Marine Conservation Areas - Final draft report. by Through the Gaps

AF T

Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Recommendations

Report submitted to the Science Advisory Panel

June 1st, 2011

Table of Contents Part I – Introduction and Summary of Progress ........................................................................ 9 I.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 10 I.2 Summary of progress ...................................................................................................... 11 I.2.1 Stakeholder meetings held since the third iteration................................................ 11 I.2.2 Progress made on the network configuration ......................................................... 12

AF T

I.2.3 Conservation Objectives ........................................................................................... 17 I.2.4 Assumptions on activity restrictions and management measures .......................... 19

I.3 Scope of this report and prioritisation of project work .................................................. 20

I.3.1 Project delays ........................................................................................................... 20 I.3.3 Prioritisation of project work ................................................................................... 20 Part II – Draft final pMCZ recommendations........................................................................... 22 II.1 Notes on the content and structure of Part II................................................................ 23

II.1.1 Network-level report ............................................................................................... 23 II.1.2 Site-level reports for pMCZs .................................................................................... 23 II.1.3 Site-level reports for potential reference areas ...................................................... 25 II.1.4 Sections completed for this draft report ................................................................. 25

II.2 Network level report ...................................................................................................... 28 II.2.1 The network configuration (overview) .................................................................... 28 II.2.2 Conservation Objective summary for pMCZs.......................................................... 37 II.2.3 Summary of the contribution of existing protected areas (gap analysis) ............... 52 II.2.4 ENG-related statistics for the network (pMCZs and existing protected areas) ..... 54

II.2.5 Potential reference area summary.......................................................................... 78

II.3 Site-level reports for offshore pMCZs ............................................................................ 85 II.3.1 The Canyons pMCZ .................................................................................................. 86 II.3.2 South-West Deeps (West) ..................................................................................... 103 II.3.3 South-west Deeps (East) pMCZ ............................................................................. 117 II.3.4 North-west of Jones Bank pMCZ ........................................................................... 131 II.3.5 Greater Haig Fras pMCZ ........................................................................................ 144 II.3.6 East of Jones Bank pMCZ ....................................................................................... 160 II.3.7 East of Haig Fras pMCZ .......................................................................................... 173

II.3.8 North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ ............................................................................... 187 II.3.9 South of Celtic Deep pMCZ .................................................................................... 202 II.3.10 Celtic Deep pMCZ ................................................................................................ 215 II.3.11 East of Celtic Deep pMCZ .................................................................................... 227 II.3.12 Western Channel pMCZ....................................................................................... 241 II.3.13 South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ ......................................................................... 255 II.4 Site-level reports for inshore pMCZs ........................................................................... 267 II.4.1 Poole Rocks pMCZ ................................................................................................. 268

AF T

II.4.2 Studland Bay pMCZ................................................................................................ 273 II.4.3 Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay pMCZ ................................................................ 278

II.4.4 South Dorset pMCZ ............................................................................................... 283 II.4.5 South of Portland pMCZ ........................................................................................ 288 II.4.6 Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges pMCZ ................................................................ 299

II.4.7 Axe Estuary pMCZ .................................................................................................. 311 II.4.8 Otter Estuary pMCZ ............................................................................................... 314

II.4.9 Torbay pMCZ ......................................................................................................... 317 II.4.10 Dart Estuary pMCZ............................................................................................... 329

II.4.11 Skerries Bank and surrounds pMCZ..................................................................... 334

II.4.12 Devon Avon Estuary pMCZ .................................................................................. 337

II.4.13 Erme Estuary pMCZ ............................................................................................. 340 II.4.14 Tamar Estuary Sites pMCZ ................................................................................... 343

II.4.15 Whitsand and Looe Bay pMCZ ............................................................................ 349

II.4.16 Upper Fowey and Pont Pill pMCZ ........................................................................ 360 II.4.17 South-East of Falmouth pMCZ............................................................................. 365 II.4.18 South of Falmouth pMCZ..................................................................................... 374 II.4.19 The Manacles pMCZ ............................................................................................ 382

II.4.20 Mounts Bay pMCZ ............................................................................................... 385 II.4.21 Land’s End pMCZ ................................................................................................. 396 II.4.22 Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ ...................................................................................... 407 II.4.23 Cape Bank pMCZ.................................................................................................. 433 II.4.24 Newquay and the Gannel pMCZ.......................................................................... 443 II.4.25 Padstow Bay and surrounds pMCZ...................................................................... 446 II.4.26 Camel Estuary pMCZ............................................................................................ 449 II.4.27 Hartland Point to Tintagel pMCZ ......................................................................... 453

II.4.28 Lundy MCZ ........................................................................................................... 465 II.4.29 Taw Torridge Estuary pMCZ ................................................................................ 468 II.4.30 Bideford to Foreland Point pMCZ........................................................................ 473 II.4.31 Morte Platform pMCZ ......................................................................................... 485 II.4.32 North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) pMCZ......................................................... 488 II.5 Site reports for potential reference areas ................................................................... 491 II.5.1 The Canyons potential reference area .................................................................. 492 II.5.2 Greater Haig Fras potential reference area .......................................................... 497

AF T

II.5.3 Celtic Deep potential reference area .................................................................... 502 II.5.4 South Dorset potential reference area ................................................................. 507 II.5.5 South-East of Portland Bill ..................................................................................... 512

II.5.6 The Fleet potential reference area ........................................................................ 517

II.5.7 Lyme Bay potential reference area ....................................................................... 522 II.5.8 Erme Estuary potential reference area ................................................................. 527 II.5.9 Mouth of the Yealm potential reference area ...................................................... 533 II.5. 10 The Fal potential reference area ........................................................................ 539

II.5.11 Swanpool potential reference area ..................................................................... 545 II.5.12 Cape Bank potential reference area.................................................................... 550

II.5.13 Lundy potential reference area ........................................................................... 556 Appendix 1: Table of Steering Group members grouped by sector .................................. 562

Appendix 2: Named Consultative Stakeholders................................................................. 563 Appendix 3: Finding Sanctuary project team and facilitators............................................ 564 Appendix 4: Ecological data and planning tools used during the planning process .......... 565

Appendix 5: Map legends ................................................................................................... 572 Appendix 6: Gap Analysis Table ......................................................................................... 574 Appendix 7: List of abbreviations ....................................................................................... 580 Appendix 8: Management measures terminology ............................................................ 582

List of Maps Code

Type

SAP_200a Offshore

Map Title

Contents

Network Configuration (offshore map)

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_200b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_200c

Admiralty style map

SAP_201a Inshore

Network Configuration (inshore map)

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_201b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_201c

Admiralty style map Existing and proposed MPAs in the SW

Existing marine protected areas

AF T

SAP_202 Inshore

SAP_203a Offshore pMCZ The Canyons pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_203b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_204a Offshore pMCZ South-west Deeps (West) pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_204b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_205a Offshore pMCZ South-west Deeps (East) pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_205b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_206a Offshore pMCZ North-west of Jones Bank pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_206b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_207a Offshore pMCZ Greater Haig Fras pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_207b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_208a Offshore pMCZ East of Jones Bank pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_208b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_209a Offshore pMCZ East of Haig Fras pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_209b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_209c

Additional socio-economic data

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_210b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_210c

Additional socio-economic data

SAP_211a Offshore pMCZ South of Celtic Deep pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_211b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_211c

Additional socio-economic data

SAP_210a Offshore pMCZ North-east of Haig Fras pMCZ

SAP_212a Offshore pMCZ Celtic Deep pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_212b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_213a Offshore pMCZ East of Celtic Deep pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_213b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_213c

Additional socio-economic data

Code

Type

Map Title

Contents Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_214b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_214c

Additional socio-economic data

SAP_215a Offshore pMCZ South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_215b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_215c

Additional socio-economic data

SAP_216a Inshore pMCZ Poole Rocks pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_216b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

AF T

SAP_214a Offshore pMCZ Western Channel pMCZ

SAP_217a Inshore pMCZ Studland Bay pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_217b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_218a Inshore pMCZ Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_218b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_219a Inshore pMCZ South Dorset pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_219b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_220a Inshore pMCZ South of Portland pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_220b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_220c

DORIS survey bathymetry

SAP_221a Inshore pMCZ Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_221b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_221c

DORIS survey bathymetry

SAP_222a Inshore pMCZ Axe Estuary pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_222b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_223b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_223a Inshore pMCZ Otter Estuary pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_224a

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_225a Inshore pMCZ Dart Estuary pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_225b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_226a Inshore pMCZ Skerries Bank and Surrounds pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_224a Inshore pMCZ Torbay pMCZ

SAP_226b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_227a Inshore pMCZ Devon Avon pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_227b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_228a Inshore pMCZ Erme Estuary pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_228b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_229a Inshore pMCZ Tamar Estuary pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_229b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_230a Inshore pMCZ Whitsand and Looe Bay pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_230b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Code

Type

Map Title

Contents Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_231b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_232a Inshore pMCZ South-east of Falmouth pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_232b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_233a Inshore pMCZ South of Falmouth pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_233b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_234a Inshore pMCZ The Manacles pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_234b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_235a Inshore pMCZ Mounts Bay pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_235b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

AF T

SAP_231a Inshore pMCZ Upper Fowey and Pont Pill pMCZ

SAP_236a Inshore pMCZ Land's End pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_236b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_237a Inshore pMCZ Isles of Scilly pMCZs (part 1)

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_237b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_238a Inshore pMCZ Isles of Scilly pMCZs (part 2)

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_239b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_239a Inshore pMCZ Cape Bank pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_239b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_240a Inshore pMCZ Newquay and the Gannel pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_240b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_241a Inshore pMCZ Padstow Bay and Surrounds pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_241b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_242b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_242a Inshore pMCZ Camel Estuary pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_243b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_244a Inshore pMCZ Lundy MCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_244b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_245a Inshore pMCZ Taw Torridge Estuary pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_243a Inshore pMCZ Hartland Point to Tintagel pMCZ

SAP_245b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_246a Inshore pMCZ Bideford to Foreland Point pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_246b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_247a Inshore pMCZ Morte Platform pMCZ

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_247b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_248b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_248a Inshore pMCZ North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) pMCZ Charted bathymetry and site coordinates SAP_249a Offshore RA SAP_249b

Canyons

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Code

Type

SAP_250a Offshore RA

Map Title

Contents

Haig Fras

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_250b SAP_251a Offshore RA

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI Celtic Deep

SAP_251b SAP_252a Inshore RA

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI South Dorset

SAP_252b SAP_253a Inshore RA

South-east of Portland Bill

SAP_255a Inshore RA SAP_255b SAP_256a Inshore RA SAP_256b SAP_256c SAP_257a Inshore RA SAP_257b SAP_257c SAP_258a Inshore RA SAP_258b SAP_259a Inshore RA SAP_259b SAP_260a Inshore RA SAP_26-b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI The Fleet

SAP_261a Inshore RA

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Lyme Bay

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Erme Estuary

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Additional socio-economic data

Mouth of the Yealm

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Additional socio-economic data

The Fal

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Swanpool

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

Cape Bank

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_260c

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

AF T

SAP_254b

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_253b SAP_254a Inshore RA

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

Lundy

Additional socio-economic data

Charted bathymetry and site coordinates

SAP_261b

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI

SAP_261c

Additional socio-economic data

Connectivity - littoral rock (A1)

SAP_263 Inshore

Connectivity - littoral sediment (A2)

SAP_262 Inshore SAP_264 Inshore

Connectivity - infralittoral rock (A3)

SAP_265 Offshore

Connectivity - circalittoral rock (A4)

SAP_266 Offshore

Connectivity - sublittoral sediment (A5)

AF T

Part I – Introduction and Summary of Progress

I.1 Introduction

AF T

This report summarises progress made by the Finding Sanctuary project since the third progress report, submitted to the SAP on February 28th, 2011. It assumes familiarity with the content of the third progress report***hyperlink***. It also assumes an understanding of the wider national MCZ process (the people involved in it and their roles, the timelines, and the national guidance that we are working towards). Although the SAP and SNCBs are the key audience, this progress report is also publicly available via our website. We have attempted to make it clear and readable for a wider audience, but readers unfamiliar with the wider context may wish to refer to further information on our website 1, or on Natural England’s MCZ website2: Unlike our previous progress reports, this draft final report has not been reviewed and signed off by the whole Steering Group, nor have the Steering Group had the opportunity to provide comments (as they did for progress reports 2 and 3). Furthermore, not all sections of this draft are fully completed. This draft therefore needs to be treated as an update on the progress made by the Joint Working Group since the third progress report. It does not present the results of a fourth formal planning iteration, nor a complete set of final recommendations. This report consists of two parts, plus appendices. Part I is an introduction and a summary of the progress made since the third iteration. It focuses on key progress made, i.e. changes to the site boundaries within the network, the addition of reference areas, and progress on conservation objectives.

Part II is the main part of the document, which contains the draft final recommendations, i.e. a description of the network configuration and its accompanying narrative. It starts with a network-level report (presenting the whole configuration, with maps, and details on how well the selected configuration performs against the targets set out in the ENG), followed by a series of site level reports for pMCZs (presenting each individual site with accompanying map, narrative, and the ecological features it would protect, and ***site level reports for reference areas.

The site reports are not yet completed for all sites. *** This is because there is still work outstanding with the Joint Working Group and the Steering Group, and as a project we have prioritised the planning and preparation of the stakeholder work above producing a complete draft final report at this stage. In this way, we aim to produce the best possible overall set of final recommendations. The appendices contain a ***list of abbreviations used throughout the report, ***details on the stakeholder representatives on the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group, and a technical section describing in detail some of the ecological datasets used to map species and habitats listed in the ENG.

1 2

www.finding-sanctuary.org www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/marine/protectandmanage/mpa/mcz/default.aspx

I.2 Summary of progress I.2.1 Stakeholder meetings held since the third iteration Since the third planning iteration, the Joint Working Group (JWG) has met on three occasions, two of which were two-day meetings: March 9th-10th, April 6th-7th and May 5th. This constitutes a change to the schedule of meeting as had been planned originally. Please refer to the Finding Sanctuary Process Group reports for details on why and how the changes to the schedule were made, these are available on the resources section of our website.

AF T

At the end of each of the previous three planning iterations, a full Steering Group meeting was held to enable the wider Steering Group to review the progress of the working groups, and to input into the progress reports. This draft final report is different: it does not mark the culmination of another formal planning iteration, and there has been no full Steering Group meeting to review the recent progress made by the JWG or to provide input into this report. Instead, a ‘drop in’ session was run for Steering Group members on the 24th May, so they had an opportunity to be brought up to date with decisions that have been taken by the JWG, and to ask direct questions to JWG members and the project team. In addition, the Steering Group has of course been provided with the JWG meeting reports, which are accessible via our website. The following Local Group meetings have fed into the JWG meetings since the writing of the third progress report: Cornwall: 20th January 2011, 17th February 2011 Devon: 1st February 2011

Dorset: 25th January 2011, 17th February 2011 Somerset: 12th January 2011

Isles of Scilly: 26th January 2011, 13th April 2011

Following the meetings in February, all Local Groups (except the Isles of Scilly) decided that they would no longer meet to input into our process. They considered that it had been most important to be involved over the time period when the pMCZ boundaries (especially for inshore sites) were actively being defined and modified. That process has now come to an end. The only exception is the Isles of Scilly Local group, who existed prior to our process and will continue to meet into the future, in order to try and take an active role in the management and monitoring of their sites, together with their local Natural England and public authority representatives. Following their April meeting they suggested two “non-disturbance areas” within their pMCZ, and this was discussed at the JWG meeting on May 5th. The Isles of Scilly Local Group has also developed some ideas for future pMCZ monitoring.

I.2.2 Progress made on the network configuration Final boundary adjustments and network modifications While the overall configuration of the network has not been reshaped significantly since the third planning iteration, there have been some changes to boundaries, site removals, and site additions. The most significant changes have come from the progress on estuaries and reference areas, and these are discussed separately below. With respect to the remainder of the network, some adjustments have been made to site boundaries. In a limited number of instances, the changes are significant at the site level, with sites amalgamated, moved, removed or replaced.

AF T

These final modifications made to the network originated from a number of specific suggestions made by stakeholder representatives from the conservation sector (to better include areas of additional ecological importance), ports (to reduce impacts on port and harbour activities), renewables (to help solve the co-location versus no co-location dichotomy), commercial fishing (to reduce negative impacts on the industry), and Local Groups (to improve conservation benefits as well as reduce impacts on ongoing activities). In addition, the project team proposed changes to simplify some of the boundaries, along with changing some of the site names. The report from the April Joint Working Group meeting (available here3) gives more details.

One key achievement is that there is now a single network configuration, having resolved the discussions around co-location versus no co-location of renewable energy installations. In the area south of Dorset, the complex array of sites in progress report 3 has been replaced with a single area which overlaps the western portion of the round 3 wind farm licence area, but not the central section of the licence area in which the developers (Eneco) are planning to build a wind farm. Off Land’s End, the smaller of the two sites has been selected for inclusion, in order to ensure that in future, renewables developers would be able to access a section of coastline in between the MCZ and SAC boundaries (the area has a high near-shore wave energy resource which may be of interest in future). Finally, following discussions with Natural England about impacts and consequences to them, the developers of the Atlantic Array (RWE npower) have agreed to the inclusion of the North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) pMCZ (***statement).

Other notable changes to sites include the removal of the North-West of Lundy pMCZ (which had been identified as a “water column” pMCZ for the protection of seabirds), the removal of St Ives Bay pMCZ (which had been identified as a “water column” pMCZ to consolidate existing fisheries restrictions), replacement of the three Western Channel sites with a single site with much simplified boundaries, the replacement of Poole Bay pMCZ with two smaller sites (Poole Rocks and Studland Bay), and the replacement of the South-East of Falmouth pMCZ with two smaller sites in the same area (now called South-East of Falmouth and South of Falmouth). The *** table below lists all the sites that are currently in the network (except potential reference areas, which are covered in section ***), with a

http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/page/resources.html

summary of the changes that have been made to their boundaries since the third progress report. The coloured border gives a quick indication of the extent of the boundary changes (colour key is at the end of the table). The table is split into “offshore” and “inshore” sites, using the same split that was used for the vulnerability assessment work (see section ***). Of the sites that straddle the 12nm limit, the South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ is included under the “offshore” heading, all others are included under the “inshore” heading.

Table ***

AF T

There have also been changes to the conservation objectives for some of the sites – we no longer have any sites that are there solely for the protection of species in the water column. All sites now include protection for species and habitats on the seafloor. Conservation objectives are discussed in section ***.

Name offshore The Canyons South West Deeps (West) South West Deeps (East)

Name in PR3

boundary modifications since PR3

same same same

North-West of Jones Bank Greater Haig Fras

same same

East of Jones Bank

same

None None Boundary changes to remove overlap with areas most intensively used by fishermen. Western Boundary extended west, eastern boundary moved west. None Minor adjustment of boundaries to simplify shape, straighten lines and improve alignment with lat/lon lines. Minor adjustment of boundaries to simplify shape, straighten lines and improve alignment with lat/lon lines. Minor adjustment of boundaries to simplify shape, straighten lines and improve alignment with lat/lon lines. Small move to north and west, minor change in shape and adjustment of boundaries for alignment with lat/lon lines. Change of shape in order to simplify the boundaries. Reduction in size, removal of zones within the site. Site moved north-west to avoid area of plume from planned disposal area to the North (outside Milford Haven). Three sites replaced with a single site of similar total area and much simplified shape. Boundary drawn to remove overlap with mid-channel potting agreement area. Western half of the site removed, boundaries adjusted to improve alignment with lat/lon lines.

North-East of Haig Fras (site 2)

East of Haig Fras

North-East of Haig Fras (site 1)

South of Celtic Deep

same

Celtic Deep

same

North-East of Haig Fras

East of Celtic Deep

same

Western Channel

Western channel sites 1, 2 and 3

South of the Isles of Scilly

same

(Poole Bay)

Studland Bay

(Poole Bay)

South Dorset

West of Wight sites 1,2,3,4 and South of the Shambles n/a

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay South of Portland

same

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

West of Portland and the Fleet

Axe Estuary Otter Estuary Torbay

same same same

Dart Estuary

n/a

same

Skerries Bank and surrounds

Devon Avon Estuary

n/a

Erme Estuary Tamar estuary sites

same n/a

Whitsand and Looe Bay

same

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill

n/a

South-East of Falmouth

(South-East of Falmouth)

South of Falmouth

(South-East of Falmouth)

D 14

Poole Bay pMCZ has been replaced by two smaller pMCZs, Poole Rocks and Studland Bay. Poole Bay pMCZ has been replaced by two smaller pMCZs, Poole Rocks and Studland Bay. This is a new site, replacing West of Wight sites 1,2,3,4 and South of the Shambles.

This is a newly added site.

