A Review of Risk and Considerations for Improvement

www.defra.gov.uk

Marine Species Protection: A review of risk and considerations for improvement

Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill

December 2006

Marine Species Protection: A review of risk and considerations for improvement

CRO354 Living Land and Seas Science Division

Krystal Hemingway, Nicholas Cutts, Suzanne Boyes, James Allen, Michael Elliott and Susan Travers

Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies University of Hull Cottingham Road Hull HU6 7RX

Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra, nor is Defra liable for the accuracy of information provided, or responsible for any use of the reports content.

Executive Summary

The UK Government is committed to introducing a Marine Bill to help to deliver the vision of ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse ocean and seas’. To assist in building the evidence base on the need for new policy in the marine environment, Defra commissioned the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies (IECS) to undertake a review of marine species considered vulnerable to human activities which do not have existing protection, and to recommend approaches to achieve protection, considering alternatives to regulation first (CRO534).

This review and assessment comprised the completion of a literature review and consultation exercise with key stakeholders to collate information on key marine species currently not afforded species protection, and the assessment of species groups considered to be vulnerable to human activities, together with recommendations for their protection.

An assessment of actual threats was not possible as part of this review due to a paucity of available information. Although extensive consultation regarding specific threats to the conservation of marine species has been undertaken both as part of this review and the wider Marine Bill consultation, no evidence was presented other than in anecdotal form. As such, the assessment employed of species protection requirements for this report has been undertaken using a theoretical vulnerability approach based on the lifestyle and threats to niche groups.

The purpose of this study was not to evaluate the whole range of marine species in UK waters or produce an exhaustive individual marine species list. The aim was rather to choose species groups which were representative of all species thought to require protection, with examples chosen from each of these groups in order to encompass the widest range of ecological niches. Human activities in the marine environment were then identified and the sensitivities of the species to a given set of human-mediated environmental factors (physical, chemical & biological parameters) determined. Key groups were therefore generated based on a broad niche approach, and using sensitivity/vulnerability values. Analysis was subsequently undertaken whereby ecological niche combinations (species groups) were identified using a series of criteria including intertidal or subtidal habitat, different types of seabed and type of feeding strategy, with sensitivity/vulnerability values ascribed to these. Human activities in the marine environment were characterised and the sensitivities of key species groups to a given set of human-mediated environmental factors (physical, chemical & biological parameters) determined through the development of sensitivity matrices. Management (and protection) options were identified for groups, along habitat and species protection approaches.

Whilst some human activities disrupt structure and functioning of habitats and thus biodiversity, others significantly change habitats, species and communities. A damaged habitat may recover its functioning but not its diversity, and methods need to be in place to identify and address this loss. The methods employed within the review allow for a flexibility of approach for species protection, this being derived from either the determination of environmental requirements of a species/habitat to maintain function and diversity, or the identification of activities likely to be a threat to the species/habitat.

The findings of the review indicated that fundamentally, species are at risk from one or both of only two main pressures: either a loss of habitat (which includes space) and/or modification to that habitat, or because they or their prey are being taken as target or non-target species by fisheries. Species protection resulting from the application of these two main pressures is currently undertaken through a series of mechanisms including voluntary, area-based protection, sectoral controls and wider marine management (which includes licensing regimes). The use of these measures for the protection of species is discussed.

The report identified the Ecosystem Approach as being a useful basis to species protection, as it integrates ecological aspects within a social, political, administrative and legislative framework. Based on this, it is necessary to control certain damaging activities within the marine environment to protect the functioning of a habitat, physical attributes and food supply, i.e. maintaining the natural physical, chemical and biological characteristics and functioning of the habitat.

A ‘toolbox’ approach with a variety of measures available to address specific issues/problems in pursuing sustainable species/habitat management was recommended as part of this assessment. The review concluded that an area-based approach would usually be the ‘best’ mechanism for protecting sedentary species and habitats. The approach centres around the maintenance of level 1 and 2 processes and as such, allows the protection of species or habitats within the area and can focuses on the protection of a species at a particular stage of its life-cycle (e.g. spawning, nursery) or species assemblage.

A sectoral based approach was found to be the most suitable form of protection for mobile marine species. Such an approach could be targeted through more species specific management measures, including restrictions to activities and closed areas either in a local or national context. This mechanism should be specifically used to ensure better regulation of fishing gears to avoid bycatch and disturbance of seabed communities.

Area-based measures (which include MPAs) were considered to provide the most suitable form of protection for species and habitats in the marine environment, in particular those considered sedentary or sessile in nature.

The need for legislative species protection was considered extremely limited and would only apply to species at particular risk from capture or killing which cannot be adequately protected through sectoral/spatial controls. In particular this may apply to some mobile species that are unintentional bycatch and require extensive areas that are of importance for several key life stages. Its important to note, that legislative species protection alone does not ensure species will be effectively protected, but a combination of sectoral and spatial planning measures are required.

Where legislative species protection is the most suitable mechanism, regard should also be given to legally controlling the sale of protected species where they have been collected unintentionally and to the prevention of damage to habitats or locations which are important to a protected species for part of its lifecycle.

ii In order to limit the requirement for scheduling individual species or habitats within the proposed Marine Bill, a flexible list based approach could be adopted whereby species requiring protection are included within a published list which can be amended at any time by regulatory authorities depending on their current conservation status.

iii Contents

Executive Summary i

Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 1.1 Project Background 1 1.2 Aims & Objectives 2 1.3 Scope 3 1.4 Report Structure 3

Chapter 2 - Adopted Approach 4

2.1 Literature Review 4 2.2 Consultations 4 2.2.1 Defra Marine Bill Consultation 4 2.2.2 IECS Consultation & Questionnaire 5 2.2.3 Stakeholder Workshop 6 2.3 Selection of Species and/or Groups Considered to be at Risk 6 2.3.1 Identification of Species Groups 7 2.3.2 Activity Identification 7 2.3.3 Environmental Sensitivity Identification 9 2.3.4 Assessment of Approaches to Species Protection 10

Chapter 3 - Unprotected Species Analysis 14

3.1 Consultation Responses 14 3.1.1 General 14 3.1.2 Species Identified as being at Risk 14 3.2 Assessment of Representative Species Groups 16

Chapter 4 - Approaches to Species Protection 21

4.1 Voluntary Approaches 21 4.2 Sectoral Regulation 23 4.3 Area-based Mechanisms 26 4.4 Wider Marine Management 27 4.5 Legislative Species Protection 28 4.6 Other Mechanisms 28 4.7 Consultation Responses - Approaches to Species Protection 29 4.8 Assessment of Suitable Approaches to Species Protection using Niche Group Species 30

iv Chapter 5 - Discussion 40

5.1 Outcome of the Assessment 40 5.1.1 Data Availability & Quality 41 5.2 Management & Protection Toolbox Approach 42 5.3 An Ecosystem Based Approach 44

Chapter 6 - Conclusions & Recommendations 46

6.1 Conclusions 46 6.2 Recommendations 47

References 50

Acronyms 53

Annexes

Annex A - Consultation & Stakeholder Workshop 54

Annex B - Marine Species Protection Questionnaire 55

Annex C - Existing Marine Species Protection 56

Annex D - Critical Marine Processes 61

Annex E - Summary of Consultee Responses Relating to Unprotected Marine Species identified as ‘At Risk’ from Marine Activities 64

Annex F - Summary of Consultee Responses Relating to Species listed under the WCA identified as ‘At Risk’ from Marine Activities beyond 12 nm 66

Annex G - Summary of Consultee Responses concerning the Application of Increased Protection to Marine Species 68

Annex H - Extended Sensitivity (Unprotected Species) 70

Annex I - Extended Sensitivity (WCA Species) 75

Annex J - Unprotected Key Species - Environmental Requirements 77

Annex K - Examples of Management Mechanisms for Species Protection 79

List of Figures

Figure 1 Possible process for identifying whether there are marine species for which protection through nature conservation legislation is a necessary and most suitable approach

List of Tables

Table 1 Environmental factors which may be affected by human activities (MarLIN factors) with equivalents in the ‘Pressures’ used by the Environment Agency (EA) Table 2 Examples of matrix outputs including basic management approach

List of Matrices

Matrix 1 Maritime activities and environmental pressures Matrix 2 Unprotected species of concern: summary of sensitivity to environmental pressures Matrix 3 WCA species: summary of sensitivity to environmental pressures

List of Boxes

Box 1 Impacts of mooring small crafts on Zostera marina beds Box 2 Boat disturbance to basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus) Box 3 The WiSe (WIldlife SafE) vessel accreditation scheme Box 4 Pink sea fan (Eunicella verrucosa) - voluntary closed areas (scallop dredging) in Lyme Bay Box 5 Fan mussel (Atrina fragilis) - voluntary no-anchor zone in Plymouth West Hoe Box 6 Cornish codes of practice - cetacean bycatch Box 7 Isle of Man scallop fishery - sectoral control case study

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Project Background

1.1 The UK Government is committed to introducing a Marine Bill to help to deliver the vision of ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse ocean and seas’. As such, the proposed Marine Bill will contain measures to produce a more efficient and effective regulation of UK marine waters to achieve the sustainable use of resources whilst minimising impacts on the marine environment. The drafting of the Marine Bill offers an opportunity to introduce marine nature conservation provisions (if deemed appropriate) for improved protection for marine biodiversity.

1.2 The success of the proposed Marine Bill may require changes to the present administrative and legislative system. However, any changes will need to be made against a sound and reliable evidence base.

1.3 Proposals currently under consideration by Defra include whether there are any marine species considered vulnerable to human impacts and to identify the best ways to ensure the conservation of these species.

1.4 Marine species and habitats are essential to providing a wide range of goods and services to society. Over 8,200 multicellular species occur in UK marine waters and thus form a significant proportion of the UK biodiversity (Hiscock, 2006).

1.5 The Government’s current approach to the protection of marine biodiversity is primarily based on measures which promote the health of ecosystems to ensure that the conditions provided are those in which marine species can thrive.

1.6 Habitats are predominantly protected through either area-based (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI1) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)), or activity-based mechanisms (e.g. licensing and permits). Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs), Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Appropriate Assessments (AAs) are carried out to ensure potentially damaging plans, projects or activities are identified, assessed and mitigated (or compensated for) through management, restriction or consent. Marine flora and fauna are protected through a combination of area-based systems and sectoral controls. Some species are also afforded legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) and its amendments, and under the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) which have been transposed into the UK by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (Habitats Regulations).

1.7 To assist in building the evidence base on the need for new policy in the marine environment, Defra commissioned the Institute of Estuarine and

1 A full list of acronyms is provided on page 53.

Coastal Studies (IECS) at the University of Hull to undertake a review on marine species considered vulnerable to human activities which do not have existing protection, and to recommend approaches to achieve protection, considering alternatives to regulation first (CRO534).

1.8 This research forms part of a series of evidence based reports commissioned by Defra to consider proposals on nature conservation in the marine environment.

1.2 Aims & Objectives

1.9 This research has aimed to provide the evidence base in a concise but scientifically defendable manner on whether there are still marine species which are unprotected and whose conservation is at risk from human activities. Furthermore, it considers whether increased legislative species protection would be beneficial, or if adequate protection is possible via alternative approaches (e.g. sectoral, voluntary, and area-based). The key objectives were to:

i. identify marine species (currently not afforded species protection) which are considered at risk;

ii. identify activities posing the threat;

iii. assess whether legislative protection is the most suitable mechanism for marine species;

iv. identify non-regulatory and sectoral approaches for marine species protection;

v. to make recommendations on suitable approaches for species conservation.

1.10 Using case-studies, a review of literature, identification of species/group sensitivities and discussions with key stakeholders, an assessment has been made to identify if there are any marine species which may warrant legislative protection. The scope of the project was not to review all species, but to utilise a niche/group assessment (encompassing worked examples) to identify any particular groups of species which may need to be considered further in order to ensure they are protected.

1.11 This report presents the findings from the review in a transparent form considered accessible to marine policymakers, managers, stakeholders and the wider public.

1.3 Scope

1.12 The geographical scope of this research pertained to Territorial Waters around England and Wales and UK Offshore waters. Both inshore and offshore marine habitats were considered. Where appropriate, Scottish case study examples were also included in the assessment process.

1.13 Marine species already afforded species protection under existing legislation (WCA and Habitats Regulations) were not included within the scope of this study. With the transposition of the Habitats Directive beyond 12 nautical miles (through the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations), the scope of work excluded those species currently listed under the Habitats Directive. However, marine species listed under the WCA were included for areas beyond 12 nm (the current offshore limit of the WCA) together with marine avifauna. The efficacy of existing protection measures was assessed as part of the review and information collated from this exercise considered when providing recommendations.

1.14 The overall scope of the research was to provide the evidence base to allow the finalisation of the species conservation provision being considered in the Marine Bill.

1.4 Report Structure

1.15 The report is divided into six Chapters: Chapter 2 summarises the approach adopted to complete the review and assessment and how species/groups and potential activities impacting species were identified. Chapter 3 provides the analysis of key case studies and identifies a matrices approach to define species/groups sensitivities and protection requirements, with Chapter 4 detailing approaches to species protection. Chapter 5 provides the discussion, with conclusions and recommendations presented in Chapter 6.

Chapter 2 Adopted Approach

2.1 This review and assessment was undertaken in two parts: the completion of a literature review and consultation exercise to collate information on key marine species currently not afforded species protection, and the assessment of a representative number of species groups considered to be vulnerable to human activities. Recommendations for their protection were subsequently highlighted.

2.1 Literature Review

2.2 Published, grey, and web literature on species protection and threats were consulted and national and European legislation and other protocols reviewed to identify marine species afforded existing legislative protection. The latter included the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention); the Convention of the Protection of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention); Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive); Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981; the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended); the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive); and the Countryside Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (in England and Wales).

2.3 Unprotected species of conservation concern2 were identified using several criteria/designations including those used by the UK Biodiversity Steering Group.

2.4 To ensure the continuity of approach to marine species management, information from the Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland website (MarLIN) was further developed in order to link coastal and maritime activities, environmental factors and species sensitivity.

2.2 Consultations

2.2.1 Defra Marine Bill Consultation

2.5 On 29th March 2006, Defra issued a consultation document on proposals for a Marine Bill. A number of potential options for future species protection were presented:

a) maintaining current coverage in territorial waters;

b) extending species protection legislation by providing protection for species in the waters for which the UK has responsibility; and

c) repealing existing species legislation for the marine area.

2 Throughout this report, the phrase ‘species of conservation concern’ is used as a generic term to categorise those species considered to be potentially at risk and does not refer to the formal list compiled by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC).

2.6 Non-legislative options were also presented:

i. voluntary approaches such as co-operative working between conservation agencies, environmental organisations and relevant industries to develop guidance, codes of practice and voluntary initiatives to prevent or reduce damage to vulnerable marine species;

ii. sectoral approaches involving the introduction or improvement of activity-based measures to manage impacts on marine wildlife, e.g. the EC Bycatch Regulation (38) which requires the use of pingers to reduce the number of cetaceans caught by fishermen;

iii. area-based protection and closed-season protection is particularly effective for sedentary or geographically concentrated species, but can also protect a proportion of the population of more widespread species together with important areas for key life stages of mobile species (e.g. spawning and nursery grounds) where these can be identified; and

iv. wider marine management such as the development of licensing regimes and fisheries management. Many of the major threats to marine species come from controlled activities making this one of the major mechanisms for the protection of biodiversity.

2.7 As part of this research contract, responses to Questions 67 and 68 on species conservation measures were provided by Defra:

Q67: Are there threats to the conservation of marine species in the offshore area or elsewhere that are not addressed by existing measures and controls?

Q68: Which option for species protection in the Marine Bill would be most compatible with the principles described in section 4? Are there any other options that should be considered?

2.8 Full responses (accessed via the web) from a number of number of statutory conservation agencies and other relevant authorities/organisation were also reviewed as part of this analysis.

2.2.2 IECS Consultation & Questionnaire

2.9 Targeted consultation with key practitioners in the statutory conservation agencies and relevant authorities (e.g. Natural England3, Countryside Council for Wales, sea fisheries committees, and other relevant competent authorities) was undertaken to gather examples of unprotected marine species vulnerable to human activities together with recommendations on suitable approaches to provide protection.

3 Natural England was formed in October 2006 with the merging of the Countryside Agency, Rural Development Service and English Nature. The views represented here are those of English Nature.

2.10 A consultation document with specific reference to marine species protection was developed and circulated to a number of key practitioners within the statutory conservation agencies and other relevant authorities identified by Defra and IECS (Annex A). Key questions posed within the document (Annex B) related to (i) unprotected species/groups considered to be at risk from activities in the marine environment; (ii) species solely included in the WCA considered to be at risk outside the 12 nm zone; (iii) species/groups benefiting most from the application of voluntary, sectoral, or other non-regulatory management approaches; and (iv) additional statutory species/sectoral protection which should be applied. Anecdotal and case-study evidence (successes and failures) was requested throughout.

2.2.3 Stakeholder Workshop

2.11 A stakeholder meeting was held in London on 14th September 2006 to discuss the adopted species sensitivity-based approach, mechanisms for marine species protection, and how such protection could be integrated effectively into the Marine Bill. Key practitioners from statutory conservation agencies, relevant authorities and stakeholder groups (see Annex A) discussed the initial findings and identified gaps requiring further consideration.

2.3 Selection of Species and/or Groups Considered to be at Risk

2.12 As part of the selection and assessment process, species currently afforded protection under existing legislation were identified. The legislative mechanisms whereby protection is afforded are given in Annex C.

2.13 As already outlined, the purpose of this study was not to evaluate the whole range of marine species in UK waters or produce an exhaustive individual marine species list. The aim was rather to choose species groups which were representative of all species thought to require protection, with examples chosen from each of these groups in order to encompass the widest range of ecological niches. Human activities in the marine environment were then identified and the sensitivities of the species to a given set of human-mediated environmental factors (physical, chemical & biological parameters) determined. Key groups were therefore generated based on a broad niche approach, and using sensitivity/vulnerability values ascribed by MarLIN where available. Where such information was not available, expert judgement was used, based on experience of, and evidence from, similar species or habitats.

2.14 Based on this, a broad sensitivity approach to key marine species/groups (either key structural, key functional or sensitive types) was therefore adopted in order to identify those species requiring additional protection, the factors creating the need for protection, and the most appropriate approaches for protection.

2.3.1 Identification of Species Groups

2.15 Niches were generated for combinations of hard/soft substrata and water column, fauna (e.g. infauna, epifauna), lifestyle (e.g. mobile or sedentary), phylum and feeding guild. These are provided in summary form in Chapter 3 and in greater detail as appended annexes. Species/groups were subsequently assigned to the appropriate niche.

2.16 In addition to those species/groups considered to be at risk and not currently afforded any form of protection, it was also necessary to identify those species/groups that may require spatial extension to existing protection (i.e. those species included under the WCA which may require protection to be extended beyond the 12 nm limit) (see Annex C).

2.17 A list of the key groups (ecological niches) with representative species, together with their generic sensitivity (i.e. intolerance and recoverability potential from human activities) was therefore developed from the following available published sources:

i. UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP): this umbrella plan encompasses Species Action Plans (SAPs), Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) and local BAPs.

ii. JNCC list of ‘nationally rare or scarce species’ (searched via the MarLIN website).

iii. Marine species (including birds) listed under the WCA currently only afforded protection out to 12 nm were also taken into account (if they were not covered elsewhere by existing legislation).

iv. Coastal and estuarine avifauna not currently afforded specific legislative protection, but considered to be of Conservation Concern (Red and Amber Lists), although many of these are protected under site specific designations, e.g. as a waterfowl assemblage identified as a Key Interest Feature of a European Marine Site.

v. Species listed under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 were excluded due to the introduction of the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations early in 2007.

2.3.2 Activity Identification

2.18 The functioning of marine ecosystems incorporates a very large number of contributing processes. These can be divided hierarchically into 4 types of processes (Annex D, Elliott et al., accepted):

level 1 - physico-chemical;

level 2 - biological inter-relationships and mediation;

level 3 - human influences; and

level 4 - responses to change.

2.19 The first two influence the creation of biological habitats and their structure and functioning and, as such, may be regarded as drivers and responses to those drivers. The third level contains processes which may alter the system from its natural state, and therefore should be prevented, with the fourth level containing processes which enable the ecosystem to recover or be restored.

2.20 Human activities (level 3 processes) influence or modify the natural level 1 and level 2 physico-chemical and biological processes and relationships within the marine environment, and therefore influence the protection strategy for any species/group or habitat.

2.21 The input of materials (point source or diffuse) and the effects of human activities on marine biodiversity can be separated into:

i. An introduction or increase of energy or materials into the system (all forms of pollution - chemicals, noise, heat, light, litter, organisms such as microbes, parasites and introduced species).

ii. The temporary or permanent removal of habitats (air space, water column and seabed).

iii. The removal and/or harassment of target or non-target species.

2.22 Many marine activities can change the environmental conditions within habitats and on which species depend. As such, species are adversely affected if the conditions change beyond tolerable limits. Hence, the sensitivity of marine species or habitats can be assessed according to changes in three groups of environmental factors - physical factors (e.g. substratum loss and smothering), chemical factors (e.g. heavy metal contamination and changes in nutrient levels), and biological factors (e.g. introduction of non-native species and selective extraction of target species).

2.23 As part of the initial approach, a matrix was developed identifying those environmental factors which are likely to change as a result of marine and coastal activities (based on MarLIN, 2006a). By adopting this approach, sensitivity (i.e. intolerance and recoverability potential) of species (and subsequently biotopes) to a variety of environmental factors could be established, cross-referenced and linked to human activities. Many of the activities listed represent classes or groups of activity, and have been expanded upon from the Marine Conservation Handbook (Eno, 1991), as amended by Cooke & McMath (2001).

