Strategic Environmental Assessment - The Orkney Native Wildlife Project - Environmental Report Consultation

NatureScot has prepared an Environmental Report (ER) and Operational Plan for the Orkney Native Wildlife Project. A Habitats Regulations Appraisal has also been prepared to inform the ER. Under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, we are evaluating effects of this project on the environment and invite comments from the public between 8th June 2020 to 20th July 2020.

Comments should be submitted to Debbie Skinner via email.

You can also read - Strategic Environmental Assessment 01502 - The Orkney Native Wildlife Project - Screening Determination

Orkney Native Wildlife Project - SEA consultation - SEA Environmental report

June 2020

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Summary and Objectives

This five year project aims to eradicate the stoat populations on Orkney Mainland, South Ronaldsay, Burray, Glimps Holm, Lamb Holm and Hunda and prevent the spread of stoats to the non-linked islands of the archipelago. The map of the Orkney mainland and linked isles can be found in appendix 1. Stoats are non-native to the Orkney Isle with the first confirmed sightings in 2010. Stoats have never been part of the ecosystem in Orkney and the ecological consequences of stoat introduction to Orkney are predicted to be devastating. The stoat will impact a whole array of species across the landscape, from hen harriers and short-eared owls nesting on the moors, voles, corncrake and wading birds breeding on farmland, seabirds breeding on cliffs and land, and twite nesting on coastal heath.

This eradication will be delivered by the Orkney Native Wildlife Project (ONWP) partnership, formed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Orkney Islands Council (OIC). This project is funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the EU LIFE in addition to financial contributions from the partners.

1.2 Policy Context

Requirement for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Section 5(3) (b) of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 triggers the need for SEA where likely significant effects on the interests of sites designated in terms of the EU Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (the Habitats Directive) have been identified as requiring assessment in terms of Article 6 or 7 of that Directive (an appropriate assessment).

The Habitats Regulations

Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) is the term used to describe the procedure required by regulation 48 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, (as amended) (The ‘Habitats Regulations’). These regulations transpose the Habitats Directive into Scottish law. HRA is a rigorous, precautionary procedure that examines the potential negative effects on Natura sites of a plan or project; and which, by the end of the procedure must allow the competent authority to come to a firm conclusion as to whether there are no adverse effects on the integrity of Natura sites. The HRA has been appended as Annex 1. Table 1 below details the related policy and regulatory framework which sets the context for the assessment.

Table 1: Related policies and plans
Related Policy and legislative context.	Summary description	Relevance to the project
Nature conservation law EC Habitats & Species Directive 1992	Ensures the conservation of a wide range of rare, threatened or endemic animal and plant species.	The project has the ability to affect the habitats and species within Orkney’s SACs. An HRA has been undertaken to determine if the project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of these SAC’s.
Nature conservation law EC Birds Directive 1992	Protects wild birds within the EU, including their eggs, nests and habitats.	The project has the ability to affect SPA birds. An HRA has been undertaken to determine if the project will have an adverse effect on the integrity the Orkney SPA’s.
Nature conservation law Habitats Regulations 1994	Implements Birds and Habitats Directives in the UK	Plans or proposals affecting any Natura site (SAC or SPA), would require a ‘Habitats Regulations Appraisal’ before proceeding. Some of these might require an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ before a decision is made about whether or not to proceed
Nature conservation law Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981	The protection of sites and species and the licensing of activities that might affect them.	Licences may be required to disturb Schedule 1 breeding birds.
Nature conservation law Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004	Duty on public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity; also protection for Sites of Special Scientific Interest and threatened species.	The project has the potential to affect Orkney SSSIs. SSSI consents will be required for potentially damaging operations.
Nature conservation law Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011	The act amends existing legislation relating to the protection of certain birds, species, habitats and activities, aiming to make law on wildlife and the natural environment more effective and proportionate.	Any feral/domestic cats caught in the traps will not be released into the wild.
Animal welfare law Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006	This law protects the welfare of all vertebrate animals kept on a temporary or permanent basis in Scotland.	The welfare of stoats and any bycatch must adhere to this legislation.
Cultural Heritage Passed to the Future (Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment) 2002	Scottish Government policy on the historic environment.	The project had potential to affect historic or archaeological sites through the compaction of soil when placing traps and through physical damage to historic features of interest during digging of soil for trap placement.
Cultural Heritage Environment Policy 1: The Historic Environment 2006	Sets out Scottish Government strategic policy for the historic environment. Provides a framework for more detailed strategic policies on the management of the historic environment	See above.
Other Related plans and Policies The 2020 challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity	Statutory role relating to the biodiversity duty in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act. Scotland’s contribution to meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity	The project (if successful) will contribute to safeguarding Orkney’s biodiversity.
Other Related plans and Policies The Orkney Local Biodiversity Action Plan 2018 - 2022	Measures to protect and enrich the biodiversity in the Orkney Isles.	See above.
Other Related plans and Policies RSPB’s Policy on the Killing or Taking of Vertebrates (section 6.1.4)	Guiding policy of RSPB (lead partners) in the humane trapping of vertebrates.	The project conservation dogs cannot be used to flush out target species.

SEA METHODOLOGY

2.1 Topics within the scope of assessment

Following the feedback received from the Consultation Authorities (CAs), the scope of environmental topics to be included in the assessment remains the same. These are detailed in appendix 2.

2.2 Assessment Approach

An environmental topics based approach to the assessment will be undertaken with a focus on the likely significant effects of the project on the key environmental objectives both during and following the completion of the project. Within the SEA topics scoped in, the key environmental SEA receptors include:

Biodiversity, flora, fauna, soils
SAC habitats :

Blanket bog
Dry Heath
Base rich fen
Vegetated sea cliff
Birds
Mammals

Population and Human health

population and human health

Cultural heritage

cultural heritage including archaeology

Given the requirements of the Habitats Directive, the focus of the SEA will be on the effects on biodiversity issues. For population and human health and cultural heritage the assessment will extend out with protected areas to ensure these aspects are considered in full.

The SEA assessment particularly for biodiversity, flora and fauna focusses on protected areas and focuses on the nationally and internationally important designations which have connectivity with the project. A Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) has been undertaken for all European protected areas which have the potential to be affected by this project. It should be noted this HRA has considered virtually all Natura sites in the vicinity of Orkney^{^[1]} despite the ONWP presently being limited to Mainland, Burray and South Ronaldsay. This is to ensure that if the ONWP – using its existing methodology - needs to expand to other Orkney Islands during its lifetime - this HRA has ensured that there will be no adverse effect on the site integrity (AESI) of any Natura site through the expansion of the project. It should also be noted that although the HRA will have been completed, the HRA will need to be revisited prior to any expansion/ alteration of the Operational Plan, to ensure it remains fit for purpose; i.e. that by using any more up to date information there remains no AESI despite the passage of time, and consent can be given.

Each receptor is detailed in a section which considers:

A summary of how the eradication project affects the receptor both during and following the project completion. (i.e. broad scale)
A summary of positive and negative effects of the eradication project on receptor both during and following the completion of the project. (i.e. broad scale)
The distribution of receptor within the project area.
An assessment of likely effects on important receptors within the project eradication area split into positive and negative (with link to mitigation / monitoring where appropriate).

Chapter 5 considers the 2 policy alternatives below:

Long term control of stoats rather than eradication
No control of stoats

Chapter 6 looks at opportunities to monitor the environmental effects arising from the Eradication of stoats in Orkney.

2.3 SEA Objectives

The following SEA objectives will form the basis against which the nature of the environmental effects on the receptors identified above will be considered:

Biodiversity, flora and fauna – to conserve and enhance the integrity of ecosystems on the Orkney Isles.
Population and human health – to protect human health
Cultural heritage including archaeology – to conserve and enhance the historic environment in the Orkney Isles.

2.4 Limitations to the Assessment

The SEA assessment particularly for biodiversity, flora and fauna and cultural heritage focusses on designated sites and focuses on the nationally and internationally important designations in the project area, consistent with the approach of assessment of significant environmental effects. However, the wider importance of freshwater and riparian habitats should be recognised and that not all species of conservation interest are restricted to designated sites. For species and habitats of conservation interest in the wider countryside it is recognised that there will be an ongoing need to assess data derived from general surveillance and monitoring activities that are already in place, and intervene with management if and when necessary. This will be informed by a more strategic approach to management being developed in due course.

The necessarily precautionary nature of HRA for European sites should be noted throughout the assessment and this rigorous approach needs to be viewed in this context.

As a result of the precautionary approach of the HRA and the aim of keeping the reporting succinct, many of the positive effects may get lost on reading because of their generic and long-term nature. Positive effects have been identified in each of the assessment sections, but mainly in terms of a general overview.

The HRA raises limitations in respect of validity of the timescale of the HRA assessment beyond 15 years. In particular, it states that “There should be a commitment to conduct an updated HRA after ten to twelve years, or at the point any new trapping site or other reinforcement is considered (whichever comes first). This should result in a new iteration of the HRA to take into account all relevant data acquired since the date of this HRA. Accordingly, this will require a refresh of the SEA within in a similar timescale.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT AREA

3.1 Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna

In order to be able to understand the significant environmental effects of the ONWP it is necessary to set out some basic information about the current environment in Orkney relative to the issues.

The Orkney mainland and surrounding Orkney isles contain significant and rich biodiversity interest, reflected in the high proportion of internationally and nationally important designations.

In Orkney there are thirteen SPAs, five SACs and one Ramsar site. Seven SPAs in Orkney include marine areas that are important to breeding seabirds for essential resting and maintenance activities. Work is ongoing throughout the UK to identify a suite of wholly marine SPAs, and the following areas within Orkney waters are currently identified as proposed SPAs:

North Orkney
Scapa Flow
Pentland Firth

A SEA consultation has proposed that the North Orkney and Scapa Flow sites should be combined to form the Orkney Inshore Waters SPA. Decisions on this new classification are currently pending by Scottish Ministers. Nationally protected sites include the Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) of which there are 36. The figures in appendices 3 and 4 show the distribution of protected areas across Orkney.

Stoats are not native to the Orkney archipelago where they are a recent introduction. First reports of stoats on Orkney Mainland were received in 2010, and the population has since expanded rapidly. Appendix 5 shows the recorded sightings of stoats on Orkney Mainland, South Ronaldsay, Burray, Glimps Holm, Lamb Holm and Hunda between 2010- 2018.

The lack of native mammalian predators on Orkney means that populations of wildlife, especially ground nesting birds, have flourished and distinct farming practices, such as free-range poultry rearing, have developed. But it also makes Orkney’s native wildlife very vulnerable to the introduction of non-native predators.

Harper (2017) ^{^[2]} speculated that stoats in Orkney might already be at carrying capacity, and that it was highly likely that they would be dispersing to the non-linked islands of the group, most of which are within stoats’ swimming distance from each other.

There are currently no protected areas on Orkney which are in unfavourable condition as a result of the stoat introduction. An SNH commissioned report, “Stoat (Mustela ermine) on the Orkney Islands – Assessing the risks to native species”³ has highlighted that stoats could have a serious detrimental effect on the endemic Orkney vole, (Microtus arvalis orcadensis), and consequently on the populations of Hen harrier, (Circus cyaneus), and Short-eared owl, (Asio flammeus) who rely on the vole as their main prey.

These two species of bird have sites of international importance for them in Orkney, and the appearance of stoats on Orkney is likely to lead to a significant deterioration in the condition of the species. This is not only through predation on the vole, but also through direct predation on the chicks and eggs of these birds. The opportunistic predation habits also means that other species of ground nesting birds such as terns, skua, and waders will occur. The predatory modes of stoats further indicates that internationally important seabird colonies of species such as guillemots, kittiwakes and puffins around Orkney are at risk from predation, especially as stoats are very mobile, and there are no top predators in Orkney to impact, in turn, upon the stoat population as their numbers increase.

3.2 Population and Human Health

In NHS Scotland’s 2017-2018 public health report for the Orkney Islands the population of Orkney was estimated to be 22,000 in 2017, an increase of under 0.7% from 2016. The trend, within Orkney as elsewhere in the Scotland, is currently towards an ageing population with an estimated 23.1% of the Orkney population over the age of 65 (18.7% Scotland), and 16.1% under 16 (16.9% Scotland). Life expectancy at birth in Orkney is greater for females (82.7 years) than males (80.3 years).

3.3 Cultural Heritage

Orkney is internationally renowned for its historic buildings and archaeological remain, with the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site, 373 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 626 listed buildings and 3 Gardens and Designed Landscapes.

3.2 Existing Environmental Issues Relevant to the Project

The Orkney vole is under serious threat from predation from stoats. If stoats continue to thrive on Orkney then there is real risk that Orkney voles could become extinct. This in turn would have a knock on effect on other vole predators such as hen harrier and short-eared owl.

This environmental issue is the primary reason for implementing the project.

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

4.1 Overview of Stoat Ecology

The stoat is a small carnivorous mammal native to the UK mainland and Ireland. They are not native to Orkney and were first sighted on the mainland in 2010.

Stoats can be found in both urban and rural environments where there is good ground vegetation cover. There main prey are rabbit and voles however stoat will eat gamebirds, waders, chicks and eggs. They can live up to around 5 years, but usually don’t survive beyond 1-2 years old.

Stoats receive no legal protection in the UK and many farmer and gamekeepers will control them via trapping. Stoats are listed as a species of least conservation concern on the IUCN red list category.

4.2 Biodiversity

The main and most obvious impact on Natura sites is by the activities of the people involved in field work. This includes people accessing Natura sites to site traps by foot but also by vehicle, especially if over sensitive qualifying habits, or near birds that are sensitive to disturbance due to their sensitivity / time of year / or workers’ proximity to roosting or breeding areas or other important locations. Checking traps over the lifetime of the project will produce similar types of impacts, though perhaps less intense and longer-lasting.

4.2.1 The Eradication of Stoats and Blanket Bog

Loch of Isbister SAC is located within the project area and is designated for its blanket bog habitat.

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the blanket bog habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. The intensity of the work means that staff visits to deal with the traps will be occasional, but the habitat is sensitive to trampling especially by vehicles. The habitat will be able to withstand, and not be adversely affected by the very small amount of additional foot-trampling that will occur, but no vehicles should be used on the blanket bog.

Mitigation

Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding trap-setting on this habitat, and avoid use of all motorised vehicles on this habitat or around within 50m from margins, unless on existing tracks

4.2.2 The Eradication of Stoats and Dry Heath

Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC is located within the project area and is designated for its dry heath habitat in addition to base-rich fens and vegetated sea cliffs.

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the dry heath habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. However the intensity of the work means that staff visits to deal with the traps will only be occasional, and the habitat will be able to withstand the very small amount of additional trampling that will occur. Use of vehicles such as ATVs should be restricted to existing tracks.

Mitigation

Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding high value habitat areas and avoid use of motorised vehicles except on existing tracks.

4.2.3 The Eradication of Stoats and Base Rich Fen

Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC is located within the project area and is designated for its base-rich fen in addition to other qualifying habitats.

Mitigation

Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding trap-setting on this habitat, and avoid use of all motorised vehicles on this habitat or within 50m of margins, unless on existing tracks.

4.2.4 The Eradication Project and Vegetated Sea Cliffs

Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC is designated for its vegetated sea cliff feature.

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the vegetated sea cliff feature from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. However the nature of the habitat (most growing on inaccessible cliffs) means that most of this habitat will be outside the areas that are accessible by ONWP staff. The remaining small areas of accessible habitat at the tops of cliffs means only a very small proportion of the qualifying habitat might ever be used by trappers to set traps. This along with the intensity of the work whereby staff visits to the traps will be occasional (roughly once every three weeks during knockdown phase), means the qualifying habitat will be able to withstand the very small amount of additional foot trampling that will occur. Use of vehicles such as ATVs should be restricted to existing tracks.

Mitigation

Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding all vehicle movements on the habitat unless on existing tracks.

4.2.5. The Eradication of Stoats and Birds

It is considered that the project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks at SPA nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, to avoid a major negative impact to the SPA population.

The project is also required to safeguard the native Orkney vole from stoat predation. The Orkney vole is an important prey species for birds such as hen harrier and short eared owl. Once the eradication of stoats is complete, it is considered that this will have a positive impact on both SPA bird species and non-SPA bird species.

There is however potential for the project to cause short-term negative impacts on SPA birds. The main and most obvious impact on SPAs is by the activities of the people involved in eradication and monitoring field work. This includes the initial phase of people accessing Natura sites to site and pre-bait traps by foot but also (rarely) by vehicle, especially if over sensitive qualifying habits, or near birds that are sensitive to disturbance due to their sensitivity / time of year / or workers’ proximity to roosting or breeding areas or other important locations. Checking the traps over the lifetime of the project, as well as cleaning, and maintaining traps will produce similar types of impacts, though perhaps less intense but longer-lasting.

There are thirteen SPAs on Orkney which are designated for birds. Please refer to table 2 below. Out of the thirteen, the following SPAs are located within the project area and therefore may be impacted:

Mawick Head SPA
Orkney Mainland Moors SPA
Scapa Flow proposed SPA (pSPA)
North Orkney pSPA

Switha SPA is outwith the project area however the qualifying feature (non-breeding Barnacle goose) may use habitat within the mainland and linked isles and therefore could potentially be disturbed.

Other SPAs have been considered within the HRA undertaken for this project in the event that the project area may have to expand in the future.

Overall it is considered the project is necessary to for the conservation of the SPA birds.

Table 2: Assessment of project on birds and mitigation
Natura Site	Qualifying Feature	Potential Negative Impact	Mitigation
Marwick Head SPA	Seabird assemblage	The potential negative effect of the project is significant disturbance to birds from trappers and volunteer. This would mainly occur during the initial setting up of the traps, possibly including the use of vehicles to access areas near to nest sites to distribute traps. After the initial set-up phase trappers will also need to check traps on a regular though infrequent basis for the lifetime of the project. However, traps will not be located on, or at the edge of cliffs so there will be no negative impacts to the cliff-nesting species	The project will need to avoid setting traps within specific distance of nesting areas for the ground nesting species during their breeding seasons. Access routes to other traps will also actively avoid known locations of ground nesting birds during the breeding season. This will minimise disturbance to less-than-significant levels for those species. The ONWP must ensure that the operational methodologies minimise disturbance to the qualifying interests, particularly in places and at times when disturbance would have increased impacts. This will be optimised by ensuring the ONWP keeps up to date on breeding bird and colony locations. This means a protocol should be established whereby local RSPB staff and volunteers keep the ONWP up to date on colony locations. ONWP should also use sources such as the JNCC seabird colony database. Particularly important in this regard are the tern species and other ground-nesting smaller gull species. This protocol should be set up with clear responsibilities and mechanisms in place so that ONWP can avoid significantly disturbing the qualifying species in line with the site’s conservation objective. Despite the levels of minimised disturbance from people checking traps in areas near to the terns, the consequences of this degree of disturbance are not as serious a threat to the qualifying species as stoats are, if they are allowed to remain.
-	Guillemot	As guillemots are a cliff nesting species then no negative impacts are expected during the trapping phase as traps will be locate away from cliffs.	N/A
-	Kittiwake	As kittiwake are a cliff nesting species then no negative impacts are expected during the trapping phase as traps will be locate away from cliffs	N/A
North Orkney proposed SPA	Red throated diver (breeding)	These birds are ground nesting and highly sensitive to disturbance. Potential disturbance during breeding season is possible due to trap setting.	RTDs are ground nesting birds, and the rationale is the same for why the 1st test is met for this qualifier as it is for the seabird assemblage. RTDs are highly sensitive species so ONWP staff will need to avoid setting, checking etc. traps within 750m of these birds’ nests within the breeding season (April 1^st to September 15^th inclusive) in locations where ONWP staff could be seen by RTDs from the body of water including shoreline they use. Where ONWP staff can easily get closer without a direct line of sight to the loch/ lochan the RTDs are based upon for their breeding (e.g. due to topography), they can place traps (and maintain them etc.) closer to the water body, up to an absolute minimum distance of 100m from the shore. However, the actual distance within which it can be ensured that disturbance risk is minimised will be dependent on specific circumstances. In all instances where traps are operated within 750m of a RTD nest, great care should be taken when moving towards and away from the loch/lochan and when working with traps to move slowly, keep hidden at all times and remain vigilant for evidence of any RTD present having seen the trap setter/operator (this includes behaviour such as alertness and staring in the direction of the worker). In such circumstances ONWP staff should immediately but carefully move away from the loch/lochan until more normal behaviour is seen to be exhibited by the RTDs. In addition, access routes to other traps will also need to avoid known locations of RTD nests during the breeding season such that the breeding birds are not significantly disturbed. Again any observation of alertness from RTDs should mean that the disturbance creating the behaviour ceases This will minimise disturbance to the RTDs As with other mitigation measures such as outlined for Short eared owls and Hen harriers, ONWP staff should ensure they have as much prior information as possible about RTD breeding locations (whole lochans/small lochs or sites around larger lochs) prior to working with traps. Using historical or up to date data from RSPB and SNH staff. This will help focus mitigation in places, both where it is, and is not, needed.
-	Eider (non – breeding)	The non-breeding eiders spend most of their time out on water therefore potential disturbance is unlikely.	N/A
-	Great northern diver (nonbreeding)	The non-breeding Great Northern divers spend most of their time out on water therefore potential disturbance is unlikely.	N/A
-	Long-tailed duck (non breeding)	The non-breeding Long-tailed duck spend most of their time out on water therefore potential disturbance is unlikely.	N/A
-	Red-breasted merganser (non –breeding)	The non-breeding Red-breasted merganser spend most of their time out on water therefore potential disturbance is unlikely.	N/A
-	Shag (nonbreeding)	The non-breeding shag spend most of their time out on water therefore potential disturbance is unlikely.	N/A
-	Slavonian grebe (non-breeding)	The non-breeding Slavonian grebe spend most of their time out on water therefore potential disturbance is unlikely.	N/A
-	Velvet scoter (non-breeding)	Velvet scoters use this pSPA outside of the breeding season and spend the vast majority of their time on the water. They are therefore not at significant risk from stoats, which mean the project is not aimed at their conservation	N/A
Orkney Mainland Moors SPA	Hen harrier (breeding)	Hen harriers are sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season therefore could potentially be disturbed when setting and checking the traps.	These birds can be sensitive to disturbance during the nesting/breeding season, and measures to mitigate this impact are necessary to reduce it as far as possible. Most of the conservation objectives for this qualifier would be negatively impacted if stoats remain on Orkney. Most clearly, "Population of the species as a viable component of the site", "Distribution of the species within site" and "Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species". Stoats would seriously reduce indigenous vole populations upon which the hen harrier and short-eared owl heavily depend as a food source. This loss of prey would have a very serious direct effect on the populations of these two bird species in Orkney. They are likely to also predate on the chicks and eggs of Hen harriers. The most probable negative effect of the ONWP is significant disturbance to nesting and breeding harriers and owls from trappers and volunteers. This would mainly occur during the initial setting up of the traps, which will happen across all of Mainland, Burray and South Ronaldsay over a period of time, probably including the use of vehicles to access areas with a cargo of traps to distribute. After the initial set-up phase trappers will also need to check traps on a regular basis. . Regarding Hen harrier, the breeding season dates are March 15^th to August 15^th inclusive. Therefore, trap set-up must take place outside of these dates to avoid significant disturbance. However, if traps are found to be within 500m of nests once the birds begin to breed they should be removed and re-sited by trappers or volunteers asunobtrusively as possible, outwith 500m of any HH or SEO nest in order to avoid significant disturbance to the birds. The project must ensure that the operational methodologies/ protocols minimise disturbance to the qualifying interests, particularly in places and at times when disturbance would have increased impacts. The ONWP must ensure that the operational methodologies minimise disturbance to these qualifying interests, particularly in places and at times when disturbance would have increased impacts. This will be optimised by ensuring the ONWP keeps up to date on breeding bird locations. This means a protocol should be established whereby local RSPB staff and volunteers keep the ONWP up to date on any known HH nest locations including if possible where they are viable or if they have been abandoned. This protocol should be set up with clear responsibilities and mechanisms in place so that ONWP can keep up to date with active nests in order to avoid significantly disturbing the qualifying species in line with the site’s conservation objective. Despite the levels of minimised disturbance from people checking/maintaining etc. traps in areas (both within and outside the SPAs which the qualifiers use for hunting) the consequences of this minimised degree of disturbance are not as serious a threat to the qualifying species as the loss of the Orkney vole could be, if stoats are allowed to remain.
-	Red-throated diver	Breeding red throated diver as sensitive to disturbance and therefore may be disturbed during the setting and checking of the traps.	ONWP staff will need to avoid setting, checking etc. traps within 750m of these birds’ nests within the breeding season (April 1^st to September 15^th inclusive) in locations where ONWP staff could be seen by RTDs from the body of water including shoreline they use. Where ONWP staff can easily get closer without a direct line of sight to the loch/ lochan the RTDs are based upon for their breeding (e.g. due to topography), they can place traps (and maintain them etc.) closer to the water body, up to an absolute minimum distance of 100m from the shore. However, the actual distance within which it can be ensured that disturbance risk is minimised will be dependent on specific circumstances. In all instances where traps are operated within 750m of a RTD nest, great care should be taken when moving towards and away from the loch/lochan and when working with traps to move slowly, keep hidden at all times and remain vigilant for evidence of any RTD present having seen the trap setter/operator (this includes behaviour such as alertness and staring in the direction of the worker). In such circumstances ONWP staff should immediately but carefully move away from the loch/lochan until more normal behaviour is seen to be exhibited by the RTDs. These birds are very likely the same ones that use North Orkney pSPA for feeding.
-	Short-eared owl (breeding)	Short-eared owl are sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season. Trap setting and checking may cause disturbance.	The breeding dates to avoid trap setting within 500m of nests are March 1st to August 15th inclusive. Therefore trap set-up must take place outside of these dates to avoid significant disturbance. In addition, during the lifetime of the project, traps should be removed and re-sited by trappers or volunteers if they are located within 500m of nests: as unobtrusively as possible and out with 500m of any SEO or HH nest, to ensure they avoid significant disturbance. The ONWP must ensure that the operational methodologies minimise disturbance to these qualifying interests, particularly in places and at times when disturbance would have increased impacts. This will be optimised by ensuring the ONWP keeps up to date on breeding bird locations. This means a protocol should be established whereby local RSPB staff and volunteers keep the ONWP up to date on any known SEO nest locations including if possible where they are viable or if they have been abandoned. This protocol should be set up with clear responsibilities and mechanisms in place so that ONWP can keep up to date with active nests in order to avoid significantly disturbing the qualifying species in line with the site’s conservation objective.
-	Hen harrier (non-breeding)	Hen harrier can be sensitive to disturbance whilst roosting.	These roost sites are largely in deep heather in Orkney which means that traps will generally not be located there. However, if traps are to be set near known roost sites this must take place outside the dates these roost sites are used; or, if carried out during the dates of usage by the harriers, trap activities should occur during daylight hours (avoiding an hour after sunrise and an hour before sunset) to avoid significant disturbance to the birds. During the lifetime of the ONWP physical checking, cleaning rebaiting etc. of these traps, should be done under the same constraints as for trap-setting. The other potential issue is the accessing of traps elsewhere on the Moors disturbing Hen harrier roosts as peoples/ vehicles pass to and from the traps. To avoid this disturbance the ONWP will need to ensure routes are located and used in such a way to avoid disturbance to known Hen harrier roost sites. This will minimise disturbance to less-than-significant levels for the species. To do this a protocol should be established by ONWP whereby local RSPB staff and volunteers keep the ONWP up to date on known HH roost locations. This protocol should be set up with clear responsibilities and mechanisms in place so that ONWP can keep up to date with roosts in order to avoid significantly disturbing the qualifying species in line with the site’s conservation objective.
Scapa Flow proposed SPA	Red-throated diver (breeding)	Sensitive to disturbance during breeding season.	The Red-throated divers that use this marine pSPA are also very likely to be qualifiers of Hoy SPA, or lesslikely Orkney Mainland Moors SPA, and use these pSPA waters to feed in. Therefore impacts to the qualifiers of this pSPA from the ONWP will only occur outside its boundaries, i.e. at the terrestrial SPAs where the birds nest and breed. See RTD entries under Orkney Mainland Moors SPA to see mitigation for these birds when at their breeding sites.
Switha SPA	Greenland Barnacle Goose (non-breeding)	Geese roosting outwith the SPA on South Ronaldsay could be disturbed during setting and checking of the traps.	No mitigation is required. It is considered that any disturbance outwith the SPA will be minimal due to the nature and infrequency of the trapping work.