AF T

inshore Poole Rocks

Minor adjustment of boundaries to simplify shape, straighten lines and improve alignment with lat/lon lines. Removal of the section overlapping the Lyme Bay cSAC, and seaward extension to include Stennis Ledges (an area of rugose seabed identified as valuable by conservation representatives on the Local Group) none none Adjustment of boundary to follow the cSAC boundary, with areas within harbours removed. Addition of a seaward extension around Berry Head to protect seabirds and cetaceans (but not features on the seafloor). This is a newly added site, following estuaries discussions that had been ongoing. none (but there may be some minor boundary adjustments in the final recommendations, please see site report for details) This is a newly added site, following estuaries discussions that had been ongoing. none This is a newly added site, following estuaries discussions that had been ongoing. Extension around Looe Island to include the area of a VMCA. This is a newly added site, following estuaries discussions that had been ongoing. One of the two smaller sites that replace what previously was the larger South-East of Falmouth pMCZ. One of the two smaller sites that replace what previously was the larger South-East of Falmouth pMCZ.

same same

Land’s End

Land's End (site 2)

Cape Bank

same

Isles of Scilly Sites

Isles of Scilly

Newquay and the Gannel Padstow Bay and surrounds Hartland Point to Tintagel

same same

Taw Torridge Estuary

n/a

Lundy North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) Morte Platform Bideford to Foreland Point

same same

none Reduction in size to exclude dumping grounds in the bay, and an area outside the port of Newlyn. none (the alternative Land's End site 1 is no longer part of the network) Shape amended to avoid area of higher trawling activity Some minor modifications to site boundaries and zonation suggested by the Local Group. none none

AF T

The Manacles Mounts Bay

same same

Key to colour border boundaries unchanged minor boundary adjustments boundary changes new site

same

Some minor modifications to site boundaries to better align with lat/lon lines, and a coastal section added to join the site together into one contiguous pMCZ. This is a newly added site, following estuaries discussions that had been ongoing. none none none Modifications to the outline around Baggy Point, and exclusion of Ilfracombe harbour.

Two sites were removed entirely: St Ives Bay North-West of Lundy

Estuaries

Several estuaries have now been added to the network configuration, as a result of discussions that had been ongoing for several months (as highlighted in the third progress report). The JWG has sought further advice and input from the ports sector (including local port representatives for specific estuaries) and the Environment Agency. Following a series of meetings with these parties, JWG representatives developed a shortlist of estuaries to bring back to the JWG in order to discuss their inclusion in the network, together with a summary of the key issues and concerns raised by the ports and EA. In addition to the socio-economic concerns (which were significant, given that estuaries are heavily used), the subsequent JWG discussions focussed on the importance of estuaries for mobile FOCI (smelt and European eel), their contribution to targets on benthic FOCI species and habitats, as well as their wider ecological importance in terms of nursery areas and highly productive inshore areas.

As a result of this work, the network now includes 10 estuaries (either whole or upper reaches only): the Axe, Otter, Dart, Devon Avon, Erme, upper Tamar & Lynher, upper Fowey and Pont Pill, Gannel, upper Camel, and upper reaches of the Taw / Torridge. They are shown on map SAP ***. Reference areas Since the third progress report, the discussion on reference areas has been finalised, and the network now includes 13 potential reference areas, 3 offshore and 10 inshore (see section ***II.2.3). The set of potential reference areas represents ***all broad-scale habitats present in the study region, in addition to ***FOCI habitats and ***FOCI species.

AF T

As described in the third progress report, the planning of reference areas were left until late in the process, because it was important to have the shape of the network as a whole in place first. In addition, before stakeholder representatives felt able to participate in a highly contentious area of work, they needed time to fully understand the project, and form working relationships amongst themselves and with project staff. The reference area discussions remained difficult throughout, with many JWG representatives feeling uncomfortable at the high levels of restrictions on human activities and the ways in which that will impact on people. Fishing representatives have stated clearly that they will not support any reference area options, nor did they actively suggest any options within the planning discussions. However, fishing representatives have still been attending the Working Group (and the Steering Group) meetings, and have contributed to the discussion in terms of highlighting what specific impacts a given reference area option might have on their industry.

There were two key factors that allowed the reference area discussions to take place in a constructive way, despite the difficulties. One of these was highlighted in the third progress report: the relative clarity (compared to other pMCZs) on how reference areas would impact on human activities, from the draft SNCB reference area guidance document (available here4). Although the highly restrictive nature of reference areas spelt out in this document makes these sites difficult for many stakeholders to accept and support, at least it has given a much firmer basis for their contribution to the planning discussion than they have had for non-reference area pMCZs. Compared to the discussions on the non-reference area pMCZs, therefore, a much smaller proportion of time has been focussed around what activities may / will / could be impacted and how, and a higher proportion of time has focussed on where the reference areas might go. The other key factor was the contribution of pragmatic guidance from the SAP and the SNCBs on how to prioritise and interpret the ENG with respect to reference areas. Firstly, the judgement that the ENG minimum size guidelines for intertidal broad-scale habitats were not realistic, allowed the group to put forward smaller areas inshore. Secondly, the task was made simpler following advice to prioritise the representation of broad-scale

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

habitats as the most important aspect of the ENG to meet in reference areas, followed by the representation of FOCI habitats, with less priority given to representing all FOCI species.

AF T

None of the 13 reference areas within the current network are located in the Isles of Scilly, despite previous SAP feedback. The Joint Working Group discussed this at length, and faced a dilemma: the Isles of Scilly Local Group continued to be opposed to any reference areas in the Isles of Scilly, despite having seen the SAP feedback and having been asked by the JWG to re-consider the matter. The JWG recognised that potential reference areas in other parts of the study region are also contentious, but have still been included in the network, as the ENG have to be met. However, ultimately the JWG took into consideration how constructive and proactive the Isles of Scilly Local Group had been from the beginning, in putting forwards pMCZ suggestions with full cross-sectoral support, resulting in the Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ (consisting of 11 areas). The JWG did not wish to undermine local support and ownership of this 11-part pMCZ by “forcing in” a reference area on top. The JWG also took into consideration the Isles of Scilly Local Group suggestions for 2 “nondisturbance areas” within the Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ, which the Local Group had proposed in response to the JWG’s request that they re-consider reference areas. The “nondisturbance areas” have been put forward as areas with higher levels of restrictions on human activities, but not as complete reference areas. The suggested “non-disturbance areas” have been included as zones within the current Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ, but they cannot be counted towards ENG targets for reference areas, as that would necessitate even higher levels of activity restriction. I.2.3 Conservation Objectives

There are two elements to the work on conservation objectives (COs) for each pMCZ: defining the list of features for which COs are written, and determining whether the CO is “maintain in favourable condition”, or “recover to favourable condition” (or, for reference areas, “recover to reference condition). The former has been an ongoing discussion throughout the planning meetings, and the latter is being done through a process of vulnerability assessment.

The developing conservation objectives in the third progress report listed all ENG features present in each site, plus additional features where relevant. It did not single out specific ENG features present in the site, while not including others also present. This was a logical progression from the way in which the decisions on which areas to select were taken, and the way in which the ENG-related statistics have been calculated and reported throughout the planning process: all ENG features within each site were included in the calculations, and areas were selected to meet shortfalls. For all pMCZs except reference areas, the draft Conservation Objective Guidance (COG, available here5, with a summary here6) states that features need to either be maintained in, or recovered to, favourable condition. This would ideally require a condition assessment to

5 6

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/conservation-objective-guidance_tcm6-24853.pdf http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/conservation-objective-guidance-summary_tcm6-24854.pdf

be carried through survey work. However, this is unrealistic within the scope of our project, Therefore, where we have no direct recent survey evidence that is detailed enough for a condition assessment, the COG advises a vulnerability assessment whereby the likely condition of each feature is determined based on evidence on what human activities are present, what pressures those activities cause, and how sensitive the features are to those pressures (using the national pressures/features and activities/pressures matrices).

AF T

As described in the *** process group report, these vulnerability assessments are being carried out in a series of meetings between the project team and experts from the SNCBs and public authorities. For the purposes of this work, the sites have been grouped into inshore sites (within 12 nm) and offshore sites (beyond 12 nm), because the SNCBs and public authorities that have responsibility differ between inshore and offshore sites. Some of our pMCZs intersect the 12nm boundary, of these, all except the South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ have been grouped with the inshore sites for the purposes of the vulnerability assessment work. The vulnerability assessment meetings serve not only to decide on the “maintain” vs. “recover” wording of COs, but also as a review and “reality check” of the assumptions that have, up until now, been made about how the pMCZs will need to be managed and what activities might need restricting (see below***). The outputs of the vulnerability assessments are brought back to the JWG, and the implications discussed within the group.

For offshore sites, the JWG have finalised their discussions on what features are to be protected in each site. As a result, all ENG-listed seafloor features present within offshore sites now have COs. At the time of the third progress report, the developing network configuration included some offshore sites which were solely for the protection of seabirds or cetaceans, but there are no longer any such sites offshore (previously termed “water column” protection sites). This is in line with SAP feedback, and SNCB advice. In fact, the JNCC will not support COs for seabirds or cetaceans for any offshore sites, even if listed in addition to seafloor COs. In view of the SAP and SNCB positions, the JWG discussed at length whether to maintain any seabird or cetacean COs at all (in addition to the COs for seafloor features), for those offshore sites where they had previously been discussed. There were strong opinions on both sides of the argument, and the group could not reach agreement. For the record, we have included which of the offshore sites were discussed for possible cetacean or seabird protection, either within the whole site or within part of the site. This is reflected in table *** below, and on the *** network maps and in ***site reports in part II (which continue to show “zones” within some of the offshore sites, which had previously been discussed as zones for added seabird protection). However, fully written COs are only included for seafloor features. The vulnerability assessment for seafloor features in offshore sites had been completed prior to the JWG meeting in April (although a full discussion of the implications was not completed at the meeting). ***The resulting “maintain” and “recover” conservation objectives (for non-reference area pMCZs in the offshore) have been written up and are included in the site reports. There is also a summary table (table***) in the network report section of part II. A detailed record of the vulnerability assessment discussions is available (in the form of a series of detailed spreadsheets) from the project team, and these have been shared with the JWG. 18

Note that since the completion of our offshore vulnerability assessment, and our subsequent April JWG meeting, the SNCBs have undertaken a national-scale review of the advice they have been providing to regional projects during the vulnerability assessment meetings. As a result, their advice has changed for some of our offshore sites, and this has knock-on effects in terms of the assumptions made on activity restrictions. As this updated advice was received by the project team several weeks after the April JWG, there has not yet been an opportunity to discuss it (and its implications) with the JWG. Where relevant throughout this report, we highlight where the SNCB advice on offshore COs has changed.

AF T

For inshore sites, the work on conservation objectives is still underway, both in terms of finalising the lists of features to be included (including possible COs for seabirds, cetaceans and basking sharks), and the vulnerability assessments. The vulnerability assessment meetings (split between Dorset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly) between project staff, Natural England and relevant public authorities have been taking place through May. Because of the timing and sequencing of the vulnerability assessment and remaining JWG meetings, the JWG have not discussed COs for inshore sites in any more detail since the third progress report. This is planned for the June 2011 JWG meeting. I.2.4 Assumptions on activity restrictions and management measures

In order to enable *** stakeholders to have a meaningful contribution towards the shaping of the recommended network, we have been working hard throughout the planning process to define realistic assumptions about how the network and individual sites would affect human activities. Our previous progress reports and working group reports cover the detail on how this was done. The outcome was a series of assumed activity restrictions for each site, as well as generic assumptions made at the network level.

One of the outcomes of the recent vulnerability assessment meetings has been a review of the assumptions made on activity restrictions, and some initial discussion (with the relevant public authority representatives) on whether or not management measures would be likely for any given activity (note we use the terms “activity restrictions” and “management measures” with the same specific meanings defined in the third progress report). In general, the feedback from SNCBs and public authorities has not resulted in any wholesale changes to the assumptions that had previously been made and recorded during the planning process, but the feedback does indicate that some revisions are appropriate.

The revised assumptions are now based on a combination of the stakeholder work and project team “sense check” described in progress report 3, and this latest SNCB / public authority feedback. It is important to note that the latest feedback is by no means a “final answer” on what activity restrictions / management measure will apply to sites after implementation, and it will not be possible to get a final answer within the timeframe of the regional projects. For offshore sites, the revised assumptions (prepared in advance of the April JWG meeting) are presented in the site reports in part II. At the April JWG meeting, we circulated the revised assumptions for the offshore sites, as the offshore vulnerability assessment work was considered completed, and no further changes were expected at the time. However, as 19

highlighted in the previous section, the SNCB advice on some of the offshore sites was revised recently, and there has not yet been an opportunity to discuss the implications with stakeholder groups. In general terms, the knock-on effects are that the revisions to the assumptions for some of the sites will be less significant, and more in line with the assumptions in the third progress report. We have highlighted where this is the case in the individual ***site reports. For inshore sites, revised assumptions will be written up and prepared for the June JWG meeting, but they are not yet included in this report***.

I.3.1 Project delays

AF T

I.3 Scope of this report and prioritisation of project work

We had originally intended for all work on pMCZ boundaries and conservation objectives to be fully completed by now, and to have a full Steering Group meeting in advance of the preparation of this report. This would have enabled us to include a cover note from the whole Steering Group (like the last two progress reports), and to complete a full draft final report covering all sites and conservation objectives.

As is inevitable in a complex process like this, there have been some delays, due in part to the amount of time that difficult stakeholder discussions have taken, and in part due to the late availability of key guidelines and datasets. As a result, a lot of work has been compressed into the final stages of our project. A particular problem we are working to overcome has been created by the relatively late development, in 2010 and 2011, of the draft conservation objective guidance, the sensitivity matrices, and an agreed process for carrying out vulnerability assessments described above. It has resulted in relatively little for completing the vulnerability assessments, and stakeholders have voiced concerns about the fact that they do not have the opportunity to input into directly into the meetings. Whilst they had a direct impact on the location and boundaries of sites, they feel less engaged in this potentially contentious work area.

The June JWG meeting will allow stakeholder representatives to review the outcome of the vulnerability assessment meetings for offshore sites (presented at the April JWG meeting and included in this report) and for inshore sites (not included in this report, as the work is still ongoing). There will be an opportunity for them to highlight implications arising from the outcome of the vulnerability assessment, which will feed into the narrative associated with each pMCZ in the final report. I.3.3 Prioritisation of project work Our priority is to deliver the best quality outcome at the end of the project. Since the confirmation of the extension to our project timeline, we have revised our planned schedule of stakeholder meetings and tasks in such a way as to maximise the amount of time available to the JWG to complete their discussions and tasks. In terms of staff time, we have prioritised the planning and preparation of these stakeholder meetings and the materials for them, including the series of vulnerability assessment meetings. 20

In relative terms, we have given less priority to producing a complete draft final report at this stage, as it is more important for us to focus on the final product in August. We have not fully revised each pMCZ site report since progress report 3, and we have put less emphasis on writing up in detail on how we have incorporated SAP and SNCB feedback. As stated in the introduction, this draft final report has not been reviewed and signed off by the whole Steering Group, nor have the Steering Group had the opportunity to provide comments (as they did for progress reports 2 and 3).

AF T

Instead, we have focussed on summarising key areas of progress made by the JWG, and on updating our site maps and ENG-related statistics, using the most up-to-date datasets. Section II.1.4*** gives a detailed overview of which sections of this draft final report have been fully or partially updated since the third progress report, and the work still outstanding.

AF T

Part II – Draft final pMCZ recommendations

II.1 Notes on the content and structure of Part II II.1.1 Network-level report The network-level report describes the network configuration as a whole. It starts with an overview, with a summary list of all pMCZs and potential reference areas in the network. This is followed by a summary section on conservation objectives for offshore and inshore pMCZs, and a reference area summary.

AF T

This is followed by sections with figures describing the network’s performance in meeting the ENG, with a summary of the contribution of existing MPAs (the gap analysis), followed by figures and statistics for the network as a whole. Note that, following SAP advice, and as we did for the second progress report, we have differentiated between data from before 1980, and data from 1980 onwards, but we have not discounted any data on the basis of age. In the previous progress reports, the network-level report included assumptions made at the network level, as well as assumptions made at the site level, together with implications and uncertainties. In this report, we have only included assumptions at the site level. Although many assumptions are generic and hold true across all or most of the network, there are some differences between sites. We have found that writing up generic “networklevel” assumptions can therefore be either misleading (if kept too simple), or overly complex and ultimately repetitive, as all site-relevant assumptions are listed in each site report. Note that the same goes for the other narrative headings (implications, uncertainties) which we have no longer included at the network level. II.1.2 Site-level reports for pMCZs

Following the network-level report, there is a series of site-level reports, one for each pMCZ. Not all site reports are fully completed in the current draft (see section ***II.1.4). The pMCZ site reports are split into two sections, one for offshore pMCZs (***section II.3), and one for inshore pMCZs (***section II.4). The differentiation between “offshore” and “inshore” is based on how the sites were split up for the vulnerability assessment work. Several pMCZs straddle the 12nm limit, one of these (South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ) has been grouped with the “offshore” sites, all others with the “inshore” sites.

The structure of the site reports has been updated since progress report 3. There is now a national proforma for a standardised pMCZ “Site Assessment Document” (SAD), which was circulated by the SNCBs to Regional Projects at the beginning of May, and ***which is to be used for the national consultation following the end of the regional projects. It contains sections that were not included in our previous site reports. However, the SAD, in turn, does not accommodate key aspects of our site reports (e.g. assumptions on activity restrictions). Therefore, instead of replacing our previous site reports with the SAD structure, we have added in those aspects of the SAD that were not previously included in our site reports. That way, the updated site report structure covers all the information requested by the SNCBs for the national consultation (as far as we are able to provide it), as well as the key content of the work we have been carrying out. 23

As in progress report 3, the updated site report structure still covers basic information, figures on the features contained within the site, and narrative sections (assumptions, implications, uncertainties, levels of support and additional comments). As previously, the narrative sections draw together the work carried out by the Working Groups, the wider Steering Group, the Local Groups and the project team. In addition, the updated site report structure now includes additional maps, details on how a site relates to other sites where they overlap (other pMCZs, or other types of MPAs), a more extensive environmental site summary, and fully written conservation objectives. The updated site report structure is as follows:

AF T

Site name (title)

Basic site information (Lat/lon coordinates of centre point, site surface area, Biogeographic region the site falls within) Site boundary (Brief explanation of how the site boundary was derived.)

Environmental site summary (Brief description of the main ecological and topographic characteristics of the site).

Features proposed for designation within [site name] (List of ENG and additional features which are to be protected within the site, and whether CO is “maintain” or “recover”.) Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG (statistics area of broadscale habitats, and area / number of records of FOCI within the site)

Assumptions and implications (Assumptions made about what activities will need restricting, excluding, or managing within the site in order to achieve the conservation objectives. Socio-economic implications of the site as highlighted by stakeholders. Note this is not a duplication of the Impact Assessment) Uncertainties (Key uncertainties identified and highlighted by stakeholder representatives or project team that might affect the proposed site)

Levels of support (Where statements have been made about support, they are recorded here. This is not a comprehensive cross-sectoral assessment, i.e. not all Steering Group representatives have been asked to state their support level for each site.) Additional comments (Any additional comments stakeholder representatives have recorded about the site.)

Sites to which the site is related (Where sites overlap or are immediately adjacent to each other, these are listed. That includes other pMCZs (e.g. a reference area within a wider pMCZ), and other designations). 24

Conservation Objectives (written up in the standard template) Supporting documentation (This will list any references referred to in the site report, and will list data sources / surveys for each site. This section is not yet completed for any sites in this draft report. Note that Appendix 4*** lists the data sources we have used, but does not break them down by site.)

AF T

Site map series (A main site map showing the site boundary with labelled notes and geographic co-ordinates and bathymetry; and additional map(s) showing other relevant details on ecological features present and human activities / boundaries where relevant to the site boundary. Each map takes up a full A4 page, so the maps are grouped together at the back of each site report.) II.1.3 Site-level reports for potential reference areas

In the final report, we intend to include a completed site report for each reference area, which will follow the same structure as the site reports for general pMCZs. At present, these potential reference area reports are only partially complete. They are grouped together in section ***II.5, separate from the offshore and inshore pMCZ site reports. II.1.4 Sections completed for this draft report

This report is not a complete draft - some sections are only partially completed (see below). As first priority, we completed Part I, with a summary of the main developments to the network since progress report 3 (PR3). In Part II, we prioritised draft completion of the introduction, network-level report and offshore site reports. We have also created a minimum of one new site map for all pMCZs and reference areas, showing the boundary with lat/lon points.

