Abpmer Report No. R.1793

www.defra.gov.uk

Business as Usual Projections of the Marine Environment, to inform the UK implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive October 2012

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, the National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

This document/publication is also available on our website at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/ (Contract No ME5104).

Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at: [email protected].

Summary

Introduction

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) ‘Business as Usual’ (BAU) Study has sought to develop central projections of the environmental state of UK seas for the time steps 2010, 2020 and 2030. The study has used the Drivers-Pressures-State-Impacts-Response (DPSIR) framework to identify how drivers and pressures may change over time which may lead to changes in environmental state. The study has used the emerging work on the European Commission’s indicators to provide future projections for selected indicators across the 11 MSFD descriptors. Owing to limited information availability and the time scales for the study it was only possible to provide assessments for a small number of indicators. The analysis has also been used to relate potential changes in environmental state to changes in the provision of ecosystem services. The information is being used to inform the UK Government’s initial assessment required under Article 8 of MSFD. The report was updated in June 2012 to reflect the most recent developments with respect to recommended Marine Conservation Zones, and to refine the assessments of descriptors based on best-available information and draft GES indicators published in the Initial Assessment consultation documents on 27 March 2012.

Key Findings

Summary findings for each GES descriptor are provided below. It is important to note that the assessment only considers changes in environmental state between 2010 and 2030. It does not take account of changes in environmental state that may have occurred before 2010 – these are described in Charting Progress 2 – nor does it assess environmental status in terms of whether the projected environmental state might be considered to represent GES.

Some improvements in environmental state are projected as a result of implementation of existing environmental commitments such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (particularly MPA networks). However, the effectiveness of environmental measures associated with the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is less certain. Confidence in many of the assessments is relatively low, reflecting the weak evidence base and the lack of data with which to assess many of the draft indicators. There is also uncertainty concerning the extent to which some of the drivers such as population growth and climate change might affect environmental state.

Descriptor 1 Biological Diversity: Within this study it was only possible to undertake an assessment of changes in pressure on benthic habitats and to collate some information on potential changes in underwater noise in relation to the distribution of selected marine mammal species. The potential future state in relation to many of the indicators is therefore uncertain. The main sources of pressure on benthic habitats arise from benthic fishing activity, which is predicted to decrease in spatial extent between 2010 and 2020 (and beyond to 2030). Therefore, there is likely to be an overall improvement in benthic habitats, depending on the spatial extent of new conservation measures that exclude demersal fishing activity, where displaced fishing vessels may fish in the future and depending on the recovery rates of benthic habitats. The development of tidal range devices may result in locally significant impacts on littoral intertidal habitats, although any significant impacts would fall to be addressed under the WFD, as such developments would always be located within WFD water bodies.

Descriptor 2 Non-indigenous Species: By 2020 there will still be significant issues presented by invasive NIS and that these are unlikely to be resolved by 2030. Despite the best efforts and measures, it often only takes one vessel breaching regulations or best practice guidance for the introduction of invasive NIS to occur. In addition, it is expected that changes in sea temperature may create conditions conducive for new species to establish that previously were limited by sub- optimal temperature ranges.

Descriptor 3 Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish: Effective implementation of the CFP, and additional conservation measures adopted by the UK’s marine administrations, should prevent further deterioration of most fisheries stocks in UK waters but may not deliver significant progress in achieving objectives such as recovery of stocks to support Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) across fisheries, or a fully-integrated ecosystem-based management approach to fisheries. This may be due to difficulties in achieving MSY for all species within a multispecies fishery, time lags in stock recovery and impacts from other pressures such as climate change. Other factors are discussed below under uncertainties.

Descriptor 4 Food Webs: Currently there are some problems in the status of many key predator species, including several marine mammal species, harbour species and seabirds, and their future status is difficult to predict given the wide range of pressures and lack of knowledge regarding interactions. The current status of key predators is also variable, illustrating possible improvements for some components and decreases in others. The proportion of large fish may improve due to measures under the reformed CFP and designation of MCZs, but the rate of improvement will depend upon life-history characteristics particular to each species and there may be time lags in responses beyond 2030. Many changes are likely in the composition and distribution of plankton due to climate change pressures, although the precise nature of these changes is not known and their likely impact on food webs is unclear.

Descriptor 5 Eutrophication: There are few problems areas in relation to eutrophication at present and current management measures are considered likely to be sufficient to ensure improvements in remaining areas of concern by 2020. There is high confidence in the assessments of eutrophication in most areas due to the availability of extensive datasets, and enhanced monitoring which was put in place in areas that were previously reported to be vulnerable (UKMMAS, 2010a), although in some coastal waters, more information on the biological status is needed.

Descriptor 6 Sea Floor Integrity: There is likely to be an overall improvement in sea floor integrity by 2020 (and beyond to 2030) and for biogenic habitats, depending on the spatial extent of new conservation measures that exclude demersal fishing activity, where displaced vessels may fish in the future and the recovery rates of benthic habitats.

Descriptor 7 Hydrography: Although a small area of the UK sea bed may be affected by hydrographical changes from tidal barrage schemes over the next twenty years, there may be significant consequences for particular estuarine habitats. Whilst the environmental impact assessment process may allow affected habitats to be offset by their creation elsewhere, there are some concerns that such compensation measures may not always replace the same habitat functions. If such concepts are taken into account in the mitigation of tidal barrage schemes then their change in state in terms of both ecosystem components and services is likely to be minimal. Where environmental effects relate to waters covered by the WFD, any significant impacts would be addressed under that legislation rather than MSFD.

Descriptor 8 Contaminants: In general, it is assumed that effective implementation of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) and WFD, the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive and the Existing Substances Regulation and REACH is likely to ensure progress towards achieving MSFD indicators and targets for this descriptor in some problem areas up to 2020 with further improvements likely up to 2030 (due to WFD provisions for time limited derogations from targets up to 2027).

Descriptor 9 Contaminants in Food: It is assumed that effective implementation of existing directives such as EU Food Hygiene Directive (93/43/EEC), the EC Directive on maximum permissible limits in certain foodstuffs (EC 1881/2006/EC as amended by 1126/2007) and the WFD, will continue to manage this pressure to achieve improvements in environmental state by 2020.

Descriptor 10 Litter: It is assumed that, under the current regulatory regime, litter will continue to be a problem accumulating in coastal areas (indicator 10.1.1) and in the water column (indicator 10.1.2). Litter will continue to affect subtidal and intertidal benthic habitats through smothering and abrasion and affect marine mammals, turtles and fish populations through entanglement and ingestion. There is very low certainty in this assessment due to the lack of information regarding litter. The monitoring data are too sparse to allow a meaningful assessment of changes in quantities of litter either regionally or over time.

Descriptor 11 Energy (Noise): The spatial extent and frequency of underwater noise from offshore wind farm construction is likely to increase up to 2020 and possibly beyond. Other intense noise sources (e.g. seismic survey) are likely to remain more constant and be more spatially confined. Ambient noise levels are likely to increase, although there are limited data to support any assessment. An exercise to correlate ambient noise data with shipping density revealed that current available data are not sufficient to infer ambient noise levels from shipping density data.

Summary findings for an initial assessment of ecosystem service provision are provided in the table below. More detailed descriptions of these changes are provided in section 7 of the report. The assessment focuses on environmental services and excludes abiotic services such as energy production, aggregate extraction or use of space. The assessment projects potential increases in welfare associated with the majority of ecosystem services, again reflecting anticipated improvements in environmental quality as a result of implementing existing environmental commitments. It is recognised that these projections are subject to a high level of uncertainty and further work is required to develop and apply this framework.

A comparison of the BAU report, Defra’s March 2012 Initial Assessment Consultation Document (Defra, 2012a) and Impact Assessment on MSFD targets and indicators, showed broad consistency in the analytical approaches adopted and the BAU situation is accurately reflected in the cost of degradation analysis in the consultation and Impact Assessment. There were some differences in terminology between the reports, and assumptions relating to future trends (e.g. in fishing fleet capacity), which have been rectified in this latest update of the BAU report.

Summary of changes in environmental welfare under the BAU scenario over the period of the assessment

Change in Welfare from the Marine Environment Confidence in Ecosystem Service By 2020 By 2030 Assessment Small overall increase, although there Fisheries may be specific stocks or species of Continued increase Medium concern Increased capacity due to Aquaculture Continued increase High improvements in water quality No change in the provision of Continued increase in fish Fertiliser / Feed fertilisers, potential increase in the Medium feed state of domestic sources of fish feed No change due to low dependence on Biofuels No change High environmental state Medicines / Health / Diet Unknown Unknown Unknown General overall increase from Tourism, Recreation improvements in state and increasing Continued increase High water temperatures No change due to low dependence on Knowledge No change High environmental state Aesthetic benefits / Unknown Unknown Unknown Inspiration Spiritual / Cultural Likely to increase overall but difficult Continued increase Low wellbeing to quantify Regulation of Increase in state of ecosystem contamination and Continued increase Medium components that provide service pollution Possible increase in state of some No change Low ecosystem components that provide Carbon sequestration service but minimal influence on overall carbon sequestration No change in state of ecosystem Natural hazard protection No change Medium components that provide service Likely to increase overall but difficult Resilience and resistance Continued increase Low to quantify Notes: Changes : Green = an increase in the service, White = no change, Grey = unknown Confidence levels: Red = Low, Orange = Medium, Yellow = High, Grey = unknown

Recommendations

The development of the framework has been an ambitious undertaking which has highlighted a number of important limitations associated with the availability of data on which to base assessments and uncertainties in the underpinning science linking pressures and impacts and linkages between environmental state and ecosystem services provision. The study has made a number of recommendations concerning how the development of the framework might be taken forward including:

. Refinement of the assessment framework (categorization of drivers, activities and pressures); . Improved data on the spatial distribution of marine habitats, fish, birds and marine mammals;

. Improved data on the spatial location of human activities; . Refinement of forecasts for future activity levels, particularly for new and novel technologies as better information becomes available; . Improved understanding of the linkages between pressures (e.g. underwater noise, litter) and impacts on biodiversity; and . Better understanding of linkages between environmental state and ecosystem service provision.

It is recognised that there are a number of existing and proposed initiatives within the Defra family which could support development and refinement of the framework and the MSFD project should make linkages to these. They include:

. JNCC work to develop spatial models of pressures and impacts on benthic habitats; . A proposal by MEDIN to develop a catalogue of socio-economic data and data sources; and . Recent recommendations on survey priorities for Defra (CEFAS & ABPmer, 2010).

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to guidance from the Steering Group which included staff from Defra, Marine Scotland, Natural England and Marine Management Organisation.

Feedback was provided on the pressures assessment by members of the Productive Seas Evidence Group and the Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group.

Robin Smale provided technical expertise on fisheries assessments.

Abbreviations

% Percentage(s) ABPmer ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd ADZ Active Dredging Zone AFBINI Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute Northern Ireland AFMEC Alternative futures for Marine Ecosystems ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas BAU Business As Usual BERR Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (now DECC) BGS British Geological Survey BMAPA British Marine Aggregate Producers Association BP British Petroleum BWD Bathing Water Directives BWEA British Wind Energy Association (now Renewable UK) CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CCS Carbon Capture and Storage CCW Countryside Council for Wales Cefas Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science CEMP Co-ordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme CFP Common Fisheries Policy CMACS Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies CO2 Carbon Dioxide COMPP OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure COWRIE Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into The Environment CP2 Charting Progress 2 CSEMP Clean Seas Environmental Monitoring Programme CSERGE. The Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment D Drivers DAISIE Delivering Alien Invasive Species In Europe DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport DECC Department of energy and Climate Change Defra Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs DETI Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment DfT Department for Transport DPSIR Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response EAC Environmental Action Criteria EC European Commission EEA European Environment Agency eftec Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMEC European Marine Energy Centre EPA Environmental Protection Agency ES Ecosystem Services EU European Union EUNIS European Nature Information System F Fishing mortality FCERM Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management

FPSO Floating Production, Storage and Offloading FRS Fisheries Research Services GEcS Good Ecological Status GEP Good Ecological Potential GES Good Environmental Status GIS Geographic Information System GW Giga Watts HBDSEG Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group HESS High Energy Seismic Survey HMG Her Majesty’s Government I Impacts ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas IMAR Institute of Marine Research IMO International Maritime Organisation IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Council km kilometre(s) m metre(s) MarLIN Marine Life Information Network MCCIP Marine climate Change Impacts Programme MCS Marine Conservation Society MCT Marine Current Turbines MCZ Marine Conservation Zone MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MEDIN Marine Environmental Data and Information Network MLTN Maine Land Trust Network MMO Marine Management Organisation MOD Ministry of Defence MPA Marine Protected Area MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSP Marine Spatial Planning MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MW Mega Watt NA Not Applicable NEA National Ecosystem Assessment NIS Non-Indigenous Species NPS National Policy Statement ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. ONS Office of National Statistics OSPAR Oslo and Paris Commission OWF Offshore Wind Farm P Pressures pa per annum PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls PDF Portable Document Format PEXA Practice and Exercise Areas POP Persistent Organic Pollutant PSEG Productive Seas Evidence Group

R Responses RA Reference Area REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals S State SAC Special Areas of Conservation SAHFOS Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science SCANS The Small Cetacean Abundance in the North Sea and Adjacent Waters SDC Sustainable Development Commission SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEL Sound Exposure Level SEPA Scottish Environment Protection agency SMILE Sustainable Mariculture in northern Irish Lough Ecosystems SMP Shoreline Management Plan SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SPL Sound Pressure Level SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TBT Tri-butyl Tin TCE The Crown Estate TDI Tolerable Daily Intake TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity UEA University of East Anglia UK United Kingdom UKCS UK Continental Shelf UKERC UK Energy Research Centre UKMMAS UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy US United States UWWTD Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive VMS Vessel Monitoring System WFD Water Framework Directive WGESA Working Group on Economic and Social Analysis WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

Business as Usual Projections of the Marine Environment, to Inform the UK Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Contents Page

Summary...... 1 Acknowledgements...... 6 Abbreviations ...... 7 1. Introduction ...... 14 1.1 Background and Overview ...... 14 1.2 Aims and Objectives...... 16 1.3 Methodology...... 17 1.3.1 Tasks ...... 17 1.3.2 BAU Assessment Framework ...... 19 1.3.3 Worked Example ...... 21 1.3.4 Report Structure ...... 23 2. Ecosystem Services Framework ...... 24 2.1 Identifying and Defining Ecosystem Services...... 24 2.2 Prioritising and Rationalising Ecosystem Services ...... 26 2.3 Prospects for Valuing Prioritised Ecosystem Services ...... 27 2.4 Links Between Ecosystem Services and Indicators of GES ...... 28 3. Key Drivers and Activities...... 29 3.1 Types of Drivers ...... 29 3.2 Drivers and Marine Uses or Activities...... 32 3.3 Impacts on Environmental State (GES Descriptors)...... 33 3.4 Influencing Drivers...... 33 3.5 Unforeseen Changes...... 33 4. Pressures ...... 34 4.1 Identification of Pressures ...... 34 4.2 Prioritisation...... 36 4.3 Temporal Patterns ...... 38 4.3.1 Renewable Energy Production ...... 38 4.3.2 Farming and Harvesting of Algae as Biofuel...... 39 4.3.3 Sand and Gravel Extraction ...... 40 4.3.4 Domestic Oil and Gas and Import Pipelines ...... 40 4.3.5 Fisheries ...... 41 4.3.6 Aquaculture...... 44 4.3.7 Coastal Defence and Managed Realignment ...... 45 4.3.8 Military ...... 46 4.3.9 Tourism and Recreation...... 46 4.3.10 Maritime Transport, Navigational Dredging and Disposal of Material ....47 4.3.11 Gas Storage and Carbon Capture and Storage...... 47 4.4 Spatial Assessment ...... 48 4.4.1 Renewable Energy Production ...... 48 4.4.2 Sand and Gravel Extraction ...... 52 4.4.3 Domestic Oil and Gas...... 53

4.4.4 Fisheries ...... 54 4.4.5 Aquaculture...... 55 4.4.6 Coastal Defence and Managed Realignment ...... 55 4.4.7 Military ...... 55 4.4.8 Maritime Transport, Navigational Dredging and Disposal of Material ....56 4.4.9 Gas Storage and Carbon Capture and Storage...... 56 4.4.10 Litter...... 57 4.4.11 Noise...... 57 4.4.12 Conservation...... 57 4.5 Summary and Uncertainties ...... 58 5. Sensitivity and Vulnerability Assessment ...... 61 5.1 Method for Assessing Descriptors...... 62 5.2 Sensitivity Assessment...... 63 5.3 Vulnerability Assessment ...... 63 6. Descriptor Assessments...... 64 6.1 Descriptor 1. Biological Diversity ...... 64 6.1.1 Habitat Extent Assessment...... 64 6.1.2 Marine Mammal Assessment...... 68 6.1.3 Summary ...... 70 6.1.4 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 70 6.2 Descriptor 2. Non-indigenous Species ...... 72 6.2.1 Non-indigenous Species Assessment ...... 72 6.2.2 Summary ...... 75 6.2.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 75 6.3 Descriptor 3. Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish...... 75 6.3.1 Fisheries Assessment...... 76 6.3.2 Summary ...... 77 6.3.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 77 6.4 Descriptor 4. Food Webs...... 78 6.4.1 Food Webs Assessment...... 79 6.4.2 Summary ...... 80 6.4.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 80 6.5 Descriptor 5. Eutrophication ...... 80 6.5.1 Eutrophication Assessment ...... 81 6.5.2 Summary ...... 81 6.5.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 81 6.6 Descriptor 6. Sea Floor Integrity...... 81 6.6.1 Sea Floor Integrity Assessment ...... 82 6.6.2 Summary ...... 83 6.6.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 83 6.7 Descriptor 7. Hydrography...... 84 6.7.1 Hydrography Assessment...... 84 6.7.2 Summary ...... 84 6.7.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 85 6.8 Descriptor 8. Contaminants ...... 85 6.8.1 Contaminants Assessment ...... 85 6.8.2 Summary ...... 86 6.8.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 86 6.9 Descriptor 9. Contaminants in Food ...... 87 6.9.1 Contaminants in Food Assessment ...... 87

6.9.2 Summary ...... 88 6.9.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 88 6.10 Descriptor 10. Marine Litter ...... 88 6.10.1 Litter Assessment ...... 88 6.10.2 Summary ...... 89 6.10.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 89 6.11 Descriptor 11. Energy (Noise) ...... 89 6.11.1 Noise Assessment ...... 89 6.11.2 Summary ...... 91 6.11.3 Uncertainty and Limitations...... 91 7. Ecosystem Services Assessments...... 92 7.1 Fisheries — Fish and Shellfish ...... 92 7.2 Aquaculture ...... 93 7.3 Fertiliser / Feed...... 94 7.4 Biofuels...... 94 7.5 Medicines / Health / Diet...... 94 7.6 Tourism and Recreation ...... 95 7.7 Knowledge...... 95 7.8 Aesthetic Benefits / Inspiration ...... 96 7.9 Spiritual / Cultural Wellbeing...... 96 7.10 Regulation of Contamination and Pollution...... 97 7.11 Carbon Sequestration...... 97 7.12 Natural Hazard Protection ...... 98 7.13 Resilience and Resistance ...... 98 8. Conclusions...... 99 8.1 Summary of Findings...... 99 8.2 Recommendations...... 100 8.2.1 Introduction ...... 100 8.2.2 Spatial Distribution of MSFD Indicator Features ...... 101 8.2.3 Spatial Distribution of Activities...... 101 8.2.4 Forecasting of Activities...... 101 8.2.5 Refining the Assessment Framework ...... 102 8.2.6 Understanding Linkages Between Pressures and Impacts...... 102 8.2.7 Understanding Linkages Between Environmental State and Ecosystem Services Provision ...... 102 9. References...... 102

Appendices

A. Different Classifications of Ecosystem Services B. Links Between GES and Ecosystem Services C. Identification of Drivers and Activities Operating on GES Descriptors D. Activities and Pressures E. Descriptor Assessment Method F. Individual Assessment Tables

Tables

Table 1. Prospects for valuing prioritised ecosystem services (based on UKMMAS, 2010b) ...... 28 Table 2. Categorisation of activities in the marine environment used in this study...... 32 Table 3. Pressure benchmarks used in this study ...... 35 Table 4. Current and proposed wave and tidal energy projects as at 28 Sept 2012 ...... 50 Table 5. Planned hydrocarbon seismic surveys under the 26th oil & gas licensing round ...... 53 Table 6. Summary of the human pressures covered in this assessment...... 59 Table 7. Summary of the level of confidence in assessments of activities and their pressures...... 61 Table 8. Summary of the area of the habitats impacted by various activities as a consequence of pressures on the marine environment ...... 66 Table 9. The encounter rate of various cetacean species and their numbers within likely areas exposed to noise pressures over time from wind farm construction ...... 71 Table 10. Evaluation of the current exploitation status for fin-fish stocks in UK waters, for which ICES was able to provide quantitative management advice in 2010 (ICES, 2010)...... 76 Table 11. Factors influencing the possible reform of the CFP...... 78 Table 12. Predicted area of biogenic habitats impacted by various activities...... 83 Table 13. Summary of the known influences on fish stocks ...... 93 Table 14. Summary of the known pressures on tourism and recreation activities ...... 95 Table 15. Summary of changes in environmental welfare under the BAU scenario over the period of the assessment...... 100

Figures

Figure 1. Illustration of linkages between various study components that will inform the initial assessment of the MSFD. BAU scenarios (this study) are circled 14 Figure 2. DPSIR model illustrating linkages between components 16 Figure 3. Illustration of study framework, relationship between tasks and linkages between assessment of ecosystem state and ecosystem services 20 Figure 4. Relationship between the DPSIR model (Figure 2) and the tasks in this study 21 Figure 5. Illustration of application of study assessment framework to tidal range power 22 Figure 6. Illustration of ecosystem service classification applied in this study 25 Figure 7. Indirect and direct causes or drivers operating on marine and coastal ecosystem services 30 Figure 8. Modelled density of harbour porpoise in 1994 and 2005 69 Figure 9. Measurements of background underwater noise and shipping density 91

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Overview

ABP Marine Environmental Research (ABPmer), Economics for the Environment Ltd (eftec) and Vivid Economics were commissioned by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Marine Scotland and the Welsh Government to develop ‘Business as Usual’ projections of the marine environment which seek to identify how the state of the marine environment may change by 2020 and 2030 compared to a 2008 baseline. This work will support the UK’s ‘Initial Assessment’ of the state of the marine environment, in particular the analysis of the cost of degradation, in line with Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The report and analysis were updated in June 2012 to reflect the most recent policy and research developments.

The MSFD was transposed into UK law in July 2010, and its implementation is being led by Defra, Welsh Government and Marine Scotland. MSFD requires that the characteristics of ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) are established, underpinned by more detailed targets and indicators to measure progress towards GES. The European Commission lists those characteristics of the marine environment that should be taken into account in assessing GES, including physical features, habitat types and biological features (See Table 1 in European Commission, 2008). Programmes of measures may then be required to achieve targets. The design of these programmes of measures will need to take account of how environmental state may change over time in response to existing drivers of change, termed the ‘Business as Usual’ (BAU) scenario. The Directive also includes specific reference to using ‘socio-economic’ assessments in designing these targets and programmes of measures.

June 2011 September 2011

Develop BAU Scenario evidence base Development and central based on BAU projections work

GES target Gap between BAU and GES development (degradation)

CBA of Socio- Cost of illustrative economics to degradation inform choice measures of measures

Figure 1. Illustration of linkages between various study components that will inform the initial assessment of the MSFD. BAU scenarios (this study) are circled

Figure 1 illustrates how the various research requirements to inform the initial assessment of MSFD link together. Together with the GES target development work, the BAU evidence will give the UK Government a good idea of the gap that will need to be filled in order to reach targets for GES. This information combined with a Cost Benefit Assessment will provide an assessment of the cost of degradation — both qualitative and quantitative. In the future, the projections made under the BAU project will be developed into scenarios that respond to the specific policy challenge of how best to try to meet the targets.

BAU scenarios should contain the following features, as suggested by the European Commission (EC) Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment for MSFD (WGESA, 2010):

. Identify the Member State’s uses of marine waters, and provide a projection as to how these uses could change over time; . Identify the pressures that these uses of marine waters create, and provide a projection of how these could develop over time, also taking into account other pressures, e.g. regional pressures; . Identify relevant legislation, measures and voluntary agreements (at the international, EU, Regional Seas, and Member State levels) that could have an influence on the development of pressures over time; and . Identify changes in the state of the marine environment that could result from changes and developments of pressures, over the time period considered by the Initial Assessment.

For consistency across all Member States, the assessment should at least cover the time period up to 2020, in order to indicate the potential state of marine waters in the absence of MSFD (WGESA, 2010). The guidance also notes that BAU scenarios can extend beyond 2020 if desired, in order to allow the potential impacts of existing policies to be reflected more fully. This may be particularly useful in capturing potential time lags in ecosystem responses to existing and proposed measures. For this study, efforts were therefore made to make projections of environmental state at both 2020 and 2030.

It is helpful that the programmes of measures should also take account of the likely evolution of the ecosystem services provided by the marine environment, in order to identify targets and programmes of measures that reflect the best interests of society as a whole, and that balance environmental with social and economic objectives.

The assessment framework should also follow a Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework as advised by WGESA (2010). The DPSIR model (Figure 2) seeks to relate changes in drivers and their associated pressures to impacts on ecosystem state (European Environment Agency (EEA), 2007). ‘Drivers’ (D) are the socio-economic and socio-cultural forces driving human activities, which increase or mitigate pressures on the environment. ‘Pressures’ (P) are the stresses that human activities place on the environment that result in a change in the ‘State’ (S) of the environment. ‘Impacts’ (I) are the effects of changes in state (e.g. degradation) that may influence ecosystems, human health, and materials. This approach highlights the number of steps in the causal chain where the chain can be broken by policy action or ‘Responses’ (R) by society to the impacts.

Using a DPSIR approach is helpful to scoping MSFD issues and defining a baseline that includes expected future trends, and therefore to support economic analysis. In particular, the ‘Pressure-State-Impact’ elements provide a measure of marginal change. This involves changes at the margin, in other words changes that are small relative to the baseline state which they are measured from. A clearly defined baseline (the ‘State’) and analysis of change against this (‘Impact’) are an essential input to sound economic analysis of factors causing change (‘Pressures’).

The context for using the DPSIR approach in the economic and social analysis required by the MSFD is provided in the steps proposed by Turner et al. (2009). They suggested adapting the traditional DPSIR framework above, with the stage ‘State’ focusing on assessing changes in state of the marine environment and ‘Impact’ focussing on an assessment of changes in human welfare.

Pressures State

Drivers Impact

Response

(Adapted from: EEA, 2007) Figure 2. DPSIR model illustrating linkages between components

Whilst not part of this study, this information will help to inform a programme of measures to improve the status of the marine environment.

1.2 Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the study is to identify how the baseline environment may change by 2020 and 2030 compared to a 2008 baseline. This is to be assessed both in terms of the relevant components for each GES descriptor and in terms of key ecosystem services (ES). In order to identify where measures may be required, we first need to understand what the state of the environment is now and will look like in the future. The second step will be to assess whether this state is good or bad, which is outside the scope of this project (see Figure 1). This aspect of understanding will progress later as targets for each descriptor of state are developed and agreed.

Five key objectives have been established and agreed for the study:

. Objective 1 - prioritise key ecosystem services in the marine environment and identify drivers for change associated with each descriptor of GES; . Objective 2 - collate existing forecasts/projections of drivers and pressures and develop assumptions about future trends where these do not exist; . Objective 3 - establish sensitivity of the descriptors of GES to changes in drivers and associated pressures, and identify how these relationships could change over time; . Objective 4 - present projections of the most likely changes in the state of the marine environment at time steps of 2020 and 2030 starting from the base year 2008; and . Objective 5 - describe a framework/methodology for presenting and updating modules in this analysis as research improves.

The study has been overseen by a Steering Group chaired by Defra and including Marine Scotland. Advice and input to the development of the framework was also obtained from the Productive Seas Evidence Group (PSEG) and the Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group (HBDSEG).

In terms of spatial scales, the study encompasses all of UK Seas and, where relevant, is interpreted at the spatial scale of the Regional Seas reported on in Charting Progress 2 (CP2).

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 Tasks

The objectives above were interpreted into a series of tasks and study outputs as follows:

. Task 1. Develop and describe a framework for the BAU scenario assessment (Task 1.1, Objective 5) and research and develop components of the framework as follows: - Task 1.2. Identify a relevant list of ecosystem services and illustrate links with components of GES (Objective 1) - this was used to translate the information on the state of each measure of GES (e.g. habitat extent of intertidal sandbanks, Task 4.1) into the state of ecosystem services (e.g. natural hazard protection, Task 4.2); - Task 1.3. Identify key drivers, their linkages with uses of marine waters and how drivers might influence GES (Objective 1) - this was used to prioritise pressures and assess how they may change in the future (Task 2); - Task 1.4. Identify the environmental pressures that arise from uses of marine waters and describe in terms of their current spatial and temporal characteristics (Objective 2) - this was used to inform the prioritisation of pressures (Task 2); . Task 2. Prioritise the environmental pressures using the information on drivers from Task 1.3 and their known current spatial and temporal extents from Task 1.4; describe the temporal change in these pressures as a result and map them where possible using a GIS tool and publicly-available data (Objective 2) - this information was used in conjunction with sensitivity and spatial information on the components of GES (Task 3) to assess environmental state (Task 4.1);

. Task 3. Assess the sensitivity of the relevant components of each GES descriptor to each of these pressures and map them where possible using a GIS tool and publically-available data (Objective 3) - this information was used in conjunction with pressure information (Task 2) to assess environmental state (Task 4.1); . Task 4. Assess the consequent change in environmental state as a result of information on pressures (Task 2) and components of GES (Task 3) (Task 4.1). From this information infer impacts on the state of ecosystem services or ‘welfare’ (Task 4.2) (Objective 4). . Task 5. Report on these findings and identify key aspects of the framework which could be updated as research improves.

Although this represents a logical sequence of tasks, the project was iterative in that a number of these tasks were revisited and revised as understanding was developed throughout the project. Linkages between these tasks are illustrated in section 1.3.2 and described in more detail under section 1.3.3.

An update to the report was produced in June 2012. A number of policy and research processes had advanced since the conception of the study and implementation of the analysis, such as the final project recommendations for MCZs, and publication of Defra’s Consultation Document (Defra, 2012a) and Impact Assessment (Defra, 2012b) on MSFD targets and indicators, which warranted an updating of the BAU projections. The following updates were implemented:

. Refinement of Descriptor 1 analysis, taking into account the final project recommendations of MCZ locations (September 2011), revised assumptions for displacement of fishing effort from these areas, and including outputs specifically related to biogenic reef habitat types (relating to Descriptor 6, indicator 6.1.1), as included in Defra’s proposed GES targets and indicators. The analysis incorporated improved assumptions on the extent of physical change of substrate (physical loss, relating to habitat extent) due to wave and tidal installations, and physical damage (relating to habitat condition) from fishing, and separated out these two strands of the analysis. . Update of Descriptor 2 narrative, incorporating the latest research by Cefas (2012) on risks associated with the introduction and transfer of NIS. . Additional research on underwater noise for Descriptor 11, to explore a potential correlation between underwater noise and shipping data, to determine whether shipping density could be used as an indicator for underwater noise as a pressure. . Incorporation of the latest analysis and thinking on climate change from the Government’s Climate Change Risk Assessment: Government Report (Defra, 2012c) and Climate Change Risk Assessment 2012 Sector Reports, and on non- indigenous species. . Analysis of the coherence and compatibility between the BAU projections, Defra’s Consultation Document on the MSFD (Defra, 2012a) and Impact Assessment on MSFD targets and indicators (Defra, 2012b).

1.3.2 BAU Assessment Framework

In order to provide projections of ecosystem services for 2020 and 2030, it is firstly necessary to assess what the state of components of GES will be at these points in time. This is because environmental pressures act on features (the components of GES) which then influence ecosystem service provision. Furthermore, most ecosystem services operate at larger spatial scales than the anthropogenic pressures acting on them. It is therefore more practical to describe sensitivities in terms of the components and indicators already established for GES.

The approach has therefore produced two expressions of the BAU baseline, one expressed in terms of the components of GES and the other in ecosystem services terms. The latter may be used to inform cost-benefit assessments of measures to be applied under the MSFD. In addition, this assessment may help in the development of policies under Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). The study has not taken account of interactions between different socio-economic sectors. While many sectors can co-exist, competition for space occurs particularly between the fisheries sector, marine aggregates and marine infrastructure.

The research and analysis components of the framework comprise a series of linked spreadsheets or matrices (Figure 3) which reflect the tasks outlined above.

The matrices aim to provide a transparent and auditable process to inform decision-making. It is also important to note that, where relevant, each of the matrices record information on the level of confidence in the assessments made in the tables. This will help to focus future research efforts. The approach also provides a practical and quantitative framework which recognises the current limitations of knowledge but which can be built upon as knowledge improves, in line with current EC guidance (WGESA, 2010).

GES vs ES GES vs Drivers Activities vs Pressures (Task 1.2) (Task 1.3) (Task 1.4)

ES 1 ES 2 GES 1 GES 2 Pressure 1 Pressure 2 GES 1 text text Driver 1 Activity 1 HML +/- HML +/- Activity 1 HML +/- HML +/- GES 2 text Driver 2 Activity 1 HML +/- Activity 2 HML +/- GES 3 text Driver 2 Activity 2 HML +/- Activity 3 HML +/-

Pressure projections GES Sensitivity matrices (Task 2) (Task 3) 2010 2020 2030 Activity 1 Pressure 1 % +/- % +/- % +/- Pressure 1 Pressure 2 Activity 1 Pressure 2 % +/- % +/- % +/- GES 1 Component 1 HML +/- HML +/- Activity 2 Pressure 1 % +/- % +/- % +/- GES 1 Component 2 HML +/- HML +/- GES 1 Component 3 HML +/- HML +/- GES 1 Component 4 HML +/- HML +/- GES 2 Component 5 HML +/- GES 3 Component 6 HML +/- State of ES 2030 State of GES 2030 (Task 4.2) (Task 4.1)

2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 ES 1 % +/- % +/- % +/- GES 1 Component 1 % +/- % +/- % +/- ES 2 % +/- % +/- % +/- GES 1 Component 2 % +/- % +/- % +/- ES 3 % +/- % +/- % +/- GES 1 Component 3 % +/- % +/- % +/- GES 1 Component 4 % +/- % +/- % +/- GES 2 Component 5 % +/- % +/- % +/- GES 3 Component 6 % +/- % +/- % +/-

Figure 3. Illustration of study framework, relationship between tasks and linkages between assessment of ecosystem state and ecosystem services

The research framework reflects the DPSIR model in Figure 2 by linking drivers of change to the marine activities which exert pressures on the marine environment. By considering how activities might change over time in response to existing drivers it is possible to infer changes in pressures over time as a result. It is then possible to model changes in the state of the marine environment over time. In this instance, ‘state’ is an assessment of changes in those characteristics or ‘components’ that are relevant to each GES descriptor (e.g. the biological features or physical conditions of the sea - see Table 1 in European Commission, 2008). Finally, we are able to infer likely impacts on welfare, or the provision of key ecosystem services, over time (Figure 4).

Pressures State change (Tasks 1.4 + 2) (Tasks 3 + 4.1)

Drivers Welfare Impacts (Task 1.3) (Task 4.2)

Response

Figure 4. Relationship between the DPSIR model (Figure 2) and the tasks in this study

As noted above, the process was iterative, involving regular review of initial matrices as information sources built throughout the project. The development of the matrices was taken forward in consultation with the steering group. Additional input was also obtained from PSEG, HBDSEG and teleconferences with Defra fisheries and MCZ interests.

1.3.3 Worked Example

To illustrate how the framework can assess the future state of the marine environment by tracing the influence of drivers and activities, an example is provided of the development of tidal barrages (Figure 5), highlighting the particular tasks and matrices involved as illustrated in Figure 3.

The population of the UK is predicted to increase from 61.4 million in 2008 to 69.8 million in 2028 (ONS, 2009b), and whilst there are strong drivers to reduce electricity consumption through development of new technologies, electricity requirements for the UK are still predicted to increase. However, domestic fossil fuel reserves are decreasing in abundance and their contribution to climate change is of great concern. Importing fossil fuels leaves the country vulnerable to external influences such as overseas wars. As a consequence of these combined social, economic and environmental influences, there are policy drivers to support and increase the development of renewable sources of electricity (Task 1.3).

Siltation rate Population changes Wildlife Energy watching / efficiency Tourism Birds Climate Change Water flow Energy Security Emergence Regime Coastal Carbon Changes saltmarshes sequestration and saline reed beds CO2 emissions Physical change (to another Tidal substrate type) Barrage Commercial Fisheries Fish Physical Loss (to land and freshwater habitat) Salinity Changes Other physical pressures: noise, light, barrier to Temperature species changes movement Key Driver Significance Visual Pressure disturbance Confidence Wave Pollution Exposure and State Component changes other chemical Impact: Positive changes Ecosystem Service + / - Negative Water Physical Adequately managed by [GREY] Clarity Minimal Changes damage existing processes

Figure 5. Illustration of application of study assessment framework to tidal range power

Tidal range technologies (barrages and lagoons) could contribute to the renewable energy solution as there are a number of suitable estuaries in the UK to harness tidal range power. A number of studies have identified possible locations for future tidal range developments (barrages or tidal lagoons), for example, Arup (2010), Ernst & Young (2010) and HM Government (2010c).

However, tidal range developments may result in a number of pressures (Task 1.4). The construction of tidal barrages will have short-term impacts on siltation rates, abrasion of the seabed from construction equipment and increased noise levels. The presence of the barrage will result in direct loss of habitats from the footprint of the development and indirect loss from permanent changes to hydrographical conditions such as temperature, salinity, water flow and emergence regimes and from changes to siltation rates. The barrage may form a barrier to species migration and movement and result in fish mortality as a result of passage through turbines.

The various components of the marine environment (e.g. species, habitats, tidal current velocity) are sensitive to these pressures to a varying degree (Task 3). For example, habitats will have a high level of sensitivity to permanent long-term changes due to the footprint of devices. All of these pressures combined may cause changes in the state of marine components including estuarine species (birds and fish) and habitats (intertidal and subtidal habitats) (Task 4.1).

Changes in these components will lead to a change in ecosystem services and ultimately impact welfare (Task 4.2). For example, commercial fisheries may decline from a reduction in the quality of spawning areas and interference with migration patterns. Tourism and recreation may be affected from changes in the morphology of the estuary. This may be positive if changes create a safer environment (e.g. reduced tidal flow) for activities. However, any loss of intertidal saltmarsh and bird habitat may influence wildlife watching activities and values such as aesthetic and spiritual values associated with these habitats.

Concerns for changes in the state of the marine environment and consequent impacts on welfare may result in socio-political responses, such as further measures to manage activities such as tidal barrages and mitigate or compensate for their impacts.

The above illustration provides a simple example of the application of the framework which assumes linear relationships. However, we recognise that for many other activities, the relationships are significantly more complex. For example, in relation to fisheries, a change in state (e.g. increase in fish population biomass may lead to an increase in impact as fishing activity increases and vice versa) may give rise to a more cyclical relationship between state and impacts.

1.3.4 Report Structure

This report presents the study findings as follows:

. Chapter 2 and Appendices A and B give an overview of ecosystem services, the usefulness of value transfer in prioritising categories of services, and indicate how a change in environmental state can be used to infer a possible change in ecosystem services (Task 1.2). . Chapter 3 and Appendix C give an overview of key drivers in the marine environment, how these interact with the main uses and users of the marine environment and indicate what their likely effect might be on environmental state (Task 1.3). . Chapter 4 and Appendix D illustrate the key pressures that arise from these main uses and what is known about the current spatial and temporal extent of the pressure (Task 1.4). Given what we know about key drivers, these pressures have been prioritised in terms of those that are likely to have a significant impact on environmental state at 2020 and 2030. An assessment is also made of which pressures can be mapped at a UK level based on existing data. . Chapter 5 and Appendix E provide the detail of the sensitivity test for descriptors of GES, indicating which pressures and features were analysed to provide an assessment of state. . Chapter 6 provides an assessment of environmental state as a result of the sensitivity test, for each descriptor with spatial and temporal analysis provided where possible and relevant. Appendix F provides associated individual assessment tables for the impact of a range of pressures on benthic habitats for Descriptors 1 and 6. . Chapter 7 interprets the assessment of environmental state in ecosystem services terms at a national level, providing descriptions of any spatial and temporal aspects where relevant.

In addition, there is a number of supporting unpublished documents supplied to Defra, Welsh Government and Marine Scotland that provide detailed descriptions of the spatial and temporal characteristics of each pressure arising from each activity. These underpin the prioritisation exercise in Chapter 4 and Appendix D.

2. Ecosystem Services Framework

2.1 Identifying and Defining Ecosystem Services

There are several different approaches to categorising ecosystem services, the most common being the framework set out in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), an international initiative to value ecosystem services of all biospheres on earth. The MEA classification (MEA, 2006) falls into four overarching categories:

. Provisioning services (e.g. generation of resources used as food and fuel); . Regulating services (e.g. regulation of air quality, control of pests and diseases); . Cultural services (e.g. spiritual/artistic inspiration, institutions surrounding resources); and . Supporting services (e.g. photosynthesis, nutrient cycling).

There are a number of other international studies that have adapted this classification scheme in order to value the environment or aspects of it. A summary of these are presented in Appendix A. The various systems of categories used in the studies depended on whether the question related solely to marine biodiversity (e.g. Beaumont et al., 2006); marine conservation (Fletcher et al., 2011) or wider planning issues (Swedish EPA, 2008 and Saunders et al., 2010a).

The focus of the MSFD is on the biological, chemical and physical components of the marine environment and the beneficial ecosystem services that these provide, and the human activities that they support. A number of services derived from the sea are not necessarily dependent on the environmental state of ecosystem components, for example, cooling water, marine aggregates, oil and gas resources, marine renewable energies (wind, wave and tidal), maritime transport, gas storage and installations that occupy the seabed. Therefore, these services are not relevant for this study which assesses environmental state under a BAU scenario.

However, measures under the MSFD may influence the extent of activity of such services or their profitability. Another study will investigate the costs of such measures on human welfare and the impacts on these services will be considered therein.

Figure 6 provides an illustration of how final ecosystem services are linked to ecosystem processes. This structure has been adapted from The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2009) by Saunders et al. (2010a) and Fletcher et al. (2011). The rationale here is that economic valuation should only be applied to the thing (ecosystem service) directly consumed or used by a beneficiary. In addition, the structure minimises the risk of double-counting the human welfare benefits (and losses) from changes to environmental processes that are inherent in the MEA classification above. Although

valuation is not within the scope of this study it is understood that this information will ultimately help to inform cost-benefit assessments (Figure 1). It is also considered that the ecosystem services structure in Figure 6 will provide a clearer illustration of the route for impacts on ecosystem processes and, finally, end ecosystem services, thereby ensuring that the analysis presented within this study is transparent. These services have recently been assessed under the National Ecosystem Assessment which was published on 2 June 2011. We have drawn directly on these findings for this report.

Figure 6 illustrates the wide range of benefits that the sea provides us with. Food relates to those components of the marine environment that provide a direct food resource for humans, such as fish, shellfish and algae. Food for other fauna, such as feed for farmed fish and livestock that then become a resource for humans, are included under raw materials. Salt is sourced commercially from the sea at three places around the UK and is dependent on good water quality. Shells may be collected for use in creating ornaments and jewellery and algae may be harvested for use as a biofuel, although these uses are relatively rare in the UK.

BENEFICIAL CORE ECOSYSTEM BENEFICIAL ECOSYSTEM ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES SERVICES PROCESSES Production Primary production Fisheries Decomposition Secondary production Other wild harvesting Food Nutrient cycling Larval/Gamete supply Aquaculture Hydrological processes Biological control Salt Raw Ecological interactions Food web dynamics Fertiliser / Feed materials Evolutionary processes Species diversification Ornamental materials Water cycling Genetic diversification Biofuels Energy Waste assimilation Medicines Erosion control Tourism Formation of species Recreation / Sport habitat Physical / Formation of physical Spiritual/cultural Psychologi

barriers wellbeing cal wellbeing Formation of scenery Aesthetic benefits Climate regulation Nature watching Air quality regulation Aquaria Research and Biogeochemical cycling Knowledge Education Water cycling Regulation of (regulation) contaminants and Water purification pollution Other (quality) regulatory Carbon sequestration services Natural hazard

protection Other Resilience and supporting resistance services (Adapted from Fletcher et al., 2011) Figure 6. Illustration of ecosystem service classification applied in this study

The category of Physical and Psychological wellbeing is a mix of those services that contribute to physical human health such as medicines (e.g. anti-carcinogens for cancer treatments) and opportunities for exercise and sport; those that contribute to mental health

such as opportunities for enjoyment from tourism, recreation, aesthetic wellbeing (including inspiration) and nature-watching; and those that contribute to spiritual wellbeing. Aquaria relates to the sourcing of animals such as fish to keep as pets, which is currently a rare activity in the UK, although some goby species are known to be suitable.

The category ‘Knowledge’ considers the benefits that an accessible, clean and safe marine environment provides for research and educational opportunities. It also includes the information that the sea may provide to help our understanding of climate.

Although the focus in Figure 6 is on final welfare benefits, there are a few regulating services that require separate consideration, because their effects are indirect and occur outside the marine environment (e.g. impacts from natural hazard protection on terrestrial ecosystem components) and/or that their effects are widespread and regulate or support final services that are not solely captured within the boundaries of UK seas (e.g. carbon sequestration).