4.2.6 The eradication of stoats and mammals

By-catch is unfortunately likely to include some Orkney voles and other mammals such rats and other rodents. There should be a very limited number of by-catches during the project as entrance to the traps will be restricted by baffles to allow only stoats or smaller animals to enter any tunnel used.

Following the completion of the eradication project Orkney vole numbers will recover since they will no longer be subject to predation from stoats. Having a healthy population of Orkney voles also means that the Orkney populations of hen harrier and short-eared owl will benefit since the voles are an important prey species.

Mitigation

Experience from the Hebridean Mink Project (HMP) has shown that the use of specific predator anal gland lure (including both commercially available and ‘home made’ varieties) will help to reduce the incidence of these non-target kills, and perhaps more importantly maintain the traps as available for the capture of stoats. Some vole kills will occur and will need to be tolerated, but they are unlikely to have a significant impact on the population and will certainly be fewer than the number of voles killed by the stoats the project removes. If it is found that certain traps, or trap areas, are yielding a particularly high catch rate of non-target species then adaptive management will allow for trapping in these areas to be reduced, so that the traps can be set in other areas where the balance of stoat to non-target captures is more favourable. A review of all bycatch will be monitored by the trapping team throughout the project and as part of 6-monthly adaptive management reviews

4.3 The Eradication of Stoats and Population and Human Health

This section considers the physical and mental health implications of the project. Stoats themselves do not pose a risk to human health however their carcass disposal (including bycatch disposal) could potentially affect human health. There is also a potential for the project to impact on the public’s mental health as a result of the potential emotional distress people may experience when thinking about the eradication of stoats.

Physical Health

It is proposed that carcasses would be disposed at the Chinglebraes waste facility on Orkney. The waste would go into their clinical waste container and be disposed of through official channels.

SEPA also allows burial of small numbers of rodent carcasses (no more than 10) without the need for a licence or exemption, provided it is done without delay and meets the following requirements:

Carcasses must not be buried:

within 250m of any drinking water supply; or
50m from any watercourse; or
10m from any field drain

Carcasses must be buried:

no less than 1m in depth
in dry soil/ground only
in sites where there is at least 1m of subsoil at the bottom of the pit.

Mitigation

It considered that mitigation in addition to the above measures for the burial of carcasses is not required.

Mental Health

A public consultation for the project has been held and no significant opposition was raised.

The majority of the public understand the reasoning behind the project and are supportive. Mental health is therefore not concern a cause for concern

4.4 The Eradication of Stoats and Cultural Heritage

Given the high number sites of cultural significance across Orkney there is potential during the trap setting phase to disturb soil/ground near recognised areas of cultural heritage.

Following the eradication of stoats there is not expected to be any impact on cultural heritage therefore no further mitigation in addition to that outlined below is required.

Mitigation

Access routes to and around sensitive sites will be agreed in discussion with Historic Environment Scotland and local site managers.

The digging of soil to the depth of >100 mm will not be done in the vicinity of archaeological features or any heritage sites. Care will be taken when operating in the vicinity of any such site, and as far as is operationally feasible, traps will not be placed adjacent to scheduled monuments.

ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives to the project have been considered. The only two possible alternatives are thought to be:

Long term control of stoats rather than eradication
No control of stoats

1. Long-term control of stoats

The long- term control of stoats is not economically or practically feasible. It would require sustained resources and cooperation with numerous stakeholders for the foreseeable future which is not considered to be practical. There would also be a high risk of stoats spreading to the stoat free islands.

The environmental benefits to long-term control would also be less significant than total eradication as a reduced number of stoats would still continue to put pressure on the Orkney vole population.

2. No control of stoats

If stoats are not subject to control then it is highly likely that they will continue to spread throughout the Orkney Isles, including to the currently stoat free islands.

This increase in numbers over a larger area would have a serious impact on Orkney’s native wildlife and could lead to the extinction of the Orkney vole which in turn would have serious impacts on their native predators such as hen harriers and short-eared owl.

It is therefore considered that the above alternatives can not effectively deliver the aims and objectives of the project.

MONITORING

This eradication operation will be supported by a monitoring programme, which will collect data on stoat abundance using tracking tunnels and motion-triggered trail cameras operated by citizen scientists and volunteers. Orkney’s native wildlife will also be monitored by volunteer citizen scientists, and seasonal research assistants will collect wader and hen harrier productivity data to gather evidence on the conservation impact of the stoat removal in Orkney.

CONSULTATION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

The 6 week consultation period on this Environmental Report will run from Monday 8^th June until Monday 20th July 2020. Due to the current restrictions as a result of Covid-19 the documents are not available to view in hard copy.

Responses to the consultation should be sent to [email protected]

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CA	Consultation Authorities
EU	European Union
HES	Historic Environment Scotland
HH	Hen Harrier
NHS	National Health Service
OIC	Orkney Islands Council
ONWP	Orkney Native Wildlife Project
pSPA	proposed Special Protection Area
RTD	Red-throated diver
RSPB	Royal Society for the protection of Birds
SAC	Special Area of Conservation

SEO	Short-eared owl
SEA	Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEPA	Scottish Environment Protection Agency
SNH	Scottish Natural Heritage
SPA	Special Protection Area
SSSI	Site of Special Scientific Interest

Full description provided next — Appendix 1 - Map of Project Area

Click for a full description

The project area covers Orkney mainland and the linked isles of South Ronaldsay, Burray, Glimps Holm, Lamb Holm and Hunda.

Appendix 2 - Environmental topics to be scoped in and out of the assessment process
SEA topic	Scoped in or out	Reasons
Biodiversity, flora and fauna	In	Stoats predate on many species of native wildlife on Orkney. The eradication of stoats should therefore have positive benefits to Orkney’s wildlife. During the operation phase of the project there is potential for disturbance, damage and death to some of the wildlife on Orkney. There is also potential for habitats to be temporally damaged when installing and checking the traps.
Population and Human Health	In	Bio-hazardous animal waste will be a by-product of the project. This could potentially affect human health if not disposed of correctly.
Soils and geomorphology	out	No significant impacts to soils or geomorphology are anticipated.
Water quality, resource and ecological status	out	No significant impacts to water quality are anticipated.
Air	out	The project is unlikely to result in any significant changes to atmospheric emissions or air quality.
Climatic factors	out	The project’s carbon footprint is considered to be minimal therefore not considered significant.
Landscape	out	There are not any landscape impacts anticipated.
Cultural heritage	in	There are a number of sites of historic value within the project area. The placement of traps could potentially have an adverse impact on these.

[1] Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA was excluded due to its distance from the project and the inability of stoats to swim to those islands.

[2] Harper, G. 2017a. The feasibility of eradicating stoats from the Orkney Islands. Unpublished report, RSPB Scotland, 35 pp.

[3] Fraser, E.J., Lambin, X., McDonald, R.A. & Redpath, S.M. 2015. Stoat (Mustela erminea) on the Orkney Islands – assessing risks to native species. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 871.

Orkney Native Wildlife Project - SEA consultation - Operational plan

1. Background to the Habitats Regulations Appraisal

1.1. The Orkney Native Wildlife Project (ONWP) is a five year project run by a Partnership (SNH, RSPB Scotland and Orkney Islands Council). It has the primary aim of protecting vulnerable native Orcadian wildlife from the recently arrived stoat (Mustela erminea) from the mainland UK. Trapping efforts have already been made, but the population of stoats has significantly increased and there are substantial concerns, highlighted in SNH Commissioned Report No. 871 that this non-native predator could have a serious detrimental effect on the endemic Orkney vole, (Microtus arvalis orcadensis), and consequently on the populations of Hen harrier, (Circus cyaneus), and Short-eared owl, (Asio flammeus) who rely on the vole as their main prey.

1.2. These two species of bird have sites of international importance for them in Orkney, and the appearance of stoats on Orkney is likely to lead to a “significant deterioration in the condition of the species”^{^[1]}. This is not only through predation on the vole, but also through direct predation on the chicks and eggs of these birds. The opportunistic predation habits also means that other species of ground nesting birds such as terns, skua, and waders will occur. The predatory modes of stoats further indicates that internationally important seabird colonies of species such as guillemots, kittiwakes and puffins around Orkney are at risk from predation, especially as stoats are very mobile, and there are no top predators in Orkney to impact, in turn, upon the stoat population as their numbers increase.

1.3. The choice of methods employed for the eradication is based on the best understanding of the distribution and likely maximum density of stoats. To achieve eradication: animals must be removed at a rate faster than they can reproduce; all of the animals within the population must be targeted; and there should be no recolonisation. Following the results of a pre-eradication trapping trial, traps will be deployed at an approximate density of 12 traps per square kilometre in favourable habitat and along linear features, but it is not anticipated to put any traps in improved agricultural land. This will be reviewed through a process of adaptive management as the work proceeds (see Section 3 for more on the methodology).

2. Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA)

2.1. Because Natura sites concern Europe’s most valuable and endangered habitat types and species, it is only logical that the procedures for approving plans and projects that might affect them are sufficiently rigorous to avoid undermining the overall objectives of the birds and Habitats Directives – that of safeguarding Europe’s most vulnerable wildlife and nature^{^[2]}.

2.2. Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) is the term used to describe the procedure required by regulation 48 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, (as amended) (The ‘Habitats Regulations’). These regulations transpose the Habitats Directive into Scottish law. Article 6(3) of the Directive (and regulation 48 of the Regulations) requires that any plan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura site, but which would be likely to have a significant effect on such a site, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be the subject of an appropriate assessment of its impacts, in view of the site’s conservation objectives. This equates in practice to three tests (Figure 1). HRA is a rigorous, precautionary procedure that examines the potential negative effects on Natura sites resulting from a plan or project, and is designed – with the precautionary principle at its core - to ensure the protection of Natura sites against plans and projects that may harm their integrity.

2.3. Therefore any plan or project to protect Orcadian native wildlife should be subject to a HRA, and the competent authority (in this case Scottish Natural Heritage) may only agree to the plan or project after having concluded that it will not adversely affect the integrity of any Natura sites^{^[3]}.

2.4. The first HRA test to determine if a plan or project is directly connected with or necessary to the nature conservation management of a Natura site is a strict one. The consideration at this stage must extend to all qualifying interests of all potentially affected Natura sites.

3. ONWP methodology and HRA

3.1. The ONWP is a five year project that will operate on Mainland Orkney, Burray and South Ronaldsay as these are the islands where stoats have established. An adaptive methodology for the ONWP has been developed in consultation with the project Technical Advisory Group and is detailed in the Operational Plan.

3.2. Trapping will commence first in Burray and South Ronaldsay and immediately be rolled out to the whole of Mainland Orkney (entire network deployed by the end of Feb 2020), with a plan to knock-down the population simultaneously across the county. Biosecurity trap networks will be established on “stepping stone islands” with biosecurity plans developed for the “outlying” and “distant” islands. Monitoring equipment will also be set-up to record baseline stoat activity.

3.3. A first phase of mop-up and monitoring will take place immediately after the knockdown phase which will involve camera traps, stoat-detection dogs, tracking tunnels, thermal cameras, scat analysis and citizen scientists. This period will last another two years at minimum.

3.4. Between 2020-2024 parallel monitoring operations will be undertaken on ‘stepping stone’ and ‘outlying’ islands. If necessary trapping and other control methods can be used at these islands. Current modelling indicates that no more than 20% of stepping stones and 10% of the outlying isles will need to be trapped, and any divergence from this assumption means the project would need to be amended. If this is the case then the HRA will need to be checked through and amended if necessary as well.

3.5. The trapping trial was used to inform the completion of the Operational Plan for Delivery Phase. This is the document which sets out the technical detail of the trapping method, and was informed by the feasibility, and other studies already carried out.

3.6. The majority of Orkney is highly structured farmland, mainly producing grass for the year-round maintenance of cattle or sheep. This farming landscape has produced a short-cropped grassland sward, with field margins which includes fence lines, drainage ditches and stone walls. The habitat outside this low elevation farmland is typified by extensive moorland grazing again divided by fence lines, ditches and tracks.

3.7. The main trap being used is a double-set DOC200. The initial density of traps being proposed for this project is 12 per square kilometre in favourable habitat (unimproved, rough grassland, heather moorland and wetland). The trapping trial indicated that lower density should be used around improved farmland, with traps located every 250 m along linear features only, and not within improved fields. This density of traps will be reviewed as the project develops using an adaptive management approach.

3.8. The total number of trap positions identified is 7035. It is expected to take roughly 2-3 months to roll out, based on the proposed trapping grid.

3.9. As stoats seldom venture far from cover, traps will be set according to linear features in the landscape, including fences, walls, ditches, roads and tracks. The proposed positions for these trap locations will be used as a guide for the placement of the traps on the ground, as past experience has shown that this allows for rapid deployment at the correct density, but trappers will have the discretion to move the traps up to 50m from the proposed position to the best location on the ground for the interception of stoats and for the avoidance of constraints and sensitivities.

3.10. Traps will be checked as often as the proposed staff resource allows likely to be every three weeks during the knock-down phase, with up to 12 trappers checking c.3000 traps. Mop-up trap checks will be carried out at a lower frequency in targeted areas for up to 6 months after the knock-down phase. This is fully compliant with the law (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011). Only traps approved under the Spring Trap Approval Order (Scotland) 2018 (STAO) will be used for removal of stoats. It is envisaged that towards the later years of the project, if trap shy animals are identified by specifically trained dogs, then suitably trained staff could ‘squeak’ individuals to within range of a shotgun, FAC air rifle or .17 HMR rifle. This is a highly specialised role and would require site specific risk assessments to be in place. It is unlikely to be responsible for many animals overall but remains a method available for difficult or particularly trap shy animals.

3.11. Traps and their cubbies will be moved around by vehicles such as ATVs locally, with trappers carrying traps to their positions using pack frames. Pre-baiting will be done as the traps are established to encourage stoats to use the traps prior to them being set. Traps will also need to be maintained in the field over the lifetime of the project, with checking and oiling, cleaning, and carcass and bait removal.

3.12. There should be a very limited number of by-catches during the project as entrance to the traps will be restricted by baffles to allow only stoats or smaller animals to enter any tunnel used. There are likely to be a significant number of rats and other rodents caught. This has been evidenced in the trial, current volunteer traps and biosecurity trapping contract, with a relatively high number of rats caught.

3.13. By-catch is unfortunately likely to include some Orkney voles. However, experience from the Hebridean Mink Project (HMP) has shown that the use of specific predator anal gland lure (including both commercially available and ‘home made’ varieties) will help to reduce the incidence of these non-target kills, and perhaps more importantly maintain the traps as available for the capture of stoats. Some vole kills will occur and will need to be tolerated, but they are unlikely to have a significant impact on the population and will certainly be fewer than the number of voles killed by the stoats the project removes. If it is found that certain traps, or trap areas, are yielding a particularly high catch rate of nontarget species then adaptive management will allow for trapping in these areas to be reduced, so that the traps can be set in other areas where the balance of stoat to non-target captures is more favourable. A review of all bycatch will be monitored by the trapping team throughout the project and as part of 6-monthly adaptive management reviews.

3.14. A Project Manager will manage the overall Project and the main eradication work will be undertaken by the project trapping team following the Operational Plan.

3.15. Volunteers may be used to help check traps and so reducing the number of blocked traps.

3.16. It should be noted this HRA has considered virtually all Natura sites in the vicinity of Orkney^{^[4]} despite the ONWP presently being limited to Mainland, Burray and South Ronaldsay. This is to ensure that if the ONWP – using its existing methodology - needs to expand to other Orkney islands during its lifetime - this HRA has ensured that there will be no adverse effect on the site integrity (AESI) of any Natura site through the expansion of the project. It should also be noted that although this HRA will have been completed, the HRA will need to be revisited prior to any expansion/ alteration of the Operational Plan, to ensure it remains fit for purpose; i.e. that by using any more up to date information there remains no AESI despite the passage of time, and consent can be given.

4. HRA first test: is the project directly connected with or necessary to site management for nature conservation?

1. The purpose of this test in the HRA is to remove from further assessment proposals which are clearly necessary to, of value to, or inevitable as part of, the conservation management of the Natura site^{^[5]} for its qualifying interests. The test is a precautionary one which generally removes the relevant aspects of plans and projects from the rest of the provisions of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive^{^[6]}. A clear rationale which sets out the connections with the conservation objectives of the site is required to demonstrate how the plan or project (or the elements thereof) meet this test.

4.2. This rationale should include an appraisal of the impacts to demonstrate that the proposed activities do not have greater negative effects than benefits to the site; or that any likely negative effects have been considered, and deemed acceptable, bearing in mind the conservation objectives of the site.

4.3. Development of a robust rationale also allows the opportunity to explore any alternative (less-damaging) methods of implementing the proposed conservation measures. This has been one of the principle aims of this HRA. The HRA has therefore identified potential impacts and set out mitigation measures to take to prevent/ reduce avoidable negative impacts to the qualifying species for which the ONWP is necessary for conservation management. These are set out in Annex 1.

4.4. If it is considered that the plan or project is directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, there is no need to then proceed to the check for likely significant effects (LSE) or subsequent stages. If this is not the case for all qualifying interests of a site then it is necessary to proceed through the HRA procedure for these remaining interests.

4.5. SNH consider that the Orkney Native Wildlife Project (ONWP) does meet the requirements of this test for some Natura sites, and not for others (see Annex 1)

5. Rationale to demonstrate how, and to what extent, the project meets the first HRA test.

5.1. The key aim of the ONWP is to eradicate the stoat from Orkney in order to protect elements of the indigenous Orcadian wildlife. There is serious concern that this non-native predator could have a detrimental effect on the endemic Orkney vole, (Microtus arvalis orcadensis), and consequently on the populations of Hen Harrier, (Circus cyaneus), and Short Eared Owl, (Asio flammeus) who feed on them, “including at critical times in their life cycle”⁷, as well as the wider populations of ground- and cliff-nesting birds. The removal of stoats is therefore of key importance as their presence is likely to compromise the conservation objectives of many of Orkney’s designated sites. The Commissioned Report^{^[7]} has set out the risks; “We consider it is highly likely that the introduction of stoats will profoundly change the ecology of Orkney and its value for birds of prey and the SPAs that have been designated for protecting these species.”

5.2. The rationale to show to what extent the ONWP meets this test is based on the conservation objectives for the Natura sites concerned. The Commissioned Report and the aims of the project both clearly show that the aim is to protect the Orkney vole and bird species, rather than habitats and other non-bird species. Therefore, in relation to all Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) the project is not considered to meet this test. Figure 2 sets out the conservation objectives for all Scottish Special Protection Areas (SPAs), and Annex 1 sets out the rationale for the decisions made regarding SPAs.

5.3. The measures needed to minimise or prevent impacts to Natura qualifiers for which the ONWP meets the first HRA test should be set out in the appropriate project-related documentation such as a protocol and/ or field manual so that all relevant staff and volunteers are aware of what must be done/ learnt prior to trap-related work, and during, trap-related activities in the field.

Figure 2; Conservation Objectives for Scottish SPAs

Conservation Objectives

To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species (listed below) or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained; and To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:
Population of the species as a viable component of the site
Distribution of the species within site
Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species
No significant disturbance of the species

5.4. Of the SPAs around Orkney (excluding Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA), the sites where the first HRA test is considered to be met for all qualifiers are: Auskerry SPA, Calf of Eday SPA, Copinsay SPA, East Sanday Coast SPA, Hoy SPA, Marwick Head SPA, Orkney Mainland Moors SPA, Papa Westray (North Hill and Holm) SPA, Pentland Firth pSPA, Pentland islands SPA, Rousay SPA, and West Westray SPA. Those Natura sites where the first HRA test is partially met (i.e. met for some of the qualifiers) are: North Orkney pSPA (for breeding red-throated diver), and Scapa Flow pSPA (for breeding red-throated diver). See Table 1.

Table 1; Natura sites and qualifiers where the first HRA test is met, either fully or partially. See also Annex 1.
SPA / pSPA name	Qualifying Interest	Summary rationale
Auskerry	Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), breeding, Storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
Calf of Eday	Seabird assemblage, breeding, Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), breeding, Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), breeding, Great blackbacked gull (Larus marinus), breeding, Guillemot (Uria aalge), breeding, Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
Copinsay	Seabird assemblage, breeding Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), breeding Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), breeding Guillemot (Uria aalge), breeding Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
East Sanday Coast	Bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica), non-breeding Purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima), non-breeding Turnstone (Arenaria interpres), non-breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of qualifiers (Purple sandpiper and Turnstone) at roost sites during the wintering/non-breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
Hoy	Seabird assemblage, breeding Arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), breeding Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), breeding Great skua (Stercorarius skua), breeding Great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), breeding Guillemot (Uria aalge), breeding Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), breeding Peregrine (Falco peregrinus), breeding Puffin (Fratercula arctica), breeding Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
Marwick Head	Seabird assemblage, breeding, Guillemot (Uria aalge), breeding Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
North Orkney	Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the pSPA population.
Orkney Mainland Moors	Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus), breeding, Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), breeding Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), breeding Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus), non-breeding	Project is necessary to avoid a serious reduction in vole population from stoat predation leading to major negative impacts to the SPA population. In addition these birds are all also at risk of predation of their eggs and chicks from stoats.
Papa Westray (North Hill and Holm)	Arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), breeding Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
Pentland Firth Islands	Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
Rousay	Seabird assemblage, breeding, Arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), breeding Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), breeding Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), breeding Guillemot (Uria aalge), breeding Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the SPA population.
Scapa Flow	Red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), breeding,	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats, leading to a major negative impact to the pSPA population
West Westray	Seabird assemblage, breeding, Arctic skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), breeding, Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), breeding, Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), breeding, Guillemot (Uria aalge), breeding, Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), breeding, Razorbill (Alca torda), breeding	Project is necessary to avoid predation of eggs and chicks of assemblage qualifiers at nest sites during the breeding season by stoats. This would lead to a major negative impact to the SPA population

6. HRA second test; checking for likely significant effects (LSE)

6.1. Checking for any likely significant effects is the second HRA test. It acts as a screening stage although it is not formalised as such. The legal interpretation of this test^{^[8]} regarding what can constitute a ‘likely significant effect’ means that it is far more precautionary than it sounds, and effectively means that unless the impacts of a plan or project which might undermine one or more of the site’s conservation objectives can be excluded on the basis of objective information, then a competent authority should conclude there is a LSE and proceed to a more thorough analysis^{^[9]}, i.e. an appropriate assessment.

6.2. The full test at this point in the HRA procedure is “alone or in combination with other plans and projects”. So identified impacts of the plan or project which may not cause a threshold of significance or likeliness to be crossed on their own should be checked with the impacts of other plans and projects that are completed, underway, or proposed, to see if the thresholds are crossed when they are combined.

6.3. If there is a LSE then the consideration of the plan or project should proceed to an appropriate assessment (AA) to allow the issues to be explored fully and properly.

7. Methodology for the LSE check

7.1. This stage of the HRA procedure is conducted as a relatively simple, but precautionary appraisal of available information on the plan or project. EU guidance^{^[10]} says, “it is worth recalling that the initial screening undertaken here is not the same as a full-scale appropriate assessment – it only requires sufficient information to be able to decide if there is likely to be a significant effect or not”.

Of course, once it had been established how, and to what extent, the project met the 1^st HRA test, the qualifiers of the sites where this was the case were discarded from any further appraisal under HRA. All others were checked for LSE.

7.2. Stoats are presently only found on Mainland Orkney, Burray and South Ronaldsay, so the check for LSE focussed initially only on the effects of the project on these three linked islands. However in order to help manage any operational changes to the project over time, a check of the potential impacts of the project against both the first and second test was carried out for almost all Orkney Natura sites (see paragraph 3.16).

7.3. The Operational Plan was used to identify potential elements of the project that might impact upon Orkney Natura sites. These project elements were then used to identify the Natura sites where a significant effect could not be ruled-out using objective information.

7.4. Following the development and trapping trial phase there is now enough known about the ONWP and its eradication method to allow an HRA to be undertaken. This approach will also allow the HRA to inform the further development operational methodology (and future 6-monthly adaptive management reviews), by highlighting Natura constraints on the project and ensuring that mitigation is incorporated into the project plan at every stage.

7.5. The main and most obvious impact on Natura sites is by the activities of the people involved in eradication and monitoring field work. This includes the initial phase of people accessing Natura sites to site and pre-bait traps by foot but also (rarely) by vehicle, especially if over sensitive qualifying habits, or near birds that are sensitive to disturbance due to their sensitivity / time of year / or workers’ proximity to roosting or breeding areas or other important locations. Checking the traps over the lifetime of the project, as well as cleaning, and maintaining traps will produce similar types of impacts, though perhaps less intense but longer-lasting.