Second-level priority was given to partial completion of site-level reports for inshore areas where boundaries have changed, and to site reports for potential reference areas. In second-level priority site reports, we have updated the report structure, updated statistics tables and conservation objective working lists, and have created additional maps (although site map series are not all fully complete). Narrative sections have been copied from PR3 (where precursor site reports existed), and will be updated for the final report. Lowest priority was given to updating site reports for sites where boundaries have not changed since the third progress report. We have provided an excel spreadsheet alongside this report which contains all the latest figures for all individual sites. Even for sections that have been completed in this draft, not all of the content has been proof-read to the same standard as previous progress reports, and there may be some errors or omissions. We have used *** three asterisks as a marker for any text that will need editing, checking, expanding following some additional work or research, cross-referencing within the report, or references. 25

For narrative sections of the site reports, not all the latest stakeholder comments are necessarily reflected, but they will be included in the final report (and comments recorded during working group meetings are also included in the working group meeting reports, published on our website). The following is an outline of what sections are completed to what extent for Part II:

AF T

Notes on the content and structure of Part II II.1 whole section draft complete Network-level report II.1.1 Site-level reports for pMCZs II.1.2 Site-level reports for potential reference areas II.1.3 Sections completed for this draft report II.1.4 Network-level report II.2 whole section draft complete II.2.1 The network configuration (overview) II.2.1 II.2.2 Conservation Objective summary for pMCZs II.2.2 II.2.3 Summary of the contribution of existing protected areas (gap analysis) II.2.3 II.2.4 ENG-related statistics for the developing network configuration II.2.4 II.2.5 Potential reference area summary II.2.5 Offshore pMCZs site reports II.3 whole section draft complete The Canyons II.3.1 draft complete South West Deeps (West) II.3.2 draft complete South West Deeps (East) II.3.3 draft complete North-West of Jones Bank II.3.4 draft complete Greater Haig Fras II.3.5 draft complete East of Jones Bank II.3.6 draft complete East of Haig Fras II.3.7 draft complete North-East of Haig Fras II.3.8 draft complete South of Celtic Deep II.3.9 draft complete Celtic Deep II.3.10 draft complete East of Celtic Deep II.3.11 draft complete Western Channel II.3.12 draft complete South of the Isles of Scilly II.3.13 draft complete Inshore pMCZs site reports II.4 A minimum of 1 new site map has been created for all inshore pMCZs (the final report will have a longer series of maps for each site). "partial new draft" indicates site reports where the updated structure has been applied and statistics tables have been updated since PR3. Poole Rocks II.4.1 partial new draft Studland Bay II.4.2 partial new draft South Dorset II.4.3 partial new draft Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay II.4.4 partial new draft South of Portland II.4.5 partial new draft Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges II.4.6 partial new draft Axe Estuary II.4.7 refer to PR3 Otter Estuary II.4.8 refer to PR3 Torbay II.4.9 partial new draft Dart Estuary II.4.10 partial new draft Skerries Bank and surrounds II.4.11 refer to PR3

II.4.12

Erme Estuary Tamar estuary sites Whitsand and Looe Bay Upper Fowey and Pont Pill South-East of Falmouth South of Falmouth The Manacles Mounts Bay Land’s End Isles of Scilly Sites Cape Bank Newquay and the Gannel Padstow Bay and surrounds Camel Estuary Hartland Point to Tintagel Lundy Taw Torridge Estuary Bideford to Foreland Point Morte Platform North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) Potential reference areas site reports partial completion of each site report The Canyons Greater Haig Fras Celtic Deep South Dorset South-East of Portland Bill The Fleet Lyme Bay Erme Estuary Mouth of the Yealm The Fal Swanpool^ Cape Bank Lundy Appendices Appendix 1: Table of Steering Group members grouped by sector Appendix 2: Named Consultative Stakeholders Appendix 3: Finding Sanctuary project team and facilitators Appendix 4: Ecological data and planning tools used during the planning process Appendix 5: Map legends Appendix 6: Gap Analysis Table Appendix 7: List of abbreviations Appendix 8: Management measures terminology

II.4.13 II.4.14 II.4.15 II.4.16 II.4.17 II.4.18 II.4.19 II.4.20 II.4.21 II.4.22 II.4.23 II.4.24 II.4.25 II.4.26 II.4.27 II.4.28 II.4.29 II.4.30 II.4.31 II.4.32 II.5

No draft site report exists (this was not in PR3) refer to PR3 partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft refer to PR3 partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft refer to PR3 refer to PR3 partial new draft partial new draft refer to PR3 partial new draft partial new draft refer to PR3 refer to PR3

AF T

Devon Avon Estuary

II.5.1 II.5.2 II.5.3 II.5.4 II.5.5 II.5.6 II.5.7 II.5.8 II.5.9 II.5.10 II.5.11 II.5.12 II.5.13

partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft partial new draft refer to website refer to website complete

updated draft complete updated draft complete updated draft complete copied from progress report 3 copied from progress report 3

II.2 Network level report II.2.1 The network configuration (overview)

AF T

In addition to the existing MPAs, the current network configuration consists of 58 potential new sites: 45 pMCZs, and 13 potential reference areas. They are shown on maps *** and ***, and listed in table *** below. Throughout this report, we have split the 44 pMCZs into 31 “inshore” and 13 “offshore” sites. Five pMCZs straddle the 12nm limit: South Dorset pMCZ, South-east of Falmouth pMCZ, South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ, Cape Bank pMCZ, and North of Lundy pMCZ. Of those, one (South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ) is included under the “offshore” heading. All others are included under the “inshore” heading. This decision is not based on what proportion of the sites lie either side of the 12nm limit, but follows a pragmatic decision that was taken for splitting up the vulnerability assessment work.

Of the 44 pMCZs, some consist of several, spatially separate areas. The Taw Torridge Estuary pMCZ, Tamar Estuary Sites pMCZ and Upper Fowey & Pont Pill pMCZs each consist of two spatially separate areas. The Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ consists of 11 separate areas. There is no longer any separation between “water column”, “seafloor” and “combined seafloor and water column” pMCZs. Instead, each site is treated individually in terms of the specific features that are listed for protection within it, which have (or will have) conservation objectives written for them.

Some of the pMCZs contain zones, which are not spatially separated, but which are zones within a single area between which there might be differences in the lists of features to be protected, or in terms of different activity restrictions. Two of the areas within the Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ have been zoned to include “non-disturbance areas” where there is a recommendation for higher levels of restriction of human activities than elsewhere within pMCZs (but not as high as within reference areas).

Two of the offshore sites (South-West Deeps (West) and North-West of Jones Bank) include zones where the offshore working group had previously discussed adding protection for seabirds to protection for seafloor features, but the JWG subsequently could not reach agreement on whether or not to put forward conservation objectives for seabirds anywhere offshore (see ***section I.2.3). The zones are still shown on maps *** and ***, to reflect the discussions that the working groups had, but they no longer are indicative of agreed areas for added seabird protection. In the inshore sites, a final review of which features are to be listed is not yet completed. Currently, the Padstow Bay and surrounds pMCZ includes a zone where seabird protection is suggested in addition to the listing of the seafloor ENG features for the whole site. The Hartland Point to Tintagel pMCZ includes a zone where cetacean protection is suggested in addition to the seafloor features. The Torbay pMCZ includes a zone around Berry Head that is suggested solely for the protection of cetaceans and loafing birds (this is the only area that remains in our current network configuration that is suggested solely for mobile non-

ENG species, after careful consideration by the JWG, on the basis that there are known problems in this area with speeding leisure craft causing disturbance and wildlife collisions). Of the 13 potential reference areas, three are located offshore (beyond 12nm), within pMCZ boundaries: The Canyons, Greater Haig Fras, and Celtic Deep. The remaining 10 potential reference areas are located inshore (within 12 nm), with 8 on the south coast and 2 off the north coast. Six of the inshore potential reference areas are not located within pMCZ boundaries, but instead lie within existing MPAs (SSSIs, SACs or SPAs). Table *** List of all sites in the current network.

Contains potential reference area The Canyons

AF T

Offshore pMCZs The Canyons South West Deeps (West) South West Deeps (East) North-West of Jones Bank Greater Haig Fras

Contains potential reference area Celtic Deep

Straddles the 12nm limit

Straddles the 12nm limit; contains potential reference area South Dorset Sits within Studland to Portland ***dSAC Intersects Studland to Portland ***dSAC

East of Jones Bank East of Haig Fras North-East of Haig Fras South of Celtic Deep Celtic Deep East of Celtic Deep Western Channel South of the Isles of Scilly Inshore pMCZs Poole Rocks Studland Bay South Dorset

Contains potential reference area Greater Haig Fras, and the Haig Fras cSAC

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay South of Portland Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges Axe Estuary Otter Estuary Torbay Dart Estuary Skerries Bank and surrounds Devon Avon Estuary Erme Estuary Tamar estuary sites Whitsand and Looe Bay Upper Fowey and Pont Pill South-East of Falmouth South of Falmouth The Manacles

Intersects with Torbay to Lyme Bay ***dSAC Intersects with Prawle Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone cSAC, and the ***Start Point Inshore Potting Agreement Intersects with a SSSI Consists of 2 parts, intersects with a SSSI, SAC and SPA Intersects with an existing voluntary marine conservation zone Consists of 2 parts Straddles the 12nm limit

Mounts Bay Land’s End Isles of Scilly Sites

Consists of 11 parts, all sit within the Isles of Scilly complex SAC, some intersect with SSSIs Straddles the 12nm limit, contains potential reference area Cape Bank , and the Cape Bank section of Land’s End and Cape Bank cSAC

Cape Bank

MCZ already designated, boundary is identical to Lundy SAC. Contains potential reference area Lundy, the boundary of which is identical to the existing Lundy no-take zone Consists of 2 parts, intersects with SSSI

AF T

Newquay and the Gannel Padstow Bay and surrounds Camel Estuary Hartland Point to Tintagel Lundy

Taw Torridge Estuary Bideford to Foreland Point Morte Platform North of Lundy (Atlantic Array Straddles the 12nm limit, follows boundary of planned area) Atlantic Array wind farm Potential reference areas – offshore (beyond 12nm) The Canyons Previously reference area option 8; sits within The Canyons pMCZ Greater Haig Fras Previously reference area option 77; sits within Greater Haig Fras pMCZ Celtic Deep Previously reference area option 75; sits within Celtic Deep pMCZ Potential reference areas – inshore (within 12nm) South Dorset Previously reference area option 80; sits within South Dorset pMCZ South-East of Portland Bill Previously reference area option 53; sits within Studland to Portland ***dSAC The Fleet Previously reference area option 50; sits within a SSSI, SPA and SAC Lyme Bay Previously reference area option 27; sits within Lyme Bay to Torbay ***dSAC Erme Estuary Previously reference area option 72; sits within the Erme Estuary pMCZ and SSSI Mouth of the Yealm Previously reference area option 98c; ***sits within Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC and the Yealm Estuary SSSI The Fal Previously reference area option 67; sits within the Fal and Helford SAC Swanpool^ Previously reference area option 24; sits within Swanpool SSSI Cape Bank Previously reference area option22c ; sits within Cape Bank pMCZ and cSAC Lundy Previously reference area option 21; sits within Lundy MCZ and SAC, the boundary is that of the existing no-take zone ^ The Swanpool Lagoon is the only place in the MCZ project area where the trembling sea mat Victorella pavida is recorded. However, it sits above the OS Boundary Line mean high water line, which we are using as the limit of our project area.

2 50

10 0 1 0 20 2 0

500 00

Brest

20South-West 0

Deeps (East)

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conservation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Please refer to the Finding Sanc tuary work ing group and progres s reports for further information (www.finding-sanctuary.org).

20 50

30 20 10 20

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

20 0

50 30 3 0

100

50 5 0

50 0 5 0 1

100

South of the Isles of Scilly

Canyons

100

Western Channel

Canyons

100 100 10 0

20 30 3 03 0

South-West Deeps (West)

10 2

20 50

100

10 10 203 030

Bournemouth

Truro

Poole

Plymouth

DARTMOOR

10 0

10 2 0

Exeter

30 10

3 30

THE NEW FOREST

1 00

Salisbury

EXMOOR

100

0 10

Wells

50 50

North-West of Jones Bank

0 10

100 0

00 100

100

Swindon

Bristol

0 Greater Haig Fras 1 10

East of Jones Bank 100

100

Haig Fras

1 100

100

East of Haig Fras

100

10 10 0 30 20 0 1 30 03 2 3 0 10 30 0 1 0 20 10 10 1 0 2 0 2 10

D R AF

10 0

Cardiff

50 00

1 10

Newport

0 10 201 20 1 0 20 10

2 0 10

Swansea

North-East of Haig Fras 10 0 0

100

10 0

1 20 3 0 2 020 10 10 10 50 30 2 03 0 50 50

50 50

South of Celtic Deep 100

Celtic Deep 1 00 Celtic Deep 1

1 00

100

East of Celtic Deep

1 00 50

100 km

Gloucester

3 0 30

0 10 2

30 10

0 20 2 50

10 20

10 0 3

20 2 0 0

0 20

20 20

10 0

50 50 5 0 1

Maritime basemap © Britis h Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors , CC-BY-SA. Not to be used for navigation.

0 10 10

This map shows Finding Sanctuary's Network Configuration at 1 June 2011. Only potential MCZs and reference areas outside (or mostly outside) the 12nm limit have been labelled here; refer to map SAP_201a for the inshore area. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N.

Network Configuration (offshore map)

Version: Jun11

100

Map: SAP_200a

1 010

10 10

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_200b Version: Jun11

Network Configuration (offshore map)

This map shows the broad-scale habitats in Finding Sanctuary's Network Configuration at 1 June 2011. Only potential MCZs and reference areas outside (or mostly outside) the 12nm limit have been labelled here; refer to map SAP_201b for the inshore area. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N.

100 km

Gloucester

East of Celtic Deep

Swansea

Newport

Cardiff

Celtic Deep Celtic Deep South of Celtic Deep

Bristol Wells

Salisbury

EXMOOR

North-East of Haig Fras

D R AF

East of Haig Fras

Greater Haig Fras

Truro

Haig Fras

Swindon

THE NEW FOREST

Exeter

Poole

Bournemouth

DARTMOOR

Plymouth

East of Jones Bank North-West of Jones Bank

South-West Deeps (West)

Canyons Canyons

Western Channel

South of the Isles of Scilly

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

South-West Deeps (East)

Brest

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_200c Version: Jun11

Network Configuration (offshore map)

This map shows Finding Sanctuary's Network Configuration at 1 June 2011. Only potential MCZs and reference areas outside (or mostly outside) the 12nm limit have been labelled here; refer to map SAP_201c for the inshore area. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N.

100 km

East of Celtic Deep

Celtic Deep Celtic Deep South of Celtic Deep North-East of Haig Fras

D R AF

East of Haig Fras

Greater Haig Fras Haig Fras

East of Jones Bank North-West of Jones Bank

South-West Deeps (West)

Canyons Canyons

Western Channel

South of the Isles of Scilly

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

South-West Deeps (East)

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Network Configuration (inshore map)

This map shows Finding Sanctuary's Network Configuration at 1 June 2011. Only potential MCZs and reference areas inside (or mostly inside) the 12nm limit have been labelled here; refer to map SAP_200a for the offshore area. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N.

10 10 Swansea 10 10 20 0 North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) 10 10 20 2 Newport 50 3 0 20 0 0 1 1 0 0 30 2 1 03 0 20 10 50 50 30 Cardiff 50 Morte Platform 50 10 20 10 30 10 1 0 20 10 Bideford to Foreland Point 10 1 0 20 30 50 50 2 0 2 0 3020 20 2 0 1 3 0 10 50 0 2 30 10 30 50 30 20 30 20 2 0 10 10 20 10 10 10 0 2 10 10 30 10 Lundy 3

Swindon

Bristol

10 2 0 0 10

0 20

Taw Torridge Estuary

Erme Estuary

Skerries Bank and surrounds

50 50

South-East of Portland Bill

South Dorset South Dorset

50 50

Studland 30 Bay

50 5 0 50

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

Map Legend

South-east of Falmouth

Existing MPAs

6 nautical 100 mile limit

SAC 12 nautical mile limit 50 0 3 02 0 5 0 5 SPA Potential MCZ (pMCZ) 0 0 30 2 SSSI Zone within a pMCZ 0 05 5 Lundy NTZ Potential reference area 0 30 A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices 3 0Finding of the 10 3 0 Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

South of Falmouth

1 00

20 20

0 02 3 50

0 2 0

01 0

Erme Estuary

2 0 10 10

50 2 0 20

South of 50 Portland

50 50 50 50

0 10

50 10 30 10

0 10

100

3 010 2 0 20

30 50

10 30

Bournemouth

Whitsand and Looe Bay

Torbay

Mounts Bay

The Manacles

Poole

10 30

50 Swanpool

30 30 3

Devon

Plymouth Avon

10 10 1 0 20 20 30

10 2 50

Mouth of the Yealm

DARTMOOR

Dart Estuary

10 1 0

Lands End

Truro

The Fal

30 2 10

Tamar Estuary sites

THE NEW FOREST Poole Rocks

The Fleet

Otter Estuary Exeter

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill

10 3 0

10 20

52 0

50 02 0

Isles of Scilly sites

Hartland Point to Tintagel

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

Lyme Bay

Axe Estuary

Cape Bank

5 30 0 2 0 3

Newquay and The Gannel

Cape Bank

Camel Estuary

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay

D R AF

100

Salisbury

Padstow Bay and surrounds

Wells

EXMOOR

Lundy

1 00

30 30

60 km

030 1 0

10 30

Version: Jun11

Map: SAP_201a

Map: SAP_201b Version: Jun11

Network Configuration (inshore map)

This map shows the broad-scale habitats in Finding Sanctuary's Network Configuration at 1 June 2011. Only potential MCZs and reference areas inside (or mostly inside) the 12nm limit have been labelled here; refer to map SAP_200b for the offshore area. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N.

Swansea North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area)

60 km

Newport

Swindon

Cardiff

Morte Platform

Bristol

Bideford to Foreland Point

Lundy

Wells

EXMOOR

Salisbury

D R AF

Taw Torridge Estuary

Padstow Bay and surrounds

Cape Bank

Hartland Point to Tintagel

Camel Estuary

Newquay and The Gannel

Tamar Estuary sites

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill

Cape Bank

Axe Estuary

Otter Estuary Exeter

DARTMOOR

Mouth of the Yealm

The Fal

Torbay

Truro

Isles of Scilly sites

Swanpool

The Manacles

Lands End

Mounts Bay

Whitsand and Looe Bay

Erme Estuary

Lyme Bay

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

The Fleet

THE NEW FOREST Poole Rocks

Poole

Bournemouth

Dart Estuary

Devon

Plymouth Avon

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay

Skerries Bank and surrounds

Studland Bay

South of Portland South-East of Portland Bill

South Dorset South Dorset

Erme Estuary

South-east of Falmouth

South of Falmouth

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_201c Version: Jun11

Network Configuration (inshore map)

This map shows Finding Sanctuary's Network Configuration at 1 June 2011. Only potential MCZs and reference areas inside (or mostly inside) the 12nm limit have been labelled here; refer to map SAP_200c for the offshore area. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N.

60 km

North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) Morte Platform

Bideford to Foreland Point

Lundy

D R AF

Taw Torridge Estuary

Padstow Bay and surrounds

Cape Bank

Hartland Point to Tintagel

Camel Estuary

Newquay and The Gannel

Otter Estuary

Tamar Estuary sites

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill

Cape Bank

Axe Estuary

Mouth of the Yealm

Devon Avon

Swanpool

The Manacles

Lands End

Mounts Bay

Whitsand and Looe Bay

Lyme Bay

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

Poole Rocks

The Fleet

Dart Estuary

The Fal

Isles of Scilly sites

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay

Erme Estuary

Torbay

Skerries Bank and surrounds

Studland Bay

South of Portland South-East of Portland Bill

South Dorset South Dorset

Erme Estuary

South-east of Falmouth

South of Falmouth

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.2.2 Conservation Objective summary for pMCZs Conservation objectives for offshore pMCZs As described in section ***I.2.3, the vulnerability assessment meetings for the offshore sites were completed in advance of the April JWG meeting, and the resulting list of conservation objectives circulated to the JWG. A summary is provided in table *** below. A detailed record of the rationale for the decisions on “maintain” or “recover” is available from the project team, as a series of detailed spreadsheets filled in during the vulnerability assessment meetings, and these spreadsheets have been shared with the JWG.

AF T

For potential reference areas, the conservation objective for each feature is automatically “recover to reference condition”. The offshore vulnerability assessments did not, therefore, focus in detail on potential reference areas, and we have not included offshore reference sites on table II.2.2.a***. Section *** II.5 summarises the features that are on the list for all reference areas (inshore and offshore).