Likewise, environmental resilience, which is sometimes classified as a supporting service (see Appendix A), has been included in the list of beneficial services in Figure 6. Environmental resilience is the ability of the system to absorb or adapt to pressures, both natural and anthropogenic and this concept has been interpreted here as a beneficial feature of socio-ecological systems that underpins all other uses and values. Resilience can be measured by the health of the system, encompassing qualities such as long-term population stability and habitat integrity (ABPmer and MarLIN, 2010).

2.2 Prioritising and Rationalising Ecosystem Services

Not all ecosystem services provide a significant level of value in the UK. The list of ecosystem services in Figure 6 was assessed from an economic perspective, which reflects current consumption patterns and market conditions. This was to ensure that the most economically-significant services were retained for detailed analysis, and to suggest which other services could, from an economic perspective, be dropped from the analysis.

Firstly, in line with recent thinking on ecosystem services valuation (e.g. Defra, 2007) most supporting services are not valued separately due to the risk that this may result in double counting of services. The exception to this is the consideration of resilience and resistance. This service is considered separately as the risk of ecosystem collapse is not reflected in the marginal values of changes in most provisioning, regulating and cultural services, and therefore the risk of double counting is regarded as low.

Secondly, this was done by applying the principles of Value Transfer, developed by eftec for Defra1, as it provides sound principles on which to base such assessments of significance. This framework stimulates consideration of key factors such as:

. The state of the environment and the scale of change expected (e.g. the current extent and quality of the services, giving an indication of the presence of substitutes); . The current levels of welfare derived from it (e.g. evidence on the unit values from the service per person/household/sector); and

1 See Defra Value Transfer Guidelines (by eftec, 2010) http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/using/valuation/index.htm

. The affected population (e.g. the extent to which local, regional and national populations experience welfare impacts from a change in the service and therefore the importance of population densities and distance decay).

The reason for considering which ecosystem services to prioritise for further analysis using the principles of an economic valuation framework is because firstly the outputs from the work may form the basis of valuation studies in the future, and secondly because they represent sound principles for identifying likely significance to human welfare. Applying the value transfer framework enabled identification of ecosystem services that were not currently a priority from an economic point of view, for example because their unit value is low, or because few people benefit from them. It should be noted that current economic priorities reflect current market conditions and consumer preferences, and that these factors, and therefore the value of services, may change in the future. However, such dynamic economic considerations are outside the scope of this work.

Measures to manage lower-value services may not result in a large change in benefits, such as the provision of salt and ornamental materials from nature. In addition, the value of some services may be difficult to distinguish and therefore may be best considered as a group, for example, tourism, nature-watching, recreation and sport. The overall outline of biotic ecosystem services in Figure 6 was therefore rationalised in consultation with the steering group into a list of thirteen key ecosystem services for detailed analysis under Task 4.2 of the project as follows:

. Fisheries - fish and shellfish; . Aquaculture; . Fertiliser (e.g. seaweeds) / Feed (e.g. fish, bait); . Biofuels; . Medicines / Health / Diet; . Tourism, Nature watching, Recreation, Sport; . Knowledge; . Aesthetic benefits / Inspiration; . Spiritual / Cultural wellbeing; . Regulation of contamination and pollution; . Carbon sequestration; . Natural hazard protection; and . Resilience and resistance.

2.3 Prospects for Valuing Prioritised Ecosystem Services

The prioritised ecosystem services above can each be valued using market and non-market data to a greater or lesser extent. The prospects for attributing such values to the services are summarised in Table 1. Notwithstanding the respective strengths of these values, the valuation process also requires information on what is being valued. The use of ecosystem services data is only as strong as the underlying knowledge of the ecosystem services involved and their responses to the pressures being analysed. For example, the effects of policy changes on fisheries management on ecosystem services are highly uncertain, and therefore the existence of strong market data on fish values does not ensure that accurate valuation of changes to fisheries ecosystem services in response to policy changes is possible.

Table 1. Prospects for valuing prioritised ecosystem services (based on UKMMAS, 2010b)

Prioritised Services Prospects for Valuation Fisheries - fish and shellfish Extensive market data available Aquaculture Extensive market data available Fertiliser / Feed Extensive market data available, there can be challenges in distinguishing between fisheries landings used for fertiliser/feed and food. Biofuels Market data/ market potential data available Medicines / Health / Diet Little valuation data. Some proxy market data available. Tourism, Nature watching, Extensive market data on some activities (e.g. marinas). Also significant Recreation, Sport areas of non-market activity (e.g. recreation) can be valued through non- market methods (revealed and stated preference) in which evidence base growing. Response of activities to changes in the marine environment not always clear. Knowledge Proxy market data. Non-market value of knowledge could be valued through non-market valuation methods, but no data available Aesthetic benefits / Inspiration Limited market/proxy-market data on some use value aspects of these activities, significant areas of non-market activity can be valued through non-market methods (revealed and stated preference) but evidence base limited. For non-use values (e.g. cultural values), although some studies are available, they feature high uncertainty over values, and risk double counting any use values (e.g. those under recreation), so hard to narrow non-use down to a specific aspect. Spiritual/ cultural wellbeing Has been addressed in some research into terrestrial economic values. It is both part of non-use values and a factor in some recreational values, and as such remains methodologically challenging to value, with no reliable data relating to the marine environment. Regulation of contamination Proxy-market values available (e.g. of pollution control technologies). and pollution Carbon sequestration Market and non-market data available for carbon. Natural hazard protection Proxy-market values available, (e.g. hazard protection expenditure). Resilience and resistance Generally non-market value, no market data for most functions. Hard to value as much of this function may be a supporting, rather than final, ecosystem service.

2.4 Links Between Ecosystem Services and Indicators of GES

An understanding has been developed of how assessments of state, in relation to the European Commission’s indicators of GES, might infer a consequent impact on ecosystem services. This initial analysis was carried out in order to identify the links that are useful in developing the baseline under Task 4.2 (Appendix B).

One key issue that was highlighted in the exercise is that often a discrete set of marine components (e.g. species and habitats) provide ecosystem service benefits, e.g. the fish species that provide commercial fishery benefits; saltmarsh habitats that provide natural hazard protection; and sequestration of carbon by macroalgae and plankton. This provided a useful focus for the sensitivity analysis (Task 3). For other services, the benefits are linked to the state of the marine environment in general, rather than explicit features. For example, aesthetic benefits and spiritual wellbeing may be derived from the general perception of healthy seas, as well as the presence of certain charismatic species or species of importance that people may connect with, e.g. marine mammals. Therefore, it is important that more general aspects are also captured by the indicators of GES.

The marine environment may also provide more geographically widespread benefits, for example, clean water for activities such as aquaculture and recreation. For other services, the features of the marine environment that provide benefits may be more specific but still hard to define and place a value on, e.g. the provision of genetic material for biofuel production.

3. Key Drivers and Activities

In order to understand and project what the state of the marine environment might be in 2030, the current drivers in relation to the marine environment were identified and described (Appendix C). This review of drivers helps to build a picture of how the pressures from activities and natural drivers are likely to change in the marine environment up to 2020 and beyond, thereby informing Task 2 (see Chapter 4). The approach used to identify and assess drivers is outlined below.

3.1 Types of Drivers

Drivers include socio-political, economic and environmental factors. Turner et al. (2010) provide a diagram of the ‘causal factors of environmental change’2 that operate on the marine environment, separated into direct and indirect drivers (see Figure 7). There will be many interactions among the various types of drivers. For example, indirect drivers such as political instability can lead to poor national policies and lack of regulations which may then influence direct drivers such as climate change, pollution, and fishing pressures. However, the analysis by Turner et al. (2010) focussed purely on negative drivers, i.e. those that were deemed to lead to an undesirable change. Under the BAU scenario, change may be either positive or negative, i.e. result in changes toward or away from GES. The focus here is on both positive and negative direct drivers of change, but it is worth keeping in mind that these are influenced by a number of indirect drivers (see Turner et al. (2010) for more examples).

In particular, there is uncertainty concerning how pressures associated with projected population growth might be expressed in UK waters. For example, it is possible that population growth will lead to increases in imports with the impacts experienced in locations outside of UK waters. The assumption made here is that potential future population growth will be reflected through existing policies for increased energy requirements, food requirements (e.g. aquaculture) and other developments such as port facilities which anticipate, to some extent, future demand.

2 In order to maintain consistency in terminology, this is hereafter referred to ‘drivers of change’ or simply ‘drivers’

(Source: Turner et al., 2010)

Figure 7. Indirect and direct causes or drivers operating on marine and coastal ecosystem services

Direct drivers that could potentially lead to a change in environmental state by 2020 and beyond were separated into three broad driver groups as below, within which are a number of discrete drivers:

. Drivers for environmental protection; . Economic use drivers including ambitions for marine development; and, . Natural drivers such as long-term climatic and oceanic patterns and coastal erosion.

Key environmental protection drivers include the designation of Marine Protected Areas (including Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in England), measures under the Climate Change Act, and implementation of various EC Directives including the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and revised Bathing Water Directive. Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) following the aims of the joint Marine Policy Statement (and required under the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010) will also facilitate planning and delivery of environmental goals within a wider context of sustainable development. These drivers will influence a whole range of activities and help to manage the pressures arising from them. Additional drivers, such as a legally-binding commitment to limit fisheries exploitation rates and the introduction of improved multi-annual plans to manage stocks for the long term, are expected to be introduced following the reform of the CFP.

It is of note that many of the international policy commitments are set at a high strategic level. While such commitments are important in identifying the direction and nature of environmental improvement required, they generally lack the specificity necessary to make them directly enforceable. Rather this is achieved through national or European legislation. Thus, for example, the UK is committed, under the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to establishing a network of MPAs but this has been given more direct effect under the Marine & Coastal Access Act, Marine (Scotland) Act and MSFD.

Economic use drivers capture trends in the main activities occurring in the marine environment, which may include consumptive uses such as fishing and extraction of marine aggregates and non-consumptive uses such as occupation of marine space for cables and pipelines and transporting goods across the sea. Economic use drivers also capture the indirect factors mentioned above such as trends in trade, population growth and advances in technology that might result for example in increases in shipping, energy demand and new types of fishing technology. For example, the expectation is that the UK population as a whole will increase from 61.4 million in 2008 to 69.8 million in 2028 (ONS, 2009b). The populations of England and Northern Ireland are projected to increase by 7% by 2018, whilst the population of Wales is projected to increase by 5% over the same 10 year period and Scotland by 4%. This increase may result in increased pressure on energy and food requirements and may generate additional pollution pressures.

Projections for future economic uses tend to be captured in national planning and policy statements, for example, the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) which relates to oil and gas, nuclear power and renewable energy generation (DECC, 2011a) and the EC Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which relates to fisheries. Furthermore, the UK Government’s Foresight Programme provides research on key technologies that may drive the UK economy in the future. In relation to the marine environment, these include renewable energy developments, particularly wave and tidal energy projects, and algal biofuels (Foresight, 2010).

Natural drivers of change influence the marine environment, regardless of human activities. The main natural drivers identified were long-term oceanic patterns and coastal erosion. Decadal and longer-term patterns in the biochemical and physical state of our atmosphere and seas are known to influence temperatures, salinity, pH, and sea level, whilst the forces of natural erosion (and deposition) have shaped our coastlines since the seas were first formed. These natural drivers have been more recently influenced by anthropogenic pressures resulting in increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 leading to issues such as ocean acidification, increasing sea temperatures and sea level rise

(UKMMAS, 2010a). Although it is difficult to control these changes, there are strategies for managing and adapting to them such as the Climate Change Act 2008 and The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy (Defra and the Environment Agency, 2010). Pressures such as ocean acidification are unlikely to give rise to significant impacts over the study period and have therefore been ignored in the analysis, although it is recognised that impacts in the longer term could be substantial.

Appendix C provides a list of the various drivers and current policy responses. The policies are identified mainly at the UK or national level but the assessment also acknowledges any related higher-level international policies. A brief description of the aim of each policy is also provided in Appendix C.

3.2 Drivers and Marine Uses or Activities

Appendix C identifies the categories of marine uses or activities3 that are influenced by each specific driver based on a categorisation developed for the MSFD working groups (see Table 2 below). These categories have been adapted slightly within this study.

Table 2. Categorisation of activities in the marine environment used in this study

MSFD Activity Themes MSFD Activities Wind, wave, tidal stream and tidal range turbines (e.g. barrages), and Energy Production biofuels Sand and gravel Navigational dredging Extraction - non-living resources Oil and gas Water Fisheries Extraction - living resources Recreational fishing Food production Aquaculture Habitat modification Beach replenishment and coastal defence Military Military activities Recreation Tourism and recreation Survey and Research Research, development and education Shipping Transport Telecom and power cables Gas storage (gas reserves) Waste - gas CCS Waste - liquid Industrial, agricultural and sewerage discharges Waste - solid Navigational dredging - disposal

Recreational fishing has been classified here under the activity theme ‘Extraction of living resources’ rather than the largely non-consumptive ‘Tourism and recreation’ sector. There are also non-use benefits from the marine environment including aesthetic values, option values4 and existence values. These are not included in the list above as they will not directly affect the state of the marine environment through pressures (although they may influence policies and drivers).

3 The two terms, ‘uses’ and ‘activities’ have been used interchangeably by various MSFD working groups 4 Option values are those attached to benefits associated with retaining the option to make use of resources in the future. For example, conserving fish stocks provides a value in terms of having the option to harvest fish species for future human consumption.

3.3 Impacts on Environmental State (GES Descriptors)

Appendix C also identifies the potential for policy drivers to impact GES descriptors, including the direction of change (positive or negative) and likely magnitude of change (minor, moderate, major). This was based on the expert judgement of the study team and includes an assumption that most legislative and regulatory controls will be effective, particularly where the underpinning science is sufficiently well understood. Thus, it is generally assumed that implementation of legislation such as EC directives will be largely effective. However, given the complexities and uncertainties about fisheries management and its enforcement, it has been assumed that fisheries management controls under CFP will not be fully effective.

The assessment illustrates that, whilst most socio-economic drivers have the potential for negative pressure on GES descriptors (see red cells marked ‘-’), these are largely mitigated by specific policies driving sustainable development by users and overarching national environmental protection drivers (see green cells marked ‘+’). For example, there are strong drivers for the identification of new fields of oil and gas resources under the Energy Act 2008; however any expansion in oil and gas fields will be mitigated by a number of environmental controls. In addition, whilst some socio-economic activities in the sea have the potential for negative pressures on the marine environment, they may also result in positive pressures (see orange cells marked ‘+ / -’). For example, development of marine renewable energy and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) reduces levels of carbon emissions thereby mitigating climate change impacts; sourcing marine aggregates from the sea reduces pressure on land-won aggregates and lessens carbon emissions from land- based transport; and coastal defences may protect important coastal and intertidal habitats.

3.4 Influencing Drivers

The table in Appendix C finally highlights the extent to which the UK may be able to influence these policies, i.e. whether they can be changed or whether there is scope for improved application or enforcement. The overview provided in the table may also be helpful where future assessments indicate descriptors that are not meeting GES, by highlighting the number of pathways where measures could be implemented to manage pressures on the descriptor. For example, if Descriptor 8 on contaminants failed to meet GES, the column on potential impacts could be interrogated to identify those drivers that influence Descriptor 8. The final column indicates whether there is scope to influence these particular drivers and, if not, highlights the possible requirement for new measures.

3.5 Unforeseen Changes

It is important to note that Appendix C identifies drivers of change that are ‘known’ (within the limits of scientific understanding and can be planned for). However, given the complexities of the marine environment and the limited understanding of many ecosystem processes, tipping points and environmental limits, it should be recognised that not all future changes in the marine environment can be reliably predicted.

In addition, there may be unforeseen catastrophic events that could have a significant impact on the marine environment; for example, natural disasters, economic crashes, disease outbreak and war (see a useful list and discussion of these in Viner et al. (2006) in relation to the marine environment). It is not within the scope of this project to assess the

impact of such events on GES descriptors, although the current economic climate in the UK has been taken into account in interpreting some of the economic and conservation drivers that pre-date the economic downturn, e.g. short-term changes in trade and reductions in public sector funding (see Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of assumptions made).

4. Pressures

An assessment of the pressures acting on the environmental state of the marine environment involved a number of logical steps as follows:

1) Prioritisation of those pressures that may influence the state of the marine environment; 2) An assessment of how priority pressures might change in the future; and 3) An assessment of priority pressures that can be mapped spatially, allowing analysis at regional levels, and those that cannot be mapped.

These stages are described in more detail below.

4.1 Identification of Pressures

The categorisation of pressures was adopted from a matrix of defined human activities (and related pressures on the marine environment developed by JNCC and HBDSEG. This work was initially developed following a request from Defra for a matrix showing the relationship between Pressures and Activities (i.e. which activities cause which pressures). The information on pressures was updated for use in the MB102 Task 3a Sensitivity project (ABPmer & MarLIN, 2010) which developed a matrix identifying the sensitivity of MPA features to benchmark levels of human pressures. A number of changes were made to adapt the matrix to the modelling considered in this study and to avoid any double-counting as follows:

. 'Quarrying' was removed from the activity theme 'Extraction - non-living resources' as little evidence was found of this activity being present and having a major impact on marine communities. Instead, any impacts from land-based activities were assessed under the impacts from other terrestrially-based activities such as waste discharges; . 'Energy production on land' was removed from the activity theme 'Energy production'. Water abstraction and discharges from coastal power stations were addressed under 'Extraction of non-living resources (water)' and 'Waste (liquids)'; . The activity theme 'Man-made structures' was removed as the construction activities considered under this theme were included within relevant activities. For example, 'infrastructure - offshore (oil and gas platforms)' was considered under 'Extraction - oil and gas'. The presence of the structures themselves was considered as a pressure under 'Physical change (to another substrate type)'; . 'Infrastructure - coastal defence and land claim' was included under the activity theme 'Habitat modification' where it was assessed alongside 'Beach replenishment'; . 'Shellfish harvesting' was focussed purely on hand gathering activities as dredging for shellfish is considered under Commercially exploited fish and shellfish’;

. The activity theme 'Survey and Research' was focused specifically on 'Research and education' rather than 'Seismic surveys and exploration' which have been considered under relevant activities, for example 'Extraction - oil and gas'; . The activity theme 'Waste - gas' was focussed on Carbon Capture and Storage, i.e. the storage of harmful and waste gases from industrial processes in seabed reservoirs. The original theme focussed on gas emissions from agriculture, forestry, domestic users and transport but this is beyond the scope of this marine study; . 'Climate change' pressure (increased CO2 emissions) was removed from the analysis as this pressure does not directly link with any of the descriptors of GES. Whilst emissions from activities will contribute to climate change and thereby influence species distributions, the direct impacts are impossible to quantify; . The pressure heading 'Introduction of other substances (solid, liquid or gas)' was removed. We understand that this is related to deep-sea storage of CO2 in basins; however, this method of storage is not being explored in the UK;

Finally, a number of benchmarks were provided from the studies noted above (particularly ABPmer & MarLIN, 2010) in order to help define levels of pressure against which sensitivity could be assessed (Table 3). In particular, the pressure ‘Physical change to another substrate’ is defined in terms of its magnitude (a change in 1 sediment folk class) and temporal extent (2 years).

Table 3. Pressure benchmarks used in this study

Pressure Theme Pressure Pressure Benchmark Peak mean spring tide flow change between 0.1m/s to Water flow (tidal current) 0.2m/s over an area >1km² or 50% of width of water changes - local body for > 1 year Hydrological Intertidal species (and habitats not uniquely defined by Changes intertidal zone): A 1 hour change in the time covered or Emergence regime changes - not covered by the sea for a period of 1 year; local Habitats and landscapes defined by intertidal zone: An increase in relative sea level or decrease in high water level of 1 mm for one year over a shoreline. Pollution and other Synthetic and non-synthetic Compliance with environmental quality standards chemical changes compound contamination Physical change Change in 1 sediment folk class for 2 years (to another seabed type) Physical loss Physical loss Permanent loss of existing saline habitat (to land or freshwater habitat) Structural abrasion / Structural damage to seabed to a depth >25mm penetration of the substrate Physical damage Surface abrasion: damage to Damage (loss of physical integrity) to seabed surface seabed surface features features Litter None proposed Other physical MSFD indicator levels (SEL or peak SPL) exceeded for pressures Underwater noise 20% of days in calendar year within site Biological Removal of target and Lethal effect therefore no benchmark relevant and no pressures non-target species sensitivity assessment undertaken

4.2 Prioritisation

Appendix D.1 provides an overview of the activities identified in Table 2 above and the pressures arising from these activities. Each cell is supported by a detailed analysis of the current spatial and temporal extent of the pressure at all stages of the activity life cycle including construction, operation and decommissioning (this represents a vast amount of information which is not presented here). This information was used to support a prioritisation exercise to separate pressures into two groups:

. Those pressures which could have a significant impact on environmental state, based on their current pressure extents and taking into account the drivers identified in Chapter 3 (e.g. current and planned environmental protection measures (such as MCZs and WFD and likely increases in economic activity); and . Those pressures which are not expected to have a significant impact on environmental state.

Pressures which could have a significant impact on environmental state have been prioritised for further analysis in this study. They are highlighted orange in Appendix D.1, and those that are not, are highlighted grey. This information is also summarised in Section 4.5.

The prioritisation exercise was carried out by the study team with limited input from the Productive Seas Evidence Group (PSEG), and the Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group (HBDSEG) through discussions during routine meetings of these groups.

The questions asked were:

1) What activities and consequent pressures are likely to change significantly over the next twenty years?; 2) What pressures from each activity are well-managed under existing or proposed measures?; and 3) Where are there significant gaps in our understanding of pressures?

The consequent rationale for prioritisation was generally as follows: if activities are already managed under existing legislation such as the EIA Directive or WFD then these measures should be sufficient to ensure that pressures from the activity do not significantly affect the environmental state of UK Seas, even if that activity increases. The table in Appendix C, as described in Section 3, was used to identify the various drivers involved. Appendix D indicates the controls already in place to manage the pressures from each activity. As a consequence, all of the pressures relating to pollution and other chemical changes are considered to be covered under existing legislation aside from cumulative impacts, discussed below.

Referring to our worked example in Section 1.3.3, the environmental impacts from the development of tidal range technologies is managed by implementation of the EIA Directive requirements through the consenting process which also ensures that the requirements of the Habitats, Birds and Water Framework Directives are also met. The introduction of marine planning also has the potential to provide some level of environmental screening for possible future development in advance of formal proposals being brought forward. Therefore, although port developments may increase in the future, particularly in relation to

channel deepening, it has been assumed that some pressures on the environment can be carefully controlled, mitigated and, where possible, compensated for such that the state of the environment at the level of a marine region is not compromised.

It is recognised that there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of existing controls. However, to avoid biasing these initiatives, the only assumption that could be reasonably made at this stage is to assume that they will meet their intended objectives. For example, EC directives have been successful in driving major improvements in marine water quality over many years with the threat of infraction proceedings if the requirements are not met.

There are a few cases where there are no measures to manage a particular pressure at present, generally because its current extent is such that it is not of concern, for example, pressures from some research and education activities, leisure activities and some sources of siltation rate change pressures. Where these activities were not thought to increase significantly by 2020 or 2030, they were ranked as ‘low’ or ‘minor’ disturbance.

Exceptions to these rules arose when there was concern regarding cumulative impacts and in-combination effects. Although developments under the EIA Regulations require a consideration of these effects, the procedures for assessing such impacts are still in development. Therefore, there remains concern about some cumulative sources of pressures, particularly those that result in a permanent impact on the marine environment. These include physical change to a substrate from the large number and scale of developments currently present or planned to occur in the future. In terms of in-combination effects, the potential for tidal barrage development presents a range of permanent changes to the marine environment including changes in water flow, emergence regimes and substrate types. While such developments are spatially confined and likely to be few in number, they may impact disproportionately on certain habitat types.

Although there are a number of activities that result in structural abrasion of the sea bed and surface features, the spatial extent of disturbance from fishing activities is considered to far outweigh contributions from other sources of this pressure. Therefore, in this instance, the focus for the analysis of physical damage due to structural abrasion has been solely on fisheries.

Litter was identified as a key pressure with potential impacts of unknown magnitude on habitats (smothering) and species (ingestion). The pressure stems from a number of different sources including both from land and sea, although there is very little information on the spatial extent of the pressure. There is a perceived lack of controls to manage it, and where controls exist, there is little understanding of their effectiveness.

Underwater noise is increasingly recognised as a pressure on some marine animals, particularly marine mammals and fish. The distribution of the pressure is not well documented as it varies markedly in space and time. The effectiveness of current management of underwater noise, particularly its potential cumulative effects, is uncertain. Guidelines exist for the mitigation of the immediate effects of the highest intensity sounds (e.g. pile driving and seismic surveys for the characterisation of subsea geology). Further technological development will likely reduce the peak intensities of underwater noise, but the reduction of more pervasive underwater anthropogenic ambient noise will require considerable long-term effort at the international level.

Finally, biological pressures considered to be significant include the introduction of non- indigenous species (there is an entire descriptor dedicated to this so would have been unusual to exclude it), and the removal of target and non-target species. The main source of lethal removal is from commercial fisheries, however the study recognised that other activities such as marine aggregate dredging and navigational dredging will also result in such impacts to a much smaller degree.

4.3 Temporal Patterns

This section develops assumptions on how the key pressures may change based on the drivers presented in Appendix C and current economic state.

4.3.1 Renewable Energy Production

There are a number of strong drivers for the development of renewable energy production in UK waters (see Appendix C); a number of plans or licensing rounds are in place as a result and some developments are already under construction.

Offshore wind

The Crown Estate currently has in place leases, agreements for lease and exclusivity agreements for roughly 48GW of capacity from offshore wind developments. Each developer has published likely roll-out schedules from which we were able to determine when new wind farms are likely to be constructed over the next ten years. These include proposals for wind development within Round 2 and 3 zones and Scottish Territorial Waters and extensions of existing Round 1 and 2 wind farms. Appendix D.3 provides a table of projects currently progressing through the planning system or pre-planning leasing rounds. Their likely timelines for construction have been estimated from project summaries available online5. This information can be used to inform the likely timing of construction impacts such as sources of noise from piling activities. It is worth noting that planned construction schedules will be influenced by the availability of installation equipment and weather.

The Committee on Climate Change (2011) noted the high costs surrounding offshore wind and suggested in the UK carbon budgeting that if renewable energy targets for 2020 can be met in other ways, a moderation of offshore wind ambition for 2020 would reduce the costs of decarbonisation, i.e. reduce the likelihood of potential increases in household electricity bills. However, the report notes that cheaper alternatives such as onshore wind are constrained by space and other renewables (such as solar) are currently more expensive and are likely to remain so up until 2020. Furthermore, the report notes that the current ambition is appropriate in the context of meeting the UK’s legally-binding 2020 renewable energy target. However, by 2040, tidal stream and possibly wave could offer a cost-effective alternative to offshore wind.

Wave and tidal stream

The Marine Energy Action Plan (HM Government, 2010a) recognises that marine renewable energy could play an important role in the period to 2020 as the sector begins to roll out

5 Mostly sourced from the Global Offshore Wind Farms Database: www.4coffshore.com/offshorewind/ Individual developer websites queried where information was lacking.

larger arrays of devices, followed by large-scale deployment in the period beyond 2020 to help to meet the Government’s policy for an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050. The Action Plan recognises that 1.3 GW of wave and tide installed capacity could be achieved by 2020 with a conservative estimate of 2.6GW in UK waters by 2030. In the short-term, a number of agreements to lease have been agreed for wave and tidal development within the Pentland Firth Strategic Area, Scotland (1.6GW); a further six sites in Scotland (76.5MW); demonstrator wave devices in Cornwall, England (20MW); and further tidal development proposed in Ramsay Sound, Wales (1.2MW). It is assumed that all of these will be online by 2020. Future development after 2020 is uncertain (see Section 4.4.1 on how this capacity was allocated spatially).

Tidal range technologies

A number of studies have identified possible locations for future tidal range developments (barrages or lagoons), for example, Arup (2010) and Ernst & Young (2010). The Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study (HM Government, 2010c) carried out a detailed study of tidal power options for the Severn Estuary. It concluded that none of the options assessed could be brought forward by Government at this time largely on the grounds of cost and environmental impact. However, the study did not rule out a private sector-led proposal and recognised that alternative technologies such as low head two-way turbines or a spectral marine energy converter might provide cost effective solutions after 2020 and also with potentially much lower environmental impacts. It is also known that there may be potential for other developments, such as tidal lagoons or barrages, elsewhere.

It is recognised that there is a high level of uncertainty associated with the location and scale of any tidal range deployments in the future. For illustrative purposes for the BAU study, it has been assumed that a barrage using alternative technologies could be constructed on the Severn Estuary (installed capacity 5.8 GW) resulting in a reduction in intertidal habitat extent of around 900ha (HM Government, 2010c).This does not imply an expectation that a project will come forward.

4.3.2 Farming and Harvesting of Algae as Biofuel

Proposals are circulating to grow marine algae to be used as a biomass fuel used to produce electricity in power stations and to power vehicles. However, there are no concrete plans in place for deployment of algal farms and no definite targets identifying the scale of development. Although there is an indication that farms might move offshore to avoid constraints with other activities, exact locations are unknown; suggestions that they may be installed alongside offshore wind farms are unproven. Furthermore, there appear to be a number of technological hurdles to overcome before proposals become commercially viable. Given the immaturity of the sector it is likely that any developments in the next ten years will be small-scale demonstrator projects to prove the technology offshore. Therefore, due to high levels of uncertainty, this activity was excluded from the assessment (see Appendix D.2).

4.3.3 Sand and Gravel Extraction

Activity within the marine aggregates sector is driven by the demand for construction material and the availability of land-won aggregates in comparison with marine aggregates (UKMMAS, 2010b). Marine sources are increasingly being sourced to reduce demand on land-won sources.

Trends and projections for mineral extraction are closely linked with renewable energy developments, nuclear builds and coastal defence programmes as these large-scale infrastructure projects drive demand for construction materials. Climate change may also increase the demand for aggregates for beach nourishment to protect against coastal flooding. However, there has been a downturn in the sector due to the recent economic recession affecting investment in construction projects.

Government predictions assume a level supply of 230 million tonnes (mt) nationally between 2001 and 2016: 120 mt in the south east of England, 53 mt in London, 32 mt in east of England and 25 mt in the rest of the country (ODPM, 2004).

In the longer-term, sand and gravel extraction is assumed to return to rates of extraction experienced before the economic downturn and to increase over the next twenty years due to increased demand for infrastructure projects such as tidal barrages and offshore wind.

The relative importance of dredging areas may also change over time as resources are depleted and new reserves are discovered and explored (British Geological Survey, 2007). For example, production began in 2005 in the East English Channel after new reserves were identified and this area is now of growing importance in terms of supply (see Section 4.4.2).

4.3.4 Domestic Oil and Gas and Import Pipelines

Based on current investment plans, oil and gas production overall is expected to decline at an average rate of 5% over the next five years as several larger fields reach the end of their life span (UKMMAS, 2010b). As a result, pressures associated with construction activity (water clarity changes, physical damage and removal) are projected to decline both spatially and temporally as the use of existing infrastructure is encouraged.

This assumption may be appropriate within Regional seas 1 and 2 which have a well- developed infrastructure, however there is increased interest in Regional sea 7 where there are few installations at present. It was assumed therefore that construction activities may increase in this region. The Offshore Energy SEA (DECC, 2009) indicated that, compared to the noise derived from seismic surveys and piling for platforms, noise from other oil and gas activities is relatively minor. Therefore, the potential noise impacts from drilling of wells are not included in this assessment, as indicated in the prioritisation matrix (Appendix D.1). The spatial assessment has therefore focussed on noise sources from likely seismic activity throughout the UK and the possible future footprint of platforms in Regional sea 7 (see Section 4.4.3).

The construction of pipelines to link new oil and gas fields and new infrastructure may increase pressures locally. For example, there may be additional pipelines to service new oil and gas fields in Regional sea 7 and to transport captured CO2 to new storage fields in the

North Sea. However, the temporal extent of construction is restricted to short time frames and the spatial extent is small. In addition, all known planned interconnector pipelines have now been constructed including the Langeled pipeline linking the UK to gas supplies in Norway and the Bacton pipeline which may further link the UK to new supplies originating from Russia.

Pressures associated with the operation of oil and gas platforms (emissions, chemical and oil pollution, electromagnetic changes, underwater noise, collision, disturbance) are projected to decline up to 2020 and beyond and are therefore not considered further here.

Decommissioning activity is predicted to increase up to 2020 and beyond with around 500 individual structures (including platforms and tie backs) due to be decommissioned over the next three decades (UKMMAS, 2010b). However, before approving decommissioning plans, DECC requires companies to consider re-use of the infrastructure for other purposes, such as development of other oil or gas discoveries or gas storage or carbon capture or storage (UKMMAS, 2010b). In addition, a phased approach to decommissioning may be implemented in deeper waters (>100m) removing only the upper parts from above the sea surface to 55m depth, leaving the remaining structure in place, thus avoiding disturbance to colonised species. These structures also have the possibility of being converted to artificial reefs, potentially increasing bio-productivity of coastal waters by providing additional habitats for marine life. Migrating invertebrates and fish searching for food, shelter, and places to reproduce may be attracted by these structures and in turn increase commercial fish catches in the region. Pressures from decommissioning were therefore considered not to be a priority in this assessment as any impacts on ecosystem services would generally be offset by benefits.

4.3.5 Fisheries

The CFP is the main policy instrument that can influence anthropogenic pressures from fishing, namely those pressures on fish stocks and sea bed disturbance, resulting in consequences for GES Descriptors 1, 3, 4 and 6. Whilst there are various national fisheries initiatives underway, for example in relation to quota management reform, these are more designed to protect the viability and diversity of the fishing industry — particularly the smaller vessels — rather than reduce fishing pressures or environmental impacts. The CFP is currently undergoing reform and a new legislative instrument is expected to be finalised during 2013. The likely ambition and impact of the reformed CFP was discussed with fisheries experts and the assumptions below represent agreed conclusions from that meeting. They have been updated based on information drawn from the partial General Approach agreed by Fisheries Ministers in June 2012, the analysis and modelling conducted for the European Commission’s Impact Assessment on CFP Reform (MRAG et al., 2010a, 2010b), and further consultation with fisheries experts.

CFP reform focuses on four key areas and their likely influence on environmental state is as follows:

. Maximum sustainable yield (MSY)-related targets and long-term management plans: their aim is to ensure an effective ecosystem-wide approach to EU fisheries and they will likely seek to further reduce fishing effort on some particularly vulnerable stocks, increase the use of closures to protect sensitive areas (such as those where breeding and spawning takes place) and discourage use of the more harmful fishing

techniques. These measures will have a key influence on environmental state, not just for Descriptor 3 in terms of stocks, but also other Descriptors such as 1, 4 and 6 in relation to sea bed disturbance and removal of species (both target and non-target species). However, in multispecies fisheries it will be impossible to achieve MSY for all stocks simultaneously, therefore trade-offs will have to be made. There is also much capital invested in the pelagic, demersal and nephrops trawl fleets across the UK at present and any estimations of change in fishing activity will need to recognise this socio-economic context. Scope to agree changes to existing practices by 2015 may therefore be limited. In any case, the lag between the application of measures and the identification of their beneficial impacts may mean that little improvement in sea floor biodiversity and integrity will be readily identifiable by 2020;

. Discards: whilst any action might aim to reduce damage to commercial and non- commercial (and non-target) stocks and undersized fish, it is not clear yet what final measures might be implemented. Fisheries Ministers have indicated a preference for a fishery-by-fishery obligation to land all catches, delivered through multi-annual plans, underpinned by implementing measures such as improvements in selectivity, exemptions for specific species with a high survival rate when released into the sea, potential increases in quotas and de minimis levels of discarding. Commitments to an obligation to land all catches (elimination of discards) for pelagic fisheries by January 2014, and a transitional phasing-in of obligations to land all catches on a stock-by- stock basis for mixed whitefish between 2015 and 2018 have also been made. Negotiations are continuing in the European Parliament but it is clear that there is significant political momentum towards eliminating discards, and we would expect to see a significant reduction in the overall wastage of marine resources; and

. Fleet over-capacity: Fisheries Ministers do not support the mandatory market-based approach to reduce capacity that has been proposed by the Commission and specific measures to reduce capacity are unlikely to be widely adopted in the UK. The industry is however being encouraged to consider a more strategic approach to their fishing activity, and current trends indicate a 10–15% reduction in fleet capacity is likely over a 7-year period (Defra, 2008). This may translate into a lower reduction of fishing effort, as remaining vessels are able to spend more days at sea. However, the CFP Impact Assessment modelling results indicated an expected 14% decline in fishing effort of >12m demersal trawl and seine fleet segments from 2007–2017 (MRAG et al., 2010a).

It is recognised that technological change also influences the efficiency of fishing vessels in catching fish, distribution and intensity of fishing activity. In recent years this has been evidenced by increased activity in deeper waters and affecting areas previously unfished. This trend may continue over the assessment period, but it is difficult to predict which areas or species might be targeted and it has not been possible to consider this issue within the scope of the study.

The impact of the CFP in relation to Descriptor 3 and other descriptors that may be affected by fishing pressure, together with other policies that may affect fishing effort, were therefore interpreted for the baseline as follows:

Descriptor 1: Biological diversity — While Marine Protected Areas are likely to involve a range of management requirements, demersal fishing activities that disturb the seabed (mobile demersal gears, specifically demersal trawling and dredging) may be restricted from some sites or parts of sites. Whilst difficult to predict accurately at this stage, reasonable estimates, and the assumptions used for the analysis, are that mobile demersal gears might be banned from 50% of recommended MCZ areas. It has been assumed that in such cases:

. 25% of existing fishing effort will be lost (i.e. leave the sector, or transfer to other gears that do not impact the seabed); and, . 75% will be displaced. Of this, displacement will be: . primarily to existing fishing grounds (90%) (i.e. areas that are already impacted by fishing); and, . a small amount (10%) to new fishing grounds (i.e. previously unimpacted substrate).

The outcome is expected to be an improvement in biodiversity of benthic habitats, since 50% of the substrate in rMCZ areas would no longer be impacted by bottom trawling, thus allowing benthic habitats to recover in these areas. Where fishing effort is displaced to existing fishing grounds, seabed substrates are likely to have already changed due historical pressures and habitats are already being maintained in a disturbed state by ongoing activity. The consequence of this assumption is that displacement to these areas will result in an increase in the intensity of bed disturbance pressures, but that this will have limited impact of environmental state as many of these grounds will already be significantly disturbed. The fishing effort that is displaced to new fishing grounds will result in a degradation of state in these areas, as previously unimpacted areas become fished; however, this will be a small overall area (equivalent to 3.75% of rMCZ area).

Search locations have been identified for new MPAs in Scottish inshore waters and offshore zone, but MPA proposals have not yet been finalised, and are not yet known in Northern Ireland territorial waters. The assessment therefore did not assume any change in the distribution of fishing effort in these areas. It will be possible to update these assumptions as better information becomes available.

Further reductions in the spatial extent of bed-disturbing fishing pressure may also be observed as a result of additional seasonal or temporal area closures under the CFP. It is recognised that climate change may lead to changes in the distribution of fish species and thus the distribution of fishing activity, although has not been possible to take account of such potential changes in this assessment. Further details on fishing assumptions are provided in Section 4.4.4.

Descriptor 3 — We considered two extreme scenarios: a best-case scenario where CFP delivers promised measures by 2013 such that by 2020, we are beginning to see some improvements although GES will still not necessarily have been met due to time lags in stock recovery and b) a worst-case scenario where CFP does not deliver promised measures by 2013 and therefore current trends in fisheries continue up to 2020 and beyond. We have defined a middle scenario between these two extremes and have discussed the factors that may affect the likely baseline within this range (see descriptor assessments in Section 6).

Descriptor 4: Food webs — The influence of measures for discards and long-term management plans on this descriptor are difficult to define. Even if we knew the precise detail of the measures, so little is understood about food webs that it would not be possible to assess any of the impacts on the indicators accurately. Furthermore, the EU Fisheries Ministers have agreed in the General Approach proposals for a phased introduction of discard bans, mean significant changes in the structure of food webs before 2020 are unlikely.

Descriptor 6: Sea floor integrity — The same assumptions and analysis have been used to assess sea floor integrity as were used for Descriptor 1. As the extent of different substrate types impacted by fishing is considered under Descriptor 1, the quantitative analysis for Descriptor 6 therefore focuses on biogenic habitats. As for Descriptor 1, sea floor integrity is likely to improve, although it is recognised that this is a simplistic assumption. Due to current capital investment in fishing fleets, there are unlikely to be any significant changes in the make-up of the fleet by 2020. The only exception to this being if fuel prices continue to rise/stay high, since beam trawling and scallop dredging — the two most detrimental fishing methods — are also the most fuel-intensive, pressures from these fishing types may reduce. As a result of fuel costs some fishermen are already switching, for example, from beam trawling to otter trawling which has less of an impact on the sea bed.

4.3.6 Aquaculture

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing food production sector globally with an average worldwide growth rate of 6 to 8% per year. Globally the proportion of total fish production obtained through aquaculture has been predicted to increase to 41% by 2020 (Pinnegar et al. 2006). Around half of the worlds fish supply for human consumption already derives from aquaculture, with significant scope for further growth (European Commission, 2009).

Despite some recent decreases due to the economic downturn there is a projected long- term trend for continued growth in aquaculture in the UK, particularly in areas such as England and Wales (UKMMAS, 2010b). There is a specific objective in Scotland’s Draft National Marine Plan to work with industry and other stakeholders to increase sustainable production by 2020 (from a 2009 baseline) of marine finfish by 50%, juvenile salmon by 50% and shellfish, especially mussels, by 100% (Scottish Government, 2011).

The British Marine Finfish Association envisaged in 2007 that within the next decade the UK could produce annually up to 10,000 tonnes of halibut, up to 25,000 tonnes of cod and 5,000 tonnes of haddock (Pugh, 2008). Other aquaculture species such as tilapia, barramundi, bass and bream along with the growing organic finfish sector may also increase the size of the UK finfish aquaculture market (Defra, 2008). However, diversification of the sector is currently slow, with recent cod and halibut farming initiatives in Scotland losing investment or failing economically. For the short to medium term, diversification looks limited with current interest focusing on wrasse production for biological control of sea lice.

Pinnegar et al. (2006) explored the likely development of aquaculture under four different potential scenarios (World Markets, Global Commons, Fortress Britain and Local Stewardship). Under all scenarios aquaculture increased in the UK by 2020. ABPmer and eftec (2011) mapped the likely spatial extent of this increase, noting that some additional capacity may come from improved technology enabling higher farm yields, and not just more and larger farms. The scenario adopted here is the highest growth example under World

Markets which describes a rapid expansion in the marine fish farming industry to compensate for the shortfall in some wild capture fish stocks (Pinnegar et al., 2006). ABPmer and eftec (2011) interpreted this as an increase from 2008 of 90% by 2028. This increase would be met by a 44% increase in capacity from existing farms due to improved technologies and feed, meaning that spatial capacity would increase by 60% (amounting to an additional 155 fish farms from the 256 farms in 2008 and an additional 253 shellfish sites from the 417 sites in 2008). The increases in capacity may also increase the amount of wild fish captured to provide aquaculture feed.

A general trend of reducing reported fish farm escapes in Scotland had been recorded since 2005. However, in December 2011, over 370,000 Atlantic salmon were lost through storm- related damage to equipment due to severe storms and gale-force winds. It is likely that most fish died.

Reported fish farm escapes 2002-2011 were as follows: 2002: 389,996 fish; 2003: 161,438 fish; 2004: 100,593 fish; 2005: 901,653 fish; 2006: 204,749 fish; 2007: 210,643 fish; 2008: 73,031 fish; 2009: 140,562 fish; 2010: 37,963 fish; 2011: 416,4546.

Notwithstanding the December 2011 losses, the Atlantic salmon farming industry has made good progress on reducing the level of reported escapes through a combination of investment in new technology, training and increased awareness. This built on industry’s Code of Good Practice for Scottish finfish aquaculture (published in 2006) and Marine Scotland Science Fish Health Inspectorate inspections for measures in place to contain fish and prevent escapes under the Aquaculture & Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007. Reported escapes in 2010 were at their lowest since statutory reporting was introduced in 2002.

A key recommendation of the Ministerial Group on Aquaculture’s Improved Containment Working group was the need to introduce a Scottish Technical Standard, which would apply to all of Scotland’s marine and freshwater finfish farms. Proposals in relation to the technical standard were included in the Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill Consultation document7. An initial draft Scottish Technical Standard including recommendations for further information required to develop the standard was published by Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF) in February 20128. Work has also been undertaken on accredited training for fish- farm workers in minimising escapes, as well as a programme of best practice workshops. A Memorandum of Understanding signed by Scottish and Norwegian aquaculture Ministers in 2009 included an agreement to develop best practice on engineering design standards and collaboration on research.

4.3.7 Coastal Defence and Managed Realignment

This sector includes coastal defence measures used to prevent or reduce flood risk and coastal erosion. These take a variety of forms including the use of concrete seawalls, rock armour (rip-rap), the addition of materials to beaches (beach replenishment) and the use of soft defences (managed realignment). Coastal erosion is occurring along 17% of the UK coastline (30% of England’s coastline, 23% Wales, 20% Northern Ireland, 12% Scotland)

6 Details of fish farm escapes are published by Marine Scotland at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Fish- Shellfish/18364/18692/escapeStatistics 7 Published in December 2011: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Fish-Shellfish/bill 8 www.sarf.org.uk/cms-assets/documents/48448-527836.sarf073.pdf

(MCCIP, 2010). Sea-level rise and the potential for increasingly severe storm events due to climate change will increase activity within this sector.