7.6. In order to be suitably precautionary almost all Orkney sites were included in this check. The exceptions was Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA which is approximately 37 miles from Hoy, and considered too far for stoats to ever reach by swimming, and a location where they are very unlikely to be brought by human intervention.

7.7. The judgements regarding LSE were made on a precautionary basis to ensure all potential impacts would be properly considered in an appropriate assessment (AA). These are summarised in Table 2. (See also Annex 2 for a rationale for the decisions).

N.B. Blue shading indicates a LSE. The Red-throated Diver for both North Orkney pSPA and Scapa Flow pSPA has been omitted from this table as the ONWP was considered to meet the 1^st HRA test for this qualifier.

Table 2; The check for LSE of those Natura sites and qualifiers that didn’t meet the requirements of the 1st HRA test.
Natura Site	Natura Site	Qualifying Interest	LSE?
Faray and Holm of Faray SAC	Faray and Holm of Faray SAC	Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)	Y
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Dry heaths	Y
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Wet heathland with cross-leaved heath	Y
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks	Y
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Alpine and subalpine heaths	Y
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Base-rich fens	Y
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Hard-water springs depositing lime	Y
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Blanket bog	Y
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds	N
Hoy SAC	Hoy SAC	Vegetated sea cliffs	Y
Loch of Isbister SAC	Loch of Isbister SAC	Very wet mires often identified by an unstable 'quaking' surface	Y
Loch of Isbister SAC	Loch of Isbister SAC	Naturally nutrient-rich lakes or lochs which are often dominated by pondweed	N
Loch of Isbister SAC	Loch of Isbister SAC	Otter (Lutra lutra)	Y
Loch of Stenness SAC	Loch of Stenness SAC	Lagoons	N
Sanday SAC	Sanday SAC	Intertidal mudflats and sandflats	Y
Sanday SAC	Sanday SAC	Reefs	N
Sanday SAC	Sanday SAC	Subtidal sandbanks	N
Sanday SAC	Sanday SAC	Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina)	Y
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Dry heaths	Y
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Base-rich fens	Y
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Vegetated sea cliffs	Y
North Orkney pSPA	North Orkney pSPA	Eider (Somateria mollissima), nonbreeding	N
North Orkney pSPA	North Orkney pSPA	Great northern diver (Gavia immer), non-breeding	N
North Orkney pSPA	North Orkney pSPA	Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) non-breeding	N
North Orkney pSPA	North Orkney pSPA	Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), non-breeding	N
North Orkney pSPA	North Orkney pSPA	Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), non-breeding	N
North Orkney pSPA	North Orkney pSPA	Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus), non-breeding	N
Scapa Flow pSPA	Scapa Flow pSPA	Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), non-breeding	N
Scapa Flow pSPA	Scapa Flow pSPA	Black-throated diver (Gavia arctica), non-breeding	N
Scapa Flow pSPA	Scapa Flow pSPA	Eider (Somateria mollissima), nonbreeding	N
Scapa Flow pSPA	Scapa Flow pSPA	Great northern diver (Gavia immer), non-breeding	N
Scapa Flow pSPA	Scapa Flow pSPA	Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), non-breeding	N
Scapa Flow pSPA	Scapa Flow pSPA	Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), non-breeding	N
-	-	Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), non-breeding	N
-	-	Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), non-breeding	N
-	-	Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus), non-breeding	N
Switha SPA	Switha SPA	Greenland Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), non-breeding	Y

7.8. Several LSEs were identified resulting from the ONWP; however, no minor residual effects (MREs) are expected. MREs are those potential effects on a Natura site that have some very small effect on a Natura site, but which are not likely to be significant on their own. These MREs need to be considered in combination, as the Directive recognises that in some cases the effects of a plan or project on its own would either be unlikely or insignificant, but when combined with other such effects from other plans and projects, the cumulative effect could lead to them becoming likely to be significant. This is explicitly written into law in regulation 48(1)(a) of the Habitats Regulations. The existence of LSEs means these effects must be taken forward to an appropriate assessment; and the lack of any MREs means the MREs of any other plans or project do not need to be considered in combination.

Table 3; Summary of qualifiers with LSE.
Natura Site	Qualifying Interest	LSE?
Faray and Holm of Faray SAC	Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)	Y
Hoy SAC	Dry heaths	Y
Hoy SAC	Wet heathland with cross-leaved heath	Y
Hoy SAC	Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks	Y
Hoy SAC	Alpine and subalpine heaths	Y
Hoy SAC	Base-rich fens	Y
Hoy SAC	Hard-water springs depositing lime	Y
Hoy SAC	Blanket bog	Y
Hoy SAC	Vegetated sea cliffs	Y
Loch of Isbister SAC	Very wet mires often identified by an unstable 'quaking' surface	Y
Loch of Isbister SAC	Otter (Lutra lutra)	Y
Sanday SAC	Intertidal mudflats and sandflats	Y
Sanday SAC	Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina)	Y
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Dry heaths	Y
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Base-rich fens	Y
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Vegetated sea cliffs	Y
Switha SPA	Greenland Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), non-breeding	Y

7.9. Where there is a LSE the HRA of the plan or project must proceed to an appropriate assessment (AA) to allow the issues to be explored fully, and a conclusion regarding no adverse effect on site integrity to be ascertained.

8. Appropriate assessment

8.1 Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive requires that any plan or project which is not directly connected with, or necessary to, the nature conservation management of a Natura site and which is likely to have a significant effect on such a site, either individually or in combination, shall be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for a Natura site in view of the site’s conservation objectives by a competent authority (in this case Scottish Natural Heritage). The full procedure is known as ‘Habitats Regulations Appraisal’, of which the appropriate assessment (AA) is a part. An AA can be broken down into two distinct phases:

An assessment of the potential impacts of the proposal on the qualifying interests of the Natura sites. This is informed by the prior check for ‘likely significant effects’, as set out in the legislation.
The decision-making process based on this assessment. Where the competent authority must formally ascertain whether the proposal in question (taking into account any conditions or modifications) will not adversely affect Natura site integrity.

8.2 HRA is therefore a rigorous, precautionary procedure that examines the potential negative effects on Natura sites of a plan or project; and which, by the end of the procedure must allow the competent authority to come to a firm conclusion as to whether there are no adverse effects on the integrity of Natura sites. The way in which this question is framed reflects the degree to which the precautionary principle is written into the Habitats Directive, and consequently the Habitats Regulations and means that proof of the negative is required before consent can be given^{^[11]}.

8.3 Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations allows for modifications to the proposal, including conditions, to be considered in the AA by the competent authority before coming to a final conclusion. For consent to be given this mitigation must ensure adverse effects are avoided, eliminated, or are reduced to an acceptable level so that there is no adverse effect on site integrity (AESI).

8.4. This AA appraises the potential effects of the ONWP on the qualifiers identified in Table 3. These are the qualifiers for which the requirements of the 1^stHRA test have not been met, and subsequently where there are LSEs identified (see also Annex 2). It has also identified mitigation measures to ensure no AESI; this is summarised in Annex 3 and the measures should be included in the ONWP Operational Plan. To see the conservation objectives (CO) for each qualifier please see Annex 3.

8.5. Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus); Faray and Holm of Faray SAC

The operations of the ONWP could undermine the first, second and fifth bulleted CO. The supporting habitats will not be affected by the setting, checking or maintenance of traps as the habitats can withstand such occasional activities on them without deterioration of their physical or functional characteristics.

However, grey seals can be sensitive to disturbance; particularly during the breeding season where many, especially calves and their mothers, spend a significant amount of their time on haul-out beaches as well as further inland both inside and outside the SAC. The rest of the year the seals are far more dispersed and the majority of their time is spent in the sea. Due to their sensitivity to disturbance, this qualifier could be affected by the trap-laying and checking/maintenance-related activities of people involved in the project. So if the project expands its work over time to this pair of islands the grey seal qualifier could be affected by the trap-laying and checking activities of people involved in the project if it occurs on or near to them while their breeding season is underway. This potential disturbance will be mitigated by ensuring adherence by staff to the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code^{^[12]} which may restrict trap setting and checking in more sensitive times such as October, November and December.

8.6. Dry heaths; Hoy SAC

8.7. Wet heathland with cross-leaved heath; Hoy SAC

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the qualifying habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place on Hoy, mainly after the initial Mainland elements have been carried out. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. As such the ONWP could undermine the third and fourth CO. However the intensity of the work means that staff visits to deal with the traps will be occasional, and the habitat will be able to withstand the very small amount of additional foot-trampling that will occur. Use of vehicles such as ATVs should be restricted to existing tracks.

8.8. Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks; Hoy SAC

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the qualifying habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place on Hoy, mainly after the initial Mainland elements have been carried out. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. As such the ONWP could undermine the third, fourth, fifth and sixth CO. However the intensity of the work means that staff visits to deal with the traps will be occasional, and the habitat will be able to withstand the very small amount of additional foot-trampling that will occur. Use of vehicles such as ATVs should be restricted to existing tracks.

8.9. Alpine and subalpine heaths; Hoy SAC

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the qualifying habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place on Hoy, mainly after the initial Mainland elements have been carried out. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. As such the ONWP could undermine the third and fourth CO. However the intensity of the work means that staff visits to deal with the traps will be occasional, and the habitat will be able to withstand the very small amount of additional foot-trampling that will occur. Use of vehicles such as ATVs should be restricted to existing tracks.

8.10. Base-rich fens; Hoy SAC

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the qualifying habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place on Hoy, mainly after the initial Mainland elements have been carried out. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. As such the ONWP could undermine the third, fourth, fifth and sixth CO. The intensity of the work means that staff visits to deal with any traps that might be located here will be occasional, but the habitat is very sensitive to trampling especially by vehicles. The habitat will be able to withstand and not be adversely affected by the very small amount of additional foot-trampling that might occur, but all vehicles should be kept well away from the fens and the surrounding habitats that are hydrologically linked to them.

8.11. Hard-water springs depositing lime; Loch of Isbister SAC

8.12 Blanket bog; Loch of Isbister SAC

8.13. Vegetated sea cliffs; Loch of Isbister SAC

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the qualifying habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. As such the ONWP could undermine the third, fourth, fifth and sixth CO. However the nature of the habitat (most growing on inaccessible cliffs) means that most of this habitat will be outside the areas that are accessible by ONWP staff. The remaining small areas of accessible habitat at the tops of cliffs means only a very small proportion of the qualifying habitat might ever be used by trappers to set traps. This along with the intensity of the work whereby staff visits to the traps will be occasional (no more than once every three weeks during knockdown phase), means the habitat will be able to withstand the very small amount of additional foot trampling that will occur. Use of vehicles such as ATVs should be restricted to existing tracks.

8.14. Very wet mires often identified by an unstable 'quaking' surface; Loch of Isbister SAC

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the qualifying habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place on Hoy, mainly after the initial Mainland elements have been carried out. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. As such the ONWP could undermine the third, fourth, fifth and sixth CO. The intensity of the work means that staff visits to deal with the traps will be occasional, but the habitat is sensitive to trampling especially by vehicles. The habitat will be able to withstand and not be adversely affected by the very small amount of additional foot-trampling that may occur (staff are likely to want to avoid such a habitat for health and safety reasons anyway), but all vehicles should be kept well away from the mires and the surrounding habitats that are hydrologically linked to them.

8.15. Otter (Lutra lutra); Loch of Isbister SAC

The operations of the ONWP could undermine the first, second and fifth bulleted CO. The supporting habitats will not be affected by the setting, checking or maintenance of traps as the habitats (waterbodies and their adjacent areas) can withstand such occasional activities on them without deterioration of their physical or functional characteristics.

However, otters can be sensitive to disturbance; particularly during the breeding season where maternity holts should be avoided inside and outside the SAC. Otters are fully protected as a European Protected Species (EPS), and in this area they are likely to be used to limited levels of disturbance already to the existence of a nature reserve at the site, as well as local housing and roads, meaning people are frequently present. Nevertheless, due to their sensitivity to disturbance this qualifier could be affected by the trap-laying and checking/maintenance-related activities of people involved in the project if it occurs on or near to their places of refuge especially if they are breeding. Initially, SNH will provide training to project trappers to be able to identify potential Otter holts (particularly maternity holts) so as to inform adaptive trap management and any HRA review. In addition, in order to avoid significant disturbance within the SAC, if an otter maternity holt is identified within an 200m of a trap then the trap should be re-sited so that it is further than 200m from the maternity holt. Project staff should also avoid trap-related activities inside the SAC within 1 hour of sunrise and sunset.

To prevent otters getting into the traps, the deployed traps will have a baffle opening of 51x51mm and 65x65mm, which is narrower than the mean breadth of Otter skull.

8.16. Intertidal mudflats and sandflats; Sanday SAC

The ONWP Operational Plan has clarified that it will not be setting traps on intertidal habitats; therefore despite the identification of a LSE, there will be no AESI on this site through impacts to this habitat.

8.17. Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina); Sanday SAC

The supporting habitats will not be affected by the setting, checking or maintenance of traps as the habitats the Harbour seals use (such as beaches, intertidal areas and dunes) can withstand such occasional activities on them without deterioration of their physical or functional characteristics. However, the operations of the ONWP could undermine the first, second and fifth bulleted CO.

Harbour seals can be sensitive to disturbance; particularly during their breeding season (June and July) where many, especially calves and their mothers, spend a significant amount of their time on haul-out beaches as well as further inland both inside and outside the SAC. They are also more sensitive during their moulting period (August). The rest of the year the seals are somewhat more dispersed. Due to their sensitivity to disturbance this qualifier could be affected by the trap-laying and checking/maintenance-related activities of people involved in the project if it reaches this more remote island, especially while their breeding season is underway or during their moult. In order to avoid such disturbance the ONWP staff must adhere to the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code^{^[13]} which may restrict trap setting and checking in more sensitive periods such as June, July and August.

8.18. Dry heaths; Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC

8.19. Base-rich fens; Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC

As such the ONWP could undermine the third, fourth, fifth and sixth CO. The intensity of the work means that staff visits to deal with the traps will be occasional, but this habitat is very sensitive to trampling especially to vehicles. The habitat will be able to withstand and not be adversely affected by the very small amount of additional foot-trampling that will occur, but all vehicles should only use existing tracks.

8.20. Vegetated sea cliffs; Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC

The operations of the ONWP could lead to a deterioration of the qualifying habitat from the scale, nature and location of the project which will take place. This could occur initially from the setting up of traps, and later on from moving, checking, and maintaining them, as well as incidentally when accessing and checking other traps. As such the ONWP could undermine the third, fourth, fifth and sixth CO. However the nature of the habitat (most growing on inaccessible cliffs) means that most of this habitat will be outside the areas that are accessible by ONWP staff. The remaining small areas of accessible habitat at the tops of cliffs means only a very small proportion of the qualifying habitat might ever be used by trappers to set traps. This along with the intensity of the work whereby staff visits to the traps will be occasional (roughly once every three weeks during knockdown phase), means the qualifying habitat will be able to withstand the very small amount of additional foot-trampling that will occur. Use of vehicles such as ATVs should be restricted to existing tracks.

8.21. Greenland Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), non-breeding; Switha SPA

The geese are present during non-breeding times. They start to arrive in Orkney during the first two weeks of October and remain to mid-April. Geese could be disturbed by the scale, nature and location of activities of project staff on foot or using vehicles as the project evolves while dealing with traps, as well as the moping up operations , especially where involving dogs. This could occur both within the SPA itself, and out-with the SPA where the geese feed (primarily agricultural land at South Walls). The geese can be sensitive to disturbance (especially unpredictable / irregular disturbance) which can stress them and negatively impact on their energetics; especially when they first arrive on migration in Autumn and just before they leave in Spring; and whenever they need to fly away from the disturbance.

The ONWP while operating within the SPA could therefore significantly disturb the geese when they are present, and through that disturbance potentially undermine the first, second and fifth CO. To avoid this disturbance staff should only place, check and maintain traps within Switha SPA when the geese are largely not present (i.e. during daylight hours, but avoiding the hour after dawn and the hour before sunset).

While operating outwith the SPA but on the habitats that support the geese it is possible for the ONWP to impact upon the first or second CO through significantly disturbing the geese. However, it is considered that any disturbance outwith the SPA will not undermine either of the first two bulleted COs due to the nature and infrequency of the work that will be carried out during the knock-down phase; as well as the limited numbers that roost outwith the SPA; and the infrequency with which geese roost on Hoy or South Ronaldsay.

8.22 The measures identified to minimise or prevent impacts to Natura qualifiers so that there is no adverse effect on site integrity should be set out in the appropriate project-related documentation such as a protocol and/ or field manual so that all relevant staff and volunteers are aware of what must be done/ learnt: both prior to trap-related work, and during, trap-related activities in the field.

Table 4; Summary of qualifiers and any mitigation needed to avoid an adverse effect on site integrity (AESI) N.B. Blue shading indicates a LSE.
Natura Site	Qualifying Interest	Mitigation to avoid an AESI
Faray and Holm of Faray SAC	Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus)	Adherence to the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code – which sets out human behaviours to be followed in order to prevent/ minimise disturbance to various marine wildlife including seals. This to be set out within the ONWP or its relevant protocols.
Hoy SAC	Dry heaths	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding high value habitat areas and avoid use of motorised vehicles except on existing tracks.
Hoy SAC	Wet heathland with crossleaved heath	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding high value habitat areas and avoid use of motorised vehicles except on existing tracks.
Hoy SAC	Plants in crevices on base-rich rocks	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding high value habitat areas and avoid use of motorised vehicles except on existing tracks.
Hoy SAC	Alpine and subalpine heaths	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding high value habitat areas and avoid use of motorised vehicles except on existing tracks.
Hoy SAC	Base-rich fens	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding trap-setting on this habitat, and avoid all use of motorised vehicles on this habitat or a distance of 50m from its margins, unless on existing tracks.
Hoy SAC	Hard-water springs depositing lime	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding trap-setting within this habitat or within 50m of it unless on existing tracks.
Hoy SAC	Blanket bog	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding vehicle movements on the habitat unless on existing tracks.
Hoy SAC	Acid peat-stained lakes and ponds	-
Hoy SAC	Vegetated sea cliffs	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding vehicle movements on the habitat unless on existing tracks.
Loch of Isbister	Very wet mires often	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding trap-setting on this

Natura Site	Qualifying Interest	Mitigation to avoid an AESI
SAC	identified by an unstable 'quaking' surface	habitat, and avoid all use of motorised vehicles on this habitat or around within 50m from margins, unless on existing tracks.
SAC	Naturally nutrient-rich lakes or lochs which are often dominated by pondweed	-
SAC	Otter (Lutra lutra)	The traps being deployed will have baffle opening of 51x51mm and 65x65mm, therefore narrower than the mean breadth of Otter skull. SNH to provide training to project trappers to identify potential Otter maternity holts so as to inform adaptive trap management and any HRA review. Traps identified to be within 200m of a maternity holt will be re-sited to be further than 200m from the maternity holt
Loch of Stenness SAC	Lagoons	-
Sanday SAC	Intertidal mudflats and sandflats	None.
Sanday SAC	Reefs	-
Sanday SAC	Subtidal sandbanks	-
Sanday SAC	Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina)	Adherence to the Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code – which sets out human behaviours to be followed in order to prevent/ minimise disturbance to various marine wildlife including seals. This to be set out within the ONWP or its relevant protocols
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Dry heaths	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding high value habitat areas and avoid use of motorised vehicles except on existing tracks.
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Base-rich fens	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding trap-setting on this habitat, and avoid all use of motorised vehicles on this habitat or within 50m of margins, unless on existing tracks.
Stromness Heaths and Coast SAC	Vegetated sea cliffs	Avoid deterioration of habitats by avoiding vehicle movements on the habitat unless on existing tracks.
North Orkney pSPA	Eider (Somateria mollissima), non-breeding	-
North Orkney pSPA	Great northern diver	-

Natura Site	Qualifying Interest	Mitigation to avoid an AESI
Scapa Flow pSPA	(Gavia immer), nonbreeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) nonbreeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), nonbreeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), non-breeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus), nonbreeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca), non-breeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Black-throated diver (Gavia arctica), nonbreeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Eider (Somateria mollissima), non-breeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Great northern diver (Gavia immer), nonbreeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), nonbreeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), nonbreeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), non-breeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), non-breeding	-
Scapa Flow pSPA	Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus), non-	-

Natura Site	Qualifying Interest	Mitigation to avoid an AESI
-	breeding	-
Switha SPA	Greenland Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), non-breeding	Avoid laying and checking traps within the SPA during the hour after dawn and the hour before sunset from mid-October to midApril.

Natura Site

Qualifying Interest

Mitigation to avoid an AESI

breeding

Switha SPA

Greenland Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis), non-breeding

Avoid laying and checking traps within the SPA during the hour after dawn and the hour before sunset from mid-October to midApril.

8.22. The ONWP is necessary for the conservation of a subset of qualifiers on Orkney Natura sites. This HRA has identified measures to reduce impacts to those qualifiers as far as possible without compromising the objectives of the project. It has also identified LSEs, and conducted an AA which has concluded that the ONWP does not have an adverse effect on site integrity (AESI) of any Natura site including, where needed, mitigation to achieve that result. With the carrying out of the mitigation, including its insertion into the appropriate ONWP operational documentation, consent can be given to the ONWP.

[1] SNH Commissioned Report 871, Stoat (Mustela erminea) on the Orkney Islands – assessing the risks to native species, page ii.

[2] Wind energy developments and Natura 2000, European Commission, 2010. Page 64.

[3] Unless the exceptional derogation circumstances as set out in Article 6(4) of the Directive and regulation 49 of the Habitats Regulations are met.

[4] Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA was excluded due to its distance from the project and the inability of stoats to swim to those islands.

[5] Managing Natura 2000 sites; the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC Section 4.3 page 30.

[6] And of regulation 48 of the Conservation (Habitats & c.) Regulations (Scotland) 1994 (as amended). ⁷SNH Commissioned Report 871, Stoat (Mustela erminea) on the Orkney Islands – assessing the risks to native species, page i.

[7] Commissioned Report 871

[8] Primarily set out in the CJEU ‘Waddenzee’ case C-127/02, and reinforced by further cases such as the ‘Sweetman’ case C-258/11

[9] In the ‘Sweetman’ case C-258/11 in the Opinion of the Advocate General paragraph 46 says, “although the words ‘likely to have an effect’ used in the English-language version of the text may immediately bring to mind the need to establish a degree of probability… the expression used in the other language versions is weaker. ..the question is simply whether the plan or project concerned is capable of having an effect. It is in that sense that the English ‘likely to’ should be understood”.

[10] Paragraph 5.3.1. European Union (2011). EU guidance on wind energy developments in accordance with the EU nature legislation. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

[11] The CJEU Waddenzee Judgement (C-127/02) states in paragraph 61, “The competent national authorities, taking account of the appropriate assessment of the implications... for the site concerned in the light of the site’s conservation objectives, are to authorise such an activity only if they have made certain that will not adversely affect the integrity of that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects”.

[12] and [13] The Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code SMWWC & A Guide to Best Practice for Watching Marine Wildlife SMWWC

Please go to attached Word document at the end of this page for Annex 1,2 and 3.

Orkney Native Wildlife Project - SEA consultation - Habitats Regulations Appraisal

Authors:

Laura Bambini, Seabird Recovery Officer, RSPB Scotland HQ, 2 Lochside View, Edinburgh, EH12 9DH, UK. [email protected]

Sarah Sankey, Orkney Manager, RSPB Orkney Office, 12-14 North End, Stromness, KW16 3AG, UK. [email protected]

Graham Neville, Operations Manager, Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road,

Inverness, IV3 8NW, UK. [email protected]

Cover photo: Stoat, by Christine Hall

Reviewer(s): Peter Robertson (University of Newcastle), Xavier Lambin (University of Aberdeen), Robbie McDonald (University of Exeter), Tony Martin (University of Dundee), Grant Harper (Biodiversity Restoration Specialists Ltd.), Lindsay Waddell (independent expert), Clare Stringer (RSPB), Des Thompson (SNH)

Version History:
VERSION	DATE	AUTHOR	REASON FOR CHANGE
1.0	31.5.2018	Laura Bambini	N/A
2.0	6.6.2018	Laura Bambini	TAG review
3.0	30.7.2018	Laura Bambini	Final version with all sections completed

Citation:

This report should be cited as: Bambini, L., Sankey, S. and Neville, G. 2018. Orkney Native Wildlife Project: Stoat Eradication Operational Plan. RSPB Scotland unpublished report. 79 Pp.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this document is to provide a detailed description of the stoat eradication operation across Orkney Mainland, South Ronaldsay, Burray, Glimps Holm, Lamb Holm and Hunda, and the biosecurity activities delivered on the non-linked islands of the archipelago. The Orkney stoat eradication will be the largest of its kind ever attempted, in terms of the land area targeted. It will also be the world’s largest eradication operation carried out on an inhabited island. Around 20 of the Orkney Islands are inhabited, with a total population of around 21,000 people.

A community consultation carried out by the ONWP in 2018 indicated that there is significant support from Orcadians for the eradication (ONWP, 2018), and all the land-owners the project has so far contacted have granted permission to trap stoats on their land. This Operational Plan is based on the findings of a feasibility assessment carried out in 2016 (Harper, 2017a), and is informed by an Operational Plan developed by Bell et al. (2018).

The primary objective of this eradication operation is to remove the predation pressure posed by the invasive non-native stoat on the Orkney native wildlife. Due to the challenges faced by any stoat eradication, arising from the intrinsic qualities of the target species, and specifically by this operation due to its unprecedented scale both in terms of the land area targeted, and the size of the human population inhabiting the islands, this operation will be subject to active adaptive management. Through a bi-annual operational review process and adaptive management, new research and learning can be incorporated in the operational planning to improve efficiencies, and new eradication techniques can be tested as they become available. The operational review process will track the progress of the operation, and assess whether the operational goal and objectives, as detailed below, remain feasible and attainable.

This eradication operation will be delivered using the humane DOC150 and DOC200 traps, in a single- or double-set configuration placed in an extended “weka”-design wooded tunnel built to the manufacturer specifications (see Annex III.), as permitted by the Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order (STAO) 2011 (as amended), with baffles fitted at either end of the housing tunnel, and additional internal baffles in place to direct the animal to a correct position on the kill-plate to ensure a humane and effective kill. Additionally, self-resetting Goodnature A24 traps will be used. Conservation indicator dogs will be used extensively to assist in the mop-up stage of the eradication, and biosecurity of the non-linked and stoat-free islands of the archipelago.