2.24 It is important to note that the environmental effects of any given activity depend on its type, location (both close to, and some distance from, the origin

of activity - near-field and far-field effects), intensity, duration and frequency, together with the ability of the receiving environment to assimilate the effects.

2.25 As with the original MarLIN matrix (MarLIN, 2006a), a distinction was made between ‘probable’ and ‘possible’ links. A link was regarded as ‘probable’ where the activity was known to change the relevant environmental factor in most instances. Similarly, a link was regarded as ‘possible’ where an activity was likely to change the relevant environmental factor only in some cases or in particular locations or situations.

2.26 Terms and definitions with respect to coastal marine activities are not given here but are provided in full on the MarLIN website (www.marlin.ac.uk).

2.3.3 Environmental Sensitivity Identification

2.27 The dynamic marine environment has a high natural variability and degree of change which has to be accommodated when determining and managing the adverse effects of human activities. Similarly, an activity can affect species and habitats not only in the near-field but also the far-field (see also Hiscock et al., 2006).

2.28 Table 1 summarises some of the likely effects of human activities on processes and therefore patterns (cross reference to Annex D). This approach indicates sensitivity (i.e. intolerance and recoverability potential) of species groups (and by extension biotope types) to a variety of environmental factors which are then cross-referenced and linked to human activities (Chapter 3).

2.29 The sensitivity of a species group to human activity has been ranked on a scale ranging from ‘not sensitive’ to ‘very high sensitivity’ for the WCA species (based on MarLIN information) and from ‘low sensitivity’ to ‘high sensitivity’ for other species (based on expert judgement from similar species and/or habitats).

2.30 The sensitivity of a species or community is an assessment of its intolerance to external pressures and therefore reflects a combination of its physical and biological attributes. Marine organisms or communities will be affected by both human activities and natural events, and the effects of such an activity (or event) are dependant on the nature of the receiving environment.

2.31 A matrix to characterise the sensitivity (based largely on expert judgement) of a number of species (grouped by ecological type/niche) which currently have no legislative species protection was completed. Characterisation of the sensitivity of those marine species (including birds) currently listed under the WCA, but which are protected only out to 12 nm was also undertaken. The information for marine species sensitivity was largely based on available MarLIN data, as these were considered a sufficient background. Additional information sources were also used and included data derived by IECS et al. during the European Lifestyles and the Marine Environment (ELME) project

(funded by the EU), and other research work undertaken by IECS concerning marine ecosystem functioning (Elliott et al., accepted).

2.32 Those species listed under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 were excluded due to the introduction of the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations early in 2007.

2.33 For extension of the sensitivity assessment beyond the detailed evaluation undertaken by MarLIN; for a small number of species, IECS undertook an expert opinion review, based on a knowledge of key species and groups and their sensitivities to anthropogenic factors. As a result of time constraints within the project, this process was not carried out to the same level as that for the MarLIN species, but was considered sufficiently robust as a high level approach.

2.34 The proposed approach is that the protection of a species can be derived from either of two directions: from determining the species of interest, or from knowing the activity of concern.

2.35 It should however be noted that the three matrices given in Chapter 3 are not exhaustive and are intended for generic guidance purposes only. As such, they should not be regarded as comprehensive lists and the data contained within them should be considered as judgement based on best available information.

2.3.4 Assessment of Approaches to Species Protection

2.36 Approaches to species protection include voluntary measures such as co- operative working; sectoral approaches; area-based protection; wider management measures (such as licensing regimes) and legislative species protection. In line with better regulation, Government is required to consider all reasonable alternatives to reaching a desired outcome before imposing legislation.

2.37 Within this report legislative species protection refers to a mechanism which directly prohibits the (i) capture, killing, damage, destruction or disturbance and (ii) transportation, sale or trade of specified marine species.

2.38 Within the adopted approach each representative niche group was assessed as to whether any threats could be effectively addressed by existing controls or whether new legislative species protection measures are required. A recommendation on the most suitable approach (or combination of approaches) has also been given.

2.39 Where legislative species protection was deemed appropriate, consideration of whether such legislative protection would be effective at conserving the species was undertaken.

2.40 It is important to note that species protection within the context of this research pertains to the protection of the species population as a whole to ensure its viability, and not individuals of a species (which is considered a welfare issue).

2.41 Figure 1 provides a summary of the adopted approach for this report.

factors) withequivalentsinthe‘Pressur Table 1:Environmentalfactorswhichm

Environment Agency MarLIN Factors Examples of likely effects on ecosystem structure and functioning Pressures Substratum loss Loss of species and the subsequent loss of sediment stability provided by them, e.g. seagrass or Sabellaria reef loss; removal of supporting habitat and prey species. Smothering Loss of filtering function if filter feeders are smothered and cannot feed. Increased suspended Possibility of increased scour which may reduce the number of species attached to rock; sediment temporary loss of habitat as a reduction in water quality; limitation to primary production Suspended sediment (see also turbidity) Decreased Reduction in ability of Sabellaria and other species that require sand to build tubes. suspended sediment Increased turbidity Less light for primary productivity resulting in reduced micro- and macroalgal growth; increased energetic costs for suspension feeding organisms; behavioural changes in Increased turbidity organisms. Physical disturbance Loss of important physical structure including habitats such as biogenic reefs; change of sediment structure; abrasion of sensitive organisms such as hydroids; damage to gills. ay beaffectedbyhumanactivities( Synthetic chemicals Toxic response and/or detoxifying sub-lethal responses; bioaccumulation and es’ usedbytheEnvironmentAgency(EA). biomagnification; cellular, biochemical and physiological modifications, e.g. interference with reproductive ability of gastropods leading to population decline. Heavy metals Bioaccumulation and biomagnification; death of sensitive young stages (e.g. echinoderm larvae) impairing population and community functioning, e.g. grazing; development of detoxication mechanisms. Hydrocarbons Smothering leading to loss of grazers from intertidal areas leading to increased macroalgal abundance; toxic response; impaired population and community functioning. Priority substances Changes in nutrients Symptoms of eutrophication; excess organic growth; phytoplankton blooms resulting in increased turbidity and reduced sediment oxygen levels; DSP, ASP etc, HAB. Increased salinity Salinity Death or mobility (migration) of organisms with low tolerance to change in optimal salinity. Decreased salinity Oxygen concentration Deoxygenation Creation of oxygen sag and temporary loss of habitat; impaired fish migrations; loss of infauna resulting in reduced bioturbation and nutrient cycling. Increased Extended spawning period for southerly species and reduced for northern species;

temperature physiological impairment. MarLIN Thermal range/heat Decreased Cold intolerance leading to death; physiological impairment and reproductive threshold temperature disruption. Source: modified from Hiscock et al., 2006.

Conclusion

Are there marine species that remain under threat No No action required from human activities?

Yes

Select comprehensive range of representative examples of different types of species at risk from different types of activities

Consider for each species: Are threats addressed by Review effectiveness existing tools such as Yes of existing measures marine licensing? Are voluntary approaches Promote voluntary available which might be Yes approaches effective? Is new sectoral regulation likely to provide the most Consider Yes appropriate means for introducting new addressing specific sectoral legislation threats? Are protected areas likely Yes Consider inclusion in to provide the most protected area appropriate mechanism? network No to all

Are there any other Yes approaches that might be effective?

Consider alternative No approaches

Would species protection legislation be effective in conserving these species No from the activities that threaten them? Consider species Yes protection legislation

Figure 1: Possible process for identifying whether there are marine species for which protection through nature conservation legislation is a necessary and most suitable approach (Source: Defra, unpublished).

Chapter 3 Unprotected Species Analysis

3.1 Consultation Responses

3.1.1 General

3.1 Responses from both the Defra and IECS consultation exercises were analysed. In total, 151 responses relating to ‘Species Conservation Measures’ (Questions 67 & 68) were reviewed from the Defra consultation, together with responses from 15 groups/individuals contacted as part of the IECS consultation process. As such, these represented a reasonable cross-section of users and managers. A summary of the IECS consultation responses are given in Annexes E-G.

3.2 From this analysis, threats to the conservation of marine species in offshore areas and elsewhere were not considered to be addressed by existing measure and controls. Threats identified from the consultations included climate change, fishing, pollution, litter, introduced species, noise pollution, decommissioning of oil rigs, ghost fishing, dumping of nuclear waste/CO2 storage, commercial shipping activities, aggregate & oil extraction, new dredging activities and hazardous cargoes in wrecks.

3.1.2 Species Identified as being at Risk

3.3 Species highlighted within the consultations as being at particular risk from impacts such as bycatch and noise pollution included small crustaceans, cetaceans, seabirds, elasmobranchs (such as angel shark, basking shark and skates), turtles, deep water fishes, other migratory species, deep sea corals, and the fan mussel (fan shell), Atrina fragilis. However, few specific case studies were provided.

3.4 No individual species was highlighted as being a top priority across all responses. However, eelgrass (Zostera spp.) was identified as being directly threatened by physical disturbance (anchors and trawling), recreation, and alien species; and indirectly, through the absence of any direct species protection for Zostera, the current approach being through habitat protection (Box 1).

3.5 Species identified as being at risk from a range of activities included eelgrass, bivalve molluscs (native oyster, scallops and cockles), hydroids, bryozoans, Porifera (e.g. axinellid sponges), Cnidaria (e.g. tall sea pen), and the crustacean Palinurus elephas (crawfish). Cetacea and several fish species were also identified (largely as a result of overexploitation) including orange roughy, sandeel, smelt, skates (common, white and long-nosed), rays (all species), sharks (including tope, porbeagle, spurdog, angel, blue and basking). It was additionally highlighted that for commercial fish species which are also listed under BAP, there is no consideration of the conservation status of these species within the management of the fishery (e.g. quotas).

3.6 A small suite of long-lived, slow growing species (e.g. maerl species) threatened by mobile gear and species threatened by a disruption of food supply (e.g. young sandwich terns) were also identified.

Box 1: Impacts of mooring small crafts on Zostera marina beds Zostera marina beds were recently surveyed along the North Wales coast within the Pen Llŷn a’r Sarnau SAC (Boyes et al., 2005). These were mapped and density assessed with any disturbance impacts to the beds being noted. Z. marina on the intertidal zone at Porth Dinllaen was found to be largely split into two distinct areas. The northern extent of the site which encompassed areas of eelgrass beds showed medium to high damage, with the southern extent found to have only a small amount of damage - the latter predominantly resulting from vehicle (tractor) movements across the site. Damage to the northern extent resulted largely from areas being used as a ‘harbour’ for the mooring of small craft. As such, substantial areas of the bed had sparse Z. marina coverage (and in some cases were completely devoid of Zostera) due to the seabed being scoured by the boats themselves, the mooring chains and/or buoys scraping through the substrata at low water.

Keel damage Scouring caused by mooring ropes

3.7 Outside the 12 nm mile zone, the pink sea fan (Eunicella verrucosa), fan mussel and other non-mobile epifauna were identified as being at particular risk, with damage from various types of fishing gear cited as the cause for concern. The overexploitation of rays was identified including their extraction as bycatch. Similarly, the potential for an extension to the protection of the walrus, albeit rarely recorded, was noted, particularly as it is non-native to UK coasts and so has to pass through almost 200 nm of UK waters where it is unprotected before being protected under the WCA in inshore waters.

3.8 The basking shark was most commonly identified as being at risk outside 12 nm, with a general absence of good data on behaviour and numbers in offshore areas highlighted. Potential impacts cited included collisions and interference from pleasure and commercial craft (although presence of the former outside 12 nm would be limited), these including both motor vessels and sailing boats (Box 2). The possible future commercial extraction and increased bycatch of the species from various fishing activities (static gear - gill nets and pots, trawling and additional offshore deep water fishing) was also cited. It was suggested that protection out to the 200 nm limit would allow for a more rigorous control of such bycatch in direct response to such an activity rather than a requirement for new legislation.

Box 2: Boat disturbance to basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus) Basking sharks are at risk outside 12 nautical miles due to their slow movements at the surface, and just beneath it when feeding or engaged in courtship behaviour. In such a position they are difficult to see and so are at risk of collision with vessels in busy shipping lanes with resulting damage to the dorsal fin and dorsal surface of the body.

Basking sharks are also potentially at risk from entanglement in fishing gear, however this problem is of greater concern in inshore waters, where the prevalence of bottom set gillnets and pots is greater.

Goodwin pers. comm., 2006

3.9 Annex E summarises the responses relating to unprotected marine species identified as at risk from marine activities. Annex F summarises responses relating to species currently listed under the WCA which were identified as at risk from marine activities outside the 12 nm zone.

3.10 The form taken by any species and habitat listing within the proposed Marine Bill was raised, and a more flexible list based approach advocated. It was suggested that species requiring protection should be included within a published list which could be amended at any time by the relevant authority, rather than the use of a more fixed schedule. This approach would allow flexibility within the list for the removal or addition of species and/or habitats as necessary, depending on their current conservation status (Hiscock pers. comm., 2006). This would avoid the situation where a more rigid scheduling system could easily become unmanageably large and quickly out of date as scientific knowledge advances.

3.2 Assessment of Representative Species Groups

3.11 Using the adopted approach, the three matrices were used to identify maritime activities and environmental effects (Matrix 1), and species and their sensitivity to environmental pressures (Matrix 2 & 3). Examination of the matrices allows the main areas of ecological sensitivity to be assessed at an ecological group level (for instance seabirds which feed on soft sediment seabed e.g. Melanitta nigra (common scoter), or mobile suspension feeding crustacea e.g. Corophium lacustre).

3.12 By using two species sensitivity matrices, this assessment can be carried out both for those species currently identified as being of conservation concern but not currently granted any legislative protection, and for species included within the current WCA, but not covered beyond the 12 nm limit. The outcomes from this sensitivity analysis can be correlated to the impacts relating to potentially damaging activities and from this, it is possible to summarise key sensitivities, activities and broad management/protection approaches. Indeed, this analysis can be translated across to an individual species level, via reference to the more extensive sensitivity tables provided in Annexes H and I, with more detailed habitat parameter information provided for many of the species in Annex J.

3.13 As indicated above, each species has a set of characteristics which increase its susceptibility to harm from a change in its environment as the result of an activity or from the removal of it or its prey. Those characteristics include its feeding type, mobility, reproduction type or preferred habitat. The latter includes the air space, water surface, water column, substratum surface and sediment interior. Hence, if a species inhabits the water surface then any activity interfering with that surface may produce harm which is regarded here as a reduction in the biological fitness for survival.

3.14 The species can be grouped into those with similar characteristics, such that if a given environmental change affects one species in the group then others will be similarly affected.

3.15 From the opposite direction, each activity is known to produce a set of changes with a defined probability or possibility, such as a wind turbine disturbing water flow or aggregate extraction changing sediment structure. Each effect will then affect a given set of species whose characteristics make them susceptible to the effects.

3.16 This approach allowed for a series of environmental drivers to be identified for each species/group, factors which need to be incorporated into any decision making process on the requirements for species protection. Using information from this process, it is then possible to identify whether management (and protection if necessary) should follow a habitat based approach or a dedicated species protection approach.

Matrix 1: Maritime activities and environmental pressures.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

Coastal & Maritime Activities/Events Sub-activities / events Loss of Area (seabed) of Area Loss column) (water of Area Loss Loss of Area (airspace) loss Substratum Smothering sediment suspended in Changes Desiccation regime emergence in Changes rate flow water in Changes currents in Changes temperature in Changes turbidity in Changes exposure wave in Changes disturbance Noise presence Visual Abrasion/ physical disturbance Displacement abstraction Water Synthetic compound contamination metal Heavy contamination contamination Hydrocarbon contamination Radionuclide levels nutrient in Changes Changessalinity in oxygenation in Changes Introduction of microbial pathogens / parasites Introduction of non-nativespecies loss Productivity gain Productivity Loss of carrying capacity Selective extraction of targetspecies Selective extraction of non-target species species non-target of extraction Non-selective Fin-fish Macro-algae Aquaculture Predator control Shellfisheries Current change Sea level change Climate Change Temperature change Weather pattern change Barrage Beach replenishment Coastal defence Groynes Sea walls / breakwaters Bait digging Bird eggs Curios Higher plants Collecting Kelp & wrack harvesting Macro-algae Peelers (boulder turning) Shellfish Construction phase Artificial reefs Communication cables Culverting lagoons Development Dock / port facilities Land claim Marinas Oil & gas platforms Urban Capital dredging Dredging Maintenance dredging Nuclear power generation Power stations Energy generation Renewable (tide/wave) Wind farms Maerl Rock / mineral (coastal quarrying) Extraction Oil & gas platforms Sand / gravel (aggregates) Water resources (abstraction) Benthic trawls (e.g. scallop dredging) Netting (e.g. fixed nets) Fisheries / Shellfisheries Pelagic trawls Potting / creeling Suction (hydraulic) dredging Angling Boating /yatching Diving / dive site Recreation Public beach Tourist resort Water sports Animal sanctuaries Archaeology Coastal farming Coastal forestry Uses Education / interpretation Military Mooring / beaching / launching Research Shipping Fishery & agricultural wastes Industrial effluent discharge Industrial / urban emissions (air) Inorganic mine and particulate wastes Land / waterfront runoff Wastes Litter and debris Nuclear effluent discharge Sewage discharge Shipping wastes Spoil dumping Thermal discharges (cooling water) Other Removal of substratum

Key: Probable effect Possible effect No expected effect

Source: Adapted from MarLIN, 2006a

environmental speciesof Matrix 2:Unprotected

Environmental Pressures

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME p ressures. Loss of seabed (substratum loss) Loss of Area (water column) (airspace)Area Loss of Smothering sedimentin suspended Changes Desiccation regime in emergence Changes rate flow water in Change in currents Changes temperature in Change turbidity in Change exposure wave in Change disturbance Noise Visual presence / physical Abrasion disturbance Displacement Water abstraction Syntheticcontamination compound metal Heavy contamination contamination Hydrocarbon contamination Radionuclide levelsin nutrient Changes in salinity Changes in oxygenation Changes Introduction of microbial pathogens / parasites Introduction of non-native species Productivityloss Productivitygain carryingcapacity Loss of Selective species extractionof target Selective species extractionof non-target Non-selectivespecies extraction of non-target Information source Chordata Carnivore Recurvirostra avosetta Avocet I BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Herbivore Branta leucopsis Barnacle goose I Chordata Omnivore Anas acuta Pintail I SEDENTARY Cnidaria Carnivore Edwardsia timida Sea anemone N NI INFAUNA SOFT MOBILE Crustacea Carnivore Rissoides desmaresti Mantis shrimp N NNNNN N I SEDENTARY Angiosperm Primary Producer Zostera noltii Dwarf eelgrass N MI Crustacea Suspension/Deposit Feeder Gammarus chevreuxi A sand shrimp N I EPIFAUNA MOBILE Crustacea Carnivore Cestopagurus timidus Hermit crab N I Mollusca Carnivore Aeolidiella sanguinea Sea slug N I INTERTIDAL BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Haematopus ostralegus Oystercatcher I MOBILE Crustacea Carnivore Clibanarius erythropus Hermit crab N I Cnidaria Carnivore Cataphellia brodricii Latticed corklet N NI Cnidaria Filter Feeder Hartlaubella gelatinosa Hydroid N N N I HARD SEDENTARY Annelida Filter Feeder Sabellaria alveolata Honeycombe worm N N N EPIFAUNA Chromophycota Primary Producer Asperococcus scaber Brown seaweed N I Rhodophycota Primary Producer Pterosiphonia pennata Red seaweed N I SED (MOB) Echinodermata Carnivore Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis Northern sea urchin N NI MOBILE Mollusca Carnivore Aeolidiella sanguinea Sea slug N I concern: summaryofsensitivityto BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Somateria mollissima Eider N N I SEDENTARY Echiura Deposit Feeder Amalosoma eddystonense Spoon worm N N N I INFAUNA SED (MOB) Cnidaria Carnivore Mesacmaea mitchellii Sea anemone N N N I Bryozoa Filter Feeder Cylindroporella tubulosa Bryozoan N N N I Cnidaria Primary Producer Laomedea angulata Sea grass sea fir N N N I Cnidaria Filter Feeder Funiculina quadrangularis Tall sea pen N N MI SEDENTARY Mollusca Filter Feeder Ostrea edulis Native oyster N NMI Tunicata Filter Feeder Styela gelatinosa Sea squirt N I SOFT Angiosperm Primary Producer Zostera marina Common eelgrass N MI EPIFAUNA Rhodophycota Primary Producer Anotrichium barbatum Red Algae N N N I Crustacea Suspension/Deposit Feeder Corophium lacustre Mud shrimp N N N I SED (MOB) Mollusca Filter Feeder Modiolus modiolus Horse mussel NNN NN Cnidaria Carnivore Halcampoides elongatus Sea anemone N N N I MOB (SED) Mollusca Grazer Truncatella subcylindrica Looping snail N NMI Crustacea Carnivore Cestopagurus timidus Hermit crab N N N I SUBTIDAL MOBILE Mollusca Carnivore Aeolidiella sanguinea Sea slug N N N I BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Somateria mollissima Eider N N I Bryozoa Filter Feeder Cylindroporella tubulosa Bryozoan N N N I Cnidaria Filter Feeder Leptopsammia pruvoti Sunset cup coral NNN NN MI Porifera Filter Feeder Desmacidon fruticosum Sponge N N N NN I SEDENTARY Tunicata Filter Feeder Styela gelatinosa Sea squirt N N N NN I Chromophycota Primary Producer Ascophyllum nodosum mackaii Knotted Wrack N N MI Rhodophycota Primary Producer Anotrichium barbatum Red Algae N N N I HARD EPIFAUNA Annelida Filter Feeder Sabellaria alveolata Honeycombe worm N N N N I Cnidaria Carnivore Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-fan anemone NNN NN MI SED (MOB) Mollusca Filter Feeder Modiolus modiolus Horse mussel Echinodermata Carnivore Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis Northern sea urchin N N N I Crustacea Carnivore Synisoma lancifer Sea slater N N N I MOBILE Echinodermata Carnivore Ophiopsila aranea Brittlestar N N N I Mollusca Carnivore Leptochiton scabridus Chiton N N N I WATER FISH MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Raja hyperborea Arctic skate N N N N I N/A COLUMN BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Sterna dougallii Arctic tern N N I Chordata Carnivore Cepphus grylle Black guillemot N N I SURFACE N/A BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Herbivore Cygnus olor Mute swan N N I Chordata Omnivore Anas acuta Pintail N N I

