions is given in Table 1.

A summary of the agreed interaction matrix is provided in Table 2 incorporating the categorisations. Where the group had not all categorised the interaction into the same category, the majority was used.

Activity 2 – Opportunities, Constraints and Mechanisms

Participants were asked to identify up to 3 opportunities and 3 constraints for aquaculture within the SOM, write these on post-sticks and add these to appropriately named sheets in the room.

They were also asked to identify up to 3 mechanisms that would allow these opportunities to be developed or constraints overcome.

These were collated and grouped into similar types and are given below:

Opportunities for Aquaculture in the SOM

Development of new and existing sites

  • New finfish and shellfish sites
  • Expansion in size of suitable existing sites where appropriate
  • Expansion of existing sites where conflict with other interests less likely
  • Scope for developers to identify opportunity

Finance

  • Finance to aid experimentation

Technology

  • Development of landscape friendly designs for fish farm feeding systems
  • Whilst limited opportunities for shellfish farm development currently this may change in future with different technology
  • Opportunity to utilise marine renewable energy

Marketing

  • Opportunity to market product from a beautiful and well managed area

Information

  • Better information/data on resource – hydrography, bathymetry

Communication/collaboration

  • Improved marine user communication/collaboration

Constraints for Aquaculturein the SOM

Modelling

  • SEPA model limitations (for dispersive sites)

Physical

  • Water quality
  • Water depth
  • Tidal flow
  • Conditions not that suitable for shellfish growing

Landscape

  • Landscape seascape constraints / possible (untested) restrictions landscape restrictions
  • Terrestrial landscape characteristics
  • Landscape and cultural heritage
  • SEPA consent restrictions – AUTODEPOMOD limitations

Other users/interests

  • Navigation
  • Ship and boating activity
  • Local residents concern to safeguard seaward views – there are relatively few inconspicuous niches for fish farms which are compatible with other interests.

Planning

  • Planning restrictions on sea and shore
  • Overly prescriptive planning
  • No aquaculture framework plan to guide future development

Infrastructure and access

  • Shore access to sites/potential sites
  • Shore infrastructure
  • High current speeds require exceptionally robust and expensive equipment

Information

  • Lack of information and data leading to precautionary principle

Mechanisms for Aquaculturein the SOM

Finance

The need for financial support/grant availability and assistance was felt to be a mechanism to assist the following

  • Investment in equipment (providing this is cost effective)
  • Funding to market products
  • Funding for improving coastal infrastructure / access projects e.g. slipways, piers
  • Funding for awareness raising projects e.g. tours
  • Funding to support testing of different methods of shellfish farming
  • Investment in equipment providing it is cost effective

Technology

  • Design competitions
  • Development of multi-functional installations e.g. aquaculture and renewable energy

Modelling

  • Further AUTODEPOMOD development
  • SEPA model developed to cope with more dispersive sites (expand finfish farms)

Identification of suitable areas

  • Data collection and management for resource identification
  • Identification of areas suitable for new or expanded development in plan
  • Identify locations that fulfil depth, tide, navigation and SEPA modelling requirements to allow new or bigger sites
  • Spatial plan for the SOM indicating areas of opportunity
  • Resource/constraint weighting

Planning and Policy

  • Ease of planning
  • Option to trial shellfish growing without planning consent
  • Policy development – encouraging
  • Recommendations from the SOM plan

Infrastructure

  • Infrastructure to allow shellfish sites to be exploited

Communication

  • Communication between marine users and aquaculture – PR

The group was then asked their views on the following questions and these were noted on flipcharts:

Should we identify areas to be developed or in need of safeguarding in relation to Aquaculturein the SOM?

  • Local authorities: it would be helpful for them to assist in promoting opportunities and providing guidance for applications and for developers
  • Scale: scale of area considered is important – within a large area that is mostly unsuitable there maybe small pockets that are e.g. Loch Fyne Plan aims to identify these. The SOM is small – if we were to assess the whole of the west coast it would come out as a suitable area
  • Constraint mapping and identification: e.g. Shetland SSMEI. For example, shipping channels are no-go. Can go versus constraints. Constraints do not necessarily mean no-go, can have negotiation and can be flexible
  • Opportunity mapping and identification: potential to identify opportunity areas that are physically suitable with lower levels of constraints compared to other areas.Map that identifies opportunities – areas where there are no constraints or there might be some hurdles to be overcome.
  • Debate as to whether we practically identify suitable opportunity areas:Bathymetry and hyrdrography for identifying location potential – hard to map resource as limited by hydrography information. In practice there is too much to consider so perhaps best to shown most constrained and least constrained areas
  • Developer scope and unknown variables: Need to leave scope for developers to assess and to address constraints as they see fit. Physical trialling may be required e.g. mussels (spat fall and growth rate), oysters (growth rate) to find out if site suitable and economical. Also technology changes e.g. Solway oysters – hard to account for this
  • Information provision: outline policy constraints, raise awareness of all issues to inform developer/decision maker

For development areas how much detail should be provided on the specifics of location and scale?