This eradication will be delivered by the Orkney Native Wildlife Project (ONWP) partnership, formed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Orkney Islands Council (OIC). This project has received a generous grant from EU LIFE (LIFE17 NAT/UK/557), and financial contributions from the partners.

NOTE: This Operational Plan is subject to periodic reviews and may require changes as part of the adaptive management process. Any changes to this Operational Plan will be clearly marked as such. Please ensure that you are referring to the most up to date version of this

1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to provide a detailed description of the stoat eradication operation across Orkney Mainland, South Ronaldsay, Burray, Glimps Holm, Lamb Holm and Hunda. This eradication will be delivered by the Orkney Native Wildlife Project (ONWP) partnership, formed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Orkney Islands Council (OIC). The project is funded by generous grants received from the Heritage Lottery Fund, EU LIFE, and in-kind and cash contributions from the project partners. For more detail on the background to the project, project governance, communication strategy, team structure and other supporting information, please refer to the Project Plan (Bambini et al. 2018).

The Orkney stoat eradication will be the largest of its kind ever attempted, in terms of the land area targeted. It will also be the world’s largest eradication operation carried out on an inhabited island. Around 20 of the Orkney Islands are inhabited, with a total population of around 21,000 people. A community consultation carried out by the ONWP in 2018 indicated that there is significant support from Orcadians for the eradication (ONWP, 2018), and all the land-owners the project has so far contacted have granted permission to trap stoats on their land.

This Operational Plan is based on the findings of a feasibility assessment carried out in 2016 (Harper, 2017a), and is informed by an Operational Plan developed by Bell et al. (2018). In May 2018, the project’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) rejected the Bell et al. 2018 Plan on technical grounds and as being financially unfeasible to implement (TAG, 2018). The TAG recommended that a new Operational Plan be produced, taking on board and incorporating specific recommendations from Bell et al. 2018. A summary of these recommendations is provided in Annex I of this plan.

In producing this plan, the authors have consulted widely with UK and global experts in stoat ecology, eradications and wildlife management. The New Zealand Department of Conservation has been particularly helpful. The project TAG has provided guidance in the development of this plan, and has approved the final version of this plan. On the request of the project team, the TAG approved Operational Plan will also be reviewed by the New Zealand-based Island Eradications Advisory Group (IEAG) in August 2019.

This eradication operation will be subject to active adaptive management, with a 6-monthly technical review process built into this operational plan. Full details of the adaptive management process are provided in the Project Plan (Bambini et al. 2018), with a summary provided in Annex II of this operational plan. This Operational Plan is subject to periodic revisions to reflect the changes that are implemented through the adaptive management process, or may arise from e.g. legislative changes, changing community consents, or new eradication tools and techniques that may become available during the Orkney stoat eradication. Following any significant change to this Operational Plan, it is recommended that the following are considered: Is the eradication still technically feasible? Are the outcomes sustainable? Do the benefits still outweigh the costs?

1.1 The Site: Orkney Mainland and linked islands of Burray, South Ronaldsay, Lamb Holm, Glimps Holm and Hunda

The Orkney archipelago (Figure 1.) in the UK is a group of around 70 islands (Table 1.), situated approximately 10 km at their closest point from the north coast of Scotland. The climate is mild and wet, with frequent and strong gales in winter. The average temperatures are around 15 °C in summer and 5 °C in winter. The 21,000 Orcadians live across 20 or so islands, although some islands are only occupied during the summer months. The islands are mostly low-lying, with the highest peak (Ward Hill, on Hoy) rising to 479 metres. Most people live on Orkney Mainland and the islands of Burray and South Ronaldsay which are connected by bridges or isthmuses (and are collectively known as the ‘linked isles’, including the much smaller and uninhabited Lamb Holm, Glimps Holm and Hunda), and have a total population of 18,480.

Table 1. Key information on the major islands in the Orkney group (adapted from Bell et al. 2018)
Island	Island grouping	Size (ha)	Elevation (m)	Distance from nearest neighbouring island (km)	Invasive mammals present	Residents
Auskerry	-	85	18	3.8 (Stronsay)	Possibly house mouse	4
Brough of Birsay	Mainland linked isles and	16	42	0.2 (Mainland)	Unknown	0
Burray	Mainland linked isles and	903	80	Connected by bridge	Stoat, rat, hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse	409
Calf of Eday	North Isles	243	54	0.4 (Eday)	Free of invasive mammals	0
Calf of Flotta	South Isles	16	16	0.3 (Flotta)	Probable rat	0
Cava	South Isles	107	38	1.9 (Hoy)	Free of invasive mammals	0
Copinsay	South Isles	73	70	1.8 (Mainland)	Rabbit, house mouse (wood mouse)	0
Damsay	North Isles	18	11	0.7 (Mainland)	Free of invasive mammals	0
Eday	North Isles	2,745	101	2.0 (Sanday)	Rat, hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse (wood mouse)	160
Egilsay	North Isles	650	35	1.5 (Rousay)	Rat, hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse	26
Eynhallow	North Isles	75	30	0.8 (Rousay) 1.0 (Mainland)	Free of invasive mammals	0
Fara	South Isles	295	43	0.5 (Flotta) 0.9 (Hoy)	Probable rat, rabbit	0
Faray	North Isles	180	32	1.3 (Eday)	Probable house mouse	0
Flotta	South Isles	876	58	0.5 (Flotta) 1.5 (Hoy) 2.4 (South Ronaldsay)	Rat, hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse	80
Gairsay	North Isles	240	102	0.9 (Mainland)	Rat, rabbit, feral cat	3
Glimps Holm	Mainland and linked isles	55	32	Connected by bridge	Stoat, hedgehog, probable rat, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse	0
Graemsay	South Isles	409	62	0.9 (Hoy) 1.0 (Mainland)	Probable rat, feral cat, hedgehog, rabbit, house mouse (wood mouse)	28
Helliar Holm	North Isles	35	28	0.4 (Shapinsay) 0.9 (Mainland)	Unknown	0
Holm of Faray	North Isles	27	19	0.2 (Faray)	Unknown	0
Holm of Grimbister	North Isles	16	8	0.2 (Mainland)	Unknown	3
Holm of Huip	North Isles	24	18	0.6 (Stronsay)	Probable rat	0
Holm of Papa	North Isles	21	15	0.7 (Papa Westray)	Unknown	0
Holm of Stockness	North Isles	22	18	0.3 (Egilsay)0.5 (Rousay)	Probable rat	0
Hoy	South Isles	13,468	479	0.9 (Graemsay) 2.6 (Mainland)	Possible stoat, rat, feral cat, hedgehog, rabbit, house mouse (wood mouse)	419
Hunda	Mainland linked isles and	100	41	Connected by bridge	Stoat, rat, hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse	0
Inner Holm	South Isles	2	7	0.1 (Mainland)	Unknown	0
Lamb Holm	Mainland linked isles	40	20	Connected by bridge	Stoat, rat, hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse (wood mouse)	0
Linga Holm	North Isles	57	18	0.7 (Stronsay)	Probable rat, rabbit	0
Muckle Green Holm	North Isles	28	28	2.1 (Eday)	Free from invasive mammals	0
Muckle Skerry	Pentland islands Firth	34	20	4.6 (South Ronaldsay)	Free from invasive mammals	0
North Ronaldsay	North Isles	690	23	3.8 (Sanday)	Hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse (wood mouse)	72
Orkney Mainland	Mainland linked isles	52,320	271	1.2 (Rousay) 1.7 (Shapinsay) 2.6 (Hoy)	Stoat, rat, hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse	17,162
Papa Stronsay	North Isles	74	13	0.3 (Stronsay)	Probable rat and feral cat, possible hedgehog	0
Papa Westray	North Isles	918	48	1.8 (Westray)	Rabbit, house mouse, probable rat, possible feral cat	90
Rousay	North Isles	4,860	250	1.3 (Mainland)	Possible stoat, rat, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse	216
Rysa Little	South Isles	33	20	0.3 (Hoy)	Probable rat	0
Sanday	North Isles	5,043	65	2.0 (Eday)	Rat, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse (wood mouse)	494
Shapinsay	North Isles	2,948	64	1.5 (Mainland)	Hedgehog, feral cat, probable rat, rabbit, house mouse (wood mouse)	307
South Ronaldsay	Mainland and linked isles	4,980	118	Connected by bridge	Stoat, rat, hedgehog, rabbit, feral cat, house mouse (wood mouse)	909
South Walls	South Isles	1,100	57	Connected (to Hoy) by bridge	Rat, feral cat, hedgehog, rabbit, house mouse(wood mouse)	See Hoy
Start Point	North Isles	24	8	0.6 (Sanday)	Unknown	0
Stronsay	North Isles	3,275	44	3.5 (Eday)	Rat, feral cat, hedgehog, rabbit, house mouse (wood mouse)	349
Sweyn Holm	North Isles	17	15	0.2 (Gairsay)	Probable rat	0
Switha	South Isles	41	29	1.2 (Flotta) 1.3 (South Walls)	Probable rat	0
Swona	Pentland islands Firth	92	41	3.3 (South Ronaldsay)	Possible rat, rabbit, house mouse, feral cattle	0
Westray	North Isles	4,713	169	7.0 (Rousay)	Feral cat, hedgehog, rabbit, house mouse	588
Wyre	North Isles	311	32	0.7 (Rousay) 2.2 (Mainland)	Rat, feral cat, hedgehog, rabbit, house mouse	0

The largest settlements are Kirkwall, with a population of around 9,000 people, and Stromness with 2,000 residents. The combined land area of Orkney Mainland and linked isles is 58,398 ha.

1.2 Target Species: stoat Mustela erminea

The stoat Mustela erminea is native to the British Isles and occurs on mainland UK and across the larger islands, including Shetland where it is introduced, but is absent from the Western Isles and [until recently] Orkney (King, 1977). The stoat is relatively common in the UK (Battersby & Tracking Mammals Partnership, 2005). The stoat is sexually dimorphic, with males being larger than the females, but with large variation in body size across its range in the Holarctic. Stoat body size is thought to vary as an adaptation to the size of locally available prey (Erlinge, 1987; Powell and King, 1997). In Britain, male body length ranges between 275-312 mm and weight 200-445 g, and females have a body length between 242-292 mm and weigh 140-280 g, with a tail length of 95-140 mm. Stoats have a short lifespan, usually 1 – 1.5 years, with maximum age in the wild reported as 7 years, and a population turnover rate of 3-5 years (King, 1977).

Stoats are not native to the Orkney archipelago where they are a recent introduction. First reports of stoats on Orkney Mainland were received in 2010, and the population has since expanded rapidly.

Harper (2017a) speculated that stoats in Orkney might already be at carrying capacity, and that it was highly likely that they would be dispersing to the non-linked islands of the group, most of which are within stoats’ swimming distance from each other.

The stoat is a predator, and, in common with many carnivores, frequently engages in surplus killing. In New Zealand, where the stoat is introduced and invasive, it has been implicated in the decline of several native bird species, e.g. the mohua (Elliott, 1996; Dilks, 1999) and kaka (Wilson et al. 1998). On mainland UK, the main prey items in the stoats’ diet are rabbits, small rodents, birds and eggs

(McDonald et al. 2000). In Orkney, the stoats’ main prey is thought to be the endemic Orkney vole Microtus arvalis orcadensis, with potentially serious consequences to the breeding hen harrier and short-eared owl populations (Fraser et al. 2015). There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that stoats are also taking advantage of seasonally abundant prey in Orkney, such as breeding waders (B. Ayling, pers. comm.).

Stoats are highly fecund, with early sexual maturity and a prolonged period of delayed implantation, or ‘embryonic diapause’. Female stoats are nearly always impregnated, allowing rapid colonisation of new islands. On Terschelling island in the Netherlands, a population of 9 stoats increased to 180 over three years (van Wijngaarden and Bruijns, 1961, in King, 1977). Amstislavsky and Ternovskaya (2000) reported sexual maturity in female stoats as young as 20 days, and virtually all females (juveniles and adults) are impregnated during the breeding season (King and Moody, 1982). Polkanov (2000) reports that at least in captivity, an adult male will visit a den with kits in the mother’s absence, mate with the female kits and may kill the male ones. Male stoats are thought to become sexually mature at the age of around 10-14 months (King and Moody, 1982; Polkanov, 2000). An average litter size is in the range of 6-12 kits, born in April-May in the British Isles (King, 1977). Lactation lasts 7-12 weeks although the young will consume solid food from the age of four weeks, and the typical prey-killing pattern is well developed in 3-month old stoats (King, 1977).

2 GOAL, OBJECTIVES and OUTCOMES

The primary purpose of this eradication operation is to remove the predation pressure posed by the invasive non-native stoat on the Orkney native wildlife. The duration of this operation is expected to be five years, from October 2018 to September 2023, including a one-year pre-eradication phase. The preparatory phase will see the development and implementation of protocols, acquisition of relevant permissions, recruitment, procurement, and continued work on community engagement and biosecurity. Several stopping points have been identified between the pre-eradication phases, and these are described in detail in the Project Plan (Bambini et al. 2018) and in Annex II. of this Operational Plan. Due to the challenges faced by any stoat eradication, arising from the intrinsic qualities of the target species, and specifically by this operation due to its unprecedented scale both in terms of the land area targeted, and the size of the human population inhabiting the islands, this operation will be subject to active adaptive management.

Adaptive management in conservation takes an experimental approach to management, and sets out hypotheses on the effectiveness of a given management regime which are then tested (Nichols and Williams, 2006; Parkes et al. 2006). By applying such a process to the Orkney stoat eradication, described in detail in section 3.1 of the project plan (Bambini et al. 2018), we will be able to determine the appropriate trapping density that will achieve the conservation objective of the operation (complete removal of stoats from Orkney Mainland). Through the bi-annual operational review process and adaptive management, new research and learning can also be incorporated in the operational planning to improve efficiencies, and new eradication techniques can be tested as they become available. The operational review process will track the progress of the operation, and assess whether the operational goal and objectives, as detailed below, remain feasible and attainable.

Project Goal: Wildlife on Orkney islands is safeguarded from the invasive non-native stoat Mustela erminea
Objectives	Outcomes
1. By August 2019, the extent of the stoat invasion across the Orkney islands is known, robust biosecurity measures are in place to prevent further spread, and plans and funding are in place to remove any satellite populations that have become established on the non-linked islands	1.1 The risks and uncertainties associated with the stoat eradication are reduced and managed
2. By August 2023, stoat density on Orkney Mainland and linked isles is reduced to a level where they are no longer a significant threat to Orkney native wildlife	2.1 Stoat predation pressure has been reduced for the benefit of Orkney native wildlife
3. By August 2025, no stoats remain in Orkney and the risk of new incursions is effectively reduced through a comprehensive and well resourced biosecurity strategy for the archipelago	3.1 The long-term sustainability of stoat-free Orkney islands is secured

3 OPERATION DETAILS

The main method of control utilised in this eradication will be the lethal DOC150 and DOC200 traps which have been approved for use on stoats by the Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order and meet the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) for stoats. Trapping trials carried out in Orkney using these traps demonstrated that they can be deployed effectively to achieve a substantial reduction (‘knock-down’) in the stoat population (Bell et al. 2018). Additional methods such as alternative trap types and shooting will also be deployed (see below, section 3.4 Implementation Stage 4: Mop-up and monitoring phase). No biocides (toxins) are currently authorised for use on vertebrates (other than rodents) in the UK under the EU Biocidal Product Regulation 528/2012. An application can be made to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as the competent authority in the UK to assess and evaluate the use of a new active biocidal substance under the EU Regulation 528/2012. The cost of an evaluation is currently (2018) charged at £495 per day, and the standard fees of £130,000 for a full data package (as may be required for e.g. para-aminopropriophenone (PAPP)) and £55,000 for the EU process apply, in addition to various administrative charges.

Stoat trapping work in New Zealand and in the UK has shown a strong seasonal bias in the sex of animals trapped, so that in spring the majority of animals caught are males, whereas the majority of females are caught in late summer. This means that females that are pregnant or lactating are usually caught only in very small numbers; most of the females caught are in the ‘delayed implantation’ stage or their reproductive cycle (King and Moody, 1982; McDonald and Harris, 2002). It is possible to determine the female stoats’ reproductive status by examining the ovaries for the presence of corpora lutea. The corpora lutea are small (0.4-0.6 mm across) during delayed implantation, and enlarged (0.91.4 mm) during implantation (King and Moody, 1982). Trapping is thought to be most effective as a control tool in winter and early summer, and shooting of females in late winter and early spring contributes disproportionally to the efficacy of control measures (McDonald and Harris, 2002).

This eradication operation will be supported by a monitoring programme, which will collect data on stoat abundance using tracking tunnels and motion-triggered trail cameras operated by citizen scientists. Orkney’s native wildlife will also be monitored by volunteers and citizen scientists, and seasonal research assistants will collect wader and hen harrier productivity data to gather evidence on the conservation impact of the stoat removal in Orkney. The details of this monitoring programme are not included in this Operational Plan, but are provided in the Project Plan.

3.1 Implementation Stage 1: Finalising land-access permissions

Initial land-access permissions will have been secured by the ONWP team, across the entire eradication area, by end of January 2019. All land holders will be contacted by the ONWP to request written permission, by January 2019, to access their land and to hold their contact details for the duration and purposes of the eradication.

The trapping team (10 trappers and two trapping foremen), with the support of the community engagement officer and manager (two persons), is required to finalise these access agreements through face to face discussions with each land owner. The trapping team will be supplied with detailed maps of the land-holdings, and will discuss with each landowner to agree on access routes, where to park, the use of conservation detection dogs, placement of and frequent checks of traps on their land. Access to all land will be required, but small parcels of land can be temporarily avoided e.g. to avoid disturbing cows with young calves. When accessing fields, the trappers will walk along field boundaries to avoid unnecessary trampling of crops, and will access fields through gates wherever possible, to avoid causing damage to fencing and boundary walls.

The trapping foremen will plan and coordinate this work, and provide the project manager with weekly updates on progress. This work will be completed in five months, from February to June 2019. This is based on the Bell et al. (2018) estimate that this task can be achieved at a rate of 1.25 km²/person/day (translating to approximately 470 person days to cover the entire eradication land area), with an in-built contingency that will allow for any delays resulting from lengthy negotiations with some landowners.

3.2 Implementation Stage 2: Establishment of trapping network

This work will be carried out by the trappers, with the support of the community engagement officer and the trapping foremen. The trapping foremen will draw up a work plan and carry out weekly progress reviews with the project manager. This work will be completed in 3 months (July-September 2019).

The primary trap used in this eradication is the DOC150 trap, in a double-set configuration placed in an extended “weka”-design wooded tunnel built to the manufacturer specifications (see Annex III.), as permitted by the Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order (STAO) 2011 (as amended), with baffles fitted at either end of the housing tunnel, and additional internal baffles in place to direct the animal to a correct position on the kill-plate to ensure a humane and effective kill. Approximately 20% of the traps will be the larger and more powerful DOC200 traps, placed in a single-set configuration and housed within a baffled wooden cubby. Only stainless steel DOC traps will be used. The traps should be bolted, not screwed, into the base of the wooden trap housing to facilitate removal for servicing and maintenance, and to extend the lifetime of the trap housing in a damp environment.

Traps will be placed along linear features that stoats are likely to utilise when moving though the landscape, such as field boundaries, dry stone walls, along the edges of waterbodies and ditches. The knowledge and skills of experienced stoat trappers should be utilised when deciding on trap siting. All trap boxes should be secured to the ground with stakes, and the trap should be on level ground to ensure it is stable. The traps may need to be dug in to a depth of few centimetres, depending on location.

The habit of stoats returning to sites where they have been successful at obtaining food can be used to the advantage of a trapping campaign (Polkanov, 2000). To encourage stoats to explore the traps and to associate them with food, all traps will be baited, using fresh rabbit, egg, beef offcuts or smoked mackerel. Long-life baits, as they become available, should be trialled and if effective, used particularly during the warmer months. Salted rabbit may be as effective as fresh rabbit (Pierce et al. 2007).

In addition to the DOC-traps, 1,000 self-resetting Goodnature A24 traps will be used (provided that these have been added to the Scottish STAO) as an alternative trap type that does not require the animal to enter trap housing, and may target trap-shy individuals, although an external baffle may need to be fitted to reduce the risk to non-target species (mainly hedgehogs). The A24 traps will be deployed after the primary traps are in operation. Despite mechanical failures in operational scale trials carried out in New Zealand across approximately 9,000 ha of conservation land, the Goodnature A24 traps were found to effectively suppress stoat populations (Gillies et al. 2012). Several improvements to the A24 trap design have since been implemented (D. Peters, pers.comm.), and trials carried out in the UK found that the external baffles effectively exclude hedgehogs from these traps (Campbell and Hartley, 2018).

Traps will be placed along easily walkable routes (‘trap lines’) at a density of approximately 12 traps km^-2 or 1 trap for every 8.3 ha. This is based on the assumption that stoats in Orkney are at moderate to high density and can therefore be expected to have small home ranges, and the requirement to put every target animal at risk in an eradication. At this density, traps will be at a distance of approximately 250 metres from each other, along trap lines that are approximately 350 metres apart, across the entire eradication land area (58,398 ha). This equates to 7035 trap locations, but trap placement will make use of linear features and not be based on a rigid grid.

In practice, trap placement should initially make use of existing roads and tracks, with new trap lines established across the less accessible areas. The trapping team will select routes through the landscape that will be accessible throughout the year and will facilitate efficient checking and servicing of the traps. It is unlikely that track-cutting will be necessary, but if needed, landowner approval must be sought first. Trap density may vary across the eradication area, so that traps are in higher density in habitats that support higher number of stoats; once traps are operational, trapping rate data will indicate where trap density may need to be increased to up to 16 traps km^-2, or 1 trap for every 6.25 ha (see Adaptive Management Process, Section 3.1 in the Project Plan). The trapping trial results suggest that the moorland areas may support more stoats.

Stoats are likely to be present in urban and residential areas, where more people can be expected to come into contact with the traps and the eradication team. Trapping in these areas must be planned sensitively, and implemented with the support of the community engagement manager and officers.

Trap establishment will begin from West Mainland (as the most likely source of unassisted stoat dispersal to non-linked isles) and proceed systematically across the entire eradication area. The eradication operation team will make a judgement on trap line placement, in discussion with and subject to landowner approval. Trap lines should follow linear features such as water bodies, field margins, dry stone walls and fence lines. Each trap line will be walked once, recording the track on a handheld GPS, to identify suitable trap locations. These will be marked, and the trapper(s) will return to place the traps at these locations, recording a GPS point for each trap and noting down the surrounding habitat. Traps will be placed along linear features (e.g. stone walls, ditches, field boundaries etc.) and will be pre baited but not set. If possible, 2-3 rounds of baiting should be completed before the traps are set to catch stoats. Trap location data will be entered into the eradication database promptly by the trappers; the trapping foremen will be responsible for maintaining the database, and accountable for ensuring high quality of the data collected. For each trap location, the wider habitat type, or ‘macrohabitat’ (e.g. unimproved grassland, improved grassland, heathland) and the microhabitat, or immediately proximate habitat (e.g. road verge, ditch, watercourse) will be recorded.

Each trap will have a label (Annex IV) with a unique trap identification number, contact details, and a warning to alert members of the public to the potential risk of injury resulting from tampering with the trap. To reduce the risk of trap interference, a public engagement and awareness raising campaign will be ongoing in Orkney to support the eradication operation. Trap housing will also be secured with a cable tie or similar, to reduce the incentive to open the lid.

3.3 Implementation Stage 3: Knock-down phase

In October 2019, once all the traps have been placed in the environment, the trapping team will refresh the bait and set all the traps, again starting from west Mainland so that all traps have a period allowing for ‘weathering’ and pre-baiting. All traps will be baited throughout the operation using fresh rabbit, egg, beef offcuts or smoked mackerel. Salted rabbit, dried rabbit and fish-flavoured cat food can also be used, if these prove effective. New long-life baits, as they become available, should also be trialled and if effective, used particularly during the warmer months. Stoat lures, if proven effective, should be used in a proportion of the traps, for example by adding lure to every second trap along a trap line.

The trapping team will aim to complete a trap check at each trap at least once every three weeks throughout the operation. Each trapper will be responsible for maintaining approximately 650 trap locations, with each trapping foreman responsible for approximately 268 trap locations. This translates to an average trap check rate of 44 traps/day/trapper, and 18 traps/day/foreman. At trap spacing of 250metres, this could require up to 11 kilometres of walking per day per trapper. The requirement for meticulous data recording has been accounted for here, and it is possible that more trap checks per day can be completed by most trappers in most areas. In this case, trap check frequency can be increased, to ensure the bait remains attractive to stoats and to increase trap nights.

Trapping density or trap check frequency may need to be increased in areas where stoat capture rates are high, but it is anticipated that the same team of trappers will be able to manage the increased workload by increasing efficiencies as the operation progresses. Some trap lines will be serviced by car (along roads) or using ATVs, with landowner permission, enabling faster trap checking. Each ATV should at all times carry two spare traps in their housing, to enable trap replacement as needed e.g. for servicing or repairs, or if a trap has been damaged or removed. The trapping team may need to be supplemented with seasonal staff or by other project staff to cover periods of leave or other absence.

This phase of the eradication operation is expected to last up to three years, and will proceed as planned, subject to 6-monthly technical reviews and a formal adaptive management process (see below, and the Project Plan for more details). Trap check frequency will remain the same until the trapping rate approaches zero, or operational reviews recommend a change in the frequency of checks. Bayesian catch-effort modelling (e.g. Fukusawa et al. 2013; Rout et al. 2014) and adaptive management will be used to inform operational planning. It is vital that accurate records of the trapping effort are kept (unit effort = trap days, or TD, i.e. days each trap is active). Trapping rates (i.e. number of stoats caught per unit effort) will vary across trap locations, habitat types, season, bait type etc., and keeping accurate records of this information is vital to the success of the eradication operation. When stoat trapping rate starts to approach zero across all traps, the operation will move to a ‘mop-up’ phase (see next section).

At each trap and during each trap check, the trapper/foreman will: record trap check data as instructed, using dedicated datasheets (Annex V); inspect the trap and ensure its correct and safe functioning; clean the trap housing and remove any animal remains; clean the trap and carry out any repairs as necessary; replace the bait and refresh the stoat lure, if used. As part of the routine trap maintenance, each trap needs to be calibrated regularly to the correct spring-off weight. This should be set to at least 80 grams to reduce the risk of capturing Orkney voles, whilst ensuring that even the smallest female stoats entering the traps are captured.