Flood and coastal defences cause direct pressures on intertidal habitats through habitat loss and further significant indirect impacts may occur as a result of coastal squeeze. These impacts may be alleviated to some extent through managed realignment schemes.

UKMMAS (2010b) states that the investment and hence activity within the coastal defence sector in England and Wales has doubled over the past ten years due to the vulnerability of the coast to potential flooding and coastal erosion associated with climate change. The Flooding in England report (Environment Agency, 2009) estimated that there are 2.4 million properties in areas that are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in England — equivalent to 11% of the land in England (2011). It is estimated that approximately 200 properties are currently vulnerable to coastal erosion, but by 2029, up to 2,000 residential properties, and 15 km of major road and railway may become vulnerable (Halcrow, 2009).

4.3.8 Military

The Royal Navy uses the marine environment for training purposes to support military activities abroad, although surveillance and monitoring of UK waters to detect and respond to potential threats are also undertaken (UKMMAS, 2010b). Due to the confidential nature of military defence activities, it is difficult to assess future levels of marine use. It is likely that training, surveillance and monitoring will continue in order to maintain national security, although at slightly lower levels due to recent budget cuts. Defence activities are exempt from new measures under the MSFD. However, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is likely to continue their historical approach to environmental policies by adopting them voluntarily. These trends, along with new sustainable development strategies, are likely to improve the way that activities are carried out, resulting in reduced pressures on the marine environment and climate. In relation to specific projects, capital dredging of Portsmouth Harbour is planned in order to reposition existing vessel berths and increase the port’s turning circle by 60 metres so that larger military vessels can enter and manoeuvre in the port.

4.3.9 Tourism and Recreation

The main concerns surrounding tourism and recreation activities on the marine environment include boat anchoring on sensitive habitats such as seagrass beds, damage of reefs by divers, trampling of sensitive intertidal habitats, organic enrichment from boats and the introduction of litter. These pressures tend to occur at small spatial scales but may result in significant impacts on sensitive habitats at a local level, particularly as there may be few regulatory controls to manage the activities other than voluntary best practice agreements.

The action of most non-powered watercraft such as sailing, wind-surfing, kayaking and surfing result in low levels of pressures on the marine environment. Powered craft may result in local issues from their wake. Where high speeds are reached by either powered or non-powered craft, there may be potential for disturbance of sea bird colonies and collision risk with marine mammals.

Most forms of recreational activity have increased over time and this trend is likely to continue, although activities such as boating that have a higher capital expense have probably decreased slightly due to the recent economic downturn.

Recreational fishing and bait collection is covered under fisheries and other forms of harvesting (Section 4.3.5). Litter is discussed in Section 4.4.10.

4.3.10 Maritime Transport, Navigational Dredging and Disposal of Material

The National Policy Statement for Ports (England and Wales) (Department for Transport (DfT), 2012) describes the need for new port infrastructure and forecasts the following increase in demand for port capacity up to 2030 compared to the 2005 baseline: 182% increase in containers, 101% increase in Ro-Ro traffic 4% increase in non-unitised traffic (based on MDS Transmodal, 2007). In time, this growth will require a substantial additional port capacity over the next 20-30 years to be met by a combination of development already consented and development for which applications have yet to be received.

The effect of the recent economic downturn will be to delay by a number of years, but not ultimately reduce, the predicted eventual levels of demand for port capacity (DfT, 2012).

To accommodate the increase in international trade there would be a major expansion of port facilities and infrastructure, with shipping routes becoming markedly busier and vessels larger. With projected increases in shipping traffic, pressures associated with traffic, ports and maintenance of navigation routes are also forecast to increase. It is assumed that there will be further demand for capital navigational dredging to deepen existing ports, allowing use by larger vessels (see Section 4.4.8 for assumptions on future sites).

In contrast, emissions, pollution and the introduction of non-indigenous species are likely to become more strictly regulated and thus decrease by 2030. International Conventions developed by the IMO and the EU ship concept include a number of initiatives to reduce pollution impacts relating to shipping. These include agreements to limit the discharge of oil, to prohibit the disposal of litter by ships and to manage the transport of hazardous substances. The conventions relating to ballast water controls to prevent the transport of non-native species (not yet in force) and to phase-out harmful antifoulants (entered into force in 2008) are also being progressed, and will both contribute to cleaner, less harmful maritime transport in the future. IMO has also initiated action to consider the issue of shipping noise. Shipping noise is pervasive in the marine environment and shipping levels are likely to increase, but this may be offset somewhat by fewer, larger vessels, and newer, quieter vessels.

4.3.11 Gas Storage and Carbon Capture and Storage

Gas storage in depleted and other hydrocarbon reservoirs, and in constructed salt caverns, is part of the strategy to increase the UK’s storage capacity and maintain resilience of gas supply in cold weather periods of high demand or interruptions to imported supplies. Two new gas storage developments are proposed by 2020: in the Deborah field located 25 miles offshore of Bacton in the southern North Sea and the Gateway project in the East Irish Sea. The Gateway project is scheduled to begin construction in 2011 and involves the leaching of salt strata beneath the Irish Sea in order to create 20 man-made underground storage caverns (Gateay, 2007).

Recently there have also been proposals to store carbon dioxide (CO2) released from power generation and industrial facilities in similar geological structures; a process known as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Subsea CO2 storage capacity in the UK is estimated to be between 31,000 mt and 22,000 mt. DECC plans to run a CCS funding competition for CCS demonstration projects in the UK. Scottish and Southern Energy and Shell UK are proposing to use the Goldeneye gas field north-east of Aberdeen for CO2 storage captured from the Peterhead power station; seismic survey will already be underway as part of the feasibility stage of the project.

Other potential CCS projects are being supported through a second stage competition assessment and it is assumed that these will be surveyed before 2020 and constructed before 2030.

4.4 Spatial Assessment

Having identified which pressures were likely to influence environmental state based on a prioritisation exercise (Section 4.2) and an assessment of temporal trends (Section 4.3), a further assessment was made of the feasibility to map activities and pressures spatially to provide regional scale assessments. This exercise has resulted in further limitations of the assessment as described below, such that it has not been possible to undertake assessments in relation to many of the indicators. Appendix D.2 provides a summary of those prioritised pressures that could be mapped (highlighted orange) and those that could not be mapped but were assessed at a national level or described qualitatively (yellow).

4.4.1 Renewable Energy Production

Wind

The location of the most significant renewable energy developments that are planned to occur in the next 20 years is largely known from zones for Round 3 offshore wind farm projects, other planned extensions of existing Round 1 and 2 wind farm projects, the plan for offshore wind in Scottish Territorial Waters (Marine Scotland, 2011b) (see Appendix D.3 and Figure D2) and leasing arrangements for wave and tidal energy development in Pentland Firth (see Figure D3).

Whilst the exact location of turbines and piling arrangements within these zones may not be known, we can make some assumptions on the proportion of seabed area affected as a result of the physical footprint of the development. The proportion of each habitat affected was then calculated on a pro-rata basis, for example, if it is likely that 1% of a zone will be affected by scour from pile foundations then 1% of every habitat within that zone is likely to be affected (see sensitivity analysis Section 5). In reality, careful site selection procedures are used to locate foundations away from sensitive habitats, therefore actual impacts will be skewed towards less sensitive habitats, and the results presented in this report represent a worst-case scenario.

Two aspects of underwater noise associated with percussive piling during OWF construction are potentially relevant to a consideration of environmental state under MSFD, which relate to the definitions of the relevant indicators. Firstly, indicator 11.1.1 for Descriptor 11 provides an environmental pressure metric relating to the proportion of days and their distribution

over areas of 10 minutes latitude by 12 minutes longitude (DECC oil & gas licensing blocks) and their spatial distribution in which anthropogenic sound sources, measured over the frequency band 10 Hz to 10 kHz, exceed the energy source level 183 dB re1 μPa² m² s; or the zero to peak source level of 224 dB re 1 μPa² m². This is relevant to the spatial and temporal distribution of OWF foundation installation using percussive methods. To evaluate potential changes in the spatial and temporal distribution of piling noise, information on the timing of future OWF development was collated together with information on the broad areas of search within which future OWF (particularly R3 OWF) will be constructed. It should be noted that noise will also be generated by seismic surveys, such as from oil and gas surveys in licensing areas, although this has not been assessed here.

Secondly, species indicators for GES take account of the spatial distribution and patterns of distribution of marine mammals. Percussive piling during foundation installation has the potential to cause physiological damage to individuals in close proximity (<500m) to the source of piling and to cause behavioural reactions over distances of at least 20km (Nehls et al, 2007). To evaluate potential impacts on marine mammals, a conservative 25km buffer zone was created around each future wind farm area and compared against information on the distribution of selected marine mammals.

Tidal stream

Information on tidal sites consisted of a combination of point data indicating actual turbine locations (for existing projects or advanced proposals, e.g. MCT device in Strangford Lough), ‘agreement to lease’ areas (e.g. in Pentland Firth) where future turbine locations are currently undefined, and resource areas where future project locations are currently undefined. It was assumed that the most advanced proposals will be operational by 2020. The list of current and proposed tidal energy projects is shown in Table 4, showing the most up-to-date information available from The Crown Estate and developers. This list has been updated to include additional sites in the Further Scottish Leasing Round and other small projects previously not included. These additional sites represent a small amount of capacity compared to the other areas (less than 4%) and have not been incorporated in the spatial analysis.

A buffer of 12.5m (25m diameter) was added to turbine point data to delineate the footprint of disturbance from scour. Most of the lease areas are on hard substrate, and so scour will be minimal. For ‘agreement to lease’ areas, 25 tidal devices per lease area were assumed, each with a 25m diameter buffer for scour. This is a more realistic approach than assuming the habitats in the whole agreement to lease area will be lost or damaged, although it is recognised that the exact number and location of tidal devices is not yet known. The area affected by tidal devices in each agreement to lease area was calculated, as a proportion of the entire lease area, and the amount of habitat affected applied pro-rata to each habitat type in the area. Whilst this approach has its limitations, it can be useful in highlighting ecosystem components for more detailed consideration. In areas such as Pentland Firth where the predominant seabed type is rock, scour in these areas would be expected to be negligible.

Wave devices

Future wave sites were indicated by agreement to lease areas. However, unlike tidal sites, these are large areas up to 60 km². It’s unlikely that an entire area would be developed. Furthermore, wave devices adopt a wide range of installation systems including piling (e.g. Aquamarine Power Oyster device), mooring (e.g. Pelamis) and cemented (e.g. Limpet). As for tidal stream, 25 wave devices per lease area were assumed, with a 12.5m buffer area (25m diameter) for each that would be affected by physical change to the seabed from devices, mooring systems, hydraulic pipelines, power export cables and scour. The extent of habitats affected was scaled down accordingly, pro-rata from the overall lease area. In areas such as Pentland Firth where the predominant seabed type is rock, scour in these areas would be expected to be negligible. The list of current and proposed wave energy projects is shown in Table 4, showing the most up-to-date information available from The Crown Estate and developers. This list has been updated to include additional sites in the Further Scottish Leasing Round and other small projects previously not included. These additional sites represent a small amount of capacity compared to the other areas (2%) and have not been incorporated in the spatial analysis. The inclusion of these additional wave and tidal sites would not materially change the analysis of habitat area impacted, as the area is so small compared to the wave and tidal sites already included in the spatial analysis, which in itself is minor compared to the impact of other activities such as aggregate dredging and fishing on the seabed.

Table 4. Current and proposed wave and tidal energy projects as at 28 Sept 2012

Type Company (Device) Location Status Capacity Tidal Pulse Tidal Scheme North Humberside Operational (2009) 1 0.1MW Stream Bellyherry Bay, In planning. Agreement to lease Minesto 0.1MW Northern Ireland secured Oct ’11.1,2 Tidal Energy Ltd In development. Consent Ramsey Sound, (DeltaStream tidal received Mar ‘11. Awaiting 1.2MW Pembrokeshire unit) construction, planned 2013. 1,3 Scottish Power In planning. Consent granted Renewables (Hydro Sound of Islay Mar ’11, Awaiting construction. 10MW Hammerfest turbines) 1,4 SeaGeneration Anglesey, North In planning. Application & ES 10.5MW (Wales) (MCT) Wales submitted early 2011.1,5 In planning. Agreement to lease SeaGeneration (Kyle Kyle Rhea secured. Scoping Report 8MW Rhea) (MCT) submitted Mar ’10.1,6 In development. Agreement to Westray South, SSE Renewables lease secured. Scoping Report 200MW Pentland Firth submitted Nov ’11.7,8 Cantick Head Tidal Development Ltd Cantick Head, In planning. Agreement to lease 200MW (SSE Renewables & Pentland Firth secured.7,9 OpenHydro) SeaGeneration Ltd Brough Ness, In planning. Agreement to lease 100MW (MCT) Pentland Firth secured. 7 In development. Agreement to MeyGen Ltd (Atlantis Inner Sound, lease secured. ES submitted. 400MW and TGL - 10MW ea) Pentland Firth Phase 1 application submitted Jul ’12.7,10 Scottish Power Ness of Duncansby, In development. Agreement to 100MW Renewables Pentland Firth lease secured.7,11

Type Company (Device) Location Status Capacity In planning. Agreement to lease Bluemull Sound, Nova Innovation secured Oct ’11. Deployment 0.5MW Shetland planned 2013/14.1,12 In planning. Agreement to lease Ness of Cullivoe, Nova Innovation secured May ’11. Deployment 0.03MW Shetland planned 2012/13.1,13 Esk Estuary, GSK In planning.1 0.67MW Montrose In planning. Agreement to lease Pulse Tidal Lynmouth, Devon 1.6MW secured.1 In planning. Agreement to lease Nautricity Mull of Kintyre, Argyll 3MW secured.1 In planning. Agreement to lease Sanda Sound, Oceanflow Energy secured. Test device to be 0.035MW Scotland deployed late 2012.1,14 Strangford Lough, SeaGeneration (MCT) Operational1,15 1.2MW Northern Ireland In planning. Agreement to lease DP Energy Isle of Islay, Scotland 30MW secured.1,16 Total Tidal Stream 1,067MW

Wave EMEC Stromness, Orkney Operational (2003) 3MW Consent received. Hub and Hayle Wave Hub Cornwall subsea cable installed. Awaiting 20MW construction.17 RWE npower renewables & Voith Isle of Lewis, In planning. Consent granted Hydro Wavegen 4MW Scotland 2009. Awaiting construction.1,18 (Siadar Wave Energy Project) Pembrokeshire, Marine Energy Ltd Application under consideration 10MW Wales Neptune Renewable Energy (Proteus Humber Installed19 0.5MW demonstrator) In planning. Agreement to lease Isle of Lewis (North Aquamarine Power secured. Application submitted 40MW West Lewis) March ’12.1,20 Aegir Wave Power In development. Agreement to (Pelamis Wave Power South West Shetland 10MW lease secured May ’11.1,21 & Vattenfall) SSE Renewables & Costa Head, In development. Agreement to 200MW ALSTOM UK Pentland Firth lease secured7,22 Scottish Power Marwick Head, In development. Agreement to 50MW Renewables Pentland Firth lease secured.7,23 In development. Agreement to SSE Renewables & Brough Head, lease secured. Scoping Opinion 200MW Aquamarine Power Pentland Firth received Nov ’11.7,24 West Orkney Middle E.ON Climate and In development. Agreement to South (WOMS) and Renewables (Pelamis lease secured. WOS Scoping 100MW South (WOS), at WOS) Report submitted Mar ’12.7,25 Pentland Firth In development. Agreement to Ocean Power Farr Point, Pentland lease secured. Scoping process 50MW Delivery Ltd (Pelamis) Firth initiated Apr ’11.7,26 Bernera, Isle of Lewis, In planning. Agreement to lease Pelamis Wave Power 10MW Scotland secured Oct ’11.1,27

Type Company (Device) Location Status Capacity Burghead, Moray In planning. Agreement to lease AWS Ocean Energy 0.5MW Firth, Scotland secured.1 No developer Galson, Isle of Lewis, In planning.1 10MW selected Scotland Total Wave 708MW 1 = http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy/wave-and-tidal/our-portfolio/other-projects/ 2 = http://www.minesto.com/index 3 = http://www.tidalenergyltd.com/?page_id=650 4 = http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/sound_of_islay.asp 5 = http://www.seagenwales.co.uk/progress.php 6 = http://www.seagenkylerhea.co.uk/progress.php 7 = http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energy/wave-and-tidal/our-portfolio/ 8 = http://www.sse.com/WestraySouth/ 9 = http://www.sse.com/CantickHead/ProjectInformation/ 10 = http://www.meygen.com/the-project/ 11 = http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/ness_of_duncansby.asp 12 = http://www.novainnovation.co.uk/index.php/tidal 13 = http://www.novainnovation.co.uk/index.php/media-menu/14-nova-30-crown-estate-lease 14 = http://www.oceanflowenergy.com/project-details2.html 15 = http://www.seageneration.co.uk/ 16 = http://www.westislaytidal.com/ 17 = http://www.wavehub.co.uk/about/construction/ 18 = http://www.wavegen.co.uk/pdf/wavegen-brochure-sept-2009.pdf 19 = http://www.neptunerenewableenergy.com/ 20 = http://www.aquamarinepower.com/projects/north-west-lewis 21 = http://www.aegirwave.com/ 22 = http://www.sse.com/CostaHead/ProjectInformation/ 23 = http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/marwick_head.asp 24 = http://www.aquamarinepower.com/projects/west-coast-orkney/ 25 = http://www.eon-uk.com/generation/OrkneyWaters.aspx 26 = http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/project/5/Farr-Point-Wave-Farm 27 = http://www.pelamiswave.com/our-projects/project/4/Bernera-Wave

Tidal range

As noted in section 4.3.1 it was assumed that a low head two-way tidal barrage is constructed on the Severn Estuary (installed capacity 6GW) resulting in a reduction in intertidal habitat extent of around 900ha (HM Government, 2010c) (see Figure D1). The area of habitat affected by emergence regime changes was assumed to lie entirely upstream of the barrage. Whilst there may be impacts downstream of the barrage these are generally small in comparison.

4.4.2 Sand and Gravel Extraction

The Marine Minerals Guidance 1 (DCLG, 2002) establishes the following policy objectives that may influence the spatial extent of extraction:

. Minimise the total area licensed/permitted for dredging; . The careful location of new dredging areas; . Consider all new applications in relation to the findings of an EIA where such an assessment is required; . Adopt dredging practices that minimise the impact of dredging; . Require operators to monitor, as appropriate, the environmental impacts of their activities during, and on completion of, dredging;

. Control dredging operations through the use of conditions attached to the dredging licence or dredging permission; and . Work areas to economic exhaustion before moving to new areas.

Given these objectives, it was assumed that the spatial extent of annual extraction will decrease slightly over the next ten years. Future sites over the next 20 years will occur within current licence areas first, before expanding into identified application areas and prospecting sites as the current reserves are exhausted (See Figure D5). However, the exact rate at which existing sites will be depleted is largely unknown therefore there is medium uncertainty in future spatial assessments.

4.4.3 Domestic Oil and Gas

Areas of current extraction of domestic oil and gas are well-known, known hydrocarbon fields are well-mapped and future sites of activity can be informed from the SEA of the blocks awarded in the 26th Round for Oil and Gas. Interrogation of this information indicated that the key area for new construction is likely to be in The Fair Isle Channel Blocks where the Appropriate Assessment states that ‘new production facilities would likely be required to facilitate any future productions from the Blocks’ (DECC, 2011h). Any discoveries in other regions are likely to be extracted from land (Central English Channel, DECC, 2011b) or linked to existing tie-backs (DECC, 2011c-g). These documents also provide details on planned seismic surveys under the 26th Round as indicated in Table 5.

Table 5. Planned hydrocarbon seismic surveys under the 26th oil & gas licensing round

Area Licence Blocks Seismic (km) Central English Channel 98 70 43/15a 100 43/20a 100 44/04 312 Southern North Sea 44/05 312 45/01 312 47/02b 160 47/03g 160 12/17b 250 Outer Moray Firth 12/26b 250 19/04 242 Fair Isle Channel 206/8, 5/03, 5/04, 5/05 1025

A number of significant oil and gas discoveries have been made in Regional sea 7 west of Shetland. There are few installations in this region at present, however, it is noted that due to the deep locations of the oil and gas discoveries, future extraction of oil and gas is likely to be supported by floating production storage and offloading platforms (FPSO) rather than the fixed steel jacket type of platform. For example, the significant Rosebank / Lochnagar well discovered in Block 213 in 2004 is likely to be extracted by the Chevron led partners using a FPSO9. The Tornado well (204/13-1z) is being progressed by a Dana Petroleum-led consortium but is likely to be a tie in to the existing Suilven well, approximately 10 km to the south-east (Senergy, 2010).

9 http://energy.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/960430 published 01/12/2008

Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) structures on the sea bed will include sub-sea collection manifolds, mooring blocks and lines although a range of different systems are available10. A buffer with a radius of 500m was created around each well to capture the spatial footprint from drill cuttings and sea bed structures.

4.4.4 Fisheries

The spatial distribution of the economic value of fisheries in UK seas using different fishing gear types (by the >15m fleet) is known from work undertaken for COWRIE (Dunstone, 2008). Further publically-available information on fishing effort (hours fished per year) was provided by a study carried out to collate datalayers on socio-economic information to facilitate MCZ planning (MB106).

Both datasets were generated from Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), log-book and EU vessel register data for 2007. All vessels (UK and non-UK) are included and fishing is estimated using a simple speed rule of 1-6 knots to represent fishing activity. The estimated fishing hours for individual gear codes are summarised to provide information on the fishing activity for gear groups: demersal trawls, dredges, hooks & lines, nets, pelagic trawls, seines and traps. The data are summarised for every 0.05 degrees which equates to an average cell size of 3.3 by 5.6 km11. The two gear types of interest in relation to benthic sea bed disturbance are demersal trawls and dredges (see Figures D7 and D8).

The future baseline was constructed by assuming there would be a 14% decline in fishing effort to 2020 in the mobile demersal gear (MDG) segments across the UK as a whole, based on existing trends in fishing capacity (Defra, 2008) and taking into account bioeconomic modelling (MRAG, 2010a). As described in Section 4.3.5, it was assumed that mobile demersal gears (demersal trawls and dredges) would be excluded from recommended Reference Areas (rRAs) and 50% of recommended MCZ (rMCZ) areas (see Figures D7 and D8). Of the fishing effort that is removed from rRAs and rMCZs, it is assumed that 25% of fishing effort is lost (leaves the sector or switches to a non-MDG gear type) and 75% is displaced to other areas. Of the 75% that is displaced, 90% of the fishing effort is redistributed to existing fishing grounds (increasing the intensity of the pressure, but not increasing the area of substrate subject to the pressure), and 10% of the fishing effort is displaced to new fishing grounds, which were previously unimpacted by the gear type. Spatial information for the rRAs and rMCZs was taken from the Final Project Recommendations from September 2011. At present, it is not known which MCZs will be taken forward or what management measures will be applied in individual MCZs. As a result, spatial estimates of the overlap between different benthic habitats in rMCZs and demersal fishing activities were calculated based on the habitat types in the entire rMCZ area and scaled down accordingly. A similar pro-rata calculation was made to assess the area of previously unimpacted habitat that becomes impacted as a result of the displacement of fishing effort to new fishing grounds. No change in the distribution of fishing effort was modelled in Scottish inshore waters and offshore zone and in Northern Ireland territorial waters, as MPA proposals in these areas have not been finalised at the time of writing.

10 For example, the six anchor piles of the Anasuria FPSO, operated by shell in the North Sea are 2.1m in diameter and penetrate the seabed to a depth of 38m. They are attached to 12 mooring lines. The Schiehallion operated by BP utilises suction anchors and 24 chain moorings. 11 The length of 0.05 degrees of longitude varies north to south in the UK from about 2.7 to 3.6 km respectively due to the curvature of the earth,

It should be noted that the assumptions relating to restriction of fisheries activity in rRAs and rMCZs, and displacement and loss of fishing effort, are illustrative and difficult to predict at this stage. They should not be interpreted as representing expected outcomes of UK Government policy on MCZs. Furthermore, the assumption of a blanket reduction of fishing effort across MDG sectors is simplistic as in reality, the change in effort is likely to be distributed differently across the various regions.

Fishing undertaken by smaller vessels is less well-known, due to there being no requirement for <15m vessels to have VMS, and are therefore excluded from the present analysis. However, better information is being developed and will be available in the future.

4.4.5 Aquaculture

Good information is available on the precise locations of fin fish and shellfish aquaculture installations in Scotland (SEPA, Marine Scotland Science, Food Standards Agency, Crown Estates, Food Standards Agency). These will be publically-available through Scotland's Aquaculture web portal, which is expected to go live in summer 2012 and accessible through Marine Scotland and Scotland’s Environment (www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/ ) websites. Precise information concerning production is not available on a site basis due to commercial sensitivity, but regional production estimates are available. The location of future fish farms in Scotland could be assumed from the locational guidance for aquaculture in Scotland and sites for development in English and Welsh territorial waters estimated within shallow, sheltered inshore waters. Information is available about the spatial extent of physical change in the substrate under fish farms (the key pressure), which could allow an estimation of the extent of seabed affected. However, much additional work would be needed to pull this information together from different sources (model outputs, site monitoring results etc), and this was not possible within the time scales for this study.

4.4.6 Coastal Defence and Managed Realignment

Mapping of coastal defences and managed realignment proved difficult. While information on the general location of existing coastal defences in England and Wales is available digitally, the information does not provide a clearly defined spatial footprint, making it difficult to identify which habitats may be affected. There is no single source of digital data on the location of future coastal defences and managed realignment. This could eventually be sourced by assessing each Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) within the region and making assumptions on which short-term plans might be carried forward by 2020. However, this would involve a considerable amount of work that the timeframe for this project did not allow.

Although the exact locations for managed realignment may be uncertain, regionally there is some certainty that these options are more likely to be implemented on the east coast of England rather than other regions because of the low-lying nature of much of this coastline. Furthermore, managed realignment will occur on relatively undeveloped stretches of coastline rather than in urban areas.

4.4.7 Military

The main pressures on the marine environment from naval defence training and surveillance and monitoring operations are the development of naval bases, contribution to litter from

spent artillery and the use of sonar contributing to noise levels. Information on the precise location and frequency of military activities within Practice and Exercise Areas (PEXAs) was not available to the study team due to confidentiality surrounding operations and therefore the distribution of bed disturbance pressures, litter and noise impacts from sonar could not be assessed. Naval bases are well-established, therefore the main pressure in relation to the use of naval bases is the maintenance or deepening of navigation channels to allow use by larger vessels. This activity was mapped in relation to physical change in substrate type. One maintenance dredge was assumed by 2020. The capital dredge of Portsmouth Harbour was also assessed (see Section 4.3.8).

4.4.8 Maritime Transport, Navigational Dredging and Disposal of Material

The key pressures from maritime transport are the maintenance or deepening of navigation channels to allow use by larger vessels, disposal of dredged material, litter from ships and contribution to ambient noise levels from the operation of ships engines. Correlating underwater noise to shipping levels is complicated by spatial and temporal variation in transmission properties in the seas at several scales, and spatial and temporal variation in the nature of the shipping (and therefore amount of noise generated). Detailed information on shipping density is collected by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency, but is not freely available. For the purposes of this study, snapshots of shipping density information from Automatic Identification System (AIS) data were compared against existing measurements of ambient noise (mainly carried out for offshore wind farm EIAs) to explore the potential for correlating shipping intensity data with underwater noise levels.

The locations of ports, maintained navigation channels and disposal sites are well- established, allowing a spatial assessment of extent of physical removal of substrate from the activities (Figure D4). Maintenance dredging is carried out by port and harbour authorities and some private interests as required to maintain advertised navigable depths, depending on the sedimentation dynamics of the particular channel. For the BAU study, it has been assumed that all maintained channels will require dredging between 2010 and 2020. Furthermore, a number of navigational channels are likely to be deepened over the next ten years or new channels created, including those in the ports of Felixstowe, Southampton, Mersey, Tees, Humber, Thames, Portsmouth (for aircraft carriers) and Bristol. Such projects are termed capital dredging. In the absence of information on the size and location of new channel extensions, it was assumed that the existing extent of the navigational channel in the harbour would be increased by 10%. It is recognised that this may be an over-estimate where a channel is simply deepened rather than widened, but it allows for the maximum scenario where new channels are created.

In comparison, the spatial extent of disposal areas for dredged material are not likely to increase. Not all disposal sites are in use in any one year, and rather than these sites increasing in size, they may simply receive a higher volume of dredged material. Hence, this pressure was not explored further in the assessment.

4.4.9 Gas Storage and Carbon Capture and Storage

In terms of Gas Storage, the Gateway project is scheduled to start construction in 2011 and the Deborah project likely to start operation 2015.

As noted above in section 4.3.11 only one future demonstration site for CCS is known in the UK which will utilise the Goldeneye field, offshore of north-east Scotland, for storage (see Figure D10). There are likely to be three more sites constructed before 2030, however their locations are unknown at present.

The main pressure of concern from CCS is the use of seismic surveys to characterise the sea bed. A buffer of 30 km was created around the centre of the field to capture the likely range of impact on marine mammals. This represents the likely zone of low-level behavioural disturbance to marine mammals (High Energy Seismic Survey Team, 1999) based on assumed source noise levels.

4.4.10 Litter

Sources of litter may derive from a wide range of areas, including terrestrial sources, ships and fishing. Sites of accumulation of litter are generally not well-defined, although monitoring programmes such as the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) beach watch survey provides information on coastal areas of deposition. Therefore, this pressure could not be mapped, although an assessment of sensitivity could be carried out by considering species sensitive to litter and likely trends in the pressure.

4.4.11 Noise

An exploratory assessment was made of whether shipping density data can be used as an indicator of the level of background underwater noise. Background, or ambient, noise in the ocean can be an accumulation of many different sources and varies with location and frequency. Factors such as water depth, wind speeds, waves, precipitation, bottom type, water temperature and biological activity can affect the ambient noise levels at a particular location. Therefore, characterising the ambient noise levels at a location requires the analysis of long period time-series data and it may be difficult to correlate against a single factor. Underwater noise measurements were obtained from the literature and plotted on a map of shipping density (derived from AIS data, sourced from the Maritime Data Viewer at low resolution), to obtain corresponding values for shipping density, and then plotted against each other to explore any potential correlation.

4.4.12 Conservation

It was necessary to consider how existing and planned conservation measures might influence the distribution and scale of future activities. As described in the fisheries sections (4.3.5 and 4.4.4), it was assumed that bed-disturbing fishing activities (MDGs) are displaced to existing fishing areas outside of highly protected ‘Reference Areas’ (RAs) after 2012, and displaced from 50% of rMCZs. This is a broad assumption as the final management measures for MCZs and RAs have not been determined.

Sites of proposed MCZs within English territorial and adjacent offshore waters were identified from the final recommendations developed by the MCZ Regional Projects in September 2011. The spatial overlap between mobile demersal fishing activities (see Section 4.4.4) and habitats within MCZs were calculated for RAs, and scaled down to 50% of MCZ areas, since the exact MCZ locations and extent from which fishing effort will be displaced are not known yet. Given the draft stage of the MCZ network process, it should be recognised that this approach will only provide indicative figures.

The location of highly protected MCZs in Wales are less well-defined at present but are known to be located within existing Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). The location of possible new MPAs in Scottish inshore and offshore waters have been restricted to broad ‘areas of search’, and are not yet known in Northern Ireland territorial waters. The assessment therefore did not assume any change in the distribution of fishing effort in these areas. It will be possible to update these assumptions as better information becomes available.

Furthermore, it was assumed that MCZs will not affect the future location of other activities. Likewise, this assumption may be updated once the measures for managing MCZs have been agreed.

4.5 Summary and Uncertainties

Table 6 provides a summary of Appendices D1 and D2, listing first the activities and pressures identified from the prioritisation study, a brief summary of how these were mapped and how their future temporal patterns were assessed.

There are a large number of information gaps on the spatial and temporal extent of pressures that increase the level of uncertainty in findings at this stage of the assessment. Pressures can generally be mapped according to the activities that give rise to them. A summary of the confidence in the assessment for each activity is given in Table 7.

The prioritisation exercise provides an assessment of the potential for effect on GES descriptors. It is based on a number of assumptions, namely regarding the effectiveness of existing measures to mitigate against the pressures from activities. These assumptions can result in some uncertainty in the assessments made here. For some activities with long histories of monitoring and feedback there will be a high level of evidence and confidence in the assessment made. For new activities such as renewable energy and biofuels, the evidence base is much smaller.

There may be a high degree of uncertainty for some future assessments given the difficulties in forecasting their trends and commercial sensitivity around future activities. However, over the short-term there is generally a medium level of confidence in future trends.

The level of confidence in spatial assessments are influenced by the availability and quality of spatial data, particularly in relation to the location of future activities. For example, whilst recreational fishing grounds may be well-known by those carrying out the activity, these locations are not compiled into a readily-accessible datalayer. Furthermore, the locations of activities in the future will be influenced by the degree of certainty that we have about their temporal trends. As a consequence, the confidence in future spatial assessments will always be less than or equal to the confidence that we have in temporal trends.

Table 6. Summary of the human pressures covered in this assessment

Activity Pressures Mapping Future Temporal Patterns Energy production - at sea 1) Physical change (to another substrate type); 1) Footprint of proposed turbines - 25 m buffer for Based on wind farm construction (wind turbines) 2) Percussive piling from construction scour (50m diameter) schedules posted by wind farm 2) Footprint of site with a buffer of 25km dia for companies marine mammals and 1km dia for noise source Energy production - at sea Physical change (to another substrate type) 25 wave turbines per lease area, with a 12.5m Habitats affected by devices (wave turbines) buffer (25m diameter) for scour calculated pro-rata from all habitats (e.g. Pentland Firth) in lease/agreement to lease areas. Energy production - at sea Physical change (to another substrate type) 25 tidal devices per lease area, with a 12.5m buffer Habitats affected by devices (tidal stream turbines) (25m diameter) for scour calculated pro-rata from all habitats in lease/agreement to lease areas. Energy production - at sea 1) Water flow (e.g. tidal current) changes; 1) Upstream of a barrage in the Severn; Assumed tidal range development in (tidal range) 2) Emergence regime changes; 2) Intertidal upstream of a barrage in the Severn the Severn (CCC, 2011) 3) Physical change (to another substrate type); 3) Footprint of physical substrate change from 4) Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) barrage unknown; 4) Footprint of physical loss to land unknown Biofuels Physical change (to another substrate type) Future locations unknown at present Timing of development unknown Extraction - navigational Physical change (to another substrate type) Maintenance dredging equates to current footprint; Maintenance dredging at least once dredging Capital dredging from known projects every ten years; Capital dredging all before 2020 Extraction - sand & gravel Physical change (to another substrate type) Footprint of Active Dredging Zones (ADZ); Licence, Consistent level of extraction, ADZ application and prospecting areas indicate future close and future sites open by 2020 use Extraction - oil & gas 1) Physical change (to another substrate type); 1) Footprint of infrastructure with 500 m radius All before 2020 2) Seismic survey buffer, assume one platform in Region 7 2) Seismic survey - Region 7, sig oil and gas discoveries Fishing - benthic trawling 1) Structural abrasion/ penetration; 1) Footprint of activity; Fishing excluded from all rRAs and 2) Surface abrasion; 2) Footprint of activity; 50% of rMCZs after 2012 and 14% 3) Litter; 3) Spatial distribution not known; reduction in fishing effort from 2007. 4) Non-indigenous species (boats); 4) Spatial distribution not known; Of fishing effort excluded, 25% of 5) Removal of target species (lethal); 5) ICES regions; effort lost, remainder displaced, 90% 6) Removal of non-target species (lethal) 6) Data not known to existing grounds and 10% to new grounds.

Fishing - shellfish 1) Structural abrasion/ penetration; 1) Footprint of activity; As above.

Activity Pressures Mapping Future Temporal Patterns dredging 2) Surface abrasion; 2) Footprint of activity; 3) Non-indigenous species (boats); 3) Spatial distribution not known; 4) Removal of target species (lethal); 4) ICES regions; 5) Removal of non-target species (lethal) 5) Spatial distribution not known Fishing - pelagic trawling 1) Non-indigenous species (boats); 1) Not known No change expected 2) Removal of target species (lethal) 2) ICES regions Fishing - potting/creeling 1) Litter; 1) Not known No change expected 2) Non-indigenous species (boats); 2) Not known 3) Removal of target species (lethal) 3) ICES regions Fishing - set netting 1) Litter; 1) Not known No change expected 2) Non-indigenous species (boats); 2) Not known 3) Removal of target species (lethal) 3) ICES regions Fishing - shellfish hand Removal of target species (lethal) ICES regions No change expected gathering Recreational fishing Litter; Removal of target species (lethal) Spatial distribution not known No change expected Aquaculture - fin fish Physical change (to another substrate type) Footprint unknown Expansion in industry estimated Aquaculture - shell fish Physical change (to another substrate type) Footprint unknown from AFMEC and Valuing UK Seas work Coastal defence & Water flow (e.g. tidal current) changes; Data exist as a polyline therefore area affected is Likely to increase in the future managed realignment Emergence regime changes; unknown Physical change (to another substrate type) Military activities Litter; Sonar activity; Non-indigenous species Spatial distribution not known No change expected (boats) Tourism & recreation Litter; Non-indigenous species (boats) Spatial distribution not known Likely to increase in the future Maritime Shipping Litter, Pervasive noise; Shipping density layer extracted from DECC’s Non-indigenous species (ships) online available data in Maritime Data GIS Viewer and correlation with underwater noise explored. Pipelines, Cables No significant unmanaged pressures No significant unmanaged pressures No significant unmanaged pressures CCS Seismic survey Footprint of competition site with a buffer of 30 km Likely to be surveyed before 2020 for marine mammals Wastewater discharges Litter Spatial distribution not known Likely to decrease in the future Land-based sources of Litter Spatial distribution not known Likely to decrease in the future litter Waste disposal - Physical change (to another substrate type) Footprint of licensed waste disposal sites - Usage likely to increase but spatial navigational dredging although the entire licensed area is not used in any extent will stay the same due to one year, if at all over-estimate

Table 7. Summary of the level of confidence in assessments of activities and their pressures

MSFD Spatial Potential Temporal Activity MSFD Activities Assessment for Effect Assessment Themes Current 2030 Wind Medium Medium High Medium Wave Medium Medium High Medium Energy Production Tidal stream Low Medium High Medium Tidal range turbines Medium Medium NA Medium Algal biofuels Low Low NA Low Sand and gravel High High High High Extraction - Navigational dredging High Medium High Medium non-living resources Oil and gas High Medium High Medium Water extraction High High High High Extraction - Fisheries High Medium Medium Medium living Recreational fishing Medium Medium Low Low resources Food Aquaculture Medium Medium Medium Medium production Habitat Beach replenishment Medium Low High Low modification and coastal defence Military Military activities Medium Medium Low Low Recreation Tourism and recreation Medium Medium Medium Medium Survey and Research, development Medium Medium Low Low Research and education Shipping High Medium Medium Medium Telecom and power High High High High Transport interconnector cables Gas storage Medium Medium High Medium Pipelines High Medium High Medium Waste - gas CCS Medium Medium NA Low Industrial and sewerage Waste - liquid High High High High discharges Navigational dredging - High High High High Waste - solid disposal Litter Low Medium Low Low

5. Sensitivity and Vulnerability Assessment

Information of the sensitivity of ecosystem components to human pressures is of value in understanding the likely impacts on environmental state and can assist in setting management objectives and determining necessary management measures. The term ‘sensitivity’ is used here to define a measure of the effect of a pressure (sometimes referred to as disturbance, perturbations or stress), on a receptor. The degree of effect of an impact will depend on the resistance and resilience (or recoverability) of the receptor. Vulnerability of a receptor is a product of sensitivity (a measure of resistance and resilience) and exposure to a pressure. As such, a receptor may be sensitive to a pressure such as

demersal trawling, but it may not be vulnerable to that pressure if the receptor occurs in an area where there is no demersal trawling12.

This aspect of the study therefore has two stages; firstly to assess the sensitivity of components to each pressure and then to assess the spatial exposure of components to each pressure, i.e. the vulnerability.

5.1 Method for Assessing Descriptors

Each descriptor of GES has several criteria and a suite of indicators that define it (Cardoso et al, 2010; European Commission, 2010). An assessment was made of how each of the European Commission’s indicators could be assessed where possible (see Appendix E.1). The indicators fall into three classes; state indicators (S) that describe the desired state of the ecosystem and its components (e.g. see GES Descriptors 1, 3, 4 and 6), pressure indicators (P) that relate to the desired level of pressure on the ecosystem (e.g. see GES Descriptors 9, 10 and 11), and impact indicators (I) that relate to an acceptable level of impact on state from the pressure (see GES Descriptors 2, 5, 7 and 8). At the time that the main analysis for this project was undertaken, indicators and targets for many of the GES descriptors were still being formalised.

Some descriptors have a very large number of indicators, the majority of which cannot be mapped at present (e.g. Descriptor 1).

Given time constraints for this study and availability of information, only one indicator was generally chosen to be mapped spatially for each descriptor where relevant. For example, under Descriptor 1 there are 14 indicators covering 7 different criteria of biological diversity. Information is not readily available to assess them all, particularly in relation to population and habitat condition. A quick assessment could be made of changes in the area covered by the 29 species foci of low or limited mobility for MCZs (Indicator 1.1.3). The same could be carried out for the extent of habitats focussing on the 22 habitat foci and 23 broadscale habitats where detailed spatial layers exist. However, this was an unmanageable number of analyses in the timescales of the project. Therefore, a decision was made to carry out the analysis at the highest resolution of broadscale habitats, thereby assuming that many of the changes in finer-scale habitats and individual species populations might also be captured under this approach. This was subsequently refined to also take account of biogenic reef habitats, in line with proposed indicators for GES targets and indicators in the Consultation Documents, based on habitat information from MB102 data layers.

This assessment also identified which species and habitats and pressures were relevant for consideration and whether a sensitivity test of the interactions between features and pressures was required. The limitations under each assessment are discussed below under Section 6. The key assumption is that by 2020 it is likely that there will be improvements in environmental state indicators for Descriptor 5 Eutrophication, Descriptor 8 Contaminants and Descriptor 9 Contaminants in food due to measures required under the WFD. The remaining descriptors were assessed at a national level and at a regional level where relevant, i.e. where there were particular spatial patterns within the UK.

12 For a full review and explanation of terms used please see the report that was developed under Task 3 of the Defra Contract MB0102 (ABPmer and MarLIN, 2010).

5.2 Sensitivity Assessment

For those indicators where a sensitivity assessment was defined (e.g. see indicator 1.5.1, 4.1.1 and 6.1.1) information was gathered on the known responses of relevant species and habitats to the pressures under consideration. Appendix E2 provides a simplified version of the sensitivity matrix that was developed under Task 3 of the Defra Contract MB0102 'Accessing and developing the required biophysical datasets and data layers for Marine Protected Areas network planning and wider marine spatial planning purposes'.

Appendix E2 presents a single sensitivity score for each habitat type (based on the most sensitive component) and those species foci that are relevant to this study for each priority pressure. The asterisks next to some of the habitat sensitivity scores indicate that the underlying sensitivity assessment referred to a range rather than a single category. In the full MB102 matrix, assessments are presented as a range of sensitivities for some broadscale habitats, reflecting variations in the sensitivity of the constituent biotopes. The sensitivity scores have been assessed against the benchmarks in Table 3. The letters in brackets in Appendix E2 refer to a confidence assessment. The assessments are supported by more detailed information contained within feature-specific proformas provided under MB102.

For example, High energy intertidal rock (first row in Appendix E2) is indicated to have high sensitivity to structural abrasion pressures (column 5), although within this broadscale habitat there may be a range of sensitivities. The confidence in this sensitivity assessment is low. If there is an overlap between this habitat and pressure, it can be assumed that there is a high likelihood of a significant impact on the state of the habitat. In comparison, intertidal mud (sixth row in Appendix E2) has a low sensitivity to structural abrasion pressure, and if there is a spatial overlap here it can be assumed (with a high level of confidence) that there would not be a significant impact on the state of intertidal mud.

5.3 Vulnerability Assessment

The vulnerability assessment involved the overlap in a GIS of the spatial distribution of marine ecosystem features (species and habitats) with that of the pressures from marine activities. This section provides information on the layers used for that process.

As noted in Appendix E1 a number of layers of ecosystem components were required to inform the assessment for each descriptor. Habitat layers for all assessments were generally sourced from UKSeaMap (Version 8 - JNCC 2011). However, this layer does not provide good coverage for shallow inshore areas such as estuaries and harbours. For activities that were located in such features, a separate layer was used that included refined information for intertidal habitats from a layer created by ABPmer. This was merged with UKSeaMap to provide a more complete coverage. Activities for which this separate inshore layer was used included tidal range energy developments, and navigational and capital dredging.

The Marine mammal layer was taken from The Cetacean Atlas (distribution in Norwest European Water) developed by JNCC (2003). The Atlas aims to provide an account and snapshot of cetacean species that have been sighted in UK waters in the last 25 years.

6. Descriptor Assessments

This section provides a narrative of the future baseline for each descriptor, based on relevant indicators (see outline of method in Appendix E.1), and highlights the factors that may influence these assumptions.

6.1 Descriptor 1. Biological Diversity

There are 14 indicators under this descriptor relating to species distributions, population size, population condition, habitat distribution, habitat extent, habitat condition and ecosystem structure (Appendix E1). It was not possible to assess all of them in the short timeframes of this project nor, indeed, is it likely to be possible to undertake robust spatial assessments for many of them owing to a lack of suitable data. Therefore, the focus was centred on describing the likely change in state of habitats (indicator 1.5.1 — habitat extent) between 2010 and 2030. Some analysis of the potential for changes in the distributional range and distributional patterns of selected marine mammal species in relation to underwater noise pressures has also been undertaken.