Note that since the completion of our offshore vulnerability assessment, and our subsequent April JWG meeting, the SNCBs have undertaken a national-scale review of the advice they have been providing to regional projects the vulnerability assessment meetings. As a result, they have now advised that some of the offshore conservation objectives which were listed as “maintain” following our offshore vulnerability assessment should, in fact, be “recover”. Where this is the case, it has been highlighted on the *** table below.

In table II.2.2a***, conservation objectives are included for ENG-listed seafloor broad-scale habitats and FOCI recorded in each site, as well as geological and geomorphological features of importance (highlighted in pink). No conclusion was reached by the JWG on whether or not conservation objectives for seabirds or cetaceans should be included for any of the offshore sites. The table highlights (in blue) where the addition of conservation objectives for these features was previously discussed (either for the whole site or for a zone within the site).

Table II.2.2.a*** Summary of listed features and conservation objectives for offshore pMCZs. Red asterisks indicate where the JNCC have recently advised that “maintain” should actually be “recover”, following our last stakeholder meeting. Site name Feature Conservation Objective Canyons

South-West Deeps (East)

North-West of Jones Bank

Subtidal coarse sediment

recover

Subtidal sand

recover

Cold-water coral reefs

recover

seabirds

cetaceans

Subtidal coarse sediment

maintain *

Subtidal sand

recover

Subtidal mixed sediments

recover

Celtic sea relict sandbanks

maintain

seabirds (summer, zoned)

Subtidal coarse sediment

maintain *

Subtidal sand

maintain

Deep-sea bed

recover

Celtic sea relict sandbanks

maintain

Subtidal sand

recover

Subtidal mud

recover

Subtidal coarse sediment

maintain *

seabirds

Moderate energy circalittoral rock

recover

Subtidal coarse sediment

maintain *

Greater Haig Fras

recover

AF T

South-West Deeps (West)

Deep-sea bed

East of Jones Bank

East of Haig Fras

Subtidal mixed sediments

recover

Subtidal mud

recover

Subtidal sand Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats

recover ? (pending check; presence of records outside SAC tbc)

Haig Fras rock complex

maintain

Moderate energy circalittoral rock

recover

Subtidal mud

recover

Subtidal sand

recover

Moderate energy circalittoral rock

maintain

Subtidal coarse sediment

maintain *

Subtidal sand

recover

Site name

Feature

Conservation Objective

North East of Haig Fras

Subtidal coarse sediment

maintain

Subtidal mixed sediments

recover

Subtidal mud

recover

Subtidal sand

maintain

Subtidal coarse sediment

recover

Subtidal mixed sediments

recover

Subtidal sand

recover

Subtidal mud

recover

Mud habitats in deep water

recover

Seabirds

Common dolphins

Subtidal sand

recover

Subtidal mud

recover

Subtidal coarse sediment

recover

seabirds

cetaceans

Subtidal coarse sediment

recover

Subtidal mixed sediments

recover

Moderate energy circalittoral rock

recover

seabirds

cetaceans

Subtidal sand

recover

Subtidal coarse sediment

recover

South of Celtic Deep

East of Celtic Deep

Western Channel

AF T

Celtic Deep

South of the Isles of Scilly

Working feature list for inshore pMCZ conservation objectives

For inshore sites, the vulnerability assessment meetings between project staff, Natural England, and public authorities, are still underway. Therefore, we have not presented conservation objectives for inshore sites in this draft report. However, we have included a working list of the features for which conservation objectives will be written for inshore pMCZs (table II.2.2b ***). The working list is subject to further review, and it will be discussed at the June 2011 JWG meeting, together with the “recover” versus “maintain” decisions that the ongoing inshore vulnerability assessment meetings are currently focussing on. Most of the inshore pMCZs in the current network were included in the developing configuration presented in progress report 3 (although for some there have been boundary changes since then). For these pre-existing sites, the working list is based on the developing conservation objectives in progress report 3. These have been updated based on a spatial analysis of the most up-to-date data sets, the gap analysis (which has been updated since progress report 3), and changed site boundaries where applicable. For sites that have been 39

newly added to the network (e.g. many of the estuaries), the feature lists were created from the spatial analysis only (as there were no developing conservation objectives to work from).

AF T

As stated above, the working list is subject to review. Table II.2.2b*** below includes comments emerging from the vulnerability assessment meetings, i.e. from discussions between the project team, Natural England specialists, and in some cases, public authorities. For example, in some cases, there are single records, or old / otherwise unreliable records of features within a site, and the outcome of the vulnerability discussions was that there is not enough evidence to underpin a conservation objective for these features within the relevant sites. This is reflected by features being crossed out in table II.2.2b ***. We have included table II.2.2.b*** in this draft report to give the SAP as much information as possible about the progress being made on the conservation objectives. However, it is important to note that neither the Joint Working Group nor Steering Group have yet reviewed the outcome of the inshore vulnerability assessment, and they have not yet seen these comments, nor table II.2.2.b***. There is also still some double-checking of gap analysis outputs required, in some instances, the spatial analysis has captured features as represented within a pMCZ where an overlapping existing MPA already protects them – there is an ongoing QA task to remove these, as we will not “duplicate” protection for a given feature in a pMCZ when they are already protected through an existing designation. The latest update to the gap analysis was received not long before writing this, so the task is still in progress, and some of the comments in table *** relate to this ongoing task.

The completion of the conservation objectives for inshore sites will impact on the network level statistics presented in section II.2.4***. Currently, these statistics are based on a straightforward spatial analysis, and will capture single or old records and “count” these towards replication figures, for example.

A general point to note is that no conservation objectives have been included for the FOCI habitat “subtidal sands and gravels”, either for inshore or offshore sites, even where the habitat has been recorded. It is a very widespread and broad-scale feature, and we consider that by including conservation objectives for broad-scale habitats listed in the ENG, any conservation requirements of this habitat would be met. For potential reference areas, the conservation objective for each feature is automatically “recover to reference condition”. The inshore vulnerability assessment work has, therefore, not been considering potential reference areas as its main focus, and inshore potential reference areas are not included on table II.2.2.b*** below. Section *** II.5 summarises the features that are on the list for all reference areas (inshore and offshore).

AF T

Table II.2.2.b*** Working inshore pMCZ conservation objective feature list. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. The Isles of Scilly vulnerability assessment work had not started at the time of writing this report, so this table does not indicate which features are already protected in the IoS SAC, or split between component areas. The site-level report (section II.4***) breaks down ENG statistics by site. pMCZ Name Features on CO list Review Comments Poole Rocks Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Moderate energy circalittoral Included based on anecdotal evidence rock and on the basis of charted sea feature. IFCA state they have recently visited the area & dropped camera, rocky reef present. Gobius couchi Couch's Goby single record, and the species is difficult to identify. However, the species is known to occur in Poole Bay, and the habitat in this site is appropriate. Keep on CO list. Lithothamnion corallioides Maёrl single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list. Ostrea edulis Native oyster Studland Bay Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Seagrass beds Hippocampus hippocampus Short snouted seahorse Ostrea edulis Native oyster Raja undulata Undulate ray South Dorset High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal chalk Broad Bench to High energy infralittoral rock Kimmeridge Bay Intertidal coarse sediment Moderate energy intertidal rock Padina pavonica Peacock's tail seaweed Paludinella littorina Sea snail Phymatolithon calcareum Maёrl single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

pMCZ Name South of Portland

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

Features on CO list High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Mussel Beds Portland Deep High energy intertidal rock

Axe Estuary

Torbay

Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments Anguilla anguilla Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy infralittoral rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Subtidal sand Anguilla anguilla Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud

Otter Estuary

Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy infralittoral rock Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal mud Intertidal under boulder communities Mud habitats in deep water

protected by existing SAC geological feature

AF T

Intertidal coarse sediment Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Arctica islandica Eunicella verrucosa Ostrea edulis Padina pavonica

Review Comments

Ocean quahog Pink sea-fan Native oyster Peacock's tail seaweed

single record older than 30 years

European eel

likely to be predominantly sandy habitat. protected by existing SAC protected by existing SAC

Probably sandy mud and muddy sand

Record is too shallow for this FOCI habitat.

pMCZ Name Torbay (cont.)

Features on CO list Sabellaria alveolata reefs Seagrass beds Eunicella verrucosa Hippocampus guttulatus Ostrea edulis Padina pavonica

protected by existing SAC Long snouted seahorse Native oyster Peacock's tail seaweed Sea snail Only within extension zone around Berry Head. Only within extension zone around Berry Head.

Cetaceans Dart Estuary

Intertidal mud Low energy intertidal rock Subtidal mud Coastal saltmarsh & saline reedbeds Estuarine rocky habitats Intertidal under boulder communities Alkmaria romijni

Anguilla anguilla High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mud Subtidal sand Intertidal under boulder communities Eunicella verrucosa Hippocampus hippocampus

Tentacled lagoon-worm

No records in our dataset but NE knowledge of recent survey finding this species, presence to be confirmed

European eel

Skerries Bank and surrounds

This is a single record older than 30 years but habitat is right for this species so keep this on the CO list.

AF T

Paludinella littorina Seabirds

Review Comments

Palinurus elephas Phymatolithon calcareum

Pink sea-fan Short snouted seahorse Spiny lobster Maёrl

single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

Anguilla anguilla Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy infralittoral rock Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal mud Subtidal sand Estuarine rocky habitats Sheltered muddy gravels Anguilla anguilla Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal biogenic reefs Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Low energy infralittoral rock Low energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal mud Blue Mussel beds (including intertidal beds on mixed and sandy sediments) Estuarine rocky habitats Ostrea edulis Osmerus eperlanus Anguilla anguilla

Erme Estuary

Features on CO list Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy infralittoral rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal mud Subtidal sand Alkmaria romijni

Tentacled lagoon-worm European eel

This is a single record but habitat is right for this species, keep on list. protected by existing SSSI

protected by existing SSSI protected by existing SSSI

European eel

protected by existing SAC/SPA

protected by existing SAC/SPA protected by existing SAC/SPA protected by existing SAC/SPA protected by existing SAC/SPA protected by existing SAC/SPA protected by existing SAC/SPA

Tamar estuary sites

Review Comments

AF T

pMCZ Name Devon Avon Estuary

protected by existing SAC/SPA Native oyster Smelt European eel

pMCZ Name Whitsand and Looe Bay

Features on CO list Moderate energy circalittoral rock

AF T

High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Seagrass beds Amphianthus dohrnii Arctica islandica Eunicella verrucosa Gobius cobitis Haliclystus auricula

Hippocampus hippocampus Phymatolithon calcareum

Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Estuarine rocky habitats Sheltered muddy gravels Hippocampus guttulatus

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill

Subtidal coarse sediment

South-East of Falmouth

South of Falmouth

The Manacles

Review Comments No data in combined EUNIS L3 map, but there is anecdotal evidence of rocky ledges in the area, a detailed sidescan dataset exists at the MBA confirming this

Subtidal sand Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand

Sea-fan anemone Ocean quahog Pink sea-fan Giant Goby Stalked jellyfish Short snouted seahorse Maёrl

Long snouted seahorse

single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

Features on CO list Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Maërl beds Amphianthus dohrnii Eunicella verrucosa Haliclystus auricula

Leptopsammia pruvoti

Palinurus elephas Cetorhinus maximus Cetaceans High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Seagrass beds Arctica islandica Atrina pectinata Gobius cobitis Haliclystus auricula

Mounts Bay

Lucernariopsis campanulata Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis Phymatolithon calcareum

Review Comments

Sea-fan anemone Pink sea-fan Stalked jellyfish Sunset cupcoral Spiny lobster Basking sharks

AF T

pMCZ Name The Manacles (cont.)

more likely to be sand or muddy sand

Ocean quahog Fan mussel Giant Goby Stalked jellyfish Stalked jellyfish Stalked jellyfish Maёrl

single historic record

single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

Land's End (cont.)

Cape Bank

Review Comments

more likely to be sand

Paludinella littorina Seabirds Cetaceans High energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock

Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Palinurus elephas Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud

Pink sea-fan Maёrl

Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mud Subtidal sand Eunicella verrucosa Gobius cobitis Ostrea edulis Paludinella littorina Anguilla anguilla

single record only, just outside site boundary, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

Sea snail

protected by existing SAC protected by existing SAC protected within SAC boundaries but not outside SAC boundaries, some unprotected feature occurs within pMCZ protected by existing SAC

Spiny lobster

Newquay and the Gannel

Features on CO list High energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Eunicella verrucosa Lithothamnion corallioides

AF T

pMCZ Name Land's End

on exposed beaches, this is sand not mud

Pink sea-fan Giant Goby Native oyster Sea snail European eel

pMCZ Name Padstow Bay and surrounds

Features on CO list High energy circalittoral rock

Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis

Camel Estuary

Palinurus elephas Seabirds Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Low energy intertidal rock Estuarine rocky habitats Anguilla anguilla Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediment Intertidal mud

Hartland Point to Tintagel

Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Sabellaria alveolata reefs

likely to be sand

AF T

High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Arctica islandica Eunicella verrucosa Haliclystus auricula

Review Comments

Ocean quahog Pink sea-fan Stalked jellyfish Stalked jellyfish Spiny lobster

European eel

Small area only, in one of the combes

unlikely to be present, this is probably sand

No records in our dataset but there is anecdotal evidence of MarClim records near Bude, to be pursued

pMCZ Name Hartland Point to Tintagel (cont.)

Lundy

Features on CO list Eunicella verrucosa

Pink sea-fan

Lithothamnion corallioides

Maёrl

Padina pavonica

Peacock's tail seaweed

Seabirds Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment High energy circalittoral rock

North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area)

Morte Platform

Bideford to Foreland Point

High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment

single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

protected by existing SAC protected by existing SAC protected by existing SAC protected by existing SAC

AF T

High energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Mud habitats in deep water Amphianthus dohrnii Eunicella verrucosa Leptopsammia pruvoti Palinurus elephas Phymatolithon calcareum

Review Comments

protected by existing SAC protected by existing SAC protected by existing SAC

Spiny lobster Maёrl

Old records only, unlikely to be present

pMCZ Name Bideford to Foreland Point (cont.)

Features on CO list Subtidal sand Sabellaria alveolata reefs Eunicella verrucosa Hippocampus hippocampus Paludinella littorina Phymatolithon calcareum

Isles of Scilly

single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

Intertidal mud protected in existing SSSI Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Subtidal mud Subtidal sand High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal macrophytedominated sediment Subtidal mixed sediments High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-fan anemone Arctica islandica Ocean quahog Cruoria cruoriaeformis Burgundy maerl paint weed Gobius cobitis Giant Goby Grateloupia montagnei Greateloup's little-lobed weed Haliclystus auricula Stalked jellyfish

D 50

single record only, remove from CO list.

Seabirds Cetaceans Halychoerus grypus Grey Seals Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds

review not yet started for this site

Pink sea-fan Short snouted seahorse Sea snail Maёrl

AF T

Taw Torridge Estuaries

Review Comments

pMCZ Name Isles of Scilly

Review Comments Stalked jellyfish Stalked jellyfish Spiny lobster Sea snail Long snouted seahorse

AF T

(cont.)

Features on CO list Lucernariopsis campanulata Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis Palinurus elephas Paludinella littorina Hippocampus guttulatus Peat and clay exposures Tide-swept channel Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Subtidal sands and gravels Seagrass beds

II.2.3 Summary of the contribution of existing protected areas (gap analysis)

AF T

There are 46 existing marine protected areas in the south-west region, primarily Natura 2000 sites (Special Areas of Conservation – SACs, and Special Protection Areas for birds, SPAs), and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). They are shown on map SAP_***. To varying degrees, some of the broad-scale habitats and FOCI required by the ENG are protected within these existing marine protected areas. Figures have been provided from a 'gap analysis' by the SNCBs on how these existing sites are contributing to the replication and adequacy targets. The completion of the gap analysis has allowed us to properly assess the performance of the network, especially in relation to intertidal broad-scale habitats (see section II.3***). A full gap analysis report for our region has been supplied by the JNCC, which contains figures summarising how the existing MPAs contribute towards adequacy and replication targets in the ENG. While we have not replicated the figures and tables here, we have included a table describing the features protected in existing protected areas within our region (appendix ***). For the network-level broad-scale habitat area figures in section ***II.3, we calculated our own version of the figures in the gap analysis report, using intertidal broad-scale habitat data supplied by the Environment Agency, in addition to data from MB102 (refer to appendix 4*** for details).

The figures in the national gap analysis for existing MPAs take into account non-spatial data. For example, in the replication figures, sites are counted as a replicate whenever a given feature is listed for protection under the existing designation, even if there are no records of that feature in the national GIS data layers.

Map: SAP_202

Existing and proposed MPAs in the south-west

Version: Jun11

This map shows existing and planned marine protected areas in the south-west. Many sites overlap, so label colours match the legend symbology. Please refer to Finding Sanctuary's June 2011 draft final report for more detail. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N.

Tamar-Tavy Estuary

Wembury Point

Severn Estuary/Mor Hafren Severn Estuary/ Môr Hafren

Erme Estuary Salcombe to Kingsbridge Estuary

Lundy NTZ

Berrow Dunes Bridgwater Bay

Taw-Torridge Estuary

Exe Estuary Exe Estuary Exe Estuary Dawlish Warren

Saltern Cove

Lands End and Cape Bank

Hayle Estuary & Carrack Gladden

Upper Fal Estuary & Woods

Malpas Estuary

Swanpool Rosemullion

Isles of Scilly Complex

6°10'0"W

Isles of Scilly

Otter Estuary

Poole Harbour

Christchurch Harbour

Poole Harbour

Portland Harbour Shore

Chesil Beach & The Fleet Chesil and the Fleet Chesil Beach & the Fleet Chesil Beach & The Fleet

Poole Harbour

Studland to Portland

Torbay to Lyme Bay

Wight-Barfleur

Fal and Helford

St Martin's Sed. Shore

Lundy no take zone Other existing MPAs SSSIs

Lizard Point

5°0'0"W

Pool of Bryher & Popplestone Bank (Bryher)

Torbay to Lyme Bay

Lower Fal & Helford Intertidal

3°50'0"W

50°40'0"N

49°20'0"N

Porlock Ridge & Saltmarsh

D R AF

Lundy

Prawle Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone

50°0'0"N

Severn Estuary

Main label types used: SAC SPA SSSI Ramsar site

SPA Lyme Bay Designated Area Ramsar sites Marine Natura 2000 sites SAC

1°30'0"W

Plymouth Sound and Estuaries

70 km

Yealm Estuary

51°20'0"N

Severn Estuary

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

Plymouth Sound Shores & Cliffs

Lynher Estuary

2°40'0"W

Tamar Estuaries Complex

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licenc e No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for nav igation.

Planned SAC (cSACs, dSACs, pSACs)

II.2.4 ENG-related statistics for the network (pMCZs and existing protected areas) Introduction The network-level statistics here reflect features protected within the existing MPAs as well as within pMCZs, unless specifically indicated otherwise. Where pMCZs overlap with existing protected areas, features that are already protected in the existing MPA are not counted towards the figures for the pMCZ.

AF T

We have presented statistics relating to the network design principles followed by the ENG, except for network level viability (e.g. average size, average maximum and minimum dimensions) - as we think the viability principle is not particularly meaningful at the network level. Site-level reports (sections ***II.3, ***II.4 and ***II.5) map the size and dimensions of each pMCZ and potential reference area. Potential reference areas are not taken into account in this section (unless specifically indicated), as they are summarised separately in section II.2.5***. This may mean that in some instances, the replication figures shown in tables II.2.4*** to II.2.4*** are an underestimate, if a feature is represented in a potential reference area that is not in a pMCZ, but within an existing MPA which does not protect all the features present. These network level statistics have been calculated using broad-scale habitat and FOCI data layers that contain additional information than was provided through national data contacts, appendix 4*** includes a full description of these datasets.

The conservation objective summary (section II.2.3***) discusses comments emerging from ongoing vulnerability assessment meetings for inshore pMCZs, which have highlighted certain records that could be considered unreliable. These comments have not yet been taken into account in this network level – the statistics here are based on a pure spatial intersection of the site boundaries with ecological datasets. The final version of this document will amend the figures to reflect which features have conservation objectives, and which do not (e.g. features with old / unreliable records).