  • Level of prescription: not too precise but if don’t then emphasis still on individual applicationLevel of prescription – what level should we take/use from the landscape study? Varying degrees of sensitivity: least – most
  • Guidance document - value of plan as guidance – what maybe easier for developer
  • Accounting for business needs and economics of scale: how can we account for business needs – may say activity ok but how can the plan include what is economically viable. Even if scale identified is not economically viable should still be useful to put it in e.g. ‘Plan will support x scale of development’ – this does not necessarily preclude larger development
  • Inclusion and weighting of economics: Important to consider the contribution to economy where there is resource potential. Can we make its inclusion more quantitative e.g. weighting versus historic/natural features?Councillors/planners should account for economic case when deciding on applications
  • Balancing interests:As it is a local, community driven plan can we balance the interest as we see fit e.g. economic-social-natural-cultural values. Gap in presenting economic case and weighting it up against natural and cultural. Potential for an alternative plan type than other plans to test something different. Weighting of landscape – importance of landscape? Working group/local decision?
  • How are natural, landscape, cultural considerations currently considered?SNH make judgements on the contribution of features and designations to the national and local level e.g. maerl – consider local area of maerl and its contribution to LBAP. SOM not a National Scenic Area therefore not as important nationally for landscape

Activity 3 – Plan format and Contents

The group were provided with relevant documents prior to the meeting and on the day that outline a draft of the plan content and potential format options. They were shown a draft layout of the contents of general sections which could be in the final plan, e.g. background to SSMEI, marine spatial planning, Sound of Mull. They were also shown two options of plan format – sectoral based and zone based. The group were asked the following questions and their responses were noted on flipcharts.

What plan option or combination of approaches would be best for the Sound of Mull/Aquaculture?Are there any alternatives?

  • Overview of sectors and the use of zones to look at detail at more appropriate scale
  • Manageable size
  • Repetition may be better than cross-referencing
  • No of zones – should be fewer than Loch Fyne

If zones are preferred, how should they be defined?

  • Zones as means of dividing area in to manageable segments e.g. Loch Fyne

Contents of plan – do we need everything listed in documents? Should anything else be included?

  • Pre-application contacts and non-statutory consultees i.e. list of contacts who use the area - representatives/groups e.g. Shetland Plan
  • Conflicts with wildfish interests and how they are managed – restoration at Aros, AMA involvement

Sector / Interaction with aquaculture / interaction category
Positive / Neutral / Compet / Incompat
Inshore fisheries
Nephrops trawl, Scallop dredging, Creel, Diving / Loss of ground/resource when farm established or expanded and presence of important fishing grounds can aquaculture constrain development1,3,5 / 2 / 7
Potential impacts of salmon farming on water quality, seabed habitats and biodiversity1 / 5 / 3
Creel fishermen targeting areas around edge of farms1 / 8
Aquaculture
Finfish, Shellfish / Competition for sites between finfish and shellfish farmers5 / 1 / 6
Potential effects on the management and movement of diseases and parasites if farms sited too close3,5 / 2 / 5
Shipping
Cargo,Tankers,Ferries / Potential impacts from ship pollution, especially fuel and oil, ship grounding, introduction of pathogens and alien species via ballast water1,5 / 7 / 1
Potential for farms to cause navigational problems1 / 6 / 2
Infrastructure & Anchorages
Marinas/harbours, Piers/jetties/pontoons
Slipways, Moorings / Competition for space with moorings /anchorages1,3 / 8
Potential for sharing piers/jetties between recreational users and aquaculture companies to access sites5 / 8
Cables & Pipelines
Electricity & Telecoms / Development of farms constrained in locality of cables and pipelines3 / 5 / 3
Potential of new cable laying in proximity to stocked sites to cause disturbance5 / N.B. not classified as new interaction by group -
Project officer suggests ‘Competition’
Sector / Interaction with aquaculture / interaction category
Positive / Neutral / Compet / Incompat
Natural Environment
Intertidal,
Sea bed
Bird areas, Mobile species
Coastal habitats,
Landscape/seascape / Landscape/seascape: potential effects on landscape character, scenic quality and visual amenity and this can constrain development1,3 / 1 / 5 / 2
Benthic impacts: accumulation of solid wastes from finfish farms and mussel grading debris can accumulate on the seabed, with potential impacts on benthic habitats sensitive to smothering. Mussel grading debris can attract predatory species such as starfish3,5 / 6 / 2
Farmed salmon can affect wild salmonids and vica versa through the transfer of disease and parasites, and effects from escapes via interbreeding and competition3,5 / 4 / 4
Marine wildlife:
Finfish farm site operation can involve the use of ADDs to deter seals which have potential to disturb marine mammals5.
Shellfish sites can also interact with predators, e.g. eider ducks3,5 / 1 / 4 / 4
Introduction non-native species and pathogens can be introduced through the importation or translocation of shellfish stocks, although it is noted this is perhaps more likely from shipping and recreational users3,5 / 3 / 4
Noise pollution from activities associated with construction and operation3 / 6 / 2
Cultural Heritage
Coastal monuments & archaeology, Marine archaeology / Presence of coastal historic features, historic designations or shipwrecks can constrain development3,5 / 1 / 5 / 2
Water quality & Waste
Biological/bacterial/ chemical quality, Trade effluent, / Requirement for good water quality for finfish and shellfish, but particularly shellfish which requires excellent water quality. Designated growing/harvesting waters help drive improvements in water quality1,3,5 / 7
Sector / Interaction with aquaculture / interaction category
Positive / Neutral / Compet / Incompat
Water quality & Waste
Biological/bacterial/ chemical quality, Trade effluent,Sewage effluent, Litter / The release of nutrients, occasional medicines and antifoulants from finfish farms can affect water quality3 / 1 / 6
Marine litter and debris can clog equipment1,3 / 7
Potential for farm equipment/redundant equipment to be dislodged into the marine environment3 / 7 / 1
Recreation
Sailing, power boats, jet skiis, kayaking, sailing, sea angling, diving / Potential competition for sheltered waters with easy shore access1 / 2 / 5
Potential for collisions betweenvessels and farm structures/vessels 1 / 6 / 1
Potential for not all bottom equipment (moorings etc) to be removed when sites relinquished5 / 6 / 2
Discharge of waste from yachts/power boats in proximity to farms, especially shellfish farms can be detrimental1,5 / 6 / 1
Use of moorings/tying off to farm equipment around farms by yachts, angling boats (with and without permission)5 / 6
Presence of dive sites can constrain aquaculture development3,5 / 1 / 5 / 1
Tourism
Wildlife/Scenic Tours / Potential to link with tours e.g. visits to mussel/oyster/finfish farm such as done during Mull Food Festival5 / 7 / 1
Potential for both positive and negative views of tourists on development5 / 3 / 5
MOD
Diving, Submarine exercise areas / Submarine exercise areas can constrain development and may affect farms through noise, vibration3,5 / 8
Marine Renewable Energy / Potential competition for space1 / 3 / 5
Potential during construction/ operation/ decommissioning for changes to current flow, water quality & impacts to fish/shellfish health1 / 8
Potential for cooperation – technology development, siting on micro-renewables on aquaculture sites e.g. wind generators at Fishnish salmon farm site1,5 / 8