Key High sensitivity Low sensitivity N Not relevant Insufficient Data MI Combination of MarLIN sensitivity data & IECS expert judgement I IECS expert judgement (for generic guidance only)

Matrix 3:WCAspecies:

Environmental Pressures

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Information source Information Loss of (substratumseabed loss) column) (water of Area Loss (airspace) of Area Loss Smothering sediment in suspended Changes Desiccation regime in emergence Changes rate flow water in Change in currents Changes temperature in Change turbidity in Change exposure wave in Change disturbance Noise Visualpresence / physical Abrasiondisturbance Displacement abstraction Water Synthetic contamination compound Heavy metal contamination contamination Hydrocarbon contamination Radionuclide levelsin nutrient Changes in salinity Changes in oxygenation Changes microbial / parasites of pathogens Introduction speciesnon-native of Introduction Productivity loss Productivity gain capacityof carrying Loss Selectiveextraction species of target Selective speciesextraction of non-target Non-selective extraction speciesof non-target Marine species afforded protection out to 12 nautical miles under the WCA (which are not afforded protected under additional legislation) BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit I

Annelida Deposit feeder Alkmaria romijni Tentacled lagoon worm N M summary ofsensitivityto INFAUNA SEDENTARY Mollusca Filter feeder Atrina fragilis Fan mussel N N N M SOFT Cnidaria Filter feeder Clavopsella navis Marine hydroid N N N I INTERTIDAL SED (MOB) Cnidaria Carnivore Nematostella vectensis Starlet sea anemone N NM EPIFAUNA Crustacea Carnivore Gammarus insensibilis Lagoon sand shrimp N M Mollusca Carnivore Tenellia adspersa Lagoon sea slug N M HARD BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Calidris maritima Purple sandpiper I Chordata Carnivore Gavia arctica Black-throated diver N N I BIRDS Chordata Herbivore Cygnus columbianus Bewick's swan I Annelida Deposit feeder Alkmaria romijni Tentacled lagoon worm N M SOFT INFAUNA SEDENTARY Mollusca Filter feeder Atrina fragilis Fan mussel N N N M Bryozoa Filter feeder Victorella pavida Trembling sea mat N N N N M SUBTIDAL EPIFAUNA SED (MOB) Cnidaria Carnivore Edwardsia ivelli Ivell's sea anemone N NN M BIRDS MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Gavia arctica Black-throated diver N N I Bryozoa Filter feeder Victorella pavida Trembling sea mat N N N N M HARD SEDENTARY EPIFAUNA Cnidaria Filter feeder Eunicella verrucosa Pink sea-fan N NN NN N N M Mollusca Carnivore Tenellia adspersa Lagoon sea slug N M BIRDS Chordata Carnivore Sterna dougallii Roseate tern N N I WATER N/A MOBILE Chordata Carnivore Gobius cobitis Giant goby N N MI COLUMN FISH MAMMAL Mammalia Carnivore Odobenus rosmarus Walrus N N N I SURFACE N/A BIRDS Chordata Carnivore Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked grebe N N I Proposed marine species being considered for protection out to 12 nautical miles under WCA (which are not afforded protection under additional legislation)

WATER FISH Chordata Carnivore Dipturus batis Common skate N N N N XMIenvironmental pressures. N/A MOBILE COLUMN FISH Chordata Carnivore Hippocampus hippocampus Short-snouted seahorse N N XMI

Key Not sensitive Very low sensitivity Low sensitivity

Moderate sensitivity High sensitivity Very high sensitivity

Unknown / insufficient information N Not relevant X Null value

M MarLIN sensitivity data I IECS expert judgement (intended for generic guidance only)

Chapter 4 Approaches to Species Protection

4.1 This chapter reviews and assesses how current species protection approaches (i.e. voluntary approaches, sectoral regulation, area based protection, wider management mechanisms and legislative species protection) highlighted in Figure 1 can address the protection requirements for habitats and species at risk. Case studies derived through the IECS consultation process have been used as illustration where appropriate (a summary of the consultee responses is provided in Annex G).

4.1 Voluntary Approaches

4.2 Voluntary approaches for species protection have been used within English and Welsh waters to manage both licensed and unlicensed activities and include codes of conduct and best practice guides, voluntary schemes, and advisory groups/coastal fora. Codes of conduct have proved successful where they have been championed by a national organisation or club. Examples include the Environmental Code of Practice promoted by the Green Blue project for recreational boating (Boyes et al., 2006) and the WiSe code of conduct for wildlife watching (ecotourism) (Box 3). A similar scheme was noted from the IECS consultation process whereby the Seawise code of conduct was used to increase the awareness of boat users about marine biodiversity and their legal responsibilities. However, further promotion of these voluntary measures are required for the ad hoc user to be informed of their potentially damaging activities to marine biodiversity.

4.3 Voluntary approaches have been successful in some instances with sea fisheries committees implementing lobster V-notching and closed areas for nursery grounds. Voluntary wardening was also cited in the IECS consultation as a potentially useful mechanism to restrict activities likely to disturb waterfowl. Voluntary sectoral protection was also identified as a possible interim measure for certain areas, and could be used to establish whether increased statutory controls are required. However, good communication between interested parties is required for the approach to be effective.

4.4 If the voluntary measure managing an activity fails, it is usually due to a lack of publicity, non-compliance, or the activity in question being commercially profitable, e.g. Boxes 4, 5 and 6. Whilst such schemes may initially result in some success, compliance remains a key issue, e.g. agreements not being maintained due to economic pressures.

Box 3: The WiSe (WIldlife SafE) vessel accreditation scheme An example of voluntary sectoral management was highlighted through the WiSe vessel accreditation scheme. This scheme is aimed at training skippers of passenger pleasure craft, wildlife cruise operators, dive boats and charter yachts involved in marine wildlife watching recreation to operate their boats (and passengers within them) in a responsible way in order to minimise disturbance. In particular, the scheme is aimed at minimising disturbance to cetaceans (whales dolphins and porpoise) and pinnipeds (seals). Skippers operating in Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, South and West Wales, West and East Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man have taken part in training which gives them accreditation to use their boats to take passengers to watch wildlife without undue disturbance. All skippers operating under the WiSe accreditation have received instruction in the identification of species, their life history and behaviour that might be encountered during a trip, and record sightings for use in basic scientific research.

The WiSe scheme includes a training course and the establishment of a series of Codes of Conduct for each of the species covered within the WiSe scheme and in general, the scheme has been judged as very effective. However, as this is a sectoral approach carried out on a voluntary basis, vessel operators can choose to be involved in the scheme or not, with some choosing to not join the scheme and with some continuing to operate in an unsustainable manner.

WWF-UK pers. comm., 2006

Box 4: Pink sea fan (Eunicella verrucosa) - voluntary closed areas (scallop dredging) in Lyme Bay Devon Wildlife Trust working with local fishermen successfully negotiated two voluntary closed areas (to scallop dredging) in Lyme Bay during 2001. Initially, fishermen reported that these closed areas were being honoured and surveys confirmed that pink sea fans where beginning to show signs of recovery. However, fishing effort in the area has increased due to a variety of factors including high fuel prices, a shift from trawling to dredging (fishing), and the redevelopment of West Bay harbour. Although the effects of this increased effort on pink sea fans in the area are uncertain, voluntary agreements have collapsed, and large number of pink sea fans have been washed ashore on Chesil beach. Recreational divers have also reported accumulations of dead sea fans in voluntary closed areas. Whilst the habitat remains intact and a viable population remains, there should be potential for recovery. However, there is concern that the soft mudstone bedrock will be eroded by scallop dredging to the extent that it will no longer provide a suitable substratum. A rapid regulatory response was required and the Wildlife Trusts requested an immediate stop order for one year to limit damage whilst a more permanent measure is implemented.

Goodwin pers. comm., 2006

Update: On 24thAugust 2006, the Marine Minister, announced that four areas of Lyme Bay would be closed to scallop dredging and other forms of fishing. This area covers 92% of the known sea fan population in Lyme Bay. Defra are now considering how best to introduce a regulatory closure for these areas.

Box 5: Fan mussel (Atrina fragilis) - voluntary no-anchor zone in Plymouth West Hoe Through dive surveys, a number of fan mussels have been located close to the small craft anchorage adjacent to Plymouth Hoe. As this species is one of the rarest molluscs in the UK (protected through the WCA), consultation within the maritime community through the Tamar Estuaries Consultative Forum and the Port of Plymouth Maritime Liaison Committee identified a series of measures to safeguard the habitat. These were subsequently introduced through voluntary agreement.

To confer protection, small craft are requested not to anchor in the restricted craft anchorage off Plymouth Hoe and to use the alternative anchorages nearby - north of Drakes Island and in Barn Pool. Similarly, fishing using nets or trawls and the laying of lobster or crab pots in the area to the South of the Hoe is to be avoided. However, despite these guidelines, small vessels still anchor in the area and have caused damage to the fan mussel population.

Goodwin pers. comm., 2006

Box 6: Cornish codes of practice - cetacean bycatch Cornwall Wildlife Trust Strandings Network recordings identified more than one fishery responsible for cetacean bycatch with harbour porpoise strandings peaking in 2004 in Penzance Bay and St. Austell Bay. These animals showed evidence of bycatch in gill/tangle net fisheries. Byelaws were thought to take too long to establish, were likely to be thrown out due to opposition from the fishing industry and as such, a voluntary code of practice (CoP) was introduced following meetings with relevant groups (i.e. the majority of fishermen who set nets in the Penzance Bay and St. Austell Bay areas, officers of the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee, and the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation).

Fishermen were asked to observe the following:

• Inform each other as to where concentrations of cetaceans were observed. • Avoid setting nets in the vicinity of observed or reported concentrations of cetaceans. • In Penzance Bay only, bass nets were not to be set more than one hour before sunset and when practicable, hauled as soon as possible the following day from dawn.

It is suggested that the CoP could not be monitored effectively, with strandings and bycatch continuing in these areas, and with conclusions that there was too much non-compliance in certain sectors of the fishery.

Goodwin pers. comm., 2006

4.2 Sectoral Regulation

4.5 Fishing is considered by many to be the activity causing the greatest threat to the viability and functioning of marine species and habitats (e.g. Jennings & Kaiser, 1998; Hall, 1999; Gubbay & Knapman, 1999; Kaiser & De Groot, 2000; Hiddink et al., 2006; MarLIN, 2006b). A wide range of instruments are available for the regulation of fisheries and the protection of the marine environment, including total allowable catches, prohibitions of gear, closed-

areas, licensing standards on gear and landing sizes, and economic and fiscal measures. In practice, the system of regulation adopted by EU, national and local administrations rests on a much narrower choice, relying very largely on the familiar ‘command and control’ measures (Symes & Boyes, 2005). Box 7 provides an example of the application of a sectoral approach.

Box 7: Isle of Man scallop fishery - sectoral control case study The scallop and queenie fishery around the Isle of Man supports approximately 20 local fishing vessels. A number of regulations to protect the fishery have been initiated, including gear restrictions, seasonal closures, a curfew, and a closed area off Port Erin, largely in relation to the scallop fishery. In the past, some of these measures have been initiated on a voluntary basis, but from 1st November 2006, all vessels fishing for either scallops or queenies will be required to carry equipment which transmits data on position, course and speed of a vessel, this being an extension of existing measures to include vessels under 15m with the transponders being made available to Manx registered fishing vessels free of charge. In addition, all vessels fishing for scallops and queenies will be required to maintain a detailed logbook of catch and effort (these logbooks having been maintained on a voluntary basis for scallop fishing in the past). A curtailment of the use of dredges for queenies within 3 miles is also being considered. These measures have been introduced through consultation with local fishermen, and in partnership with the Manx Fish Producers Organisation.

In order to fish for scallops in Manx waters, a vessel must currently have a UK licence and the appropriate Manx licence. A permit is also required if fishing is within the three-mile area. A curfew is similarly in place and the 0-3 mile area cannot be fished for scallops after 18:00 hours GMT, nor before 06:00 hours GMT on any day, with the total width of scallop dredges not exceeding 762 cm (25 ft). The 3-12 mile area can only be fished for scallops between 05:00 GMT and 21:00 GMT on any day, with the total width of scallop dredges not exceeding 1219 cm (40 ft), and with no more than 8 dredges per side. There is also no fishing for scallops from 1st June to 31st October and an experimental area at Bay Fine is closed to trawling and dredging.

4.6 With the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2002, Regulation 2371/2002 introduced a number of important new elements including emergency measures (Articles 7&8) to be initiated by the Commission or Member States in response to perceived threats to fish stocks or the marine environment. These time limited actions provide an opportunity for more permanent measures to be put in place. The first use of emergency measures was the moratorium on the use of mobile fishing gears in the area of the Darwin Mounds4 pending its designation as a UK offshore SAC.

4.7 A small number of measures aimed at the protection of the wider marine environment include Regulations to reduce cetacean bycatch through drift net bans (Regulation 1239/1998), and the establishment of a sandeel box off the east coast of Scotland (Regulation 2287/2003). Closure of industrial fisheries within the box will be triggered when the breeding success of black-legged

4 The Darwin Mounds are a collection of sandy and cold water coral mounds, located within the UK’s 200 nm offshore zone (WWF-UK, 2001).

kittiwake in the area falls below a fixed threshold (0.5 chicks per adult pair) for three successive seasons. This measure was designed not to protect black- legged kittiwake population per se but uses the breeding success of the species as an indicator of the ecosystem effects of the sandeel fishery. It may be regarded as perhaps the first example of an ecosystem based management measure adopted within the CFP.

4.8 In general, the EU has been reluctant to use closed areas for fisheries conservation, except for the protection of spawning and nursery grounds. Closed areas were introduced and largely abandoned at the start of the cod recovery plans, proposed again by the Commission for the North Sea, but rejected by the Council of Ministers in December 2004 under pressure from fishing interests, and following advice from the recently established North Sea Regional Advisory Council. However, seasonal closures were introduced in the Celtic Sea to protect spawning cod stocks which form an important component of the Irish Sea cod fishery (Symes & Boyes, 2005). In addition, the Trevose closure is an initiative from the industry and has been implemented for the last two years in the Celtic sea. There has been reported success by fishermen who have seen good returns in juvenile fish in this area (FISHupdate.com, 2006).

4.9 Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) have at their disposal a variety of instruments for regulating inshore fisheries within their districts, including Several and Regulating Orders and byelaws. The use of Several Orders in particular could be used more widely to manage intertidal fisheries and provide greater environmental protection. Byelaws have been used to impose restrictions on fishing activities within the 0-6 nm zone, and since 1995, byelaws can be issued for purposes of protecting the marine environment from the impacts of fishing. In such cases, the byelaw application can be submitted on precautionary grounds rather than on the basis of scientific evidence that a problem already exists. However, there are only rare instances of byelaws being introduced for this purpose, with examples of ‘environmental byelaws’ provided in Annex K.

4.10 Ministerial Orders are deployed nationally or in specific areas (usually in lieu of SFC byelaws) for a variety of purposes, including the establishment of minimum landing sizes, the specification of permitted fishing gears and the restriction of fishing in particular areas. They have also been used effectively, if rather sparingly, when all other preventative measures have failed to restrict damage to key features inside designated sites under section 5A of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1967. Their advantage over other forms of secondary legislation (i.e. byelaws) lies in the much shorter timescale required for their implementation. A Ministerial Order can usually be introduced within two months of the application being received (often from a statutory nature conservation agency). Part of the reason for such a quick response time is that further consultation with local interests is not usually extensive (Symes & Boyes, 2005). Examples of Ministerial Orders introduced for environmental purposes are provided in Annex K.

4.11 Licensing/registration schemes could be used to manage the harvesting of any living resource/marine species for commercial purposes and all fishing activities not covered by ‘commercial boat licences’. Stronger conditions could also be attached to a licensing scheme than to existing permits, e.g. numbers could be limited.

4.3 Area-based Mechanisms

4.12 Area-based mechanisms can be used to limit certain damaging activities and provide species protection. Current examples of mechanisms providing area protection in English and Welsh territorial waters for marine nature conservation include:

• Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs); and

• Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

4.13 MNRs can be designated for any area of land or water from the high water mark to a line three miles from the baseline established for measuring the territorial waters (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (s36)). However, by order in the Privy Council, MNRs can be designated out to 12 nm. Reserves can be designated for the purpose of conserving marine flora and fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest, and to provide special opportunities for marine research (s36 (1a-b)). The impact of an area being designated as a MNR lies in the provision for making byelaws which may protect the reserve from the killing of and/or disturbance to plants and animals, pleasure craft activity and the deposit of rubbish in the reserve (s37(2)) (Read et al., 2000; Boyes et al., 2003). There are only two statutory MNRs in English and Welsh territorial waters - Lundy Island, England and Skomer Island, Wales.

4.14 The network of coastal and estuarine protected areas identified and designated in the UK under the Habitats and Species Directive (SACs) and Wild Birds Directive (SPAs) places some restrictions and management of activities such as fishing, aggregate extraction and dredging, but activities are still permitted to occur.

4.15 The UK has made a commitment to develop an ecologically coherent network of MPAs by 2010 as a party to the OSPAR Convention, and to implement representative networks of MPAs by 2012 as agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. These sites should encompass habitats and species of both European and national importance, sites in deep water beyond territorial waters and sites within the 12 nm territorial waters limit.

4.16 Other area-based measures (either on a permanent or temporary basis) currently in operation in the UK marine environment include:

• The use of closed areas for fisheries management. The majority of closures are either seasonal (protection of spawning areas) or partial

(restricting the use of specific fishing gears), rather than permanent and long term (Symes & Boyes, 2005).

• Spatial management measures for shipping in the form of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) and Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRAs), both of which relate to shipping, safety zones around offshore oil and gas platforms, wind turbines and cables, which can act as de facto Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

• The Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (s1) which is designed to protect wrecks that are of historic, archaeological or artistic importance. An exclusion zone of between 100 to 500 m exists around such a designated site.

4.17 The establishment and subsequent management of a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is considered a useful tool to safeguard marine biodiversity and provide species protection, in particular to sedentary and sessile species and habitats. MPAs can be selected to ensure a representative sample of species, habitats and ecological processes within UK territorial and offshore waters is included. MPAs can range from areas of strict protection to areas zoned for multiple use and must be managed to maintain the full range of biodiversity (Boyes et al., in press). A network could include non-extractive zones to prohibit extractive industries thereby protecting sedentary, sessile species/habitats. It may also be necessary to develop a system of open access, permit areas and closed areas to manage all fishing activities within the context of spatial planning.

4.4 Wider Marine Management

4.18 Many potentially damaging operations in the offshore marine environment are covered under UK Acts which have environmental protection and sustainability as a fundamental objective. These various activities can be controlled by licensing under Part 2 (s66) of the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 (FEPA), Part 2 (s55) of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (CPA), the Electricity Act 1989 (s60) (as amended by the Energy Act 2004 (s61)), the Harbours Act 1964 (s64), the Transport and Works Act (s77), the Telecommunications Act (s74) (as amended by the Communications Act 2003 (s56)), and the Petroleum Act 1998 (s67) etc. The current procedure for the consent of marine aggregate extraction is administered under the Interim Government View Procedure, which at present remains a non-statutory procedure. The Government View Procedure assesses the likely impacts to the marine environment of marine aggregate extraction before a licence is awarded. Additional protection to the marine environment is provided through national legislation and the statutory planning process transposing the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 97/11/EC. In addition, the wider strategic and regional environmental impacts of certain sectoral activities such as offshore wind generation and oil and gas exploration are addressed through Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA). If the activity is believed to have a significant impact on an internationally important site, an appropriate assessment is required under the Birds or Habitats Directive.

4.19 Within the 0-12 nm zone of England and Wales, the SFCs/EA, Defra and National Assembly of Wales (NAW) have significant responsibilities in terms of the management, regulation and enforcement of inshore fisheries. Defra can also add restrictions to the terms of fishing licenses on the advice of SFCs or statutory Nature Conservation Organisations. These can prevent damaging activities from affecting conservation features.

4.20 These licences, managing some of the most potentially damaging activities occurring in the marine environment, provide protection for important habitats and species where these activities occur.

4.5 Legislative Species Protection

4.21 Current UK species legislation is largely under the direction of international agreements and European Directives. The Bern Convention has been implemented in Europe through the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive).

4.22 The UK enabling legislation for European Directives includes the Habitats Regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) which consolidates and amends existing UK legislation to implement the Birds Directive into domestic law. The WCA was amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (in England and Wales). This served to strengthen the legal protection for threatened species. However, although the WCA confers protection to marine as well as terrestrial species; its jurisdiction is currently applied only as far as the limit of territorial waters (12 nm from the low water mark).