For the calculation of replication figures, we have treated features present in more than one of the 11 component areas of the Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ as separate replicates, but any feature within separate component areas of the Taw Torridge Estuaries, Tamar Estuary Sites and Upper Fowey and Pont Pill site as single replicates. [We will standardise the approach taken for the final report.] Figures have only been reported for features named specifically in the ENG, i.e. the EUNIS level 3 broad-scale habitats and species/habitat FOCI. We have not reported figures against any measures of "areas of additional ecological importance" (such as predictable seasonal fronts) or mobile FOCI. Instead, we are providing interactive PDF maps to the SAP along with this report. These overlay the outlines of the developing network configuration over data layers describing features of additional ecological importance, and the mobile FOCI data we received from data gathering contract MB102. This will allow visual assessment of how successfully we are achieving those parts of the ENG. 54

General statistics Table II.2.4a*** shows the number of sites and the total area covered within the network, split into existing MPAs, pMCZs and potential reference areas. Existing marine protected areas consist of SACs, SPAs and SSSIs with marine components. The total area listed below only includes that which intersects the Finding Sanctuary study area. Where protected areas overlap, they are not double-counted in the area figures. Table II.2.4a*** General statistics for the network. Existing MPAs pMCZs Potential reference areas Total area (km ) 3,153.93 16,854.56 241.63+ 1 Number of sites 46 45 13 1 There are 45 pMCZs, one (Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ) consists of 11 spatially distinct areas, and three further ones consist of two spatially distinct areas (Tamar Estuary Sites, Upper Fowey and Pont Pill, and the Taw Torridge Estuary). + Reference areas fall within pMCZs and existing MPAs, as such this figure should not be added to the pMCZ total area.

AF T

Broad-scale habitats: representativity, replication and adequacy

The figures for broad-scale habitats within the network are presented separately for subtidal and intertidal habitats, in tables II.2.4.b*** and II.2.4.c***, and figures II.2.4.a*** and II.2.4.b***.

Subtidal broad-scale habitat representativity, adequacy and replication targets are very well met by the network (table II.2.4.b and figure II.2.4a). Reviewing the figures calculated from the combined EUNIS level 3 habitat layer, all subtidal broad-scale habitats listed in the ENG are present in the network (table II.2.4.b***). Only three habitat types do not fully meet adequacy and replication targets. Low energy circalittoral rock, Subtidal biogenic reefs and Deep-sea bed.

Low-energy circalittoral rock is mapped only in small patches on the combined EUNIS level 3 habitat layer. Given the coarse resolution of the modelled data, these small patches come with a degree of uncertainty, and we have not focussed on meeting any targets for this habitat.

Subtidal biogenic reefs is not represented at all in the figures presented here, as it is not mapped at all within our region in the combined broad-scale habitat dataset. However, we have represented several FOCI habitats in the network that are considered to fall within this broad category (Ecological Network Guidance, p. 38). They are cold-water coral reefs (in The Canyons pMCZ), blue mussel beds, Sabellaria spinulosa reefs, and Sabellaria alveolata reefs (table II.2.4h***). The Deep-sea bed broad-scale habitat is only replicated in two sites, but this only occurs in one the far south-west (off the shelf break), so meeting the “minimum 3-5 replicates” target would be artificial. No adequacy target is included in the ENG for this habitat. The SAP previously advised that there is a case for including all of the study area beyond the shelf

break in the network, as this broad-scale habitat is so rare in southern UK waters. Some stakeholder representatives have questioned the rationale for this, as the actual extent of the shelf break and deep sea habitat is large (extending far beyond UK waters). Put together, The Canyons pMCZ and the South West Deeps (East) pMCZ cover almost half of the area beyond the shelf break within our study region.

Habitat Name

AF T

Table II.2.4.b*** Subtidal broad-scale habitats represented in the network. All area figures are in km2. Total area figures show the total area of habitat in the study region. Figures in brackets show percentages of the total habitat area in the study region. Replication figures count the number of areas within which the habitat is represented, including figures for existing protected areas provided through the gap analysis. Red text highlights targets that have not been met. Representativity / Adequacy Total area Area in network (km2) (km2)

High energy infralittoral rock

727.20

524.45 (72.1%)

Moderate energy infralittoral rock

314.06

155.22 (49.4%)

7.79

4.77 (61.2%)

Low energy infralittoral rock

ENG target (adequacy) 109.08 - 225.43 (15 - 31%) 53.39 - 100.5 (17 - 32%) 1.25 - 2.49 (16 - 32%) 142.28 - 323.36 (11 - 25%) 2442.47 - 5260.71 (13 - 28%) 0.56 - 1.12 (16 - 32%) 4868.51 - 9164.26 (17 - 32%) 5043.24 - 10086.49 (15 - 30%) 945.39 - 1890.79 (15 - 30%) 570.8 - 1141.61 (16 - 32%)

Replication1

34 29 8

446.85 15 (34.5%) Moderate energy 2705.37 18788.25 30 circalittoral rock (14.4%) 0.61 1 Low energy circalittoral rock3 3.50 (17.4%) 4940.73 39 Subtidal coarse sediment 28638.30 (17.3%) 6929.47 Subtidal sand 33621.63 40 (20.6%) 1307.66 Subtidal mud 6302.63 22 (20.7%) 624.49 22 Subtidal mixed sediments 3567.52 (17.5%) Subtidal macrophyte15.81 20.25 No target 4 dominated sediment (78.1%) Subtidal biogenic reefs4 0 0 No target 0 786.22 Deep-sea bed5 1602.93 No target 2 (49.0%) 1 “Replication” refers to the number of sites within the network which contain the habitat. The ENG stipulates a minimum 3-5 replicates for broad-scale habitats. Figures for existing MPAs have been supplied as part of the gap analysis. As such, where Finding Sanctuary have used additional data sets, the replication figure may be slightly different. 3 Low energy circalittoral rock has a very limited distribution in the South-west (please refer to text). 4 We do not have subtidal biogenic reefs mapped as broad-scale habitats (please refer to text). 5 Deep-sea bed only occurs in one part of the south-west, so the replication target cannot be met.

1293.45

High energy circalittoral rock

% of total habitat

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

% in pMCZs

% in existing MPAs

AF T

% targets

Figure II.2.4.a*** Area of subtidal broad-scale habitat represented with lower and upper ENG adequacy targets shown. The figures are the same as those in table II.2.4.b***.

Intertidal broad-scale habitat representativity is also well achieved (table II.2.4c*** and figure II.2.4b***). Eight out of 10 intertidal broad-scale habitats listed in the ENG are represented in the network, using figures from the combined EUNIS level 3 habitat layer. The two habitats that are not represented are intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms, and intertidal biogenic reefs. Both consist of very small areas within in the combined EUNIS level 3 habitat dataset, and have not been priorities at the broad-scale habitat level. Instead, we focussed on the FOCI habitats which are considered to fall within these categories (ENG, table 6). For intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms we have represented the FOCI habitat seagrass beds, and for intertidal biogenic reefs we have represented Sabellaria alveolata reefs.

Adequacy and replication targets are also well met for intertidal broad-scale habitats (table II.2.4c*** and figure II.2.4b***). Existing protected areas contribute a considerable amount to these targets.

Table II.2.4.c*** Intertidal broad-scale habitats represented in the network. All area figures are in km2. Total area figures show the total area of habitat in the study region. Figures in brackets show percentages of the total habitat area in the study region. Replication figures count the number of areas within which the habitat is represented, including figures for existing protected areas provided through the gap analysis. Red text highlights targets that have not been met. Habitat Name

Representativity / Adequacy Total area Area in network (km2) (km2)

High energy intertidal rock

7.26

4.02 (55.4%)

Moderate energy intertidal rock

4.94

1.85 (37.4%)

Low energy intertidal rock

3.28

1.60 (48.8%)

Intertidal coarse sediment

19.36

6.67 (34.5%)

Intertidal sand and muddy sand

11.50

8.11 (70.5%)

Intertidal mud

169.85

141.81 (83.5%)

4.50

2.14 (47.6%)

3.07

2.93 (95.4%)

No target

0.02

< 0.01 (0.2%)

No target

0.05

0.01 (15.4%)

No target

Replication1 20 20

AF T

Intertidal mixed sediments

Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds3 Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms

Intertidal biogenic reefs 1

ENG target (adequacy) 1.52 - 2.76 (21 - 38%) 1.04 - 1.88 (21 - 38%) 0.72 - 1.28 (22 - 39%) 4.84 - 8.13 (25 - 42%) 2.87 - 4.83 (25 - 42%) 42.46 - 71.34 (25 - 42%) 1.13 - 1.89 (25 - 42%)

16 34 28 41 14

“Replication” refers to the number of sites within the network which contain the habitat. The ENG stipulates a minimum 3-5 replicates for broad-scale habitats. Figures for existing MPAs have been supplied as part of the gap analysis. As such, where Finding Sanctuary have used additional data sets, the replication figure may be slightly different. 3 This overlaps with the habitat “coastal saltmarsh” which is not listed in the ENG as a Habitat of Conservation Importance, but has been included in the figures provided in the national gap analysis. Please refer to table II.***.***.

% of total habitat

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

% in pMCZs % in existing MPAs

AF T

% targets

Figure II.2.4.b*** Area of intertidal broad-scale habitat represented with lower and upper ENG adequacy targets shown. The figures are the same as those in table II.2.4.c***

Species of Conservation Importance: representativity, replication and adequacy

The network has achieved good replication of Species of Conservation Importance, within the confines of the data available and the distribution of the species in the region. Table II.2.4.d*** shows which benthic FOCI species are represented in the network, and how many sites they are replicated within. The table accounts for existing protected areas as well as pMCZs. For the existing protected areas, the gap analysis stated the number of replicate sites for each species, but no indication was given of the age of records within those sites. For pMCZs, we have been able to include information on the age of species records. As an example, table II.2.4.d*** indicates that the network has 18 sites within which the pink seafan Eunicella verrucosa has been recorded (and is protected), but that within 5 pMCZs all records of the species date from before 1980.

At first glance, table II.2.4.d*** shows that 13 out of 29 benthic Species of Conservation Importance do not meet the targets for replication within the network, and of those 13, two are not represented at all. Closer inspection of the data shows that for many of these species, we only have a very limited number of records in the region, or no records at all. Bearing these limitations in mind, the network performs well for benthic species FOCI. The bullet points below provide summary comments for the species which do not meet all the targets in table II.2.4.d***.

A limited number of records of the tentacled lagoon-worm Alkmaria romijni exist, located in a small number of harbours and estuaries in the south-east of our region. They include a number of existing protected areas. Only one of these protected areas (Chesil and the Fleet SAC) lists the species as a protected feature. In addition, it is represented in a the Dart Estuary pMCZ.

•

The lagoon sandworm Armandia cirrhosa is only recorded in one location in our region, the Fleet lagoon, where it is already has protected status through the SAC designation.

•

The fan mussel Atrina pectinata has been recorded in several locations along the far south-west coastline of our study region, including in the Isles of Scilly. The majority of the records are historic (including from as far back as the 19th Century). More recent records are located within estuaries, bays and inlets in south Cornwall, and most of these locations already have protected status. This includes records within the Fal / Helford SACs, the Eddystone portion of the Prawle Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone cSAC, the Plymouth Sound SAC, and the Salcombe to Kingsbridge Estuaries SSSI (none of these “count” within the gap analysis, as the fan mussel is not listed as a protected species within these sites).

•

We have a single record of Defonlin’s lagoon snail Caecum armoricum in the Fleet lagoon, where the species is already protected through the SAC designation.

•

There are only 2 locations in the south-west with records of the burgundy maërl paint weed Cruoria cruoriaeformis. It has been recorded within one of the Isles of Scilly pMCZs (therefore, we have one replicate in the network). It has also been recorded in the Fal/Helford SAC, where it is not listed as a protected species – however, this red seaweed is associated with maërl beds, and maërl beds are a listed protected feature within the SAC. Given the maërl is protected, we might consider the Fal/Helford as another replicate site for C. cruoriaeformis.

AF T

•

There are only five records of Gammarus insensibilis, the lagoon sand shrimp. Three of these are off Chesil Beach and, as this is a lagoon species, can be considered a positional error - they are likely to fall within the Fleet lagoon, where the SAC already affords protection for this species. The other records are inside Poole Harbour and outside Christchurch harbour.

•

There are only two single records of the amphipod shrimp Gitanopsis bispinosa in our region, which might be considered serendipitous records, and have not influenced the location of pMCZs.

•

There are a limited number of records of Couch’s goby Gobius couchi, including in two areas that are already SACs, but where the species is not specifically listed as protected (the Fleet lagoon and the Fal/Helford). There is a single replicate from a single record in the Poole Rocks pMCZ.

Grateloup’s little-lobed weed, Grateloupia montagnei, like the burgundy maërl paint weed, is a red seaweed associated with maërl beds. Most records from the southwest are located in the Fal/Helford, where the maërl beds are protected by the SAC designation, so the associated red seaweeds are unlikely to need additional protection (even though they are not specifically listed as protected species in the SAC). In addition to the Fal/Helford records, the only other records in our region are located in the Isles of Scilly (two records within one of the pMCZs), and a single record in the estuary near Salcombe.

•

Lithothamnion corallioides is a species of maërl. We have focussed more on meeting the targets for the FOCI habitat, maërl beds, than for the individual maërl species. Outside the Fal/Helford SAC (where the species is already protected), the other location where a large number of records of L. corallioides have been mapped is in Poole Bay. A small number of additional individual records exist.

•

The largest concentration of records of the stalked jellyfish Lucernariopsis campanulata are found in the Isles of Scilly, where records are located in three of the pMCZs. Additional records are in Mounts Bay, which is a pMCZ. The other records that exist of this FOCI in the south-west region are within the Fal/Helford SAC, Plymouth Sound SAC, an additional three records off North Cornwall, and one record in Whitsand Bay.

•

We only have 4 records of Nematostella vectensis (the starlet sea anemone), two in Poole harbour and one in the Fleet lagoon (the species is protected in both locations through existing designations), and an additional record just north of Weston-superMare.

•

The gooseneck barnacle Pollicipes pollicipes has only been recorded in a single location in our region, the Land’s End peninsula.

AF T

•

The lagoon sea slug Tenellia adspersa has only been recorded in the Fleet, where it is protected through the SAC designation (an additional record exists in our data, off Chesil Beach, but as this is a lagoon species, this is likely to be a positional error).

•

The trembling sea mat Victorella pavida has only been recorded in one location in the south-west, Swanpool lagoon in Falmouth. This is already a SSSI, which protects the species. The lagoon lies above the mean high water line (OS Boundary Line) which we use to delimit our study region, so technically it might be seen to lie outside our planning area.

•

The interactive PDF supplied to the SAP along with this report will allow the exploration of the location of the FOCI records referred to above.

Table II.2.4.d*** Representation and replication of benthic non-mobile Species of Conservation Importance (FOCI).Non-bracketed figures show the number of sites within which a species has been recorded, taking into account existing protected areas and pMCZs. Figures in brackets show the number of pMCZs within which all records of the relevant species date from before 1980 (the gap analysis included no information on age of records within the existing protected areas). Green rows indicate that the ENG targets have been met for the species. Please refer to the bullet points in the main text for details on individual species.

AF T

Species name total (pre 1980 only) Alkmaria romijni (Tentacled lagoon-worm)1 2 Amphianthus dohrnii (Sea-fan Anemone) 6 (1) Arctica islandica (Ocean quahog) 4 (2) 1 Armandia cirrhosa (Lagoon Sandworm) 1 Atrina pectinata (Fan Mussel)1 1 (1) 1 Caecum armoricum (Defolin’s lagoon snail) 1 Cruoria cruoriaeformis (Burgundy maërl paint weed)1,2 1 Eunicella verrucosa (Pink Sea-fan) 18 (5) 1 Gammarus insensibilis (Lagoon sand shrimp) 1 Gitanopsis bispinosa (Amphipod shrimp)1 0 Gobius cobitis (Giant Goby) 5 (3) Gobius couchi (Couch’s Goby)1 1 Grateloupia montagnei (Grateloup's little-lobed weed)1, 3 1 Haliclystus auricula (stalked jellyfish) 8 (6) Hippocampus guttulatus (Long snouted seahorse) 3 (1) Hippocampus hippocampus (Short snouted seahorse) 3 Hippocampus sp.4 24 Leptopsammia pruvoti (Sunset Cup Coral) 6 Lithothamnion corallioides (Coral Maërl)1,5 2 Lucernariopsis campanulata (stalked jellyfish)1 4 (3) Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis (stalked jellyfish) 3 (1) Nematostella vectensis (Starlet sea anemone)1 2 Ostrea edulis (Native Oyster) 7 (2) Padina pavonica (Peacock’s tail)1 4 (4) Palinurus elephas (Spiny Lobster) 10 (4) Paludinella littorina (Sea snail) 8 (2) Phymatolithon calcareum (Common Maërl)6 7 (4) 1 Pollicipes pollicipes (Gooseneck Barnacle) 0 Tenellia adspersa (Lagoon sea slug)1 1 1 Victorella pavida (Trembling sea mat) 1 1 Species with a very small number of records, or where all locations are already protected, and further work to incorporate them into the network is not needed, not possible or not appropriate. 2 3 , Red seaweeds that are associated with maërl beds. 4 These replicate figures are calculated from polygonal data reflecting the distribution of Hippocampus (genus), mapped by the Seahorse Trust. 5 6 , Coral maërl - included in habitat FOCI.

For additional information, we have included table II.2.4.e***, which shows the total number of records of each benthic species FOCI represented within pMCZs. Where there is overlap between existing protected areas and pMCZs, records of species protected within the existing sites have not been counted. Total number of currently “unprotected” records in the region are also shown for reference (i.e. records of species protected in existing MPAs are not included in the totals). The table also includes figures calculated from the seahorse distribution polygon data that was mapped by the Seahorse Trust - (this is in a separate row, labelled Hippocampus sp.). Refer to Appendix 4*** for details of data sources.

AF T

Table II.2.4.f*** shows all the point records for benthic species FOCI in the region (including those representing species that are already protected within existing MPAs), broken down by decade. All polygonal information we hold for species distribution dates from 2000 and later, and is not included in this table. It consists of the Seahorse Trust polygon data referred to above, and additional localised polygon data for the distribution of Eunicella verrucosa off Dorset (the E. verrucosa polygon data does not overlap with any pMCZs). Refer to Appendix 4*** for details of data sources.

Table II.2.4.g*** shows replication figures for mobile FOCI. Information sources are found in the footnotes. We have not considered the mobile FOCI data provided through the national data layers contract (MB102), as we think the scale is too coarse to be meaningful.

Table II.2.4.e*** Number of records of benthic Species of Conservation Importance in the south-west region and within the network. Non-bracketed figures are the total number of records, figures in brackets are records from before 1980. Note that existing MPAs are not accounted for in this table - it reflects the number of currently “unprotected” records, and how many of those are captured within the pMCZs.

AF T

Species name Total unprotected records Records captured in network Alkmaria romijni 16 (0) 1 Amphianthus dohrnii 53 (1) 17 (1) Arctica islandica 59 (20) 9 (2) Armandia cirrhosa 1 (0) 1 (1) Atrina pectinata 65 (27) Caecum armoricum 0 (0) Cruoria cruoriaeformis 8 (2) 2 Eunicella verrucosa 354 (51) 120 (19) Gammarus insensibilis 2 (0) Gitanopsis bispinosa 2 (0) Gobius cobitis 88 (23) 14 (5) Gobius couchi 14 (3) 1 Grateloupia montagnei 8 (0) 2 Haliclystus auricula 127 (60) 22 (9) Hippocampus guttulatus 24 (10) 3 (1) Hippocampus hippocampus 11 (0) 3 Hippocampus sp.1 386.39 km2 42.16 km2 Leptopsammia pruvoti 6 (0) 2 Lithothamnion corallioides 18 (2) 1 Lucernariopsis campanulata 31 (18) 7 (5) Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis 9 (5) 3 (1) Nematostella vectensis 2 (0) Ostrea edulis 191 (30) 22 (6) Padina pavonica 35 (27) 8 (6) Palinurus elephas 73 (32) 25 (8) Paludinella littorina 44 (8) 7 (2) Phymatolithon calcareum 159 (18) 10 (8) Pollicipes pollicipes 11 (2) Tenellia adspersa 1 (0) Victorella pavida2 102 (0) 1 Polygon data for the distribution of seahorses in the south-west as mapped by the Seahorse Trust (local knowledge). 2 Records of Victorella pavida technically fall outside of the study area. As Swanpool is the only location in the UK where this species is found, it has been considered as a suitable location for a potential reference area.

15 10 1

1 2

2 1 2 6 28 82 91 2

44 15 18

Total

4 5 12 3 18

2000s

1960s

1950s 1

1990s

1980s

1940s

1930s

1920s

1910s

1900s 2

1970s

12 3 12

16 9 44 3 47 1 8 326 4 2 83 11 8 105 19 1 19 36 26 7 5 257 30 47 20 63 5 1 102

AF T

Alkmaria romijni Amphianthus dohrnii Arctica islandica 1 Armandia cirrhosa Atrina pectinata Caecum armoricum Cruoria cruoriaeformis Eunicella verrucosa Gammarus insensibilis Gitanopsis bispinosa Gobius cobitis Gobius couchi Grateloupia montagnei Haliclystus auricula Hippocampus guttulatus Hippocampus hippocampus Leptopsammia pruvoti Lithothamnion corallioides Lucernariopsis campanulata Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis Nematostella vectensis Ostrea edulis Padina pavonica Palinurus elephas Paludinella littorina Phymatolithon calcareum Pollicipes pollicipes Tenellia adspersa Victorella pavida

19th Century

Benthic Species of Conservation Importance

18th Century

Table II.2.4.f*** Age distribution of non-mobile species FOCI records. This table includes those records that fall within the protection afforded by existing marine protected areas.