All carcasses will be removed from the traps, and all non-target species will be collected in clearly labelled bio-hazard bags. Each trapper will carry such a bag with them at each trap check, and will wear protective gloves when handling animal carcasses (for full details, see the Health and Safety Plan Section 6 of this plan, and the appropriate risk assessments). Once back at the vehicle, the trapper will place the bag in a sealable container which will be emptied into a larger sealable container for storage once back at the operational base. These containers must also be clearly labelled as containing biohazardous waste. During colder months, the larger container, kept in a secure area at the operational base, will be collected at two-weekly intervals for waste disposal. During warmer months, weekly collections must be made. All animal carcasses must be incinerated safely and in an environmentally responsible way. For a detailed waste management plan, see Annex VI.

The sex of all stoats caught in the traps will be recorded in the field (if possible), and a clear label (detailing collection date, time, trap location and initials of the collector) will be attached to each stoat carcass; each carcass will be placed in an individual, labelled clear plastic bag and placed in a cool box once back at the vehicle. Once back at the base, all carcasses should be weighed, measured, and (if the carcass is fresh) an autopsy should be carried out to extract (and store in a clearly labelled vial) stomach contents. For female stoats, the uterus and ovaries should be checked to determine the reproductive status of the animal. All stoat carcasses will be stored in a chest freezer and kept at temperatures of -6°C for further analyses, including DNA sequencing, and ageing.

Each trapper will be responsible for entering field data, from the traps they manage, into spreadsheets and submitting these weekly to their trapping foreman who will be responsible for entering these data onto the eradication database. The eradication database will be updated on a weekly basis, and at the end of each week, the trapping foremen will submit a progress report to the Project Manager. In addition to the trapping foremen and the Project Manager, the Conservation Scientist and key staff at the RSPB and SNH will have access rights to the eradication database.

The Project Manager will ensure that the eradication is progressing as planned, and will compile monthly progress reports to the Project Board. The Project Manager will work closely with the Conservation Scientist who will analyse the trapping data on a six-monthly basis, and together with the Project Manager and with the support of the trapping foremen and the Communications Manager, will produce six-monthly technical reports which will be used to carry out regular operational reviews as part of the adaptive management process for this eradication (see Section 3.1 in the Project Plan).

3.4 Implementation Stage 4: Mop-up and monitoring phase

As stoat density across the eradication area approaches zero, trapping rates are expected to decline significantly. When the trapping rate has been close to zero for a period of 6 months, a decision will be made through the adaptive management process on what changes should be applied to the trap check frequency. It is important to ensure that this can be done without compromising trap availability (i.e. depending on the rate of non-target bycatch and the bait types used). During this phase of the operation, more effort will be invested in active searches for surviving stoats by the conservation detection dog team. The use of alternative trap types and shooting are likely to also become critical to the success of the eradication at this stage. This phase of the operation is critical to the success of the eradication, and maintaining the same (or greater) level of resourcing is essential. The trapping foremen will continue to work closely with the project manager and conservation scientist to produce 6-monthly technical reports, and regular operational reviews will continue to be carried out by external experts.

During year-2 (expected August 2020) of the eradication operation, three (3) trained and certified conservation detection dogs will join the eradication operation team, along with three dedicated full-time handlers (see Annex VII. for the conservation detection dog RSPB Code of Practice). The training of these dogs will start as soon as possible, and before the start of the eradication. The three handlers will each operate a dog to systematically search across the entire eradication area for signs of stoats. It is anticipated that the team will spend approximately 80% of their time on this activity, with the remainder spent on assisting with biosecurity work across the archipelago (see next section for details). A further three dogs will join the operation during year-3 (expected June 2021), and will be allocated to members of the trapping team. These trappers will be selected during year-2 of the operation, and will receive full training in the skills required to handle a conservation detection dog. The trappers will also receive training in handling firearms (if required), and will be licensed to operate a firearm. Once paired up with a trained dog, these trappers will be allocated fewer trap check responsibilities and will spend a proportion of their time searching for stoats with the conservation detection dog. At the end of each day, any stoat signs picked up by the dogs will be entered into the GIS-linked eradication database by the handlers to inform work plans produced by the trapping foremen.

It is essential that during this phase of the eradication, if not before, different bait types and trap designs and configurations are tried, in order to target the remaining stoats. It is probable that the surviving individuals will have encountered DOC traps, and trap shyness is a likely cause of trap avoidance. When stoat sign is picked up by the dogs, the handler should always make an attempt to home in on the location of the animal. The team of three handlers should work as a team, and may call upon the help of the handler-trappers to help locate an individual stoat. When a stoat is found, the handler may attempt to dispatch it by shooting if it is safe to do so. In every other instance, the response will be to mount an intensive trapping regime in the area to target the stoat. Similarly, when a den is discovered, traps will be deployed immediately at very high density in the surrounding area. As many trap types and bait choices as possible should be utilised, and these traps should be checked weekly if possible.

Once trapping rate has reached zero and systematic dog searches are finding no more fresh stoat sign, trap check frequency can be decreased to 8-week intervals, and only long-life baits and stoat lure will be used. This level of trapping effort and the systematic dog searches will continue for a period of 2 years following the last confirmed presence of a stoat. Throughout the eradication operation, the Orcadians are asked to remain vigilant and are encouraged to report any stoat sightings. In the mop up phase of the eradication, these reports from members of the public become even more important, and the community engagement officers will follow up every report with an interview and if the presence of a stoat is suspected, a site visit, accompanied by a trapping foreman if possible.

At the completion of a 2-year period with no confirmed reports of stoats, no stoats captured in traps or by monitoring tools (such as motion-triggered trail cameras, operated by volunteers), and no fresh sign detected by the conservation detection dogs, the eradication can be declared a success and the operation will end. The legacy of the Orkney Native Wildlife Project will be a comprehensive and well resourced biosecurity strategy, implemented across the archipelago. Any traps that remain operational at the end of the eradication, will be transferred to biosecurity trapping use. The trapping grid across the eradication area will be dismantled and all traps will be collected and placed in storage.

3.5 Implementation Stage 5: Operational biosecurity and long-term project legacy

During the planning and development phase of the Orkney stoat eradication, a Biosecurity Plan was produced for the archipelago (Harper, 2017b). The purpose of this plan was to reduce the risk of stoats spreading to, and establishing on the non-linked islands of Orkney. The plan outlined biosecurity containment trapping areas on Orkney Mainland, and a protocol for incursions responses. This plan was implemented in 2017-18. In 2019, greater effort will be invested in surveillance trapping on the nonlinked isles, and an Orkney biosecurity working group will be formed with the objective of developing a long-term biosecurity strategy for the archipelago.

During the stoat eradication operation, the team of three dedicated dog handlers will also be responsible for carrying out frequent dog-assisted biosecurity checks on high-risk islands that are within swimming distance from Orkney Mainland, and once island-specific biosecurity plans have been implemented, will work closely with the biosecurity officer to carry out checks on any agricultural loads transported from Orkney Mainland to any of the non-linked isles.

Dog-assisted stoat searches will be carried out on Hoy, Graemsay, Flotta, Eynhallow, Shapinsay, Gairsay, Wyre and Rousay in 2018 and 2019, then quarterly (every 3 months) during 2020-2022, and once every six months thereafter. These searches will target areas with suitable habitat and along the coast nearest to Orkney Mainland, unless reported stoat sightings or evidence from the surveillance network suggests that stoats are present. In a suspected incursion, a more intense response will be required (see below). The other inhabited non-linked islands will be checked for stoat presence by a contractor during summer 2019, and will be checked again by the ONWP dog team towards the end of 2022 and before the eradication operation is declared a success.

During 2019, the Biosecurity Officer, assisted by the trappers and the community engagement officers, will install a network of biosecurity traps and surveillance devices on high-risk islands including Graemsay, Flotta, Eynhallow, Shapinsay, Gairsay, Wyre and Rousay. DOC traps will be installed along coastal areas closest to the Orkney Mainland, along trap lines at approximately 200 metres apart. On larger islands (Hoy, Rousay and Shapinsay), two parallel trap lines may be established, within 200 metres of one another. Approximately 100 traps will be installed on Shapinsay and Rousay, with approximately 140 traps on Hoy. The smaller islands will have traps distributed across them, at an approximate density of 8 traps km^-2. Additionally, motion-triggered trail cameras and footprint tracking tunnels will be installed in strategic locations across the high-risk islands. The traps will be baited with long-life bait, but no stoat lure will be used, as a precautionary measure until stoats Orkney Mainland have been eradicated. Traps will be checked and the bait replaced every 8 weeks. Trail camera SD cards and footprint tracking plates will be checked and replaced monthly.

If the surveillance network or the dog-assisted searches uncover evidence of stoat presence, the biosecurity officer will lead an incursion response, assisted by the conservation detection dog team, volunteers and SNH and RSPB Orkney staff. DOC150 and 200 traps will be deployed, baited with fresh bait, and checked weekly for one month and every two weeks thereafter. On larger islands, the incursion response will target areas at a density of 16 traps km^-2where stoat sign is detected by the dogs, but on smaller islands (<10 km²) an island-wide trapping grid will need to be established at this density. This trapping density will be reviewed as experience is gained from trapping on Orkney Mainland and the linked isles. If a large number of traps (>150) needs to be deployed, the trapping foremen will accommodate incursion trap checks to the trapping team’s work plan on a temporary basis to cover for any staff shortages.

The community engagement manager, biosecurity officer and the community engagement officers will work with island communities to develop community-led, island specific biosecurity plans. The island communities will be supported in the delivery of these plans, which will encompass high biosecurity risk activities such as the transport of agricultural products to and from the island. On each inhabited island, volunteer Biosecurity Champions will be recruited and trained in maintaining the biosecurity trap and surveillance network. Across Orkney, a dedicated team of predator incursion response volunteers will also be recruited and trained. In the future, when Orkney is stoat-free, these volunteers can be called upon to carry out responses to any new predator incursions across the archipelago.

The Orkney Native Wildlife Project Partnership is committed to supporting the long-term predator biosecurity of the islands. The biosecurity officer will form and coordinate a biosecurity working group, formed of key stakeholder and community representatives and tasked with developing a long-term biosecurity strategy and funding plan for a stoat-free Orkney. This strategy will encompass high-risk activities such as the transport of straw and hay in to Orkney from mainland Scotland, and will provide a framework for supporting island-specific biosecurity plans and maintenance of surveillance networks across the archipelago.

All activities undertaken by the eradication operation team on private land will follow the ONWP Land Access Protocol (Annex VIII.)

4 NON-TARGET SPECIES

A large number of potentially affected non-target species are present in Orkney. Overall, the number of individual animals of non-target species caught in the traps is expected to be small (with the exception of the brown rat Rattus norvegicus) and the overall conservation benefit of the stoat eradication will compensate for any losses in the short term. The net population level impact of the stoat removal on all non-target species is expected to be positive, through reduction in predation pressure and competition for resources. The impact on non-target species has further been reduced through mitigation measures outlined below.

Domestic animals

The only domestic animals likely to be at risk from the operation are free-roaming pet cats. These are relatively common in Orkney, and are likely to encounter traps particularly in the urban fringes and around farmsteads. The extended ‘weka’ design DOC trap housing (see Annex III.) provides a distance of 357 mm between the entrance to the trap housing, and the entrance in the internal baffle, reducing the likelihood of a cat being able to reach the kill plate and be injured by the trap. The entrance in the external baffle is 6X6 cm, and whilst preventing entry by the animal, may in exceptional circumstances allow a cat to get its head stuck in the trap housing. In such circumstances, it is expected that the cat will be discovered and can be released unharmed. Dogs are less likely to get stuck in the traps in this way, or attempt to reach the bait inside using their paws.

Orkney vole

The Orkney vole, due to its small size, will be able to enter the traps freely. To reduce the risk of captures of this and other small non-target species, the DOC traps will be set to a minimum triggering weight of 80 grams, which will allow for the smallest female stoats to be captured (≥140 g) but should not be triggered by the voles which weigh 30-70 g (The Orkney vole – a management guide, Scottish Natural Heritage).

Birds

Similarly to the Orkney vole, some small passerines are able to enter the DOC trap housing freely. Some species, e.g. the wren and starling, are more likely to do so and may be able to trigger the trap if they flutter around the trap housing in an attempt to escape. Careful trap placement is the only available option to reduce the risk of passerine captures. It is anticipated that a very small number of birds will be killed in traps in this way, and the trapping work carried out during 2017-18 supports this.

Otter

An adult otter will not be able to enter the DOC trap housing, and will not be able to reach the kill plate of the trap(s) within. Hung and Law (2014) report mean zygomatic breadth of otter skulls from East Germany as 73.87 mm (65.9–81.5) for males and 67.33 mm (61.8–74.8) for females. It is therefore possible that a juvenile otter, or a small female, will be able to put its head through the entrance in the external baffle and may become stuck. The likelihood of this happening is considered to be low; to date, no otter interactions with the traps have been observed in Orkney. The Hebridean Mink Project has not had any instances of otter captures in the BMI Magnum 116 traps it operates, with an average of 12,000 monthly trap nights (SNH unpublished data).

Invasive non-native species

This category includes all other mammals in Orkney; only the otter and Orkney vole can be considered native to the archipelago. Brown rats are the only species that can be expected to be caught regularly in the DOC traps, and there is no way to reduce the risk of them being caught due to their similar size and weight to the target species, the stoat. The operation is unlikely to result in the eradication of the rat in Orkney, due to the trap spacing (>250 m). The DOC traps are humane and approved for use on the rat in Scotland.

The other non-native mammalian species present are house and field mouse, cats and hedgehog. Mice, similarly to the Orkney vole, are unlikely to trigger the DOC traps due to their low weight. Feral cats, as with the domestic cat, are unlikely to be injured in the DOC traps. In the unlikely event that a cat will be caught and injured in a trap, it will be captured and provided with veterinary care. Domestic cats will be returned to their owners, or if no owner can be found, re-homed. No cats will be released in to the wild, in compliance with section 14(1) of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. Adult hedgehogs may get through the entrance to the trap housing, but the likelihood of their capture can be reduced by careful trap placement. It is unlikely that many (if any) hedgehogs will be caught; none were caught in the biosecurity containment trapping or the trapping trials carried out in 2017-18.

Table A: Risk assessment for non-target species during the eradication of stoat Mustela erminea on Orkney Mainland and linked isles
Species	Potential impact	Preventative action	Risk
Livestock (sheep and cattle)	Disturbance	Avoidance of fields with young lambs or calves; walking along field boundaries; dogs kept on leash when around livestock. Dogs are trained not to respond to any nontarget animals; cattle are more likely to pose a danger to trappers, dogs and handlers, and may have to be avoided on health and safety grounds.	Low
Domestic and feral cats	Injury	Extended ‘weka’ design trap housing precludes reaching of the kill-plate	Negligible
Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus	Death or injury	Small entrance to trap housing; A24 traps fitted with external baffles; trap placement.	Low
Rat Rattus norvegicus	Death	None available; invasive non-native species widely controlled e.g. around farming operations	High
House and field mouse Mus musculus Apodemus sylvaticus	Death	Trap sensitivity adjusted to prevent mice triggering the trap	Low
Orkney vole Microtus arvalis orcadensis	Death	Baits and lures used may deter voles; trap sensitivity adjusted to prevent voles triggering the trap	Low
Otter Lutra lutra	Injury	Extended ‘weka’ design trap housing precludes reaching of the kill-plate	Negligible
Hen harrier Circus cyaneus Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Corncrake Crex crex Little tern Sterna albifrons Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Merlin Falco columbarius Peregrine falcon Falco perigrinus Red-throated diver Gavia stellata	Disturbance	Some disturbance may be unavoidable but every effort will be made to keep this to a minimum; trap checks can be adjusted to avoid the most sensitive periods during the breeding season. Schedule 1 licence may be required.	Low
Wader spp.	Disturbance	Some disturbance may be unavoidable but every effort will be made to keep this to a minimum; trap checks can be adjusted to avoid the most sensitive periods during the breeding season.	Low
Starling Sturnus vulgaris Wren Troglodytes	Death, disturbance	Widespread on Orkney and disturbance may be unavoidable; entry to traps cannot be prevented but trap placement will mitigate substantially the risk of this happening.	Medium
Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa Garganey Anas querquadula Greenshank Tringa nebularia Pintail Anas acuta	Disturbance	Rare or occasional breeding species on Orkney; Schedule 1 licence may be required but nesting sites can probably be avoided entirely.	Negligible

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Due to its extensive scale and scope, this operation is expected to have a moderate to significant environmental impact in Orkney. A full Habitat Regulations Appraisal (HRA) will be carried out by Scottish Natural Heritage in autumn 2018, one year ahead of the eradication start date. The HRA will assess what impact the operation will have on Natura2000 sites and features present in Orkney. Historic Environment Scotland (HSE) will be consulted on the impacts on scheduled monuments and World Heritage Sites, and any recommended mitigation measures will be implemented by the operation. Some of the project impacts are considered positive (benefits to the Orkney native wildlife), and others can be mitigated effectively. In this section, these mitigation measures are outlined (Table B.). The potential environmental impacts of this operation can broadly be split into the following categories:

Release from predation pressure and resource competition (Orkney native wildlife)
Release from predation pressure and resource competition (other invasive non-native mammals)
Disturbance to breeding birds
Trampling of sensitive habitats
Death or injury to non-target species that enter the DOC (and Goodnature A24) traps
Soil compacting affecting historic or archaeological sites, including scheduled monuments
Physical damage to archaeological features or scheduled monuments
Waste resulting from the eradication operation, including bio-hazardous waste (animal carcasses)
Carbon footprint of the eradication operation

Table B. Negative environmental impacts and mitigation measures implemented during the stoat eradication operation on Orkney Mainland and the linked isles.
Environmental impact	High risk activities	Measures in place to reduce the impact
Release from predation pressure and resource competition (Orkney native wildlife)	The removal of stoats	N/A
Release from predation pressure and resource competition (other invasive non-native mammals)	The removal of stoats	None. This removal of stoats may lead to a temporary increase in other non-native predators in Orkney that may have been in resource competition, or predated on by the stoats. It is expected that populations will quickly return to pre-2010 levels when stoats were absent from the Orkney ecosystem.
Disturbance to breeding birds	Human presence in breeding territories: trapping operation, dog-assisted searches, stoat and native wildlife monitoring	Disturbance will be minimised through careful planning of work during bird breeding season; hen harrier and short-eared owl nest locations will be mapped and the trapping team will avoid the vicinity of these during the most sensitive periods. Trap lines and dog searches will follow linear features and field boundaries to avoid disturbance of breeding waders and terns, and to prevent trampling of nests and eggs.
Trampling of sensitive habitats	Off-road walking and use of ATVs during trapping operation, dog-assisted searches, stoat and native wildlife monitoring	Trap lines will follow existing roads, tracks and linear features wherever possible to reduce impact of regular footfall. When crossing vegetated areas is unavoidable, care is taken to minimise disturbance to soil and vegetation by e.g. slightly altering the route taken on every visit.
Death or injury to non-target species that enter the DOC (and Goodnature A24) traps	Trapping operation	See section 4 and Table A of this plan
Soil compacting affecting historic or archaeological sites, including scheduled monuments	Off-road walking and use of ATVs during trapping operation, dog-assisted searches, stoat and native wildlife monitoring	Access routes to and around sensitive sites will be agreed in discussion with HSE and local site managers.
Physical damage to archaeological features or scheduled monuments	Digging of soil during trap placement; direct physical damage (intentional or unintentional).	Digging of soil to the depth of >100 mm will not be done in the vicinity of archaeological features or any heritage sites. Care is taken when operating in the vicinity of any such site, and as far as is operationally feasible, traps will not be placed adjacent to scheduled monuments.
Waste resulting from the eradication operation, including bio-hazardous waste (animal carcasses)	Trapping operation: damaged traps and other equipment, oil and chemicals (e.g. vehicles, disinfectant used in farm biosecurity), bio-hazardous waste (decomposing bait, animal carcasses).	All waste material will be removed from the environment and recycled wherever possible, or disposed of as appropriate, as detailed in the Waste Management Plan (Annex VI. of this plan).
Carbon footprint of the eradication operation	All durable and consumable goods used by the operation; transport of staff and equipment; energy use at operations base.	Every effort will be made to reduce the carbon footprint of this operation by sourcing materials (esp. trap housing and bait) locally. Recycled and/or environmentally friendly materials will be used wherever possible, and all waste materials will be recycled if possible. Road transport emissions will be minimised as far as possible through careful planning of trap lines and work plans and schedules, and carsharing as much as possible. Any meetings with off-island staff will be conducted over telephone or video conferencing facility whenever practicable to reduce the need to travel to meetings. Energy needs of the operational base will be supplied by renewable sources if possible and a paperless office policy will be in place as far as practicable.

6 HEALTH AND SAFETY

A detailed Operational Health and Safety plan will be produced by the Project Manager, with the support of the Community Engagement Manager and the trapping foremen. The H&S Plan will include risk assessments for all activities carried out as part of the eradication operation (Table C). Risks to the trapping team, volunteers, and local residents will be assessed and reduced as far as possible.

The Community Engagement Manager will, with support from the community engagement officers, work together with stakeholders to raise awareness and to ensure that the Orcadians are well-informed and recognise e.g. the risk of injury resulting from tampering with any of the traps in use by the operation.

The Project Manager will be responsible for the Health and Safety of the eradication operation team. All staff must familiarise themselves with the H&S plan and the detailed task-specific risk assessments, and follow safe practices and operating protocols at all times. The eradication team will be provided with personal protective equipment, and plans and protocols are in place and will be followed in the event of an incident. All vehicles and equipment are insured and maintained in safe operating condition, and the project staff are covered by the RSPB’s Staff Insurance Policy.

Table C. Operational activities for which risk assessments are to be completed by the Project Manager.
Risk	Activities affected	Relevant Risk assessment and/or Code of Practice
Livestock (particularly cattle)	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	To Be Completed (TBC)
Handling animal carcasses	Checking traps	TBC
Handling decomposing bait	Checking traps	TBC
Handling traps – risk of injury	Setting, checking and servicing traps	TBC
Handling/euthanizing wild animals	Checking traps	TBC
Heavy lifting	Moving traps	TBC
Lone working	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	TBC
Operating tools	Setting, checking and servicing traps	TBC
Operating ATVs	Setting, checking and servicing traps	TBC
Firearms	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	TBC
Hypothermia, severe weather heatstroke,	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	TBC
Drowning	Operating on boats or around waterbodies	TBC
Dogs – risk of injury	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	TBC
Electric fences – risk of injury	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	TBC
Working in uplands – risk of injury, severe weather	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	TBC
Working near cliffs	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	TBC
Walking over rough ground – risk of injury	Setting, checking and servicing traps, dog searches	TBC

7 LOGISTICS

Orkney is easily accessible by air from major cities on mainland UK, with regular scheduled flights departing from Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness. Several ferry routes also connect Orkney to mainland UK, with services operating car and passenger ferries Scrabster – Stromness, Aberdeen – Kirkwall, Gills Bay – St Margaret’s Hope, and seasonally John O’Groats – Burwick for foot passengers only.

Within the Orkney archipelago, the inhabited islands are connected to Orkney Mainland by regular ferry services to Hoy, Graemsay, Flotta, Rousay, Egilsay, Wyre, Shapinsay, Stronsay, Sanday, Eday, Westray, Papa Westray and North Ronaldsay. Foot passengers do not need to book in advance but it is advisable that cars are booked in advance. The inter-island ferries are operated by the Orkney Islands Council. Inter-island flights are operated by Loganair to most of the inhabited islands. Stoat surveillance equipment can be transported to the non-linked isles by vehicles taken across on the ferries were these operate, but some islands will be accessed by chartered boats (e.g. Gairsay and Eynhallow).

The Orkney Native Wildlife Project team will have a dedicated office (hereinafter the Operational Base), most likely located in the Kirkwall area (to be confirmed) within easy transport and road connections to all parts of the Mainland and linked isles. The Operational Base will provide office facilities including desk space for up to 20 people, a large meeting room with capacity to fit the entire ONWP team, changing and shower facilities, a kennelling area for the dogs, storage space with capacity to house the spare traps and traps awaiting repairs, freezers and additional equipment needed by the operation, and a well-equipped workshop area for essential trap maintenance and repairs. The Operational Base will have sufficient freezer space to accommodate a 3-month supply of bait, and up to 1,000 stoat carcasses. Frozen or otherwise preserved stoat carcasses will be periodically shipped to mainland UK for permanent storage, as required and when storage space on Orkney is approaching capacity. The Operational Base will also have an outside space where a lockable/secure storage container for biohazardous waste (non-target bycatch and used bait) will be held.

The Project Manager and the rest of the ONWP team will be working from the Operational Base on a day-to-day basis, with the team of trappers and trapping foremen (and later the conservation dog team) being entirely or largely working in the field but with unrestricted access to facilities at the operational base. All ONWP staff are expected to be responsible for their own accommodation arrangements.

All procurement, including the procurement of project vehicles, the Operational Base, and all equipment required for the eradication, will be carried out in the pre-eradication phase during 2018-19. DOC traps will be purchased from the UK and NZ suppliers, and shipped to Orkney by sea. The trap housing, or cubbies, will be built by carpenters based locally in Orkney as far as possible, but due to the limited capacity and the need to construct in excess of 5,000 trap boxes (including a mix of single-set and double-set tunnel designs, details in Annex III.), it is likely that carpenters based on UK mainland will also be utilised. The trap housing constructed on UK mainland will be shipped to Orkney overland and by sea. Bait used by the operation will be sourced locally as far as possible, but UK and NZ suppliers will be used as and when required.

The Orkney Islands, especially Mainland and the linked isles, have an extensive network of roads and tracks that are accessible to vehicles. The moorland areas additionally have an existing network of rough tracks (see Figures 3&4 for examples), created for the purposes of peat cutting that are accessible by 4X4 vehicles and ATVs. This existing road and track network will be utilised extensively by this eradication operation, both for the placement of traps (see section 3.2 above), and for servicing the trap network.

Figure 3. A peat-cutting trail on an Orkney Mainland moor

Figure 4. An aerial image of a section of the Orkney Mainland Moor, showing rough tracks and a mosaic of habitats and land-uses.