6.1.1 Habitat Extent Assessment

Sources of increases in pressures Sources of negative pressures on habitats include:

A) Hydrological changes to emergence regimes from new tidal barrages, coastal defences and managed realignment; B) Changes to physical habitats (i.e. physical loss of habitats) from the footprints of renewable energy devices, aquaculture farms and oil and gas platforms, the extraction of marine aggregates, and loss of substrate from capital navigational dredging; and C) Physical damage to benthic habitats through structural and surface abrasion of the seabed from benthic fishing activity.

Assessments of the spatial and temporal extents of activities determined that the footprint of capital navigational dredging, coastal defences and managed realignment could not be mapped spatially as future sites are unknown (see Section 4.4).

Table 8 provides a summary of the results of the spatial assessment of the overlap between habitats (based on UKSeaMap) and the pressures A, B and C as described above (individual tables for each pressure are provided in Appendix F). The area of habitat affected is represented as a proportion of the total of that habitat type in UK waters. Many of the predicted changes are very small in percentage terms and these projections must be considered uncertain, particularly given the reliance on modelled UKSeaMap data. The tables present the data to 3 decimal places to enable readers to see the small changes but this should not be inferred as providing an indication of the accuracy of the data. The sensitivities of each habitat to each pressure are illustrated in colour to match those presented in Appendix E2. It should be noted that the spatial extents of the various pressures on habitats cannot be summed as there may be overlap among them, particularly between the different fishing activities.

There could be a slight increase by 2020 in the impacts on littoral habitats from hydrological changes to emergence regimes as a result of tidal range developments. The predicted percentage of total UK habitat affected ranges from 0.001% (for littoral biogenic reefs) to 2% (for low energy littoral rock) (Table 8). Pressures on habitats may increase up to 2030 with the construction of more tidal range devices, however, exact technologies and sites during this period are highly uncertain and therefore no further developments were modelled beyond 2020. Sensitivities of estuarine habitats to change is generally medium or not sensitive.

Physical change to habitats (i.e. physical loss) as a result of other infrastructure developments and marine aggregate dredging result in an increase in the spatial footprint of potential impact from 937 km2 to 978 km² by 2020 (up to 1,000 km² by 2030) (see Table 8 and Table F2 in Appendix F). Subtidal habitats generally have the most sources of physical change (i.e. the largest number of activities occurring within them) compared to intertidal, infralittoral and circalittoral habitats. Cumulatively it is predicted that no more than 0.5% of each habitat will be lost by 2030, the highest being 0.460% for subtidal coarse sediment (which is predominantly affected by aggregate extraction and waste disposal) and the lowest being 0.064% for moderate energy circalittoral rock. The highest predicted percentage increase by 2030 in the spatial impact of physical change to habitats was for high energy circalittoral rock (81% increase from 8.0 km2 to 14.4 km2) and the lowest predicted increase was for low energy circalittoral rock (less than 1% increase).

The sensitivities to loss of or physical change to habitats are, of course, very high, however, the most vulnerable habitats are generally avoided by careful site selection as required under the licensing process. In summary, these activities are unlikely to have a significant impact on benthic marine habitats.

The largest percentage increase in the spatial extent of activities that result in physical loss of habitats is for wave and tidal energy developments (Appendix F, Table F3) but this is because the current spatial extent is limited to several small-scale demonstrator projects. Larger-scale commercial developments in Pentland Firth will increase this area significantly. The footprint from wind turbine foundations was predicted to increase from 1 km2 to 12.5 km² by 2030 (a 1,200% increase), however the latter still only represents 0.001% of UK seabed (data not presented here). The total area occupied by oil and gas platforms is greater than wind farms increasing slightly from 53.1 km2 to 53.3 km² by 2030 (Appendix F, Table F3). No reduction due to decommissioning was modelled as it is expected that the part of the structures in contact with the seabed will remain. The area subject to maintenance dredging is predicted to increase by 6.8% by 2030 due to earlier capital dredging in order to expand existing navigational channels. The largest absolute increase of spatial extent of activities that result in physical loss is from aggregate extraction.

Table 8. Summary of the area of the habitats impacted by various activities as a consequence of pressures on the marine environment

% of Total Habitat Type in UK EUNIS Area of Impact (km²) Habitat Pressure — Activity Waters Code 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 A1.1 High energy littoral rock Hydrological change – Emergence regime 0.001 0.002 A1.2 Moderate energy littoral rock Hydrological change – Emergence regime 0.003 0.005 A1.3 Low energy littoral rock Hydrological change – Emergence regime 0.802 2.199 A2.1 Littoral coarse sediment Hydrological change – Emergence regime 0.026 0.049 Hydrological change – Emergence regime 4.808 0.477 A2.2 Littoral sand and muddy sand Physical change (loss) 2.390 2.447 2.447 0.236 0.242 0.242 A2.3 Littoral mud Hydrological change – Emergence regime 4.167 0.352 A2.4 Littoral mixed sediments Hydrological change – Emergence regime 0.010 0.016 Coastal saltmarshes and saline A2.5 Hydrological change – Emergence regime 0.125 0.054 reedbeds Intertidal sediments dominated by A2.6 Hydrological change – Emergence regime 0.002 0.013 aquatic angiosperms A2.7 Littoral biogenic reefs Hydrological change – Emergence regime small 0.001 Physical change (loss) 26.765 26.846 13.265 0.299 0.300 0.148 A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock Physical damage – Trawling 2902.1 2771.7 2771.7 32.65 31.18 31.18 Physical damage – Dredging 1776.6 1573.6 1573.6 19.98 17.70 17.70 Physical change (loss) 10.281 10.311 5.066 0.360 0.361 0.177 A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock Physical damage – Trawling 1957.0 1838.8 1838.8 68.78 64.62 64.62 Physical damage – Dredging 1362.4 1319.7 1319.7 47.88 46.38 46.38 Physical change (loss) 1.122 1.145 1.132 0.172 0.176 0.174 A3.3 Low energy infralittoral rock Physical damage – Trawling 439.0 438.7 438.7 67.54 67.50 67.50 Physical damage – Dredging 475.9 475.8 475.8 73.22 73.21 73.21 Physical change (loss) 7.992 8.058 14.427 0.062 0.062 0.112 A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock Physical damage – Trawling 7162.7 6652.2 6652.2 56.18 52.18 52.18 Physical damage – Dredging 2197.1 1663.6 1663.6 17.23 13.05 13.05 Physical change (loss) 32.604 32.775 26.502 0.080 0.080 0.064 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock Physical damage – Trawling 34473.4 32621.8 32621.8 84.32 79.79 79.79 Physical damage – Dredging 11054.3 10160.2 10160.2 27.04 24.85 24.85

% of Total Habitat Type in UK EUNIS Area of Impact (km²) Habitat Pressure — Activity Waters Code 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 Physical change (loss) 5.015 5.015 5.015 0.156 0.156 0.156 A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock Physical damage – Trawling 2801.5 2785.5 2785.5 87.38 86.88 86.88 Physical damage – Dredging 1087.4 1085.1 1085.1 33.92 33.84 33.84 Physical change (loss) 544.779 564.479 611.939 0.410 0.425 0.460 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment Physical damage – Trawling 101806.5 97610.1 97610.1 76.94 73.77 73.77 Physical damage – Dredging 35080.5 34240.8 34240.8 26.51 25.88 25.88 Physical change (loss) 214.616 234.598 230.576 0.084 0.092 0.090 A5.2 Subtidal sand Physical damage – Trawling 216512.6 210829.6 210829.6 85.16 82.93 82.93 Physical damage – Dredging 24949.5 24605.4 24605.4 9.81 9.68 9.68 Physical change (loss) 45.007 45.528 45.527 0.090 0.091 0.091 A5.3 Subtidal mud Physical damage – Trawling 48588.2 47705.4 47705.4 97.74 95.96 95.96 Physical damage – Dredging 7166.2 6782.9 6782.9 14.42 13.64 13.64 Physical change (loss) 46.133 47.133 44.397 0.308 0.315 0.297 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments Physical damage – Trawling 11804.1 11453.1 11453.1 79.46 77.10 77.10 Physical damage – Dredging 2912.1 2853.5 2853.5 19.60 19.21 19.21 Physical damage – Trawling 13871.7 13787.2 13787.2 46.10 45.82 45.82 A6 Deep-sea coarse sediment Physical damage – Dredging 55.6 55.6 55.6 0.18 0.18 0.18 Deep-sea rock and artificial hard Physical damage – Trawling 1315.8 1308.2 1308.2 20.21 20.10 20.10 A6.1 substrata Physical damage – Dredging 5.6 5.6 5.6 0.09 0.09 0.09 Physical damage – Trawling 10035.3 9937.2 9937.2 13.32 13.19 13.19 A6.2 Deep-sea mixed substrata Physical damage – Dredging 57.8 57.8 57.8 0.08 0.08 0.08 A6.3 Physical damage – Trawling 19737.9 19701.0 19701.0 28.81 28.76 28.76 Deep-sea sand or deep-sea or muddy sand Physical damage – Dredging 58.6 58.6 58.6 0.09 0.09 0.09 A6.4 Physical damage – Trawling 16618.4 16519.9 16519.9 9.80 9.74 9.74 A6.5 Deep-sea mud Physical damage – Dredging 19.6 19.6 19.6 0.01 0.01 0.01 Hydrological change –Emergence regime 10 Physical change (loss) 937 978 1,000 0.108 0.112 0.115 Total Physical damage – trawling 490026.3 475960.3 475960.3 56.30 54.68 54.68 Physical damage – dredging 88259.1 84957.8 84957.8 10.14 9.78 9.78 Note: Sensitivities are highlighted as follows: dark blue (high); turquoise (medium); light blue (low); pale turquoise (not sensitive); grey (not exposed or less than 0.001% of habitat)

The spatial extent of the seabed likely to experience physical damage from demersal fishing activities, such as trawling and dredging is greater than the area of physical loss by an order of magnitude, with 10% of the UK seabed impacted by dredging and 56% impacted by demersal trawling. Sublittoral mud is the habitat type with the largest proportion of habitat impacted, with 98% impacted by demersal trawling. Sublittoral sand and low energy circalittoral rock are also extensively impacted, with 85% and 87% respectively. Despite the designation of MCZs in England, demersal fishing will still be the most extensive pressure by 2020 and beyond to 2030. Following the designation of MCZs in England in 2012, the extent of shellfish dredging has been predicted to decrease by 4% (Table F5), and demersal trawling to decrease by 3% (Table F6). It is assumed here that this decreased extent will be maintained up to 2020 and beyond to 2030. This will reduce the percentage of the UK seabed impacted by dredging and demersal trawling to 9.8% and 55%, respectively. The impact of dredging and demersal trawling on benthic biogenic habitats is expected to decrease (see section 6.6).

In contrast, the modelling does not take into account separate conservation designations planned in Wales and Scotland, where equivalent displacement of fishing activity as a result of MPA designation is not expected, nor any specific spatial or temporal fisheries closures that may be required in UK waters under the reformed CFP. It also does not take into account fisheries exclusions from within future renewable energy and new oil and gas developments. Therefore, these potential measures may balance any over-estimates from the MCZ modelling, where it was assumed that MDG fishing would be excluded from 50% of MCZ areas.

Sources of reductions in pressures Sources of reductions in pressures on habitats include the designation of MCZs, where it is assumed fishing activities will be displaced from highly protected ‘Reference Areas’ and from 50% of MCZ areas (see sections 4.3.5 and 4.4.4). This means that newly-protected habitats in these sites will be able to recover. If MCZs are designated in 2012 as planned, by 2020 the habitats would have had eight years of protection from anthropogenic disturbance. The success of recovery will depend upon a number of factors including the state of habitats prior to protection, the species present and their trophic relationships, the level of protection afforded and enforcement levels. This displacement is accounted for in the future estimates of the extent of pressures above. Additionally, further implementation of the Habitats Directive is expected to improve the extent and condition of habitat types covered by that Directive (i.e. rock and biogenic reef habitats and some sediment habitats).

6.1.2 Marine Mammal Assessment

Sources of pressures Sources of pressures on marine mammals include:

. Fisheries by-catch; . Collision with man-made structures or vessels; and . Disturbance and injury as a result of anthropogenic underwater noise.

Harbour porpoise and common dolphin are the two cetacean species most frequently recorded in fisheries by-catch. Typically, annual by-catch is estimated to be less than 1% of regional populations. Measures under ASCOBANS, European Council Regulation (EC) 812/2004 and the UK Cetacean By-catch Response Strategy seek to limit cetacean by- catch and the UK banned pelagic pair trawling for bass, which can result in unacceptably

high levels of by-catch, by UK vessels within 12 miles of the south west coast of England (within ICES area VIIe) in December 2004. Levels of by-catch have reduced over the past decade and in the future are expected to be similar or lower than current levels. While collisions between vessels and marine mammals do occasionally occur, the numbers of individuals involved is much smaller than that associated with fisheries by-catch.

Information on the potential future location and number of OWF, together with information on the distribution of selected marine mammal species has been used to identify the possible spatial and temporal scales of displacement of marine mammals as a result of underwater noise generated during foundation installation, based on an assumption that all future foundations are either monopiles or steel jackets.

Spatial data on encounter rates of marine mammals was sourced from the 2003 version of the Cetacean Atlas. The sampling points where construction was predicted to be occurring in groupings of two years was interrogated for information on the hours searched at that sample point and the number of animals sighted. This information was summed for the entire year to give an average encounter rate across the year. This information could also be summed for each regional sea.

No sightings were made at any of the sampling points that overlapped with wind farm or CCS development areas of sperm, sei, beaked and northern bottlenose whales and striped dolphin.

There was one site at Spurn Head that skewed the data in 2012-2013. In general, the most hours searched at any one sampling point was no more than 2000. However, at Spurn point, hours searched ranged from 14,400 for the white beaked dolphin up to 139,000 for harbour porpoise. The consequence of this is that the encounter rate, expressed as the number of marine mammals cited per hour of search, is skewed. For those species where no animals were sighted at Spurn point, the hours searched at this site was excluded from the analysis.

(Source: Offshore Energy SEA - DECC, 2011i) Figure 8. Modelled density of harbour porpoise in 1994 and 2005

Furthermore, more recent SCANS II data from 2005 illustrates that there is high variability in the distribution of marine mammals over time (see Figure 8). Therefore, the assessment above may not represent the current distribution of marine mammals and there is high uncertainty over their distribution in the future. Further implementation of the Habitats Directive, which covers all marine mammals, is expected to contribute to reducing pressures on their populations, helping ensure that their distribution is not significantly affected by human activities and their abundance is maintained or increased.

6.1.3 Summary

It has not been possible to undertake assessments in relation to the majority of proposed indicators for Descriptor 1, other than for benthic habitats in relation to physical loss or damage and to a limited extent for marine mammals in relation to underwater noise.

The main source of pressure on benthic habitats is from benthic fishing activity, which is predicted to decrease in spatial extent between 2010 and 2020 (and beyond to 2030). Implementation of restrictions on mobile demersal gears are likely to lead to an overall reduction of pressures on sea floor substrate. Therefore, an overall improvement in condition of benthic habitats can be expected, depending on the spatial extent of new conservation measures that exclude demersal fishing activity, and on the recovery rates of benthic habitats. However, the development of tidal range devices may result in significant local impacts on some littoral intertidal habitats.

Increases in anthropogenic underwater noise, particularly as a result of percussive piling during OWF construction have the potential to affect the distribution of marine mammals, particularly in Region 2 where a high proportion of future OWF development is planned. However, the ecological significance of such displacement is currently unclear and implementation of the Habitats Directive is expected to be able to address pressures on marine mammals.

Climate change is likely to have an impact on the distribution and extent of habitats and the range and populations of species. A number of species may establish themselves in the UK for the first time, while others may disappear. For example, the puffin may lose breeding sites in southwest and eastern England and eastern Scotland (Pinnegar et al. 2012).

6.1.4 Uncertainty and Limitations

There is a high degree of uncertainty in this assessment given that so few indicators have been assessed. The focus of the assessment for benthic habitats has been on changes in habitat extent (physical loss) and habitat condition (physical damage), which represents only one component of biodiversity. Future assessments could incorporate impacts of pressures on species, for example using data collated for the MCZ designation process (indicator 1.1.3). The outcome of the assessment is likely to be sensitive to the particular indicators that are used. The extent of benthic habitats is unlikely to be the most sensitive indicator for this descriptor.

Table 9. The encounter rate of various cetacean species and their numbers within likely areas exposed to noise pressures over time from wind farm construction

2010-2011 2012-2013 2014-2015 2016-2017 2018-2020 Number of Sample 20 24 45 33 29 Points Max Max Max Max Max Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate

Harbour Porpoise 0.020 148 0.154 0.029 4301 0.154 0.049 715 0.341 0.059 794 0.311 0.059 777 0.217

White-beaked 0.005 7 0.035 0.181 358 0.751 0.032 98 0.340 0.054 150 0.373 0.050 131 0.373

Minke 0.001 5 0.010 0.003 18 0.016 0.005 41 0.059 0.011 83 0.135 0.011 78 0.135 Common 0.004 4 0.069 0.155 225 5.749 0.003 6 0.094 0.002 3 0.094 0.002 3 0.094 Bottlenose Killler Whale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.004 9 0.076 0.005 9 0.076 0.003 5 0.026

Long-finned whale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003 7 0.023 0.002 6 0.023 0.003 6 0.023

Short-beaked 0 0 0 1.8E-05 1 1.9E-05 0.003 9 0.255 0.088 270 3.123 0.003 8 0.255

Atlantic White 0 0 0 0.002 12 0.006 0.001 8 0.011 0.001 8 0.011 0.001 12 0.015

Risso 0 0 0 0.004 8 0.039 3.8E-04 1 0.044 4.1E-04 1 0.044 4.2E-04 1 0.044

Humpback 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.7E-05 1 0.001 5.2E-05 1 0.001 5.7E-05 1 0.001

Fin Whales 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.7E-05 1 0.001 5.2E-05 1 0.001 5.7E-05 1 0.001

Assessments could not be made for potential habitat impacts from the future installation of algal biofuel farms and new aquaculture farms as the locations and spatial footprints from the farms is unknown. In addition, the location of new coastal defence and managed realignment schemes was unknown.

Assessments for littoral habitats and deep sea habitats are likely to be low in confidence due to poorly-resolved habitat information in these areas. In particular, EUNIS level 3 habitats such as ‘Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms’ (A2.6) and ‘Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment’ (A5.5) have not been assessed at all due to gaps in the coverage of these habitats in UKSeaMap.

There are subtleties that this coarse assessment cannot fully integrate at present. For example, the full impact of pressures on habitats is dependent on the magnitude or intensity of the pressure and temporal patterns (such as frequency and duration) as well as the sensitivity of the feature to particular levels of pressure. The sensitivity assessments used here are based on the known responses of the most sensitive component of the habitat to the pressure and therefore may result in an over-estimation of the likely impacts. In addition, there are uncertainties surrounding the extent to which displaced fishing activity might relocate to existing fishing grounds.

To more adequately assess the potential impacts of underwater noise on the distribution of marine mammals and the overall significance of temporary/seasonal displacement, greater clarity is required on the locations of future OWF, foundation type and the proximity of functionally important areas for significant populations of marine mammals. The zonal assessment processes and subsequent EIAs that will be undertaken for future OWF developments will generate useful information to inform such assessments, although further research at regional seas level will also be necessary to evaluate potential cumulative effects.

6.2 Descriptor 2. Non-indigenous Species

The three indicators for this descriptor encompass the abundance and state of non- indigenous species as well as their environmental impact on native species. It is estimated that there could be up to 87 non-indigenous species (NIS) present in UK waters (Eno, 1997; DAISIE, 2009). However, the exact number of NIS and their relationship with native species is poorly understood due to lack of long term monitoring and consistent taxonomic identification (UKMMAS, 2010b). Hence, there are some data deficiencies to inform the ratio between invasive NIS and native species (Indicator 2.2.1). However, some qualitative information was available to make an assessment of trends in abundance of NIS and their spatial distribution (Indicator 2.1.1) and the environmental impacts of NIS (Indicator 2.2.2). Cefas have recently modelled the risk of introduction, spread and establishment of marine invasive NIS in the UK and Ireland, to identify the highest-risk pathways and areas for their introduction and spread (Cefas, 2012).

6.2.1 Non-indigenous Species Assessment

The main anthropogenic activities that contribute to the introduction of NIS (both the introduction of new species and the spread of existing species) are commercial and recreational maritime transport and aquaculture. Boats and ships may transport NIS either in ballast water or as biofouling (i.e. attaching to hulls, anchor chains and other parts of the

vessel). Aquaculture activities can introduce NIS either intentionally (for commercial cultivation) or unintentionally when transporting species intended for cultivation. The Cefas (2012) study also identified imports of live animals for the seafood trade, and natural dispersal e.g. rafting, as high risk pathways for the introduction of marine invasive NIS. Whilst all these activities are likely to increase over the next twenty years, there has also been an increase in the number of controls over these activities.

Once non-indigenous species become established they may spread geographically as a result of anthropogenic pathways, reproductive dispersal or other natural dispersal mechanisms. There are a number of very active pathways that provide high potential for the internal spread of NIS in the UK once they are introduced and/or established, combining both long distance and local spread. In particular, shipping and recreational yacht movements result in a high level of connectivity between many parts of the coastline, and prevailing currents provide for contiguous spread (Cefas, 2012).

In addition, recent climate change effects and consequent warming of sea temperatures may create conditions suitable for new species to establish themselves, such as the bryozoan Bugula neritina, previously restricted to warm water areas such as power station outlets (Maggs et al., 2010) and improving recruitment conditions, for example, the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) (Barton and Heard, 2005). The projected rise in seawater temperature for the UK under climate change scenarios means that existing NIS may be able to expand their ranges and in some cases their distribution could encompass the entire UK by 2080 (Pinnegar et al., 2012). Another consequence of the rise in temperature of waters around the UK has been an indication of some changes in the phytoplankton community, such as less overall domination by diatoms and a greater input from a more complex flagellate-based foodweb (UKMMAS, 2010c). However, warmer waters may also favour native species — the honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata) has become re- established on the North Wales coast after a long absence, possibly partly in response to warmer waters (UKMMAS, 2010c). The long-term ecological consequences of many of these interactions are unknown.

Records of non-native species have generally increased in recent years although there are some regional variations in this trend. Monitoring results indicate that some populations of the cordgrass Spartina anglica have ceased expanding and appear to be experiencing dieback, particularly along the south coast of the UK, whilst other populations along the north-east and north-west coasts still seem to be expanding (UKMMAS, 2010c). Charting Progress 2 suggested that the establishment and spread of NIS are expected to continue to increase over the coming decades (UKMMAS, 2010c).

In relation to spatial patterns in the distribution of non-native species in British waters, Charting Progress 2 noted that there are far more introduced species recorded on the south and west coasts than the north and east coasts (UKMMAS, 2010c) (this may be linked to position of monitoring effort and laboratories). There are also particular estuaries or inlets which seem to have a higher number and abundance of non-native species, such as the Solent, probably as a result of the large volume and history of commercial shipping, recreational sailing and shellfish aquaculture in the area; and the Essex coast, in connection with oyster grounds. The Solent, Thames Estuary and Kent coast are key areas with a high likelihood of introduction and establishment of marine invasive NIS, due to high volumes of shipping traffic, recreational boating, live imports of animals for aquaculture or the seafood trade, proximity to foreign landmasses, and environmental conditions which

facilitate establishment (Cefas, 2012). Devon, the coast around Cork in Ireland, and the area between Northern Ireland and Dumfries are also high risk areas. Whilst the risk patterns can be generalised for marine NIS, there are also taxa-specific differences, for example, the Humber scores highly for likelihood of introduction and establishment of crustacea.

Invasive NIS can have a range of negative impacts on other species and habitats including:

. Transmission of disease to native species; . Competition with native species; . Hybridisation with native species; . Predation on native species; . Increased flooding risk e.g. by damage to river banks through burrowing; . Damage to equipment e.g. clogging of fishing nets or fish cages; and . Human health risks e.g. by the introduction of toxic phytoplankton.

Particular habitats and species that are known to be impacted by invasive NIS include the following:

. Native Oyster beds can be affected by the protist Bonamia ostreae, fouled by the algae Sargassum muticum (wireweed) and the mollusc Crepidula fornicata (slipper limpet), and out-competed for space by the mollusc Crassostrea gigas (Pacific oyster); . Littoral soft sediment can be destabilised by the Chinese mitten crab Eriocheir sinensis; . Saltmarsh and intertidal sediments can be impacted by establishment of common cordgrass, Spartina anglica, which can lead to exclusion of native fauna and loss of intertidal sediment for feeding and roosting waders and waterfowl (Barton and Heard, 2005). S. anglica has altered the course of succession within saltmarsh habitats leading to monocultural vegetative stands which have less intrinsic value to wildlife than the naturally species diverse saltmarsh; and . Pelagic habitats can be affected by introductions of non-native plankton species, which may have important economic consequences by negatively impacting aquaculture through toxin production or the smothering of farmed organisms (Smayda, 2006).

In summary, Charting Progress 2 (UKMMAS, 2010c) concluded the following impacts on benthic habitats from non-native species:

. Intertidal rocky habitats - adversely affected by species such as the acorn barnacle Elminius modestus and wireweed Sargassum muticum; . Intertidal sediments - in the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel, the presence of non-native species such as Spartina anglica and the Crassostrea gigas has led to widespread changes to saltmarshes and mudflats; . Subtidal rock - although non-native species are having minimal impact at present, some habitats may become dominated by such species in the future; and . Shallow and shelf subtidal sediments - continued spread of Crepidula fornicata in most regions.

No assessment was made for deep-sea habitats.

6.2.2 Summary

It is concluded that by 2020 there will still be significant issues presented by invasive NIS and that these are unlikely to be resolved by 2030. UK seawater temperature has increased by around 1oC over the last 100 years, and warmer waters are likely to result in an increased prevalence of NIS in the future (Defra, 2012c). Despite the best efforts and measures, it often only takes one failure of regulations or best practice guidance (accidental or otherwise) for the introduction of invasive NIS to occur, and once established, NIS can be very difficult to eradicate from the marine environment. It may be impossible to entirely eliminate the risk of accidental introductions. In addition, it is expected that changes in sea temperature may create conditions conducive for new species to establish and spread that previously were limited by sub-optimal temperature ranges.

6.2.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

There is a great deal of uncertainty in this assessment given the current information gaps on the spatial distribution and temporal trends in NIS and their wider ecological impacts on community structures and food webs. In addition, there is some uncertainty over the effectiveness of current measures to manage the pressure and uncertainty over trends in the vectors. The assessment is sensitive to assumptions about the level of threat posed by future Invasive NIS and how climate change might affect such risks.

6.3 Descriptor 3. Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish

There are two key criteria that relate to the level of pressure of the fishing activity (generally measured as fishing mortality (F)) and reproductive capacity of the stock (generally measured as spawning stock biomass (SSB)). For each criterion, there are indicators based on stock assessment parameters, and indicators based on proxies, for stocks that lack analytical assessments. Information on F and SSB indicators was available from fisheries assessments. A third criterion addresses population age and size distributions. Information on indicators for this criterion was more difficult to source within the time frames for the study.

The single most influential framework relevant to this baseline is probably the future course of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as it has the most influence on the marine environment (i.e. changes in fish stocks and some fishing practices having a detrimental effect on biodiversity, food webs and habitats). This is subject to complex political processes; therefore, it is difficult to predict how its objectives will change in response to the MSFD, and how well it will manage to achieve its objectives. The assumptions made in developing a medium-level scenario (see Section 4.3.5) are that the CFP will perform better than its recent track-record, although limited progress is likely to be made in achieving objectives such as recovery of stocks to support Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) across fisheries (particularly as achievement of MSY for all species within a multispecies fisheries is unlikely and even with reductions in F, fish stocks may take some time to recover), or a fully-integrated ecosystem-based management approach to fisheries.

6.3.1 Fisheries Assessment

There is a great degree of variability in the state of fisheries as some stocks are doing well whilst others are experiencing levels of extraction that are unsustainable. Charting Progress 2 reported on sustainability indices for a number of selected fish stocks (UKKMAS, 2010b). This index is centred around the use of two measures in line with the GES indicators: fishing mortality (F); and Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB). Assessments of F and SSB for a single stock are currently compared against a ‘precautionary approach’ (pa) limit (Fpa)_which, if exceeded, indicates that the stock is at risk of being harvested unsustainably (F>Fpa) or that that stock is at risk of severely reduced reproductive capacity (B

Table 10 presents a summary of this information. This provides an indicator of areas for improvement and where measures for CFP might focus and also which stocks may improve in state by 2030. For example, the current levels of extraction appear to be maintaining haddock stocks within ICES regions IV and VIb and sole in area VIIfg in a sustainable state. However, there are ongoing issues for cod stocks in areas VIa and VIIa, hake and sole in area VIIa. There are clear spatial patterns in the stock indices and it may be possible in the future to map these according to ICES subareas to explore regional variations.

Table 10. Evaluation of the current exploitation status for fin-fish stocks in UK waters, for which ICES was able to provide quantitative management advice in 2010 (ICES, 2010).

Status Species Stock Regional Sea 2010 2010 10 yr Trends3 Fmsy/Fpa1 B Trigger2 Cod IV, VIId, IIIa 1,2,3,7,8 Above Below Deteriorating Cod VIa 6,7,8 Not Known Below Deteriorating Cod VIIa 5 Above Below Deteriorating Cod VIIe-k 4 Not Defined Not Defined Variable Haddock IV, IIIa 1,2,7,8 Below Above Improving Haddock VIa 6,7,8 Between Below Variable Haddock VIb 8 Below Above Improving Saithe IIIa, IV, VI 1,2,6,7,8 Not Known Not Known Improving Hake Northern 1 to 8 Not Known Not Defined Deteriorating Blue whiting Combined 1 to 9 Above Below Variable Plaice IV 1,2 Between Above Variable Plaice VIIfg Above Below Not known Plaice VIIe 3,4 Between Below Variable Plaice VIIa 5 Not Defined Not Defined green Sole IV 1,2 Between Below Deteriorating Sole VIId 3 Above Above Variable Sole VIIe 3,4 Below Below Variable Sole VIIfg 4 Below Above Improving Sole VIIa 5 Between Below Deteriorating Mackerel Combined 1 to 8 Above Above Variable Herring IV, VIId 1,2,3 Below Below Variable Herring VIa 6,7,8 Below Not Defined Not known Nephrops IVb 1 (Farn Deeps) Above Below Unknown Nephrops IVa 1,7,8 (Fladen) Below Above Unknown Nephrops IVb 1 (Firth of Forth) Above Above Unknown

Status Species Stock Regional Sea 2010 2010 10 yr Trends3 Fmsy/Fpa1 B Trigger2 Nephrops IVb 1 (Moray Firth) Below Above Unknown Nephrops VIa 6,7 (North Minch) Above Above Unknown Nephrops VIa 6,7 (South Minch) Below Above Unknown Nephrops VIa 5 (Firth of Clyde) Above Above Unknown Nephrops VIa 6 (Sound of Jura) Below Not Defined Unknown Nephrops VIIa 5 (Irish Sea East) Above Not Known Unknown Nephrops VIIa 5 (Irish Sea West) Above Above Unknown Notes: 1. This column indicates whether current levels of fish mortality 'F' are 'Below' Fmsy, 'Above' Fpa, or 'Between' these two levels; or not defined 2. This column indicates whether current levels of Sustainable Stock Biomass are 'Above' Bpa or 'Below' Bpa. Or not defined 3. These are based on ten-year trends in the combined assessments of Fpa and Bpa presented in Charting Progress, where available (UKMMAS, 2010b)

Climate change may also lead to shifts in distribution patterns of fish stocks, and impact on stock abundances, affecting fisheries. However, different stocks are likely to be affected differently, and the implications for fisheries are complex. The Climate Change Risk Assessment concluded that plaice may move 140km to the north-west over the next 70-80 years, and stocks such as plaice and sole may become relatively more abundant in UK waters through positive impacts on year class strength. However, stocks such as cod and haddock are likely to be negatively impacted, with reduced year class strength (affecting recruitment and therefore stock size) (Pinnegar et al, 2012). This may change fishing patterns and change the mix of species in UK waters.

6.3.2 Summary

It is concluded that effective implementation of the CFP, and additional conservation measures adopted by the UK’s marine administrations, should prevent further deterioration of most fisheries stocks in UK waters but may not deliver significant progress in achieving objectives such as recovery of stocks to support Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) across fisheries, or a fully-integrated ecosystem-based management approach to fisheries. This may be due to the difficulties of achieving MSY for all species in a multispecies fishery, time lags in stock recovery and impacts from other pressures such as climate change. Recovery plans assume that recruitment will follow an historic relationship between recruits and SSB. However, in most cases the properties of collapsed stocks are different from healthy stocks, in terms of distributional extent and size truncation, and these factors are likely to be at least as important as stock growth rates in causing the time lag. Other factors are discussed below under uncertainties.

6.3.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

There is a high degree of certainty in this assessment regarding the number of commercially harvested stocks for which there is a good scientific understanding of maximum sustainable yield (MSY). However, there are still a number of stocks for which MSY assessments are currently unavailable, although progress is continuing. The assessment is particularly sensitive to assumptions about the potential effectiveness of management measures that may be implemented under the reformed CFP, and the consequences for the distribution of fishing activity following the introduction of MCZs/MPAs.

As noted above, indices for stock assessments could be broken down into ICES areas, although this may further increase uncertainty as ICES areas do not align with country boundaries, nor with the boundaries for MSFD assessment. Therefore, an assumption would need to be made that the stock assessments apply evenly throughout the ICES area, when in fact there may be site-specific differences.

Table 11 was developed through consultation with fisheries interests from Defra and Cefas and highlights some of the factors that may influence the certainty in the baseline assessment for this descriptor.

The novel approach to CFP using co-decision procedures is also likely to increase uncertainty (although in no particular direction).

Table 11. Factors influencing the possible reform of the CFP

Why CFP Reform Might Do Better Why CFP Reform Might Not Achieve Than Recent Experience? Its (Current) Stated Aims? Widespread recognition from Commission, all Any new package requires sufficient support from Member States, etc. that existing regime has been Member States (and continued adherence ineffective in delivering sustainability and needs real throughout its life) which cannot be guaranteed. improvement. Status quo NOT an option. Inevitably still some scope for political intervention. Timescale for improvement is too optimistic given inevitable lag between measure and perceived Commission likely to propose explicit commitments impact. Given biological changes, it may simply not on MSY and wider MSFD to bind EU. be possible to recover/conserve some stocks over such short timescales. Expected focus on long-term management plans as basis of EU regime, should remove at least some of the short-term (political) expediency. Likely to be clear emphasis on eliminating

discards/improving selectivity. Commission recognition of need to address fleet

overcapacity. This has be an objective of previous CFP reforms, Commission recognition of importance of improved but measures have not been effective at preventing science to underpin new regime. overexploitation of stocks. ICES already providing stock advice based on MSY projections to meet tighter WSSD (2015 where possible) target. Anticipated new, more regionalised approach to More regionalised management may result in management should allow more bespoke and greater pressure for local exemptions and dilution therefore more effective regime - with improved of key objectives. industry buy-in Greater certainty about future fishing opportunities,

should encourage more sustainable fishing activity.

6.4 Descriptor 4. Food Webs

The main pressures on the stability of food webs include climate change, fishing, pollution, non-indigenous species and disease (Defra, 2011b). Rogers et al (2010) state that the effects of fishing are the most important pressures which directly affect target species, and indirectly affect other non-target components of food webs.

The assessments of Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish in GES descriptor 3 have assumed that there will be some improvements in fish stocks as a result of the reformed CFP (see Section 6.3). In addition, the spatial extent of seabed disturbance from benthic fishing activities is predicted to decrease by 2020 as a result of new nature conservation measures in the UK (see Section 6.1). Incidents of pollution are likely to decline under implementation of the WFD. However, knowledge of the future impact on food webs from non-indigenous species and climate change are less clear.

The three indicators for this descriptor currently focus on those ecosystem components where good information exists, i.e. the performance of key predator species, the proportion of large fish and abundance trends of functionally important groups or species (see Appendix E1).

6.4.1 Food Webs Assessment

In terms of the performance of key predator species, there is good information available on the current status of seals, marine mammals and seabirds through Charting Progress 2 (UKMMAS, 2010a). Grey seal populations are either increasing or stable although there are a few problems in regions 4 and 5. Harbour seals have been decreasing in abundance; by more than 50% since 2001 in Shetland, Orkney and on the east coast of Scotland (UKMMAS, 2010a). The reason for this decline is still unknown and trends for the future are highly uncertain. Cetacean numbers are stable in all regions although there is a low degree of confidence in the assessments in many regions and no assessment was feasible in regions 7 and 8. Finally, there have been substantial declines in seabird abundance in north and north-west Scotland where the main pressures are climate change, fishing impacts on prey species such as sand eels and the introduction of non-indigenous species. These pressures are difficult to map and therefore quantify future spatial extent. The assessment for Descriptor 1 indicates that marine mammals are likely to be subject to a greater level of displacement as a result of underwater noise from OWF construction in the period to 2020 and beyond, although the ecological significance of such displacement remains unclear.

Between 1901-1907 and 1993-1997 the proportion of large fish (> 30cm) has declined overall with a marked decrease for roundfish and flatfish species (UKMMAS, 2010c). Over the shorter-term, assessments of life history metrics for demersal fish communities indicate that trends in mean fish size between 2005 and 2010 showed little or no change with some improvement in Region 5 in the Irish Sea (UKMMAS, 2010c). The assessment in Charting Progress 2 notes that it is likely this metric will respond slowly to reductions in anthropogenic pressures, particularly for long-lived species. Therefore, it is assumed that any beneficial impacts of the reformed CFP on the size structure of fish populations may not been seen by 2020, although some changes may be detected for short-lived species by 2030. The designation of MCZs is unlikely to influence the size distribution of most commercial fish species as many species are migratory.

Phytoplankton is a functionally important group mainly impacted upon by climate change pressures (UKMMAS, 2010a). There have been significant changes in plankton species as a result of rising temperatures, which can have knock-on effects on foodwebs and marine ecosystems. There is clear evidence for large and extensive changes in the composition, abundance and spatio-temporal occurrence of both phytoplankton and zooplankton in waters adjacent to the UK and in the North Atlantic. However, it is still unclear to what

extent natural variability, climate change and cascading effects from fishing may be contributing to change.

6.4.2 Summary

Currently there are some problems in the status of many key predator species, including several marine mammal species, harbour species and seabirds, and their future status is difficult to predict given the wide range of pressures and lack of knowledge regarding interactions. The current status of key predators is also variable, illustrating possible improvements for some components and decreases in others. The proportion of large fish may improve due to measures under the reformed CFP and designation of MCZs, but the rate of improvement will depend upon life-history characteristics particular to each species and there may be time lags in responses beyond 2030. Many changes are likely in the composition and distribution of plankton due to climate change pressures, although the precise nature of these changes is not known and their likely impact on food webs is unclear.

Increased water temperatures are likely to impact on biodiversity and the productivity and functioning of marine ecosystems. Changes in timing of seasonal events and migration patterns can result in mismatches between species such as predator-prey/host relationships and impact on food webs (Defra, 2012c).

In summary, there are concerns for the current state of the marine environment under this descriptor and there are many unknowns that make an assessment of future status difficult.

6.4.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

There is a high degree of uncertainty in the state assessments made under this descriptor. There is little overall knowledge of marine food webs (for example energy transfer and species interactions between trophic levels) and the different pressures upon them (for example the future impacts of climate change on the distribution of key species such as phytoplankton). In addition, information on the state of key indicators is variable. The assessment is particularly sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of fisheries management measures.

6.5 Descriptor 5. Eutrophication

There are eight indicators that have been developed to describe levels of eutrophication, and the direct and indirect effects of nutrient enrichment on the marine environment (Appendix E1). The main anthropogenic pressures which can cause eutrophication in coastal and marine waters are land-based, particularly inputs of nitrogen arising from agriculture and sewage treatment works. CP2 reported that UK coastal and offshore waters are not currently presenting problems with respect to eutrophication. Five coastal areas that had caused concern in an earlier assessment undertaken in 2002 were East England, East Anglia, Liverpool Bay, the Solent and the Firth of Clyde. Although these areas are still nutrient enriched, and some showed evidence of accelerated growth of algae, there was no evidence for undesirable disturbance, and the risk is not increasing (UKMMAS, 2010a).

6.5.1 Eutrophication Assessment

In terms of estuaries and harbours, 17 were identified as problems areas (determined by application of the OSPAR COMPP in 2007). They are already subject to nutrient reduction programmes, although there is such a large reservoir of nutrients in soils and sediments that the environmental response to the reduction in nutrient inputs is likely to be slow. Moreover, it is not clear to what extent these protective measures will lead to ecological recovery, because the eutrophication process is complex and may not be easily reversible (UKMMAS, 2010a).

Effective implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD; 91/271/ EEC.), the Nitrates Directive (91.676/EEC), the OSPAR Eutrophication Strategy and the WFD is likely to maintain or achieve the current good ecological status (GEcS) of waters under the WFD and ensure progress towards GEcS or the lesser target of Good Ecological Potential (GEP) for heavily modified water bodies. However, WFD provides for time-limited derogations from achieving GEcS or GEP up to 2027. Therefore, it is expected that the current state will be maintained up to 2020 with some localised improvements in problem areas and further improvements up to 2030.

Climate change may have an effect on eutrophication, with increased algal blooms possibly resulting from warmer water temperatures. Projections also suggest that warmer temperatures and altered rainfall patterns would encourage the growth of phytoplankton even given the same or lower nutrient inputs from human activities (Defra, 2012c).

6.5.2 Summary

It is concluded that current management measures or derogations taken under the WFD, UWWTD and Nitrates Directives will be sufficient to address outstanding concerns and ensure improvements in remaining areas of concern by 2020.

6.5.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

There is high confidence in the assessments of eutrophication in most areas due to the availability of extensive datasets, and enhanced monitoring which was put in place in areas that were previously reported to be vulnerable (UKMMAS, 2010a), although in some coastal waters, more information on the biological status is needed. The assessment is sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of management measures, although there is a good level of confidence about the direction of future change.

6.6 Descriptor 6. Sea Floor Integrity

There are six indicators that describe the extent of physical damage to seafloor substrates and the consequent condition of the benthic community. These include, for example, the type, abundance, biomass and areal extent of relevant biogenic substrate, the extent of the seabed significantly affected by human activities for different substrate types, the presence of particularly sensitive and/or tolerant species, and multi-metric indexes assessing benthic community condition and functionality, such as species diversity and richness, proportion of opportunistic to sensitive species. As the assessment for Descriptor 1 has considered the extent of seabed significantly affected by selected human activities for different substrate

types across all predominant habitat types, this analysis is not repeated again here. Instead, the assessment for this descriptor focuses on biogenic habitats.

6.6.1 Sea Floor Integrity Assessment

The extent of physical damage to sea floor integrity has been assessed in the same way as for biological diversity (see Section 6.1), namely changes to physical substrates from the footprints of offshore developments, loss of substrate from the extraction of marine aggregates and capital navigational dredging; and structural and surface abrasion of the seabed from benthic fishing activity. Section 6.1 highlights that the most significant activity with respect to damage of benthic habitats is mobile demersal fishing, which is predicted to decrease in spatial extent between 2010 and 2020 (and beyond to 2030): 3% decrease in the spatial extent of demersal trawling and 4% decrease in shellfish dredging. In terms of the activities that result in physical loss of substrate, aggregate extraction has the greatest spatial impact, which is expected to increase by 10% by 2030, although the impact on biogenic substrates is expected to decrease.

The main source of pressure on biogenic habitats is from demersal trawling, which impacts 4,209km2 (Table 12). This is expected to decrease 2.2% by 2020 as a result of the introduction of MCZs and RAs. However, the majority of the area impacted is seamounts (3,313km2, predominantly in Rockall). NEAFC/EC has introduced closures to seabed trawling in some locations in the Scottish offshore zone. MCZs will not have any impact for seamounts, as their scope does not include this area. Dredging impacts 143.6km2 of biogenic habitat, and this is expected to reduce slightly (0.4%) by 2020, mainly due to the protection of littoral chalk communities from MCZ implementation. Management proposals for recently-designated offshore SACs for biogenic habitat are also being developed.

Aggregate extraction currently impacts 9.33km2 of Sabellaria spinulosa reef (Table 12). This is expected to decrease between 2020 and 2030 due to the decommissioning of existing aggregate extraction lease areas (predominantly around the Humber), that overlap with biogenic reefs and will no longer be used in 2030. This may facilitate the recovery of the biogenic reefs in those areas, in the longer-term.

Wind turbines currently potentially impact a small area of Sabellaria reef, and this is expected to increase by 2020 as new lease areas come on-stream (Table 12). However, the calculation of area of impact takes a proportion of each habitat type present in the lease area, according to the expected extent of the spatial footprint of turbines, but it may be possible that the actual location of turbines can be placed away from sensitive habitats, thus reducing the potential impact on biogenic reefs. The figures in Table 12 therefore represent a worse-case scenario for wind turbines.

There are no overlaps in spatial extent of biogenic habitats with existing wave and tidal concession areas.