1 1

1 2

10 2 2

5 1

3 1

15 4 1 1 1 2

4 3 4 2 2

12 1

2 2

7 5 1

9 1

8 6 8 9 42 30 4 1 2 1 1 13 2 3 27 8 7 7 1 4 1 4 10 27 113 5 14 11 9 12 2 2 1 11 10 31 3

115 2 52 2 15 7 5 4 1 1 1 65 3 3 10 7

1 102

649 1 5 3

22 5 10 57 11 5 2

134 5 26 25 142 6 1

Table II.2.4.g*** Mobile Species of Conservation Importance: number of pMCZs which include the species in their developing conservation objectives. Mobile Species of Conservation Importance Replicates Osmerus eperlanus (Smelt)1 1 Anguilla anguilla (European eel)2 7 3 Raja undulata (Undulate ray) 1 1 Environment Agency surveys have found smelt in the Tamar Estuary. 2 Information supplied by the Environment Agency indicates that migratory species including eel are common to all of the estuaries along the South coast of Cornwall and Devon. 3 Anecdotal evidence indicates that Studland Bay is a breeding area for undulate ray.***Shark Trust

Habitats of Conservation Importance: representativity, replication and adequacy The network has achieved good replication of Habitats of Conservation Importance, within the confines of the data available and the distribution of the species in the region. Table II.2.4.h*** shows which FOCI habitats are represented in the network, and how many sites they are replicated within. The table accounts for existing protected areas (data from the gap analysis) as well as pMCZs. Note that most of the FOCI habitat data in our GIS datasets dates from 1980 onwards.

AF T

At first glance, table II.2.4.h*** shows that 13 out of 22 Habitats of Conservation Importance do not meet the targets for replication within the network, and of those 13, seven are not represented at all. However, closer inspection of the data shows that for many of these habitats, we only have a very limited number of records in the region, or no records at all. Bearing in mind these limitations, the network performs well for habitat FOCI. The bullet points below provide summary comments for the habitats which do not meet all the targets in table II.2.4.h***. Cold-water coral reefs are only recorded in one small patch, within The Canyons pMCZ.

•

There are no records of Coral Gardens, Deep-sea sponge aggregations, File shell beds, Littoral Chalk communities, Horse Mussel (Modiolus modiolus) beds, Sea pen and burrowing megafauna communities, or Native oyster (Ostrea edulis) beds in our region within the datasets we have available. Whilst we have no records tagged as the Native oyster bed habitat, we are aware of native oyster beds in the Fal, where we have many records of the species (and where the species is protected by the existing SAC).

•

We only have six records of Peat and clay exposures in our datasets. One single record is located in Poole Harbour (outside the SSSI/SPA boundaries), three records are located in the Salcombe to Kingsbridge estuaries SSSI (but the habitat is not listed in the designation), and two in the Isles of Scilly SAC (again, the habitat is not protected by the existing designation). One of the Isles of Scilly records is located within one of the pMCZs in that area, so we have counted one replicate within the network.

•

Ross worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) reefs have only been recorded along the coast of Dorset, according to the data we hold. Several records are located within the Studland to Portland dSAC (but the habitat is not listed as protected). The previous version of the gap analysis listed this habitat as protected within the Lyme Bay to Torbay cSAC, thought this has been removed in the most recent version.

•

We have a very limited dataset for subtidal chalk. The habitat is listed as protected within the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC (though we have no records for the habitat in the area). We have additional records for the habitat located within the South Dorset pMCZ, and there is one single additional record located within the

•

Lyme Bay portion of the Lyme Bay and Torbay cSAC (where it is not listed as a protected feature). •

The only location where we have records of tide-swept channels is the Isles of Scilly, where we have records of the BAP habitat from recent Seasearch data (provided through Cornwall Wildlife Trust), and additional polygon data for the habitat mapped by the Isles of Scilly Local Group. The habitat is represented within the Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ.

AF T

The interactive PDF supplied to the SAP along with this report will allow the exploration of the exact location of the FOCI records referred to above. Note that subtidal sands and gravels was not treated as a FOCI habitat during the planning process, i.e. it was not included on FOCI maps or reported against during stakeholder meetings. This is a very broad category and we were confident that the network would meet the requirements for this habitat through focussing on the broad-scale habitat targets (the network has met the target, as shown in table II.2.4.h***).

The gap analysis provided us with replication figures (within existing MPAs) for three additional habitats, which although they are not on the FOCI list in the ENG, are considered of wider conservation importance. These are coastal saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats, and saline lagoons. We have included these figures here for context, and consider the coastal saltmarsh figures particularly relevant, given that the ENG stipulates representativity and replication targets for a broad-scale habitat called “Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds”. Although we do have data for this habitat within the combined EUNIS level 3 dataset, the replication figures for coastal saltmarsh in table II.2.4.h*** might better reflect how well the feature is represented within the network (note that this is in line with the guidance in table 6 / p.38 of the ENG), which lists “coastal saltmarsh” as a component habitat of the above broad-scale habitat.

For additional information, we have included table II.2.4.j***, which shows the number of records of habitat FOCI represented within pMCZs. Where there is overlap between existing protected areas and pMCZs, records of habitats protected within the existing sites have not been counted. Total number of “unprotected” records in the region are also shown for reference (i.e. records of habitats protected in existing MPAs are not included in the totals). For the totals, the figures in brackets show the number of records from before 1980, whereas the non-bracketed figures show total number of records. Table II.2.4.j***also includes area figures calculated from polygon data for FOCI habitats, all of which dates from the last 30 years. We have included figures showing the percentage of total habitat polygon area captured within the network. Table II.2.4.k***shows all the point records for habitat FOCI in the region (including those representing habitats that are already protected within existing MPAs), broken down by decade. Polygon data is not included in this table, as all habitat polygon data we have dates from the 2000s.

Table II.2.4.h*** Replication of FOCI habitats (the number of pMCZs and existing protected areas within which records of FOCI habitats are located). Habitats highlighted in green have met their replication target. Please refer to the bullet points in the text for details on individual habitats.

AF T

Habitat of Conservation Importance Replicates (pre 1980 only) 1 Blue mussel beds 3 Cold-water coral reefs1 1 2 Coral gardens Deep-sea sponge aggregations2 Estuarine Rocky Habitats 8 File shell beds2 Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats 13 (1) Intertidal underboulder communities 7 Littoral chalk communities2 Maërl Beds 2 Horse Mussel (Modiolus modiulus) beds2 Mud Habitats in Deep Water1 3 (1) Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities2 1 Native oyster (Ostrea edulis) beds2 Peat and clay exposures1 1 Honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata) reefs 2 Ross worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) reefs1 Seagrass beds 9 Sheltered muddy gravels 4 1 Subtidal chalk 2 Subtidal sands and gravels 38 3 Tide-swept channels 5 1 Habitats with a limited distribution, a very small number of records, or where all locations are already protected, and further work to incorporate them into the network is not needed, not possible or not appropriate. 2 No records for this habitat in the Finding Sanctuary area. 3 Only recorded in the Isles of Scilly, but present in more than one of the component areas of the pMCZ there.

Table II.2.4.i*** Additional habitat data provided in the gap analysis figures

Habitat Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats Saline lagoons

Replicates (existing MPAs) 9 6 2

Table II.2.4.j*** Number of records of Habitats of Conservation Importance in the southwest region and within the network. Non-bracketed figures are the total number of records, figures in brackets are records from before 1980. Note that existing MPAs are not accounted for in this table - it reflects the number of currently “unprotected” records, and how many of those are captured within the pMCZs. Habitat

Polygon data (km2) Total area Area in network

0.01

< 0.01 (15%)

6 26 0 97 0 40

(1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (14)

22.81

22.81 (100%)

9.38

1.01 (10.8%)

103.61

101.48 (97.9%)

0 0 9 21 12 65 0 6 0 11

(0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)

0.02 0.95 16.25 0.49

1.83 (11.3%) 0.07 (14.3%)

58352.62 1.52

0.72 (47.4%)

0.12

AF T

Blue mussel beds Cold-water coral reefs Coral gardens Deep-sea sponge aggregations Estuarine Rocky Habitats File Shell beds Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Intertidal underboulder communities Littoral chalk communities Maërl Beds Horse mussel (Modiolus modiulus) beds Mud Habitats in Deep Water Sea-pens and burrowing megafauna communities Native oyster (Ostrea edulis) beds Peat and clay exposures Honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata) reefs Ross worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) reefs Seagrass beds Sheltered muddy gravels Subtidal chalk Subtidal sands and gravels Tide-swept channels

Point sample data Total *** *** point point records records 25 (1) 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 76 (0) 23 0 (0)

(1)

1 2 9

(14)

4 7

1980s

1990s

2000s

1 4 7

3 10 28 23 9 6

22 67 5 26 32 6 3 34

99 22 106 14 6

AF T

Habitat Blue Mussel Beds Estuarine Rocky Habitats Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Intertidal underboulder communities Maërl Beds Mud Habitats in Deep Water Peat and Clay Exposures Honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata) reefs Ross worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) reefs Seagrass beds Subtidal chalk Tide-swept channels

1970s

Table II.2.4.k*** Age distribution of habitat FOCI records. This table includes those records that fall within the protection afforded by existing marine protected areas. Only habitats for which we have point data have been included on this table. Note that all habitat polygon data falls in the ‘2000s’ bracket and is not included.

11 5 16 2

7 521 4 11

Geological and geomorphological features

The ENG lists geological and geomorphological features of importance, as well as coastal Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites, which should be considered for MCZ designation.

The geological datasets have not been a driver in our planning process. Nevertheless, all three geological and geomorphological features of importance that fall within our region are represented within the network, one of them in full (table II.2.4.l***). Table II.2.4.l*** Geological and geomorphological features of interest.

Feature Celtic Sea relict sandbanks Haig Fras rock complex Portland Deep

Total area available (km2) 1312.39 74.88 15.84

Area within pMCZs (km2) 552.42 (42.1%) 74.88 (100%) 8.72 (55.1%)

When our planning process started, no geographical boundary data existed for the GCR sites listed in the ENG, and this only became available late in the process. Therefore, GCR sites were not considered during the stakeholder meetings. Nevertheless, the network intersects with the following coastal Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites: Axmouth to Lyme Regis Undercliffs, Eastern Isles, Northam Burrows, Rame Head & Whitsand Bay, Slapton Ley/Hallsands to Beesands, Tean.

Connectivity

AF T

In order to provide a visual representation of how the network is performing against the ENG connectivity criteria, we have presented a series of five maps showing 40km and 80km buffers around each of the EUNIS level 2 habitats found within the pMCZs and existing marine protected areas. We have not included a connectivity buffer map for the EUNIS level 2 habitat “Deep sea”, as this habitat is only found beyond the shelf break, and the entire patch that occurs within our region would fall within the 40km buffer.

Map: SAP_262 Version: Jun11

Connectivity - littoral rock (A1) Map showing 40 and 80 km buffers around all of the EUNIS level 2 habitat littoral rock that is covered within pMCZs.

Work in progress 7°34'30"W 6°34'0"W Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

5°33'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°33'0"W

37.5

3°32'30"W

75 km

2°32'0"W

6 nautical mile limit 12 nautical mile limit

Zone within a pMCZ 51°10'0"NPotential reference area

SAC SPA SSSI Lundy NTZ

EXMOOR

D R AF

Existing MPAs

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

THE NEW FOREST

DARTMOOR

50°9'30"N

49°9'0"N

EUNIS level 2 habitats

EUNIS level 2 habitat in pMCZs

Littoral rock (A1)

Littoral sediment (A2)

40km buffer around Littoral Rock (A1)

Infralittoral rock (A3)

80km buffer around Littoral Rock (A1)

Circalittoral rock (A4) Littoral sediment (A5) Deep-sea bed (A6)

Map: SAP_263 Version: Jun11

Connectivity - littoral sediment (A2) Map showing 40 and 80 km buffers around all of the EUNIS level 2 habitat littoral sediment that is covered within pMCZs.

5°33'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°33'0"W

37.5

3°32'30"W

75 km

2°32'0"W

6 nautical mile limit 12 nautical mile limit

Zone within a pMCZ 51°10'0"NPotential reference area

SAC SPA SSSI Lundy NTZ

EXMOOR

D R AF

Existing MPAs

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

THE NEW FOREST

DARTMOOR

50°9'30"N

49°9'0"N

EUNIS level 2 habitats

EUNIS level 2 habitat in pMCZs

Littoral rock (A1)

Littoral sediment (A2)

40km buffer around Littoral sediment (A2)

Infralittoral rock (A3)

80km buffer around Littoral sediment (A2)

Circalittoral rock (A4) Sublittoral sediment (A5) Deep-sea bed (A6)

Map: SAP_264 Version: Jun11

Connectivity - infralittoral rock (A3) Map showing 40 and 80 km buffers around all of the EUNIS level 2 habitat infralittoral rock that is covered within pMCZs.

5°33'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°33'0"W

37.5

3°32'30"W

75 km

2°32'0"W

6 nautical mile limit 12 nautical mile limit

Zone within a pMCZ 51°10'0"NPotential reference area

SAC SPA SSSI Lundy NTZ

EXMOOR

D R AF

Existing MPAs

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

THE NEW FOREST

DARTMOOR

50°9'30"N

49°9'0"N

EUNIS level 2 habitats

EUNIS level 2 habitat in pMCZs

Littoral rock (A1)

Infralittoral rock (A3)

Littoral sediment (A2)

40km buffer around Infralittoral rock (A3)

Infralittoral rock (A3)

80km buffer around Infralittoral rock (A3)

Circalittoral rock (A4) Sublittoral sediment (A5) Deep-sea bed (A6)

Map: SAP_265 Version: Jun11

Connectivity - circalittoral rock (A4) Map showing 40 and 80 km buffers around all of the EUNIS level 2 habitat circalittoral rock that is covered within pMCZs.

Work in progress 9°17'30"W Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

7°17'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°16'30"W

110 km

3°16'0"W

6 nautical mile limit 12 nautical mile limit

Zone within a pMCZ Potential reference area

SAC 50°52'30"N SPA SSSI Lundy NTZ

49°32'0"N

48°11'30"N

EXMOOR

D R AF

Existing MPAs

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

THE NEW FOREST

DARTMOOR

EUNIS level 2 habitats

EUNIS level 2 habitat in pMCZs

Littoral rock (A1)

Circalittoral rock (A4)

Littoral sediment (A2)

40km buffer around circalittoral rock (A4)

Infralittoral rock (A3)

80km buffer around circalittoral rock (A4)

Circalittoral rock (A4) Sublittoral sediment (A5) Deep-sea bed (A6)

Map: SAP_262 Version: Jun11

Connectivity - sublittoral sediment (A5) Map showing 40 and 80 km buffers around all of the EUNIS level 2 habitat sublittoral sediment that is covered within pMCZs.

7°17'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°16'30"W

110 km

3°16'0"W

6 nautical mile limit 12 nautical mile limit

Zone within a pMCZ Potential reference area

SAC

50°52'30"N

SPA SSSI Lundy NTZ

49°32'0"N

48°11'30"N

EXMOOR

D R AF

Existing MPAs

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

THE NEW FOREST

DARTMOOR

EUNIS level 2 habitats

Sublittoral sediment (A5)

Littoral rock (A1)

40km buffer around sublittoral sediment (A5)

Littoral sediment (A2)

80km buffer around sublittoral sediment (A5)

Infralittoral rock (A3) Circalittoral rock (A4) Sublittoral sediment (A5) Deep-sea bed (A6)

Areas of additional ecological importance The third progress report indicated some of the difficulties in applying the ENG guidelines for areas of additional importance. Nevertheless, many of the sites within the network configuration occur in areas of added ecological importance.

AF T

The network includes 10 pMCZs with estuaries: The Axe, Otter, Dart, Devon Avon, Erme, Tamar Estuary sites, Upper Fowey and Pont Pill, Newquay and the Gannel, the Camel, and the Taw Torridge Estuary . Estuaries are of added ecological importance because of their high levels of productivity and ecological function as spawning and nursery areas. The set included in the network represents a range of sizes and types of estuary (including rias and bar-built estuaries).

In the offshore, the network includes several sites that intersect areas of higher than average observed bird densities, frontal activity (indicative of high pelagic productivity), and topographic interest features : the Celtic Deep, East of Celtic Deep, Western Channel, Greater Haig Fras and Canyons pMCZs are of note. Further inshore, the South of Falmouth and South-East of Falmouth pMCZs coincide with Many of the pMCZs, especially in the inshore, also coincide with areas of higher than average benthic biodiversity, both compared against a national and a regional average.

An interactive map is provided alongside this report which allows visual assessment of the overlaps between the sites in the current network and areas of high benthic biodiversity, high pelagic interest, and frequent frontal areas.

II.2.5 Potential reference area summary

AF T

The ENG stipulate that each listed broad-scale habitat and FOCI needs to be represented within a reference area, with additional guidelines stipulating minimum reference area or feature patch sizes: • Broad-scale habitats need to be represented in reference areas with a minimum dimension of 5km, although the patch of habitat can be smaller. [Since the publication of the ENG, the SAP and SNCBs have advised that intertidal broad-scale habitats can be represented in smaller-sized reference areas, so the 5km-rule has only been applied to subtidal broad-scale habitats]. • FOCI each have their own minimum viable patch size guidelines, i.e. a minimum patch size of each feature needs to be represented in a reference area (refer to tables 7 and 8 in the ENG). It is unrealistic to have reference areas of a minimum dimension of 5km close to the shoreline. As a result, there has been a preference for finding larger potential reference areas away from the coastline within which to represent subtidal broad-scale habitats, and smaller potential reference areas nearer the coastline within which to represent FOCI.

Because most of our FOCI data consists of point samples, we do not know what patch sizes are present where. In order to do our best to develop reference areas that meet the viability criterion for FOCI, we have instead ensured that (as far as possible) the size of the reference area is big enough to contain the minimum patch size for a feature.

The conservation objectives for all ENG features within the boundaries of a potential reference area, by default, will be “recover to reference condition”. Within reference areas, management of human activities will apply within the whole site, not to individual features (see the draft reference area guidance document7). All ENG features present in a site should be included on the conservation objectives list, even if the minimum size guidelines are not met for some of them. As an example, most of the small inshore potential reference areas contain subtidal broad-scale habitats, which will have conservation objectives. However, if they fall below the 5km size guideline, a larger reference area is still needed to represent the same subtidal habitats in, before the ENG can be considered met for representing those particular habitats in reference areas. Table II.2.5a*** shows the ENG-listed seafloor features contained within each of the potential reference areas, which is a working list of the features that will have conservation objectives. Table II.2.5a*** shows that our current set of reference area represents 9 subtidal broadscale habitats, 8 intertidal broad-scale habitats, 9 FOCI habitats and 9 FOCI species. If the ENG were followed to the letter, only the first column would count towards these figures. However, given the acknowledgement that the 5km guideline for intertidal broad-scale habitats is unrealistic, the 8 intertidal broad-scale habitats in the second column are also

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

counted. Tables II.2.5b*** to II.2.5e*** give more detail on what the current set of reference areas represent, on a feature-by-feature basis.

AF T

The only three subtidal broad-scale habitats not represented in the current set of potential reference areas are low energy infralittoral and circalittoral rock (both of which are of very limited distribution), and subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment, which we can assume is adequately represented at the FOCI level, by having represented seagrass beds and maërl beds (Table II.2.5b***). The only two intertidal broad-scale habitats not represented (counting all the ones represented in the small inshore areas) are intertidal sand and muddy sand, and intertidal biogenic reefs (table II.2.5c***). The latter can be assumed to be represented through intertidal Sabellaria alveolata reefs in the Lyme Bay potential reference area.

Of the FOCI habitats present in the study region, 9 are represented in the set of potential reference areas, whilst 5 are not represented (table II.5.d***). Of the 29 FOCI species on the ENG list, 10 are represented in the set of potential reference areas (table II.5.e***). An additional three (the red seaweeds Grateloupia montagnei and Cruoria cruoriaeformis, and Couch’s goby Gobius couchi) are present in the Fal potential reference area, which is a little smaller than the minimum size requirement of 1km. Enlarging this site westwards, however, would not capture more of the same habitat (maërl and seagrass beds), as the depth increases to the west – so enlarging the site to meet the minimum size guidelines would probably not provide more habitat suitable for these species. The lagoon sea slug Tenellia adspersa has been recorded in The Fleet potential reference area, but because the site only covers part of the lagoon, this has not been counted.