4.23 The Habitats Regulations (Part III) prohibits the deliberate capture, killing or disturbance of European protected species (Annex 10). The destruction of, or damage to, their breeding site and resting places is also prohibited as well as keeping (in the case of animals), deliberate picking, collection, uprooting and destruction (in the case of plants), and their transportation, sale or exchange. Section 9 of the WCA prohibits the intentional killing, injury, taking, possession or sale of listed species of wild animal. It also prohibits the reckless damage or destruction of structures or places that they use for shelter or protection and their disturbance whilst doing so. Annex C provides further information on existing marine species protection.

4.6 Other Mechanisms

4.24 Additional approaches to species protection could include the provision of Biodiversity Stop Orders (BSOs), which prevent a person or organisation from commencing (or if commenced, to stop) an activity causing damage to an important habitat or species. BSOs are seen as a vital management tool given the fragility of some marine communities and the long term damage which may be caused by a single activity during a short timescale. Examples

of where such powers would be relevant include ongoing operations discovered to be having an unacceptable impact upon a species or habitat, or where a population of a mobile marine species unexpectedly occurred in an area where an operation could impact upon it. These would have statutory backing and the offender liable to court proceedings. The potential benefits of providing such emergency powers were recognised in the Review of Marine Nature Conservation final report (para 7.32) (Defra, 2004) and are potentially a very important tool.

4.7 Consultation Responses - Approaches to Species Protection

4.25 From the Marine Bill consultation it was found that most consultees favoured an extension of the existing species protection legislation. Additional measures, such as the use of voluntary schemes and improving individual protection schemes were suggested. These included statutory backing to Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs), extension of the CRoW Act 2000, and provision of a global protection regime for marine mammals.

4.26 The need for additional statutory species protection was identified by a number of consultees, although individual species requiring such protection were not highlighted with the exception of the scallop. Instead, whilst responses acknowledged the requirement for species protection at a general level, this was in relation to the sectoral control of activities considered to be causing damage to a species (e.g. Box 7).

4.27 Statutory sectoral approaches were regarded as an important mechanism for fisheries and greater value than a blanket protection of a species. It was felt that such an approach could be used to strengthen existing voluntary agreements, particularly in relation to extractive industries. A spatial protection component was also suggested in addition to individual, but unspecified, species protection.

4.28 It was advocated through the IECS consultation process that strictly enforcing a MPA network should be used as part of an ecosystem approach with statutory underpinning applied to management of all human marine activities including fisheries. It was outlined that marine spatial planning be flexible, sustainable and afford protection of fragile ecosystems.

4.29 The IECS consultation also highlighted statutory sectoral approaches as an important mechanism for fisheries and these were regarded as providing greater value than a blanket protection of a species. It was felt that such an approach could be used to strengthen existing voluntary agreements, particularly in relation to extractive industries.

4.8 Assessment of Suitable Approaches to Species Protection using Niche Group Species

4.30 An assessment was completed for representative species (identified in Chapter 3) to determine the most suitable approach to afford the necessary protection for each niche group. Table 2 provides a summary of this assessment and highlights which management mechanisms (or combinations of) could be used to provide protection to the niche groups.

4.31 The assessment of approaches to species protection (through the worked examples for each representative niche group) found an area-based (or MPA) approach to be the ‘best’ mechanism for protecting sedentary species and habitats. An area-based approach would centre around the maintenance of level 1 and 2 processes (Annex D), and would entail the management of activities within these areas. The management measures could be designed to protect species or habitats within the reserve and could focus on the protection of a species at a particular stage of its life cycle (e.g. spawning, nursery) or species assemblage. Examples of species/niche groups from Table 2 for which area-based protection would work include sedentary species primarily influenced by modifications to their environment, including exposure, sediment supply and salinity, but are not subject to biological extraction. A species example would be the tentacled lagoon worm (Alkmaria romijni).

4.32 A sectoral based approach was considered the most suitable form of protection for mobile marine species. Such an approach could be targeted through more species specific management measures, including restrictions to activities and the use of closed areas, with these approaches being of value for all forms of extraction of the biological resource. This mechanism should be specifically used to ensure better regulation of fishing gears to avoid bycatch and disturbance of seabed communities. The rigorous application of SEA and EIA for new or modified activities/developments would ensure additional focussed species protection. Examples of species/niche groups for which sectoral mechanisms would apply include species subject to biological extraction (either targeted or non targeted). Where these species are mobile and widely distributed it may be necessary to employ national sectoral controls. Sedentary, and/or species restricted in distribution may warrant local sectoral area based controls. An example of mobile species requiring sectoral control at a national level might be the brittlestar, Ophiopsila aranea, whilst an example of a sedentary species requiring local sectoral controls would be the horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus).

4.33 Species specific legislative protection is only applicable in cases where a species (subject to either targeted or non-targeted extraction) has important life stages which are spatially diverse or extensive, and thus where spatial/sectoral controls are inappropriate or unworkable. From Table 2, a potential example of such protection is the Arctic skate, Raja hyperborea, although a combination of spatial controls, combined with national and local sectoral controls may be sufficient. However, the deliberate collection of a marine species for curios or otherwise, which threatens the viability of the species, may also require specific legislation if sectoral/spatial controls cannot

be applied. In this way, the conservation of a species of concern can be achieved through prevention of it being extracted (either targeted or non- targeted extraction).

4.34 Of the unprotected species and habitats highlighted in this report, effective area based protection and improved sectoral regulations are the management mechanisms considered to best provide the most appropriate level of protection. Voluntary mechanisms can however aid in creating awareness and thus assist in compliance and successful protection.

31 Table 2:Examples ofmatrixoutputs

Species Example Known environmental pressures Potentially Suitable management Legislative group species damaging activities approach species protection Intertidal, Deposit feeding Primarily susceptible to physical Aquaculture, climate A habitat approach No soft annelid: pressures, including loss of habitat, change, coastal through spatial controls sediment, Alkmaria romijni smothering and changes in flow defence, e.g. MPAs. sedentary (tentacled lagoon and wave climate. Not sensitive to development in the infauna. worm) biological extraction activities. coastal margin and dredging. Intertidal, Primary Sensitive to both physical and Aquaculture, coastal A habitat approach No soft producing biological pressures. Physical defence, dredging, through spatial controls sediment, angiosperm: removal of substratum, smothering collecting and e.g. MPAs, to maintain sedentary Zostera noltii and changes to wave exposure fisheries/ physical conditions. epifauna. (eelgrass) and physical disturbance are shellfisheries. Possibly a species important, together with biological approach using local including basicmanagementapproach pressures from invasive species sectoral controls e.g. and the non-targeted removal. byelaws, to constrain Can be locally overexploited by damaging non-targeted grazing birds. extractive activities. Intertidal, Suspension/ Sensitive to loss or modification to Coastal defence, A habitat approach No soft deposit feeding substratum, change in suspended development, through spatial controls sediment, crustacean: sediment and desiccation. wastes. e.g. MPAs, are suitable mobile Gammarus given the relative epifauna. chevreuxi importance of physical (sand shrimp) conditions to the species, and the absence of any significant impacts from extractive activities.

Table 2cont. Species Example Known environmental pressures Potentially Suitable management Legislative group species damaging activities approach species protection Intertidal Filter feeding Sensitive to loss or modification to Coastal defence, Subject to substantial No soft mollusc: substratum, change in suspended development, environmental and sediment, Atrina fragilis sediment and desiccation, water collecting, dredging, extractive pressures so may sedentary (fan mussel) flow and temperature, as well as extraction, fisheries/ require a species infauna targeted and non targeted shellfisheries. approach using local extraction. sectoral controls e.g. byelaws. However, as sedentary, protection is best achieved through a habitat approach using spatial controls e.g. MPAs. Intertidal, Carnivore Loss of substratum and air space, Coastal defence and Issues largely coastal, and No soft (Chordata): as well as smothering, suspended development key therefore may be covered sediment, Recurvirostra sediment, desiccation and issues, together with under existing legislation & mobile avosetta disturbance. Heavy metal and dredging and planning controls e.g. EIA. birds. (avocet) hydrocarbon pollution, nutrients, extraction. Other Species approach using salinity, carrying capacity, non issues may include voluntary local sectoral selective extraction of prey items. recreation, collecting methods valid to minimise and climate change. recreational disturbance. Intertidal Carnivorous Loss of substratum, desiccation Aquaculture, coastal Issues largely coastal, and No hard crustacean: and abrasion/physical disturbance. defence, energy therefore may be covered sediment, Clibanarius generation, and under existing legislation & planning controls e.g. EIA. mobile erythropus development Species approach using epifauna (hermit crab) voluntary local sectoral methods.

Species Example Known environmental pressures Potentially Suitable management Legislative Table 2cont. group species damaging activities approach species protection Intertidal Primary producer Loss of substratum, smothering, Coastal defence and Issues largely coastal, and No hard (Rhodophycota): change to wave exposure, development, therefore may be covered sediment, Pterosiphonia pollution. dredging, energy under existing legislation & sedentary pennata production and planning controls e.g. EIA, epifauna (red seaweed) extraction. Wastes IPPC. Where necessary, a potential issue. the habitat approach through spatial controls e.g. MPAs applied given sedentary nature of group. Intertidal Carnivorous Sensitive to loss of substratum, Coastal defence, Process led issues and No hard echinoderm: smothering, desiccation, change in development, coastal location means sediment, Stronglocentrotus emergence regime, flow rate, wave dredging, energy habitat approach can be sedentary droebachiensis exposure & currents, physical generation, wastes a applied with issues largely epifauna (northern sea disturbance, pollution potential issue covered by existing controls urchin) and EIA & IPPC of value in some cases. Intertidal Carnivorous Sensitive to loss of substratum, Coastal defence, Process led issues and No hard cnidarian: smothering, desiccation, change in development, coastal location means sediment, Cataphellia emergence regime, flow rate, wave dredging, energy habitat approach can be sedentary brodricii exposure & currents, physical generation applied with issues largely epifauna (latticed corklet) disturbance, covered by existing controls and EIA.

Table 2cont. Species Example Known environmental pressures Potentially Suitable management Legislative group species damaging activities approach species protection Intertidal Carnivorous Sensitive to loss of substratum, Coastal defence and Process led issues and No hard mollusc: smothering, desiccation, change in development, coastal location means sediment, Aeolidiella emergence regime, wave dredging, energy habitat approach can be mobile sanguinea exposure, physical disturbance, production and applied with issues largely epifauna (sea-slug) pollutants and change in salinity extraction. Wastes covered by existing controls a potential issue. and EIA & IPPC of value in some cases. Subtidal, Filter feeding Loss of substratum, smothering, Coastal defence, A habitat approach is No soft annelid: changes in water flow and physical development, suitable. Protection needs substratum, Sabellaria disturbance. Moderately affected energy generation, to be via the maintenance sedentary alveolata by extraction of biological extraction and of habitat. Their largely epifauna. resources, alterations to wave and coastal distribution means (honeycomb dredging as well as worm) turbidity, nutrients & oxygen. new developments are to a lesser extent addressed via EIA and AA. climate change and Spatial controls e.g. MPAs wastes. may be necessary in offshore areas although a species approach using local sectoral protection may also be valid to control extraction/damage. Subtidal, Deposit feeding Loss of substratum, smothering, Coastal defence, A habitat approach is No soft echiuran: changes in suspended sediment, development, suitable to maintain the substratum, Amalosoma wave exposure and physical dredging, extraction, processes, and spatial sedentary disturbance. Pollution and change controls may be needed to eddystonense wastes energy infauna. in salinity and affected by non- control pollution. Species production and (spoon worm) selective extraction of biological approach via local resources. fisheries/ sectoral control of shellfisheries. extraction as necessary.

Table 2cont. Species Example Known environmental pressures Potentially Suitable management Legislative group species damaging activities approach species protection Subtidal, Filter feeding Loss of substratum, smothering, Coastal defence, A habitat approach to No soft mollusc: changes in water flow, temperature development, protect general substratum, Modiolus & exposure and physical dredging, extraction environmental conditions. sedentary disturbance. Pollutants and Sedentary nature means modiolus and wastes, epifauna. targeted extraction of biological spatial controls e.g. MPAs fisheries/ (horse mussel) resources also key sensitivities. can be used to constrain shellfisheries. extraction activities. However, a species approach using local sectoral controls e.g. byelaws may be required for targeted extraction as necessary. Subtidal, Primary Loss of substratum, smothering, Aquaculture, climate A habitat approach to No soft producing changes in water flow, currents, change, coastal protect general substratum, angiosperm: temperature, salinity & exposure defence, dredging environmental conditions. sedentary and physical disturbance and Sedentary nature means Zostera marina development, , epifauna. displacement. Pollutants, nutrients spatial controls e.g. MPAs energy production, (common & salinity, invasive species, can be used to constrain eelgrass) pathogens and non-targeted wastes extraction, damage and non-selective extraction of biological resources and fisheries/ extraction activities. also key sensitivities. shellfisheries. Subtidal, Filter feeding Loss of substratum, changes in Development, A habitat approach using No soft cnidarian: water flow, currents, temperature, dredging, energy spatial controls such as substratum, Funiculina salinity, exposure, displacement, generation, fisheries/ MPAs, in conjunction with sedentary physical disturbance. Changes in quadrangularis shellfisheries. existing planning controls epifauna. salinity and oxygen, non-targeted e.g. EIAs. (tall sea pen) extraction of biological resources also potential issues.

Table 2cont. Species Example Known environmental pressures Potentially Suitable management Legislative group species damaging activities approach species protection Subtidal Filter feeding Primarily susceptible to physical Aquaculture, coastal A habitat approach to No hard cnidarian: pressures, including loss of defence, dredging, protect general substrata, Eunicella habitats, but to a lesser extent extraction and environmental conditions, sedentary verrucosa other physical changes and fisheries/ and a species approach epifauna. (pink sea fan) changes to oxygen and salinity. shellfisheries. using local sectoral However, it has also been controls to constrain non- identified as particularly sensitive to selective extraction non-selective non target extraction activities. of species (e.g. snagging or scraping). Subtidal, Carnivore Sensitive to loss of seabed, water Aquaculture, Habitat approach as No hard (Chordata): column and air space, and collecting, particularly susceptible to substratum, Somateria smothering of the seabed, as well development, modifications to the physical mobile mollissima as noise and visual disturbance. dredging and environment, including loss Also sensitive to pollution and extraction, of air space and chemical birds. (eider) modifications to carrying capacity disturbance, energy effects via pollution. Non and non-selective extraction of generation, fisheries/ selective extraction of species. shellfisheries, species (prey) would recreation and indicate that a species wastes. approach using local sectoral controls within MPAs would also apply.

Table 2cont. Species Example Known environmental pressures Potentially Suitable management Legislative group species damaging activities approach species protection Subtidal, Filter feeding Sensitive to loss of seabed and Aquaculture, The presence of many No hard mollusc: smothering, desiccation, changes collecting and physical and chemical substratum, Ostrea edulis in hydrodynamics and physical fisheries/sea factors suggest the habitat sedentary (native oyster) disturbance. In addition, sensitive fisheries may be approach needs to be a to pollution (synthetic compounds, important. However, basis for protection with the epifauna. heavy metal) and changes in pollutant pathways species approach oxygen, and the introduction of (development, necessary using local pathogens, parasites and non- wastes and energy sectoral protection due to native species. Also non-selective generation) are also extractive issues. Pollution and selective extraction an issue. important and may be addressed via EIA climate change is & other Directives. Climate also a potential change & invasive species factor. less manageable. Subtidal, Carnivorous Sensitive to loss of seabed and Development, Some issues addressed No hard echinoderm: smothering, and abrasion. Also dredging, extraction through a habitat substratum, Ophiopsila moderately sensitive to other and energy approach using spatial mobile aranea environmental parameters. generation. Also controls such as MPAs. A epifauna. (brittlestar) Pollutants and salinity change an fisheries/ species approach using issue as is the non-targeted shellfisheries. sectoral protection is extraction. required due to extractive issues and mobility of group. This could be applied at a local sectoral scale through a MPA network or, given mobility issues, at a national sectoral scale.

Table 2cont. Species Example Known environmental pressures Potentially Suitable management Legislative group species damaging activities approach species protection Subtidal, Filter feeding Sensitive to loss of seabed and Aquaculture, Although a habitat No hard cnidarian: smothering, changes in suspended development, approach using spatial substratum, Leptosammia sediment, currents, temperature dredging, energy controls such as MPAs will and wave exposure, physical sedentary pruvoti generation, address most issues, a disturbance and displacement. In epifauna. extraction and local species approach (sunset cup coral) addition, sensitive to changes in oxygen, and the non-targeted fisheries / using sectoral controls extraction of the species. shellfisheries may be required to address potential influences biological extraction issues. & climate change. Water Carnivore Sensitive to loss of water column All types of A species approach is Possibly column, (Chordata): and water abstraction and to a extractive operations most applicable, and although mobile fish Raja hyperborea lesser extent seabed. Also (particularly statutory species may be (Arctic skate) sensitive to changes in flow and fisheries) are protection may be required addressed therefore a particularly for non- water temperature and physical through fundamentally commercial species which disturbance. Extremely sensitive to important sector plus are bycatch and have national and all forms of extraction, including aquaculture and spatially diverse important local non-selective and selective dredging. Energy, life-cycle stages. However, sectoral techniques. development and local and national controls as shipping also of sectoral controls may be well as importance, plus sufficient, depending on spatial climate change. individual species needs. controls EIAs can address some issues e.g. power station abstraction/impingement. A habitat approach may be applicable for key life stage sites if clearly defined.

Chapter 5 Discussion

5.1 Outcome of the Assessment

5.1 The findings from the assessment suggest that there are two fundamental approaches to the protection of species in the marine environment:

i. Control of certain damaging activities within the marine environment to protect the functioning of a habitat, physical attributes and food supply, i.e. maintaining the natural physical, chemical and biological characteristics and functioning of the habitat. This could be applied either as a sectoral control across the entire marine environment, and/or as an area control on specific activities in order to protect individual features or species of concern.

ii. Restrictions on species being overexploited through direct target catch or continuous bycatch (relevant to relatively few species).

5.2 An assessment of actual threats was not possible due to a paucity of available information. Although extensive consultation regarding specific threats to the conservation of marine species has been undertaken both as part of this review and the wider Marine Bill consultation, no evidence has been presented other than in anecdotal form. As such, the assessment employed of species protection requirements for this report has been undertaken using a theoretical vulnerability approach based on the lifestyle and threats to niche groups.

5.3 The assessment of the niche groups using a suite of representative species found suitable protection could be afforded in most cases via an area-based mechanism and sectoral controls, whereby protection is largely afforded through the restriction of damaging activities in an area.

5.4 The need for some form of species protection was identified for a small number of cases, either to control the direct exploitation of a species, or the extraction of non-target species. Such species protection may be necessary at a national level but, in many instances, it may be more appropriate for controls to be applied at a regional or even local scale, reflecting the distribution of the species or the extent of extractive activities damaging it.

5.5 In the majority of instances, it will be possible to provide suitable protection requirements for species and habitats via a spatial or sectoral approach (e.g. MPAs). A very small number of species may require a targeted species- specific statutory approach (e.g. some species of skates, rays & sharks). In most cases, these species already have protection under the WCA and if this legislation was extended, would be protected beyond 12 nm. However, as shown in Table 2, the mobile nature of some species means that all stages of a lifecycle may require protection.

5.6 MPAs have the potential to be of genuine benefit to marine biodiversity (Gubbay, 2006) and it is considered that for many protection scenarios, MPAs

offer a practical way of bringing together a range of measures, focused on a geographic area, for single and multi-species benefit.

5.7 Certain habitats such as sublittoral mixed sediment and cobble/pebble biotopes are relatively poorly understood, and often extremely diverse. As such, they may benefit from additional protection. It is likely that protection would be primarily area/sectoral based. However, the current paucity of information on many constituent species of such biotope complexes means that before any protection measures are applied, the status of these biotopes will require underpinning by rigorous scientific data to allow protection at least to a community level.

5.8 Similarly, species identified as sensitive or rare are often those which are particularly conspicuous, either by colour or structure. It is likely that other sensitive or rare species occur but have not been identified because of their cryptic nature, and these may require additional scientific research to fully characterise their status. However, only species targeted for deliberate collection may warrant legislative species protection. It is important to note that the rarity of a species alone does not mean that some form of protection is required by default. It will be necessary to identify that the species is subject to sufficient threat before conferring a method of protection upon it.

5.9 Existing mechanisms, particularly byelaws for fisheries management, need to be applied more widely and be more easily introduced. A drawback of the current system is that byelaws cannot normally be introduced in anticipation of a problem. Instead, they can only be introduced when the problem has manifested itself and where there is sufficient sound scientific evidence to support the proposed introduction on fisheries management grounds. It therefore follows that byelaws are usually issued for specific rather than general regulatory purposes. The need for scientific evidence of actual rather than possible future damage to be submitted in support of a byelaw application, combined with the lengthy process of bringing a proposal from the initial inception to Ministerial approval, means that considerable damage may have already resulted before the byelaw is in place. Although in theory it is possible to have the byelaw confirmed within three or four months of its submission to the relevant Department, it may in practice take up to two or more years before it is finally approved.

5.1.1 Data Availability & Quality

5.10 A gap in the availability of quantitative or even anecdotal evidence relating to species requiring additional protection or management was identified from the literature review and consultation exercises. However, many consultees identified a general concern that certain species and, more commonly, species groups were impacted by certain activities or sectors, e.g. fishing.