Table 12. Predicted area of biogenic habitats impacted by various activities

Area of impact (km2) % Biogenic habitat Activity (pressure) 2010 2020 2030 change Wind turbines (physical loss) 0.03 0.21 0.21 579.2 Sabellaria spinulosa reef Aggregate extraction (physical loss) 9.33 9.33 4.59 -50.9 Fisheries – Trawling (physical damage) 714.30 622.82 622.82 -12.8 Sabellaria spinulosa beds Fisheries – Trawling (physical damage) 41.88 41.88 41.88 0.0 Wind turbines (physical loss) 0.00 0.01 0.01 n/a Modiolus modiolus beds Fisheries – Trawling (physical damage) 136.24 136.24 136.24 0.0 Fisheries – Dredging (physical damage) 142.27 142.27 142.27 0.0 Fisheries – Trawling (physical damage) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.0 Blue Mussel Beds Fisheries – Dredging (physical damage) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Fisheries – Trawling (physical damage) 3.40 3.40 3.40 0.0 Cold-water coral reefs Fisheries – Dredging (physical damage) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.0 Fisheries – Trawling (physical damage) 0.00 0.00 0.00 -46.3 Littoral chalk communities Fisheries – Dredging (physical damage) 0.65 0.06 0.06 -90.9

Seamounts Fisheries – Trawling (physical damage) 3,313.23 3,313.23 3,313.23 0.0 Wind turbines 0.03 0.22 0.22 618.1 Aggregate extraction 9.33 9.33 4.59 -50.9 Totals Fisheries - Trawling 4,209.07 4,117.59 4,117.59 - 2.2 Fisheries - Dredging 143.61 143.02 143.02 - 0.4

Warmer temperatures may increase rates of ‘carbon cycling’ in surface waters by 20%, making less carbon available to the benthic system. This may result in reduced biomass of benthic organisms (worms, crustacean, molluscs etc) and possible consequences for marine foodwebs and fisheries (Pinnegar et al., 2012) and biogenic habitats. Increasing ocean acidification may also affect shellfish and biogenic reef-building organisms.

6.6.2 Summary

Given the information presented in Section 6.1, there is likely to be a reduction in the spatial extent of damage to biogenic habitats by 2020 (and beyond to 2030) and thus a small overall improvement in sea floor integrity. However, many of the habitats that are subject to seabed damage have high to medium sensitivities to such pressures. Where pressures persist, it can be assumed that the condition of the benthic community will decrease in response to those pressures, but in other areas, protection and thus seafloor integrity will be improved. Ocean acidification has the potential to impact negatively on biogenic habitats.

6.6.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

The assessment draws on similar information to the biodiversity assessment (Descriptor 1) and is therefore subject to the limitations that apply to that descriptor. Furthermore, there is uncertainty in the modelled distribution of biogenic habitats and therefore low confidence in the precise location of biogenic habitats. It is recognised that this assessment only partially addresses the range of factors that are required to be considered under the descriptor. Aspects of benthic assemblage function are relevant to the consideration of this descriptor, for which scientific data and understanding are limited. Comprehensive assessments for this descriptor are therefore likely to remain technically challenging. The outcome of the

assessment is likely to be sensitive to the particular indicators that are used. The extent of benthic habitats is unlikely to be the most sensitive indicator for this descriptor.

6.7 Descriptor 7. Hydrography

The key sources of pressure for hydrological changes are likely to be tidal range devices (such as tidal barrages and impoundments), coastal defences and managed realignment schemes, significantly altering water flow and emergence regimes. The relevant indicators of these pressures are the extent of area affected by permanent alterations (indicator 7.1.1), in particular the spatial extent of habitats affected (indicator 7.2.1) and changes in the functions provided by the habitats as a result (indicator 7.2.2).

There is some uncertainty surrounding the significance of other sources of change to water flow from large-scale arrays of renewable energy developments and potential cumulative impacts from various smaller developments such as multiple marina and port developments within an estuary. The assessment here may therefore represent an underestimate of the potential sources of impact on hydrography.

6.7.1 Hydrography Assessment

The habitats for this descriptor are defined as physical habitats, therefore we used a EUNIS level 3 layer developed under a project for MCZs for the inshore area which classifies the seabed according to the level of wave exposure, the emergence regime and substrate type.

The assessment has been based on a possible tidal barrage development in the Severn Estuary in the period between 2025 and 2030.

The impact of a low head turbine barrage on water levels (and thus flow) is likely to be only 10% of those for a conventional barrage outwith the immediate vicinity of the barrage. Therefore the modelling focussed on impacts from emergence regimes upstream of the development. Table 8 in Section 6.1 provides an assessment of the habitats likely to be affected by permanent emergence regime changes. Change in emergence regime is assumed to only affect intertidal areas upstream, although, in reality, there are likely to be site-specific patterns in permanent impacts. This assessment therefore provides a generalised assessment across the estuary and also represents a worst-case scenario of changes to hydrography from potential barrages.

The main habitats affected by water flow and emergence regime changes (in terms of the proportion of UK habitat) are low energy littoral rock (2.2%) and littoral sand and muddy sand (0.5%).

6.7.2 Summary

In summary, if low head tidal turbine technology was employed only a small area of the UK sea bed would be affected by hydrographical changes from tidal range schemes over the next twenty years, with few significant consequences for estuarine habitats. It should be noted however, that measures to manage estuaries will be covered under the WFD rather than the MSFD.

6.7.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

Due to uncertainty around the possible future location of coastal defences and managed realignment schemes, this assessment purely focussed on impacts from tidal barrages. Furthermore, gaps in the mapping of coastal habitats mean that there is uncertainty surrounding the spatial extent of habitats affected (indicator 7.2.1). The proportion of unknown (undefined and unmapped) habitat was 22% overall and 13% in the intertidal region. The effects of marine structures on hydrographic regimes is relatively well understood. The assessment is sensitive to assumptions about the nature and scale of possible future development, but overall, anticipated changes are considered unlikely to be significant at the scale of regional seas.

6.8 Descriptor 8. Contaminants

There are only three indicators for this descriptor covering concentrations of contaminants, their effects on ecosystem components, and significant acute pollution events. The main anthropogenic pressures which can cause contamination with hazardous substances in coastal and marine waters are land-based, arising from industry, agriculture and domestic uses. Chemical contaminants of relevance for Descriptor 8 were listed in the descriptor assessment by Law et al. (2010). It will be the role of Member States to ensure that those contaminants of most concern for their regions are addressed. However, the majority of these are already covered under existing legislation (e.g. WFD and the Priority Substances Directive (2008/105/EC)), the OSPAR Hazardous Substances Strategy, the annual OSPAR Coordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP) and UK monitoring schemes such as the Clean Seas Environmental Monitoring Programme (CSEMP).

6.8.1 Contaminants Assessment

CP2 (UKMMAS, 2010a and d) reported the key findings from these programmes as follows:

. The downward trend in inputs of contaminants over time reported in Charting Progress for rivers, sewage works and industrial discharges has continued for mercury, cadmium and lindane to both the Celtic Sea and the North Sea. . Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have stabilised - these compounds are very persistent in the environment and significant falls in environmental concentrations may take decades. However, concentrations of the most toxic congener, CB118, are above the EAC in most areas (CB118 can affect neurological, immunological and reproductive processes in marine biota and humans). . Between 1990 and 2007, anthropogenic emissions of cadmium to the atmosphere decreased by 84%, of copper by 57%, of lead by 96%, of zinc by 55% and of mercury by 80%. Emissions of PAHs to the atmosphere have decreased by 84% since 1990. . Metal concentrations in sediments were generally lower in Scotland and the western Irish Sea, but were higher in England and Wales, with a number of industrialised estuaries, such as the Tees, Tyne, Thames, Severn and Mersey (in the case of mercury), showing levels that were high enough to have potential toxicological effects.

. Sediment PAH concentrations were high in the Tees, Tyne and Wear estuaries, for example, and hence potentially toxic to sediment-dwelling organisms. These may take many tens to hundreds of years to degrade. . Trend analysis indicated that there has been a fall in the development of male characteristics in female dogwhelks in some areas due to further regulation preventing the use of tributyltin-based antifouling paints on large seagoing vessels. This decline is expected to continue. . There have been no major marine oil or chemical spills in UK waters since 2005 and the levels of oil in produced water discharged by the offshore oil and gas industry are falling in response to regulatory controls. . Doses of radioactivity received by people and wildlife continue to be well within regulatory limits. . Any problems are usually localised near the source of contaminants rather than affecting whole regions.

The first assessment under the WFD found that: “All Scottish transitional and coastal waterbodies achieved good status for contaminants. In England and Wales, 69% of transitional waters and 91% of coastal waters assessed were at good chemical status. Less than good chemical status was, in the majority of cases, related to TBT contamination. There were few breaches of the contaminant standards at sites in Northern Ireland (UKMMAS, 2010a).” However, consideration is being given under WFD to the introduction of additional standards for contaminants in biota, compliance with which is currently unknown. For the purposes of MSFD, any additional required investment to meet more stringent standards under WFD would serve to improve environmental state.

Historical contamination and deposition in sediments that may become later re-suspended may influence the achievement of GES by 2020. The UK has also been party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) since 2005 which includes a number of drivers for global monitoring and management of POPs. New contaminants were added to the list of POPs in the Convention annexes in 2009 and include a number of pesticide compounds and industrial chemicals. The amendments were brought in to force in August 2010. Objectives include global monitoring of POPs and reduction or the elimination of the release of POPs.

6.8.2 Summary

In general, it is assumed that effective implementation of the WFD, the IPPC Directive and the Existing Substances Regulation and REACH is likely to ensure progress towards achieving MSFD indicators and targets for this descriptor in some problem areas up to 2020 with further improvements likely up to 2030 (due to WFD provisions for time limited derogations from targets up to 2027).

6.8.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

There is high confidence in the assessments of contaminants in most areas due to the availability of extensive datasets and monitoring. However, data are still sparse at the regional scale where there may be too few sampling sites to characterise a region with high confidence and assessing the cumulative impact of the large number of small oil spills is problematic and poorly understood (UKMMAS, 2010a). There is further uncertainty in the CP2 assessments as EACs are not well defined for many contaminants in biota, especially

metals. The assessment is sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of management measures, although there is a good level of confidence about the direction of future change.

6.9 Descriptor 9. Contaminants in Food

There are only two indicators under this descriptor that assess actual levels of contaminants that have been detected, the number of contaminants which have exceeded maximum regulatory levels and the frequency of regulatory levels being exceeded. Contaminants in food are currently managed through the EU Food Hygiene Directive (93/43/EEC) and the EC Directive on maximum permissible limits in certain foodstuffs (EC 1881/2006/EC as amended by 1126/2007) although the designation of bathing waters under the current EC Bathing Water Directives (BWD, 76/160/EEC and 2006/7/EC), the EU Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923/EEC) (to be repealed in 2013 by the Water Framework Directive) and programmes for shellfish hygiene under the Shellfish Hygiene Directive (91/492/EEC) will also contribute some measures.

6.9.1 Contaminants in Food Assessment

Management regimes are in place to protect public health in relation to seafood, ensuring that contaminated fish and shellfish does not reach the market (UKMMAS, 2010a). However, a large proportion of sampling is carried out ‘on-shelf’ resulting in a lack of spatially linked data thus a direct reference to GES is impossible. Contaminants generally include hazardous substances (i.e. chemical elements and compounds and radionuclides) that are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate in fish and shellfish. This descriptor does not consider concentrations of microbiological contaminants or algal toxins.

The UK Food Standards Agency also addresses the possible impact of substances of concern to consumers through the development of “Tolerable Daily Intake” (TDI) levels i.e. the amount of a contaminant that experts recommend can on average be eaten every day over a whole lifetime without causing harm. Surveys of consumers are used to estimate whether the total amounts of food consumed potentially containing substances of concern are likely to exceed the TDI. This approach also addresses substances which are not included in the relevant Community legislation.

These surveys indicate that contaminant levels are generally acceptable and maximum levels specified in the legislation are not being exceeded. However some consumers e.g. children and pregnant women are advised to avoid eating certain species such as shark, marlin and swordfish due to their elevated mercury content.

Whilst there are no GES indicators that relate specifically to microbial contaminants in the marine environment or in fish and seafood, the Climate Change Risk Assessment identified increased marine pathogens and harmful algal blooms with a negative effect on human health as a key potential impact (Defra, 2012c). However, harmful algal blooms are frequently climate-related and not due to anthropogenic pressures and significant improvements have been made in recent years to reduce risks to health from consuming contaminated shellfish and from swimming in contaminated bathing waters through the implementation of the Shellfish Waters Directive and the Bathing Waters Directive. Despite the increased risk, continued effective implementation of these directives or the alternative

arrangements when the Shellfish Waters Directive is repealed in 2013, are likely to continue to manage this risk.

6.9.2 Summary

It is assumed that effective implementation of existing directives such as the EU Food Hygiene Directive (93/43/EEC), the EC Directive on maximum permissible limits in certain foodstuffs (EC 1881/2006/EC as amended by 1126/2007) and the WFD will continue to manage this pressure (either directly or indirectly through the requirement to reduce pressures that result in exceedance of permissible standards) to achieve improvements in environmental state by 2020.

6.9.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

Monitoring of fish and other seafood for human consumption has generally not been directly related to specific geographical areas in UK waters, but based on ‘shelf’ surveys of fish and seafood from retail outlets, making spatial assessments impossible at present. The assessment is sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of management measures, although there is a good level of confidence about the direction of future change.

6.10 Descriptor 10. Marine Litter

The four indicators for marine litter encompass the characteristics of litter (trends, composition, spatial distribution, and where possible, source) and trends in the amount and composition of marine litter that is ingested by marine animals.

6.10.1 Litter Assessment

CP2 reported on the extent of litter which was largely informed by beach surveys carried out by MCS and CSEMP monitoring (UKMMAS, 2010c and d). Generally beach litter levels are high in most regions and are expected to increase. Impacts on species remain unknown, although impacts on intertidal and subtidal habitats are considered to be localised. Despite this, lost fishing tackle, nets and pots from both recreational and commercial activities can nevertheless entangle fauna and still continue to fish effectively, catching demersal fish and invertebrates in a process known as “ghost fishing” (Eno et al., 1996). Marine litter is also pervasive and may remain part of seabed habitats for considerable lengths of time. Potential effects on habitats include localised smothering of seagrass beds and damage to saltmarsh vegetation. The ingestion of plastics by the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) potentially poses a serious threat to this species.

Litter also ranges in scale from small fragments of lost fishing gear (commercial and recreational) and plastic waste through to entire ships. Microscopic plastic particles, which are now known to be widespread in the marine environment as a result of disintegration of discarded plastics, have been shown to contain elevated levels of pollutants such as PCBs, through adsorption to particle surfaces from seawater (e.g. Mato et al., 2001; Thompson et al., 2004), although the potential impacts of this are not yet understood. Larger pieces of litter on the sea bed may also cause a local scouring effect.

Whilst sources of litter are difficult to trace, most of it comes from adjacent land rather than ships or rigs (UKMASS, 2010d). The Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch

programme reported that 35% of litter on beaches came from beach users, 14% from fishing activities and for a further 42% the source could not be identified.

6.10.2 Summary

In summary, we have assumed that, under the current regulatory regime, litter will continue to be a problem accumulating in coastal areas (indicator 10.1.1) and in the water column (indicator 10.1.2). Litter will continue to affect subtidal and intertidal benthic habitats through smothering and abrasion and affect marine mammals, turtles and fish populations through entanglement and ingestion.

6.10.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

There is very low certainty in this assessment due to the lack of information regarding litter. The monitoring data are too sparse to allow a meaningful assessment of changes in quantities of litter either regionally or over time. The assessment is therefore particular sensitive to assumptions about the impacts associated with marine litter and the effectiveness of management measures.

6.11 Descriptor 11. Energy (Noise)

The indicators for noise are solely related to describing the distribution in time and place of two groups of noise sources; loud, low and mid frequency, impulsive sounds and continuous low frequency sounds. There are no indicators assessing possible impacts on marine species, although this impact has been considered under descriptors 1 and 4.

Noise has been assessed in relation to potential noise from construction activities, and an exploration of the potential for using shipping density data as a proxy indicator of underwater noise.

6.11.1 Noise Assessment

Appendix D3 indicates the likely timing of noise from construction of offshore wind farms and illustrates a peak in construction activity between 2015 and 2018. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty in these construction schedules and it is likely that many of them will slip beyond 2020 (see section 4.3.1). Figure D11 illustrates the spatial trends in construction activity over time. The majority of activity will occur in Region 2 with more than one site being developed in any one year, particularly between 2015 and 2018.

A literature review was undertaken to obtain an indication of measured underwater background ambient noise levels at sites around the UK. Only data specific to ambient noise levels were considered, thereby excluding those studies conducted during construction and operational activities of offshore structures (which would include noise from piling activities, for example). The available information tended to be based on relatively short-term observations, typically of 24-hour duration. Noise from specific ships and other identifiable anthropogenic activities are not normally included in background ambient noise measurements. However, the aggregate traffic noise arising form the combined effects of all shipping at long ranges is included. Shipping generally dominates ambient noise at frequencies from 20 to 300 Hz (Robinson et al., 1995).

The limited number of studies that have measured ambient noise levels show a variation in ambient noise between sites and under different conditions. Mean ambient noise levels recorded at North Hoyle and Scroby Sands were approximately 90 and 100 dB re 1μPa2/Hz respectively, within the 20–100 Hz range (Nedwell et al., 2007). The dominant noise level measured within these areas is approximately 115 dB re 1μPa. Similar variations in ambient noise levels between 20 and 200 Hz have been recorded at Strangford Lough (Nedwell and Brooker, 2008). Measured noise levels at this site varied between 105 and 91 dB re 1μPa at distances of 150 and 885 m from the proposed drill site respectively. These measurements were taken during a calm sea with light winds. Noise levels for eight locations in the UK all showed localised peaks in ambient noise levels between the 20 and 300 Hz frequency range (Nedwell et al., 2012). The highest noise level was recorded at the west of Morecambe Bay with values reaching approximately 104 dB re 1μPa around 50 Hz. An average peak noise level, in the 20 to 300 Hz range, was of approximately 80 dB re 1μPa. Nedwell and Edwards (2004) indicate a background noise level measurement of 131 dB re 1μPa at Kooh Sands in East Bay during a period with sea state 2 to 3. A reduced level of 125 dB re 1μPa was observed during calm weather at Redhorn Lake, Poole Harbour. Ambient noise levels recorded in Weymouth Bay were between 92 and 105 dB re 1μPa. This value increased to a peak of 130 dB re 1μPa during the passing of a fishing boat within 100m of the recording device, and to 109 dB re 1μPa when a navel frigate passed within 300m of the device.

The above references were based on relatively short observation periods but indicate how ambient noise level measurements can vary between sites. They also demonstrate how noise levels can increase due to time-limited anthropogenic activities such as passing vessels, and thereby the importance of long-term measurements for the quantification of ambient noise level at a specific site.

When measurements of ambient noise from these locations, and additional underwater noise data obtained from research in the English Channel, were correlated with shipping density, no clear correlation was apparent (Figure 9) (R2 = 0.02). The literature review revealed few examples of underwater noise data that reflected ambient, background noise, unaffected by other construction activities or passing vessels. Furthermore, the underwater noise data that were available were all short-term measurements.

This demonstrates that existing measurements of ambient underwater noise do not correlate will with shipping density data and are insufficient to extrapolate current noise measurements to UK waters on the basis of shipping density. Longer-term measurements of underwater noise from a variety of locations are needed to better explore the potential for a correlation between the two. Ideally, year-long averages would be used to provide a good indication of general ambient noise under different conditions, and seasonal measurements might be needed to explore the impact of underwater noise on certain biological activities (e.g. breeding season). Measurement locations should encompass different water depths (shallow vs deep), different substrate types (e.g. rocky vs sandy), and different distances from major shipping channels. All frequencies should be measured, but the literature review indicates that the majority of shipping noise is captured within the 20–300 Hz frequency range, with smaller vessels emitting higher-frequency noise, and with frequency declining with distance from the source. Such issues are currently under consideration by the Technical Subgroup on Underwater Noise and other forms of energy.

Figure 9. Measurements of background underwater noise and shipping density

6.11.2 Summary

Proposed development of offshore wind farms in UK seas is anticipated to give rise to an order of magnitude increase in the installation of offshore windfarm piles leading to significant increases in the spatial extent and duration of underwater noise. The environmental significance of such increases are unclear.

Shipping movements are likely to increase in the future, but longer-term measurements of background underwater noise are needed to explore the potential for a correlation between background underwater noise and shipping density.

6.11.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

There is significant uncertainty about the timing of offshore wind farm development and the precise location of many of the future arrays. There is a high level of uncertainty concerning the environmental significance of increases in underwater noise. The assessment is sensitive to assumptions about how the indicators may be applied.

7. Ecosystem Services Assessments

This section provides an assessment of the likely changes in human welfare as a result of direct changes in environmental state under the BAU scenario, based on the framework outlined in section 2. The assessment here does not address the potential reduced economic productivity of industries as a direct result of measures to reduce the extent and intensity of their impacts; for example the potential reduction in the income of the fisheries industry from effort reduction measures has not been assessed here. This analysis will be considered by another study on the costs of measures (see Section 1.1). Nor does the scope of this assessment take into account likely changes in welfare as a result of direct changes in economic state; for example the likely impacts of increased investment in and hence development of aquaculture is not included in the baseline. These investments are things that the MSFD may consider adopting policy measures to control. Therefore, including them in the ecosystem services conclusions would result in a circular analysis in terms of its input to MSFD policy making. They are also difficult to predict, as they are subject to prevailing national economic development approach and global conditions (ABPmer & eftec in prep.). Ecosystem services where future technological developments and economic conditions are particularly important factors include aquaculture, and renewable energy technologies such as biofuel, and wind farms.

The potential for the state of the environment to be a limiting factor on such increases has been evaluated (see Section 4.3), and this is noted under a number of the services considered in this section. This assessment of welfare in 2020 and beyond to 2030 relies on the assessments made in Section 6 above and an interpretation of the links identified in Appendix B. These links are discussed below in relation to each group of ecosystem services.

7.1 Fisheries — Fish and Shellfish

There is a direct link here to the assessments made of Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish under GES descriptor 3 (section 6.3), but there are also indirect impacts as a result of changes in state under all descriptors (Table 13). Overall, there are likely to be positive but limited impacts on commercial fisheries from assumed measures under the CFP. As noted in Section 6.3, many of these impacts may not be seen until after 2020 due to time lags in the recovery of stocks. Other positive and negative influences on both commercial and recreational fisheries are summarised in Table 13. New protection measures such as MCZs are likely to provide benefits for fish habitats (for example habitats used specifically as nursery and breeding areas) although will have little direct influence on migratory commercial fish species. There are also likely to be ongoing improvements in water quality that may help to improve fish habitats.

However, there are a number of sources of negative influence. Pressures from developments such as loss of habitat from developments and increased sources of noise will generally be highly localised and managed under the current regulatory regime. The main concern, therefore, is for negative sources of pressure of unknown magnitude (e.g. non-indigenous species and litter) or pressures of unknown influence (and magnitude) where there may be both positive or negative consequences (e.g. climate change).

In summary, the state of fisheries is likely to show an improving overall trend due to measures expected to be implemented in 2015 under the reformed CFP, although there may yet be specific stocks or species of concern, particularly those with unmanaged catch levels.

Table 13. Summary of the known influences on fish stocks

Influences of Unknown Positive Influences Negative Influences (Pressures) Impact . Direct positive impacts on Commercially Exploited Fish . Ongoing overfishing; and Shellfish from reformed . Ongoing introduction of non- CFP (descriptor 3) indigenous species with potential . Improvements in biological to directly affect fisheries and diversity and state of fish indirectly affect fish habitats and habitats as a result of improved prey (descriptor 2); conservation measures and . Localised pressures on . Changes to food webs from regulation of activities (descriptor estuarine fish habitats and unforeseen ecological trophic 1 and 6); migratory routes from tidal range cascade effects and climate . Improvements in state of developments (descriptor 7); change impacts (descriptor eutrophication and contaminants . Negative pressures from 4); mainly under WFD and OSPAR ongoing marine litter of unknown measures (descriptors 5, 8 scale (descriptor 10); and 9); . Negative pressure from sources . Climate change may increase of noise on noise-sensitive fish habitat range for some generalist species influencing schooling species and may increase and spawning behaviours. productivity. Note: Bold text indicates the main pressure on this service

7.2 Aquaculture

Aquaculture is largely dependent on the state of surrounding waters and is therefore influenced by a number of relevant descriptors such as 5, 8 and 9 that relate to water quality. Environmental state under these descriptors is likely to improve, for example, it is considered that current management measures to address eutrophication (GES descriptor 5) under EC directives will help to address concerns and deliver improvements by 2020. Similarly, existing actions to address issues with contaminants (GES descriptors 8 and 9) are considered likely to deliver improvements over the period to 2030. However, the presence of harmful planktonic species and disease may affect both farmed fish and shellfish. The carpet sea squirt Didemnum vexillum is also of particular concern to the aquaculture industry, particularly shellfish aquaculture. Whilst the occurrence of existing problems is well controlled, the arrival of non-indigenous species, either through anthropogenic vectors or climate change, raises concerns. Climate change may result in an increase of harmful algal blooms which cause disruption to the aquaculture industry, and may also cause an increase in microbial pathogens (Pinnegar et al., 2012). Overall, improvements in water quality are likely to facilitate expansion in aquaculture, particularly in England and Wales where there is scope for new inshore development through increased investment in the sector.

7.3 Fertiliser / Feed

The main species of marine algae sourced for fertiliser are from the genus Laminaria. They generally grow on moderately exposed rocky shores where there are few pressures that influence their abundance and harvesting is based on the collection of plants cast ashore during winter storms. Water quality is generally high and turbidity low on exposed coasts and there are few large-scale developments that would significantly reduce their spatial extent at a regional scale. Most kelps have a high degree of recoverability from abrasion and physical disturbance, for example from demersal trawling. Therefore, the state of natural sources of fertiliser are unlikely to change between 2010 and 2020 and beyond.

The availability of fish for aquaculture feed is affected by similar pressures as those for fisheries (see Section 7.1). Expansion of aquaculture may lead to increases in the use of fish for feed (section 4.3.6), increasing pressure on fish populations, although currently a proportion of feed is sourced from non-UK waters. Fish stocks include sandeel, herring, capelin and sprats, for which there is a limited market for human consumption (NEA, 2011). However, these stocks are also a significant source of food for many seabird species and are therefore gaining more attention from fisheries and environmental managers, due to concerns surrounding declining seabird numbers. It is possible that further measures under the reformed CFP may improve the state of feed stocks.

7.4 Biofuels

This relates to both natural and farmed sources of algae for use as a biofuel. Natural sources of marine algae which can potentially be used as feedstock for methane production in the North-east Atlantic are mostly large ‘kelps’ from the genus Laminaria. As noted in Section 7.3, they generally grow on exposed rocky shores where there are few pressures that would influence their abundance. Farmed sources of biofuels are yet to be developed in the UK and by 2020 any developments are likely to be small-scale offshore developments to demonstrate that the technology is feasible (section 4.3.2). Unlike aquaculture, the farming of biofuels is less dependent on clean water standards although nutrient levels and water turbidity remain important factors affecting growth rates. In summary, the value obtained from marine sources of biofuels by 2020 and beyond to 2030, are unlikely to be restricted by changes in environmental state.

7.5 Medicines / Health / Diet

The marine environment contributes to physical health by providing essential components for a healthy diet and plant and animals of medicinal value (either through direct use or by informing the development of synthetic compounds with similar properties). The state of dietary ecosystem services are linked to the state of fisheries (section 7.1) and aquaculture (section 7.2) which are predicted to improve in state by 2020 and beyond to 2030.

Examples of medicinal applications of compounds extracted from marine organisms include use in potential cancer fighting drugs, commercial skin products, detoxification agents, anti- viral compounds, anti-allergy and anti-coagulant agents (Saunders et al., 2010b). Marine organisms that demonstrate a number of these medicinal properties include microbes (anti- microbial and -bacterial activity), sponges (anti-carcinogenic properties), corals and fish. Whilst the majority of these are known from studies in tropical ecosystems there may be many undiscovered compounds in marine organisms in the UK. Given this uncertainty,

pressures on sources of medicines may relate to all components of the marine environment and there are links to the majority of state descriptors (Appendix B). As a consequence, there is insufficient information to provide an assessment of the current state of marine- derived medicines and how this might change by 2020 or 2030.

7.6 Tourism and Recreation

This group of ecosystem services provides a combination of psychological and physical wellbeing through exercise and enjoyment of the marine environment. It includes coastal tourism, marine nature watching (of marine mammals and seabirds), recreational activities and competitive sporting events. These services are influenced by access to the marine environment (through the provision of clean and safe waters), by the presence of healthy marine habitats and species to look at and interact with and by the perceived quality of the marine environment (e.g. seascapes). As a result there are links with almost all of the state descriptors.

Access to the marine environment through the presence of clean and safe waters is high at present (UKMMAS, 2010a) and is likely to be maintained or improved further by 2020 and beyond to 2030) under the WFD and as a consequence of other water quality measures (see Section 6.5 and 6.8). Climate change may influence access to waters through both predicted increases in water temperature and summer temperatures (likely positive impact), providing new and increased market opportunities for tourism and recreation (Defra, 2012c), and increased frequency and magnitude of storm events (likely negative impact). The state of marine habitats is likely to improve due to a number of existing measures including the designation of MCZs. Such protection measures may also provide a focus for nature tourism and non-extractive recreational activities such as scuba diving. It is also worth noting that there are current efforts to increase access to the coast under the Marine and Coastal Access Act. Any future trends in tourism and recreation, e.g. measures of tourism expenditure, may not solely be due to changes in environmental state. Table 14 provides a summary of pressures on tourism and recreation by 2020 and beyond.

Table 14. Summary of the known pressures on tourism and recreation activities

Positive Pressures Negative Pressures Pressures of Unknown Impact . Improvements in biological . Ongoing introduction of non- diversity and state of habitats as indigenous species with potential a result of improved to directly affect marine habitats conservation measures and (descriptor 2); . Changes to food webs from regulation of activities . Localised pressures on estuarine unforeseen ecological trophic (descriptor 1 and 6); habitats from tidal range cascade effects and climate . Indirect positive impacts on developments (descriptor 7); change impacts influencing recreational fisheries from . Negative pressures from ongoing marine mammals and seabirds reformed CFP (descriptor 3) marine litter of unknown scale (descriptor 4); Improvements in state of (descriptor 10); eutrophication and contaminants . Negative pressure from sources mainly under WFD (descriptors 5, of noise on marine mammals 8 and 9). (descriptor 11).

7.7 Knowledge

This category of services includes the welfare derived through marine education and research. Marine education is similar to recreation (see Section 7.6) in that it is dependent

on access to safe and clean waters and the presence of healthy marine habitats and species to study. Research opportunities in the marine environment are not necessarily restricted by such issues and, in fact, related monitoring activities may often be driven by changes in the state of the marine environment rather than the presence of healthy habitats and species as such. However, if the health habitats and species declined by too great an extent, this could be expected to hamper research efforts - there would be a lack of biota to study.

There are also similarities with the provision of medicines in that marine compounds may provide opportunities for ‘blue’ biotechnology industries other than pharmaceuticals discussed in Section 7.5 (e.g. alginates for food production). Investment in research and development activities increased between 2005 and 2010 (UKMMAS, 2010b), however this is likely to have been less dependent on environmental state and more related to economic state and the availability of funding. In summary, due to low dependence on environmental state, the knowledge welfare provided by the marine environment is unlikely to change significantly by 2020 or 2030.

7.8 Aesthetic Benefits / Inspiration

The factors influencing the aesthetic benefits and inspiration derived from the sea are similar to those that influence tourism and recreation, particularly access to the marine environment and the perceived quality of the marine environment (e.g. seascapes). Concepts such as the aesthetic beauty of seascapes are highly subjective and there are links to all descriptors of environmental state. Judgements of seascape quality such as ‘wildness’ or ‘beauty’ are likely to be influenced by cultural factors (de Groot et al. 2005). Indirect access to the marine environment via media such as television documentaries and internet is likely to have increased given recent developments in these technologies. Measure of the aesthetic value provided by the sea may be captured by assessing differences in house prices on the coast compared to those inland. However, predicted increases in sea-level rise associated with climate change may influence this, particularly for properties located in high flood-risk areas. Given the difficulty in defining this category, and the large number of influences, it has not been possible to provide an assessment of likely change in state by 2020 or 2030.

7.9 Spiritual / Cultural Wellbeing

This category represents the value associated with the marine environment for religion, folk lore, cultural and spiritual traditions. There are a number of ‘heritage’ assets associated with the sea bed (such as ship wrecks and the remains of submerged ancient settlements) that represent a record of the cultural history of the UK. An increasing number of such assets are receiving protected status because of their importance to the cultural record (NEA, 2011). Whilst not directly included in the assessments of state in Section 6, the designation of MCZs are likely to increase the services provided under this category. Whilst difficult to measure, spiritual wellbeing is likely to be strongly correlated with the overall state of the marine environment, and with maintaining its condition into the future. In summary, it is likely that services under this heading will improve as a result of planned protection and environmental quality measures (e.g. measures under MCZs and WFD).

7.10 Regulation of Contamination and Pollution

There are two aspects to this service that often complicate discussions surrounding its value: first the demand for the ecosystem process of contamination and pollution regulation (i.e. anthropogenic inputs) and the supply of environmental processes (and components) to store, break down and regulate contaminants. Increases in both demand and supply components for the service tend to result in a concomitant increase in value, although there are likely to be tipping points where demand may reach such high levels that the supply components become deteriorated and can no longer assimilate contaminants.

In relation to demand, there are direct links between this service and state assessments under descriptors 5 and 8 on eutrophication (section 6.5) and contaminants (section 6.8). The assessment made here predicts that demand from these pressures will decrease due to further implementation of measures under WFD to improve the quality of discharges to the marine environment.

The supply of the service may be influenced by a number of pressures. Changes to water flow and flushing rates from the development of tidal range technologies are likely to result in localised decreases in this service. The state of benthic habitats and ecosystem components such as saltmarshes, benthic sediments and bacterio-plankton that store and breakdown contaminants and pollutants are likely to remain unchanged by 2020 or illustrate slight improvement due to new protection measures under MCZs.

7.11 Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration in the marine environment occurs as a result of two principal processes — absorbtion of CO2 in sea water and biological assimilation and transformation of CO2. Ocean circulation plays an important role in facilitating long-term sequestration by transferring carbon sequestered in surface waters into deeper ocean layers. Burial of organic matter within sediments can also lead to long-term carbon sequestration. Thomas et al (2005) present a carbon budget for the North Sea. This demonstrates that the great majority of carbon sequestration occurs as a result of carbon transfer (principally dissolved inorganic carbon) to the deep ocean. Around one-third of the amount sequestered is as a result of CO2 absorbtion via the sea surface. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to lead to increased ocean acidification, with impacts on marine habitats and species. However, beyond a certain point, rising sea temperatures also reduce the amount of CO2 absorbed in sea water. Climate change is therefore likely to reduce the ability of marine waters to sequester carbon through absorbtion of CO2.

A number of ecosystem components assimilate carbon that may subsequently be sequestered including saltmarsh habitat, seagrasses, macroalgae and phytoplankton. However, much of this assimilated carbon is rapidly remineralised, particularly in shallow shelf seas such as the North Sea (Thomas et al, 2005). While pressures on ecosystem elements may change the distribution and abundance of saltmarsh, seagrass and macroalgae (for example, see sections 4.3.9, 6.1 and 6.10.1), this is unlikely to significantly affect overall carbon sequestration in marine waters because these elements make very minor contributions to overall carbon sequestration (Thomas et al, 2005). Changes in phytoplankton abundance and the duration of phytoplankton blooms may change patterns of assimilation but are unlikely to substantially change long-term sequestration of carbon.

7.12 Natural Hazard Protection

Natural features of the marine environment, such as shallow and intertidal sandbanks, hard shorelines and saltmarshes may help to protect against hazards such as flooding and coastal erosion.

The distribution of features such as sandbanks has not been mapped to allow an assessment of spatial impact. The main pressure on natural hazard protection is coastal defences, particularly where ‘coastal squeeze’ is leading to a reduction in the spatial extent of saltmarshes and intertidal areas (section 4.3.7). This pressure is being offset to some extent through the implementation of managed realignment schemes. In particular, under the Habitats Directive, it is a legal requirement to maintain intertidal mudflat and sandflat and saltmarsh habitats in favourable condition and this is driving many current managed realignment schemes. However, outside of Natura 2000 sites, the legal requirements to maintain habitats that provide natural hazard protection may not be as strong.

Hard shorelines are unlikely to be impacted significantly by coastal developments. Although modelling indicated that 3% of low energy littoral rock habitat will be impacted by tidal range technologies it is unlikely that such developments would result in a complete loss of habitat, rather a change to their environment and to habitat quality. Tidal barrages may increase the protection of such habitats upstream of the device by reducing flood risk.

The spatial footprint of impact on saltmarshes from tidal range technologies is small (0.033% affected by emergence regime changes and 0.05% affected by water flow changes). Coastal defences and managed realignment programmes may result in negative impacts through the footprint of construction and/or positive impacts where new habitats are created.

In summary, large changes in this service are not expected between 2010 and 2030 and there may be improvements in habitats if a large number of managed realignment schemes are implemented

7.13 Resilience and Resistance

Resilience and resistance relates to the overall ability of environmental components to absorb or respond to pressures. The concept encompasses qualities such as long-term population stability and habitat integrity. The most significant pressures of concern that may influence resilience and resistance are climate change and seabed and food web disturbance pressures from fishing activity. There are already policies and measures in place to reduce the sources of atmospheric pressures that lead to climate change and some improvement in the management of fishing activities is likely through the reform of CFP (see Section 6.3). Although it is impossible to quantify at present, as the majority of the assessments of state indicate improvements, then it is assumed that resilience and resistance services are likely to improve as well.

8. Conclusions

8.1 Summary of Findings

Table 15 provides a summary of the likely changes in human welfare derived from the marine environment as a result of direct changes in environmental state under the BAU scenario. It is recognised that these projections are subject to a high level of uncertainty and further work is required to develop and apply this framework.

The table does not assess changes in human welfare as a direct result of measures to reduce anthropogenic activity; for example the potential reduction in the value of fisheries from effort reduction measures has not been assessed here. Nor does it take into account likely changes in welfare as a result of direct changes in economic state; for example the likely impacts of increased investment in and hence development of aquaculture has not been considered here, although the potential for such increases on the state of the environment has been assessed.

Overall the table illustrates that the welfare derived from most ecosystem services will increase as a result of improvements in environmental state likely under the BAU scenario. However, this does not mean that ecosystem services are optimal, only that they are changing in a positive direction. Assessments of environmental state against the targets set for each indicator will illustrate whether good environmental status will be reached by 2020 or 2030, and therefore whether ecosystem services are optimal in relation to those targets.

There are a number of areas where there is a low to medium level of confidence in such assessments. Uncertainty in the assessment has arisen throughout a number of different stages in the framework as follows:

. Uncertainty in the ambition and effectiveness of current and planned management measures or drivers, for example the likely measures under the reformed CFP; . Uncertainty in the temporal and spatial scale of environmental pressures, for example changes in oil and gas exploration; locations of military activities, managed realignment and coastal defences; and future technologies for algal biofuel production; . Uncertainty in assessments of state due to poor information on species and habitat distributions (particularly for intertidal habitats) and low levels of confidence in the responses of ecosystem components to pressures (i.e. the sensitivity assessments); . Uncertainty in the consequent impact on welfare due to gaps in our understanding of key ecosystem components that provide services, for example the species in the UK that might provide medicinal value.

Table 15. Summary of changes in environmental welfare under the BAU scenario over the period of the assessment

Ecosystem Change in Welfare from the Marine Environment Confidence in Service By 2020 By 2030 Assessment Small overall increase, although Fisheries there may be specific stocks or Continued increase Medium species of concern Increased capacity due to Aquaculture Continued increase High improvements in water quality No change in the provision of Continued increase in fish Fertiliser / Feed fertilisers, potential increase in the Medium feed state of domestic sources of fish feed No change due to low dependence Biofuels No change High on environmental state Medicines / Unknown Unknown Unknown Health / Diet General overall increase from Tourism, improvements in state and increasing Continued increase High Recreation water temperatures No change due to low dependence Knowledge No change High on environmental state Aesthetic benefits / Unknown Unknown Unknown Inspiration Spiritual / Likely to increase overall but difficult Cultural Continued increase Low to quantify wellbeing Regulation of Increase in state of ecosystem contamination Continued increase Medium components that provide service and pollution Possible increase in state of No change Low Carbon ecosystem components that provide sequestration service but minimal influence on overall carbon sequestration Natural hazard No change in state of ecosystem No change Medium protection components that provide service Resilience and Likely to increase overall but difficult Continued increase Low resistance to quantify Notes: Changes : Green = an increase in the service, White = no change, Grey = unknown Confidence levels: Red = Low, Orange = Medium, Yellow = High, Grey = unknown

8.2 Recommendations

8.2.1 Introduction

This study has developed and applied a DPSIR-based framework for evaluating potential changes in environmental state over time in relation to MSFD descriptors and indicators. These projections of environmental state have then been interpreted in terms of potential changes in the provision of ecosystem services.

The development and application of the framework has necessarily required many simplifying assumptions to be made. These assumptions have been documented throughout the report. The short time scales for developing and applying the framework

100

have also limited the range of indicators for which assessments could be undertaken and the rigour with which the framework could be applied. Many aspects of the framework would therefore benefit from further development and testing. We have therefore highlighted below a number of areas where attention might be usefully focused to improve the use of the framework as a management tool.

8.2.2 Spatial Distribution of MSFD Indicator Features

The work undertaken by JNCC/HBDSEG and CEFAS to develop indicators has identified a very large number of features to be included within the potential indicators, including large numbers of habitats, marine mammals, fish and birds. Accurate information on the spatial distribution of many of these features is currently lacking. Even where comprehensive coverage is available (for example, predictions of broad-scale habitats within UKSeaMap), the evidence base underlying such information layers is limited. While, in the short-term, the framework will have to make use of existing available information, it is important that in the long-term, a strategic programme of data collection is put in place to provide an adequate evidence base (CEFAS & ABPmer, 2010).

8.2.3 Spatial Distribution of Activities

The spatial location of marine infrastructure is, of necessity, well documented. For some mobile activities such as marine aggregate dredging and commercial fishing for vessels >15m, VMS technology provides accurate positional information which can be used to determine where these activities occur. However, for commercial fishing vessels <15m, there is a lack of good spatial data on the location activity, which limits our ability to represent the spatial distribution of fishing pressure. For commercial navigation, while extensive data is collected on vessel movements, this information is not currently publicly available, significantly limiting the development of activity and pressure layers for commercial shipping. There is also a paucity of information on informal recreational activities. For activities such as aquaculture, there is good information on the location of finfish aquaculture sites, but little information on the scale of activity within each site.

Information on the location of activities is fundamental in seeking to spatialize the pressures associated with those activities and a long-term programme of improvement in locational data for socio-economic activities in the marine area needs to be taken forward by Government. This programme might usefully be co-ordinated by MEDIN.

8.2.4 Forecasting of Activities

The study has sought to develop central estimates of future activity based on information available to the study team. We recognise that there is a high level of uncertainty concerning many of these projections and it would be helpful if future projections could adopt a more scenario based approach (e.g. after Viner et al, 2006).

For some activities such as marine biofuels and tidal range development there is currently no existing activity and little or no firm information on proposed locations for future activity. However, there are a number of emerging proposals which may provide a basis for developing projections into the future. Provision should be made for incorporating updated information within the assessment where this becomes available.

101

8.2.5 Refining the Assessment Framework

The framework has been developed making use of previous work on the linkages between activities and specific pressures and on the sensitivity of features to specific pressures. However, there remains scope to continue to refine the framework in the light of knowledge and experience. For example, JNCC is undertaking further work on pressure definitions and pressure-activity linkages which could be used to refine the existing framework.

8.2.6 Understanding Linkages Between Pressures and Impacts

The linkages between some pressures and impacts are poorly understood, for example, the impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals and fish or the impacts of litter at the scale of a regional sea. Given that some of the MSFD descriptors are expressed in terms of pressure rather than impact, it is particularly important that the linkages between these pressures and impacts are sufficiently understood. If pressure targets are too loose, this may lead to unacceptable environmental impacts. Conversely if pressure targets are too stringent, this may impede sustainable development.

8.2.7 Understanding Linkages Between Environmental State and Ecosystem Services Provision

While the study has sought to identify linkages between environmental state and ecosystem service provision, the scientific evidence base underpinning the assessment is weak. The importance of key linkages, for example, the extent to which changes in ecosystem state may or may not significantly affect carbon sequestration, should be explored in more detail.

9. References

ABPmer, 2010. Information for Race Bank Shadow Appropriate Assessment. ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Report No. R.1618 for Centrica Renewable Energy Ltd.

ABPmer, 2002a. Burbo Offshore Wind Farm Coastal Process Study. Report for SeaScape Energy Ltd. ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Report No. R.962.

ABPmer, 2002b. Scarweather Sands Offshore Wind Farm: Coastal Summary of Coastal Process Investigation for Environmental Statement.. Report for Hyder Consulting (for United Utilities). ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Report No. R.985b. December 2002.

ABPmer and eftec. 2011. Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas: Dynamic Baseline Assessment - draft. ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd and eftec. Report prepared for The Crown Estate.

ABPmer and MarLIN, 2010. Accessing and developing the required biophysical datasets and data layers for Marine Protected Areas network planning and wider marine spatial planning purposes. Report No 22 Task 3 Development of a Sensitivity Matrix. September, 2010.