Table II.2.5a *** ENG-listed seafloor features contained within each of the potential reference areas. These features will have conservation objectives. Features for which the minimum viable size guidelines are met are in the first column. Features for which minimum viable size guidelines are not met, but which are present in the site and will have conservation objectives, are in the second column. Green text highlights intertidal broad-scale habitats, where technically the viable size guidelines are not met, but the feature still counts as represented within reference areas. Viable size guidelines met

Viable size guidelines not met

The Canyons Broad-scale habitats Deep-sea bed FOCI habitats Cold water coral reefs

Greater Haig Fras Broad-scale habitats Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal mud Subtidal sand Celtic Deep Broad-scale habitats FOCI habitats Mud Habitats in Deep Water South Dorset Broad-scale habitats High energy circalittoral rock

Subtidal mud

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal mixed sediments FOCI habitats Subtidal chalk South-East of Portland Bill Broad-scale habitats FOCI habitats Blue Mussel beds

Subtidal coarse sediment Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds1 Intertidal coarse sediments1 Intertidal mud1 Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms1 Seagrass Beds Tenellia adspersa 2

AF T

The Fleet Broad-scale habitats

High energy circalittoral rock

FOCI habitats FOCI species Lyme Bay Broad-scale habitats

High energy infralittoral rock Subtidal mixed sediments Intertidal coarse sediments1

FOCI habitats Sabellaria alveolata reefs FOCI species Haliclystus auricula Padina pavonica

Erme Estuary Broad-scale habitats

Low energy infralittoral rock Subtidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds1 Intertidal mixed sediments1 Intertidal mud1

FOCI habitats Sheltered muddy gravels

Mouth of the Yealm Broad-scale habitats

FOCI habitats

The Fal Broad-scale habitats

FOCI habitats Maërl Beds Seagrass Beds FOCI species Lithothamnion corallioides

High energy intertidal rock1 Intertidal coarse sediments1 Moderate energy intertidal rock1 Estuarine rocky habitats3 Seagrass Beds3 Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment Subtidal sand Intertidal coarse sediments1 Low energy intertidal rock1

Cruoria cruoriaeformis 4

Ostrea edulis Phymatolithon calcareum

Gobius couchi 4 Grateloupia montagnei 4

Swanpool 5 FOCI species

AF T

Cape Bank Broad-scale habitats High energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment FOCI species Palinurus elephas 6 Eunicella verrucosa6 Lundy Broad-scale habitats

Victorella pavida

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Mud Habitats in Deep Water

FOCI habitats Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats FOCI species Amphianthus dohrnii Eunicella verrucosa Leptopsammia pruvoti Palinurus elephas Phymatolithon calcareum 1 None of the intertidal broad-scale habitats are represented in potential reference areas that meet the minimum size guideline (5km), but recent SAP and SNCB advice has recognised that the size guideline is not realistic for intertidal habitats. The intertidal habitats have been highlighted in green to show that we are considering these to be represented within the current set of potential reference areas (unlike the other features listed in the second column). 2 The minimum patch size for Tenellia adspersa is the whole feature. As this potential reference area does not cover the entire Fleet Lagoon, this site does not meet the minimum size guidance for this species. 3 The Mouth of the Yealm potential reference area only covers the intertidal. Estuarine rocky habitats and Seagrass beds may be present in the intertidal, or they might only be found only in the subtidal area. If the latter is the case, the features should come off the list for this site. [We do not have a definitive low water line to use to delimit this site, nor to use in spatial analyses – please refer to the site report for this potential reference area for details ***]. 4 The Fal potential reference area, is a little smaller than the minimum size requirement of 1km. Enlarging this site westwards, however, would not capture more of the same habitat (maërl and seagrass beds), as the depth increases to the west – so enlarging the site to meet the minimum size guidelines would probably not provide more habitat suitable for these species. 5 The Swanpool Lagoon in Falmouth is the only place in English waters where the trembling sea mat Victorella pavida has been recorded. It would need to be a reference area in order to meet the ENG. However, the site falls above the OS Boundary Line mean high water line, which is the line we use to define the limit of our study region. 6 There are no records in our spatial datasets of these species within the boundaries of this site, but a recent NE SAC survey (***reference) confirmed the presence of both species on Cape Bank. We therefore assume these species are represented within this site.

Table II.2.5b***Replication of subtidal broad-scale habitats within the current set of potential reference areas Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Minimum viable Replicates in potential patch size reference areas 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km

1 1

AF T

High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Low energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Low energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment Deep-sea bed

2 3 2 1 1 2 1

Table II.2.5c*** Replication of intertidal broad-scale habitats within the current set of potential reference areas Intertidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Minimum viable Replicates in reference patch size1 areas

High energy intertidal rock 5 km 1 Moderate energy intertidal rock 5 km 1 Low energy intertidal rock 5 km 1 Intertidal coarse sediments 5 km 4 Intertidal sand and muddy sand 5 km Intertidal mud 5 km 2 Intertidal mixed sediments 5 km 1 Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds 5 km 2 Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms 5 km 1 Intertidal biogenic reefs 5 km 1 Intertidal broad-scale habitats present in sites that are smaller than the minimum have been counted as represented – see main text for explanation.

Table II.2.5d***Replication of FOCI habitats within the current set of potential reference areas Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Minimum viable Replicates in reference patch size areas 1 1

AF T

Blue Mussel beds 0.5 km Cold-water coral reefs Whole feature Coral gardens+ None given Deep-sea sponge aggregations+ 5 km Estuarine rocky habitats 0.5 km File shell beds+ 0.5 Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats 0.5 km Intertidal underboulder communities 0.5 km Littoral chalk communities+ 1 km Maërl Beds 0.5 km Modiolus modiolus beds+ 0.5 km Mud Habitats in Deep Water 1 km Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities 1 km Ostrea edulis beds+ 0.5 km Peat and clay exposures 0.5 km Sabellaria alveolata reefs 0.5 km Sabellaria spinulosa reefs 0.5 km Seagrass Beds 0.5 km Sheltered muddy gravels 0.5 km Subtidal chalk 0.5 km + There are no records for this habitat in the Finding Sanctuary area. * One of the replicates for this feature is from records prior to 1980.

1 2 1 1

Table II.2.5e***Replication of FOCI species within the current set of potential reference areas Species of conservation importance Species (Latin name) Common name Min. patch size Replicates

AF T

Alkmaria romijni Tentacled lagoon-worm 0.5 Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-fan Anemone 0.5 1 Arctica islandica Ocean quahog 0.5 Armandia cirrhosa Lagoon Sandworm Whole feature Atrina pectinata Fan Mussel 0.5 Caecum armoricum Defolin’s lagoon snail 1 1 Cruoria cruoriaeformis Burgundy maërl paint weed 1 Eunicella verrucosa 2 Pink Sea-fan 5 1 Gammarus insensibilis Lagoon sand shrimp 0.5 Gitanopsis bispinosa Amphipod shrimp 1 Gobius cobitis Giant Goby 1 Gobius couchi 3 Couch’s Goby 1 4 Grateloupia montagnei Grateloup's little-lobed weed 1 Haliclystus auricula Stalked jellyfish 0.5 1 Hippocampus guttulatus Long snouted seahorse 0.5 Hippocampus hippocampus Short snouted seahorse 0.5 Leptopsammia pruvoti Sunset Cup Coral 0.5 1 Lithothamnion corallioides Coral Maërl 0.5 1 Lucernariopsis campanulata Stalked jellyfish 1 Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis Stalked jellyfish 1 Nematostella vectensis Starlet sea anemone 0.5 Ostrea edulis Native Oyster 0.5 1 Padina pavonica Peacock’s tail 0.5 1 Palinurus elephas 5 Spiny Lobster 5 1 Paludinella littorina Sea snail 1 Phymatolithon calcareum 6 Common Maërl 0.5 1 Pollicipes pollicipes Gooseneck Barnacle 0.5 7 Tenellia adspersa Lagoon sea slug Whole feature 1 Victorella pavida 8 Trembling sea mat Whole feature 1 1, 3, 4 Species is present within the Fal potential reference area, which has a minimum dimension of 0.71km, slightly less than the required 1km. 2 The reference area where this feature is located has a minimum dimension of 0.85km, significantly less than the required 5km. An additional viable replicate has been added for the Cape Bank reference area following communication from Natural England, who found this feature in the area during SAC surveys 5 This is counted as represented within Cape Bank potential reference area. Although we have no records of the species in our spatial datasets, Natural England have recently recorded the species on Cape Bank (***reference). 6 This replicate is from records prior to 1980. 7 This feature is represented in the Fleet Lagoon, only part of which is covered by a reference area. 8 Victorella pavida is only found within Swanpool Lagoon in Falmouth. This may not be considered and area within the project boundary, as it lies about the OS Boundary Line mean high water line.

AF T

II.3 Site-level reports for offshore pMCZs

The Canyons pMCZ site report

II.3.1 The Canyons pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

48.3333

-9.6799

48° 20' 0'' N'

9° 40' 47' W'

Site area: 664 km2

AF T

Decimal Degrees

Biogeographic region:

JNCC regional sea: Atlantic South West Approaches and Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N). Site boundary

The shape of the site is a simple rectangle, in line with ENG guidelines. The northern, northwestern and southern boundary sections align with the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The south-western and eastern boundary sections were drawn as straight N-S lines. The site was placed on the top edge of the shelf break, and it includes small slivers of continental shelf broad-scale habitats along the eastern boundary, in addition to the “deep sea” broad-scale habitat beyond the shelf break. This positioning was deliberate, in order to capture as much of the depth range along the steep shelf slopes as possible, thereby maximising the biodiversity within the site. Environmental site summary

This site is located in the far south-west corner of our study region and of the UK’s continental shelf area. It is more than 330 km from Land’s End. The area is unique within the context of England’s extensive but largely shallow shelf seas. It is located on the continental shelf break, which drops steeply from the continental shelf to the oceanic abyss. The depth within the site ranges from 200m at the eastern edge of the site, to 2000m in the west. Within the site, there are two large canyons that indent the shelf break, further adding to the topographic complexity of the seafloor. The site boundaries were drawn for the site to be located on the steep part of the shelf break, to cover areas of diverse seafloor habitat within the “deep sea” category, including canyons and deep sea corals, mapped from survey data supplied by the JNCC (***ref to 86

The Canyons pMCZ site report

MESH Canyons survey). This is high-quality seafloor habitat data, which has been used in addition to our EUNIS level 3 habitat data (***described in appendix 4), and it is shown on one of the maps at the end of this site report. It shows a range of seafloor habitats present, including bedrock and a range of sediments varying from mud to coarse sediments.

AF T

There is a small patch of live deep-water coral reef (Lophelia pertusa reef), located on the northern flank of the northernmost canyon in the site. This is the only living deep-water coral reef recorded within England’s seas (other deep-water coral reefs occur along the continental shelf break off Scotland and Ireland). There are more extensive patches of biogenic rubble present in the site, on the shallower spurs separating the deep canyons. This is an indication that the coral reef habitat may have been much more extensive in the past.

The site also covers and area of additional ecological importance in terms of its pelagic environment. There is upwelling of deep, nutrient-rich waters along the shelf break, as is indicated by persistent sea surface temperature fronts located along the sea surface above the shelf break (see map ***OWG and the biophysical interactive PDF presented along with this report). The area attracts higher than average numbers of seabirds and cetaceans. Features proposed for designation within The Canyons pMCZ

Feature

Conservation Objective

Deep-sea bed Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Cold-water coral reefs seabirds cetaceans

recover recover recover recover ? ?

The inclusion of seabirds and cetaceans on the conservation objective feature list for this site was discussed at length within the JWG, in the full understanding of SAP feedback following progress report 3, and the JNCC’s position that they would not support conservation objectives for mobile species in offshore pMCZs. The group could not reach a conclusion on the matter. See section *** for details. Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats present in this pMCZ. Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Deep-sea bed

0.1 4.0 658.9

% of total in study area < 0.1% < 0.1% 41.1%

The Canyons pMCZ site report

Table***d FOCI habitats present in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Cold-water coral reefs Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (total) 1

Number of point records (pre-1980)

12.3

AF T

Table ***c Habitats mapped by JNCC from seafloor survey data, represented within this pMCZ. Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) 0.17 Communities of Deep-Sea Corals 5.22 Deep Circalittoral Coarse Sediment 27.93 Deep-Sea Bedrock 57.08 Deep-Sea Biogenic Gravel 160.37 Deep-Sea Mixed Substrata 114.46 Deep-Sea Mud 15.24 Deep-Sea Sand

% of total in study area 100 7.4 65.6 92.3 54.8 81.9 61.3

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. The recent vulnerability assessment work has resulted in a review of these assumptions, to ensure that they are as realistic as possible, i.e. a reflection of what is likely to happen should the site be implemented. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ. In the table below, the first column shows assumptions about activity restrictions, i.e. whether or not activities would be allowed to continue within a site, or whether they might

The Canyons pMCZ site report

need to be restricted or excluded. These assumptions are based on a consideration of whether an activity would prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. In addition, the first column also includes comments on the likely management needed, based on the vulnerability assessment discussions. If an activity is deemed incompatible with conservation objectives, it will not necessarily require management that is new and specific to this site. Whether or not management is likely to be put in place depends on the extent to which the activity is happening, and on whether existing management is already in place (e.g. through licensing).

AF T

The second column lists implications, based on the assumptions made, as highlighted by stakeholders during working group meetings and Steering Group meetings. Note that this column reflects the considerations that were recorded and discussed during the planning discussions. It is not a replication of the Impact Assessment, and is not intended to be comprehensive.

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to The Canyons pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal, following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not Direct implications: be allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK (For this specific pMCZ, the implications for the non-UK fleet will be the most significant. This is relevant to Likely management: Prohibition of bottom-towed gear types within the longliners more than bottom-towed gear fishermen). site. o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots & static gear & cause difficulties for sea anglers. (**realistic implication?**) Anchoring of large vessels will not Direct implications: be allowed (except in emergencies). Likely management: none. Aggregate extraction will not be Direct implications: allowed. o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and Likely management: none (beyond discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in standard existing licensing / EIA MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and requirements). management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant

The Canyons pMCZ site report

impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. **This site does not coincide with realistically exploitable aggregate resource. Remove these implications?** Direct implications:

AF T

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear (except netting Direct implications: and longlining) will be permitted, o No tow zones will be inundated with pots & static gear & but there may need to be a limit on cause difficulties for sea anglers. (**realistic implication?**) the amount of static gear used in o the area. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Netting will not be allowed. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be necessary Longlining will not be allowed. o There would be costs if monitoring is needed (e.g. the introduction of static gear controls would require Changed to: monitoring) Demersal static fishing gear (which impacts the seafloor, e.g. potting, set netting, set lines) will not be allowed where the most sensitive feature occurs: cold water coral reef (Uncertainty over biogenic rubble (text moved from the left column): areas?). Reasons for changed assumptions: Demersal static fishing gear can Vulnerability assessment of seafloor features indicated continue to be used elsewhere in especially high vulnerability of cold water coral reefs; mobile the site. species (seabirds and cetaceans) not considered as features Pelagic static fishing gear (which needing protection when the vulnerability assessment was does not impact the seafloor) will carried out with JNCC specialists. be allowed to continue everywhere Likely management: Prohibition of demersal static fishing within the site. gear where the sensitive coral reefs occur (and where the There may need to be an overall biogenic rubble occurs?) limit on the amount of static gear used in the site, but present levels are assumed to be ok. The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing

Direct implications:

The Canyons pMCZ site report

cables will be allowed to stay operational). Likely management: None (Note comment on UNCLOS below) Direct implications: o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000£400,000 per km , possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables.

If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets.

AF T

The installation and maintenance of cables will be permitted and will not be made prohibitively expensive within the site. This applies to power cables (including cables for renewable energy devices), and telecommunications cables.

In this site, any new cables would have to be routed around the most sensitive canyon seafloor habitat, (areas of live deep-sea coral and biogenic rubble, where coral may recover). Likely management: None

The Canyons pMCZ site report

exception of the Atlantic Array and West of Wight sites), the Working Groups have tended to plan the sites away from the areas of most interest to renewable developments.

Likely management:None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

AF T

However, there is some outstanding uncertainty over whether an MCZ designation would make a difference to EIA / mitigation requirements and costs. Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment.

Likely management: None. Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted.

Addition to this assumption: In this site, anchoring would not be permitted where the coral reef (&biogenic rubble?) occurs, as the impact would theoretically not be compatible with the conservation objectives – but this activity is unlikely to happen in reality. **No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?** Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA

Direct implications:

The Canyons pMCZ site report

requirements).

However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation

AF T

Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be permitted. Handlining includes sea o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and angling and trolling. recreational activity

Likely management: none.

Pelagic trawls will be permitted, with mitigation against bycatch of cetaceans and birds.

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Handliners might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be necessary o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Direct implications:

Changed to: Pelagic trawls will be allowed to continue. Reason for changed assumption:

Mobile species (seabirds and cetaceans) not considered as features needing protection when the vulnerability assessment was carried out with JNCC specialists. Likely management: none. Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Likely management: none. Passage of ships will be permitted Likely management: none. Acoustic survey work (geological surveys) will not be allowed.

Military Sonar will not be allowed. Changed to:

No added restrictions on acoustic work or military sonar resulting from an MCZ designation in this site.

Direct implications:

The Canyons pMCZ site report

Reason for change: Cetaceans were not considered as a feature for protection in this site when the vulnerability assessment was carried out with JNCC experts.

AF T

Likely management: none. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to: No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table).

Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: none.

Uncertainties •

Relating to the assumption that bottom-towed fishing will not be allowed, the question has been raised over how much of that activity actually happens in this site. A suggestion was made at the February 2011 Steering Group meeting to analyse VMS data, and corroborate it with sightings data.

Levels of support • Concerns around possible impacts on fishing (especially, non-UK longlining fleets) have been raised. These would be reduced if longlining was considered compatible with the protection of the features in the site. • The fishing sector have questioned the rationale for the selection of such a large proportion of the deep sea habitat feature as a pMCZ. • The ecological uniqueness of this area has been recognised widely within the Working Groups and the site has relatively wide support. • Supported by the renewables sector due to the distance from shore.

Additional comments • This is an offshore site, so any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. • A suggestion was made at the February 2011 Steering Group meeting that it may be possible to zone the site, and allow some of the more damaging activities to continue in less sensitive parts of the site. • Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as

The Canyons pMCZ site report

opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). Sites to which the site is related

AF T

The Canyons pMCZ contains potential reference area The Canyons. In approximate figures, the shortest distances to its two nearest neighbouring pMCZs are approximately 30km to the South-West Deeps (East), and around 40km to the South-West Deeps (West), respectively.

The Canyons pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for the Canyons pMCZ Deep-sea bed: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Within the context of the nation MCZ project area, the Deep-sea bed broad-scale habitat is unique to the south-west region and therefore must be represented in the network in order to meet the ENG principle of representativity. Subject to natural change, recover the Deepsea bed to favourable condition by 2020, and maintain thereafter, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Deep-sea bed in the biogeographic region are recovered. Deep-sea bed is sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Physical change (to another seabed type) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) H Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and H penetration ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to seabed H >25mm Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features H Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes - regional/national H Siltation rate changes (high) L-H Siltation rate changes (low) L-H NS-H Organic enrichment Removal of non-target species (lethal) NS-H Removal of target species (lethal) NS-H Temperature changes - regional/national M Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition)

Confidence+ L L L

L L L L L L L L L

Human activities which cause these pressures will need to be managed if they prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved to ensure the MCZ site contributes to an ecologically coherent and well-managed network of Marine Protected Areas.