Table 2. Subgroup agreed interaction matrix with changes and Future Management Recommendations incorporated. Interaction categories are indicated by a coloured square: Positive Neutral Competition Incompatible . Where the group had not all categorised the interaction into the same category, the majority was used and where a majority decision was not evident (there were equal votes for two categories) both categorises are indicated.

Sector / Interaction with aquaculture / current management / future management recommendations
Inshore fisheries
Nephrops trawl, Scallopdredging, Creel, Diving / Loss of ground/resource when farm established or expanded and presence of important fishing grounds can aquaculture constrain development1,3,5 / Pre-application consultation between developer and fishing associations or Mull & Small Isles IFG when established. Mull Aquaculture and Fisheries Association – combines fishing and aquaculture and good knowledge in SOM of relevant people to contact regarding new developments/expansion.
Response to Local Authority on development consent /
  • Identify and define areas important for fishing and aquaculture so knowledge of these improved
  • There need not be conflict e.g. creelers use areas around farms and if it can be ascertained during early discussions what the issue is in terms of a farm location e.g. towing/turning the position or angle can be altered to accommodate this.

Potential impacts of salmon farming on water quality, seabed habitats and biodiversity1 / Planning consent (consultation with public & statutory consultees including SNH); SEPA CAR consent –impacts are regulated and controlled and finfish farms cannot release levels that degrade environment and breach EQS. Models predicting biomass and medicine levels allowable are highly precautionary /
  • Current measures sufficient

Creel fishermen targeting areas around edge of farms1 /
  • No measures required

Aquaculture
Finfish, Shellfish / Competition for sites between finfish and shellfish farmers5 / Does not need to be competition – potential to work together to trade or offer unviable or small finfish leases to shellfish. The Crown Estate encourage unused leases to be exchanged between companies where possible so no need to lose and then have to reapply. /
  • Not felt to be an issue in SOM - not much overlap competition

Sector / Interaction with aquaculture / current management / future management recommendations
Aquaculture
Finfish, Shellfish / Potential effects on the management and movement of diseases and parasites if farms sited too close3,5 / Minimum separation distances between finfish farms within same Area Management Agreement Group is not a problem or if it is the same operator.
Pre-application consultation with nearby farms andAMA for new development or expansions.
However, concern would be raised by existing finfish sites over parasite transfer from shellfish if the farm where to be sited within 500 to 800m and this would be raised through planning consultation.
Greater awareness of ISA and moving shellfish/fish, FRS inspect all batches of hatchery shelfish from everywhere but Cumbria. /
  • Current measures sufficient
  • Single operator per system ideal situation for each type of culture but use AMAs where this not achievable.
  • Shellfish hatchery required in Scotland to reduce transmission of disease, pathogens and non-natives