102

Archer, M., Watson, R. and Denton, J.W., 2001. Fish Waste Production in the United Kingdom - The Quantities Produced and Opportunities for Better Utilisation. Seafish Report No. SR537

Armstrong, M. and Holmes, I. 2008. An indicator of sustainability for marine fin-fish stocks around the UK: 1990 - 2008. Report published by Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Lowestoft, UK. March 2010.

ARUP, 2011. Review of the generation costs and deployment potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK. Study Report. June 2011. Prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Barton, E. & J. Heard. 2005. The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom and The Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk PDF MLTN MLTN Maine Land Trust Network (Topsham, ME) _ alien_non_natives.pdf [Accessed 1 April 2011]

Beaumont, N., Townsend, M., Mangi, S., and Austen., M.C. (2006) Marine Biodiversity. An economic valuation. Defra, London.

Beddington, J. and Kinloch, A.J., 2005. Munitions Dumped at Sea: A Literature Review. Imperial College London Consultants.

BERR, 2008. Meeting the Energy Challenge. A White Paper on Nuclear Power. January 2008.

BERR. 2008. UK Renewable Energy Strategy Consultation. Published by BERR. Available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46799.pdf

British Geological Survey (BGS), 2007. The strategic importance of the marine aggregate industry to the UK. Research Report OR/07/019.

BMAPA, 2010. Strength from the depths: Fourth sustainable development report for the British marine aggregate industry

Bromage, N.R., Randall, C.F., Porter, M.J.R., Davies, B., 1995. How do photoperiod, the pineal gland, and circannual rhythms interact to coordinate seasonal reproduction in salmonid fish. In: Goetz, F.W., Thomas, P. (Eds.), Reproductive Physiology of Fish. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium, 2-8 July, 1995, Austin, TX, pp 164-166

BWEA. 2005. Path to Power. June, 2005. Published by the British Wind Energy Association, London.

Cardoso, A.C., Cochrane, S., Doerner, H., Ferreira, J. G., Galgani, F. , Hagebro, C., Hanke, G., Hoepffner, N. , Keizer, P. D., Law, R., Olenin, S., Piet, G. J., Rice, J., Rogers, S.I., Swartenbroux, F., Tasker, M.L. & van de Bund, W. Scientific Support to the European Commission on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Management Group Report, March 2010. Joint Report. Prepared under the Administrative Arrangement between JRC and DG ENV (no 31210 – 2009/2010), the Memorandum of Understanding between the

103

European Commission and ICES managed by DG MARE, and JRC’s own institutional funding

Cefas (2005). Assessment of the significance of changes to the inshore wave regime as a consequence of an offshore wind array. Contract AE1227. Research project final report. September 2005

CEFAS. 2008. Shellfish News 26, Autumn/Winter 2008.

CEFAS. 2009. Shellfish News 28, Autumn/Winter 2009.

CEFAS. 2012. Modelling the risk of the introduction and spread of marine invasive non- native species in the UK and Ireland. Authors Fiona Pearce, Ed Peeler and Paul Stebbing. Project report for E5405W. April 2012 (Draft for comment).

CEFAS & ABPmer, 2010. Marine Survey Needs to Underpin Defra Policy Needs. ME5408: July 2010 Final Report.

CMACS, 2003. A baseline assessment of electromagnetic fields generated by offshore wind farm cables. COWRIE Report EMF-01-2002 66.

Committee on Climate Change, 2011. The Renewable Energy Review.

DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway. 2008. Available from: http://www.europe-aliens.org/ [Accessed 1st April 2011].

DCLG. 2002. Marine Mineral Guidance 1: Extraction by dredging from the English seabed.

DCLG, 2009. National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005- 2020. de Groot, R. D., Ramakrishnan, P., Berg, A. V. D., Kulenthran, T., Muller, S., Pitt, D., Wascher, D., Wijesuriya, G., Amelung, B., Eliezer, N., Gopal, A. R., & Rossler, M. 2005. Cultural and Amenity Services. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current States and Trends. Washington D.C., USA: World Resources Institute (pp. 457-474).

DECC, 2009. Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment, Environmental Report. Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK, 307pp plus appendices. http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/site/scripts/book_info.php?consultationID=16&bookID=11

DECC, 2010a. Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1).

DECC, 2010b. Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity generating Infrastructure (EN-2).

DECC, 2010c. Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4)

104

DECC, 2010d. Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN- 6).

DECC, 2010e. Revised Draft National Policy Statement (NPS) for Renewable Energy Structure (EN-3).

DECC, 2011a. Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). July 2011. London: The Stationery Office. 115p.

DECC, 2011b. Offshore Oil & Gas Licensing 26th Seaward Round. Central English Channel. Appropriate Assessment. May 2011. 92 pp.

DECC, 2011c. Offshore Oil & Gas Licensing 26th Seaward Round. Southern North Sea. Appropriate Assessment. May 2011. 90 pp.

DECC, 2011d. Offshore Oil & Gas Licensing 26th Seaward Round. Eastern Irish Sea. Appropriate Assessment. May 2011. 86 pp.

DECC, 2011e. Offshore Oil & Gas Licensing 26th Seaward Round. Northern Ireland. Appropriate Assessment. May 2011. 122 pp.

DECC, 2011f. Offshore Oil & Gas Licensing 26th Seaward Round. Central North Sea. Appropriate Assessment. May 2011. 22 pp.

DECC, 2011g. Offshore Oil & Gas Licensing 26th Seaward Round. Outer Moray Firth. Appropriate Assessment. May 2011. 108 pp.

DECC, 2011h. Offshore Oil & Gas Licensing 26th Seaward Round. Fair Isle Channel Blocks. Appropriate Assessment. May 2011. 121pp.

DECC, 2011i. UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Report. Future Leasing/Licensing for Offshore Renewable Energy, Offshore Oil & Gas, Hydrocarbon Gas and Carbon Dioxide Storage and Associated Infrastructure. February 2011.

Defra, 2005. Making Space for Water. Taking forward a new Government Strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. First Government response to the autumn 2004 Making Space for Water consultation exercise.

Defra, 2007. Fisheries 2027: a long-term vision for sustainable fisheries.

Defra. 2007b. Explanatory Memorandum to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007. No 1518.

Defra, 2008. The United Kingdom National Strategic Plan for the European Fisheries Fund (2007–2013). Prepared in conformance of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. July 2008. 56p.

Defra, 2010a. UK marine science strategy: shaping supporting, co-ordinating and enabling the delivery of world class marine science for the UK. 2010 - 2025. Published by the

105

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of the Marine Science Co- ordination Committee. Available online: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/science/mscc.htm

Defra, 2010b. Defra’s Evidence Investment Strategy: 2010-2013 and beyond. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Available online http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/how/strategy.htm

Defra, 2011a. Shellfish Waters Directive. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/waterquality/shellfish/index.htm [Accessed: 17/03/11].

Defra, 2011b. Final Policy Position Paper, Descriptor 4. Draft. Version 7 produced 17/1/11.

Defra, 2012a. Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation: UK Initial Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status. March 2012. London, UK: Defra. 148p.

Defra, 2012b. Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation: UK Initial Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status. Impact Assessment. March 2012. London, UK: Defra. 123p plus Annexes.

Defra, 2012c. Climate change risk assessment: Government Report. January 2012. London, UK: Defra. 43pp.

Defra and the Environment Agency. 2010. National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England. Consultation overview.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), 2001. The Communications White Paper: A New Future for Communications.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), 2009. Digital Britain. The Interim Report.

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), 2010. Energy: A strategic Framework for Northern Ireland. September 2010.

DfT. 2012. National Policy Statement for Ports. January 2012. Available athttp://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/national-policy-statement-for-ports/national-policy- statement-ports.pdf [Accessed 25th May 2012]

DfT. 2008a. Maritime Statistics 2007. Department of Transport (published September 2008)

DfT. 2007. Ports Policy Review Interim Report. 19 July 2007. Available online at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/portspolicyreview/portspolicyreviewinterimrep ort

DfT. 2005. Transport Statistics Bulletin: Port Employment and Accident Rates. Department for Transport

DfT. 1998. British Shipping: Charting a New Course. Department for Transport. December 1998.

106

Dunstone, D. 2008. Development of spatial information layers for commercial fishing and shellfishing in UK waters to support strategic siting of offshore wind farms. Cowrie Ltd., 2008. www.offshorewind.co.uk

Endal, H.P., Taranger, G.L., Stefansson, S.O., Hansen, T., 2000. Effects of continuous additional light on growth and sexual maturity in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, reared in sea cages. Aquaculture 191, 337-349pp.

Eno, N.C., MacDonald, D. and Amos, S.C., 1996. A study on the effects of fish (crustacea/mollusca) traps on benthic habitats and species. Final Report to the European Commission DG XIV, 94/076, 43 pp. King’s Lynn: Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee.

Eno, N.C., Clark, R.A., Sanderson, W.G. 1997. Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory. JNCC: Peterborough. 152 pp.

Environment Agency, 2009. Flooding in England: a national assessment of flood risk. Environment Agency.

Ernst and Young. 2005. Review of Current Trends in the Scottish Salmon Farming Industry.

Ernst & Young. 2010. Cost of and financial support for wave, tidal stream and tidal range generation in the UK, October 2010.

European Commission. 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union. Published 25 June 2008.

European Commission. 2009. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Building a sustainable future for aquaculture. A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture. 8th April 2009. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture_processing/aquaculture/strategy_en.htm

European Commission, 2010. Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU).

European Environment Agency. 2007. The DPSIR framework used by the EEA. Available at: http://root-devel.ew.eea.europa.eu/ia2dec/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182 [Accessed 26/05/2011]

Ferreira, J.G., Hawkins, A.J.S., Monteiro, P., Service, M., Moore, H., Gowen, E.R., Lourenco, P., Mellor, A., Nunes, J.P, Pascoe, P.L., Ramos, L., Sequeira, A., Simas, T and Strong, J. 2007. SMILE-Sustainable Mariculture in northern Irish Lough Ecosystems- Assessment of Carrying Capacity for Environmentally Sustainable Shellfish Culture in Carlingford Lough, Strangford Lough, Belfast Lough, Larne Lough and Lough Foyle. Ed. IMAR-Institute of Marine Research. 100pp.

107

Fletcher, S., Saunders, J., Herbert, R., Roberts, C. (2011) Description of the ecosystem services provided by broad-scale habitats and features of conservation importance that are likely to be protected by Marine Protected Areas in the Marine Conservation Zone Project area. A report for Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Foresight. 2010. Technology and Innovation Futures: UK Growth Opportunities for the 2020s. A report by the Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre, Government Office for Science.

FRS. 2008a. Scottish Fish Farms Annual Production Survey, 2007. Fisheries Research Services.

FRS. 2008b. Scottish Shellfish Farm Production Survey 2007. Fisheries Research Services.

Gateway, 2007. Gateway gas storage project. Offshore Environmental Statement - Non Technical Summary. October 2007. Available online at: http://www.gatewaystorage.co.uk/GatewayOffShoreNonTechnicalSummary.pdf

Genesis Oil & Gas Consultants Ltd. 2008. Review of Oil & Gas Pipelines on the UKCS. A report for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. June 2008.

Halcrow Group Ltd, 2009. Receptors vulnerable to coastal erosion. Environment Agency

High Energy Seismic Survey (HESS) Team (1999). Interim operational guidelines for high energy seismic surveys offshore Southern California. Report for the California State Lands Commission and the US Minerals Management Service.

Highley, D.E., Hetherington, L.E., Brown, T.J., Harrison, D.J., Jenkins, G.O. 2007. The strategic importance of the marine aggregate industry to the UK. British Geological Survey Research Report, OR/07/019.

HM Government. 2009a. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: Analytical Annex. Presented to Parliament 15 July 2009. ISBN: 9780108508394

HM Government, 2009b. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy.

HM Government, 2010a . The Marine Energy Action Plan

HM Government, 2010b. UK Marine Policy Statement. A draft for consultation

HM Government, 2010c. Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study Conclusions and Summary Report. October 2010

ICES, 2010. Individual Fish Stock Advice reports. Only available online at: http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/asp/advice.asp?mode=1&Region=- 1&Advice=-1&Species=6&Period=194&titlesearch= [Accessed June 2011]

James, M.A. and Slaski, R. J, 2009. A strategic review of the potential for aquaculture to contribute to the future security of food and non-food products and services in the UK and specifically England.

108

Report commissioned by the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs, 121pp.

James, M.A. and Slaski, R. J, 2006. Appraisal of the opportunity for offshore aquaculture in UK waters. Report of Project FC0934, commissioned by Defra and Seafish from FRM Ltd., 119pp.

Mace, G., Bateman, I.J., Albon, S., Balmford, A., Church, A. and Winn, J., 2009. Conceptual framework and methodology, Report to the UK National Ecosystem Assessment.

Maggs, C., Mineur, F., Bishop, J. and McCollin, T. 2010. Non-natives in MCCIP Annual Report Card 2010-11, MCCIP Science Review, 11pp.

Marine Management Organisation (MMO), 2010. Disposal of waste at sea. Available at: http://marinemanagement.org.uk/works/controls/disposal.htm Accessed: 16/03/11

Marine Management Organisation (MMO), 2010b. UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 2009

Marine Scotland, 2010a. Farmed Fish Escapes 2010. Available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1062/0109986.pdf [Accessed June 2011].

Marine Scotland, 2011b. Blue Seas - Green Energy. A Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters. Part A: The Plan.

Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kahnehiro, H., Ohtake, C. and Kaminuma, T., 2001. Plastic Resin Pellets as a Transport Medium for Toxic Chemicals in the Marine Environment. Environmental Science and Technology 35: 318-324.

MCCIP, 2010. Marine Climate Change Impacts Annual Report Card 2010–2011 (Eds Baxter, J.M, Buckley, P.J. and Wallace, C.J.) Summary Report, MCCIP, Lowestoft, 12 pages.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Chapter 2: Ecosystems and Their Services. Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ [Accessed 1 April 2011]. Other reports: http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

MOD, 2003. Delivering Security in a Changing World. Defence White Paper.

MOD, 2007. Future Maritime Operational Concept.

MOD. 2008. Ministry of Defence Sustainable Development Strategy.

MRAG Ltd, Poseidon, IFM, Lamans s.a., IEEP and Oceanic Developpement, 2010a. Environmental, economic, social and governance impacts of the STATUS QUO scenario for the 2012 revision of the Common Fisheries Policy. Final Report, March 2010. Published 13/07/2011.

109

MRAG Ltd, Poseidon, IFM, Lamans s.a., IEEP and Oceanic Developpement, 2010b. Environmental, economic, social and governance impacts of the CFP 2012 revision — Impact Assessment Phase II. Final Report, July 2010. Published 13/07/2011.

Muir, J.F., 1998. Offshore aquaculture: principles and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the workshop on offshore technologies for aquaculture. Biran, A.B. (ed.), Technion, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Haifa, 13-16 October 1998, pp 92-103.

Nedwell, J.R. & Brooker, A.G. 2008. Cowrie Seagen-07-07.

Nedwell, J.R. & Edwards, B. 2004. A review of measurements of underwater man-made noise carried out by subacoustech Ltd 1993-2003.

Nedwell, J.R., Parvin, S.J., Edwards, B., Workman, R., Brooker, A.G. & Kynoch, J.E., 2007. Measurement and interpretation of underwater noise during construction and operation of offshore windfarms in UK waters. Subacoustech Report No. 544R0738 for COWRIE Ltd, December 2007.

Nedwell et al (2012) Underwater Noise impact Modelling in Support of the Triton Knoll Offshoe Wind Farm Development. Subacoustech Environmental Report No. E220R0127.

Nehls, G., Betke, K., Eckelmann, S. & Ros, M., 2007. Assessment and costs of potential engineering solutions for the mitigation of the impacts of underwater noise arising from the construction of offshore windfarms. COWRIE ENG-01-2007.

ODPM, 2004. National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2001- 2016. UK, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Oil and Gas UK, 2008. 2008 Economic Report.

ONS. 2009a. United Kingdom National Accounts: The Blue Book. 2009 Edition 06 August 2009. Published by Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-57611-7 and ISSN 0267-8691. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/BB09.pdf

ONS. 2009b. National population projections, 2008-based. Report by the Office of National Statistics, 21 October 2009.

OSPAR, 2010. QSR 2010.

OSPAR Commission, 2005. Overview of Past Dumping at Sea of Chemical Weapons and Munitions in the OSPAR Maritime Area. Biodiversity Series.

Oxford Economics. 2009. The economic contribution of ports to the UK economy. March 2009. Available online at: http://www.britishports.org.uk/files/Economic%20impact%20of%20ports%209%20March.pdf

Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010. Severn Tidal Power SEA Environmental Report. Report for DECC, May 2010.

110

Parvin S. J., Workman R., Bourke P. and Nedwell J. R., 2005. Assessment of tidal current turbine noise at the Lynmouth site and predicted impact of underwater noise at Strangford Lough, Subacoustech Ltd, Report 628 R 0102.

Pinnegar, J.K., Viner, D., Hadley, D., Dye, S., Harris, M., Berkhouf, F. and Simpson, M. 2006. Alternative futures for marine ecosystems; technical report. Cefas, Lowestoft. 109 pages.

Pinnegar, J., Watt, T. & Kennedy, K. 2012. Climate change risk assessment for the marine and fisheries sector. January 2012. UK 2012 Climate change risk assessment. London, UK: Defra. 203 pages.

Porter, M.J.R., Duncan, N.J., Mitchell, D., Bromage, N.R., 1999. The use of cage lighting to reduce plasma melatonin in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and its effects on the inhibition of grilsing. Aquaculture 176, 237-244pp.

Pugh, D. 2008. Socio-economic indicators of marine-related activities in the UK economy. Published by The Crown Estate. Printed by The Stationery Office ISBN: 978-1-906410-01- 8. March 2008. 68 pages.

Richards, S.D., Harland, E.J. and Jones, S.A.S, 2007. Underwater Noise Study Supporting Scottish Executive Strategic Environmental Assessment for Marine Renewables. QINETIQ/06/02215/2

Robinson, W.J., Greene, C.R. Jr., Malme, C.I., and Thomson, D.H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA. 576p.

Rogers, S., M. Casini, P. Cury, M. Heath, X. Irigoien, H. Kuosa, M. Scheidat, H. Skov, K. Stergiou, V. Trenkel, J. Wikner and O. Yunev. 2010. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Task Group 4 Report: Food webs. April 2010.

Saunders, J., Tinch, R., and Hull, S. (2010a). Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas: An Ecosystem Services Framework. The Crown Estate, 54 pages, March 2010. ISBN: 978-1- 906410-15-5.

Saunders, J., Tinch, R., Ozdemiroglu, E. and Hull, S. (2010b). Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas: Initial Static Baseline Assessment. The Crown Estate, 53 pages, July 2010. ISBN: 978-1-906410-17-9.

Scottish Government, 2009a. A Fresh Start. The renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture. A report by Marine Scotland for the Scottish Government.

Scottish Government, 2009b. Renewables Action Plan. Renewable Energy Division. June 2009.

Scottish Government, 2009c. National Planning Framework for Scotland 2.

Scottish Government, 2011. Scotland’s National Marine Plan: Pre-consultation Draft.

111

SDC. 2007. Turning the Tide. Tidal Power in the UK. Sustainable Development Commission.

UKERC. 2008. ‘UKERC Marine (Wave and Tidal Current) Renewable Energy Technology Roadmap, Energy Research Centre Marine (Wave and Tidal Current)’, June, Report by UK Energy Research Centre, Edinburgh.

Seafish. 2006. Towards a national development strategy for shellfish in England.

SEMPTA. 2007. Sector Skills Agreement for the UK Marine Sector. May 2007.

Senergy, 2010. Competent Person's Report. Conducted for Dana Petroleum plc. September 2010. 216 pp.

Smayda, T.J., 2006. Harmful Algal Bloom Communities in Scottish Coastal Waters: Relationship to Fish Farming and Regional Comparisons - A Review, Natural Scotland.

Swedish Environment Protection Agency (Swedish EPA) (2008) The economic value of ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak: Existing information and gaps of knowledge. Report No. 5874. December 2008. ISBN 978-91-620-5874-6

TEEB (2009) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers - Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature. ISBN 978-3-9813410-0-3

The Crown Estate (TCE), 2008. Marine Aggregate Reserves: The Crown Estate Licences - as at 1 September 2008. Available online: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/aggregate_reserves_september_2008.pdf

Thomas H, Bozec Y, de Baar HJW., Elkalay K, Frankignoulle M, Schiettecatte L-S, Kattner G & Borges AV, 2005. The carbon budget of the North Sea. Biogeosciences, 2, 87- 96.

Thompson, R.C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R.P., Davis, A., Rowland, S.J., John, A.W.G., McGonigle, D., and Russell, A.E., 2004. Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic? Science 304: 838.

Tillin, H.M., Hull, S.C., Tyler-Walters, H., 2010. Development of a Sensitivity Matrix (pressures-MCZ/MPA features). Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from ABPmer, Southampton and the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK. .Defra Contract No. MB0102 Task 3A, Report No. 22.

Tougaard, J., Madsen, P.T. and Wahlberg, M., 2008. Underwater noise from construction and operation of offshore wind farms. Bioacoustics 17 (1-3), 143-146pp

Transport Scotland, 2009. Strategic Transport Projects Review. Final report. October 2009.

Turner, K. et al. 2009. An Introduction to Socio-economic Assessment within a Marine Strategy Framework CSERGE. UEA.

112

Turner, K. et al. 2010. An introduction to socio-economic assessment within a marine strategy framework. Defra.

UKMMAS. 2010a. Charting Progress 2. Published by Defra on behalf of UKMMAS.

UKMMAS. 2010b. Charting Progress 2: Productive Seas Evidence Group Feeder Report. Published by Defra on behalf of UKMMAS.

UKMMAS. 2010c. Charting Progress 2: Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group Feeder Report. Published by Defra on behalf of UKMMAS.

UKMMAS. 2010d. Charting Progress 2: Clean and Safe Seas Evidence Group Feeder Report. Published by Defra on behalf of UKMMAS.

Viner, D., Pinnegar, J.K. and Sheard, N. 2006. Alternative futures for marine ecosystems; summary report. School of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia. 20 pp.

Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), 2004. . Interim Marine Aggregates Dredging Policy.

WAG, 2004. Catching the Wave - Overview.

WAG, 2008a. ‘Renewable Energy Route Map for Wales consultation on way forward to a leaner, greener and cleaner Wales’, February, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff.

WAG, 2008b. Coastal Tourism Strategy. September 2008.

WAG, 2010. Welsh Assembly Government Consultation Document: Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management: Development of a National Strategy for Wales. July 2010.

WGESA. 2010. Socio-economic analysis for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: a guidance document.

113

Appendices

Appendix A

Different Classifications of Ecosystem Services

Appendix A. Different Classifications of Ecosystem Services

Swedish Beaumont N J et al Millennium Assessment National Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystem Services of MPAs Valuing Change in UK Seas Environment Protection Agency (2006) (2006) (Mace et al 2009) (Fletcher et al, 2011) (Saunders et al, 2010) Service (2008) Value of MPAs for Marine Value of the Baltic Sea and Planning of Resources in the Marine Marine Biodiversity in the UK Global Value of the Environment Global Value of the Environment Biodiversity Skaggerak - Planning Environment Food (fisheries, aquaculture, wild Food provision Food Fish (service): food (good) Food Food (Fisheries and Aquaculture) harvesting) Raw materials (Fertiliser/Feed, Raw materials Fibre Raw materials (salt & ornamental) Fibre Cooling water, marine aggregates, salt, ornamental) Wild species diversity (service) Provisioning Biochemicals/Medicines Medicines Biochemicals / Pharmaceuticals Medicines (bioprospecting...) services Genetic resources Genetic resources Ornamental resources (shells) Ornamental resources (shells) Energy (Oil and Gas, Renewables, Fuel Energy (good) Energy (biofuels only) Energy (Oil and Gas, Renewables) Biofuels) Sea space and sea bed (maritime Space and Waterways transport, cables, pipelines, CCS) Avoidance of contamination and Bioremediation of waste Bioremediation of waste Waste breakdown (service) Bioremediation of waste pollution Water purification/detoxification Water purification/detoxification Detoxification (service) Regulation of pollution (Mitigation of eutrophication) Regulating Climate regulation (service), Gas and climate regulation Air quality and Climate regulation Climate & Atmospheric regulation Carbon sequestration services Equable climate (good) Erosion control / Sediment retention Erosion control Erosion control (good) Disturbance prevention and & stability alleviation Water regulation and Natural hazard Natural hazard protection Flood control (good) Natural hazard protection Natural hazard protection protection (storms/flooding) Biogeochemical cycling (nutrients, Biogeochemical cycling (nutrients, Nutrient cycling oxygen, water) oxygen, water) Primary production Primary production Supporting Food web dynamics Diversity Biologically mediated habitat Habitat Habitat Resilience and resistance Environmental Resilience Resilience Wild species diversity; Meaningful Tourism, Recreation / Sport, Nature Tourism, Recreation / Sport, Nature Leisure/ Recreation Recreation/Tourism Recreation places watching watching Cognitive value Research and Education Science & Education Research and Education Aesthetic values Aesthetic benefits Scenery Aesthetic benefits Cultural Cultural heritage, Inspiration, Legacy Cultural heritage and identity Cultural heritage, Inspiration of the Sea Spiritual and religious values Spiritual/cultural wellbeing Spiritual/cultural wellbeing Social relations

Appendix B

Links Between GES and Ecosystem Services

APPENDIX B. GES vs Ecosystem Services This table identifies the links between assessments of the state of the environment (as applied to each descriptor and its suite of indicators) and the state of ecosystem services. For example, if the BAU scenario assessment indicated a change in the state of indicator 7.1.1 (extent of area affected by permanent alterations to hydrography), what ecosystem services would be likely affected. Although all ecosystem services can be seen to be affected by this change, it is often a discrete set of marine components (e.g. species and habitats) that provide the individual ecosystem service benefits, e.g. the saltmarsh habitats that provide natural hazard protection.

Ecosystem Service DPSIR Fisheries fish Aquaculture Fertiliser (e.g. Biofuels Medicines / Tourism, Knowledge Aesthetic Spiritual/ Regulation of Carbon Natural hazard Resilience and and shellfish seaweeds)/ Health / Diet Recreation, benefits / cultural contamination sequestration protection resistance Feed (e.g.fish, Sport Inspiration wellbeing and pollution Descriptor Criteria Indicator bait) GES 1 Biological diversity 1.1 Species distribution 1.1.1 Distributional range S Species and Status of NA None of NA biofuels Influence on wild Status may Presence of Status may Status may Status may Status may Status may The status of see tab for draft list of population level plankton could the draft list of are mainly species influence and changes in influence indicate indicate indicate indicate all descriptors relevant species and impacts covered indicate an species are cultured rare sourced for species and the status of distinctive impacts on impacts on the impacts on the impacts on the will infer some habitats under GES 3 impact on likely to instances medicinal habitats habitats and habitats and distinctive service, e.g. service, e.g. service, e.g. changes in the 1.1.2 Distributional pattern within the latter, S shellfish significantly where wild purposes but we enjoyed for species (+/) species habitats and the loss of the loss of the loss of service where appropriate production contribute to stocks are need to identify tourism and may influence enjoyed for species habitats and species that habitats that 1.1.3 Area covered by the species (for S fertiliser or feed sourced for if any of the recreation (e.g. opportunities to aesthetic enjoyed for species that sequester provide natural sessile/benthic species) products (these biofuels species in the diving, wildlife gain benefits spiritual / regulate carbon hazard 1.2 Population size 1.2.1 Population abundance and/or S are draft list are watching) knowledge, cultural contaminants, protection, biomass, as appropriate Ascophyllum, used in this way e.g. loss of wellbeing particularly such as 1.3 Population condition 1.3.1 Population demographic S Laminaria species/ benthic saltmarsh characteristics (e.g. body size or age habitats habitats or class structure, sex ratio, fecundity equates to a possibly rates, survival/ mortality rates) loss of elements of knowledge, the water 1.3.2 Population genetic structure, where S Impacts on Impacts on Impacts on whereas column, e.g. appropriate genetic diversity genetic genetic diversity increases in bacterio diversity abundances of plankton 1.4 Habitat distribution 1.4.1 Distributional range S Habitat status Status of Habitat and NA see Habitat status rare species 1.4.2 Distributional pattern S may influence habitats (e.g. ecosystem above may influence may open up 1.5 Habitat extent 1.5.1 Habitat area S fish habitat and estuarine and status may species opportunities 1.5.2 Habitat volume, where relevant S hence fisheries coastal water) influence the sourced for for new 1.6 Habitat condition 1.6.1 Condition of the typical species and S could indicate provisioning of medicinal learning communities impacts on food fertiliser and purposes 1.6.2 Relative abundance and/or biomass, S for shellfish feed as appropriate production 1.6.3 Physical, hydrological and chemical S conditions 1.7 Ecosystem structure 1.7.1 Composition and relative proportions S As above of ecosystem components (habitats and species) GES 2 Non-indigenous 2.1 Abundance and state 2.1.1 P Few UK Possible Nonindigenous NA see Nonindigenous Direct impact As above; Status may Status may Status may Status may Status may species of nonindigenous Trends in abundance, temporal examples of impacts, e.g. species may above species may on habitats and although the indicate indicate indicate indicate indicate species, in particular occurrence and spatial distribution in impacts on through the influence the influence the species appearance of impacts on impacts on impacts on the impacts on the impacts on the invasive species the wild of nonindigenous species fisheries (e.g. introduction of provisioning of provisioning of targeted and new species is habitats and habitats and service (as service (as service (as 2.2 Environmental impact I through direct new shellfish fertiliser and wild medicines enjoyed for interpreted species species above) above) above) of invasive non Ratio between invasive non competition and pathogens/ feed (although tourism and here as a targeted and targeted and indigenous species 2.2.1 indigenous species and native species disease). See parasites and few obvious recreation benefit (offset enjoyed for enjoyed for I also indirect fish diseases; examples) by the loss of aesthetic spiritual / impacts through and competing species benefits cultural GES 1 and 4 shellfish such as displaced) wellbeing Crassostrea Impacts of nonindigenous species at gigas on native the level of species, habitats and Ostrea edulis 2.2.2 ecosystems 3.1 Level of pressure of the Fishing mortality (F), ascompared to P Direct influence Status of Status of NA see Status of Status of As above; Status of Status of Status of shell The status of The status of GES 3 Fisheries fishing activity 3.1.1 Fmsy on provisioning fisheries may fisheries may above fisheries may commercial particularly with commercial commercial fisheries may fisheries are fisheries are or Catch/biomass ratio (where F is P although note influence the influence the influence the fisheries is respect to the fisheries may fisheries may indicate unlikely to have unlikely to have 3.1.2 not available) that the value of market for provisioning of presence of fish likely to loss of stocks influence influence impacts on the a major a major 3.2 Reproductive capacity Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB), as S the service may aquaculture feed for the in the human indicate the or the aesthetic fishing cultures regulation of influence on influence on of the stock 3.2.1 compared to SSBmsy increase as (e.g. demand aquaculture diet which may health of appearance of benefits and specifically and contaminants carbon the provision of 3.2.2 or Biomass indices S stocks become and price), but industry therefore recreational new stocks inspiration the more and pollutants, sequestration natural hazard 3.3 Population age and S rarer. unlikely to have influence fisheries; poor through climate linked to fishing general particularly in protection size distribution Proportion of fish larger than the a major physical health, fish stocks are change and its culture spiritual estuaries and 3.3.1 mean size of first sexual maturation influence on although this likely to result wellbeing lochs Mean maximum length across all S provisioning of may be in a decrease gained from species found in research vessel the service supplemented/ in participation the awareness 3.3.2 surveys replaced by and hence of healthy 95 % percentile of the fish length S cultured or value of stocks and distribution observed in research imported fish recreational good 3.3.3 vessel surveys where wild fishing governance of or Size at first sexual maturation, S stocks have those stocks which may reflect the extent of disappeared undesirable genetic effects of 3.3.4 exploitation Ecosystem Service DPSIR Fisheries fish Aquaculture Fertiliser (e.g. Biofuels Medicines / Tourism, Knowledge Aesthetic Spiritual/ Regulation of Carbon Natural hazard Resilience and and shellfish seaweeds)/ Health / Diet Recreation, benefits / cultural contamination sequestration protection resistance Feed (e.g.fish, Sport Inspiration wellbeing and pollution Descriptor Criteria Indicator bait) 4.1 Productivity (production 4.1.1 Performance of key predator species S These indicators Fish farming Changes to food NA see Changes to food Changes to Changes in Changes to Changes to Status may Status may Food webs The status of per unit biomass) of using their production per unit may provide dependent on webs may above webs may food webs may food webs may food webs may food webs may indicate indicate unlikely to all descriptors key species or trophic biomass (productivity) useful external food indirectly affect indirectly affect indirectly affect influence indirectly affect indirectly affect impacts on the impacts on the greatly will infer some groups information on source (see the abundance the abundance leisure and opportunities aesthetic spiritual service, e.g. service, e.g. influence the changes in the GES 4 Food webs the health of fisheries) of species and of medicinal recreation for new benefits but wellbeing but the loss of food the loss of food provision of service 4.2 Proportion of selected 4.2.1 Large fish (by weight) S fisheries although influence the species but activities (esp. knowledge there is unlikely there is unlikely web elements web elements natural hazard species at the top of depending on shellfish provisioning of there is unlikely fishing) but to be much to be much that regulate that sequester protection food webs the selected aquaculture fertiliser and to be much there is unlikely evidence on evidence on contaminants carbon 4.3 Abundance/ distribution 4.3.1 Abundance trends of functionally S species dependent on feed. See also evidence on to be much such links such links of key trophic important selected groups/species existing food GES 1 such links evidence on groups/species webs such links

5.1 Nutrients levels 5.1.1 Nutrient concentration in the water S May indicate Nutrients may Eutrophication Impacts akin to Eutrophication Direct impact Eutrophication Status may Status may Status may Status may Eutrophication GES 5 Eutrophication column potential for influence water may influence aquaculture may influence on habitats and may influence indicate indicate indicate areas indicate could smother 5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and S impacts on quality and the provisioning where biofuels the provisioning species opportunities to impacts on impacts on where there is impacts on saltmarsh phosphorus), where appropriate fisheries (+ve or therefore of species (algae) are of species targeted and gain habitats and spiritual demand for the those features species that 5.2 Direct effects of 5.2.1 Chlorophyll concentration in the water I ve) through shellfish sourced for cultured at sea sourced for enjoyed for knowledge, species wellbeing from service (e.g. provide natural nutrient enrichment column changes in production and fertiliser and influence on medicinal / tourism and e.g. loss of enjoyed for changes in the macroalgae hazard 5.2.2 Water transparency related to I water quality quality feed water quality health purposes recreation, species and aesthetic quality of the and plankton) protection, increase in suspended algae, where and biofouling affecting both ecosystems; benefits, marine that sequester especially relevant affecting the understanding affecting both environment carbon species such 5.2.3 Abundance of opportunistic I Likelihood of Direct impacts production provisioning of responses to the as Salicornia macroalgae species shifts on shellfish levels the service and pressures provisioning of 5.2.4 Species shift in floristic composition I may affect production from the value of it the service such as diatom to flagellate ratio, fisheries directly toxic algal (less to enjoy) benthic to pelagic shifts, as well as or indirectly blooms and and the value bloom events of nuisance/toxic algal through prey fouling of fish of it (lower blooms (e.g. cyanobacteria) caused tanks by quality of by human activities macroalgae enjoyment)

5.3 Indirect effects of 5.3.1 Abundance of perennial seaweeds IMay indicate NA nutrient enrichment and seagrasses (e.g. fucoids, potential for eelgrass and Neptune grass) impacts on adversely impacted by decrease in fisheries through water transparency changes in 5.3.2 Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes due to I water quality Change in water increased organic matter quality may decomposition and size of the area impact shellfish concerned production

6.1 Physical damage, 6.1.1 Type, abundance, biomass and areal S Status of sea Aquaculture Substrate NA culture of Substrate Possible The status of Possible Status may Status may Sea floor Status may having regard to extent of relevant biogenic substrate floor integrity generally not damage may biofuels damage may impacts on sea floor impacts on indicate indicate integrity could indicate substrate and benthic dependent on impact habitat unlikely to be impact habitat activities linked integrity may distinctive impacts on impacts on the influence impacts on GES 6 Sea floor integrity characteristics community may sea floor of species (e.g. dependent on of species (e.g. to sea floor influence species and spiritual service, e.g. carbon cycling features that 6.1.2 Extent of the seabed significantly I indicate impacts integrity fish) sourced for sea floor fish) sourced for integrity, e.g. opportunities to habitats that wellbeing from the loss of and burial provide natural affected by human activities for the on fisheries fertiliser and integrity medicines diving on gain we derived changes in the habitats and hazard different substrate types habitat, e.g. feed biogenic knowledge aesthetic quality of the species that protection 6.2 Condition of benthic 6.2.1 Presence of particularly sensitive S breeding areas Intertidal Status of habitats; benefits from, marine regulate community and/or tolerant species and benthic prey impacts may benthic recreational e.g. diverse environment contaminants 6.2.2 Multimetric indexes assessing benthicS influence community may fisheries linked biogenic and distinctive community condition and functionality, availability of indicate to benthic habitats; features such as species diversity and e.g. worm bait influences on habitats seamounts; richness, proportion of opportunistic to medicinal coral gardens sensitive species species, e.g. 6.2.3 Proportion of biomass or number of S sponges individuals in the macrobenthos above some specified length/size 6.2.4 Parameters describing the S characteristics (shape, slope and intercept) of the size spectrum of the benthic community Ecosystem Service DPSIR Fisheries fish Aquaculture Fertiliser (e.g. Biofuels Medicines / Tourism, Knowledge Aesthetic Spiritual/ Regulation of Carbon Natural hazard Resilience and and shellfish seaweeds)/ Health / Diet Recreation, benefits / cultural contamination sequestration protection resistance Feed (e.g.fish, Sport Inspiration wellbeing and pollution Descriptor Criteria Indicator bait) 7.1 Spatial characterisation 7.1.1 Extent of area affected by permanent I Status of May influence Status of May influence Status of Changes may Changes in Changes may Changes may Status may Status may Status may The status of of permanent alterations hydrography flushing rates of hydrography water hydrography have an impact hydrography have an impact have an impact indicate indicate indicate all descriptors GES 7 Hydrography alterations may indicate estuaries and may indicate movement in may indicate on habitats and may influence on habitats and on habitats and impacts on the impacts on the impacts on the will infer some 7.2 Impact of permanent 7.2.1 Spatial extent of habitats affected by I impacts on lochs where impacts on estuaries and impacts on species opportunities to species species service, e.g. service, e.g. service, e.g. changes in the hydrographical the permanent alteration fisheries habitat, aquaculture is species sourced lochs where species sourced targeted and gain enjoyed for enjoyed for changes in changes in the changes in the service changes e.g. breeding present thereby for fertiliser and biofuels are for medicinal enjoyed for knowledge, aesthetic spiritual / water flushing extent of extent of 7.2.2 Changes in habitats, in particular the I areas and affecting feed cultured health purposes tourism and e.g. loss of benefits cultural rates of features that features that functions provided (e.g. spawning, benthic prey dispersion of recreation species and wellbeing estuaries sequester provide natural breeding and feeding areas and fish farm wastes ecosystems, carbon hazard migration routes of fish, birds and and water understanding protection mammals), due to altered quality responses to hydrographical conditions pressures 8.1 Concentration of 8.1.1 Concentration of contaminants in the P May indicate Contaminants May indicate Contaminants May indicate May indicate Incidences of Status may Status may Status will Status may Status may contaminants relevant matrix (such as biota, potential for may influence potential for may influence potential for impact on contamination indicate indicate indicate direct indicate indicate GES 8 Contaminants sediment and water) impacts on water quality impacts on water quality impacts on habitats and may influence impacts on impacts on link to areas impacts on impacts on the 8.2 Effects of contaminants 8.2.1 Levels of pollution effects on the I fisheries and therefore species sourced and therefore species sourced species opportunities to habitats and spiritual where there is those features service, e.g. ecosystem components concerned, fish and shellfish for fertiliser and production of for medicinal targeted and gain species wellbeing from demand for the (e.g. changes in the having regard to the selected production and feed algal biofuels health purposes enjoyed for knowledge, enjoyed for changes in the service macroalgae extent of biological processes and taxonomic quality tourism and e.g. loss of aesthetic quality of the and plankton) features that groups where a cause/effect recreation, species and benefits, marine that sequester provide natural relationship has been established and affecting both ecosystems, affecting both environment carbon hazard needs to be monitored the understanding the protection such provisioning of responses to provisioning of as saltmarshes 8.2.2 Occurrence, origin (where possible), I the service and pressures the service extent of significant acute pollution the value of it (less to enjoy) events (e.g. slicks from oil and oil and the value products) and their impact on biota of it (lower physically affected by this pollution quality of enjoyment) GES 9 Contaminants in 9.1 Levels, number and 9.1.1 Actual levels of contaminants that P Direct impact on Likely to indicate NA NA May be an Direct impact As above Impacts on Impacts on Status may NA NA food frequency of have been detected and number of ability to market impacts on impact on ability on recreational food quality food quality indicate areas contaminants contaminants which have exceeded fish and shellfish cultured to market fisheries may impact on may impact on where there is maximum regulatory levels (i.e. ES value) seafood as well species sourced aesthetic spiritual / demand for the as wild food for medicinal benefits cultural service 9.1.2 Frequency of regulatory levels being P purposes wellbeing exceeded GES 10 Marine litter 10.1 Characteristics of litter 10.1.1 Trends in the amount of litter washed P May indicate Litter unlikely to May indicate Litter unlikely May indicate Direct impact Incidences of Status may Status may Status may Litter is unlikely Litter is unlikely in the marine and ashore and/or deposited on direct impacts have a major direct impacts to have a direct impacts on habitats litter may indicate indicate indicate areas to have a to have a coastal environment coastlines, including analysis of its on fish species, impact on on species major impact on species (e.g. beaches) influence impacts on impacts on where there is direct impact direct impact composition, spatial distribution and, although aquaculture sourced for on biofuel sourced for and species opportunities to habitats and spiritual demand for the on the service on the service where possible, source information on a provisioning fertiliser and production medicinal targeted and gain species wellbeing from service or indirectly on or indirectly on 10.1.2 Trends in the amount of litter in the P link here is likely feed, although purposes, enjoyed for knowledge, enjoyed for changes in the features that features that water column (including floating at the to be poor information on a although tourism and e.g. loss of aesthetic quality of the provide the provide the surface) and deposited on the sea link here is likely information on a recreation, species and benefits, marine service service floor, including analysis of its to be poor link here is likely affecting both ecosystems, affecting both environment composition, spatial distribution and, to be poor the understanding the where possible, source provisioning of responses to provisioning of 10.1.3 Trends in the amount, distribution and,P the service and pressures the service and where possible, composition of micro the value of it the value of it particles (in particular micro plastics)

10.2 Impacts of litter on 10.2.1 Trends in the amount and compositionI marine life of litter ingested by marine animals

GES 11 Energy (noise) 11.1 Distribution in time and 11.1.1 Proportion of days and their P Impacts on Possible Impacts on NA Noise sensitive Noise levels Noise may Noise levels Status may Noise in Noise is Noise is place of loud, low and distribution within a calendar year over noisesensitive impacts on noisesensitive species are may influence influence may influence indicate unlikely to have unlikely to have unlikely to have mid frequency areas of a determined surface, as well fish species cultured fish fish species unlikely to sensitive opportunities to sensitive impacts on a major impact a direct impact a direct impact impulsive sounds as their spatial distribution, in which through through through contribute species gain species spiritual on the service on the service on the service anthropogenic sound sources exceed mortality and mortality but mortality and significantly to targeted for knowledge, enjoyed for wellbeing from or indirectly on or indirectly on levels that are likely to entail displacement; unlikely that displacement; medicines tourism, e.g. e.g. loss of aethestic changes in the features that features that significant impact on marine animals interference with noise sources of interference with although there wildlife species and benefits quality of the provide the provide the the noise such levels the noise may be indirect watching ecosystems, marine service service 11.2 Continuous low 11.2.1 Trends in the ambient noise level P characteristics would be characteristics impacts on diet (birds, marine understanding environment frequency sound within the 1/3 octave bands 63 and of fish habitats, permitted in the of fish habitats, through fisheries mammals) and responses to and impacts on 125 Hz (centre frequency) (re 1Ρa e.g. reefs and vicinity of caged e.g. reefs and impacts. rec. fishing, pressures distinctive RMS; average noise level in these breeding sites. fish breeding sites. (e.g. salmon) species octave bands over a year)

Appendix C

Identification of Drivers and Activities Operating on GES Descriptors

APPENDIX C: GES vs Drivers Description: This table illustrates key drivers operating on the marine environment. See report Section 3 for a full explanation.

Driver theme: Conservation / Direction (+/-) of Magnitude of Environmental, Consumptive- Level of UK Related International Convention/EU potential impact potential impact use, Non-consumptive, Natural Users influenced influence on driver Driver of Change Directive/UK implementation Description and GES on environmental influences by driver theme of change (high, regulation descriptors state (minor, medium, low) affected moderate, major)

Conservation / Environmental - Legal framework for regulating all uses of International the seas and oceans. Laws/regulations to protect and preserve the marine + United Nations Convention on the Law of All environment and living marine resources, Minor Low the Sea (UNCLOS) to prevent the introduction of alien species 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 and to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment. Commitment to reduce biodiversity loss World Summit on Sustainable See the Marine and Coastal Access Act by 2010, to establish a representative See individual UK See individual UK All Development (WSSD). Johannesburg Low and Marine (Scotland) Act below network of marine protected areas by drivers below drivers below 2002 2012 UN Fish Stocks Agreement - Sets out principles for the conservation + Conservation and Management of All and management of straddling and highly Minor Low Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly migratory fish stocks 1, 3, 4, 8, 10 Migratory Fish Stocks Aims to promote the conservation, + Convention for the Conservation of All restoration, enhancement and rational Minor Low Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean management of wild salmon stocks 1, 3, 4 The Convention on the Conservation of Agreement to promote cooperation to + All ASCOBANS Migratory Species of Wild Animals (The achieve and maintain favourable Minor Low Bonn Convention or CMS) conservation status for small cetaceans 1, 4, 8, 10, 11 Conservation / Environmental - The Conservation of Habitats and European Species Regulations 2010 (apply in + territorial waters out to 12nm); The Requires Member States to introduce All EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural protection measures of habitats and Major Medium 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (as species listed in its Annexes. 10, 11 amended) transpose the Directive beyond the UK's territorial waters (> 12nm).

Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 2010 (as amended); the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Provides a framework for the Order 1985; the Nature Conservation and conservation and management of, and + Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order human interactions with, wild birds in All EC Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) 1985; the Conservation (Natural Habitats, Major Medium Europe. Provision for the classification of 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, &c.) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1995 Special Protection Areas for Annex I 10, 11 (as amended) the Offshore Marine species. Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 2007 as well as other legislation related to the uses of land and sea.

Regulation of point source discharges to OSPAR Annex I Prevention and the maritime area (and releases into + All elimination of pollution from land-based n/a water or air which may reach and affect Major Medium sources maritime area) and regular monitoring 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and inspection to assess compliance

OSPAR Annex II Prevention and Prohibits incineration and the dumping of + All elimination of pollution by dumping or n/a low and intermediate level radioactive Moderate Medium incineration substances including wastes 1, 4, 8, 9 OSPAR Annex III Prevention and + Prohibition of dumping of wastes and All elimination of pollution from off-shore n/a Minor Medium other matter from offshore installations sources 1, 4, 8, 9 Requires cooperation in carrying out + OSPAR Annex IV Assessment of the monitoring programmes, submitting data All Minor Medium quality of the marine environment. to the Commission, compliance with ALL quality assurance prescriptions. OSPAR Annex V: on the protection and Marine Conservation Zones under the Development of a network of MPAs and See individual UK All conservation of the ecosystems and Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see assessment of species and habitats that Medium drivers below biological diversity of the maritime area. below) are threatened and declining Ecological Quality Objectives for the + All The Bergen Declaration/OSPAR n/a North Sea (progress on this made Minor Medium 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 through OSPAR) Achievement of Good Environmental + EC Water Framework Directive Water Environment (Water Framework Status in estuaries and coastal areas - All 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Major Medium (2000/60/EC) Directive) Regulations 2003 note only applies out to 3nm in Scotland 9, 11 and 1nm in rest of UK. England and Wales: The River Basin Districts Typology, Standards and Groundwater Threshold Values (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Direction 2010; Scotland: through Priority Substances Directive amendment of: The Water Environment + Provides environmental quality standards All (2008/105/EC) - daughter directive of and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 Moderate Medium in the field of water policy WFD (WEWS); Water Environment (Controlled 8 Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (see also 'Aquaculture' below); Northern Ireland: Water Framework Directive (Priority Substances and Classification) Regulations 2011

Requires manufacturers and importers of chemical substances to gather hazard The REACH (Registration, Evaluation, + information and assess risks, restricts All EU REACH Regulations Authorisation and restriction of chemicals) Minor Medium marketing of certain hazardous chemicals Regulations 2006 8 and requires the use of particularly high- risk substances to be authorised.

EC Bathing Water Directives The Bathing Waters (Classification) Aims to protect public health and (76/160/EEC and 2006/7/EC). The 1976 Regulations 1991; The Bathing Waters environment from faecal pollution at + Bathing Waters Directive (76/160/EEC) All (Classification) (England) Regulations bathing waters. Sets out microbiological Major Medium remains in force until 2012. The revised 2003; Bathing Water regulations 2008; and physico-chemical standards for 8, 10 BWD (2006/7/EC) will be implemented in Bathing Waters (England) Notice 2008. bathing waters. stages between now and 2015. EC Dangerous Substances Directive + EC Water Framework Directive Controls the release of dangerous All (76/464/EEC) - will be repealed by WFD Major Medium (2000/60/EC) substances to water. in 2013 8 The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994 and 2003 Amendment Regulations The To protect the environment from adverse Urban Waste Water Treatment + EC Urban Waste Water Treatment effects of urban waste water discharges All (Scotland) Regulations 1994 and 2003 Major Medium Directive (91/271/EEC) and discharges from certain industrial Amendment Regulations; The Urban 5, 8, 9, 10 sectors. Waste Water Treatment regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 and 2003 Amendment Regulations. The Biocidal Products Regulations (2001) + (as amended); The Biocidal Products Authorises placement/removal of biocidal All The Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC) Minor Medium Regulations (Northern Ireland) (as substances on the market 2, 4, 8, 9 amended) Regulation of certain industrial activities with pollution potential, including energy, The IPPC (Integrated Pollution metals and chemicals industries, waste + The Environmental Permitting Regulations All Prevention and Control) Directive management and livestock farming. Minor Medium (England and Wales) 2010 ((2008/1/EC) Regulators set permit conditions 5, 8, 9 (environmental permitting) for emissions to air, water and land. Driver theme: Conservation / Direction (+/-) of Magnitude of Environmental, Consumptive- Level of UK Related International Convention/EU potential impact potential impact use, Non-consumptive, Natural Users influenced influence on driver Driver of Change Directive/UK implementation Description and GES on environmental influences by driver theme of change (high, regulation descriptors state (minor, medium, low) affected moderate, major)

Based on the 'polluter pays' principle - those responsible prevent and remedy environmental damage, including adverse + EC Environmental Liability Directive effects on SSSIs, species/habitats All The Environmental Damage Regulations Minor Medium (2004/35/EC) protected by EC law, effects on 1, 8 surface/groundwater, contamination of land and in relation to activities requiring Environmental Permits. Conservation / Environmental - Aims to ensure clean, healthy, safe, National productive and biologically diverse oceans Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Various including: OSPAR Annex V, + Low in relation to and seas by putting in place better All (Note secondary legislation for Wales Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Major international ratified systems for delivering sustainable and NI) and WSSD ALL agreements development of marine and coastal environment. + Major - main The Marine Policy Statement (MPS) (HM Paragraph 10, Schedule 5 of the Marine Framework for preparing Marine Plans All 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, influence will be High Government, 2010) and Coastal Access Act 2009 and direction for new marine licensing 10, 11 through plans Measures include marine planning, + Low in relation to OSPAR Convention and World Summit All Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 marine licensing, marine conservation, Major international ratified on Sustainable Development (WSSD) seal conservation and enforcement ALL agreements Prohibits the killing/injuring/taking of animals listed in Schedule 5 and damage, + The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 The Convention on the Conservation of destruction or obstruction of access to All (as amended) and Wildlife (Northern European Wildlife and Natural Habitats places/structure that these animals use Major High 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Ireland) Order 1985 (Bern Convention) for shelter/protection. Includes some 10, 11 cetacean, marine fish and invertebrate species Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981(as amended), the Nature Conservation The Convention on the Conservation of + (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended) and The legal requirement for the strict All Migratory Species of Wild Animals (The Moderate Low the Nature Conservation and Amenity protection of Appendix I species Bonn Convention or CMS) 1, 4 Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (as amended) Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981(as Obligation to promote conservation of amended), the Nature Conservation wetlands which the UK has listed as being + (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended) and of international significance - Designated All RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands Moderate Low the Nature Conservation and Amenity as Sites of Special Scientific Interest 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (as (SSSIs) (or Areas of Special Scientific amended) Interest (ASSIs) in Northern Ireland)

Enforces EC Regulations 338/97 and The Control of Trade in Endangered + 865/06 which implement The Convention Regulation of international trade in wild All Species (Enforcement) Regulations 2005 Minor Low on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild plants and animals (COTES) 1, 4 Flora and Fauna (CITES) + Legal framework for conservation of All UK BAP Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Moderate Low biological diversity 1, 3, 4 Requires that projects listed in the Annexes of the Directive undertake an + Marine Works EIA Directive (85/337/EEC) EIA to consider both the positive and All Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007 Major High as amended negative environmental impacts of the 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 development from the construction phase to decommissioning. Sets targets for reductions in GHG + emissions - at least 26% by 2020 and at All Climate Change Act 2008 Major High least 80% by 2050 (compared to 1990 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 baseline) Economic / Use drivers Renewable Energy Sets out range of measures to be undertaken to achieve UK targets under EU Renewable Energy Directive the EU Renewable Energy Directive: 15% Moderate +ve (2009/28/EC) and commitments under + / - UK Government's Renewable Energy of gross final energy consumption from impact on climate the World Summit on Sustainable High Strategy (HM Government, 2009) renewables by 2020 (Scottish target 20%; change; Minor -ve Development (WSSD) Johannesburg 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 NI target 40%). No specific targets are impact on habitats 2002 given for the contribution of individual sectors The Revised Draft Overarching National Provide primary basis for decisions by the Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) + / - (DECC, 2010a) and the Revised Draft on planning applications it receives for Major High National Policy Statement (NPS) for renewable energy infrastructure. Does not1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 Renewable Energy Structure (EN-3) cover wave or tidal power. (DECC, 2010e)

Provided for the designation of + / - The Energy Act 2004 Renewable Energy Zones from 12nm out Major High to 200nm 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11

With respect to renewable technologies, the Act strengthened the Renewables Implemented the legislative aspects of the + / - Obligation to increase the diversity of the The Energy Act 2008 Energy White Paper: 'Meeting the Energy Major High UK's electricity mix, increase reliability of Challenge' 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 energy supplied and low carbon emissions from the electricity sector.

Scottish policies and targets in relation to renewables: 20% of total energy use (for EU Renewable Energy Directive electricity, transport and heat) from (2009/28/EC) and commitments under renewable sources by 2020; 50% of + / - Renewables Action Plan (Scottish the World Summit on Sustainable gross electricity, 10% target for renewable Major High Government, 2009) Development (WSSD) Johannesburg transport and 11% target of heat demand 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 2002 from renewables by 2020. No quantitative breakdown of contribution of different renewable sectors to targets. EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) and commitments under + / - The Renewable Energy Route Map Sets out how Wales can maximise the the World Summit on Sustainable Minor High (WAG, 2008a) use of its natural resources Development (WSSD) Johannesburg 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 2002 EU Renewable Energy Directive Northern Ireland targets for electricity (2009/28/EC) and commitments under consumption from renewable sources - + / - The Northern Ireland Strategic Energy the World Summit on Sustainable 40% by 2020, at least 25% of this Major High Framework (DETI, 2010) Development (WSSD) Johannesburg generated by non-wind technologies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 2002 (technologies to be included not stated) Reflects an up-to-date assessment of the + / - status and potential of the marine energy FREDS MEG Marine Energy Road Map industry in Scotland, modelling three 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 scenarios up to 2020. Identifies an estimated 206GW of + / - A Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind offshore potential in Scottish Waters Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters including offshore wind, wave and tidal 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 resources Mineral Extraction Monitor the supply and demand for aggregate. Identify and consider likely regional problems in the supply of + / - Regional Aggregate Working Parties n/a aggregates. Provide technical advice in Moderate High (RAWPs) relation to the supply of, and demand for, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 construction aggregates including from land won and marine aggregates Document supporting the Government's Minerals Policy Statement 1 which sets Government policies on extraction of + Marine Minerals Guidance 1 (DCLG, out the Government objectives for marine sand and gravel from English Moderate High 2002) minerals planning in England and seabed 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 requirement for them to contribute to achieving sustainable development Driver theme: Conservation / Direction (+/-) of Magnitude of Environmental, Consumptive- Level of UK Related International Convention/EU potential impact potential impact use, Non-consumptive, Natural Users influenced influence on driver Driver of Change Directive/UK implementation Description and GES on environmental influences by driver theme of change (high, regulation descriptors state (minor, medium, low) affected moderate, major)

Welsh Assembly Government's dredging policy. Objectives include identifying areas + Interim Marine Aggregate Dredging where dredging likely to be acceptable, n/a Moderate High Policy (WAG, 2004) protecting the marine and coastal 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 environment, controlling impacts of dredging to acceptable levels.

Revised national and regional guidelines for aggregate provision, including National and regional guidelines for assumptions for marine sand and gravel, + aggregate provision in England, 2005- expressed as average amounts per Moderate High 2020 (DCLG, 2009) annum. The guidelines are monitored 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 annually and informed by up to date forecasts of aggregates demands Oil and Gas Delivered the proposals outlined in the (including Energy White Paper 2007 ('Meeting the pipelines and gas Energy Challenge'), the aims of which storage of was to strengthen the investment reserves) framework for energy related - The Energy Act 2008 n/a infrastructure to secure energy supplies, Moderate High including maximising economic production 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 of fossil fuels in the UK. The Act improves licensing and statutory provisions for decommissioning of oil and gas installations

The Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) Provide primary basis for decisions by the (DECC, 2010a); The Revised Draft Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel - on planning applications it receives for Electricity generating Infrastructure (EN- Major High nationally significant fossil fuel electricity 2) (DECC, 2010b) and The Revised Draft 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 generating stations or gas supply National Policy Statement for Gas Supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines. Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) (DECC, 2010c)

Offshore Petroleum Activities Implements the EC Habitats and Birds + (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations EC Habitats and Birds Directive Directives specifically in relation to oil and Moderate Medium 2001 (as amended) gas activities carried out on the UKCS. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 Require assessment of environmental impact prior to authorisation of various Offshore Petroleum Production and offshore activities including renewal of + EU EIA Directive (85/337/EEC) as Pipelines (assessment of Environmental production consents for field Moderate Medium amended by Directive 97/11/EC Effects) Regulations 1999 (as amended) developments, the drilling of wells and 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 construction and installation of production facilities and pipelines Apply the provisions for the OSPAR Convention Harmonised Mandatory Offshore operators require permits to + The Offshore Chemicals Regulations Control System for the use and discharge cover both the use and discharge of Moderate Medium (OCR) 2002 (SI 2002/1355) of chemicals used in the offshore oil and chemicals 8 gas industry Regulation of combustion processes to generate power on offshore facilities. The Offshore Combustion Installations + Setting of permit conditions (permit (Prevention and Control of Pollution) IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) Moderate Medium required where rated thermal input of Regulations 2001 8 combustion equipment > 50Mega Watt thermal (MW(th)). The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution, Reporting of oil spillages and requirement + Preparedness, Response and for Oil Pollution Emergency Planning Minor High Cooperation Convention) Regulations (OPEP). 8 1998 (SI 1998/1056) Relating to the powers of intervention of + The Offshore Installations (Emergency the Secretary of State's Representative Minor High Pollution Control) regulations 2002 (SOSREP) in the event of an accident 8 with the potential for significant pollution. Water abstraction Government's formal response to a nuclear power consultation. Sets out view - Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White that new nuclear power stations should Moderate Medium Paper on Nuclear Power (BERR, 2008) play a role in future energy production. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 Nuclear power stations need access to cooling water The Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) Provides the primary basis for decisions - (DECC, 2010a) and the Revised Draft taken by the Infrastructure Planning Moderate High National Policy Statement for Nuclear Commission (IPC) on applications it 1 Power Generation (EN-6) (DECC, receives for nuclear power stations 2010d) One of the four aims is the sustainable + Water Act (England and Wales) 2003 use of water resources through water Minor High 1, 3, 7, 8 abstraction regulation / licensing The Water Resources (Abstraction and Licensing of water abstraction and + Minor High Impounding) Regulations 2006 impoundment in England and Wales 1, 3, 7, 8 Water Abstraction and Impoundment WFD and Habitats Directive (where Regulation of water abstraction in + (Licensing) regulations (Northern Ireland) Minor High affects protected sites) Northern Ireland 1, 3, 7, 8 2006 The Water Environment and Water The Water Environment (Controlled Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS + Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 Regulation of abstractions (also regulates Act) enabled the introduction of regulatory Minor High (as amended) (referred to as the discharges - see Waste Disposal Section) control over water activities. WEWS 1, 3, 7, 8 Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR)) arose from the WFD. Fisheries EC Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) - Regulation of fisheries between 12- + n/a Major Medium currently under reform 200nm 1, 3, 4, 6 Aims to maintain or restore fish stocks to + World Summit on Sustainable n/a levels that can produce maximum Minor Low Development (WSSD) sustainable yield by 2015 where possible. 1, 3, 4 Sets environmental standards for water The Surface Waters (Shellfish) Shellfish Waters Directive quality to ensure suitable water + (Classification) Regulations 1997 and (2006/113/EEC). Note will be repealed in environment for the growth of shellfish Moderate Medium The Surface Waters (Shellfish) Directions 2013 by the EC Water Framework and requires member states to designate 3, 8, 9 2010. Directive. waters needing protection or improvement to support shellfish. Regulation of movement of fish within inland waters (England and Wales) to + Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act prevent spread of disease and minimise Minor High 1975 (as amended) damage to fisheries through NIS 2, 3 introductions. National Fisheries Policy: Fisheries 2027 + n/a Moderate High (Defra, 2007) 1, 3, 4, 6 Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 - Allows for regulation the commercial use + amended by the Marine and Coastal n/a Moderate High of, fishing for, and landing of sea fish. 3 Access Act 2009 Permits orders to be made to restrict The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 - fishing in certain areas for the purpose of + amended by the Marine and Coastal n/a Moderate High establishing, improving, maintaining 3 Access Act 2009 and/or regulating shellfisheries Enables regulation of the inshore fisheries + Scottish Inshore Act (1984) n/a Moderate High in Scotland. 3 Enables regulation of sea fisheries in Northern Ireland inshore waters or in the + Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 n/a Moderate High Northern Ireland zone of British Fishery 3 limits. Aquaculture (fin- Vision: environmentally acceptable fish and shellfish - National Fisheries Policy: Fisheries 2027 aquaculture is a significant supplier of fish Moderate High farming) (Defra, 2007) environmental impact of sourcing fish ALL feed will be minimised where possible Driver theme: Conservation / Direction (+/-) of Magnitude of Environmental, Consumptive- Level of UK Related International Convention/EU potential impact potential impact use, Non-consumptive, Natural Users influenced influence on driver Driver of Change Directive/UK implementation Description and GES on environmental influences by driver theme of change (high, regulation descriptors state (minor, medium, low) affected moderate, major)

Vision: Scottish aquaculture should be sustainable, expanding diverse, market- A Fresh Start. The renewed Strategic - led and profitable, promote best practice, Framework for Scottish Aquaculture Minor High respect the environment and provide (Scottish Government, 2009a) ALL significant economic and social benefits for people. Enables inspection and enforcement The Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) + measures for sea lice control and Minor High Act 2007 2, 3, 9 containment of fish EU Food Hygiene Regulations EC Legislation relating to the food and feed + National implementing regulations Minor Medium 852/2004; 853/2004; 854/2004 safety in fishery and aquaculture products 9 Council Regulation (EC) 708/2007 (as amended) Regarding the Use of Alien Regulation on use of alien and locally + Minor Medium and Locally Absent Species in absent species in aquaculture. 1, 2 Aquaculture The aquatic animal health (England and Wales) Regulations, 2009; Aquatic Legislation to protect fish and shellfish Animal health (Scotland) Regulations Aquatic Animal Health Directive + from serious disease Mainly concerned Minor Medium 2009 (amended version); Aquatic animal (2006/88/EEC) 3, 9 with farming. health regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 Control of Pesticides Regulations + (COPR) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 Control and approval of pesticide use Minor Medium 8 (SI 1997/188) Prevention of the spread of microbial + Diseases of Fish Acts 1937 & 1983 Minor High pathogens (disease). 8, 9 Regulation (licensing) of activities liable to The Water Environment (Controlled cause pollution, including fish farming. + Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 WFD Minor High Also relevant to the Recycling Waste 5, 8 (as amended) Consumptive use (see below) Coastal defence Making Space for Water (Defra 2005) The strategic overview for all flood and + / - and the Coastal Strategic Overview Major High coastal erosion risk management 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 Implementation Plan Describes what needs to be done to reduce the risk of flooding and coastal The National Flood and Coastal Erosion A strategy required under the Flood and erosion and to manage its consequences. + / - Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy Water Management Act 2010. Developed Includes aim of reducing the threat of Major High (Defra and the Environment Agency, by the Environment Agency flooding and coastal erosion by 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 2010) maintaining and improving flood and erosion management systems. National Flood and Coastal Risk Developed by the Welsh Assembly Policies on flood and coastal erosion risk + / - Management Strategy for Wales (WAG, Major High Government. management. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 2010) EC Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) (aim to establish framework for assessment and management of flood risks). Elements Designed to reduce adverse within the Act relate to the Water consequences of flooding. Provides for Environment Controlled Activities + / - The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) the preparation and review of flood risk Regulations (CAR) (ensuring regulated Major High Act 2009 assessments, flood hazard and flood risk activities do not increase flood risk) and 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 maps and flood risk management plans the WFD (work to deliver objectives as required by the Directive. through River Basin Management Plans e.g. restoring degraded habitat also contribute to reducing flood risk). Military Defence Provides the contextual basis for military Future Maritime Operational Concept Based on the Policy outlined in the - activity in the maritime environment out to Minor High 2007 (MOD, 2007) Defence Strategic Guidance 2005 1, 6, 10, 11 2025 Outlines defence situation. For the maritime area emphasis is on delivering - support from sea onto land bases, The Defence White Paper (MOD, 2003) Minor High securing access to operations and 1, 6, 10, 11 protecting sea lines of communications - not restricted to the UK Tourism & Welsh Assembly Government Coastal Strategy for developing the tourism - n/a Minor High Recreation Tourism Strategy (WAG, 2008b) potential of the coastline 1, 5, 10, 11 Contained 2010 targets for developing watersports activity: increase number of The Welsh Assembly Government’s UK watersports trips/nights by 20% and - tourism watersports activities and facility overseas trips by 50%, increase value of n/a Minor High development strategy 'Catching the UK watersports tourist spending by 40% 1, 5, 10, 11 Wave' (WAG, 2004) and overseas visitor spend by 40%. Also to increase access through safe havens and berths along Welsh Coastline.

In relation to leisure and recreation, the Act introduces new powers to extend The Marine and Coastal Access Act (in recreational access to the English coast conservation section - but repeated as and to enable (as far as possible) a - pulled out interactions with GES n/a continuous route around the coast to Minor High specifically in relation to leisure and enable unconstrained passage on foot. 1, 10 recreation) Contains provisions enabling the National Assembly for Wales to create a coastal path around the Welsh coast. Maritime transport Details need for new port infrastructure Draft National Policy Statement for Ports - (including capital and forecasts of demand for port capacity Major High (England and Wales) (DfT, 2009) ALL and maintenance up to 2030 National Planning Framework 2 (Scottish dredging) Stated need for port development - Government, 2009c) and the Strategic (improved access to ports and increased Minor High Transport Project Review (Transport container capacity) ALL Scotland, 2009) Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels Regulations regarding provision of waste + EC Port Reception Facilities Directive (Port Waste Reception Facilities) reception facilities to meet the needs of Minor High (2000/59/EC) Regulations 2003. ships using the harbour or terminal. 8, 10 Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels (England and Wales) Regulations 2007; Sulphur Lays down maximum permitted sulphur + Content of Liquid Fuels (Scotland) EU Directive on Sulphur Content and content of heavy fuel oil, gas oil and Minor Medium Regulations 2007 and the Sulphur Liquid Fuels (2005/33/EC) marine gas oil 8 Content of Liquid Fuels (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007 Proposed actions and recommendations for reducing air pollution from sea-going + EU Strategy to Reduce Atmospheric Air ships. Directive on sulphur content of Minor Medium Emissions from Ships liquid fuels (see above) formed part of the 5, 8 strategy Regulations to prevent/minimise oil International Maritime Organisation (IMO) + pollution from accidents/routine Moderate Low Conventions - MARPOL Annex I 1, 4, 8 operations + Regulations controlling pollution from IMO Annex II Moderate Low noxious liquids 1, 4, 8, 9 Prevention of pollution from harmful + IMO Annex III substances carried at sea in packaged Moderate Low 1, 4, 8 form Prevention of pollution by sewage from + IMO Annex IV Moderate Low ships 1, 4, 5, 8 Prevention of pollution by garbage from + IMO Annex V Minor Low ships 1, 4, 8, 10 + IMO Annex VI Prevention of air pollution from ships Moderate Low 1, 4, 8 IMO - International Convention Relating Rights of coastal states to + to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases prevent/mitigate/eliminate pollution threats Minor Low of Oil Pollution Casualties on the high seas 1 Driver theme: Conservation / Direction (+/-) of Magnitude of Environmental, Consumptive- Level of UK Related International Convention/EU potential impact potential impact use, Non-consumptive, Natural Users influenced influence on driver Driver of Change Directive/UK implementation Description and GES on environmental influences by driver theme of change (high, regulation descriptors state (minor, medium, low) affected moderate, major)

IMO - Convention on the prevention of Prohibits dumping of certain hazardous + marine pollution by dumping of wastes materials and permit requirements for Moderate Low and other matter (London Convention dumping of other materials and waste 1, 4, 8, 10 1972 and 1996 Protocol). Aims to limit the spread of non-native IMO - International Convention for the organisms through ballast water + Control and Management of Ships' transport. Will require all ships to Moderate Low Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 implement a Ballast Water and 1, 2, 4 Sediments Management Plan. Prohibits use of harmful organotin anti- IMO - International Convention on the fouling paints on ships and provide a + Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems mechanism to prevent use of other Moderate Low on Ships (AFS), 2001 potentially harmful substances in anti- 1, 4, 8, 9 fouling substances in future. Following a maritime casualty the coastal state has the right to take such measures IMO - Protocol on Preparedness, on the high seas as may be necessary to + Response and Co-operation to pollution prevent, mitigate, or eliminate danger to Moderate Low Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious its coastline or related interests from 1, 4, 8, 9, 10 Substances, 2000 pollution by oil or other substances listed in the Annex. Telecoms and Contains over 20 recommendations on power cables - communications services which rely Digital Britain (DCMS, 2009) Moderate High heavily on submarine telecommunications 1, 6, 11 networks in UK waters.

The Communications White Paper: A Sets out Government's aim of making the - New Future for Communications (DCMS, UK home to a dynamic and competitive Moderate High 2001) communications and media market. 1, 6, 11 Waste Disposal - Minor +ve impact Includes Carbon Capture and Storage gas, i.e. CCS + / - on climate change; The Energy Act 2010 (CCS) incentive for development of four High 1, 6, 8 Minor -ve impact on commercial scale CCS projects habitats Minor +ve impact Sets targets of reduction in GHG of 20% + / - on climate change; The EU climate and Energy package Medium below 1990 levels by 2020 1, 6, 8 Minor -ve impact on habitats Waste Disposal - The Nitrate Pollution Prevention liquids and solids Regulations 2008, Statutory Instrument 2349 (England); The Nitrate Pollution Designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Prevention (Wales) Regulations 208; The + (NVZs) where measures are to be Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable EC Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) Moderate Medium adopted to limit nitrate emissions from Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008, 5 agriculture Statutory Instrument 298 (Scotland); The Nitrates Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 + Agri-environmental farming schemes EC Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Minor High 5 Waste Strategy for England (Defra, 2007); The National Waste Strategy for Strategy to reduce waste, increase Sits within the legislative framework of Wales (WAG, 2002); National Waste recycling and composting, and make + European Waste Framework Directive Strategy Scotland and Zero Waste Plan products with fewer natural resources Minor High and EC's Thematic Strategy on Waste (Scottish Government, 2003 and 2010); (recycling of resources and recovery of 10 Prevention and Recycling (2005) Northern Ireland Waste Management energy) Strategy 2006-2020 (DOENI, . Permitting controls on water discharge activities to inland freshwaters, coastal Elements of IPPC, WFD, Fresh Water + The Environmental Permitting waters or relevant territorial waters of any Fish Directive, BWD, SWD, DSD, Minor High Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, UWWTD, 8, 9 waste matter, trade effluent or sewage effluent Regulation of discharges, disposal to land, abstractions, impoundments (dams The Water Environment and Water The Water Environment (Controlled and weirs) and engineering works in the Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS + Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 water environment. Regulation through Act) enabled the introduction of regulatory Minor High (as amended) (referred to as the binding rules, registrations or licences. control over water activities. WEWS 8, 9, 11 Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR)) The level of regulatory control is arose from the WFD. proportional to the environmental risk posed by the activity. Natural Influences - All Climate change Major Medium ALL - All Ocean acidification Major Low 1, 3, 4, 6 - All Coastal erosion Major Low 1, 4, 6

REFERENCES BERR, 2008. Meeting the Energy Challenge. A White Paper on Nuclear Power. January 2008. DCLG. 2002. Marine Mineral Guidance 1: Extraction by dredging from the English seabed. DCLG, 2009. National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005-2020. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), 2001. The Communications White Paper: A New Future for Communications. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), 2009. Digital Britain. The Interim Report. DECC, 2010a. Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). DECC, 2010b. Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity generating Infrastructure (EN-2). DECC, 2010c. Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) DECC, 2010d. Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6). DECC, 2010e. Revised Draft National Policy Statement (NPS) for Renewable Energy Structure (EN-3) Defra, 2005. Making Space for Water. Taking forward a new Government Strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. First Government response to the autumn 2004 Making Space for Water consultation exercise. Defra, 2007. Fisheries 2027: a long-term vision for sustainable fisheries. Defra and the Environment Agency, 2010. National Flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England. Consultation overview. Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), 2010. Energy: A strategic Framework for Northern Ireland. September 2010. Department for Transport (DfT), 2009. Draft National Policy Statement for Ports. November 2009. HM Government, 2009. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. HM Government, 2010. UK Marine Policy Statement. A draft for consultation MOD, 2003. Delivering Security in a Changing World. Defence White Paper. MOD, 2007. Future Maritime Operational Concept. Scottish Government, 2009a. A Fresh Start. The renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture. A report by Marine Scotland for the Scottish Government. Scottish Government, 2009b. Renewables Action Plan. Renewable Energy Division. June 2009. Scottish Government, 2009c. National Planning Framework for Scotland 2. Transport Scotland, 2009. Strategic Transport Projects Review. Final report. October 2009. Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), 2004. . Interim Marine Aggregates Dredging Policy. WAG, 2004. Catching the Wave - Overview. WAG, 2008a. ‘Renewable Energy Route Map for Wales consultation on way forward to a leaner, greener and cleaner Wales’, February, Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff. WAG, 2008b. Coastal Tourism Strategy. September 2008. WAG, 2010. Welsh Assembly Government Consultation Document: Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management: Development of a National Strategy for Wales. July 2010.

Appendix D

Activities and Pressures

Appendix D. Activities and Pressures

This appendix presents tables for:

Table D1. Activities and Pressures – Prioritisation

Table D2. Activities and Pressures – Mapping

Table D3. Activities and Pressures - A List Of Wind Farm Projects And Their Published Construction Schedules and figures:

Figure D1. Indicative Location of a Tidal Range Development in the Severn Estuary by 2020

Figure D2. Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Wind Turbines Baseline & Future Construction Schedule between 2010 and 2020

Figure D3. Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Wave and Tidal Devices - Baseline and Future

Figure D4. Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Navigational Dredging and Waste Disposal Sites

Figure D5. Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Aggregate Extraction - Baseline and Future

Figure D6. Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Hydrocarbon Extraction - Baseline and Future

Figure D7. Distribution of Demersal Trawling Effort

Figure D8. Distribution of Fisheries Dredging Effort Figure D9. Estimated Wind Farm Construction Schedule

Figure D10. Footprint of Seismic Survey Associated with Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities

R/3988/1 D.1 R.1793

APPENDIX D1: PRESSURE PRIORITISATION

Pressure theme Hydrological changes Pollution and other chemical changes Physical loss/introduction Non-synthetic Synthetic compound compound Pressure Water flow (e.g. Nitrogen & Physical change (to Emergence regime Wave exposure contamination (inc. contamination (inc. Radionuclide Physical loss (to land or Activity theme Temperature changes Salinity changes tidal current) Water clarity changes De-oxygenation phosphorus Organic enrichment another substrate changes changes heavy metals, pesticides, contamination freshwater habitat) changes enrichment type) Activity hydrocarbons, antifoulants, produced water) pharmaceuticals) Energy production - at sea Minor and managed Minor and managed Minor and managed Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed but concern (wind turbines) under EIA under EIA under EIA / WFD / WFD for cumulative effects Energy production - at sea Minor and managed Minor and managed Minor and managed Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed but concern Energy production (wave turbines) under EIA under EIA under EIA / WFD / WFD for cumulative effects Energy production - at sea Minor and managed Minor and managed Minor and managed Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed but concern (tidal stream turbines) under EIA under EIA under EIA / WFD / WFD for cumulative effects Managed under EIA but Energy production - at sea Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed but concern Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Significant Significant Managed under EIA Managed under EIA loss cannot always be (tidal range) / WFD / WFD for cumulative effects compensated Minor and managed Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA / Managed but concern Biofuels Managed under EIA Managed under EIA under EIA / WFD / WFD WFD for cumulative effects Extraction - navigational Minor and managed Minor and managed Managed under EIA Managed but concern dredging (capital, Managed under EIA under EIA under EIA / WFD for cumulative effects maintenance) Minor and managed Minor and managed Managed under EIA Managed but concern Extraction - sand & gravel Ports Extraction - non- under EIA under EIA / WFD for cumulative effects living resources Minor and managed Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed but concern Extraction - oil & gas Refineries under EIA / WFD / WFD / WFD for cumulative effects Extraction - water (freshwater Minor and managed Minor and managed From pipelines but catchment; power station) under EIA under EIA minor impact Fishing - benthic trawling Minor - short-term No additional impact Fishing - hydraulic dredging Minor - short-term for existing sites Fishing - pelagic trawling Extraction - living Fishing - potting/creeling resources Fishing - set netting Fishing - shellfish hand gathering Recreational fishing Managed but concern Aquaculture - fin fish Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Many regulations Many regulations Many regulations Many regulations Many regulations for cumulative effects Food production Managed but concern Aquaculture - shell fish Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Many regulations Many regulations Many regulations for cumulative effects Minor - short-term Effects above Minor - short-term, Replacing substrate Beach replenishment change MHW Managed through EIA with the same Habitat modification Coastal defence & managed Only from offshore Managed under EIA - Managed but concern Generally loss of land to Managed under EIA Managed under EIA realignment breakwaters short term for cumulative effects sea. Managed under EIA Naval bases - Managed under EIA. From port facilities - From port facilities - From vessels - From vessels - managed under EIA; Assume that loss of Military Military activities Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA many controls many controls see navigational habitat can be offset dredging elsewhere From boat From boat hulls - From boat discharges - Marinas - managed From marina From marina wake/wash, managed many controls such Marinas - managed Recreational Craft under EIA. Assume that Recreation Tourism & recreation facilities - Managed facilities - Managed by speed restrictions as COSHH and the under EIA; see Directive 2003 and loss of habitat can be under EIA under EIA and voluntary best Biocidal Products navigational dredging numerous guidelines offset elsewhere practice Regs 2010

Research, development and Survey & research education Ports - Managed under Ports - managed From port facilities - From port facilities - EIA. Assume that loss of Maritime shipping Many regulations Many regulations Many regulations under EIA; see Managed under EIA Managed under EIA habitat can be offset navigational dredging elsewhere Where saline features From construction. Likely to use existing Gas storage are involved. Many regulations Managed through EIA infrastructure Transport Managed through EIA From construction. Likely to use existing Pipelines Many regulations Managed through EIA infrastructure

From burial. Managed Small spatial scale, Telecoms and power cables through EIA minor impact

Where saline features From construction. Mostly existing Waste - gas CCS are involved. Managed under EIA Managed through EIA infrastructure Managed through EIA

From thermally heated Industrial & agricultural liquid Managed under water. Managed Managed under WFD Many directives Many directives Many directives Many directives Many directives Many directives discharges WFD through WFD Waste - liquid Urban Waste Water Urban Waste Water Urban Waste Water Urban Waste Water Urban Waste Water Urban Waste Water Sewerage disposal Treatment Directive Treatment Directive Treatment Directive Treatment Directive Treatment Directive Treatment Directive Managed under Managed under Managed under Managed under Diffuse land-based sources Managed under WFD Managed under WFD WFD WFD WFD WFD Waste disposal - fish waste Managed under Managed under Managed under Managed under (land-based processing; licensing licensing licensing licensing processing vessels) Waste disposal - munitions No longer carried No longer carried No longer carried out No longer carried out Waste - solid (chemical & conventional) out out Waste disposal - navigational Managed under Managed under EIA. Managed under Managed under EIA. Not likely to increase dredging (capital, EIA. Short-term Short-term EIA. Short-term Short-term in extent maintenance) Land-based sources of litter

NOTES: Grey cells are those that have not been prioritised as they are managed under existing regulations or where the spatial and temporal footprint is such that they are not of concern Orange cells are those that are prioritised, either because they are not well-managed at present; or there is little known about the activity/pressure or where there are concerns for cumulative sources of permanent change

R/3988/1 D.2 R.1793 APPENDIX D1: PRESSURE PRIORITISATION

Pressure theme Physical damage Other physical pressures Biological pressures Genetic Introduction or Barrier to species Pressure Surface abrasion: Physical removal modification & Introduction of spread of non- Siltation rate Structural abrasion/ Electromagnetic movement Death or injury by Visual disturbance Removal of target Removal of non-target Activity theme damage to seabed (extraction of Litter Introduction of light Underwater noise translocation of microbial pathogens indigenous species changes penetration changes (behaviour, collision (behaviour) species (lethal) species (lethal) surface features substratum) indigenous species (disease) & translocations reproduction) Activity (competition) Managed under Energy production - at sea Construction only. Construction only. Construction only. Via structures. EIA, ongoing Managed by EIA Percussive piling Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA (wind turbines) Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Minor disturbance Managedstudies under Energy production - at sea Construction only. Construction only. Construction only. Via structures. Energy production EIA, ongoing Managed by EIA Minor noise source Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA (wave turbines) Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Minor disturbance Managedstudies under Energy production - at sea Localised effects. Construction only. Construction only. Via structures. EIA, ongoing Managed by EIA Minor noise source Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA (tidal stream turbines) Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Minor disturbance studies Assume that loss is Managed under Energy production - at sea Via structures. Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA compensated EIA, ongoing Managed by EIA Minor noise source Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA (tidal range) Minor disturbance elsewhere studies Construction only. Construction only. Biofuels Managed by EIA Managed under EIA Licensing controls Licensing controls Licensing controls Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Extraction - navigational Low disturbance from dredging (capital, Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Minor noise source Managed under EIA Managed under EIA ships maintenance) Managed under Low disturbance from Extraction - sand & gravel Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Minor noise source EIA. Minor Managed under EIA Extraction - non- ships living resources disturbance Construction only. Construction only. Via structures. Extraction - oil & gas Low voltage cables Managed by EIA Seismic survey Low disturbance Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Minor disturbance Extraction - water (freshwater Mitigation measures to Minor noise source catchment; power station) reduce pressure Fishing - benthic trawling Low disturbance Maintains a high Maintains a high Fishing - hydraulic dredging Low disturbance level of disturb. level of disturb. Pervasive from fishing Low disturbance Fishing - pelagic trawling vessels but minor compared to by-catch From boats. IMO Low level of Extraction - living Fishing - potting/creeling source pressures Minor level of controls and disturbance resources disturbance Fishing - set netting Low level of guidelines Fishing - shellfish hand disturbance at gathering present Recreational fishing Minor disturbance Minor disturbance Pressure has dec. Construction only. Construction only. Construction only. Managed under seal Aquaculture - fin fish Minor source Minor source Managed under EIA Many regulations Many regulations sig. since new Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA conservation orders Food production measures in 2009 Construction only. Construction only. Construction only. Aquaculture - shell fish Minor source Minor source Managed under EIA Many regulations Many regulations Many regulations Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Managed under EIA Replacing substrate Beach replenishment Managed under EIA Minor noise source Managed under EIA Managed under EIA with the same Habitat modification Coastal defence & managed Construction only. Construction only. Construction only. Managed under EIA realignment Managed under EIA Minor source Managed under EIA

Base construction From ships. IMO Military Military activities only. Managed Sonar Low disturbance controls and under EIA guidelines

Marina construction Marina construction Recreational Boat anchoring - Minor level of From boats. Best Low level of Low level of Recreation Tourism & recreation only - managed only - managed navigation lights. Minor noise source Minor disturbance managed locally disturbance practice guidelines disturbance disturbance under EIA under EIA Minor disturbance

From boats. IMO Research, development and Minor level of Survey & research Minor disturbance Minor source Minor noise source Minor disturbance controls and Minor disturbance education disturbance guidelines Port construction Port construction Ships - safety From ships. IMO Maritime shipping only. Managed only. Managed issue. Ports - Pervasive Low disturbance Low disturbance controls and under EIA under EIA managed under EIA guidelines Seismic survey but Construction only. Gas storage likely to use sites Managed under EIA Transport already characterised Short-term, minor Pipelines impact Minor impact, Minor impact, Managed under Telecoms and power cables managed through managed through EIA, ongoing Minor noise source route planning route planning studies

Construction only. Waste - gas CCS Seismic survey Managed under EIA

Industrial & agricultural liquid discharges

Waste - liquid Urban Waste Water Sewerage disposal Treatment Directive Managed under Diffuse land-based sources WFD Waste disposal - fish waste Managed under (land-based processing; licensing processing vessels) Waste disposal - munitions No longer carried Waste - solid (chemical & conventional) out Waste disposal - navigational dredging (capital, Managed under EIA maintenance) Land-based sources of litter

R/3988/1 D.3 R.1793 APPENDIX D2. MAPPING OF PRESSURES Permanent change: compare Permanent change (> 2 yrs): compare current Ongoing: compare current extent Ongoing: compare current extent with 2030 Ongoing: spatially not likely to change but intensity will current extent with 2030 extent with 2030 with 2030

Other physical Hydrological changes Physical loss/introduction Physical damage Biological pressures pressures Introduction or spread Water flow (e.g. Structural Surface abrasion: Removal of non- Emergence Physical change (to Physical loss (to land of non-indigenous Removal of target Activity theme Activity Activity mapping tidal current) abrasion/ damage to seabed Litter Underwater noise target species regime changes another substrate type) or freshwater habitat) species & species (lethal) changes penetration surface features (lethal) translocations Current location of wind turbines. Percussive piling - Footprint of Energy production - at sea Future location based on proposed Footprint of turbines - site with a buffer of 25km for (wind turbines) sites and roll-out schedules (see 50m buffer for scour marine mammals and 1km for Future Baseline) noise source Energy production Energy production - at sea Location of proposed wave turbines Footprint of licence area (wave turbines) (see Future Baseline) Location of proposed installations - Energy production - at sea Footprint of licence area - e.g. Ramsay, Pentland (see Future (tidal stream turbines) 50m buffer for scour Baseline) Identify notional lines across Footprint of physical Energy production - at sea Upstream of Upstream of Footprint of physical estuaries. Likely sites include the substrate change from (tidal range) proposed barrages proposed barrages loss to land unknown Severn, Mersey and Wyre barrage unknown Little info. Assume they will be Future locations Biofuels installed alongside offshore unknown at present windfarms as per aquaculture Extraction - navigational dredging (capital, Maintained navigation routes Equates to footprint maintenance) Extraction - non- Current active dredge zones and Extraction - sand & gravel Footprint of ADZ living resources application / prospecting areas CP2 layer: Current licensed blocks Footprint of Seismic survey - Region 7, sig Extraction - oil & gas and 26 Round conditional award infrastructure with 500m oil and gas discoveries blocks. Infrastructure radius buffer Fishing - benthic trawling COWRIE layer - beyond 2015 strip Footprint Footprint Not mapped Fishing - hydraulic dredging out MCZ layers for benthic trawling in Footprint Footprint Fishing - pelagic trawling England and SACs in Wales. No info Extraction - living Fishing - potting/creeling for Scotland or NI. Not mapped Unable to map resources Fishing - set netting Need ICES areas Not mapped Fishing - shellfish hand gathering Recreational fishing Not mapped Current sites. Future sites based on Aquaculture - fin fish Footprint unknown Valuing UK Seas work Food production Current sites. Future sites based on Aquaculture - shell fish Footprint unknown Valuing UK Seas work Defences mapped as a polyline. Data exists as a polyline Habitat Coastal defence & managed Can't map future Can't map future Future MR sites unknown. Could use therefore area affected is realignment sites at present sites at present modification info from SMPs but a lot of work unknown Naval bases. Location of activities Naval bases - see Have no info on where sonar is Military Military activities Not mapped Unable to map not known navigational dredging used Various. See also maintained Marinas - see Recreation Tourism & recreation Not mapped Unable to map navigation routes above. navigational dredging P orts. Coastal construction not an issue. Shipping density not freely Ports - see navigational Shipping density layer not Maritime Shipping Not mapped Unable to map available. See also maintained dredging freely available navigation routes above. Transport See any proposed interconnectors. Future locations of new pipelines are Pipelines unlikely to change from existing domestic oil and gas lines Seismic survey - footprint of Waste - gas CCS Proposed sites from CP2 site with a buffer of 30 km to capture behavioural responses Waste - liquid Sewerage disposal No need to map Not mapped Land-based sources of litter Not mapped Not mapped Waste - solid Waste disposal - navigational Licensed waste disposal sites Footprint of site dredging

NOTES: Orange cells are those that were included in the GIS mapping exercise Yellow cells are those where there were data limitations that meant a spatial assessment could not be made

R/3988/1 D.4 R.1793 APPENDIX D3. A list of wind farm projects and their published construction schedules

Many developments have published planned construction schedules for foundations and final commissioning. Where foundation installation dates were not provided, timings were estimated to be 1 to 2 years before final completion date (i.e. if completion was in 2016, then foundations were estimated to be be installed in 2014-2015. Where foundation installation spanned over two whole years the number of installations was split evenly. Where no information was available and assumptions had to be made these are highlighted with a note provided where relevant. Status descriptions are as follows: Under construction = at various stages of development; Consented = licence for development given but construction not yet started; Planned = consent submitted but not yet approved; Pre-planning = in the process of preparing licence application. Sites which have not yet been awarded a lease for development, e.g. Northern Ireland Resource Areas and Scottish medium term sites, have not been included.