The eradication team of 10 trappers and two trapping foremen will have access to two ATVs with trailers, and a fleet of six vehicles for the duration of the operation, including two pick-up trucks and trailers, and four crew vans capable of carrying up to 6 passengers. The crew vans have a load space of at least 4 m³. Two trailers for transporting the ATVs will also be available to the team. Each m³ of load space represents a capacity to carry 20 double-set tunnels, or 25 single-set cubbies. The pick-up trucks have a smaller load space (approximately 1.5 X 1.5 metres in area) and are capable of carrying up to 24 double-set, or 42 single-set cubbies each. The trailers will additionally fit at least 24 double-set, or 36 single-set cubbies, loaded 4 tunnels deep. In the mop-up stages of the operation, the trapping team will share the use of these vehicles with the team of conservation dog handlers, and crates for the safe transport of dogs may be fitted in the back of the vans and/or pick-ups. The other ONWP staff have access to an additional four vehicles and will be using these to carry out their work.

During the initial phase of establishing the trap network, the operational team will use the crew vans and trailers attached to pick-up trucks, loaded with traps (with each crew van carrying an estimated 100 single-set cubbies, or 80 double-set cubbies, and each pick-up with trailer carrying at least 48 doubleset or 78 single-set cubbies each) to distribute the traps across the eradication area. A 100 traps will serve approximately 830 ha of land, and a team of five trappers is expected to manage this in one full day. Two trap setting teams of five can operate simultaneously, covering up to 1,600 ha of land each day, although parts of West Mainland may take longer due to limited road coverage. In the moorland areas of West Mainland, the teams may have to use ATVs and trailers to transport traps away from the surfaced roads. Additional logistical support for trap distribution may be available and can be arranged for if required.

The trapping foremen will be responsible for planning the logistics of the trap checks during the knockdown phase, and trap checks and dog searches during the mop-up phase.

8 EQUIPMENT LIST

The Project Manager will be responsible for the procurement of all equipment and materials required by the operation. Section 10 of this plan provides details on the timing of procurement for essential equipment. Sufficient lead-in time should be allocated for the procurement of the traps in particular, and advance notice of the order should be given to the manufacturer. The construction of the trap housing will require a substantial lead-in time, and multiple suppliers should be used. The operational equipment budget is outlined in Annex IX. of this plan. Links to websites of New Zealand based companies supplying traps and surveillance equipment can be found at PredatorFreeNZ.

Table D: The essential equipment list for the eradication of stoat Mustela erminea from Orkney Mainland and the linked isles - Field team equipment and operational base.
Item	Source	Ready? (Y/N)
PPE for all field staff: waterproof clothing and footwear, thermal base layer etc.	TBC
Vehicles (X6)	TBC
ATV with trailer (X2)	TBC
Trailer for transporting ATV (X2)	TBC
SPOT trackers and annual subscription (X15)	TBC
Laptops (X8)	TBC
Office furniture	TBC
Dog kennels (X6)	TBC
Mobile phones and contracts (X15)	TBC
Large chest freezer for storing stoat carcasses	TBC
Biohazardous waste bin	TBC

**Establishing trapping grid**
Item	Source	Ready Y/N?
GPS (x15)	TBC	-
Carry-packs (X10)	TBC	-
DOC150 and DOC200 traps (X14,000)	Pest Control Solutions (New Zealand) CMI Springs (New Zealand)	-
-	Haines Pallets (New Zealand) Perdix Wildlife Supplies (UK)	-
Wooden trap housing (X9,424)	Carpenters in Orkney and mainland Scotland	-

**Trap baiting and servicing**
Item	Source	Ready Y/N?
3-month supply of fresh bait (rabbit, egg, beef offcuts etc.)	TBC	-
3-month supply of long-life bait (salted rabbit, dried rabbit etc.)	Pest Control Solutions (New Zealand)	-
Stoat lure	Goodnature Traps UK supplier Bushwear (UK) Pest Control Research (New Zealand) Pest Control Solutions (New Zealand)	-
Trap maintenance kits (X12)	TBC	-
Bio-hazardous waste disposal bags (X2,400/year) and bins (X6)	TBC	-
Cool box for stoat carcasses (X6)	TBC	-

**Dog searches and mop-up**
Item	Source	Ready Y/N?
Muzzles (X6), ONWP conservation dog vest (X6), collars and leads (X6), crates (X6)	TBC	-
Air pistol (X15)	TBC	-
Goodnature A24 traps (X1,000)	Goodnature Traps UK supplier	-
Gas cylinders for A24 traps (X6,000)	Goodnature Traps UK supplier	-

**Biosecurity**
Item	Source	Ready Y/N?
DOC150 and DOC200 traps with housing (X4,500)	Pest Control Solutions (New Zealand) CMI Springs (New Zealand) Haines Pallets (New Zealand) Perdix Wildlife Supplies (UK) Carpenters in Orkney and mainland Scotland	-
Tracking tunnels (X1,500)	Pest Control Research (New Zealand)	-
	Key Industries Ltd. (New Zealand) Gotcha Traps Ltd. (New Zealand)	-
Ink cards for tracking tunnels (X20,000)	Pest Control Research (New Zealand) Pest Control Solutions (New Zealand) Gotcha Traps Ltd. (New Zealand)	-
Trail cameras (X250)	TBC	-
SD cards (X500)	TBC	-

9 OPERATIONAL TEAM

The Operational Team forms part of the wider Orkney Native Wildlife Project team, which together work on a host of activities designed to deliver conservation benefits to Orkney’s native wildlife and to enhance people’s connection with nature in Orkney. The Operational Team outlined in this section is directly involved in delivering the stoat eradication operation and the biosecurity activities. The eradication operation will be supported by a stoat and native wildlife monitoring programme, delivered by volunteers and seasonal research assistants.

Table E: The Operational Team, the organisations involved, and their roles and responsibilities for the delivery of the eradication of stoat Mustela erminea from Orkney Mainland and linked isles.
Name	Organisation	Role
Sarah Sankey	RSPB	Lead Officer
Graham Neville	SNH	Lead Officer
Stuart West	OIC	Lead Officer
Kirsty Nutt	RSPB	Senior Supplier
Laura Bambini	RSPB	Senior Supplier

Responsibilities

Form the Steering Group
Accountable to the Partnership Board for the success of the Project

Has the delegated authority to direct the Project within the tolerances set by the Partnership Board

Leading the Project Team, through the Project Manager, to deliver the agreed outputs and meet the agreed objectives and desired outcomes
Set tolerances for each stage of the Project
Communicate with stakeholders as defined in the Communications Plan (including briefing the Partnership Board on progress in the form of approving monthly Highlight Reports to the Partnership Board)
Communicate with and facilitate receiving advice from the Technical Advisory Group
Provide overall guidance and direction to the Project, ensuring it remains viable, achievable, desirable, and within any specified constraints
Respond to requests for advice from the

Project Manager

Ensure that risks are being tracked and managed as effectively as possible
Approve changes outside tolerances set for Project Manager.
Make decisions on escalated issues and escalate issues to the Partnership Board when required
Line manage the Project Manager (Lead Partner)

Name	Organisation	Role	Responsibilities
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Project Manager	Responsible for the day to day running of the Project on behalf of the Steering Group Ensure Project delivery within the specified tolerances of time, cost, quality, scope, risk and benefits Compilation of monthly highlight reports and funder reports Lead and motivate the Project team Ensure that behavioural expectations of Project team members are established Manage the information flows between the directing and delivering levels of the Project Take responsibility for the correct and most effective use of resources and initiating corrective action where necessary Owner of the equipment inventory Establish and manage the Project's procedures — risk management, issue and change control, and communications Establish and manage the Project controls - monitoring and reporting Authorise delivery of Work Packages agreed by Steering Group Support function to Partnership Board including paper preparation and minute taking
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Communications Manager	Responsible for project communications plan and delivery Leads on all media and communications related activities including press releases, newsletters, articles, leaflets, posters, videos, social media etc. Oversees all people engagement aspects of the project, designed to gain and maintain high levels of community support and participation in the delivery of the project
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Community Engagement Officer	Responsible for delivery of community events, workshops and training events Supporting the land access working group and engagement with landowners
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Field Operations Manager (X2)	Team leaders of the stoat eradication operation Lead and motivate the trapping team Securing and maintaining land access agreements and liaising with landowners Co-ordination of the eradication operation on the ground Participate in the land-access working group Involvement in public events, incl. training volunteers to trap and monitor stoats Responsible for maintenance of accurate data of the eradication operation Reporting to Project Manager on the progress of the operation; compilation of weekly update reports Liaise with dog handlers to coordinate responses to stoat sign found during the mop-up phase of the operation Contribute to operational reviews
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Trapper (X10)	Securing and maintaining land access agreements. Liaising with landowners Establishment and maintenance of the trap network Regular trap checks and eradication data collection Operating firearms to humanely dispatch stoats Three will go on to handle dogs and receive training later in the project
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Biosecurity Officer	Responsible for delivering all biosecurity activities Development and implementation of community-led biosecurity plans (via training and workshops) Operating stoat surveillance networks on non-linked isles Maintenance of a stoat incursion response database and establishment of an incursion response Task Force Leading a Biosecurity Working Group Leading on the production of a Biosecurity Plan for Orkney
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Dog handler (X3)	Support for the stoat eradication operation and biosecurity activities, including advocacy work as required. Handling and continued training of conservation sniffer dogs for stoats, humane dispatch of stoats that are found Entering and submitting stoat sign location data to a GIS supported database; close liaison with the trapping foremen to coordinate responses to stoat sign found during the mop-up phase
Staffan Roos	RSPB	Senior Conservation Scientist	Responsible for designing and coordinating all raptor, seabird, wader, vole and stoat data collection. Analysis of past data and annual data to create trends, technical reports and papers for scientific journals. Facilitation of studentships. Analyses of eradication data to inform adaptive management
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Field officer (X4)	Responsible for carrying out pre-eradication surveys of priority native wildlife species and monitoring activities to assess project impact on native wildlife and ecosystem recovery following the removal of stoats Inputting data during and after field season, preparing data for analysis
TBC	RSPB on behalf of the ONWP partnership	Administrator	Administrative support for the Project Manager and other project staff Keeping and submitting records of project spend as necessary (financial claims).

10 TASK SCHEDULE
Key task	Completion date	Responsible
Operational Planning Stage	-	-
Project Plan finalised	31/07/2018	Seabird Recovery Officer
Operational Plan finalised	31/07/2018	Seabird Recovery Officer
Funding secured	By 31/08/2018	Orkney Manager, Operations Manager
Operational Plan reviewed by IEAG	30/09/2018	Seabird Recovery Officer
Project Manager recruited and in post	30/10/2018	Orkney Manager, Operations Manager
Pre-operation phase	-	-
Tendering process for training and supply of 3 conservation dogs completed; contractor selected. Dogs acquired by 31/01/2019 and available in 2020.	30/11/2018	Seabird Recovery Officer
Biosecurity Officer and Community Engagement Manager recruited and operational	31/12/2018	Orkney Manager, Operations Manager
Trapping team and foremen recruited and operational	31/12/2018	Project Manager
Land-owner access permissions secured	31/01/2019	Project Development Officer and Conservation Officer, then Community engagement manager

Eradication database set up	31/01/2019	Project Manager
Operational Base established	31/03/2019	Project Manager
All equipment (50% of traps and housing, PPE, vehicles, 6-month supply of lure, laptops, GPS etc.) purchased, received and ready for deployment; all traps and housing ordered and in production.	31/04/2019	Project Manager
Remainder of traps and housing received and ready for deployment	30/06/2019	Project Manager
Pre-eradication readiness check	30/08/2019	IEAG
Operational phase	-	-	-
Land access details finalised and agreed	30/06/2019	Trapping team
3-month supply of bait obtained	30/06/2019; 15/09/2019; 15/12/2019 etc.	Trapping foremen
Tendering process for training and supply of 3 additional conservation dogs completed; contractor selected	30/09/2019	Project Manager
Trap lines established and traps placed and pre-baited	30/09/2019	Trapping team
All traps set and operational	30/10/2019	Trapping team
First round of trap checks completed	21/11/2019 with checks completed every 3 wks thereafter	Trapping team
First monthly report submitted to Project Manager	31/11/2019 and at the end of each month thereafter	Trapping foremen

Dog handlers recruited and in post	31/05/2020	Project Manager
First 6-monthly report submitted to Project Board and TAG	30/05/2020 and annually thereafter	Project Manager
First operational review completed	30/06/2020 and annually thereafter	TAG
Dog team operational	31/07/2020	Project Manager
Second 6-monthly report submitted to Project Board and TAG and IEAG	31/12/2020 and annually thereafter	Project Manager
Three trappers selected to become dog-handlers	31/12/2020	Trapping foremen
Second operational review completed	31/01/2021 and annually thereafter	TAG and IEAG
Trapper-handlers trained and paired with conservation detection dogs	31/05/2021	Project Manager
Sustainability	-	-
Surveillance and biosecurity traps deployed on high-risk islands	31/03/2019	Biosecurity Officer
Biosecurity working group established	30/06/2019	Biosecurity Officer
Biosecurity workshops delivered to inhabited islands	30/06/2020	Biosecurity Officer
Second round of biosecurity workshops delivered community-led, island-specific biosecurity plans in draft	30/06/2021	Biosecurity Officer
Orkney Islands Incursion Task Force in place	30/06/2022	Biosecurity Officer
Community-led biosecurity plans finalised	30/06/2022	Biosecurity Officer
Orkney Biosecurity Strategy finalised and long-term funding and resourcing committed	31/07/2023	Biosecurity Officer

This operation consists of a Planning Stage, Pre-Operation Stage, Operational stage and the long-term biosecurity legacy in place and maintained in perpetuity at the completion of the stoat eradication operation. The Project Plan provides greater detail on the Planning and Pre-Operation stages, and identifies STOP/GO points during this stage. Once the project completes all tasks and steps in these stages of the operation, and the Operational stage formally begins, the STOP/GO points are defined through the active adaptive management process detailed in Annex II. of this plan and in Section 3.1 of the Project Plan. Key milestones of the operation are listed in Table F. below. The operation must go through all steps detailed for each of the stages, and each milestone must be met by the date set below. If milestones are reached ahead of schedule, and each step in a stage has been completed, the operation can move on the next stage ahead of the planned date.

Table F: A checklist of key tasks for the delivery of the eradication of stoat Mustela erminea from Orkney Mainland and the linked isles.
Land-owner access permissions secured	31/01/2019	Project Development Officer and Conservation Officer, then Community engagement manager
Eradication database set up	31/01/2019	Project Manager
Operational Base established	31/03/2019	Project Manager
All equipment (50% of traps and housing, PPE, vehicles, 6-month supply of lure, laptops, GPS etc.) purchased, received and ready for deployment; all traps and housing ordered and in production.	31/04/2019	Project Manager
Remainder of traps and housing received and ready for deployment	30/06/2019	Project Manager
Pre-eradication readiness check	30/08/2019	IEAG
Operational phase
Land access details finalised and agreed	30/06/2019	Trapping team
3-month supply of bait obtained	30/06/2019; 15/09/2019; 15/12/2019 etc.	Trapping foremen
Tendering process for training and supply of 3 additional conservation dogs completed; contractor selected	30/09/2019	Project Manager
Trap lines established and traps placed and pre-baited	30/09/2019	Trapping team
All traps set and operational	30/10/2019	Trapping team
First round of trap checks completed	21/11/2019 with checks completed every 3 wks thereafter	Trapping team
First monthly report submitted to Project Manager	31/11/2019 and at the end of each month thereafter	Trapping foremen
Dog handlers recruited and in post	31/05/2020	Project Manager
First 6-monthly report submitted to Project Board and TAG	30/05/2020 and annually thereafter	Project Manager
First operational review completed	30/06/2020 and annually thereafter	TAG
Dog team operational	31/07/2020	Project Manager
Second 6-monthly report submitted to Project Board and TAG and IEAG	31/12/2020 and annually thereafter	Project Manager
Three trappers selected to become dog-handlers	31/12/2020	Trapping foremen
Second operational review completed	31/01/2021 and annually thereafter	TAG and IEAG
Trapper-handlers trained and paired with conservation detection dogs	31/05/2021	Project Manager
Sustainability
Surveillance and biosecurity traps deployed on high-risk islands	31/03/2019	Biosecurity Officer
Biosecurity working group established	30/06/2019	Biosecurity Officer
Biosecurity workshops delivered to inhabited islands	30/06/2020	Biosecurity Officer
Second round of biosecurity workshops delivered community-led, island-specific biosecurity plans in draft	30/06/2021	Biosecurity Officer
Orkney Islands Incursion Task Force in place	30/06/2022	Biosecurity Officer
Community-led biosecurity plans finalised	30/06/2022	Biosecurity Officer
Orkney Biosecurity Strategy finalised and long-term funding and resourcing committed	31/07/2023	Biosecurity Officer

Table G: The task schedule for the delivery of the eradication of stoat Mustela erminea from Orkney Mainland and linked isles.
Activities	2018 Q3	2018 Q4	Q1	2019 Q2	2019 Q3	Q4	Q1	2020 Q2	2020 Q3	Q4	Q1	2021 Q2	2021 Q3	Q4	Q1	2022 Q2	2022 Q3	Q4	Q1	2023 Q2	2023 Q3	Q4
Operational Planning Stage Project Plan finalised	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational Planning Stage Operational Plan finalised	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational Planning Stage Funding secured	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational Planning Stage Operational Plan reviewed by IEAG	yes		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational Planning Stage Project Manager recruited	yes	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase Contractor selected for training and supply of 3 conservation dogs	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase Biosecurity Officer and Community Engagement Manager recruited	yes	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase Trapping team and foremen recruited	yes	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase Land-owner access permissions secured	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase Eradication database set up	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase Operational Base established	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase All equipment purchased, 50% of traps	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase received and ready for deployment	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase All traps ready for deployment	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pre-operation phase Pre-eradication readiness check	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational phase Land access details finalised	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational phase 3-month supply of bait obtained	-	-	-	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	-	-
Operational phase Contractor selected for training and supply of 3 conservation dogs	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational phase Trap lines established and traps placed and pre-baited	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational phase All traps set and operational	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational phase First round of trap checks completed	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational phase First monthly operational report	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational phase Dog handlers recruited	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Operational phase 6-monthly operational review by TAG	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	yes	-	-
Operational phase Dog team operational	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Annual operational review by TAG and IEAG	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	yes		yes	-	-
Trapper-dog-handlers selected	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Trapper-dog team operational	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Sustainability Surveillance and biosecurity traps	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sustainability deployed on high-risk islands	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sustainability Biosecurity working group established	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sustainability Biosecurity workshops delivered to 10 inhabited islands	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sustainability Second round of biosecurity workshops delivered and 10 community-led, islandspecific biosecurity plans in draft	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sustainability Orkney Islands Incursion Task Force in place	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sustainability Community-led biosecurity plans finalised	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sustainability Orkney Biosecurity Strategy finalised; funding and resourcing committed	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	yes	-

11 REFERENCES

Amstislavsky, S. and Ternovskaya, Y. 2000. “Reproduction in mustelids.” Animal Reproduction Science 60-61: 571-581.

Bambini, L., Sankey, S. and Neville, G. 2018. Orkney Native Wildlife Project: Project Plan. Unpublished report, Edinburgh: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Battersby, J. (Ed) & Tracking Mammals Partnership. 2005. UK Mammals: Species Status and Population Trends. First Report by the Tracking Mammals Partnership. Peterborough: JNCC/Tracking Mammals Partnership, 116 pp.

Bell, E., Campbell, D. and Burbridge, S. 2018. Operational Plan for the eradication of stoats (Mustela erminea) from the Orkney Islands, Scotland. Orkney Native Wildlife Project, 138 pp.

Campbell, S. and Hartley, G. 2018. Hedgehog interactions with the Goodnature A24 traps. Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), 13 pp.

Dilks, P. 1999. “Recovery of a Mohua (Mohoua ochrocephala) population following predator control in the Eglinton Valley, Fiordland, New Zealand.” Journal of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand 46 (323-332).

Elliott, G. 1996. “Productivity and mortality of mohua (Mohoua ochrocephala).” New Zealand Journal of Zoology 23: 229-237.

Erlinge, S. 1987. “Why do European stoats Mustela erminea not follow Bergmann's rule?” Ecography 10 (1): 33-39.

Fraser, E.J., Lambin, X., McDonald, R.A. and Redpath, S.M. 2015. Stoat (Mustela erminea) on the Orkney Islands - assessing risks to native species. Commissioned Report No. 871, Scottish Natural Heritage, 43 pp.

Fukasawa, K., Hashimoto, T., Tatara, M., & Abe, S. 2013. “Reconstruction and prediction of invasive mongoose population dynamics from history of introduction and management: a Bayesian state‐space modelling approach.” Journal of Applied Ecology 50 (2): 469-478.

Gillies, C., Gorman, N., Crossan, I., Harawira, R., Hawaikirangi, R., Long, J. and McCool, E. 2012. A second progress resport on DOC S&C Investigation 4276 'Operational scale trials of selfresetting traps for ground based pest control for conservation in NZ forests'. Hamilton, NZ: New Zealand Department of Conservation, 24 pp.

Harper, G. 2017a. The feasibility of eradicating stoats from the Orkney Islands. Unpublished report, RSPB Scotland, 35 pp.

Harper, G.A. 2017b. Stoat Biosecurity Plan for the Orkney Islands 1st Revision. Edinburgh: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 46 pp.

Hung, N. and Law, C.J. 2014. “Lutra lutra (Carnivora: Mustelidae).” Mammalian Species 48 (940): 109122.

King, C.M. and Moody, J.E. 1982. “The biology of the stoat (Mustela erminea) in the National Parks of New Zealand IV. Reproduction.” New Zealand Journal of Zoology 9: 103-118.

King, C.M. 1977. “Stoat Mustela erminea.” In Handbook of British Mammals, by G.B. and Southern, H.N. Corbet, 331-338. Blackwell Scientific Publications.

McDonald, R.A. and Harris, S. 2002. “Population biology of stoats Mustela erminea and weasels Mustela nivalis on game estates in Great Britain.” Journal of Applied Ecology 39 (5): 793-805.

McDonald, R.A., Webbon, C. and Harris, S. 2000. “The diet of stoats (Mustela erminea) and weasels (Mustela nivalis) in Great Britain.” J. of Zool., Lond. 252: 363-371.

Nichols, J.D. and Williams, B.K. 2006. “Monitoring for conservation.” TREE 21 (12): 668-673.

ONWP. 2018. Consultation Report for mid-term review meeting. Orkney Native Wildlife Project, 51 pp.

Parkes, J.P., Robley, A., Forsyth, D.M. and Choquenot, D. 2006. “Adaptive Management Experiments in Vertebrate Pest Control in New Zealand and Australia.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (1): 229236.

Pierce, R.J., Miller, N., Neill, E., Gardiner, C. and Kimberley, M. 2007. Field trials of fresh and long-life stoat baits in Northland, New Zealand. DOC Research & Development Series 262, New Zealand Department of Conservation, 17 pp.

Polkanov, A. 2000. Aspects of the biology, ecology and captive breeding of stoats. Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 307, Wellington: Department of Conservation, 17 pp.

Powell, R.A. and King, C.M. 1997. “Variation in body size, sexual dimorphism and age-specific survival in stoat, Mustela erminea (Mammalia: Carnivora), with fluctuating food supplies.” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 62: 165-194.

Rout, T. M., Kirkwood, R., Sutherland, D. R., Murphy, S., & McCarthy, M. A. 2014. “When to declare successful eradication of an invasive predator?” Animal Conservation 17 (2): 125-132.

TAG. 2018. Stoat Operational Plan: TAG advice 30-5-2018. Unpublished report, Orkney Native Wildlife Project.

Wilson, P.R., Karl, B.J., Toft, R.J., Beggs, J.R. and Taylor, R.H. 1998. “The role of introduced predators and competitors in the decline of Kaka (Nestor meridionalis) populations in New Zealand.” Biological Conservation 83 (2): 175-185.