5.11 The approach adopted within the report has used published information on the ecology of species considered to be of conservation concern to populate the sensitivity and activity matrices. These data, together with expert judgement based on experience of other species and/or habitats, have allowed

representative examples across a broad range of niches to be identified for the assessment. However, future research should allow values within these matrices to be refined. As such, the matrices are only intended for generic guidance and should not be regarded as comprehensive.

5.12 It is clear that there is a great deal of survey specific data available for habitats, especially those associated with inshore rocky coasts, and that threats associated with many of these are reasonably well understood. However, detailed evidence was limited for some biotopes or species which restricted the definition of their national/international importance; levels of decline; threats; damage, and sensitivity.

5.13 This was particularly the case for offshore soft sediment habitats, together with those species which are sampled infrequently, and therefore their true distribution is not clearly defined. The paucity of such data highlights the problems inherent in affording species-specific statutory protection in much of the marine environment. In many cases, more effort is therefore required to collate existing data and carry out further research in order to provide a more robust case for such a level of protection.

5.14 In offshore areas, the application of sectoral/spatial controls, either on a statutory or voluntary basis may be difficult to apply and enforce unless new developments are adequately addressed at the planning stage through SEA and EIA procedures. The need for a scientifically rigorous impact assessment characterising the marine ecosystem in the vicinity of the development is vital, particularly given the paucity of environmental data in many of these areas.

5.15 In addition, there is similarly an important need for a more rigorous application of ‘audit’ surveys to be applied to such developments in order to better characterise the actual rather than expected impacts to the marine ecosystem for a variety of development sectors (e.g. offshore windfarms). The results of these studies need to be integrated into the wider knowledge base, allowing for a gradual refining of management and protection requirements over time, something of mutual benefit to commercial operators and enforcement/management agencies.

5.2 Management & Protection Toolbox Approach

5.16 The examples used in Table 2 clearly indicate that species are at risk from one or both of only two main pressures: either a loss of habitat (which includes space) and/or modification to that habitat, or because they or their prey are subject to being taken as target or non-target species by fisheries. Hence, protection can be applied through protection of the habitat and/or preventing over-extraction or exploitation of named species. This can subsequently be taken further if required, using more detailed habitat requirements for key species (e.g. Annex J).

5.17 The matrix approach indicates the likelihood of environmental factors adversely changing due to the construction, operation or presence of a specified activity. However, it does not reflect the magnitude or significance of

any environmental effect, or any indirect and cumulative effects. The latter will be site-specific and thus subjected to Environmental Impact Assessments or Appropriate Assessments. For instance, structures placed within the marine environment will distort the hydrographic regime of the area, in turn altering the substratum and its associated infauna. The latter then influences the higher predators such as fish, birds and cetaceans. Similarly, the removal of size classes of biota through targeted or non-selective extraction techniques may lead to a community imbalance.

5.18 It is clear that no single approach to marine ecosystem management will encompass the variety of habitat/species protection issues identified in this and other reports. There are examples of most types of protection (legislative, sectoral and voluntary) where protection has and has not worked, and many of these appear to have either a sectoral, spatial or species specific component.

5.19 A ‘toolbox’ approach is therefore required, with a variety of measures available to address specific issues/problems in pursuing sustainable species/habitat management. The present study emphasised an ecosystem functioning requirement within any assessment of protection, with the maintenance of physico-chemical and ecological processes (Annex D). As such, the maintenance of the key characteristics of habitats and their associated faunal communities is considered an appropriate basis for species protection in relation to anthropogenic activities. This subsequently requires a control of modifying activities in order to maintain or protect habitats and species and ultimately, via level 4 processes, their restoration or recovery. This may be applied through spatial or sectoral controls, and could include areas where damaging activities are not permitted within them, or as a range of sectoral controls, either applied uniformly to an activity, or in conjunction with a spatial component.

5.20 There is no clear evidence from the consultation process regarding the efficacy of voluntary versus statutory sectoral/spatial controls. However, evidence of positive species and community effects have been cited for MPAs (Gubbay, 2006), including a greater complexity of food webs and increased primary and secondary production. Although the report concluded that the overwhelming evidence showed MPAs had a positive effect on marine biodiversity, the research also identified some MPAs as having negative effects due to poor management or lack of understanding of site carrying capacity.

5.21 In many cases, voluntary approaches to species or habitat protection are regarded as being ineffective in the long term, despite often having some initial success. In particular, where damaging activities are driven by an economic imperative, voluntary agreements can readily breakdown, either through the unscrupulous operation of some parties leading to the collapse of an agreement, or via a shift in economic parameters entailing a shift in resource value and associated activity pressure (e.g. a shift in target species due to market value or external factors such as fuel price). Some of these issues may be offset via the inclusion of a financial reward within the voluntary scheme (e.g. lobster V notching schemes) and in general, such approaches

require good communications between interested parties in order to maintain consensus, as well as a mutually beneficial aim.

5.22 The evidence review has identified the fishing sector as being a key activity causing damage to species and/or habitats in the marine environment, although information collated during this review has often been provided in anecdotal form, with no direct evidence provided showing specific species as being at risk. However, the approach employed as allowed a theoretical assessment to be made of potential ‘at risk’ species groups.

5.23 Given the majority of potential damage arises from economic rather than recreational fishing activity, it is considered that voluntary schemes to provide species protection are unlikely to be successful. However, given the sectoral basis of the activity, the better application of existing sectoral controls, together with targeted provision of new controls (including reformation of byelaws) it is considered a suitable management tool for some niches and species. The effective application of such sectoral tools may require the use of spatial controls in combination.

5.24 For most other activities, the use of spatial controls, largely in the form of area- based protection measures are considered most applicable. In some instances, these may be achievable under a voluntary basis, but will require adequate education and communication with users of the marine environment, and an absence of an economic imperative, for instance for some recreational activities. However, it is expected that in most instances, some form of statutory basis for the management of the MPA would be necessary to ensure adequate compliance over the longer term.

5.25 Only where a species cannot be adequately protected using the tools outlined above will it be necessary to consider species-specific statutory protection.

5.3 An Ecosystem Based Approach

5.26 In managing human activities to maintain marine ecosystems, it is important to understand which environmental and biological factors are essential or important to the maintenance of a particular species or community (‘critical or limiting factors’), and which factors, both natural and anthropogenic, are most likely to result in damage to, or destruction of, that particular species or community (Elliott et al., accepted; Hiscock et al., 2006). The causes and consequences of human activities can then be summarised as a set of conceptual models which aim to show the pathways of cause and effect and as such, are valuable for informing policy makers and managers, e.g. McLusky and Elliott (2004).

5.27 The successful management of marine ecosystems ultimately requires a holistic approach which has to take account of all aspects covering the natural environmental and human cultural aspects. Recent emphasis has been placed on changing management from that based on sectoral activities and ‘special’ features to a more integrated ecosystem based approach focusing on ecosystem structure, functioning and processes.

5.28 The essence of The Ecosystem Approach (Elliott et al., accepted) is essentially a management philosophy which sets out high level principles that should be applied to management in order to ensure sustainable development. The approach integrates ecological aspects within a social, political, administrative and legislative framework. Perhaps the most important management consideration is the ability to protect the carrying capacity not only in ecological terms but also in societal terms, and to aim for a wise and sustainable use of the marine, coastal, and estuarine environment.

5.29 Although many ecological concepts are well understood, such as ecosystem structure and functioning, others such as ecological carrying capacity, resilience and ecosystem goods and services have been defined but are still poorly quantified for the marine environment.

5.30 Being able to identify the likely combined effects of human activities and natural events on marine ecosystems requires an increased understanding of how those different activities and events interact. Whilst some activities disrupt structure and functioning (and thus biodiversity), others significantly change habitats, species and communities (Hiscock et al., 2006). Hence, a damaged habitat may recover its functioning (e.g. production) but not its diversity, with fragile species potentially lost from the assemblage and as such, methods need to be identified to address this.

5.31 This allows for a flexibility of approach for species protection, being derived from either of two directions: from the determination of environmental requirements of a species/habitat to maintain function and diversity, or the identification of activities likely to be a threat to the species/habitat.

5.32 Greater application of the Ecosystem Approach should be initially employed in order to better understand the ‘protection’ requirements of the species or habitat. This includes what level 1 and 2 environmental factors (or anthropogenic modifications to these factors) are creating the requirement for protection, and how can these best be addressed in order to allow the level 4 processes to restore the species or habitat to favourable condition (Annex D).

Chapter 6 Conclusions & Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

6.1 In line with better regulation, Government is required to consider the evidence base for the introduction of new policy and demonstrate that alternative approaches (i.e. no intervention, information and education, self regulation, incentive-based structures) have been adequately considered but cannot deliver the required outcome.

6.2 The purpose of this review was therefore to build the evidence base for marine species protection in a concise and scientifically defendable manner in order to assist with the finalisation of the species conservation provision being considered in the Marine Bill. This was achieved through literature reviews and consultation with key stakeholders.

6.3 Evidence to highlight unprotected species which are currently at risk from marine activities is poor, and only anecdotal evidence was provided during the consultation process. There are limitations with respect to the availability of data for many species and habitats in the marine environment, particularly in offshore areas. Therefore the approach to identifying species protection requirements applied in this report uses a flexible niche-based methodology using generic criteria to establish sensitivity values via a theoretical risk/vulnerability analysis. The niche groups and representative species chosen were considered to reflect the diversity of species and habitats found in UK waters, but should not be regarded as comprehensive lists. All data contained within them should be considered as expert judgement based on best available information.

6.4 As a result of this assessment, the two main pathways identified for marine species protection were:

i. The ‘Habitat Approach’, whereby the habitat function is protected either through a specific are-based protection mechanism or across the wider seas. This approach concentrates on the maintenance of physical and chemical parameters by way of the management/control of certain damaging activities in an area.

ii. The ‘Species Approach’, whereby individual species are afforded protection achieved either through species-specific protection or through sectoral controls. This approach addresses ‘extractive’ activities that are either deliberately targeting the key species, or are removing/damaging it as a by-product of the activity.

6.5 The habitat approach is consistent with the Ecosystem Approach currently being developed, and the review has identified that species protection requires a flexible mechanism. For the wider seas, together with most species, a habitat based approach would be the most applicable mechanism, whereby critical marine processes are maintained. For sedentary species considered

to be at particular risk, the most appropriate protection measures would be an area based management mechanism using a network of MPAs. The MPA mechanism can prohibit activities and control access. Examples of sedentary species which can be afforded the greatest protection through site based measures include the tentacled lagoon worm (Alkmaria romijni), the fan mussel, and sea anemones such as the starlet sea anemone (Nematostella vectensis). A MPA will also afford the greatest protection to species with a restricted range, protecting their key habitat.

6.6 The habitat approach would be particularly suited to the protection of species in offshore areas, especially when the location, extent, and status of a particular species is often poorly defined, but wider processes are understood.

6.7 In cases where the habitat (or area based approach) is unsuitable, it may be necessary to apply the Species Approach. It is emphasised that species- specific statutory protection through legislation is not the primary aim of such an approach, but emphasises the development of sectoral management mechanisms to control the impact a damaging activity has on a particular species. Sectoral controls on damaging activities through improved application and enforcement of byelaws, licences and permits will help to prevent the deliberate damage or disturbance of a particular species and their associated habitats.

6.8 However, there are instances where a more prescribed species protection method may be necessary. In a small number of cases, statutory species- specific protection through legislation could be considered, particularly for mobile species where their lifestyle precludes the use of spatial/sectoral controls. This would usually be applied at an individual level where the mobile nature of some species requires protection during all stages of their life-cycle across a range of areas and/or habitats. Examples could include the basking shark and cetaceans.

6.9 It is considered here that in cases where spatial and/or sectoral controls provide inadequate protection, then species specific protection measures should be applied through a flexible list-based approach to scheduling (see para 3.10), thereby aiding its conservation by preventing it being extracted (either targeted or non-targeted extraction).

6.2 Recommendations

6.10 The review undertaken within this report did not identify any conclusive evidence for specific species requiring new legislative protection, although anecdotal evidence was presented for some species/groups being impacted by marine activities and therefore considered to be at risk (particularly outside the 12 nm zone). However, as part of the adopted approach, a process has been derived whereby such species/groups are identified at a theoretical level.

6.11 The activity/sensitivity approach adopted with the report for identifying species requiring protection is considered a suitable technique. It is however recommended that to further validate this approach as a robust tool to

determine management/protection options, additional niche sensitivity information should be included as and when it becomes available. As such, the technique could subsequently be applied to a greater variety of species than it has currently been possible to do. In particular, it may be necessary to revise some of the importance/sensitivity weightings in the light of additional species information, as a paucity of information regarding distribution, habitat requirements and tolerances of less charismatic and/or rarer species precludes this method from being carried out to a species level in many instances. A niche/group approach is therefore currently the most pragmatic scale of application.

6.12 The evidence review identified the fishing sector as being a key activity with the potential to damage species and/or habitats within the marine ecosystem. Although many fisheries management mechanisms exist to control the use of gears and effort, there are many mechanisms, e.g. the use of byelaws for environmental purposes, which could be used more effectively to control damage to the marine environment.

6.13 Legislative species protection alone cannot adequately address most fisheries management issues, e.g. bycatch, and in most instances, it may be necessary to employ a combination of sectoral and spatial planning measures when restricting potentially damaging activities, such as demersal trawling from an area.

6.14 It is recommended are-based protection measures can provide a suitable form of protection for species and habitats in the marine environment. The MPA mechanism can afford protection to spawning and nursery areas, and promote the long term conservation and protection of species and associated habitats. These areas need to be present in sufficient numbers and be of suitable size to ensure their long term viability of the species and habitats requiring protection.

6.15 The requirement for individual species protection is considered extremely limited and would only apply to species at particular risk from capture or killing which cannot be adequately protected through sectoral/spatial controls. However, there is the need for protection against capture or killing of protected species, both directly (deliberately) and indirectly (unintentional bycatch). Species protection is warranted for some species out to 200 nm, e.g. the basking shark, which is a mobile species subject to unintentional bycatch, and therefore not adequately protected solely through the application of spatial/sectoral controls.

6.16 Consideration should be given to the mechanisms whereby accidental mortality of a protected species by an activity is not necessarily a criminal act, but with provenance required to demonstrate that the activity was not undertaken in a reckless manner. Similarly, regard should be given to legally controlling the sale of protected species (or parts thereof) where they have been collected unintentionally. It will also be necessary to prevent damage to habitats or locations which are important to a protected species for part of its

lifecycle, as well as to prevent disturbance to the protected species themselves.

6.17 While it is possible that the Marine Bill could include extensive lists of species and habitats for protection (as with the Habitats Directive Annexes), greater flexibility is recommended. In order to limit the requirement for scheduling individual species or habitats within the proposed Marine Bill, a list based approach could be adopted whereby species requiring protection are included within a published list which can be amended at any time by regulatory authorities. This approach allows a flexibility within the list for the removal or addition of species and/or habitats as necessary, depending on their current conservation status.

References

Boyes, S., Burdon, D. & M. Elliott, 2006. Unlicensed Activities: A review to consider the threats to marine biodiversity. Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill. November 2006. Report to Defra by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies (IECS), University of Hull, UK.

Boyes, S.J., Elliott, M., Thomson, S.M., Gilliland, P. & S. Atkins (in press). A proposed multiple-use zoning scheme for the Irish Sea. Marine Policy.

Boyes, S.J., Warren, L. & M. Elliott, 2003. Summary of Current Legislation Relevant to Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment in the United Kingdom. Report 1 Report to JNCC by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies (IECS), University of Hull, UK.

Cooke, A. & M. McMath, 2001. SENSMAP: Development of a protocol for assessing and mapping the sensitivity of marine species and benthos to maritime activities. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor, CCW Marine Report: 98/6/1.

Defra, 2004. Review of Marine Nature Conservation. Working Group Report to Government [Online]. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/rmnc/pdf/rmnc- report-0704.pdf [Accessed November, 2006].

Elliott, M., Burdon, D. & Hemingway, K. & S. Apitz (accepted for publication). Review of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Habitat and Ecosystem Restoration: confusing management and science. Estuarine, Coastal & Shelf Science.

Eno, C., 1991. Marine Conservation Handbook. English Nature, Peterborough. Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime, Twelfth Report of Session 2003-04, HC 605: para 32.

FISHupdate.com, 2006. Disappointment over Trevose closure support [Online]. Website: http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/6096/Disappointment_over__Trevo se_closure_support.html [Accessed December, 2006]

Goodwin, L., pers. comm., 2006. Marine Connection [personal communication 29th August 2006].

Gubbay, S. & P.A. Knapman, 1999. A review of the effects of fishing within UK European marine sites. Natura 2000 report prepared for the UK Marine SACs Project. English Nature, 134 pp. UK Marine SACs Project, vol.12.

Gubbay, S., 2006. Marine Protected Areas: A review of their use for delivering marine biodiversity benefits [Online]. English Nature Research Reports, No. 688. Website: http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/688.pdf [Accessed November, 2006].

Hall, S.J. 1999. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and communities. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 274 pp.

Hiddink, J.G., Hutton, T., Jennings, S. & M.J. Kaiser, 2006. Predicting the effects of area closures and fishing effort restrictions on the production, biomass and species richness of North Sea benthic invertebrate communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63, 822-830.

Hiscock, K., 2006. Making Biodiversity Action Plan criteria work for marine conservation [Online]. PowerPoint presentation given at the UK Biodiversity Partnership Annual Conference, 20 June 2006, Belfast (UK). Website: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/pap/index.php?presentations [Accessed September, 2006].

Hiscock, K., Marshall, C., Sewell, J. & S.J. Hawkins, 2006. The structure and functioning of marine ecosystems: an environmental protection and management perspective. Report to English Nature from the Marine Biological Association. Marine Biological Association, Plymouth. English Nature Contract MAR08-02-015.

Hiscock, K., pers. comm., 2006. Executive Secretary & Programme Director, Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland (MarLIN), Marine Biological Association [personal communication 14th September 2006].

Jennings, S & M.J. Kaiser, 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology, 34, 201-352.

Kaiser M.J. & S.J. De Groot (eds.), 2000. The effects of trawling on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 399 pp.

MarLIN, 2006a. Species & Habitats [Online]. Website: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/sah/ [Accessed August, 2006].

MarLIN, 2006b. Effects of fishing within UK European Marine sites. A web based resource for marine managers [Online]. Website: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/fisheriesmanagement/public_html/browse.php [Accessed September, 2006].

McLusky, D.S. & M. Elliott, 2004. The Estuarine Ecosystem: ecology, threats and management. Third Edition, Oxford University Press.

Read, S.J., Elliott, M., Subedi, S. & D. Symes, 2000. A Review of Marine and Coastal Environmental Protection Legislation. Unpublished report to the Joint Marine Programme of The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull, UK.

Reid, C.T., 2002. Nature Conservation Law. Second Edition, W. Green/Sweet & Maxwell, Edinburgh.

Symes, D.G. & S.J. Boyes, 2005. Review of Fisheries Management Regimes and Relevant Legislation in UK Waters. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales,

English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull, UK.

WWF-UK, 2001. The Darwin Mounds: Out of sight and still under threat [Online]. Website: http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/darwin_mounds.pdf [Accessed November, 2006]. Report updated October 2002.

Acronyms

AA Appropriate Assessment ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas ASP Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BSO Biodiversity Stop Order CCW Countryside Council for Wales CFP Common Fisheries Policy CRoW Countryside and Rights of Way Act Defra Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs DSP Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning EA Environment Agency EC European Commission EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EU European Union HAB Harmful Algal Bloom HAP Habitat Action Plan HWR Humber Wildfowl Refuge IECS Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee MarLIN Marine Life Information Network for Britain & Ireland MEHRA Marine Environmental High Risk Area MNR Marine Nature Reserve MPA Marine Protected Area NESFC North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee NWNWSFC North Western & North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee PSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea Area SAC Special Area of Conservation SAP Species Action Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFC Sea Fisheries Committee SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SWSFC South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee WCA Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 WiSe WIldlife SafE (training and accreditation scheme) WWF-UK World Wildlife Fund UK

Annex A: Consultation & Stakeholder Workshop

The following groups were consulted as part of the project [CRO354]:

British Marine Federation British Sub Aqua Club CCW (inc Skomer MNR) CEFAS Chichester Harbour Authority CoastNet Natural England Environment Agency Flamborough Coastal Forum Humber Management Scheme Humber Wildfowl Refuge JNCC Local Authorities Local Government Association Marine Biological Association Marine Connection Marine Conservation Society National Federation of Sea Anglers North West Coastal Forum Police Royal Yachting Association RSPB Sea Fisheries Committees Shark Trust University of Liverpool Wildlife Trust Windsurfing Association WWF-UK

Many of the above organisations were able to provide information to assist with the evidence base for marine species protection. Consultation responses are summarised in Annexes E- G, and the contribution of these consultees is gratefully acknowledged.

Attendees at the Stakeholder Workshop held on 14th September 2006 to discuss the draft findings included:

Mike Elliott - IECS, University of Hull Sue Boyes - IECS, University of Hull Krystal Hemingway - IECS, University of Hull Jo Myers - Defra Roger Covey - Defra / Natural England Lindsey Richardson - Environment Agency Brian Clark - British Marine Federation Tom Blasdale - JNCC Clare Eno - CCW Annie Smith - RSPB and Wildlife & Countryside Link Keith Hiscock - Marine Biological Association, Plymouth Ali Champion - WWF Stephen Atkins - NWNWSFC Marie Pendle - CEFAS

Annex B: Marine Species Protection Questionnaire

Clearly, there are many marine species which do not have any form of legal protection. However, in order to focus this study, we are primarily interested in offshore species currently not afforded legal protection and which are considered to be at particular risk from anthropogenic activities (for this part of the study both licensed AND unlicensed activities are included).