Number Final Capacity of completion Published / Likely Foundation Site name Round Developer / Description MW Turbines Status (Aug 2012) date Installation dates Comment Inferred construction schedule, used for underwater noise assessment (Note 7) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Walney 1 2 DONG Energy UK 184 51 Operational Jan-11 25 26 Sheringham Shoal 2 SCIRA Offshore Energy Limited 315 88 Under Construction early 2012 Foundations completed 2010 24 64 Inner Gabbard 2 Greater Gabbard Offshore Winds Ltd 504 140 Under Construction 2012 Completed Feb 2010 28 Ormonde 1 Ormonde Energy Ltd (ex Eclipse) 150 30 Operational end 2011 Start and end 2010 30 Walney 2 2 DONG Energy UK 184 51 Operational 2012 Starts May 2011, ends Aug 2011 51 London Array 1 2 London Array Ltd 630 175 Under Construction 2013 Starts Mar 2011, Ends Nov 2011 175 Lincs 2 Centrica (Offshore Wind Power Ltd) 270 75 Under Construction end 2012 Starts May 2011, ends Q1 2012 55 20 Gwynt Y Mor 2 RWE NPower Renewables 750 160 Under Construction 2014 Starts Q4 2011, ends Q4 2013 80 80 Teeside 1 Northern Offshore Wind 62 27 Under Construction 2012 Starts 2011 14 13 West Duddon 2 Scottish Power Generation Ltd 389 108 Consented 2013 Starts Apr 2012 46 62 Humber Gateway 2 Humber Wind Ltd 230 77 Consented 40 37 Dudgeon 2 Warwick Energy 560 168 Consented 2014 Starts Mar 2013 84 84 London Array 2 2 London Array Ltd 370 166 Consented 2015 Starts 2014-2015 83 83 Westermost Rough 2 Total Energie Development 240 80 Consented 2015 Starts 2014 40 40 Race Bank 2 Centrica (RBW) Ltd 620 206 Consented 2015 Starts 2014, Ends 2015 103 103 Docking Shoal 2 Centrica (DSW) Ltd 540 177 Cancelled 88 89 Triton Knoll 2 RWE Npower Renewables 1200 333 Planned 2021 Starts 2018 111 111 111 Methil OWF 2B Energy Prototype 6 2 Consented Starts 2011 2 Walney Extension 5 750 209 Pre-planning 2016 Start 2014, Ends 2015 104 105 Burbo Bank Extension 5 DONG Energy UK 234 65 Pre-planning 2016 Start June 2014, Ends June 2015 32 33 Galloper Extensions 5 504 140 Pre-planning 2016 Starts 2014 70 70 Kentish Flats Extension 5 51 17 Pre-planning 2016 Starts Q4 2013 17 Argyll Array Scotland Scottish Power Renewables 1800 500 Pre-planning 2017 Starts 2015 250 250 Islay Scotland Airtricity 690 138 Pre-planning 2017 Starts 2015 69 69 Neart na Gaoithe Scotland Mainstream Renewable Power 420 130 Planned 2015 Starts Q2 2014, Ends 2015 65 65 Inch Cape Scotland SeaEnergy Renewables Ltd 905 180 Pre-planning 2019 Starts 2015 90 90 Beatrice Scotland Airtricity & SeaEnergy Renewables 920 184 Operational/Planned 2017 Starts 2015 90 94 Aberdeen European Offshore Wind Devel Centre 115 11 Planned 2014 Starts 2012 11 Blyth NaREC Offshore wind demo project 100 20 Planned ?? ?? Note 1 10 10 Zone 1 Moray Firth 3 Eastern-development-area-edward-maccoll 380 67 Planned 2020 Starts 2014, Ends 2020 Note 2 33 34 Zone 1 Moray Firth 3 Eastern-development-area-robert-stevenson 380 67 Planned 2016 Starts Q2 2014, Ends 2016 33 34 Zone 1 Moray Firth 3 Eastern-development-area-thomas-telford 380 67 Planned 2018 Starts Q2 2016, Ends 2018 33 34 Zone 1 Moray Firth 3 Western-development-area 160 30 Pre-Planning 2020? Start 2020? Note 3 30 Zone 2 Firth of Forth - 1 3 SeaGreen Wind Energy Ltd 1075 215 Pre-Planning Starts 2015 Note 4 107 108 Zone 2 Firth of Forth - 2 3 SeaGreen Wind Energy Ltd 1435 287 Pre-Planning ?? Note 4 144 143 Zone 2 Firth of Forth - 3 3 SeaGreen Wind Energy Ltd 955 191 Pre-Planning ?? Note 4 95 96 Zone 3 Dogger Bank 3 Forewind Consortium 6000 1667 Pre-Planning 2016 Start 2015 Note 5 333 334 333 334 333 Zone 3 Dogger Bank - One 3 Forewind Consortium 1400 389 Pre-Planning 2016 Start 2015 Note 5 195 195 Zone 3 Dogger Bank - A 3 Forewind Consortium 1600 444 Pre-Planning 2016 Start 2015 Note 5 222 222 Zone 4 Hornsea 3 Siemens Project Ventures and Mainstream Renewable2800 668 Pre-Planning 2020 ?? 167 167 167 167 Zone 4 Hornsea - Block 1 3 Siemens Project Ventures and Mainstream Renewable 600 166 Pre-Planning 2016 Starts 2014 166 Zone 4 Hornsea - Block 2 3 Siemens Project Ventures and Mainstream Renewable 600 166 Pre-Planning 2016 Starts 2014 166 Zone 5 Norfolk 3 East Anglia Offshore Wind Ltd 7200 2000 Pre-Planning 2020 Starts 2015 Note 6 400 400 400 400 400 Zone 6 Hastings - Rampion 3 Eon Climate and Renewables UK 665 96 Pre-Planning 2016 Starts 2014 96 Zone 7 West Isle of Wight 3 Eneco New Energy - Navitus Bay Wind Park 1200 300 Pre-Planning 2019 Starts 2016 100 100 100 Zone 8 Bristol Channel 3 RWE Npower Renewables - Atlantic Array 1500 250 Pre-Planning 2019 Starts Q2 2015 62 63 62 63 Zone 9 Irish Sea 3 Centrica Renewable Energy 4200 1167 Pre-Planning 2020 Starts 2016 Note 6 292 292 292 291 TOTAL INSTALLATIONS 107 387 220 290 964 2606 2417 1532 1738 1432 141

Source: The main source of information was the Global Offshore Wind Farms Database: www.4coffshore.com/offshorewind/ Individual developer websites queried where information was lacking

Note 1. Assumed development will occur in the short-term. Note 2. Assumed a later construction start date from that published based on final completion date. Note 3. No end date published but assumed that the site will be under construction by 2020. Note 4. No published construction schedules or end dates so assumed zone will undergo staggered development up to 2020 Note 5. Published schedules for Zone 3 by 4C Offshore predict that the entire site will be developed within a year which is not practicable. Therefore construction stretched over longer time scales. Note 6. Number of turbines estimated from capacity and assuming the use of 3.6 MW turbines. Note 7. Based on known construction schedule as of June 2011. ±

02.5 5 10 15 20 km

Date By Size Version Future Tidal Barrages July 11 MCE A4 1

Indicative Location of a Tidal Range Development Figure D1 in the Severn Estuary by 2020 ±

6 1

2 9

025 50 100 150 200 km

Date By Size Version Baseline Wind Turbine Footprint 2010 June 11 MCE A4 2

Projection WGS84 UTM30 Future Wind Turbine Footprint 2020 Scale 1:4,500,000 Wind Farm Lease Areas QA NKD Charting Progress 2 Regions 3988 - Fig_Phys_Loss_WindTurbines.mxd

Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Wind Turbines Baseline & Future Construction Schedule between 2010 and 2020 Figure D2 ±

020 40 80 120 160 km

Date By Size Version Wave Resource Baseline 2010 Oct 12 MCE A4 2

Projection WGS84 UTM30 Tide Resource Baseline 2010 Scale 1:5,700,000 Tide Resource Future 2020 QA JDB

3988 - Fig_Phys_Loss_Wet_Ren_MV.mxd Wave Resource Future 2020

Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Wave and Tidal Devices - Baseline and Future Figure D3 ± 7

6 1

2 9

025 50 100 150 200 km

Date By Size Version Waste Disposal - Current June 11 MCE A4 2

Projection WGS84 UTM30 Navigational Dredging - Current Scale 1:4,500,000 Charting Progress 2 Regions QA NKD

3988 - Fig_Phys_Loss_Nav_Dredge.mxd

Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Navigational Dredging and Waste Disposal Sites Figure D4 ±

020 40 80 120 160 km

Date By Size Version Aggregates_Baseline July 11 MCE A4 2

Projection WGS84 UTM30 Aggregates_WM10 Scale 1:3,000,000 aggregates_WM20 QA NKD

3988 - Fig_Phys_Loss_Aggregates.mxd Charting Progress 2 Regions

Produced by ABPmer Ltd © ABPmer, All rights reserved, 2011 Data Sources: ABPmer, The Crown Estate NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Aggregate Extraction - Baseline and Future Figure D5 ±

025 50 100 150 200 km

Date By Size Version Baseline Platforms Footprint 2030 June 11 MV A4 2

Projection WGS84 UTM30 Future Platforms Footprint 2030 Scale 1:4,800,000 Baseline Hydrocarbon Pipelines QA NMW Charting Progress 2 Regions 3988 - Fig_Phys_Loss_Hydrocarbon.mxd

Footprint of Physical Change to Substrate from Hydrocarbon Extraction - Baseline and Future Figure D6 ±

9 2 5

3 4

045 90 180 270 360 km

Date By Size Version June 12 GMH A4 2 Recommended Reference Areas Fisheries Trawling - Baseline Projection WGS84 UTM30 Recommended MCZ Low Intensity Scale 1:8,000,000 Medium Intensity QA NKD Charting Progress 2 Regions 3988 - Fig_Phys_Dem_Fishing.mxd High Intensity Produced by ABPmer Ltd © ABPmer, All rights reserved, 2011 Data Sources: ABPmer, COWRIE NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION

Current Distribution of Fisheries Trawling Effort Figure D7 ±

9 2 5

3 4

045 90 180 270 360 km

Date By Size Version June 12 GMH A4 2 Recommended Reference Areas Fisheries Dredging - Baseline Projection WGS84 UTM30 Scale 1:8,000,000 Recommended MCZ Low Intensity QA NKD

3988 - Fig_Phys_Dem_Fishing.mxd Charting Progress 2 Regions Medium Intensity Produced by ABPmer Ltd High Intensity © ABPmer, All rights reserved, 2011 Data Sources: ABPmer, COWRIE NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION

Current Distribution of Fisheries Dredging Effort Figure D8 ±

6 1

2 9

020 40 80 120 160 4 km

Date By Size Version Wind_Farm_Lease_Areas_Latest Charting Progress 2 Regions June 11 MCE A4 1

Projection WGS84 UTM30 2010 - 11 Scale 1:4,492,652 2012 - 13 QA NKD

Estimated Wind Farm Construction Schedule Figure D9 ±

9 5 2

020 40 80 120 160 km

Date By Size Version June 11 MCE A4 2 Goldeneye Platform Projection WGS84 UTM30 Scale 1:4,000,000 QA NKD Marine Mammal Survey Points 3988 - Fig_Noise_CCS.mxd Seismic Survey Footprint - 30km Produced by ABPmer Ltd © ABPmer, All rights reserved, 2011 Data Sources: ABPmer, DECC, JNCC Charting Progress 2 Regions NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION

Footprint of Seismic Survey Associated with Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities Figure D10

Appendix E

Descriptor Assessment Method

Appendix E. Descriptor Assessment Method

This appendix presents tables for:

Appendix E1. Method for assessing descriptors

Appendix E2. Sensitivities of EUNIS level / broadscale habitats to priority pressures

Appendix E1. Method for assessing descriptors Mapping Descriptor Criteria Indicator DPSIR Rationale for Assessment and Species layers Pressure layers Sensitivity assumptions needed needed Assessment GES 1 Biological 1.1Species 1.1.1 Distributional range S Assume this refers to climate change No No No diversity distribution see pressures which may lead to shifts in the tab for draft list of distributional range of species. Could be relevant species developed for some fish species and and habitats zooplankton but no layers exist. Don't assess spatially. But identify those species particularly at risk in CP2. 1.1.2 Distributional pattern within S May be able to discuss qualitatively in terms No No No the latter, where appropriate of pressure distribution if 1.1.3 is assessed.

1.1.3 Area covered by the species S Benthic species only, Coarse assessment of No No No (for sessile/benthic species) impact from footprint of pressures. Could use MB102 species layers.

1.2 Population size 1.2.1 Population abundance and/or S Don't assess spatially; could assess No No No biomass, as appropriate qualitatively in terms of pressure distribution if 1.1.3 was assessed. Also interactions with other GES descriptors. 1.3 Population 1.3.1 Population demographic S Don't assess spatially, dependent on No No No condition characteristics (e.g. body size subtleties of pressure; could assess or age class structure, sex qualitatively in terms of pressure distribution ratio, fecundity rates, survival/ if 1.1.3 was assessed mortality rates) 1.3.2 Population genetic structure, S Don't assess spatially, dependent on No No No where appropriate subtleties of pressure; maybe assess qualitatively through pressure distribution, particularly for species where cultivation also occurs, e.g. Salmon 1.4 Habitat distribution 1.4.1 Distributional range S Assume this refers to climate change No No No pressures which may lead to shifts in the distributional range of habitats but not well understood. Don't assess spatially. But identify those habitats particularly at risk in CP2. 1.4.2 Distributional pattern S Don't assess spatially, no information; No No No maybe assess qualitatively in terms of pressure distribution under 1.5.1 1.5 Habitat extent 1.5.1 Habitat area S Benthic habitats only, assess against habitat Broadscale Hydrological Y only those loss, change of substrate and changes to habitats and changes, Physical pressures emergence regime (intertidal habitats only). habitat foci change and selected which Also interactions with other GES descriptors. (MB102) damage habitats have either high or med sensitivity to

1.5.2 Habitat volume, where S Assume this refers only to pelagic habitats, No No No relevant limited pressures, embayments? Changes in emergence beneficial but likely to be small scale and not significant.

1.6 Habitat condition 1.6.1 Condition of the typical S Don't assess spatially, dependent on No No No species and communities subtleties of pressure; maybe assess qualitatively in terms of pressure distribution

1.6.2 Relative abundance and/or S Don't assess spatially, dependent on No No No biomass, as appropriate subtleties of pressure; maybe assess qualitatively in terms of pressure distribution

1.6.3 Physical, hydrological and S Don't assess spatially, dependent on No No No chemical conditions subtleties of pressure; maybe assess qualitatively in terms of pressure distribution

1.7 Ecosystem 1.7.1 Composition and relative S Don't assess spatially; maybe assess No No No structure proportions of ecosystem qualitatively in terms of pressure distribution components (habitats and species) GES 2 Non-indigenous 2.1 Abundance and 2.1.1 Trends in abundance, P Requires information on the location of No No Yes at national species state of non temporal occurrence and future pressures rather than current level indigenous spatial distribution in the wild distributions of nonnatives. Could map the species, in of nonindigenous species colonising space but not a key pressure as it particular invasive is already managed through other species measures, such as ballast water control, aquaculture control of translocations. See summary in CP2. 2.2 Environmental 2.2.1 Ratio between invasive non I Likely to be data deficient. No No No impact of invasive indigenous species and native nonindigenous species species 2.2.2 Impacts of nonindigenous I Not a key pressure (see above). Could No No Yes at national species at the level of species, identify species and habitats that have been level habitats and ecosystems detrimentally affected by NISP e.g are sensitive: see GES 2 tab for examples. But spatial information unlikely to be available

GES 3 Fisheries 3.1 Level of pressure 3.1.1 Fishing mortality (F), as P Information difficult to source. Could use ICES stock areas No No of the fishing compared to Fmsy sustainability indices from CP2 as assessed activity for certain stocks and ICES areas. Then 3.1.2 or Catch/biomass ratio (where P make assumptions over which stocks will No No No F is not available) show an improvement by 2030. 3.2 Reproductive 3.2.1 Spawning Stock Biomass S No No No capacity of the (SSB), as compared to stock SSBmsy 3.2.2 or Biomass indices S No No No 3.3 Population age 3.3.1 Proportion of fish larger than S Information difficult to source and assess at No No No and size the mean size of first sexual present distribution maturation 3.3.2 Mean maximum length across S Information difficult to source and assess at No No No all species found in research present vessel surveys

R/3988/1 E.2 R.1793 Mapping Descriptor Criteria Indicator DPSIR Rationale for Assessment and Species layers Pressure layers Sensitivity assumptions needed needed Assessment 3.3.3 95 % percentile of the fish S Information difficult to source and assess at No No No length distribution observed in present research vessel surveys 3.3.4 or Size at first sexual S No No No maturation, which may reflect the extent of undesirable genetic effects of exploitation

GES 4 Food webs 4.1 Productivity 4.1.1 Performance of key predator S Can assess sensitivity of species identified Harbour seals, Hydrological Y (production per species using their production in the OSPAR EcoQO targets to pressures grey seals (see changes, Physical unit biomass) of per unit biomass (productivity) that will alter performance e.g, habitat loss HBDSEG report change and key species or leading to loss of haulout zones. Information or seal reports damage and trophic groups sources for seal distribution have been for JNCC) noise identified (see main spreadsheet information sources and GES 4 tab for targets).

4.2 Proportion of 4.2.1 Large fish (by weight) S Can assess sensitivity of species to No No No selected species at pressures that will result in loss of large the top of food species/larger cohort (mainly fishing webs pressure, link to GES 3). However, spatial data not available 4.3 Abundance/ 4.3.1 Abundance trends of S Assess from CP2 info. No need to map No No No distribution of key functionally important selected spatially but identify key areas of concern. trophic groups/species groups/species GES 5 Eutrophication 5.1 Nutrients levels 5.1.1 Nutrient concentration in the S Existing sites of concern noted in CP2. No No No water column However, it is assumed that WFD will 5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen S manage this pressure as targets related to No No No and phosphorus), where WFD appropriate 5.2 Direct effects of 5.2.1 Chlorophyll concentration in I Requires information on impacts. However, No No No nutrient the water column it is assumed that WFD will manage this enrichment pressure as targets derived from WFD. 5.2.2 Water transparency related to I No No No increase in suspended algae, where relevant 5.2.3 Abundance of opportunistic I No No No macroalgae 5.2.4 Species shift in floristic I No No No composition such as diatom to flagellate ratio, benthic to pelagic shifts, as well as bloom events of nuisance/toxic algal blooms (e.g. cyanobacteria) caused by human activities 5.3 Indirect effects of 5.3.1 Abundance of perennial I Requires information on impacts. However, No No No nutrient seaweeds and seagrasses it is assumed that WFD will manage this enrichment (e.g. fucoids, eelgrass and pressure as targets derived from WFD. Neptune grass) adversely impacted by decrease in water transparency 5.3.2 Dissolved oxygen, i.e. I No No No changes due to increased organic matter decomposition and size of the area concerned GES 6 Sea floor 6.1 Physical damage, 6.1.1 Type, abundance, biomass S Linked to GES 1. Areal extent of broadscale Broadscale Hydrological Those in areas of integrity having regard to and areal extent of relevant habitats. habitats and changes, Physical low disturbance substrate biogenic substrate habitat foci change and assumed to be in characteristics (MB102) damage better condition than those where levels of impacts are high

6.1.2 Extent of the seabed I See 6.1.1 See 6.1.1 See 6.1.1 See 6.1.1 significantly affected by human activities for the different substrate types 6.2 Condition of 6.2.1 Presence of particularly S Incorporate coarsely into sensitivity see 6.1.1 see 6.1.1 see 6.1.1 benthic community sensitive and/or tolerant assessment of 6.1.1, e.g.assemblages from species highenergy environments preadapted to frequent disturbance (tolerant) and those in low disturbance environments characterised by stable communities of large longlived species (sensitive).

6.2.2 Multimetric indexes S Dependent on subtleties of pressure levels. No No No assessing benthic community Could assess qualitatively condition and functionality, such as species diversity and richness, proportion of opportunistic to sensitive species

6.2.3 Proportion of biomass or S Dependent on subtleties of pressure levels. No No No number of individuals in the Could assess qualitatively macrobenthos above some specified length/size 6.2.4 Parameters describing the S Dependent on subtleties of pressure levels. No No No characteristics (shape, slope Could assess qualitatively and intercept) of the size spectrum of the benthic community GES 7 Hydrography 7.1 Spatial 7.1.1 Extent of area affected by I Key pressure is tidal barrages. Broadscale Future possible High sensitivity characterisation of permanent alterations habitats and Tidal barrages permanent habitat foci alterations (MB102) 7.2 Impact of 7.2.1 Spatial extent of habitats I See 7.1.1. Assessment based on pressure see 7.1.1 see 7.1.1 see 7.1.1 permanent affected by the permanent footprint. hydrographical alteration changes

R/3988/1 E.3 R.1793 Mapping Descriptor Criteria Indicator DPSIR Rationale for Assessment and Species layers Pressure layers Sensitivity assumptions needed needed Assessment 7.2.2 Changes in habitats, in I Defra MB0102 biophysical datalayers may particular the functions be relevant and reports on the distribution of provided (e.g. spawning, highly mobile species. breeding and feeding areas and migration routes of fish, birds and mammals), due to altered hydrographical conditions GES 8 Contaminants 8.1 Concentration of 8.1.1 Concentration of contaminants P Requires information on monitored contaminants in the relevant matrix (such as contaminant levels rather than a sensitivity biota, sediment and water) (state or impact assessment). However, it is assumed that WFD will manage this pressure as targets related to WFD

8.2 Effects of 8.2.1 Levels of pollution effects on I Not based on a sensitivity assessment but No No No contaminants the ecosystem components monitored levels of contaminants: concerned, having regard to candidates include, cetaceans, marine the selected biological gastropods (OSPAR EcoQO). However, it is processes and taxonomic assumed that WFD will manage this groups where a cause/effect pressure as targets related to WFD relationship has been established and needs to be monitored 8.2.2 Occurrence, origin (where I Requires information on specific pollution No No No possible), extent of significant events and effects on biota. However, major acute pollution events (e.g. contamination events are carefully managed slicks from oil and oil through safe ship passage and oil spill products) and their impact on response planning etc. biota physically affected by this pollution GES 9 Contaminants 9.1 Levels, number 9.1.1 Actual levels of contaminants P Requires information on contaminant levels No No No in food and frequency of that have been detected and rather than a sensitivity (state or impact) contaminants number of contaminants assessment. However, it is assumed that which have exceeded other controls will manage this pressure maximum regulatory levels

9.1.2 Frequency of regulatory levels P As above No No No being exceeded GES 10 Marine litter 10.1 Characteristics of 10.1.1 Trends in the amount of litter P Requires information on litter levels rather No No Yes at national litter in the marine washed ashore and/or than a sensitivity (state or impact) level and coastal deposited on coastlines, assessment. Information available from environment including analysis of its MCZ and CSEG assessments (these are composition, spatial based on MCS and CSEMP data). However, distribution and, where no spatial data. Assume that landbased possible, source controls will improve this indicator

10.1.2 Trends in the amount of litter P As above No No Yes at national in the water column (including level floating at the surface) and deposited on the sea floor, including analysis of its composition, spatial distribution and, where possible, source 10.1.3 Trends in the amount, P Requires information on contaminant levels No No Yes at national distribution and, where but not likely that it is possible to assess this level possible, composition of micro given lack of evidence base. particles (in particular micro plastics) 10.2 Impacts of litter on 10.2.1 Trends in the amount and I This indicator can be assessed based on No No No marine life composition of litter ingested OSPAR EcoQO and other data for turtles by marine animals and seabirds. But no spatial data GES 11 Energy (noise) 11.1 Distribution in time 11.1.1 Proportion of days and their P Assessment based on spatial footprint of No Location of oil and Yes and place of loud, distribution within a calendar pressure. Key pressures are seismic gas exploration; low and mid year over areas of a surveys and piling activities CCS proposed frequency determined surface, as well as sites, location of impulsive sounds their spatial distribution, in offshore wind which anthropogenic sound farm installation. sources exceed levels that are Incorporate timing likely to entail significant of developments impact on marine animals

11.2 Continuous low 11.2.1 Trends in the ambient noise P Assessment based on spatial footprint of No Unavailable No frequency sound level within the 1/3 octave pressure. Key pressure is ambient shipping bands 63 and 125 Hz (centre noise. However, detailed shipping density frequency) (re 1Ρa RMS; layer not available. average noise level in these octave bands over a year)

R/3988/1 E.4 R.1793 Appendix E2. Sensitivities of EUNIS level / broadscale habitats to priority pressures

Pressure theme Hydrological Changes Physical loss Physical damage Other physical pressures Pressure Water flow (tidal current) Emergence regime changes - Physical change (to another Physical loss (to land or Structural abrasion / Surface abrasion: damage to Litter Underwater noise changes - local local seabed type) freshwater habitat) penetration of the substrate seabed surface features BROADSCALE HABITATS EUNIS level High energy intertidal rock A1.1 NS (L) M* (L) H* (L) H (L) H* (L) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Moderate energy intertidal rock A1.2 M* (L) M* (L) H* (L) H (L) H* (L) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Low energy intertidal rock A1.3 H* (L) M (L) H (L) H (L) H* (L) H* (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Intertidal coarse sediment A2.1 NS (L) NS (L) M (L) H (L) NS (L) NS (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Intertidal sand and muddy sand A2.2 NS (L) M (L) H (L) H (L) M (L) L (H) NA (L) NS (L)

Intertidal mud A2.3 NS (H) M (L) H (L) H (L) L (H) NS (H) NA (L) NS (L)

Intertidal mixed sediments A2.4 NS (L) NS (L) M (L) H (L) H* (L) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Coastal saltmarshes and saline A2.5 reedbeds M (L) M (L) H (L) H (H) M (M) M (M) NA (L) NS (L) Intertidal sediments dominated by A2.6 aquatic angiosperms M* (H) M* (M) M* (M) H (H) H (M) M* (L*) NA (L) NS (L) Intertidal biogenic reefs A2.7 M* (L) M (L) H* (L) H (L) H* (L) M* (L) NA (L) NS (L)

High energy infralittoral rock A3.1 NS (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) M (L) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Moderate energy infralittoral rock A3.2 NS (L) NE (L) M (L) H (L) H* (L) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Low energy infralittoral rock A3.3 NS (L) NE (L) H* (L) H (L) H* (L) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

High energy circalittoral rock A4.1 NS (L) NE (L) H* (L) H (L) H* (L) H* (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Moderate energy circalittoral rock A4.2 NS (L) NE (L) H* (L) H (L) H* (L) H* (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Low energy circalittoral rock A4.3 L* (L) NE (L) M (L) H (L) M (L) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Subtidal coarse sediment A5.1 NS (L) NE (L) M (L) H (L) M* (L) H* (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Subtidal sand A5.2 L* (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) M* (L*) M* (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Subtidal mud A5.3 L* (L) NE (L) M (L) H (L) M (L) M* (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Subtidal mixed sediments A5.4 L* (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) H (L) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Subtidal macrophyte-dominated A5.5 sediment M* (L) NE (L) H* (L) H (L) H* (L) H* (L) NA (L) NS (L) Subtidal biogenic reefs A5.6 M* (L) NE (L) H* (L) H (L) H* (L) M* (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Deep-sea rock and artificial hard A6.1 substrata NE (L) NE (L) H (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) NA (L) NS (L) Deep-sea mixed substrata A6.2 NE (L) NE (L) H (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Deep-sea sand A6.3 NE (L) NE (L) H (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Deep-sea muddy sand A6.4 NE (L) NE (L) H (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Deep-sea mud A6.5 NE (L) NE (L) H (L) NE (L) H (M) H* (M*) NA (L) NS (L)

Deep-sea bioherms A6.6 NE (L) NE (L) H (H) NE (L) H (H) H (H) NA (L) NS (L)

R/3988/1 E.5 R.1793 Pressure theme Hydrological Changes Physical loss Physical damage Other physical pressures Pressure Water flow (tidal current) Emergence regime changes - Physical change (to another Physical loss (to land or Structural abrasion / Surface abrasion: damage to Litter Underwater noise changes - local local seabed type) freshwater habitat) penetration of the substrate seabed surface features Raised features of the deep-sea A6.7 bed NE (L) NE (L) H (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) NA (L) NS (L) Deep-sea trenches and canyons, A6.8 channels, slope failures and slumps M (L) NE (L) H (L) NE (L) H (M) H (H) NA (L) NS (L) on the continental slope Vents, seeps, hypoxic and anoxic A6.9 habitats of the deep sea NE (L) NE (L) NA (L) NE (L) NA (L) NA (L) NA (L) NS (L) SPECIES Lithothamnion corallioides NS (L) NS (L) H (M) H (L) H (M*) H (M*) NA (L) NS (L)

Phymatolithon calcareum NS (L) NS (L) H (L) H (H) H (M*) H (M) NA (L) NS (L)

Eunicella verrucosa NS (L) NE (L) H (M) H (L) H (M) H (M) NA (L) NS (L)

Arctica islandica L (L) NE (L) H (L) H (L) H (H) H (H) NA (L) NS (L)

Ostrea edulis NS (L) M (L) H (H) H (L) M (M) M (L) NA (L) NS (L)

Worksheet Codes See Report Section 5.2 for an explanation of table NA Not Assessed NE Not Exposed NS Not Sensitive L Low Sensitivty M Medium Sensitivity H High Sensitivity

R/3988/1 E.6 R.1793

Appendix F

Individual Assessment Tables

Appendix F. Individual Assessment Tables

This appendix presents individual assessment tables for a range of pressures on habitats:

Table F1. Area of habitat affected by A) hydrological changes from tidal range developments, specifically emergence regime changes and the sensitivity of habitats to this disturbance

Table F2. Area of the habitats impacted by B) physical change to substrate type from various activities and the sensitivity of habitats to this disturbance

Table F3. Change over time in the spatial extent of each activity resulting in physical change to substrate types

Table F4. Percentage coverage of areas for capital and maintenance dredging by habitat maps

Table F5. Area of the habitats impacted by C) Structural abrasion/ penetration from fisheries dredging and the sensitivity of habitats to this disturbance

Table F6. Area of the habitats impacted by C) Surface abrasion from fisheries demersal trawling and the sensitivity of habitats to this disturbance

F.1

Table F1. Area of habitat affected by A) hydrological changes from tidal range developments, specifically emergence regime changes and the sensitivity of habitats to this disturbance

Emergence Regime Changes EUNIS Code Description Area (km²) % of UK Habitat A1.1 High energy littoral rock 0.001 0.002

A1.2 Moderate energy littoral rock 0.003 0.005

A1.3 Low energy littoral rock 0.802 2.199

A2.1 Littoral coarse sediment 0.026 0.049

A2.2 Littoral sand and muddy sand 4.808 0.477

A2.3 Littoral mud 4.167 0.352

A2.4 Littoral mixed sediments 0.010 0.016

A2.5 Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds 0.125 0.054

A2.6 Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms 0.002 0.013

A2.7 Littoral biogenic reefs small 0.001

Total Habitat Affected 9.944

Notes: Small: < 0.001 km² or < 0.001 % Sensitivities are highlighted as follows: turquoise (medium); pale turquoise (not sensitive) Total area upstream of barrage is 575 km² and 531 km² (or 92%) has been mapped for habitat type

F.2

Table F2. Area of the habitats impacted by B) physical change to substrate type from various activities and the sensitivity of habitats to this disturbance

EUNIS Area of Impact (km²) % of total UK Habitat Habitat Activity Code 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 Wave 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Intertidal Capital dredging 0.057 0.000 0.006 0.000 sand and Maintenance A2.2 0.740 0.740 0.797 0.073 0.073 0.079 muddy dredging sand Waste disposal 1.650 1.650 1.650 0.163 0.163 0.163 Total 2.390 2.447 2.447 0.236 0.242 0.242 Aggregates 26.760 26.760 13.179 0.299 0.299 0.147 High Wind 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 energy Tidal 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.001 0.001 A3.1 infralittoral Maintenance 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 rock dredging Total 26.765 26.846 13.265 0.299 0.300 0.148 Aggregates 10.049 10.049 4.804 0.352 0.352 0.168 Tidal 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.001 0.001 Moderate Wave 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 energy Capital dredging 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 A3.2 infralittoral Maintenance 0.141 0.141 0.147 0.005 0.005 0.005 rock dredging Waste disposal 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.003 0.003 0.003 Total 10.281 10.311 5.066 0.360 0.361 0.177 Aggregates 0.013 0.013 0.002 0.002 0.000 Low Wave 0.023 0.023 0.000 0.004 0.004 energy Maintenance A3.3 0.669 0.669 0.669 0.103 0.103 0.103 infralittoral dredging rock Waste disposal 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.067 0.067 0.067 Total 1.122 1.145 1.132 0.172 0.176 0.174 Aggregates 6.179 6.179 12.548 0.048 0.048 0.098 High Wind 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 energy A4.1 Tidal 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 circalittoral rock Waste disposal 1.813 1.813 1.813 0.014 0.014 0.014 Total 7.992 8.058 14.427 0.062 0.062 0.112 Aggregates 11.748 11.748 5.475 0.029 0.029 0.013 Platforms 0.147 0.147 0.000 0.000 0.000 Moderate Wind 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 energy A4.2 Tidal 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 circalittoral rock Wave 0.021 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 Waste disposal 20.856 20.856 20.856 0.051 0.051 0.051 Total 32.604 32.798 26.525 0.080 0.080 0.064 Low Tidal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 energy A4.3 Waste disposal 5.015 5.015 5.015 0.156 0.156 0.156 circalittoral Total 5.015 5.051 5.051 0.156 0.156 0.156 rock A5.1 Subtidal Aggregates 367.810 382.957 430.417 0.277 0.288 0.324 coarse Platforms 9.162 9.211 9.211 0.007 0.007 0.007 sediment Wind 0.364 3.912 3.912 0.000 0.003 0.003 Tidal 0.002 0.028 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 Wave 0.000 0.086 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 Capital dredging 0.843 0.000 0.001 0.000 Maintenance 15.345 15.345 16.188 0.012 0.012 0.012 dredging

F.3

EUNIS Area of Impact (km²) % of total UK Habitat Habitat Activity Code 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 Waste disposal 152.096 152.096 152.096 0.114 0.114 0.114 Total 544.779 564.479 611.939 0.410 0.425 0.460 Aggregates 74.517 84.563 82.692 0.029 0.033 0.032 Platforms 40.394 40.394 40.394 0.016 0.016 0.016 Wind 0.426 8.149 8.149 0.000 0.003 0.003 Tidal 0.000 0.026 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 Subtidal Wave 0.036 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 A5.2 sand Capital dredging 2.151 0.000 0.001 0.000 Maintenance 28.207 28.207 28.207 0.011 0.011 0.011 dredging Waste disposal 71.072 71.072 71.072 0.028 0.028 0.028 Total 214.616 234.598 230.576 0.084 0.092 0.090 Aggregates 0.178 0.178 0.000 0.000 0.000 Platforms 3.533 3.533 3.533 0.007 0.007 0.007 Wind 0.123 0.318 0.318 0.000 0.001 0.001 Tidal 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 Subtidal Wave 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 A5.3 mud Capital dredging 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.000 Maintenance 2.839 2.839 2.978 0.006 0.006 0.006 dredging Waste disposal 38.510 38.510 38.510 0.077 0.077 0.077 Total 45.007 45.528 45.527 0.090 0.091 0.091 Aggregates 3.262 3.262 0.526 0.022 0.022 0.004 Platforms 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 Wind 0.034 0.050 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 Tidal 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 Subtidal Wave 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 A5.4 mixed Capital dredging 0.981 0.000 0.007 0.000 sediments Maintenance 13.080 13.080 14.061 0.087 0.087 0.094 dredging Waste disposal 29.749 29.749 29.749 0.199 0.199 0.199 Total 46.133 47.133 44.397 0.308 0.315 0.297 1,000.31 Grand Total 936.704 978.357 0.108 0.112 0.115 5 Sensitivities are highlighted as follows: dark blue (high); turquoise (medium); light blue (low); pale turquoise (not sensitive)

F.4

Table F3. Change over time in the spatial extent of each activity resulting in physical change to substrate types (physical loss)

% Increase Activity 2010 2020 2030 by 2030 Aggregates 500.339 525.711 549.819 9.9

Platforms 53.097 53.293 53.293 0.4

Wind 0.952 12.465 12.465 1209.7

Wave 0.000 0.192 0.192

Tidal 0.004 0.204 0.204 5,006.1

Capital dredging 4.370

Maintenance dredging 64.664 64.664 69.034 6.8

Waste disposal 329.548 329.548 329.548 0.0

Grand Total 948.604 990.447 1,014.555 6.95

Table F4. Percentage coverage of areas for capital and maintenance dredging by habitat maps

Total Area Dredge Ports Total Dredge Area Covered by % Coverage Habitat Bristol 0.90 0.21 22.9

Felixstowe 20.90 16.69 79.9

Humber 3.03 1.98 65.2

Mersey 16.75 16.08 96.0

Capital dredging Portsmouth 2.71 0.78 28.7

Southampton 7.84 5.10 65.0

Tees 4.51 0.99 21.9

Thames 22.62 1.88 8.3

Total 79.26 43.70 55.1

Maintenance dredging Total 294.48 64.66 22.0

F.5

Table F5. Area of the habitats impacted by C) Structural abrasion/ penetration from fisheries dredging and the sensitivity of habitats to this disturbance (NB. This is a new table, not all changes have shown up in tracked changes though) EUNIS Habitat Intensity Area of Impact (km²) % of total UK Habitat Code 2010 2020 2010 2020 Low 1,680.9 1,478.5 18.91 16.63 Medium 95.0 94.4 1.07 1.06 A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock High 0.7 0.7 0.01 0.01 Total 1,776.6 1,573.6 19.98 17.70 Low 1,241.0 1,198.3 43.62 42.11 Medium 112.4 112.4 3.95 3.95 A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock High 9.0 9.0 0.32 0.32 Total 1,362.4 1,319.7 47.88 46.38 Low 437.1 437.0 67.25 67.24 Medium 30.9 30.9 4.75 4.75 A3.3 Low energy infralittoral rock High 7.9 7.9 1.22 1.22 Total 475.9 475.8 73.22 73.21 Low 2,191.4 1,657.9 17.19 13.00 Medium 5.6 5.6 0.04 0.04 A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock High 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 Total 2,197.1 1,663.6 17.23 13.05 Low 10,530.7 9,696.2 25.76 23.72 Medium 520.4 460.8 1.27 1.13 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock High 3.2 3.2 0.01 0.01 Total 11,054.3 10,160.2 27.04 24.85 Low 1,020.4 1,018.1 31.83 31.76 Medium 60.0 60.0 1.87 1.87 A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock High 6.9 6.9 0.22 0.22 Total 1,087.4 1,085.1 33.92 33.84 Low 30,008.0 29,238.1 22.68 22.10 Medium 4,959.9 4,890.2 3.75 3.70 A5.1 Sublittoral coarse sediment High 112.5 112.5 0.09 0.09 Total 35,080.5 34,240.8 26.51 25.88 Low 23,110.9 22,767.6 9.09 8.96 Medium 1,827.9 1,827.1 0.72 0.72 A5.2 Sublittoral sand High 10.7 10.7 0.00 0.00 Total 24,949.5 24,605.4 9.81 9.68 Low 6,892.5 6,509.2 13.86 13.09 Medium 239.1 239.1 0.48 0.48 A5.3 Sublittoral mud High 34.6 34.6 0.07 0.07 Total 7,166.2 6,782.9 14.42 13.64 Low 2,446.6 2,388.0 16.47 16.08 Medium 463.5 463.5 3.12 3.12 A5.4 Sublittoral mixed sediments High 2.0 2.0 0.01 0.01 Total 2,912.1 2,853.5 19.60 19.21 Deep-sea rock and artificial hard A6.1 substrata Low 5.6 5.6 0.09 0.09 A6.2 Deep-sea mixed substrata Low 57.8 57.8 0.08 0.08 A6.3 or Deep-sea sand or Deep-sea muddy A6.4 sand Low 58.6 58.6 0.09 0.09 Low 16.2 16.2 0.01 0.01 A6.5 Deep-sea mud Medium 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.00 Total 19.6 19.6 0.01 0.01 Deep sea coarse sediment Low 55.6 55.6 0.18 0.18 Totals Low 79,753.3 76,582.8 9.16 8.80

F.6

EUNIS Habitat Intensity Area of Impact (km²) % of total UK Habitat Code 2010 2020 2010 2020 Medium 8,318.3 8,187.4 0.96 0.94 High 187.5 187.5 0.02 0.02 Grand Total 88,259.1 84,957.8 10.14 9.78 Note: Sensitivities are highlighted as follows: blue (high) and turquoise (medium) Intensity: Low < 100; Medium 100-500; High > 500 (hours fished per year per 0.05 decimal degrees which ranges from 15 to 20 km² due to the curvature of the earth)

F.7

Table F6. Area of the habitats impacted by C) Surface abrasion from fisheries demersal trawling and the sensitivity of habitats to this disturbance (NB this is a new table, not all changes have shown up in tracked changes though) EUNIS Area of Impact (km²) % of UK Habitat Habitat Intensity code 2010 2020 2010 2020 Low 2,808.8 2,678.4 31.60 30.13 A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock Medium 93.3 93.3 1.05 1.05 Total 2,902.1 2,771.7 32.65 31.18 Low 1,643.7 1,543.0 57.77 54.23 Medium 303.7 286.2 10.67 10.06 A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock High 9.6 9.6 0.34 0.34 Total 1,957.0 1,838.8 68.78 64.62 Low 386.6 386.3 59.48 59.43 Medium 45.7 45.7 7.03 7.03 A3.3 Low energy infralittoral rock High 6.7 6.7 1.04 1.04 Total 439.0 438.7 67.54 67.50 Low 7,007.8 6,520.4 54.97 51.14 A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock Medium 155.0 131.8 1.22 1.03 Total 7,162.7 6,652.2 56.18 52.18 Low 24,387.1 22,951.7 59.65 56.14 Medium 10,072.9 9,656.6 24.64 23.62 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock High 13.5 13.5 0.03 0.03 Total 34,473.4 32,621.8 84.32 79.79 Low 2,365.5 2,362.5 73.78 73.69 Medium 406.7 393.8 12.69 12.28 A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock High 29.3 29.1 0.91 0.91 Total 2,801.5 2,785.5 87.38 86.88 Low 81,472.8 77,845.7 61.58 58.84 Medium 19,893.3 19,324.4 15.04 14.61 A5.1 Sublittoral coarse sediment High 440.5 440.0 0.33 0.33

Total 101,806.5 97,610.1 76.94 73.77

Low 189,861.3 184,385.5 74.68 72.53 Medium 25,827.3 25,624.5 10.16 10.08 A5.2 Sublittoral sand High 824.1 819.5 0.32 0.32

Total 216,512.6 210,829.6 85.16 82.93 Low 12,817.7 12,413.7 25.78 24.97 Medium 33,163.3 32,761.8 66.71 65.90 A5.3 Sublittoral mud High 2,607.2 2,529.9 5.24 5.09 Total 48,588.2 47,705.4 97.74 95.96 Low 10,114.4 9,842.8 68.09 66.26 Medium 1,614.6 1,535.1 10.87 10.33 A5.4 Sublittoral mixed sediments High 75.1 75.1 0.51 0.51 Total 11,804.1 11,453.1 79.46 77.10 Low 1,247.6 1,240.1 19.16 19.05 Deep-sea rock and artificial hard A6.1 Medium 68.2 68.2 1.05 1.05 substrata Total 1,315.8 1,308.2 20.21 20.10 Low 9,959.8 9,880.4 13.22 13.12 A6.2 Deep-sea mixed substrata Medium 75.4 56.8 0.10 0.08 Total 10,035.3 9,937.2 13.32 13.19 Low 19,017.2 18,989.9 27.76 27.72 A6.3 or Deep-sea sand or Deep-sea muddy Medium 714.0 704.4 1.04 1.03 A6.4 sand High 6.6 6.6 0.01 0.01 Total 19,737.9 19,701.0 28.81 28.76 A6.5 Deep-sea mud Low 16,122.2 16,025.9 9.50 9.45

F.8

EUNIS Area of Impact (km²) % of UK Habitat Habitat Intensity code 2010 2020 2010 2020 Medium 496.2 494.0 0.29 0.29 Total 16,618.4 16,519.9 9.80 9.74 Low 13,148.9 13,078.7 43.70 43.47 Deep sea coarse sediment Medium 722.8 708.5 2.40 2.35 Total 13,871.7 13,787.2 46.10 45.82 Low 392,361.4 380,145.0 45.08 43.68 Totals Medium 93,652.3 91,885.3 10.76 10.56 High 4,012.6 3,930.0 0.46 0.45 Grand Total 490,026.3 475,960.3 56.30 54.68 Note: Sensitivities are highlighted as follows: blue (high) and turquoise (medium) Intensity: Low < 100; Medium 100-500; High > 500 (hours fished per year per 0.05 decimal degrees which ranges from 15 to 20 km² due to the curvature of the earth)

F.9