12 ANNEX I: Recommendations from Bell et al. 2018
-	Accepted recommendations
1	The ONWP Project Manager position is filled as soon as possible
2	The three ONWP community liaison positions are filled as soon as possible
3	The Biosecurity Officer position is filled as soon as possible
4	The three stoat detection dogs are purchased, trained and in place as soon as possible
5	The three ONWP Biosecurity Dog Handler positions are filled as soon as possible
6	Alternative funding options are identified in case current funding streams are unsuccessful or funding secured to date is insufficient to cover the project costs
7	Consultation with the Orcadian community be continued to identify all interest groups and identify issues that the public may have regarding the eradication
8	All landowners are identified to enable the land access agreements to be completed
9	All islands in the Orkney Islands are assessed and monitored for stoats during the operation and factored into the eradication phase if detected
10	Key native species are monitored to detect and quantify any impacts by stoats prior to, during and after the eradication operation
11	Obtaining the land access permissions from all landowners is critical to the establishment of the trapping grid
12	Establishing the trapping grid will take significant amount of time due to the bulky equipment and access to the grid positions
13	Maintenance or replacement of wooden cubbies will be required during the eradication operation and could be required as often as annually in places where decomposition rates are high (e.g. fertile fields with fluctuating water tables)
14	Traps need to be placed securely (especially alog coastal sections) and where possible, away from livestock
15	Fresh meat (ideally rabbit in the first instance) is used as the primary bait during the eradication, but that alternative baits and lures should be used on occasion to ensure individual taste and behaviour in stoats is catered for
16	The trapping team carry gloves, biological hazard bags for cleaning traps and collecting decomposing animals and a bucket for storage of all material until disposal is possible
17*	A suitable method for cleaning the traps in the field is developed
18*	The trapping trial is continued to provide further data o trapping and baiting methods that affect the efficacy of the eradication
19	Double-trap sets are used as the main trap type during the eradication operation
20	The cubby design is modified to reduce weight, vibration when traps are triggered, avoid nontarget captures and non-clean captures of stoats. It will be important to assess whether this will result in the need for a derogation.
21	The bait is placed in bait cages (wire mesh cages) to reduce the chance of scavenging by smaller mammals (such as rats, mice or voles)
22	Deactivated Goodnature A24 traps are trialled in a wider range of habitats to determine the level of stoat interaction with these traps
23	If Goodnature A24 traps are approved for use for stoats in Scotland, a trial using live traps is also completed
24	An adaptive approach is taken for the Orkney Native Wildlife Project
25	Sufficient time is provided for the planning, research and implementation phases
26	Research into stoat behaviour and trap-ability is conducted prior to the eradication and that trap rates are monitored throughout the operation to allow for adaptation of techniques
27	The trap density is sufficient to target female stoats
28	Trap density is set between 200 and 350 grid but trap sets are placed along linear features likely to be utilised by stoats
29	Wooden cubbies are used as the main cover, but alternatives should not be discounted as the eradication
30	That a derogation application is completed for the use of run-through cubbies as this could prove to be a very effective method when stoat numbers have been reduced on the Orkney Islands
31	A variety of baits and lures are used. New developments in bait types and lures should be monitored and utilised as appropriate throughout the eradication
32	A well-managed, small and dedicated team of trappers is used
33	The impacts of stoats on the key native wildlife species (waders, hen harrier, Orkney vole) of Orkney distribution, abundance or breeding success is investigated and compared pre and post eradication to determine the impacts stoats may (or may not) have had on these species
34	The possible impacts (e.g. water supplies, farm management, poultry, pets, etc.) on the human population on the Orkney Islands is investigated
35	That all research into stoat ecology and behaviour should be completed prior to, or concurrently with, the implementation of the stoat eradication phase of the Orkney Native Wildlife Project
36	The ONWP Project Manager is only responsible for the ONWP as this project will require their complete commitment and concentration
37	The ONWP Project Manager is responsible for purchasing all major equipment, including traps
38	The landowners and property boundaries are identified and mapped
39	The landowner agreements are finalised, discussed and agreed with each landowner and signed
40	The land access agreements are reviewed periodically to ensure there have been no changes to the land use, tenancy or ownership, resolve any concerns, or updated requirements for the ONWP and contractor personnel when on specific land
41	The ONWP communication plan outlines how the ONWP team will manage ongoing communication and engagement with landowner for the duration of the eradication operation and overall project
42	The dog training is completed immediately to allow the dogs to work on the Orkney Islands when stoats are present and can be used to implement biosecurity immediately
43	The dogs are used to monitor outer islands and to test and implement biosecurity strategies as part of the wider eradication operation
44	The ONWP dog handlers liaise with the ONWP contractor to assist with the additional monitoring during the implementation of the eradication operation
45	All the planning actions have been completed by the ONWP Project Manager and other ONWP team members prior to the implementation phase
46	The ONWP steering group review all documentation of the project including operational plan, progress reports, methodology reviews, and scientific papers
47	All ONWP steering group meetings have detailed minutes recorded and action logs to ensure tasks are completed promptly
48	TAG meets every 6 months during the planning and implementation phases to discuss results and methodology to date and advice on any adaptations as recommended by the contractors or ONWP team
49	The TAG reviews all documentation of the project including operational plan, progress reports, methodology reviews, and scientific papers
50	All TAG meetings have detailed minutes recorded and action logs to ensure tasks are completed promptly
51	The stakeholders for the ONWP are identified and included immediately into the project consultation process
52	The ONWP community liaison personnel ensure all stakeholders are regularly updated as the eradication progresses
53	All permits and approvals are obtained by the ONWP Project Manager prior to the implementation phase
54	The land access agreements cover trapper access, stoat-detector dog access, any required quarantine actions and special requests by specific landowners
55	The land access agreement documents are finalised, reviewed by legal representative and approved for use as soon as possible but that there is scope for special requests or actions to be added for specific properties
56	The ONWP community liaison personnel consult with landowners in regard to land access agreement information and any issues prior to the eradication commencing with the assistance of social scientists
57	The land access permissions are finalised following discussions about final trap placement and any special requirements per property
58	All aspects of the project requirements and land access are clearly discussed with each landowner during the process of obtaining land access agreements
59	Each landowner receives a copy of their individual land access agreement
60	Communication between the ONWP community liaison officer and the ONWP contractor and all landowners is maintained
61	The land access agreements are in place prior to the traps being placed and the final placement of traps is discussed with the landowners by the trappers
62	The trapping grid is established over the whole area before trapping begins
63	Traps are pre-baited when established to allow stoats to become habituated to entering the trap boxes
64	There is clear data collection, storage, management and analysis protocol in place for the fata collected during the eradication
65	There is clear identification which group collects which data set (i.e. trapping, monitoring, research, biosecurity, citizen science etc.)
66	The data collection systems are agreed, i.e. notebooks, datasheets, electronic devices, automated trap devices etc. for field data and that these systems are tested, and relevant protocols established prior to the eradication project
67	Data are entered regularly into the agreed system and shared between all parties to allow for analysis and communication
68	The communication plan is finalised, reviewed and approved prior to the implementation phase
69	There are regular briefing/debriefing meetings [between the ONWP team and contactors]
70	The ONWP Health & Safety Plan and detailed Risk Assessment is written by the ONWP Project Manager and is reviewed, finalised and approved by relevant project partners’ H&S advisors prior to the implementation phase
71	All forms of waste are identified and disposal options for each is identified
72	Orkney Islands Council is approached for advice in regard to waste facilities and capacity on the Orkney Islands and options for disposal during the eradication
73	Detailed waste management plan is prepared, finalised and approved by ONWP prior to the implementation phase
74	At least four project vehicles are purchased for the Project Manager, ONWP community liaison officers and the ONWP biosecurity officer and ONWP dog handlers
75	These vehicles are branded with the project logo
76	Local boat men are used to access the ‘stepping stone’, ‘outlying’ and possibly ‘distant’ islands to complete the trapping and monitoring checks
77	Quarantine measures are followed for access to private land and farms if required
78	Simple quarantine measures are followed to reduce the risk of transporting invasive mammal, invertebrate and weed species.
79	The biosecurity plan for the Orkney Islands is finalised and implemented prior to the eradication
80	All pre-eradication planning and preparation requirements have been completed prior to the implementation stage
Rejected recommendations
1	The knockdown period during the eradication be completed in autumn/winter when bait lasts longer and is more attractive, carcasses do not decompose as quickly, and natural food is reduced
2	That good quality high-definition wildlife cameras (with dedicated night-vision lenses) are selected for the monitoring phase of the eradication operation
3	Research into stoat habitat use, ecology and behaviour is completed to understand how they use the Orkney environment
4	DOC200^TM are the primary traps used in the eradication
5	Trail cameras are used as a monitoring tool during the eradication
6	Despite not detecting stoats, tracking tunnels are used as a monitoring tool during the eradication. Trials of different tracking tunnel designs should be completed prior to the eradication.
7	The home range of stoats on the Orkney Islands is investigated
8	The seasonal and daily activity patterns of stoats on the Orkney Islands is investigated
9	Prey availability and prey preference of stoat on the Orkney Islands is investigated
10	Dietary preferences between males and females are investigated
11	The habitat preferences and habitat use by stoats in Orkney is investigated
12	Stoat prey abundance in Orkney is investigated
13	The breeding biology and population dynamics of the stoats on Orkney are investigated
14	The relationship between stoat diet and how that may affect current predator/prey relationships on the Orkney Islands is investigated
15	Other mammal species (rabbit, rat, cat) distribution and abundance is investigated and compared pre and post eradication to determine the impacts of removing stoats from the Orkney Islands has on these species
16	An expression of interest for the Orkney Native Wildlife Project: Stoat Eradication Implementation is advertised to determine the interest and capacity of contractors available for the operation
17	The formal tender is advertised as soon as possible following the completion of specific planning actions
18	The tender clearly states the work requirements, responsibilities, preferred timetable, and any other requirements for the contractor role
19	The contractor has capacity for stoat detection dog handlers and firearms specialists in their team
20	The contractor provides their own vehicles as part of the tender process. If these must be branded with the project logo, this should be a condition in the tender documentation
21	The ONWP steering group meets every 3 months during the implementation phase to discuss results and methodology to date and advise on any adaptations as recommended by the contractors or ONWP team
22	The ONWP project manager prepares quarterly reports on the progress of the operation, risk updates, and project outputs and deliverables, including action points from previous meetings
23	The Orkney islands are split into three Mainland zones (1, 2 & 3), ‘stepping stone’ islands, ‘outlying’ islands and ‘distant’ islands
24	The grid spacing in the three Mainland zones averages 250 m (a network of 16 traps/km2) using DOC200^TM double-trap sets, in wooden cubbies in the first instance
25	The grid spacing in the ‘stepping zone’ and ‘outlying’ islands may be the same (a network of 16 traps/km2) using DOC200^TM double-trap sets, in wooden cubbies but could vary locally depending on the application
26	Monitoring will be set up concurrently [to the establishment of the tapping grid] to record a baseline of stoat activity prior to knock-down
27	The monitoring system (primarily trail cameras) is put in place when the traps are established
28	The knockdown phase in each area is completed from November-April and an initial monitoring/mop-up phase is then completed in the following May-October, before moving to the next mainland zone
29	Application for alternative cubby designs, including run-throughs, plastic, mesh and aluminium, should be made through the derogation process
30	The contractor has an effective communication plan as part of their operational procedures (which is outlined in the tender process and tested in Orkney prior to the implementation phase)
31	The contractor has an effective Health & Safety plan and detailed risk assessment as part of their operational procedures (which is outlined in the tender process and approved by the ONWP Project Manager and ONWP Partnership Board prior to the implementation phase
32	The contractor provides their own vehicle requirements, but if these must be branded as project vehicles, that this must be a condition in the tender process
33	Helicopters are used to transport traps and cubbies around the islands to assist with establishment of the trapping grid

13 Annex II: Project approach

Pre-eradication phase: stopping points

The Orkney stoat eradication operation will require an extensive period of planning and preparation. During this time, funding for the entire eradication operation must be secured, including a generous contingency budget (in keeping with best practice). The eradication area is set to cover the Orkney Mainland and linked islands of South Ronaldsay, Burray, Lamb Holm, Glimps Holm and Hunda. Any stoats found on the non-linked islands of the archipelago will be addressed through incursion responses during the pre-eradication phase. Where incursion responses are unsuccessful at removing stoats from these islands, or if it is discovered that stoats have become established and an extensive eradication campaign would be required to remove these satellite populations, the ONWP will request access to the Project Risk Budget to assess the feasibility of eradication, and to plan and carry out the operation. This approach is taken because the planned eradication operation on Orkney Mainland and linked isles does not have sufficient resource redundancies built into it to accommodate a significant increase in the eradication land area, and any eradication taking place on one (or more) of the non-linked isles would require a separate base and operational team to be established there. Managing two operational bases, two eradication teams, and two (or more) eradication operations (that may be in different phases of implementation) under one programme would introduce significant logistical and operational challenges. To reduce and manage the risk of stoats spreading further during the pre-eradication phases, and once the eradication is underway on Orkney Mainland and linked isles, robust biosecurity measures will be in place across the archipelago. These measures include regular checks carried out by conservation detection dogs, containment trapping on Orkney Mainland (until the eradication trapping begins), and ‘buffer-zone’ trapping on coastal areas of high risk non-linked islands and across the stepping stone islands.

The eradication operation will be carried out simultaneously across the entire land area of the Orkney Mainland and linked isles, as recommended by Harper (2017a). The operation is expected to last up to 5 years, including a knock-down phase of no more than 3 years and a mop-up phase of at least 2 years. During the knock-down phase, lethal DOC traps will be the main eradication tool, and during the mop-up phase, conservation detection dogs will be used to carry out extensive searches for surviving stoats. Any surviving stoats will be targeted with as many eradication tools as are available in the UK, currently limited to alternative trap types and DOC traps placed in alternative housing (subject to legal approval), and searching by dogs and shooting. It is recommended that the option of obtaining approvals for the use of para-aminopropriophenone (PAPP) against stoat in Orkney is investigated, giving careful consideration to risks to non-target species. PAPP is a highly effective control agent on cats (Felis cattus) and stoats, with high susceptibility reported for other carnivores (including dogs Canis familiaris and foxes Vulpes vulpes) but a high oral LD₅₀ mg kg^-1 for other mammals including rodents, and for birds (Baskin and Fricke 1992; Eason et al. 2014). This substance is currently not licensed for use as a biocide within the EU (Health and Safety Executive 2018). An adaptive management strategy will be in place for both the knock-down and the mop-up phases of the eradication (see below), and includes 6-monthly reviews carried out by independent experts. In line with an adaptive management approach, these reviews may become more frequent if the operation requires it. A detailed operational plan outlines how the operation will be implemented, and will be kept up-to-date to reflect changes implemented through the review process.

The pre-eradication phase has been split into three stages, each of which contains several ‘stop points’. Each step in a stage must be completed before the operation can progress to the next stage. The final pre-eradication checkpoint is the Pre-eradication Readiness Check, completed by the Island Eradications Advisory Group (IEAG), a NZ-based independent panel of experts widely accepted as the world leaders in planning and execution of eradication projects on islands. The IEAG will either deem the operational planning and preparations complete/in a sufficiently advanced state for the eradication to start, or will identify outstanding issues and risks and make recommendations on how to address these. Decisions to postpone eradication projects are not uncommon: both the Macquarie Island pest eradication project and the Antipodes Island mouse eradication project were postponed. Both have since been executed and declared successful.

Project stop points – a staged approach leading to a pre-eradication readiness check:

Pre-eradication stage 1: June – October 2018	-
Extent of stoat distribution on high-risk islands is known	Dog-assisted searches are completed on Rousay, Hoy, Graemsay, Flotta, Shapinsay, Wyre and Gairsay by October 2018. If incurring stoats are found, incursion responses are implemented. If the incursion response(s) fail(s) or an established stoat population is found, the project Risk Budget is accessed and an eradication operation is implemented. The start of the Orkney Mainland operation may have to be postponed. STOP POINT 1: If stoats are found to be established on one or more of the non-linked island, the feasibility of eradication must be established and costed, and funding must be secured prior to the Orkney Mainland operation starting. If the eradication or containment of an established satellite population is deemed technically or financially unfeasible and the risk of incursions to Orkney Mainland cannot be effectively mitigated and managed, the eradication should not start and a new feasibility study will need to be commissioned to assess the long-term stoat management options available in Orkney.
Operational Plan is approved by TAG and IEAG	Initial trap density and adaptive management strategies and stop/change points for the operation are established. Bait and lure types to be used are identified. A robust and fully costed operational plan is produced for the eradication and approved by the project TAG and reviewed by the IEAG by August 2018. STOP POINT 2: If an Operational Plan is not approved and there is no agreement on the methodology that has the greatest chance of delivering a successful eradication, the start of the eradication operation should be delayed and the writing of a new operational plan should be commissioned.
Funding for the full project is secured	Grant funding from LIFE and HLF is confirmed by September 2018; commitment to underwrite funding shortfall is secured; commitment to funding for project risk budget is secured. STOP POINT 3: The eradication will only start once funding is in place for the entire operation. If the start of the eradication is delayed beyond 2019, greater investment in biosecurity and containment trapping must be made immediately to reduce the risk of stoats spreading across the entire Orkney archipelago.
HRA and environmental assessment are completed	An HRA is completed in September 2018 and concludes that the operation will not put Natura2000 features at risk and/or will not have an unfavourable impact on their conservation status, and will result in an overall conservation benefit to native wildlife in Orkney. The environmental assessment determines that the level of non-target impact is within acceptable limits and will not have negative impact on populations of native wildlife. Historic Environment Scotland (HRE) is consulted on the potential impact to scheduled monuments and World Heritage Sites. The operation can be completed without causing harm or damage to the historic environment in Orkney, including any designated sites and scheduled monuments, and measures are in place to avoid or mitigate any impact.

Pre-eradication stage 1: June – October 2018

Extent of stoat distribution on high-risk islands is known

Dog-assisted searches are completed on Rousay, Hoy,

Graemsay, Flotta, Shapinsay, Wyre and Gairsay by October 2018. If incurring stoats are found, incursion responses are implemented. If the incursion response(s) fail(s) or an established stoat population is found, the project Risk Budget is accessed and an eradication operation is implemented. The start of the Orkney Mainland operation may have to be postponed.

STOP POINT 1: If stoats are found to be established on one or more of the non-linked island, the feasibility of eradication must be established and costed, and funding must be secured prior to the Orkney Mainland operation starting. If the eradication or containment of an established satellite population is deemed technically or financially unfeasible and the risk of incursions to Orkney Mainland cannot be effectively mitigated and managed, the eradication should not start and a new feasibility study will need to be commissioned to assess the long-term stoat management options available in Orkney.

Operational Plan is approved by TAG and IEAG

Initial trap density and adaptive management strategies and stop/change points for the operation are established. Bait and lure types to be used are identified. A robust and fully costed operational plan is produced for the eradication and approved by the project TAG and reviewed by the IEAG by August 2018.

STOP POINT 2: If an Operational Plan is not approved and there is no agreement on the methodology that has the greatest chance of delivering a successful eradication, the start of the eradication operation should be delayed and the writing of a new operational plan should be commissioned.

Funding for the full project is secured

Grant funding from LIFE and HLF is confirmed by

September 2018; commitment to underwrite funding shortfall is secured; commitment to funding for project risk budget is secured.

STOP POINT 3: The eradication will only start once funding is in place for the entire operation. If the start of the eradication is delayed beyond 2019, greater investment in biosecurity and containment trapping must be made immediately to reduce the risk of stoats spreading across the entire Orkney archipelago.

HRA and environmental assessment are completed

An HRA is completed in September 2018 and concludes that the operation will not put Natura2000 features at risk and/or will not have an unfavourable impact on their conservation status, and will result in an overall conservation benefit to native wildlife in Orkney. The

environmental assessment determines that the level of non-target impact is within acceptable limits and will not have negative impact on populations of native wildlife. Historic Environment Scotland (HRE) is consulted on the potential impact to scheduled monuments and World Heritage Sites. The operation can be completed without causing harm or damage to the historic environment in Orkney, including any designated sites and scheduled monuments, and measures are in place to avoid or mitigate any impact.

Extent of stoat distribution on high-risk islands is known
Operational Plan and budget is approved by TAG and IEAG

Funding for the full project is secured
HRA and environmental assessment are completed

Pre-eradication stage 2: November 2018 – June 2019	-
The project team is successfully recruited	Project manager, biosecurity officer, communication manager and officers, trappers and trapping foremen in post by January 2019; Dog handlers recruited later (May 2020)
Land access permissions are obtained for the entire land area	Land-owner details are obtained for the entire Orkney land area and stored and managed in compliance with GDPR by September 2018. All land-owners have been contacted by October 2018 to seek and obtain (by January 2019) signed land access agreements. Face-to-face discussions with land-owners start in February 2019. STOP POINT 4: If land access permissions are not in place by January 2019, the eradication operation can not proceed as scheduled and may have to be postponed. Project Manager and the community engagement team will need to continue working to secure land access permissions, which may lead to delays in other work areas of the ONWP, and other ONWP partnership staff may need to step in to assist, which could impact on other work carried out by the partner organisations. A social scientist should be engaged at this point, if not before, in the work to resolve the issues.
Robust biosecurity measures are in place Eradication equipment is procured; project base is established	Biosecurity traps are placed on high-risk islands to target incurring stoats by March 2019; surveillance measures are in place and checks are carried out; biosecurity awareness is raised; Orcadians are encouraged to remain vigilant and report stoat sightings All traps and housing are ordered by December 2018; 50% of traps and housing are ready by April 2019, with 100% of traps and housing ready for deployment by July 2019. Several reliable sources for bait and lure identified by April 2019.

Pre-eradication stage 2: November 2018 – June 2019

The project team is successfully recruited

Project manager, biosecurity officer, communication manager and officers, trappers and trapping foremen in post by January 2019; Dog handlers recruited later (May 2020)

Land access permissions are obtained for the entire land area

Land-owner details are obtained for the entire Orkney land area and stored and managed in compliance with GDPR by September 2018. All land-owners have been contacted by October 2018 to seek and obtain (by January 2019) signed land access agreements. Face-to-face discussions with land-owners start in February 2019.

STOP POINT 4: If land access permissions are not in place by January 2019, the eradication operation can not proceed as scheduled and may have to be postponed. Project Manager and the community engagement team will need to continue working to secure land access permissions, which may lead to delays in other work areas of the ONWP, and other ONWP partnership staff may need to step in to assist, which could impact on other work carried out by the partner organisations. A social scientist should be engaged at this point, if not before, in the work to resolve the issues.

Robust biosecurity measures are in place

Eradication equipment is procured; project base is established

Biosecurity traps are placed on high-risk islands to target incurring stoats by March 2019; surveillance measures are in place and checks are carried out; biosecurity awareness is raised; Orcadians are encouraged to remain vigilant and report stoat sightings

All traps and housing are ordered by December 2018; 50% of traps and housing are ready by April 2019, with 100% of traps and housing ready for deployment by July 2019. Several reliable sources for bait and lure identified by April 2019.

The project team is successfully recruited
Land access permissions are obtained for the entire land area
Robust biosecurity measures are in place
Eradication equipment is procured; project base is established

Pre-eradication stage 3: July – September 2019	-
Land-owner access permissions are finalised	Land access agreements are finalised by completion of detailed access maps through discussions with individual land-owners, for the entire Orkney land-area by end of July 2019. STOP POINT 5: If land access permissions are not secured and/or the project meets resistance and stakeholders do not support sufficiently the project objectives and plans for the eradication, the eradication can not proceed as scheduled. Investment in biosecurity and containment trapping must be maintained or increased, and further community consultation work must be carried out to develop greater consensus and support for the eradication.
Extent of stoat distribution in Orkney is known	A second contract is issued to carry out dogassisted searches to confirm presence/absence of stoats on all inhabited non-linked islands and highrisk uninhabited islands in Orkney by end of July 2019. STOP POINT 6: Same as STOP POINT 1 above.
Pre-eradication readiness check is completed by IEAG	The check is completed by August 2019 to assess progress in carrying out preparatory tasks, and to assess whether the project has addressed issues raised, and mitigated the known risks to eradication success. STOP POINT 7: If the IEAG deems the preparations and progress insufficient, or identifies any change or obstacle to the feasibility of the operation, the eradication can not proceed as scheduled and the IEAG recommendations should be followed.
Schedule 1 licenses are obtained (if required)	Disturbance licences may be required if any breeding birds on Schedule I are likely to be affected by the operation. A licence must be in place by March 2020 (unless the operation starts before/during the 2019 breeding season).

Pre-eradication stage 3: July – September 2019

Land-owner access permissions are finalised

Land access agreements are finalised by completion of detailed access maps through discussions with individual land-owners, for the entire Orkney land-area by end of July 2019.

STOP POINT 5: If land access permissions are not secured and/or the project meets resistance and stakeholders do not support sufficiently the project objectives and plans for the eradication, the eradication can not proceed as scheduled.

Investment in biosecurity and containment trapping must be maintained or increased, and further community consultation work must be carried out to develop greater consensus and support for the eradication.

Extent of stoat distribution in Orkney is known

A second contract is issued to carry out dogassisted searches to confirm presence/absence of stoats on all inhabited non-linked islands and highrisk uninhabited islands in Orkney by end of July 2019.

STOP POINT 6: Same as STOP POINT 1 above.

Pre-eradication readiness check is completed by IEAG

The check is completed by August 2019 to assess progress in carrying out preparatory tasks, and to assess whether the project has addressed issues raised, and mitigated the known risks to eradication success.

STOP POINT 7: If the IEAG deems the preparations and progress insufficient, or identifies any change or obstacle to the feasibility of the operation, the eradication can not proceed as scheduled and the IEAG recommendations should be followed.

Schedule 1 licenses are obtained (if required)

Disturbance licences may be required if any breeding birds on Schedule I are likely to be affected by the operation. A licence must be in place by March 2020 (unless the operation starts before/during the 2019 breeding season).

Land-owner access permissions are finalised
Extent of stoat distribution in Orkney is known
Pre-eradication readiness check is completed by IEAG
Schedule 1 licenses are obtained (if required)

A sample of the data sheet currently in use during trapping trials in 2018.
Round	Previous check/install	Trap name	Trap type	Grid reference	Checked?	Trap status	Last bait used	Bait status	Catch	Gender	Decomp	Strike gap 1	Strike gap 2	Strike gap 3	Strike gap 4	Trap status departure	New bait	Lure used?	Comments
2	25/05/20 18	124 6	DOC2 00	HY4202313 311	Y	open	cat food	taken	n/a	-	-	-	-	-	-	ope n	beef	N	-
2	25/05/20 18	124 6	Double set DOC1 50	HY4202313 311	Y	open/clos ed	cat food	taken	vole	-	complet ely	tail	bod y	head		ope n	beef	N	-
2	25/05/20 18	124 7	DOC2 00	HY4233113 318	Y	open	/	moul dy	n/a	-	-	-	-	-	-	ope n	fish	N	-
2	25/05/20 18	122 3	DOC2 00	HY4235312 326	Y	open	/	taken	n/a	-	-	-	-	-	-	ope n	egg	N	-
2	25/05/20 18	122 3	Double set DOC1 50	HY4235312 326	Y	closed	/	taken	vole s	-	complet ely	Bod y. hea d	Bod y. hea d	-	-	ope n	egg	N	2 vole s in sam e trap

17 Annex VI: Waste Management Plan

The final waste management plan for the eradication operation is currently in development, and will be based on this options paper:

Orkney Native Wildlife Project – Animal waste / bycatch disposal options paper

Prepared by: Bea Ayling, Conservation Officer, RSPB Orkney

Current process for small quantities (biosecurity trapping and incursion responses)

Chinglebraes waste facility is happy to take up to 5 black sacks of animal waste every few weeks. This goes into their clinical waste container and disposed of through official channels. This is where the geese carcasses on Orkney are disposed of.

SEPA also allows burial of small numbers of rodent carcasses (no more than 10) without the need for a licence or exemption, provided it is done without delay and meets the following requirements:

Carcasses must not be buried:

within 250m of any drinking water supply; or
50m from any watercourse; or
10m from any field drain Carcasses must be buried:
no less than 1m in depth
in dry soil/ground only
in sites where there is at least 1m of subsoil at the bottom of the pit.

Disposing bycatch from the biosecurity trapping and Rousay incursion response (180 traps) every few weeks at Chinglebraes is currently satisfactory.

However, it is clear that throughout the project development phase (i.e. trapping trial) and into the delivery and full eradication, an approved system for bycatch carcass disposal will be required as there will be too many to dispose of informally. There will be a cost to this.

Background information for larger quantities of bycatch

Expected quantities

Once the eradication is up and running, there could potentially be up to 10,000 carcasses of bycatch that will need to be disposed of monthly.

An average rat weighs 230g. 10,000 of these would weigh 2300kg, therefore, we could be producing over 2 tonnes of animal waste per month.

The trapping trials could potentially produce approx. 70kg per week as there will be 300 traps on the ground.

Regulations/legislation

- Animal By-Product Regulations (Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2013

An “animal by-product” includes virtually every part of an animal that is not meat for human consumption. The basic rule is that animal by-products must be incinerated at properly authorised premises. There are, however, numerous exemptions. Healthy wild animal bycatch are not subject to the requirements of the Animal by Product Regulations unless they are ‘suspected of being infected with diseases communicable to humans or animals’. Brown rats commonly carry leptospirosis which can be transferred to humans. Rats are also classed as vermin.