The following questions are therefore designed to:

• Identify species at risk from both licensed AND unlicensed activities • Ascertain the efficacy of current protection of key species • Identify voluntary, sectoral and other non-regulatory management techniques (Case studies where such techniques have been implemented (successfully AND unsuccessfully) are sought where possible.

B1. What unprotected species/groups do you consider to be at particular risk from activities (licensed and/or unlicensed) in the marine environment? Could you list species in order of priority/risk (first being most significant) and identify the activity(s) creating the specific threat to the species?

B2. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 will be extended out to 200 nautical miles later this year (2006) which will confer greater protection to species listed therein. However, those species solely included in the Wildlife & Countryside Act (WCA) will not be given additional spatial protection beyond 12 nautical miles (e.g. basking shark and pink sea fan). Which species, solely included in the WCA, do you consider to be at risk outside the 12 nm zone?

B3. Can you provide any case study evidence of voluntary, sectoral, and other non- regulatory management techniques that have been implemented with regard to the protection of marine species and/or groups? Please could you also indicate whether the approach has been considered a success or failure.

B4. What species/groups do you consider would most benefit from the application of voluntary, sectoral, or other non-regulatory management approaches and what types of approach would be most effective? Please provide examples of key species and relevant approaches.

B5. In you view, how do you think increased protection should be applied to marine species? Please indicate the statements you feel applicable and provide species examples where possible. a) additional STATUTORY SPECIES protection b) additional STATUTORY SECTORAL protection c) additional VOLUNTARY SECTORAL protection d) NO ADDITIONAL PROTECTION required

B6. Do you have any further case study evidence (e.g. references, reports, studies) that you are able/willing to provide in support of the information supplied above for Questions B1 to B5.

Annex C: Existing Marine Species Protection

Bern and Oslo & Paris Conventions

Current UK wildlife legislation is largely under the direction of international agreements and European Directives. One of the most influential international agreements which addresses the protection of biodiversity is the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention). This agreement was adopted in 1979 and came into force in 1982. Its principal aims are: to ensure conservation and protection of all wild plant and animal species and their natural habitats; to increase cooperation between contracting parties, and to afford special protection to the most vulnerable or threatened species.

The Bern Convention has been implemented in Europe through the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive). As well as conferring species protection, these two Directives provide for the establishment of a European Union-wide network of nature conservation sites (known as ‘Natura 2000’).

These approaches have been further developed under the Oslo & Paris Convention for the Protection of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR). At the 1998 OSPAR Commission and Ministerial Meeting held in Sintra, Lisbon, a Ministerial statement (the `Sintra Statement') was agreed and signed, this being a high level statement considering a range of issues including protection of marine ecosystems, hazardous substances, radioactive substances, eutrophication, and offshore oil and gas installations. A new annex (`Annex V') to the 1992 OSPAR Convention was also adopted which relates to protection and conservation of ecosystems and biological diversity of the marine area. Similarly, a number of strategies were adopted which set out supporting detail to the relevant sections in the Sintra Statement; these relating to hazardous substances, radioactive substances, eutrophication, and the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and biological diversity of the maritime area.

In order to guide the OSPAR Commission in the setting of priorities to implement Annex V, an initial list of 29 species (including invertebrates, fish, birds and mammals) as well as 14 habitats considered to be threatened and/or declining was compiled. Species and/or habitats will be added to or removed, according to their conservation status and according to the Texel/Faial criteria.

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)

The UK enabling legislation for European Directives includes the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) which consolidates and amends existing UK legislation to implement the Birds Directive into domestic law. In terms of species protection, this Act makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure, or take any wild bird or their eggs or nests (with exceptions to species listed in Schedule 2). Furthermore, it is an offence (subject to exceptions) to intentionally kill, injure, take, possess or trade in any wild animal listed in Schedule 5. Interference with places used for shelter or protection, or intentionally disturbing animals occupying such places is also prohibited.

Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000

The WCA was amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (in England and Wales). This served to strengthen the legal protection for threatened species. However, although the WCA confers protection to marine as well as terrestrial species; its

jurisdiction is currently applied only as far as the limit of territorial waters (12 nm from the low water mark).

The Habitats Directive

The Habitats Directive is transposed into domestic legislation by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (the 'Habitat Regulations'). These regulations provide for the designation and protection of ‘European sites’, as well as the protection of ‘European species’, those firstly listed under Annexes I and II respectively of the Directive. The jurisdiction of the Habitat Regulations in the marine environment is currently consistent with that of the WCA in applying to just 12 nm from low water. The Regulations follow the Directive in requiring an Appropriate Assessment to be performed if a plan or project either alone or in combination with other plans or projects is likely to have a significant effect on a European Site; this is undertaken by the Competent Authority.

The spatial limitation of the UK implementation of the Habitats Directive in the marine realm was amended as a result of the 1999 High Court judgement (R -v- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Greenpeace Limited). This concluded that the Habitats Directive should apply to the UK Continental Shelf and superjacent (lying over or above) waters up to a limit of 200 nm from the baseline or the corresponding midline between states' marine waters.

To address this, the UK Government agreed to amend the existing Regulations and introduce new Regulations to transpose both the Birds and Habitats Directives into UK law in offshore waters. The introduction of the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations in 2001 was the first such application. These Regulations apply the Birds and Habitats Directives in relation to oil and gas plans or projects wholly or partly on the United Kingdom’s Continental Shelf and superjacent waters outside territorial waters (the UKCS). These Regulations apply additional protection to the previously existing ‘Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999, (EIA)’, as the latter do not specifically consider species protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives, nor do they automatically include areas that are or may become candidate or designated European Marine Sites.

In order to apply the Birds and Habitats Directives beyond 12 nautical miles, HMG has drafted the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations. These Regulations will afford protection to marine species listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives in the offshore area, as well allowing Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) to be identified and designated beyond 12 nautical miles. These sites will be collectively referred to as ‘European offshore marine sites’. The Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations are anticipated to come into force during early 2007; the marine species protected therein are listed in Table A-1.

It is important to acknowledge that the Habitats Directive only affords protection to a limited number of habitats and species.

Table A-1: Marine species listed under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (to be protected out to 200 nm).

Schedule Species Schedule 2 • Cetacea - dolphins, porpoise & whales (all species) • Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) • Marine turtles (Caretta caretta, Chelonia mydas, Lepidochelys kempii, Eretmochelys imbricate, Dermochelys coriacea) Schedule 3 • Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) • Common seal (Phoca vitulina) • Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) • Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) • Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) • Ringed seal (Phoca hispida) • Allis shad (Alosa alosa) • Twaite shad (Alosa fallax)

Environmental Protection Acts and Impact Assessment

Many other potentially damaging operations in the offshore marine environment are covered under UK Acts including the Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA), the Coastal Protection Act (CPA), Electricity Act / Energy Act and Telecommunications Act. As part of the consenting process, Cefas, on behalf of Defra, produce the Government View of the likely impacts to the marine environment, and additional information is provided through national legislation and the statutory planning process transposing the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 97/11/EC. In addition, the wider, strategic and regional environmental impacts of certain sectoral activities such as offshore wind generation and oil and gas exploration are addressed through Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA).

The application of the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations will extend to 200 nm the protection currently provided for UK marine species listed under the Habitats and Birds Directives. However, protection of marine species listed under the WCA at present remains limited to 12 nm from the low water mark. As such, the effectiveness of currently enforced wildlife conservation legislation in UK waters has often been called into question. Although this issue is outside the remit of this project, it is necessary to acknowledge that the inclusion of a species, or its habitat within the protective measures mentioned above, does not confer absolute protection. Incidental damage to species/habitats is an often occurring threat which is currently not safeguarded against. It must also be noted that despite current protective measures, no prosecutions for crimes against marine wildlife have taken place for over 25 years (Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime 2003-2004).

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 controls the killing and taking of birds, other animals and plants but requires proof of intentional taking or killing. In addition, it controls the intentional disturbance to species included in the Act, at places of shelter or protection, as well as intentional damage to those areas (and including nest sites for birds). Exemption licences and authorisations for exemptions can be given but only for the geographic area covered by the Act (out to 12 nm). The difficulty in applying this to the wider marine environment and species lies in the meaning of definitions in which 'taking' is not interpreted, as it is in the US, to mean 'harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect' (Reid, 2002). It is notable that the US Endangered Species Act 1973 also extends this interpretation to cover significant habitat modification or degradation which affects the habitats use by species.

The provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 largely repeat those within the WCA, but with some differences in the scope of protection, e.g. extending the offence of destroying breeding sites to cover non-intentional activities. There are also some differences in phrasing, i.e. the use of the term ‘deliberately’ killing, cf. ‘intentionally’ under the WCA. Importantly, the provisions under the Regulations make it an offence to deliberately to kill, capture, or disturb a European Protected Species, or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. Although currently restricted to the 12 nm limit, the application of the proposed Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations (due to come into force during early 2007) will extend to 200 nm the protection currently provided for UK marine species listed under the Habitats and Birds Directives.

The Countryside & Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000, amended the WCA and similarly covers waters out to 12 nm. CRoW extended the offence of disturbing (and by extension killing and harassing) animals to include actions undertaken ‘recklessly’, in addition to ‘intentionally’, this being applied to a place of rest or shelter of a protected animal or a nest site. In the case of cetacea (whales, dolphins) and the basking shark, intentional or reckless disturbance anywhere is considered an offence.

The challenge in extending these powers to the wider marine environment and to cover other potentially damaging marine activities, will be in establishing what the functional status of a damaged area was to a protected species (e.g. a place of rest or shelter), and for an operator to prove that their actions in affecting a marine species (which they may not have known was in an area, or which had migrated into an area for a short time) were neither intentional or reckless.

Table A-2 highlights selected marine species other than birds which are specifically protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 in Schedule 5 (Animals). These species are currently only afforded protection out to 12 nm. The cetaceans (all dolphins, porpoises, and whales), all turtles (Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae), sturgeon and shads are also listed under the WCA, but have been excluded from the list below as they will benefit from additional protection under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, the remit of which will be extended out to 200 nm early in 2007 with the introduction of the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations.

Table A-2: Marine species other than birds which are specially protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 and which have protection out to 12nm (excluding those listed under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations, 1994).

Marine species (other than birds) protected under the WCA Lagoon sea slug (Tenellia adspersa) Tentacled lagoon worm (Alkmaria romijni) Lagoon sand shrimp (Gammarus insensibilis) Marine hydroid (Clavopsella navis) Ivell’s sea anemone (Edwardsia ivelli) Pink sea fan (Eunicella verrucosa) Starlet anemone (Nematostella vectensis) Fan mussel (Atrina fragilis) Trembling sea mat (Victorella pavida) Giant goby (Gobius cobitis) Couch’s goby (Gobius couchii) Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)

Table A-3 details the marine species which are currently being considered for inclusion under Schedule 5 of the WCA. They are therefore not currently afforded protection under existing conservation legislation, and if included, these species would be protected out only to 12 nm.

Table A-3: Marine species being considered for inclusion under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981

Marine species (other than birds) protected under the WCA Angel shark (Squatina squatina) Black skate (Dipturus nidarosiensis) Common skate (Dipturus batis) Long-nosed skate (Dipturus oxyrhinchus) Short-snouted seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus) Spiny (or Long-snouted) seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus) White skate (Rostroraja alba)

Annex D: Critical Marine Processes

(a) Level 1: Physico-chemical Processes Process Specific regions to which the process applies wind regime leading to the wave and swell regime creating the exposure regime. primarily open coastal areas unrestricted wave energy to structure the shore exposure regimes primarily open coastal areas water flow/runoff creating the salinity regime/ maintenance of salinity regime primarily estuarine areas appropriate temperature regime all areas lack of mixing creating the stratification regime primarily restricted to exchange waters sediment to intertidal and subtidal areas primarily sedimenting areas inshore and in estuaries suitable (biological) substratum all areas photic zone/light regime for primary producers primarily clear (less turbid) coastal areas production of favourable water quality for nektonic migration primarily estuarine migration routes supply of oxygenated water primarily waters of restricted exchange and/or organic enrichment an uninterrupted flow creating the tidal regime primarily estuarine areas sediment capture and retention primarily estuarine areas energy dissipation coastal protection primarily open coastal areas habitat maintenance all areas dispersal of propagules through water exchange/currents all areas natural disturbance (scour, storm action, grazing, bioturbation) all areas (b) Level 2: Ecological Processes - biological inter-relationships and mediation Process Ecosystems to which it applies conditions for carbon fixation (autochthonous production) primary producing bed areas (saltmarshes, seagrass beds, rocky shores, etc), water column nutrient sequestration in sediments primarily muddy intertidal sediments nutrient levels for primary production water column primary production of material for primary consumers all producing areas net organic production/degradation creating oxygen regime within water column and bed sediments biomodification of sediments by fauna/flora (biostabilisation, bioturbation, primarily intertidal muddy sediments bioengineers) detrital processing and the delivery of detritus for decomposer food chain primarily estuarine and inshore areas (allochthonous inputs)

Annex D cont.

(b) Level 2: Ecological Processes - biological inter-relationships and mediation cont. Process Ecosystems to which it applies delivery of recruiting organisms to an area all areas net settlement patterns creating competition all areas supply of food/nutrients to higher consumers primarily important feeding areas such as mudflats and subtidal sandbanks removal of waste products all areas critical internal (within/between an organism or community) processes all areas (reproductive ability, disease resistance, predator defence, damage repair, growth). (c) Level 3: Anthropogenic influences on physico-chemical-biological processes Process General examples water quality creating barriers to migration e.g. input of oxygen-demanding wastes such as sewage into estuaries physical barriers to migrations/dispersal e.g. presence of weirs and amenity barrages in estuaries estuarine, coastal and offshore structures creating hydrographic distortions e.g. offshore wave, tidal and wind energy devices polluting inputs creating contamination/pollution responses e.g. industrial discharges hydrographic and nutrient conditions creating eutrophication e.g. diffuse run-off from agriculture and point source sewage discharges into waters of restricted exchange organic enrichment creating community and size-spectral response e.g. paper mill waste, sewage discharges and late-stage oil from spillages removal of size classes of biota and/or species creating community imbalance e.g. fishing and shell-fisheries targeting certain species and/or removing bycatch removal of a population or increase of cultured species reducing genetic diversity e.g. by fishing and aquaculture escapees respectively input of alien and introduced species e.g. by transferral in ballast water or the creation of new niches for colonisation such as hard bottoms in soft sediment areas loss of seabed/wetland reducing biological productivity e.g. land claim in estuaries or building infrastructure on the seabed removal of prey populations and carrying capacity e.g. loss of wetland and intertidal flats through land claim or hydrographical modifications due to barrage construction

Annex D cont.

(d) Level 4: Management Processes as Responses to Change Process Example Removal/remediation of contaminated areas of disused structures e.g. pipelines, cables Coastal protection - soft engineering e.g. creation of habitat, managed realignment, beach nourishment Coastal protection - hard engineering e.g. seawall building Waste minimisation and waste treatment e.g. primary, secondary, tertiary Exclusion zones and statutory limits to physical resource utilisation e.g. shipping lanes, offshore energy, aggregates Exclusion zones and statutory limits to biological resource utilisation e.g. shellfish, fisheries Habitat restoration, creation, replacement e.g. managed realignment, beach nourishment, beneficial use of dredged material Compensation of: e.g. (i) users (i) fishermen (ii) resource (ii) restocking of fish and shellfish (iii) habitats (iii) creation of habitats Barrier removal: e.g. (i) water quality (i) re-aeration, removal of inputs (ii) physical structures (ii) dams, estuarine barriers

Source: Elliott et al., accepted.

Annex E: Summary of Consultee Responses Relating to Unprotected Marine Species identified as ‘At Risk’ from Marine Activities

QB1. What unprotected species/groups do you consider to be at particular risk from activities (licensed and/or unlicensed) in the marine environment? Can you list species in order of priority/risk (first being most significant) and identify the activity(s) creating the specific threat to the species?

Unprotected marine species identified as ‘at risk’ from marine activities

Species Risk Consultee Hydroids Demersal trawling. NESFC Bryozoans Demersal trawling. NESFC Axinella sponges Commercial fishing. Natural England Tall Sea Pen Trawling. Natural England Alien species & physical disturbance. WWF-UK Eelgrass species Anchors, trawling and recreation. Natural England Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Protected as a habitat rather than a species. Beneficial to receive statutory Chichester Harbour Conservancy protection. Scallop Scallop dredging. British Sub-Aqua Club Cockles Overexploitation, e.g. Morecambe Bay, Dee, Ribble. Ray Eades (Humber Wildfowl Refuge) Overexploitation and introduced species. WWF-UK Native Oyster Commercial fishing, e.g. Milford Haven. Countryside Council for Wales Overexploitation, tangle net fishing, entanglement in discarded fishing line. To British Sub-Aqua Club Crawfish a lesser extent collection by commercial and recreational divers. Commercial fishing and diver take. Natural England Skates (Common, White & Long- Vulnerable to over-fishing. Joint Nature Conservation Committee nosed) Rays (all species) Overexploitation from various groups. South Wales SFC Skates & Rays The decline in size and abundance of these species in the last 30 years has Countryside Council for Wales been well documented and is likely to be a result of commercial over-fishing & possibly recreational angling. Tope Overexploitation from various groups. South Wales SFC Blue Shark Overexploitation form various groups. South Wales SFC

Annex E cont.

Species Risk Consultee Angel Shark Capture in fishing gear. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Porbeagle Overexploitation from various groups. South Wales SFC Spurdog Overexploitation from various groups. South Wales SFC Cod Overexploitation. WWF-UK Orange Roughy Overexploitation. WWF-UK Commercial (BAP) fish species Overexploitation. Countryside Council for Wales Sandeel Overexploitation. British Sub-Aqua Club Sandwich Tern Young depend on parents for food whilst on migration. Vulnerable to Ray Eades (Humber Wildfowl Refuge) disturbance separating adults from chicks. Long-lived slow growing species Mobile gear damage. Marine Biological Association Smelt ‘Rare and threatened in Europe’ with self sustaining populations in several UK Environment Agency estuaries but without formal protection. EA (Thames Region) now developing sea fisheries byelaws which could be applied.

Annex F: Summary of Consultee Responses Relating to Species listed under the WCA identified as ‘At Risk’ from Marine Activities beyond 12 nm

QB2. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 will be extended out to 200 nautical miles later this year (2006) which will confer greater protection to species listed therein. However, those species solely included in the Wildlife & Countryside Act (WCA) will not be given additional spatial protection beyond 12 nm (e.g. basking shark and pink sea fan). Which species, solely included in the WCA, do you consider to be at risk outside the 12 nm zone?

Species included in the WCA identified as ‘at risk’ from marine activities outside the 12 nm zone

Species Risk Consultee These migrate in waters beyond 12 nm and numbers are vulnerable. NESFC No reason provided. Natural England Boat strike by pleasure craft and commercial craft while feeding, breeding and congregating. WWF-UK It may be the case that they feed outside the 12 nm limit but have not been observed to do British Sub-Aqua Club so due to the relative lack of traffic and observers reporting their presence. Biologists confirm however that little is known about the shark’s movements outside of the summer months when it feeds in the plankton rich waters around our coast. It is assumed that in winter months they migrate to deeper waters and these are likely to be outside the 12 nm limit. By affording protection at this stage then it provides a mechanism whereby if an increase in deep water fishing encounters significant bycatch of the basking shark then immediate action can be taken without waiting for subsequent legislation to be enacted. Basking Shark A precedent for such extension of protection exists with the protection of two species of shad within both List 3 and Schedule 3 in List 2 even though both are described as coastal species. Might become economically viable to hunt them again and so protection required to address Ray Eades (Humber Wildfowl Refuge) this potential. Concern regarding collision with vessels (sail and propeller powered) with several examples Marine Connection given. Also issues of entanglement with fishing gear although this is likely to be most prevalent in inshore waters were bottom set gill nets and pots are more common - again examples of occurrences given. Fisheries bycatch, vessel collision, climate change. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Spends only 22% of time within 12nm zone. NE Atlantic individuals likely to be a single Marine Conservation Society / Wildlife population. & Countryside Link

Annex F cont.

Species Risk Consultee Shark species Extraction - angling and commercial, including as bycatch. WWF-UK Skate species Extraction - angling and commercial, including as bycatch. WWF-UK Distribution restricted to areas of southern Wales. Individuals vulnerable to dredging activity Countryside Council for Wales & through damage caused by discarded/lost fishing gear. Thought to be relatively resistant Fan Mussel to potting activities. Pollution, seabed disturbance, development. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Due to being easily damaged from fishing gear. NESFC At risk from dredging for scallops - irreparably damaged by heavy gear; turn over of large WWF-UK rocks; and leisure fishing i.e. entanglement in fishing line can cause lacerations leaving this Pink Sea Fan species open to infection & parasites. Protection to be afforded for potential deep water colonies of the pink sea fan - Eunicella British Sub-Aqua Club verrucosa (and fan mussel - Atrina fragilis). Entanglement, mobile gear, pollution, disease. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Although not native to the British Isles the walrus is afforded specific protection under the British Sub-Aqua Club WCA. For the species to be protected within UK waters it would need to travel through the Walrus 200 mile zone and should be afforded similar protection. Vulnerable to many human related activities including hunting (non-UK), fishing, habitat Joint Nature Conservation Committee degradation, and pollution. Rarely likely to be found in offshore area of UK.