APHA have confirmed that rats are exempt from these regulations and that rats pose little risk to humans when dead. However we therefore have a duty of care when disposing of them e.g. to avoid pollution of water courses and not leaving them exposed. Although it’s likely our bycatch is nonhazardous biological waste, we should not assume this. How vets dispose of animal waste in Orkney

All vet waste in Orkney goes to SAC in Thurso for incineration via Northwards who makes the collections and delivers.

Carcasses are stored in large black boxes known as ‘Amazon cases’ or yellow waste incineration bags marked ‘communal cremation’, which are frozen until collection (monthly).

Northwards then drops back the black boxes to the vet’s collection point.

How butchers dispose of animal waste in Orkney

Butchers – Flett’s have a sealed skip on site, £2000 a year, emptied by OIC twice a week. Craigie’s use their own incinerator or pay by weight at Chinglebraes. Williamson’s freeze their waste and ship at £100 per tonne to D&G.

Ali from Williamsons, who is on the Abattoir Committee is looking to set up own incineration at some point in the future and would be happy to discuss options, however, timeframe is not clear.

Aquaculture

There is apparently an incinerator on Orkney belonging to Scottish Sea Farms at East Quoys – we could investigate use of that. But the fact that no other Orkney businesses seem to use it would suggest it’s not an option for us.

Discussion on options for trapping trials and eradication operation

1. Burial pits

There is only guidance available on burial of farm animals and SEPA and APHA would expect us to follow this.

SEPA (Alan Dundas) has provided advice on this option and suggests that the best practical environmental option in Orkney is to bury the carcasses since Orkney is considered a designated ‘remote’ area and due to the circumstances of the project. He pointed us in the direction of the NetRegs website for guidance.

Similarly, APHA recommend the disposal of bycatch in burial pits is done in the same way as domestic livestock in a remote area (which can only be done if there is no approved disposal route available). In this regard we should follow the PEPFAA code of good practice that gives guidance of the steps to take in order to avoid contamination of water courses/attraction of vermin etc.

The guidance says:

There should be a density of no more than 20 kg of carcass material per square metre.
Bury animal carcasses with at least 1 metre of covering soil to prevent dogs, foxes or vermin getting access. SEPA would expect this to be done by the end of each day as a minimum.
Keep a Location Plan of all burials and a note of type of animal buried.
Choose sites where there is at least 1 metre of subsoil at the bottom of the burial pit.
Don’t leave carcasses unburied or open to dog or fox access for any length of time.
Don’t add lime to a lined disposal pit.
Don’t dump carcasses.
Don’t operate an animal carcass incinerator without prior consultation with SEPA.
Don’t bury carcasses any closer than 250m from any well, borehole or other drinking water supply; 50m from any river, burn, loch or other watercourse or 10m from any field drain.
Don’t locate burial pits in areas prone to waterlogging or at risk of flooding, or that are underlain by sandy or gravelly soil. The pit must be dry.
Don’t bury carcasses in polythene bags or other impervious material.
Don’t bury carcasses on archaeological sites or on sites designated for their nature conservation interest.

These points raise a number of questions/issues:

If we can’t leave pits exposed then how much man power would be required to re-open pits? Also an excavator would be required.
Will a derogation be required from RPID?
Since RSPB land is ruled out due to the last point on the list above, can we only use OIC land which could be a problem?
We would likely require a large number of different pits – this could be an issue.

OIC Environmental Health would also need to be kept informed as they have an enforcement role.

2. Incineration

a) Do it ourselves

There are companies that you can buy or hire portable or containerised incinerators. However, we would need to find and hire an operator, find a suitable piece of land to house it and then work out what to do with the ash.

In Scotland, you must not operate an animal carcass incinerator without consulting SEPA.

If you burn non-agricultural animal carcasses or parts of animal carcasses, your incinerator must be authorised by the council or environmental regulator, in addition to Animal Health.

You must have a pollution prevention and control (PPC) permit from your environmental regulator if you operate an incinerator:

with a capacity greater than 50kg per hour, and
that is only used to incinerate whole animal carcasses.

b) Disposal through OIC Chinglebraes to Shetland Energy from Waste (EfW) Plant (existing route)

In discussions with Jonathan Walters (JW), OIC’s Environmental Services Facilities Manager, it is clear that Orkney’s small island facilities have not dealt with this type of waste in bulk before.

I asked whether it would be possible to purchase or rent a container that can be kept at an official waste disposal site such as Chinglebraes that can then be shipped off with other waste to Shetland for incineration.

JW spoke to Shetland Islands Council (SIC) and the amounts and costs are outlined below.

OIC/SIC think they could take up to 700kg monthly (approx. 3000 rats) but potentially less or more going forward as they are unsure how their system will cope at this stage with the extra weight and also because of the unknowns of dealing with this material within an EfW plant.

Currently, 200kg per month (approx. 870 rats) should not be an issue and they will monitor the process and inform us if any reduction is required and will feedback on potential issues.

OIC Chinglebraes, will take the waste, bagged – at a gate fee of £248.33 +VAT per tonne. This charge is for disposal and handling fees as it will be treated as clinical waste and will require separate shipment to SIC via clinical waste disposal routes.

If this is acceptable, the ONWP will need to register for an account at Chinglebraes WTS by emailing [email protected] copying Jonathan Walters in so they can advise and prepare site procedures.

c) Use the SAC incinerator in Thurso

We would need a central storage area e.g. a barn on Orkney for the black disposal boxes and/or a freezer so smell is limited if only monthly deliveries.

Industrial chest freezer £500

SAC charge £114.50 +VAT per 50kg – and there is no limit to the amount that can be taken. (price changes annually) *we could have up to 46 x 50kg a month which is over £5000!

Northwards delivery charges = £40

3. Disposal at sea

This has been an option for some eradication projects with low numbers of carcasses. However, it does not seem appropriate for Orkney with potentially 10,000 carcasses a month, as there is a risk that the waste could be washed up on shore.

Alan Dundas from SEPA also says that he doesn’t think this would be acceptable.

SUMMARY AND FINAL RECOMMENDATION

Logistically, burial will be complex, and disposal at sea is not acceptable. This leaves incineration.

Making use of existing waste disposal routes (i.e. via OIC) would be advantageous as it would be cheaper, and we could negotiate that the cost is absorbed if OIC become partner in the project. However, there are currently weight restrictions with this option, but this issue can be worked out over the course of the project as OIC have not dealt with such high quantities of this type of waste before so it needs to be trialled.

18 Annex VII: Conservation Indicator Dog Code of Practice (RSPB)

-	LAND MANAGEMENT CODE OF PRACTICE E14 Using Conservation Indicator Dogs on and off reserves
What is this about:	Using Conservation Indicator Dogs to search for and indicate the presence of species of pest management or conservation interest on and off RSPB nature reserves
Who should read this:	All RSPB staff and contractors involved in operations involving the use of conservation dogs
Contact Point:	Laura Bambini, Species and Land Management/Seabird Island Restoration Project
Contents:	1.0 Introduction and scope 2.0 Application and responsibilities 3.0 RSPB policy 4.0 Instances where conservation indicator dogs may be used
Sensitivity	FOR INTERNAL RSPB USE ONLY
Summary	To use conservation indicator dogs to search for and indicate presence of a species of interest, RSPB staff must ensure that: A proposal which clearly defines the objectives and end points of the search operation must be submitted for approval The operation does not threaten the survival of, or cause undue disturbance to species of conservation concern or to sensitive habitat features The legal requirements have been met and any licences that may be required are in place Only appropriately trained and certified conservation dogs are used All conservation dogs are operated by appropriately trained and qualified handlers A report is produced at the completion of the operation, and reviewed by SIRP staff
Version	Version 1.0 May 2018

1 Introduction and scope

Conservation Indicator Dogs are an important tool used by island restoration projects worldwide. Trained and certified dogs, operated by experienced and qualified handlers, can reliably detect animal sign (e.g. scat) and scent (e.g. live animal or a den) and indicate to their handler the presence (and location, where appropriate) of a target species. Conservation Indicator Dogs can be used to search for and locate individual target species to assist biosecurity surveillance, predator incursion response and vertebrate control and eradication operations. Conservation Indicator Dogs can also be used to assist conservation translocations by searching for and locating species of conservation concern.

The purpose of this document is to outline the Code of Practice (CoP) for the use of Conservation Indicator Dogs by RSPB staff and contractors, on and off reserves, in the UK and Crown Dependencies, and the UK Overseas Territories. This CoP sets out the general principles and procedures that must be adhered to by all RSPB operations that use Conservation Indicator Dogs; legal requirements may differ between the UK countries, Crown Dependencies and between the UK Overseas Territories, and it is the responsibility of the in-country RSPB staff to ensure compliance with local policy and legislation.

This CoP is subject to regular review as necessary, and will next be reviewed by May 2019 the latest. Please ensure you are using the latest version.

2 Application and responsibilities

This CoP applies to all RSPB operations on and off reserves in the UK, Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories, and it covers the use of Conservation Indicator Dogs to search for and indicate the presence and/or location of target species of conservation management interest. Before dogs can be used by the RSPB to support conservation management initiatives, the following conditions must be met:

A PROPOSAL MUST BE PREPARED FOR AND APPROVED BY SIRP (for offshore islands) and

RSAG (for reserves in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) or SRMT (for reserves in Scotland)

The proposal must clearly define the scope, purpose, objectives and end points of the use of conservation indicator dogs, and must include a full risk assessment. The proposal must also outline plans for sourcing the dogs and handlers (e.g. competitive bidding or tendering process, use of in-house resources or volunteers) and, if dogs are sourced from overseas, adequate consideration must be given to the shipping requirements (animal welfare, import and export regulations, costs involved etc.). The proposal should include a communication plan, as the use of dogs is likely to attract local and/or media interest. The communication plan must outline any potential sensitivities and give adequate consideration to post-contract obligations of the contractor carrying out the work. The proposal must be submitted for approval by SIRP or RSAG who will assess it based on the conservation need and the appropriateness of the use of conservation indicator dogs for achieving the specified outcome(s). If the services of a conservation indicator dog and handler are acquired through competitive bidding or tendering, RSPB procurement policies and CoP 43 (Managing Contractors) must be adhered to, and it may be necessary to include a confidentiality clause in the contract (if reputational damage is identified as a risk).

THE OPERATION DOES NOT THREATEN THE SURVIVAL OF, OR CAUSE UNDUE DISTURBANCE TO SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN OR SENSITIVE HABITAT FEATURES.

Appropriately trained and certified Conservation Indicator Dogs may be used in protected areas and where sensitive habitat features or species of conservation concern are present. In the absence of a UK standard, the Conservation Indicator Dog must meet the standards specified by the New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZ DOC) Conservation Dogs Programme, and described in their Standard Operating Procedure. The RSPB will work with canine professionals (e.g. the Police and Customs, and the NZ DOC) to develop UK best practice for the certification and use of Conservation Dogs. Conservation Indicator Dog operations can be carried out during bird breeding season, or during other sensitive times of the year, if an overriding conservation imperative or robust operational justification can be provided, and the conditions outlined herein are adhered to.

ONLY TRAINED AND CERTIFIED DOGS MAY BE USED.

Any dog used by the RSPB for the purposes of conservation management must be fully trained, obedient and with a proven ability (e.g. through a certification process) to detect and indicate target species. The dog must have the ability to reliably detect a specific target species, and must be trained to not indicate or react to any other species. The dog will have the ability to detect the scent of a trail, den, scat, carcass or live animal of a target species. The dog must not give chase to or attempt to capture any species, it must be muzzled and clearly identifiable (e.g. by a vest or a harness) when working, and it must remain under control at all times and may additionally be required to be on a lead (e.g. when operating in the vicinity of livestock). The dog must not be aggressive towards people or other animals, and it must not be of a prohibited breed.

DOGS MAY ONLY BE OPERATED BY TRAINED AND QUALIFIED HANDLERS.

Each Conservation Indicator Dog must have a designated handler who has the appropriate level of experience and skill required to safely operate the dog on-site, and who will normally have the duty of care towards the animal. The handler will be familiar with the dog and recognise when the dog is indicating the presence/location of target species, will reward the dog for doing so, and will have the experience and knowledge to be able to recognise when the dog may be incorrectly indicating a nontarget species, and will have the ability to correct the dog’s behaviour.

ANIMAL WELFARE STANDARDS MUST BE ADHERED TO.

Any Conservation Indicator Dog in use by the RSPB must be provided with appropriate shelter and food, must have access to drinking water, and must be treated humanely at all times. If the animal is shipped to/from overseas, adequate transport crate and/or kennelling must be provided and the welfare of the animal must be ensured whilst in transit. The animal must be vaccinated and must undergo regular veterinary checks, and must be fit, healthy and able to operate in the terrain and climate onsite.

LEGAL COMPLIANCE MUST BE ENSURED.

Different laws may apply to the use of Conservation Dogs in different UK countries and Territories. It is the responsibility of the RSPB to ensure that the Conservation Indicator Dog is not of a breed banned in the country of operation and, if applicable, is of a breed that is accepted for shipping by approved airlines. The RSPB will also ensure that the operation is legally compliant and that licences are obtained as necessary (e.g. a Schedule 1 Licence to Disturb breeding birds). If the dog is to operate within a protected area, it is the responsibility of the member of staff managing the works to establish whether this is a Potentially Damaging Operation, or an Operation Requiring Consent, and seek appropriate statutory approval and follow advice to ensure compliance.

LAND ACCESS PERMISSIONS MUST BE SECURED IN WRITING.

Written landowner consent needs to be acquired when Conservation Indicator Dogs are being operated on privately owned land, and on land under conservation management.

INSURANCE AND LIABILITY.

The Conservation Indicator Dog must be covered by insurance including, but not limited to, accidents and injury; damage to property; injury or death caused to people and domestic animals. The handler must equally have adequate personal insurance cover, which may include health and travel insurance if operating overseas.

AT THE COMPLETION OF THE OPERATION, A REPORT MUST BE PRODUCED.

The report should provide sufficient detail on the operation, including details of the findings, number of hours the dog worked, land area effectively covered by the searches, and any issues encountered. It is advisable that GIS data are recorded on any conservation indicator operations undertaken.

The senior member of staff on site is responsible for implementing this Code of Practice.

3 RSPB policy

The use of Conservation Indicator Dogs must be carried out in a responsible and legally compliant manner. The RSPB endorses the use of trained and appropriately certified Conservation Dogs to support conservation management initiatives, in particular the eradication or control of, and biosecurity surveillance for invasive non-native predators on offshore islands. Conservation Dogs may also be used to assist searches for rare and/or endangered species of conservation concern. The use of dogs is permitted under the RSPB’s Policy on the Killing or Taking of Vertebrates (section 6.1.4) ‘in tightly defined circumstances, to detect (e.g. point to) individuals of a target species’; the RSPB does not permit the use of dogs to flush out target species. These ‘tightly defined circumstances’ are defined in section 4 below.

4 Circumstances where the use of conservation indicator dogs is appropriate:

Incursion responses; to assist in and guide incursion responses to predators on offshore islands where those predators are not native
Early indicator and biosecurity surveillance; to assist in predator surveillance efforts on offshore islands known or believed to be otherwise free of specific predators
Determining eradication success; post-eradication evaluation and surveillance for target species
Supporting eradication operations and targeted vertebrate control in any other way as deemed appropriate and necessary by the operation, but not as an instrument of control
Locating individual animals of a species of conservation concern for the purposes of translocation, or post-release monitoring of survival, or to assist in surveys for rare or difficult to detect species

Prepared by: Laura Bambini, Species and Land Management/SIRP

Orkney Native Wildlife Project – Land Access Protocol DRAFT

(To be Trialled during Development Phase)

Guidance for Farmers & Landowners (Version 5)

Introduction

The purpose of the Orkney Native Wildlife Project is to ensure the unique and iconic native wildlife of the Orkney Islands is safeguarded by directly addressing the urgent issue of invasive non-native stoats that are currently threatening the delicate ecological balance of the islands. The main element of the Project is to implement an eradication programme for the removal of stoats from Orkney by use of kill traps.

We wish to work together with farmers and landowners during this Project and the purpose of this protocol is to provide guidance for farmers and landowners on the process we will follow in order to agree access permission for staff, approved contractors and volunteers to undertake stoat trapping and monitoring for stoat presence on your land on behalf of the Orkney Native Wildlife Project. Additionally, it clarifies the measures that will be taken by all staff and volunteers when accessing land to undertake the siting, setting and checking of traps, and the protocols that apply to the use of certified conservation sniffer dogs operated by experienced handlers.

Staff, approved contractors and volunteers (hereinafter referred to as ONWP personnel) will be accessing your land on behalf of the Orkney Native Wildlife Project and therefore the Project Partnership (OIC, SNH and RSPB Scotland) will take full responsibility for staff and volunteers during the course of the Project. The farmer/landowner will not be liable for any claim for personal injury or damage to property resulting from staff, approved contractors or volunteers accessing your land to undertake the trapping work. The Project Partnership will accept responsibility for any damage to property resulting from the trapping and monitoring work of staff or volunteers. All staff, contractors and volunteers will adhere to approved Health & Safety Policy and appropriate risk assessments.

Procedure for Granting Access Permission

ONWP personnel will meet with landowners and tenants to explain the purpose of the Project and how the stoat trapping, monitoring and dog searches will work on the ground.
Landowners and tenants are requested to confirm to ONWP personnel the land they are able to grant access permission for and we will provide a map for this purpose.
ONWP personnel will show you potential locations for traps and/or stoat monitoring equipment on a map and discuss with you any areas where you have specific access concerns, for example; fields with young calves, fields with recently sown crops, active electric fencing etc. and agree areas where traps will be permissible.
ONWP personnel will discuss with you when and how they wish to carry out dog-assisted searches for stoats on your land, and as above, address any concerns you may have
Landowners and tenants will be asked to confirm the most suitable routes across their land to provide access to the traps and/or stoat monitoring equipment, and/or to carry out dogassisted searches, and these will be marked on the map for future reference.
Project staff will keep you informed of progress during the work and how many stoats are caught. They will check with you regularly to see if there are changes that need to be made to access routes or if you have concerns about the trapping, stoat monitoring or the dogassisted searches.
You will be asked to confirm the access permission granted by signing the map with your land and agreed access routes identified. We will leave a copy of the map with you for reference along with contact details.

Operation – Siting, setting and checking of traps and monitoring equipment

You will be informed in advance which ONWP personnel will be working on your land and they will carry identification badges/cards.
All ONWP personnel will only be accessing your land to site, set and check the stoat traps and/or monitoring equipment.
All ONWP personnel will follow strict protocol when accessing land, with the aim of minimising any disturbance to land management activities and will follow agreed access routes. Vehicles will be parked at agreed locations and they will leave a contact number visible in the vehicle.
All ONWP personnel will clean and disinfect protective clothing and footwear between farms.
Only Project staff and approved contractors will site and set the traps. Traps are to be situated roughly 250m apart in the best location on the ground for the interception of stoats. Traps and monitoring equipment are to be sited according to linear features in the landscape including fences, walls, ditches, tracks and road verges or where there is vegetative cover,. However, all devices will be positioned in such a way as to limit inconvenience to the landowner/tenant as far as possible.
Traps and monitoring equipment will be covered if appropriate and will be sited discreetly so as not to be obvious to members of the public.
Traps will be checked every three weeks on average.

a trap — Only traps approved under the Spring Traps Approval Order will be used, for example the DOC200 trap.All traps will be enclosed in a box or tunnel which have safety labels and contact details displayed.

Click for a full description

All traps have restricted entrances allows stoats to enter but prevents larger non-target species from entering and the offset entrance prevents cats or dogs getting paws caught.

Voles will be able to enter the traps but they will be too light to set off the spring trap; however, rats are likely to be a by-catch. The Project will address any issues arising from trapping of non- target species.

Traps will be baited with items such as egg and rabbit.

All stoats caught will be removed and disposed of by Project staff.

All Dog handlers will adhere to the same land access protocols as outlined above for trappers and/or volunteers
Only accredited conservation sniffer dog handlers will operate on behalf of the ONWP, and will only use trained and certified conservation sniffer dogs
All approved Conservation sniffer dogs will be clearly identifiable by a vest or a harness
All dogs shall remain under close control and supervision of the handler at all times
All dogs shall wear a muzzle when working, and shall remain restrained by a leash unless permitted to work off-leash by the landowner
All dogs will only be used to search for and indicate the location of stoat sign (e.g. scat, prey remains or a den) or the scent of a live stoat
All dogs shall under no circumstances attempt to give chase to or capture any live animal, including pets, vermin, livestock and all species of wildlife

All conservation detection dogs will wear a muzzle when working, and will be clearly identifiable by a vest or a harness.

20 Annex IX: Equipment and logistics budget

Item	Unit cost incl. VAT	Number of units	Total budget exc. VAT
Citroen Dispatch Crew Van	£22,110.00	2	£57,228.34
Citroen Dispatch Enterprise	£18,840.00	2	£50,688.34
Mitsubishi L200 Series 5 single Cab 4Life 4x4 or similar	£21,598.80	2	£56,205.94
Underbody protection for vans	£80	6	£400.00
Grip Control for vans	£660	6	£3,300.00
Kawasaki Mule SX 4x4	£8,134.80	2	£21,058.00
Trailer to carry ATV	£10,000.00	2	£16,666.67
Trailer to attach to ATV	£2,500.00	2	£4,166.67
Fuel for 6 vehicles	£250/month/vehicle	300	£75,000.00
Fuel for ATVs	£150/month	50	£7,500.00
Vehicle insurance	£560/year	30	£16,800.00
Logos	£250/vehicle	6	£1,250.00
DOC150/200 traps	£36	16,000	£480,000.00
Trap boxes - extended	£40	7,000	£233,333.33
Goodnature A24 trap	£70	1,000	£58,333.33
Gas cylinders (A24)	£3	7,500	£22,500.00
Delivery - all traps	£10,000	N/A	£8,333.33
Bait for DOC traps	£500/month	60	£30,000.00
Lure for DOC traps	£30	100	£2,500.00
Lure for A24 + shipping	£30	60	£1,500.00
Batteries for GPS etc	£5	15	£3,750.00
PPE	£1,000	15	£62,500.00
Spot trackers	£200	15	£2,500.00
Spot annual subscriptions	£120	15	£7,500.00
Spot annual costs	£100	15	£6,250.00
GPS's + mapping	£160	15	£2,000.00
Laptops	£500	8	£3,333.33
Mobile phones with contract	£240	15	£15,000.00
Air weapon plus licences	£200	15	£2,500.00
Trail Cameras	£250	50	£10,416.67
Batteries for trail cams	£5	1500	£6,250.00
Battery charger	£600	1	£500.00
SD Cards	£20	100	£1,666.67
Carry packs	£100	10	£833.33
Flagging tape	£50	N/A	£41.67
Notebooks, bins, postage	£8,158	N/A	£6,798.33
Trap maintenance kits: wire, drills etc.	£5,000	N/A	£4,166.67
Conservation dogs (incl. all costs, training, food, vet bills, insurance etc.)	£15,000	6	£90,000.00
Kennelling for dogs	£50,000	N/A	£50,000.00
Office furniture	£20,000	N/A	£20,000.00
-	-	-	Total £1,463,728.94

Document downloads

Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the Orkney Native Wildlife Project- Annex 1,2 and 3

docx,

Disclaimer: Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has changed its name to NatureScot as of the 24th August 2020.
At the time of publishing, this document may still refer to Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and include the original branding. It may also contain broken links to the old domain.
If you have any issues accessing this document please contact us via our feedback form.

Strategic Environmental Assessment - The Orkney Native Wildlife Project - Environmental Report Consultation

Orkney Native Wildlife Project - SEA consultation - SEA Environmental report

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Summary and Objectives

1.2 Policy Context

1.3 Related Plans, Programmes and Strategies

SEA METHODOLOGY

2.1 Topics within the scope of assessment

2.2 Assessment Approach

2.3 SEA Objectives

2.4 Limitations to the Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT AREA

3.1 Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna

3.2 Population and Human Health

3.3 Cultural Heritage

3.2 Existing Environmental Issues Relevant to the Project

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

4.1 Overview of Stoat Ecology

4.2 Biodiversity

4.2.1 The Eradication of Stoats and Blanket Bog

Mitigation

4.2.2 The Eradication of Stoats and Dry Heath

Mitigation

4.2.3 The Eradication of Stoats and Base Rich Fen

Mitigation

4.2.4 The Eradication Project and Vegetated Sea Cliffs

Mitigation

4.2.5. The Eradication of Stoats and Birds

4.2.6 The eradication of stoats and mammals

Mitigation

4.3 The Eradication of Stoats and Population and Human Health

Physical Health

Mitigation

4.4 The Eradication of Stoats and Cultural Heritage

Mitigation

ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

MONITORING

CONSULTATION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Orkney Native Wildlife Project - SEA consultation - Operational plan

1. Background to the Habitats Regulations Appraisal

2. Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA)

3. ONWP methodology and HRA

4. HRA first test: is the project directly connected with or necessary to site management for nature conservation?

5. Rationale to demonstrate how, and to what extent, the project meets the first HRA test.

6. HRA second test; checking for likely significant effects (LSE)

7. Methodology for the LSE check

8. Appropriate assessment

Orkney Native Wildlife Project - SEA consultation - Habitats Regulations Appraisal

Contents

Executive Summary

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Site: Orkney Mainland and linked islands of Burray, South Ronaldsay, Lamb Holm, Glimps Holm and Hunda

1.2 Target Species: stoat Mustela erminea

2 GOAL, OBJECTIVES and OUTCOMES

3 OPERATION DETAILS

3.1 Implementation Stage 1: Finalising land-access permissions

3.2 Implementation Stage 2: Establishment of trapping network

3.3 Implementation Stage 3: Knock-down phase

3.4 Implementation Stage 4: Mop-up and monitoring phase

3.5 Implementation Stage 5: Operational biosecurity and long-term project legacy

4 NON-TARGET SPECIES

Domestic animals

Orkney vole

Otter

Invasive non-native species

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

6 HEALTH AND SAFETY

7 LOGISTICS

8 EQUIPMENT LIST

9 OPERATIONAL TEAM

Responsibilities

Project Manager

11 REFERENCES

13 Annex II: Project approach

Checkpoint 1: 6 month review June 2020 Has trapping rate declined?

Checkpoint 3: 12 month review December 2020 Model trapping data to estimate time to eradication

Checkpoint 4: 18 month review June 2021 Did trapping rate increase, then start to decline?

Current process for small quantities (biosecurity trapping and incursion responses)

Background information for larger quantities of bycatch