Annex G: Summary of Consultee Responses Concerning the Application of Increased Protection to Marine Species

QB5. How do you think increased protection should be applied to marine species? Please indicate the statements you feel applicable and provide species examples where possible.

Increased protection via option a) additional STATUTORY SPECIES Protection

Consultee Rationale British Sub-Aqua Club Establish statutory protection for species from particular types of disturbance/exploitation, e.g. the protection of all species from disturbance and collection resulting from dredging for scallops. WWF-UK Requirement for an ecological, coherent, and effectively managed UK network of MPAs, or ‘Nationally-Important Marine Sites’ as a key component of the toolkit for conserving and aiding recovery of biodiversity & ecosystem function thereby contributing to an ecosystem based approach to management of our seas. Support for the role and function of MPAs as outlined in the Marine Bill consultation document with emphasis on the need for designations to cover important features in both benthic and pelagic habitats throughout the marine area for which the UK has jurisdiction and environmental obligation. Natural England Spatial protection required in addition to species protection in order to protect sedentary species. Marine Connection Required in order to adequately protect all species listed under the WCA. Whilst all other approaches are of some value, sectoral and voluntary approaches alone will not be able to provide comprehensive protection. Marine Conservation Society / All BAP species must have stricter protection, and be monitored and mapped, particularly in hotspot areas. Wildlife & Countryside Link NWNWSFC Very limited statutory species protection required. Ray Eades (Humber Wildlife Refuge) Harbour porpoise & small cetaceans need protection from fishing gear. North Wales Police For effective species legislation, the law needs to be consistent. Enforcement will be very difficult if legislation in the intertidal area, inshore, and offshore differs. In addition, legislation needs to be well defined with equal clarity provided in relation to enforcement responsibilities and the provision of adequate enforcement powers. Public information needs to be increased in terms of legal requirements and the needs of marine biodiversity. Environment Agency Greater clarity required in the degree of possible enforcement for the protection of certain species. Allis & twaite shad, sea & river lamprey and sturgeon are true migratory species included within conservation designations (i.e. Habitats and Species Directive), but fall outwith the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries legislation. Catches tend to be incidental (most species have little or no commercial value), but with an absence of clear responsibilities in terms of enforcement or regulation there is minimal protection in the marine phase. May need new byelaws.

Annex G cont.

Increased protection via option b) additional STATUTORY SECTORAL Protection

Consultee Rationale British Sub-Aqua Club Formalisation of existing voluntary protection with additional areas added, e.g. St Kilda, is essential for the maintenance of species diversity and sustainable commercial fisheries. Chichester Harbour Authority If a species or habitat requires protection, a sensible approach would be to provide statutory protection. A sectoral approach based on site specific conditions would be favourable compared to blanket protection of a species. Marine Conservation Society / Revision to wording of legislation to prevent continuous capture and killing of species as bycatch. Spatial or sectoral restrictions applied to areas where gears are likely to kill protected species. Wildlife & Countryside Link North Western and North Wales Sea Additional statutory sectoral protection is considered to be the most important area of requirement. Fisheries Committee North Wales Police Refer to response provided in the previous table for option a.

Increased protection via option c) additional VOLUNTARY SECTORAL Protection

Consultee Rationale British Sub-Aqua Club Increasing the number and range of voluntary sectors can enhance species protection especially where unique habitats exist, e.g. in Lochs Creran and Sween. Such voluntary protection may be appropriate for species as an interim measure whilst additional research establishes if there is a requirement for statutory protection, whether voluntary protection is adequate, or if such protection is unnecessary. Marine Conservation Society / Used as a mechanism to restrict species damage by fishermen, and administered via SFCs. Wildlife & Countryside Link NESFC Could work if communication with the community and the fishing industry in the area proposed is strong. NWNWSFC Voluntary sectoral protection is not considered effective. Ray Eades (Humber Wildfowl Key wader roosts at busy tourist/leisure sites could benefit from voluntary wardening schemes. Refuge)

No respondents identified option d) No Additional Protection required as being a preferred approach.

Annex H:ExtendedSensitivity(UnprotectedSpecies)

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME LossArea of (seabed) LossArea of (water column) LossArea of (airspace) loss Substratum Smothering Changessuspended in sediment Increasesuspended in sediment Decrease in suspendedsediment Desiccation Changesemergence in regime Increaseemergence in regime Decrease in emergenceregime Changein water flowrate Increasewater in flow rate rate flow water in Decrease Changescurrents in temperature in Change Increasetemperature in Decrease in temperature Changein turbidity Increaseturbidity in Decrease in turbidity Changein wave exposure Increasewave in exposure Decrease in wave exposure disturbance Noise presence Visual disturbance physical / Abrasion Displacement abstraction Water Synthetic compound contamination contamination Heavy metal Hydrocarbon contamination contamination Radionuclide Changesnutrient in levels Changessalinity in Increasesalinity in Decrease in salinity Changesoxygenation in Introduction of microbial pathogens / parasites Introduction of non-native species loss Productivity Productivity gain Losscarrying of capacity Selective extraction of target species Selective extraction of non-target species Non-selective extraction of non-target species Information source Chordata Carnivore Recurvirostra avosetta Avocet I Chordata Carnivore Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit Chordata Carnivore Numenius arquata Curlew Chordata Carnivore Calidris alpina Dunlin Chordata Carnivore Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover Chordata Carnivore Calidris canutus Knot Chordata Carnivore Haematopus ostralegus Oystercatcher Chordata Carnivore Vanellus vanellus Lapwing Chordata Carnivore Tringa totanus Redshank Chordata Carnivore Gallinago gallinago Snipe Chordata Carnivore Tringa erythropus Spotted redshank Chordata Carnivore Anas crecca Teal BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Arenaria interpres Turnstone Chordata Carnivore Scolopax rusticola Woodcock Chordata Herbivore Branta leucopsis Barnacle goose I SOFT Chordata Herbivore Branta bernicla Brent goose Chordata Herbivore Anser anser Greylag goose Chordata Herbivore Anser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed goose Chordata Herbivore Anser albifrons White-fronted goose Chordata Herbivore Anas penelope Wigeon Chordata Omnivore Anas acuta Pintail I Chordata Omnivore Aythya ferina Pochard Chordata Omnivore Tadorna tadorna Shelduck Chordata Omnivore Anas clypeata Shoveler Sedentary Cnidaria Carnivore Edwardsia timida Sea anemone N NI INTERTIDAL INFAUNA Mobile Crustacea Carnivore Rissoides desmaresti Mantis shrimp NNNNNNN I Sedentary Angiosperm Primary Producer Zostera noltii Dwarf eelgrass N MI Crustacea Suspension/Deposit Feeder Gammarus chevreuxi A sand shrimp N I EPIFAUNA Crustacea Carnivore Cestopagurus timidus Hermit crab N I Mobile Crustacea Carnivore Clibanarius erythropus Hermit crab Mollusca Carnivore Aeolidiella sanguinea Sea slug N I Chordata Carnivore Haematopus ostralegus Oystercatcher I BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Arenaria interpres Turnstone Mobile Crustacea Carnivore Clibanarius erythropus Hermit crab N I Cnidaria Carnivore Cataphellia brodricii Latticed corklet N NI Cnidaria Carnivore Aiptasia mutabilis Trumpet anemone Cnidaria Carnivore Anthopleura thallia Glaucus pimplet Cnidaria Filter Feeder Hartlaubella gelatinosa Hydroid N I Cnidaria Filter Feeder Aglaophenia kirchenpauer Hydroid Sedentary Annelida Filter Feeder Sabellaria alveolata Honeycombe worm NNNNN Annelida Filter Feeder Sabellaria spinulosa Ross worm HARD Chromophycota Primary Producer Asperococcus scaber Brown seaweed N I EPIFAUNA Chromophycota Primary Producer Padina pavonica Peacocks tail Rhodophycota Primary Producer Pterosiphonia pennata Red seaweed N I Rhodophycota Primary Producer Lophosiphonia reptabunda Red seaweed Sedentary Echinodermata Carnivore Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis Northern sea urchin N NI (mobile) Echinodermata Carnivore Paracentrotus lividus Purple sea urchin Mollusca Carnivore Aeolidiella sanguinea Sea slug N I Mollusca Carnivore Aeolidiella alderi Sea slug Mobile Mollusca Carnivore Greilada elegans Blue spot slug Mollusca Carnivore Onchidella celtica Celtic sea slug

Key: High sensitivity Low sensitivity N Not relevant Insufficient Data MI Combination of MarLIN sensitivity data & IECS expert judgement I IECS expert judgement (intended for generic guidance only)

Annex H cont. ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME LossArea of (seabed) column) (water Area of Loss LossArea of (airspace) loss Substratum Smothering Changessuspended in sediment Increasesuspended in sediment Decrease in suspendedsediment Desiccation Changesemergence in regime Increaseemergence in regime Decrease in emergenceregime Change in water flow rate rate flow water in Increase rate flow water in Decrease Changescurrents in Change in temperature Increasetemperature in Decrease in temperature Change in turbidity Increaseturbidity in Decrease in turbidity Change in wave exposure Increasewave in exposure wave Decrease exposure in disturbance Noise presence Visual disturbance physical / Abrasion Displacement abstraction Water Synthetic compound contamination contamination Heavy metal Hydrocarboncontamination contamination Radionuclide Changesnutrient in levels Changessalinity in Increasesalinity in salinity in Decrease Changesoxygenation in Introductionof microbial pathogensparasites / Introductionof non-native species loss Productivity Productivity gain carrying capacity of Loss Selective extraction of targetspecies Selective extraction of non-target species Non-selective extractionof non-target species source Information Chordata Carnivore Somateria mollissima Eider NN I Chordata Carnivore Uria aalge Guillemot BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Fratercula arctica Puffin Chordata Carnivore Alca torda Razorbill Sedentary Echiura Deposit Feeder Amalosoma eddystonense Spoon worm NNN I Cnidaria Carnivore Mesacmaea mitchellii Sea anemone NNN I Cnidaria Carnivore Edwardsia timida Sea anemone INFAUNA Sedentary Cnidaria Carnivore Scolanthus callimorphus Worm anemone (mobile) Cnidaria Carnivore Anemonactis mazeli Sea anemone Cnidaria Carnivore Arachnanthus sarsi Sea anemone Bryozoa Filter Feeder Cylindroporella tubulosa Bryozoan NNN I Cnidaria Primary Producer Laomedea angulata Sea grass sea fir NNN I Cnidaria Filter Feeder Funiculina quadrangularis Tall sea pen N NNNN N N MI Cnidaria Filter Feeder Obelia bidentata Hydroid Cnidaria Filter Feeder Lophelia pertusa Cold-water coral MI Mollusca Filter Feeder Ostrea edulis Native oyster N NMI Mollusca Filter Feeder Lucinella divaricata Bivalve mollusc Mollusca Filter Feeder Acanthocardia aculeata Spiny cockle Sedentary Mollusca Filter Feeder Callista chione Smooth venus Tunicata Filter Feeder Styela gelatinosa Sea squirt N I Angiosperm Primary Producer Zostera marina Common eelgrass N MI SUBTIDAL SOFT Rhodophycota Primary Producer Anotrichium barbatum Red Algae NNN Rhodophycota Primary Producer Pterosiphonia pennata Red seaweed Rhodophycota Primary Producer Chondria coerulescens Red seaweed Rhodophycota Primary Producer Pymatolithon calcareum Maerl M Rhodophycota Primary Producer Lithothamnion corallioides Maerl EPIFAUNA Mollusca Filter Feeder Modiolus modiolus Horse mussel N NNN N N NNN NN M Crustacea Suspension/Deposit Feeder Corophium lacustre Mud shrimp NNN I Sedentary Crustacea Suspension/Deposit Feeder Gammarus chevreuxi A sand shrimp (mobile) Cnidaria Carnivore Halcampoides elongatus Sea anemone NNN Cnidaria Carnivore Pachycerianthus multiplicatus Fireworks anemone Mollusca Grazer Leptochiton scabridus Chiton Mobile (but slow) Mollusca Grazer Truncatella subcylindrica Looping snail N NMI Mollusca Grazer Jujubinus striatus Grooved top shell Crustacea Carnivore Cestopagurus timidus Hermit crab NNN I Crustacea Carnivore Clibanarius erythropus Hermit crab Crustacea Carnivore Rissoides desmaresti Mantis shrimp Mollusca Carnivore Aeolidiella sanguinea Sea slug NNN I Mobile Mollusca Carnivore Hero formosa Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Stiliger bellulus Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Okenia leachii Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Okenia elegans Yellow skirt slug

Key: High sensitivity Low sensitivity N Not relevant Insufficient Data MI Combination of MarLIN sensitivity data & IECS expert judgement I IECS expert judgement (intended for generic guidance only)

Annex H cont. ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Loss of Area (seabed) column) (water Area of Loss Loss of Area (airspace) loss Substratum Smothering Changes in suspendedsediment sediment suspended in Increase sediment suspended in Decrease Desiccation Changes emergence in regime Increase in emergence regime Decreasein emergence regime rate flow water in Change rate flow water in Increase rate flow water in Decrease Changes in currents Changetemperature in Increase in temperature temperature in Decrease Changeturbidity in turbidity in Increase Decreasein turbidity Changewave in exposure exposure wave in Increase exposure wave in Decrease Noise disturbance Visual presence Abrasionphysical / disturbance Displacement abstraction Water Synthetic compound contamination contamination Heavy metal Hydrocarboncontamination Radionuclide contamination Changes in nutrientlevels Changes in salinity Increase in salinity salinity in Decrease Changes in oxygenation Introductionof microbial pathogensparasites / Introductionof non-native species Productivityloss Productivitygain capacity carrying of Loss Selective extraction of targetspecies Selective extraction of non-target species Non-selective extractionof non-target species source Information BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Somateria mollissima Eider NN I Bryozoa Filter Feeder Cylindroporella tubulosa Bryozoan NNN I Bryozoa Filter Feeder Turbicellepora magnicostata Orange peel bryozoan Bryozoa Filter Feeder Bugula purpurotincta Bryozoan Cnidaria Filter Feeder Leptopsammia pruvoti Sunset cup coral NNN NN MI Cnidaria Filter Feeder Caryophyllia inornata Southern cup coral Cnidaria Filter Feeder Hoplangia durotrix Weymouth carpet coral Cnidaria Filter Feeder Hartlaubella gelatinosa Hydroid Cnidaria Filter Feeder Tamarisca tamarisca Hydroid Cnidaria Filter Feeder Obelia bidentata Hydroid Cnidaria Filter Feeder Aglaophenia kirchenpauer Hydroid Cnidaria Filter Feeder Alcyonium hibernicum Pink sea fingers Porifera Filter Feeder Desmacidon fruticosum Sponge NNN NN I Porifera Filter Feeder Adreus fascicularis Sponge Porifera Filter Feeder Axinella damicornis Sponge Sedentary Tunicata Filter Feeder Styela gelatinosa Sea squirt NNN NN I Chromophycota Primary Producer Ascophyllum nodosum mackaii Knotted Wrack NNN MI Chromophycota Primary Producer Carpomitra costata Brown seaweed Chromophycota Primary Producer Zanardinia typus Penny weed Chromophycota Primary Producer Padina pavonica Peacocks tail Rhodophycota Primary Producer Anotrichium barbatum Red Algae NNN I Rhodophycota Primary Producer Lithothamnion glaciale Maerl Rhodophycota Primary Producer Pterosiphonia pennata Red seaweed Rhodophycota Primary Producer Bornetia secundiflora Red seaweed Rhodophycota Primary Producer Aglaothamnion diaphanum Red seaweed Rhodophycota Primary Producer Aglaothamnion priceanum Red seaweed Rhodophycota Primary Producer Gracilaria multipartita Red seaweed SUBTIDAL HARD EPIFAUNA Annelida Filter Feeder Sabellaria alveolata Honeycombe worm NNN NN Annelida Filter Feeder Sabellaria spinulosa Ross worm Annelida Filter Feeder Serpula vermicularis Tubeworm Cnidaria Carnivore Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-fan anemone NNN NN MI Cnidaria Carnivore Parazoanthus axinellae Yellow cluster anemone Cnidaria Carnivore Cataphellia brodricii Latticed corklet Sedentary Cnidaria Carnivore Parazoanthus anguicomus White cluster anemone (mobile) Echinodermata Carnivore Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis Northern sea urchin NNN I Echinodermata Carnivore Paracentrotus lividus Purple sea urchin Mollusca Filter Feeder Modiolus modiolus Horse mussel M Crustacea Carnivore Synisoma lancifer Sea slater NNN I Crustacea Carnivore Achaeus cranchii Cranch's spider crab Crustacea Carnivore Dromia personata Sponge crab Crustacea Carnivore Clibanarius erythropus Hermit crab Crustacea Carnivore Ebalia granulosa Nut crab Echinodermata Carnivore Ophiopsila aranea Brittlestar NNN I Echinodermata Carnivore Cucumaria frondosa Sea cucumber Mollusca Carnivore Leptochiton scabridus Chiton NNN I Mobile Mollusca Carnivore Doris sticta Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Aeolidiella sanguinea Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Atagema gibba Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Trapania pallida Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Hero formosa Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Caloria elegans Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Trapania maculata Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Tritonia nilsodhneri Sea slug Mollusca Carnivore Okenia elegans Yellow skirt slug

Key: High sensitivity Low sensitivity N Not relevant Insufficient Data MI Combination of MarLIN sensitivity data & IECS expert judgement I IECS expert judgement (intended for generic guidance only)

Annex H cont. ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Loss of Area (seabed) column) (water Area of Loss (airspace) Area of Loss Substratum loss Smothering Changes in suspendedsediment Increase in suspendedsediment Decrease in suspended sediment Desiccation Changes in emergence regime Increase in emergenceregime Decrease in emergence regime Change water in flow rate rate flow water in Increase Decrease in water flow rate Changes in currents Change in temperature Increase in temperature temperature in Decrease Change in turbidity turbidity in Increase Decrease in turbidity Change in wave exposure exposure wave in Increase Decrease in wave exposure Noise disturbance Visual presence Abrasion / physical disturbance Displacement Water abstraction Synthetic compound contamination Heavy metal contamination Hydrocarbon contamination Radionuclide contamination Changes in nutrientlevels Changes in salinity Increase in salinity Decrease in salinity Changes in oxygenation Introduction of microbial pathogensparasites / Introduction of non-native species Productivity loss Productivity gain capacity carrying of Loss Selective extraction of targetspecies Selective extraction of non-target species Non-selective extraction of non-target species Information source Chordata Carnivore Raja hyperborea Arctic skate N NNNNNNN I Chordata Carnivore Aphanopus carbo Black Scabbardfish Chordata Carnivore Argentina silus Greater silver smelt Chordata Carnivore Brosme brosme Tusk Chordata Carnivore Clupea harengus Herring Chordata Carnivore Coregonus oxyrhynchus Houting Chordata Carnivore Coryphaenoides rupestris Roundnose grenadier Chordata Carnivore Gadus morhua Cod Chordata Carnivore Lophius piscatorius Angler fish Chordata Carnivore Hoplostethus atlanticus Orange roughy Chordata Carnivore Macrourus berglax Roughhead grenadier Chordata Carnivore Merlangius merlangus Whiting FISH Mobile Chordata Carnivore Merluccius bilinearis Silver hake Chordata Carnivore Merluccius merluccius European hake Chordata Carnivore Micromesistius poutassou Blue Whiting Chordata Carnivore Molva dypterygia Blue Ling Chordata Carnivore Molva molva Ling WATER N/A Chordata Carnivore Pleuronectes platessa Plaice COLUMN Chordata Carnivore Pollachius virens Pollock/saithe Chordata Carnivore Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Greenland halibut Chordata Carnivore Scomber scrombrus Mackerel Chordata Carnivore Sebastes spp. Redfish Chordata Carnivore Solea vulgaris Sole Chordata Carnivore Trachurus trachurus Horse Mackerel Chordata Carnivore Sterna dougallii Arctic tern NN I Chordata Carnivore Cepphus grylle Black guillemot Chordata Carnivore Phalacrocorax carbo Cormorant Chordata Carnivore Sula bassana Gannet Chordata Carnivore Bucephala clangula Goldeneye BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Uria aalge Guillemot Chordata Carnivore Egretta garzetta Little egret Chordata Carnivore Fratercula arctica Puffin Chordata Carnivore Alca torda Razorbill Chordata Carnivore Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern Chordata Carnivore Phalacrocorax aristotelis Shag

Key: High sensitivity Low sensitivity N Not relevant Insufficient Data MI Combination of MarLIN sensitivity data & IECS expert judgement I IECS expert judgement (intended for generic guidance only)

Annex H cont. ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME LossArea of (seabed) LossArea of (water column) LossArea of (airspace) Substratum loss Smothering Changes in suspended sediment Increase in suspended sediment Decrease in suspendedsediment Desiccation Changes in emergence regime Increase in emergence regime Decrease in emergenceregime rate flow water in Change rate flow water in Increase rate flow water in Decrease Changes in currents temperature in Change Increase in temperature Decrease in temperature Changein turbidity Increase in turbidity turbidity in Decrease Changein wave exposure Increase in wave exposure exposure wave in Decrease disturbance Noise Visualpresence disturbance physical / Abrasion Displacement abstraction Water Synthetic compound contamination Heavy metal contamination Hydrocarbon contamination Radionuclide contamination Changes in nutrient levels Changes in salinity Increase in salinity Decrease in salinity Changes in oxygenation Introduction of microbial pathogens / parasites Introduction of non-native species loss Productivity gain Productivity Losscarrying of capacity species target of extraction Selective Selectiveextraction of non-target species Non-selective extraction of non-target species Informationsource Chordata Carnivore Cepphus grylle Black guillemot NN I Chordata Carnivore Larus ridibundus Black-headed gull Chordata Carnivore Larus canus Common gull Chordata Carnivore Phalacrocorax carbo Cormorant Chordata Carnivore Somateria mollissima Eider Chordata Carnivore Fulmarus glacialis Fulmar Chordata Carnivore Anas strepera Gadwall Chordata Carnivore Sula bassana Gannet Chordata Carnivore Bucephala clangula Goldeneye Chordata Carnivore Stercorarius skua Great skua Chordata Carnivore Uria aalge Guillemot Chordata Carnivore Larus argentatus Herring gull Chordata Carnivore Rissa tridactyla Kittiwake SURFACE N/A BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Larus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull Chordata Carnivore Egretta garzetta Little egret Chordata Carnivore Puffinus puffinus Manx shearwater Chordata Carnivore Fratercula arctica Puffin Chordata Carnivore Alca torda Razorbill Chordata Carnivore Phalacrocorax aristotelis Shag Chordata Carnivore Hydrobates pelagicus Storm petrel Chordata Carnivore Anas crecca Teal Chordata Herbivore Cygnus olor Mute swan N N I Chordata Herbivore Anas penelope Wigeon Chordata Omnivore Anas acuta Pintail N N I Chordata Omnivore Aythya ferina Pochard Chordata Omnivore Tadorna tadorna Shelduck Chordata Omnivore Anas clypeata Shoveler

High sensitivity Low sensitivity N Not relevant Insufficient Data MI Combination of MarLIN sensitivity data & IECS expert judgement I IECS expert judgement (intended for generic guidance only)

Annex I:ExtendedSensitivity(WCASpecies)

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Loss of Area (seabed) of Area Loss column) (water of Area Loss (airspace) of Area Loss loss Substratum Smothering sediment suspended in Changes sediment suspended in Increase sediment suspended in Decrease Desiccation regime emergence in Changes regime emergence in Increase regime emergence in Decrease rate flow water in Change rate flow water in Increase rate flow water in Decrease currents in Changes temperature in Change temperature in Increase temperature in Decrease turbidity in Change turbidity in Increase Decreaseturbidity in exposure wave in Change exposure wave in Increase exposure wave in Decrease disturbance Noise Visual presence disturbance / physical Abrasion Displacement abstraction Water contamination compound Synthetic contamination metal Heavy contamination Hydrocarbon contamination Radionuclide levels nutrient in Changes Changes in salinity Increase in salinity Decreasesalinity in oxygenation in Changes / parasites pathogens microbial of Introduction species non-native of Introduction Productivity loss Productivity gain capacity of carrying Loss species target of extraction Selective species non-target of extraction Selective species of non-target extraction Non-selective source Information Marine species afforded protection out to 12 nautical miles under the WCA (which are not afforded protected under additional legislation) Chordata Carnivore Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit I Chordata Carnivore Calidris temminckii Temminck's stint Chordata Carnivore Philomachus pugnax Ruff BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Chordata Carnivore Tringa glareola Wood sandpiper Chordata Carnivore Charadrius hiaticula Ringed plover SOFT INTERTIDAL Annelida Deposit feeder Alkmaria romijni Tentacled lagoon worm N M INFAUNA Sedentary Mollusca Filter feeder Atrina fragilis Fan mussel N N N M EPIFAUNA Sedentary Cnidaria Filter feeder Clavopsella navis Marine hydroid N N N I Sed (Mob) Cnidaria Carnivore Nematostella vectensis Starlet sea anemone N NM Crustacea Carnivore Gammarus insensibilis Lagoon sand shrimp N M Mobile Mollusca Carnivore Tenellia adspersa Lagoon sea slug N M HARD BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Calidris maritima Purple sandpiper I Chordata Carnivore Gavia arctica Black-throated diver N N I Chordata Carnivore Gavia immer Great Northern diver Chordata Carnivore Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe Chordata Carnivore Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked grebe Chordata Carnivore Aythya marila Scaup BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck Chordata Carnivore Melanitta nigra Common scoter SOFT Chordata Carnivore Melanitta fusca Velvet scoter Chordata Herbivore Cygnus columbianus Bewick's swan I Chordata Herbivore Cygnus olor Whooper swan Annelida Deposit feeder Alkmaria romijni Tentacled lagoon worm N M INFAUNA Sedentary Mollusca Filter feeder Atrina fragilis Fan mussel N N N M SUBTIDAL Sedentary Bryozoa Filter feeder Victorella pavida Trembling sea mat N NNNN N NM EPIFAUNA Sed (Mob) Cnidaria Carnivore Edwardsia ivelli Ivell's sea anemone N NN M Chordata Carnivore Gavia arctica Black-throated diver N N I Chordata Carnivore Gavia immer Great Northern diver Chordata Carnivore Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe Chordata Carnivore Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked grebe BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Aythya marila Scaup HARD Chordata Carnivore Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck Chordata Carnivore Melanitta nigra Common scoter Chordata Carnivore Melanitta fusca Velvet scoter Bryozoa Filter feeder Victorella pavida Trembling sea mat N NNNN N NM Sedentary EPIFAUNA Cnidaria Filter feeder Eunicella verrucosa Pink sea-fan N NNNNN NN N N N M Mobile Mollusca Carnivore Tenellia adspersa Lagoon sea slug N M

Key: Very low sensitivity Low sensitivity Moderate sensitivity

High sensitivity Very high sensitivity Not sensitive

Unknown / insufficient information N Not relevant X Null value M MarLIN sensitivity data I IECS expert judgement (intended for generic guidance only)

Annex I cont. ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES

Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction

NICHE SUBSTRATA FAUNA LIFESTYLE PHYLUM FEEDING GUILD SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Loss of Area (seabed) of Area Loss column) (water of Area Loss (airspace) of Area Loss loss Substratum Smothering sediment suspended in Changes sediment suspended in Increase sediment suspended in Decrease Desiccation regime emergence in Changes regime emergence in Increase regime emergence in Decrease rate flow water in Change rate flow water in Increase rate flow water in Decrease currents in Changes temperature in Change temperature in Increase temperature in Decrease turbidity in Change turbidity in Increase Decreaseturbidity in exposure wave in Change exposure wave in Increase exposure wave in Decrease disturbance Noise Visual presence disturbance / physical Abrasion Displacement abstraction Water contamination compound Synthetic contamination metal Heavy contamination Hydrocarbon contamination Radionuclide levels nutrient in Changes Changes in salinity Increase in salinity Decreasesalinity in oxygenation in Changes / parasites pathogens microbial of Introduction species non-native of Introduction Productivity loss Productivity gain capacity of carrying Loss species target of extraction Selective species non-target of extraction Selective species of non-target extraction Non-selective source Information Marine species afforded protection out to 12 nautical miles under the WCA (which are not afforded protected under additional legislation) Chordata Carnivore Sterna dougallii Roseate tern N N I Chordata Carnivore Gavia stellata Red-throated diver Chordata Carnivore Gavia arctica Black-throated diver Chordata Carnivore Gavia immer Great Northern diver BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe Chordata Carnivore Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe WATER COLUMN N/A Chordata Carnivore Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked grebe Chordata Carnivore Sterna albifrons Little tern Chordata Carnivore Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark FISH Mobile Chordata Carnivore Gobius cobitis Giant goby N N M Chordata Carnivore Gobius couchii Couch's goby N N M MAMMAL Mobile Mammalia Carnivore Odobenus rosmarus Walrus N N N I Chordata Carnivore Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked grebe N N I Chordata Carnivore Gavia arctica Black-throated diver Chordata Carnivore Melanitta nigra Common scoter Chordata Carnivore Gavia immer Great Northern diver Chordata Carnivore Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leach's storm-petrel Chordata Carnivore Sterna albifrons Little tern Chordata Carnivore Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck Chordata Carnivore Larus melanocephalus Mediteranean gull SURFACE N/A BIRDS Mobile Chordata Carnivore Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe Chordata Carnivore Gavia stellata Red-throated diver Chordata Carnivore Sterna dougallii Roseate tern Chordata Carnivore Aythya marila Scaup Chordata Carnivore Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe Chordata Carnivore Melanitta fusca Velvet scoter Chordata Herbivore Cygnus columbianus Bewick's swan Chordata Herbivore Cygnus cygnus Whooper swan Proposed marine species being considered for protection out to 12 nautical miles under WCA (which are not afforded protection under additional legislation) Chordata Carnivore Dipturus batis Common skate N NNNNNNN XM Chordata Carnivore Dipturus nidarosiensis Black skate Chordata Carnivore Dipturus oxyrhinchus Long-nosed skate WATER COLUMN N/A FISH Mobile Chordata Carnivore Rostroraja alba White skate Chordata Carnivore Squatina squatina Angel shark Chordata Carnivore Hippocampus hippocampus Short-snouted seahorse N N NX M Chordata Carnivore Hippocampus guttulatus Spiny (Long-snouted) seahorse

Key: Very low sensitivity Low sensitivity Moderate sensitivity

High sensitivity Very high sensitivity Not sensitive

Unknown / insufficient information N Not relevant X Null value M MarLIN sensitivity data I IECS expert judgement (intended for generic guidance only)

Requirements Environmental Annex J:UnprotectedKeySpecies-

Species name Common name Importance Location (on Profile) Depth Habitat/Substratum Aeolidiella alderi Sea slug scarce intertidal Anotrichium barbatum Red Algae rare subtidal 7m pebbles/gravel in old oyster beds Anthopleura thallia Glaucus pimplet scarce rocky shore often with mussels, sometimes with gravel Bornetia secundiflora Red seaweed rare Just below low water to sublittoral to 3m rock Bugula purpurotincta Bryozoan scarce shallow waters to max 274m max 274m attached to shells and hydroids - rocky Chara muscosa Mossy Stonewort rare (poss GB extinct) sublittoral shallow margins sand Cucumaria frondosa Sea cucumber scarce lower shore to shallow sublittoral to 200m coarse grounds/rocky substrata Dromia personata Sponge crab scarce sublittoral from 10-30m rocky/stony Jujubinus striatus Grooved top shell rare low water to sublittoral to 300m around plants and seaweeds Leptochiton scabridus Chiton scarce extreme low water, sublittoral to 10-20 stone/pebbles on sand Lophosiphonia reptabunda Red seaweed rare upper intertidal muddy/sandy shores Okenia leachii Sea slug rare deep sublittoral below 25m muddy sand Parazoanthus axinellae Yellow cluster anemone scarce shallow sublittoral to offshore to 100m organic substrata and rocks Rissoides desmaresti Mantis shrimp scarce lower shore to sublittoral to 50m sandy, gravelly mud Acanthocardia aculeata Spiny cockle rare sublittoral muddy sands Achaeus cranchii Cranch's spider crab scarce sublittoral from 5-70m on hydroids, bryozoans, ascidians and underside of boulders Adreus fascicularis Sponge rare sublittoral 10-30m sand covered rock Aeolidiella sanguinea Sea slug rare sublittoral occasionally lower shore muddy/rocky Aglaophenia kirchenpauer Hydroid scarce lower shore, shallow sublittoral hard substrata, Cystoseira spp. and coralline algae Aglaothamnion diaphanum Red seaweed rare subtidal 7-25m on large algae and bedrock Aglaothamnion priceanum Red seaweed rare sublittoral 5-30m on small perennial algae and bedrock Aiptasia mutabilis Trumpet anemone scarce lower shore under stones Alcyonium hibernicum Pink sea fingers scarce shallow subtidal vertical/overhang rocks Amalosoma eddystonense Spoon worm scarce sublittoral to 50m mud, gravel Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-fan anemone rare sublittoral can be v deep branches of sea fans and other tubular organisms Anemonactis mazeli Sea anemone scarce offshore 20-650m mud, sand or gravel Arachnanthus sarsi Sea anemone rare subtidal 10-36m mud, sand or shelly mud sediment Ascophyllum nodosum Knotted Wrack shore line bedrock Asperococcus scaber Brown seaweed scarce lower shore rock Atagema gibba Sea slug rare sublittoral 8-15m steep rock faces Axinella damicornis Sponge scarce sublittoral to 30m lower circalittoral bedrock Callista chione Smooth venus rare offshore >100m sand Caloria elegans Sea slug scarce rock Carpomitra costata Brown seaweed scarce sublittoral to 37m epilithic, on bedrock Caryophyllia inornata Southern cup coral rare sublittoral 0-30m Fissures, caves Cataphellia brodricii Latticed corklet scarce lower shore and shallow sublittoral to 20m under stones, attached to rock Cestopagurus timidus Hermit crab rare intertidal and shallow sublittoral to 80m soft substrata, among sea grasses and algae Chondria coerulescens Red seaweed rare subtidal to 4m pebbles in mud Clibanarius erythropus Hermit crab rare intertidal and shallow sublittoral to 40m rock/sand/gravel Corophium lacustre Mud shrimp scarce brackish and freshwater submerged vegetation Cylindroporella tubulosa Bryozoan rare sublittoral 5-230m seaweeds, ascidians, shells and stones Desmacidon fruticosum Sponge rare sublittoral hard substratum Doris sticta Sea slug scarce on sponges

Species name Common name Importance Location (on Profile) Depth Habitat/Substratum Ebalia granulosa Nut crab scarce shallows to beyond edge of continental shelf coarse grounds Edwardsia timida Sea anemone scarce lower shore to shallow sublittoral sand or gravel Funiculina quadrangularis Tall sea pen uncommon sublittoral offshore to deep muddy substrata Gammarus chevreuxi A sand shrimp scarce brackish water, coastal marshes mud, sand and stones within estuaries Gracilaria multipartita Red seaweed scarce upper sublittoral to subtidal to 15m rock Greilada elegans Blue spot slug rare coast rocky feeding on Bugula spp. Halcampoides elongatus Sea anemone rare offshore 10-25 (to 100m) mud, sand or gravel Hartlaubella gelatinosa Hydroid rare lower shore to 15m rock pools.. Hero formosa Sea slug scarce 30-200m wrecks/muddy sand Hoplangia durotrix Weymouth carpet coral scarce shallow sublittoral 0-25m Caves, crevices Laomedea angulata Sea grass sea fir scarce sublittoral to 8m Z. marina leaves only Leptopsammia pruvoti Sunset cup coral rare subtidal 10-30m Caves, boulders Lucinella divaricata Bivalve mollusc rare lower shore to sublittoral muddy sand/gravel Mesacmaea mitchellii Sea anemone scarce sublittoral 15-100m sand or gravel Obelia bidentata Hydroid rare sublittoral to 200m wood, shells, wrecks and sandy substrata Okenia elegans Yellow skirt slug scarce inside test of sea squirt Polycarpa rustica Onchidella celtica Celtic sea slug scarce shore exposed rock/sandy shore Ophiopsila aranea Brittlestar rare sublittoral 25-185m rock Ostrea edulis Native oyster estuarine and shallow coastal waters mud to gravel Pachycerianthus multiplicatus Fireworks anemone scarce sublittoral 10-130m mud or muddy sand Padina pavonica Peacocks tail scarce mid to lower shore rock pools, stones Paracentrotus lividus Purple sea urchin scarce lower shore to shallow sublittoral to 3m rock Parazoanthus anguicomus White cluster anemone scarce deep waters usually, sometimes shallow to >400m encrusting hard organic substrata and rocks Pterosiphonia pennata Red seaweed scarce intertidal and subtidal bedrock, pebbles, crustose corallines and maerl Scolanthus callimorphus Worm anemone rare low water mark to shallow water sand or gravel Stiliger bellulus Sea slug rare shallow with Zostera (sand to fine gravel) Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis Northern sea urchin rare lower shore to sublittoral to 1200m rock Styela gelatinosa Sea squirt rare sublittoral Sea lochs - terrestrial debris, shells or other hard substrata Synisoma lancifer Sea slater scarce low water under rocks Tamarisca tamarisca Hydroid scarce circalittoral rock Trapania maculata Sea slug rare shallow rocks Trapania pallida Sea slug scarce sublittoral 10-20m rocky cliffs/outcrops Tritonia nilsodhneri Sea slug scarce on Sea-fan, Eunicella verrucosa Truncatella subcylindrica Looping snail rare 15cm shingle/rotting vegetation/fine sediment Turbicellepora magnicostata Orange peel bryozoan rare sublittoral usually 50m sublittoral algae Zanardinia typus Penny weed scarce sublittoral shallow to 20m silty boulders/bedrock Zostera marina Common eelgrass scarce subtidal to 4m sand and fine gravel Zostera noltii Dwarf eelgrass scarce intertidal mud/rich fine sand Source: adapted from MarLIN, 2006a

Annex K: Examples of Management Mechanisms for Species Protection

Sectoral Regulation - Environmental Byelaws

Example Byelaw Cornwall SFC: St Ives St Ives Gillnet Fishery No person shall use in fishing for sea fish, any gillnet, within a specified area of St Ives Bay during any temporary closure of the fishery. A temporary closure will be initiated when the deaths of birds through entanglement with gillnets as witnessed by Fishery Officers exceeds predetermined levels over any consecutive five day period. Devon SFC: Lundy MNR Byelaw 13 Prohibition of Spear Fishing - Lundy Island MNR No person shall use in fishing for sea fish or shellfish any harpoon spear or like instrument within the area designated by the Secretary of State for the Environment by Order under Section 36 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as the Lundy MNR. Byelaw 14 Trawling and Netting Prohibition - part of Lundy Island MNR No person shall fish for sea fish or shellfish: (a) by trawling, (b) by using any kind of tangle net or moored or fixed net, (c) by using any gill net in the area specified. Byelaw 15 Potting Restriction - Lundy Island MNR No person shall use pots or traps or other like instruments for the purpose of capturing or storing sea fish or shellfish within 100 m of low water mark around the Knoll Pins as defined by mean low water spring tides. Cumbria SFC: Solway Firth Byelaw 15 No person shall fish for sea fish in that part of Cumbria SF district (as designated) from any mechanically propelled vessel with a registered engine power exceeding 221 KW, except with hooks and lines. * This byelaw is designed to prevent the high powered vessels from fishing in the environmental sensitive area of the inner Solway Firth, designated as an SAC. Isles of Scilly SFC Methods of Fishing (Dredges) Byelaw This byelaw prohibits the use of vessels fishing with more than 4 dredges at a time within any part of the Isles of Scilly Sea Fisheries District which is within 4 nm of the islands. * This measure is designated to protect the seabed from damage by intensive use of multiple dredges to protect the features of the SAC and the Islands, and to ease the potential increased effort on local fish stocks. Source: NFFO Official Year Book, 2004 in: Symes & Boyes, 2005

Sectoral Regulation - Ministerial Orders

Ministerial Order Purpose Razor Shells, Trough Shells and Carpet Shells Prohibits fishing for razor shells (Ensis spp.), trough shells (Spisula spp.) and carpet shells (Tapes spp.) (Specified Sea Area) (Prohibition of Fishing) by means of any type of dredge within the area of the Wash. The direct and indirect impacts of suction Order 1998 No. 1276 dredging were a significant concern for English Nature and the RSPB in the Wash candidate SAC and there was no clear evidence to suggest that dredging would not cause unacceptable environmental impacts. The Fal and Helford (Prohibition of Scallop Prohibits the use of scallop dredges in the estuaries of the Fal and Helford rivers which form a candidate Dredging) Order 2004 No. 2567 SAC where maerl beds are an important component of the site and are subject to damage by scalloping activity. The Order was implemented following a request from English Nature1, as statutory nature conservation advisor. The Environment Agency (EA) as the competent authority had been working on a byelaw to tackle the problem but had been unable to put it in place quickly enough to provide adequate protection. The Order was to last for a year whilst the EA put in place a properly constituted and consulted byelaw. The EA subsequently drafted and consulted on a byelaw completely closing the estuary to mechanical dredging. The Solent European Marine Site (Prohibition of Prohibits the use of pump scoop dredges for cockles in the Solent SAC and SPA. This type of dredging Method Dredging) Order 2004 No. 2696 which involves the injection of water into the dredge can damage the eelgrass (Zostera sp.) beds which form a feature of the SAC and are an important food source for Brent Geese. The Order was made following a request by English Nature1 as statutory conservation advisor, supported by evidence of damage on Ryde Sands. The South-West Territorial Waters (Prohibition of Prohibits the uses of pair trawl nets within 12 nm of the south-west coast of England, especially in Pair Trawling) Order 2004 No. 3397 connection with fishing for sea bass to prevent the high levels of bycatch of common dolphins, in line with the general aims of the ASCOBANS Agreement (Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas). It was introduced following the failure of a request by the UK Government to the European Commission for the use of emergency powers under Regulation 2371/2002 (Article 7) for a closure of the offshore pair trawl fishery for sea bass. The Shellfish (Specified Sea Area) (Prohibition of The Order prohibits the use of hydraulic dredging for bivalve molluscs in the area of Carmarthen Bay. Fishing Methods) (Wales) Order 2003 No. 607 The Order was introduced following a reasoned opinion by the EC against the UK in 2002 in relation to (W.81) the non-designation of Carmarthen Bay as a SPA for the duck, Melanitta nigra (common scoter), and of the SWSFC for not carrying out an Appropriate Assessment before authorising hydraulic dredging for razor shells (Ensis spp.). A third party was believed to have complained to the EC. The Order followed a long running dispute between CCW and the SWSFC over the assessment of the impact of hydraulic dredging for razor shells (a new fishery) in Carmarthen Bay firstly, on the non-breeding common scoter in Carmarthen Bay SPA, and more recently, the Shallow Inlet and Bay feature of Carmarthen SAC. 1 Natural England was formed in October 2006 with the merging of the Countryside Agency, Rural Development Service and English Nature.