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

The Canyons pMCZ site report

Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Subtidal coarse sediment is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy. Subject to natural change, recover the Subtidal coarse sediment to favourable condition by 2020, and maintain thereafter, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Subtidal coarse sediment in the biogeographic region are recovered. Subtidal coarse sediment is sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features NS-H Physical change (to another seabed type) M Salinity changes - local L-M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface L-M and penetration ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) Removal of non-target species (lethal) NS-M NS-M Siltation rate changes (high) Siltation rate changes (low) NS-M

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

The Canyons pMCZ site report

Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Subtidal sand is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy. Subject to natural change, recover the Subtidal sand to favourable condition by 2020, and maintain thereafter, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Subtidal sand in the biogeographic region are recovered. Subtidal sand is sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Physical change (to another seabed type) H Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Siltation rate changes (high) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Siltation rate changes (low) M Temperature changes - regional/national M Salinity changes - local L-M Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) NS-M Removal of non-target species (lethal) Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed NS-M surface and penetration ≤25mm Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features NS-M Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes - NS-L regional/national NS-L Water flow (tidal current) changes - local

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

The Canyons pMCZ site report

Cold-water coral reefs: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Within the context of the nation MCZ project area, the Cold-water coral reef FOCI habitat is unique to the south-west region and therefore must be represented in the network in order to meet the ENG principle of representativity. Subject to natural change, recover the Coldwater coral reefs to favourable condition by 2020, and maintain thereafter, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Cold-water coral reefs in the biogeographic region are recovered. Cold-water coral reefs are sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Organic enrichment H Physical change (to another seabed type) H Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) H Removal of non-target species (lethal) H Salinity changes - local H Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed H surface and penetration ≤25mm Siltation rate changes (high) H Siltation rate changes (low) H Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to H seabed >25mm Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features H Temperature changes - local H Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes - H regional/national Water flow (tidal current) changes - local H Temperature changes - regional/national M

Confidence+ L H L H H H H H H H

H L-H L

M L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

The Joint Working Group came to no agreement over whether or not to recommend conservation objectives for seabirds and cetaceans in this pMCZ. No conservation objectives have been written up in this report for these features.

The Canyons pMCZ site report

Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference.

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The map also features the MESH/JNCC Canyons survey data (reference***).

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

100

Map: SAP_203a Version: Jun11

Canyons pMCZ

This is one of a series of maps showing Finding Sanctuary's Network Configuration at 1 June 2011. The blue rectangle on the small map in the bottom corner of this page indicates the location in the south west of the large zoomed map. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM29N. 9°57'30"W

9°52'0"W

9°46'30"W

9°41'0"W

9°35'30"W

9°30'0"W

9°24'30"W

10 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

500

A 48.5000 -9.8000 48° 29' 59'' N 9° 47' 59'' W B 48.5000 -9.5593 48° 29' 59'' N 9° 33' 33'' W

1000

Canyons

48°27'0"N

D R AF

200

C 48.1663 -9.5603 48° 9' 58'' N 9° 33' 37'' W D 48.1667 -9.8001 48° 10' 0'' N 9° 48' 0'' W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary 48°22'30"N

10 0 0

Canyons

48°13'30"N

48°9'0"N

200

48°18'0"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

12 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_203b Version: Jun11

Canyons pMCZ

This is one of a series of maps showing broad-scale habitats, habitat FOCI and species FOCI. The blue rectangle on the small map in the bottom corner of this page indicates the location in the south west of the large zoomed map. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM29N. 10°0'0"W

9°51'30"W

9°43'0"W

9°34'30"W

10 km

9°26'0"W

9°17'30"W

Canyons

D R AF

48°27'0"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

48°20'30"N

Canyons

48°14'0"N

Map Legend

6 nautical mile limit

12 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Deep Sea Biotopes (JNCC survey data) Communities of Deep-Sea Corals

Deep Circalittoral Coarse Sediment Deep-Sea Bedrock Deep-Sea Biogenic Gravel Deep-Sea Mixed Substrata Deep-Sea Mud Deep-Sea Sand A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

II.3.2 South-West Deeps (West) Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

48.7304

-8.4090

48° 43' 49'' N 8° 24' 32' W'

AF T

Long

Site area: 1,831.4 km2 Biogeographic region:

JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary

The western boundary of this site follows the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The NE / SW orientation of the longest boundary section is in parallel with the main boundary section of the South-West Deeps (East) site, in order to allow mobile gear fishermen to continue using the “corridor” in between the sites (fishing representatives have stated that mobile gear fishermen using this area predominantly tow their gear in along tracks that follow a NW/SW orientation). The remaining site boundaries were drawn using simple lines and minimum nodes, in line with ENG guidelines. Environmental site summary

The site comprises an area of continental shelf sea where the seafloor habitat dominated by subtidal mixed sediment and subtidal sand. The eastern site boundary is approximately 230km SW of Land’s End. The area is included in the network in order to meet ENG broadscale habitat targets. The depth of the site is between 100 and 200m. The site is crossed by Celtic Sea Relict Sandbanks in a NE-SW direction (these sandbanks are listed as a geological / geomorphological interest feature in the ENG). The area has also been highlighted by conservation representatives on the JWG as a foraging ground for seabirds during the summer.

103

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

Features proposed for designation within South-west Deeps (West) pMCZ Feature

Conservation Objective

Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mixed sediments Celtic sea relict sandbanks seabirds (summer, zoned)

maintain * recover recover maintain ?

AF T

* As highlighted in sections ***sections I.2.3, ***I.2.4 and ***II.2.2, the most recent JNCC advice is that this should be “recover”. It therefore has been written up as “recover” at the end of this site report.

The inclusion of seabirds on the conservation objective feature list for this site was discussed at length within the JWG, in the full understanding of SAP feedback following progress report 3, and the JNCC’s position that they would not support conservation objectives for mobile species in offshore pMCZs. The group could not reach a conclusion on the matter. See section *** for details. Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

Table ##.#.##a Subtidal broad-scale habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) 240.4 1580.4 7.0

0.8% 4.7% 0.2%

Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mixed sediments

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total)

Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

1590.1

Table ##.#.##e Geological and geomorphological features to be protected in this pMCZ. Geological and geomorphological features Feature Area covered (km2) % of total in study area Celtic Sea relict sandbanks

133.4

10.2%

104

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

AF T

The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ. In the table below, the first column shows assumptions about activity restrictions, i.e. whether or not activities would be allowed to continue within a site, or whether they might need to be restricted or excluded. These assumptions are based on a consideration of whether an activity would prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. In addition, the first column also includes comments on the likely management needed, based on the vulnerability assessment discussions. If an activity is deemed incompatible with conservation objectives, it will not necessarily require management that is new and specific to this site. Whether or not management is likely to be put in place depends on the extent to which the activity is happening, and on whether existing management is already in place (e.g. through licensing).

In ***sections I.2.3, ***I.2.4 and ***II.2.2, we highlight that since the completion of our offshore vulnerability assessment, and our subsequent April JWG meeting, the SNCBs have undertaken a national-scale review of the advice they have been providing to regional projects during the vulnerability assessment meetings. As a result, their advice has changed for this pMCZ. At the time of the April JWG meeting, the advice was that bottom-towed fishing gear may be permitted within part of the site. However, based on the latest feedback, we need to revert the assumption on bottom-towed fishing gear back to that recorded in progress report 3, i.e. that it would not be allowed within the site (the relevant row in the table below is marked by a red tilde ~). As the JNCC’s updated advice was received by the project team several weeks after the April JWG, there has not yet been an opportunity to discuss it (and its implications) with the JWG.

105

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to the South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). The red tilde ~ indicates a change from the tables presented at the April JWG meeting (see main text). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal, following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies) o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be allowed. Direct implications: Likely management: None (beyond o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the standard existing licensing / EIA mineral resources are geologically located – in requirements). highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. Direct implications: That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. ~ Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be Direct implications: allowed (includes benthic trawling and o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear hydraulic dredging) fishermen, both UK and non-UK (but loss further offshore would be less bad than loss of grounds inshore) Likely management: Prohibition of o Loss of earnings for south-west / Newlyn bottom-towed gear types within the site. beamers o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (**realistic implication?**)

106

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear (except netting and Direct implications: longlining in the zone that includes water o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and column protection) will be permitted, but static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers there may need to be a limit on the **realistic implication?** amount of static gear used in the area. Given this assumption, there are still the Changed to: following concerns: Static fishing gear will be permitted, but o Static gear fishermen might face possible there may ned to be a limit on the amount additional costs if mitigation measures are of static gear used in the area. needed Likely management: None. o There would be costs if monitoring is needed The installation and maintenance of cables Direct implications: will be permitted and will not be made o prohibitively expensive within the site. This If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a applies to power cables (including cables for renewable energy devices), and feature or site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up telecommunications cables. to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables Likely management: None o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated It is our understanding that UNCLOS states with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. that the freedom to lay cables outside territorial waters is one of the basic o If there are costs associated with co-location of freedoms of the high seas, and that nations renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of are to have due regard to pipelines and cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of cables already in position, the repair of which should not be prejudiced. Therefore, deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, and Government in terms of loss of operational even where it would prevent conservation revenue, missing EU climate change targets. objectives from being achieved. The operation of cables (power and Direct implications: telecommunications) & pipelines will be o permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational) Likely management: None

107

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: PT comment: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for Currently, this assumption is recorded for renewable energy developments. This could all sites, except reference areas. However, result in: based on SAP feedback the assumption - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring cannot apply to all sites in the network. The compatibility of renewable energy - delays to renewables development developments in any single site remains an o If there are costs associated with co-location of uncertainty. Note that (with the exception renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term of the Atlantic Array and West of Wight (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector sites), the Working Groups have tended to in terms of deployment of wind and wave plan the sites away from the areas of most developments. This may have serious interest to renewable developments. implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU Likely management: None (beyond climate change targets. standard existing licensing / EIA o Enforced co-location with MCZs would requirements). dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: However, there is some outstanding o If co-location assumptions are not correct the uncertainty over whether an MCZ impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t designation would make a difference to EIA be developed, increased costs (the implications / mitigation requirements and costs. could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be permitted. o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure Handlining includes sea angling and and recreational activity trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the Likely management: None. following concerns: o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

AF T

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted.

108

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

Longlining will not be allowed within the Direct implications: zone that includes water column protection (but will be permitted in the rest of the site)

Netting will not be allowed within the zone that includes water column protection (but will be permitted in the rest of the site). (text moved from left column) Reason for changed assumption: Mobile species (seabirds and cetaceans) not considered as features needing protection when the vulnerability assessment was carried out with JNCC specialists.

AF T

Pelagic trawls will be permitted, with mitigation against bycatch of cetaceans and birds. Changed to: Pelagic longlining, pelagic netting and pelagic trawls will be allowed to continue (for static gear, see previous).

Likely management: None.

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.) Likely management: None. Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted.

Direct implications:

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted Likely management: None.

**No heritage wrecks currently present remove this line?** Likely management: None.

Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to:

No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table). Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: None.

109

Direct implications:

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support • All stakeholders present at the OWG meeting, except commercial fishermen, were supportive of the sea floor and water column protection zone within this site. • Supported by renewables sector due to distance from shore

AF T

Additional comments • This is an offshore site, so any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. • The area has been highlighted through a Marxan analysis as an area of lower than average fishing utility, which was an additional reason (in addition to representing BSH) for developing building blocks in the region to begin with. • By meeting targets far offshore you can reduce the number of sites needed closer inshore; and sites closer to shore will be of higher value to the fishing industry. • A Steering Group member commented that pelagic fishing is present in the area, it was not clear whether this comment referred to fishing mentioned above under assumptions (e.g. netting), or whether it refers to other types of pelagic fishing activity. • Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). Sites to which the site is related

The South-west Deeps (West) pMCZ neighbours the South-west Deeps (East) pMCZ, The Canyons pMCZ and The Canyons potential reference area.

The nearest neighbouring pMCZ is South-West Deeps (East), separated by a corridor approximately 27km in width. The Canyons pMCZ (and potential reference are within it) is approximately 40km to the south-west of the southernmost boundary.

110

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features NS-H Physical change (to another seabed type) M Salinity changes - local L-M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface L-M and penetration ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) Removal of non-target species (lethal) NS-M Siltation rate changes (high) NS-M Siltation rate changes (low) NS-M

Confidence+ L L L L L L L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

111

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity+ Physical change (to another seabed type) H Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Siltation rate changes (high) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Siltation rate changes (low) M Temperature changes - regional/national M Salinity changes - local L-M Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) Removal of non-target species (lethal) NS-M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed NS-M surface and penetration ≤25mm Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features NS-M Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes - NS-L regional/national Water flow (tidal current) changes - local NS-L

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

112

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

Subtidal mixed sediments: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Subtidal mixed sediments is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy. Subject to natural change, recover the Subtidal mixed sediments to favourable condition by 2020, and maintain thereafter, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Subtidal mixed sediments in the biogeographic region are recovered. Subtidal mixed sediments is sensitive to the pressures:

Pressure Physical change (to another seabed type) Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) Physical removal (extraction of substratum) Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and penetration ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to seabed >25mm Introduction of microbial pathogens (disease) Salinity changes - local Removal of non-target species (lethal) Siltation rate changes (high) Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features Temperature changes - local Temperature changes - regional/national Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & translocations (competition) Water clarity changes Removal of target species (lethal) Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes regional/national Water flow (tidal current) changes - local Wave exposure changes - local Wave exposure changes - regional/national

Sensitivity H H H H

Confidence L L L L

NS-H NS-H M M M M M L-M

L L M L L L L M

NS-M L NS-L

L M L

NS-L NS-L NS-L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

113

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ site report

Celtic Sea Relict Sandbanks: Maintain in favourable condition

AF T

Celtic Sea Relict Sandbanks are listed in the ENG as a geological / geomorphological feature of importance. Subject to natural change, maintain the Celtic Sea Relict Sandbanks in favourable condition, such that the: - extent - component features - spatial distribution - integrity - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of the Celtic Sea Relict Sandbanks in the biogeographic region are maintained.

The Joint Working Group came to no agreement over whether or not to recommend conservation objectives for seabirds in this pMCZ. No conservation objectives have been written up in this report for seabirds.

Supporting documentation ***To be added. Site map series

On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The map also features the Celtic Sea relict sandbanks.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

114

Map: SAP_204a

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ

Version: Jun11

9°26'0"W

9°17'30"W

9°9'0"W

9°0'30"W

8°52'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

8°43'30"W

8°35'0"W

3.5

8°26'30"W

21 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 49.5000 -9.0500 49° 29' 59'' N 9° 3' 0'' W B 49.5000 -9.0284 49° 30' 0'' N 9° 1' 42'' W

49°19'0"N

D R AF

49°25'30"N

South-West Deeps (West)

49°12'30"N

49°6'0"N

48°59'30"N

E 48.8333 -9.4000 48° 49' 59'' N 9° 24' 0'' W F 49.0000 -9.4000 48° 59' 59'' N 9° 24' 0'' W G 49.0000 -9.2833 48° 59' 59'' N 9° 17' 0'' W H 49.1667 -9.2833 49° 10' 0'' N 9° 17' 0'' W I 49.1667 -9.2000 49° 10' 0'' N 9° 11' 59'' W J 49.3333 -9.2000 49° 19' 59'' N 9° 11' 59'' W K 49.3333 -9.0500 49° 19' 59'' N 9° 3' 0'' W L 49.1641 -8.7184 49° 9' 50'' N 8° 43' 6'' W M 48.9995 -8.9826 48° 59' 58'' N 8° 58' 57'' W

South-West Deeps (East)

D 48.8331 -9.2470 48° 49' 59'' N 9° 14' 49'' W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary 48°53'0"N

C 49.2135 -8.6386 49° 12' 48'' N 8° 38' 18'' W

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_204b

South-West Deeps (West) pMCZ

Version: Jun11

9°48'0"W

9°36'30"W

9°25'0"W

9°13'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

9°2'0"W

8°50'30"W

8°39'0"W

20 km

8°27'30"W

8°16'0"W

49°29'30"N

D R AF

49°20'0"N

South-West Deeps (West)

49°10'30"N

49°1'0"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

48°51'30"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Celtic Sea relict sandbanks A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

South-West Deeps (East)

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

II.3.3 South-west Deeps (East) pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 48.7304 -8.4090

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 48° 43' 49'' N 8° 24' 32' W'

AF T

Site area: 1,831.4 km2 Biogeographic region:

JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary

The southern boundary of this site aligns with the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The NE / SW orientation of the longest boundary section is in parallel with the main boundary section of the South-West Deeps (West) site, in order to allow mobile gear fishermen to continue using the “corridor” in between the sites (fishing representatives have stated that mobile gear fishermen using this area predominantly tow their gear in along tracks that follow a NW/SW orientation). The remaining site boundaries were drawn using simple N-S lines and minimum nodes, in line with ENG guidelines. Environmental site summary

The site comprises an area of continental shelf sea where the seafloor habitat dominated by subtidal mixed sediment and subtidal sand, and a section of the continental shelf break in the far south west corner. The eastern site boundary is approximately 170km SW of Land’s End. The area is included in the network in order to meet ENG broad-scale habitat targets. The depth of the site is between 100 and 200m on the shelf, and between 200m and 1000m in the far south west corner (on the shelf break). The site is crossed by Celtic Sea Relict Sandbanks in a NE-SW direction (these sandbanks are listed as a geological / geomorphological interest feature in the ENG).

117

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

Features proposed for designation within South-west Deeps (East) pMCZ Feature

Conservation Objective

Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Deep-sea bed Celtic sea relict sandbanks

maintain * maintain recover maintain

AF T

Table ##.#.##a Subtidal broad-scale habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) Deep-sea bed Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mud

127.3 1752.5 3946.8

7.9% 6.1% 11.7%

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

3992.5

419.0

31.9%

For additional understanding on how this site is located in relation to areas of high benthic biodiversity, offshore bird aggregation areas, or areas of seasonal or persistent sea surface temperature fronts, please refer to the data layers supplied in the interactive PDF presented alongside this report. Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. The recent vulnerability assessment work has resulted in a review of these assumptions, to ensure that they are as realistic as possible, i.e. a reflection of what is likely to happen should the site be implemented. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. 118

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

AF T

In addition, the first column also includes comments on the likely management needed, based on the vulnerability assessment discussions. If an activity is deemed incompatible with conservation objectives, it will not necessarily require management that is new and specific to this site. Whether or not management is likely to be put in place depends on the extent to which the activity is happening, and on whether existing management is already in place (e.g. through licensing). The second column lists implications, based on the assumptions made, as highlighted by stakeholders during working group meetings and Steering Group meetings. Note that this column reflects the considerations that were recorded and discussed during the planning discussions. It is not a replication of the Impact Assessment, and is not intended to be comprehensive.

In ***sections I.2.3, ***I.2.4, and II.2.2, we highlight that since the completion of our offshore vulnerability assessment, and our subsequent April JWG meeting, the SNCBs have undertaken a national-scale review of the advice they have been providing to regional projects during the vulnerability assessment meetings. As a result, their advice has changed for this pMCZ. At the time of the April JWG meeting, the advice was that bottom-towed fishing gear may be permitted within part of the site. However, based on the latest feedback, we need to revert the assumption on bottom-towed fishing gear back to that recorded in progress report 3, i.e. that it would not be allowed within the site (the relevant row in the table below is marked by a red tilde ~). As the JNCC’s updated advice was received by the project team several weeks after the April JWG, there has not yet been an opportunity to discuss it (and its implications) with the JWG.

119

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to the South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). The red tilde ~ indicates a change from the tables presented at the April JWG meeting (see main text). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal, following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies). Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be allowed. Direct implications: Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, this will have sig. impact on national construction aggregate supply & coast defence. Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. Direct implications: That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. ~ Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be Direct implications: allowed (includes benthic trawling and o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear hydraulic dredging) fishermen, both UK and non-UK (but loss further offshore would be less bad than loss of grounds inshore) Likely management: Prohibition of bottom- o Loss of earnings for south-west / Newlyn towed gear types within the site. beamers o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (**realistic implication?**)

120

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear will be permitted, but Direct implications: there may need to be a limit on the amount o No tow zones will be inundated with pots & of static gear used in the area. static gear & cause difficulties for sea anglers. Likely management: None. (**realistic implication?**) o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be necessary o There would be costs if monitoring is needed (e.g. the introduction of static gear controls would require monitoring) The operation of cables (power and Direct implications: telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational). Likely management: None

121

Direct implications: o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000-£400,000 per km , possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables.If the assumption turns out to be wrong:o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements.o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets.

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted.

PT comment:

AF T

Direct implications: o

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

However, there is some outstanding uncertainty over whether an MCZ designation would make a difference to EIA / If the assumption turns out to be wrong: mitigation requirements and costs. o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Implications Direct implications: o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and recreational activity

Likely management: None.

Assumptions Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted. Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

122

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

Pelagic trawls will be permitted.

Direct implications:

Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted.

Direct implications:

AF T

Likely management: None. Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.) Likely management: None. Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted.

Direct implications:

**No heritage wrecks currently present remove this line?** Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to:

No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table).

Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: None.

Uncertainties

...

Levels of support •

There is beam and otter trawl activity, but this area is less contentious to the fishing sector than other areas considered.

Supported by renewables sector due to distance from shore.

123

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

Additional comments This is an offshore site, so any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP.

•

By meeting targets far offshore you can reduce the number of sites needed closer inshore, sites closer to shore will be of higher value to the fishing industry.

•

The area has been highlighted through a Marxan analysis as an area of lower than average fishing utility, which was an additional reason (in addition to representing BSH) for developing building blocks in the region to begin with.

•

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The South-west Deeps (East) pMCZ neighbours the South-west Deeps (Wast) pMCZ, The Canyons pMCZ and The Canyons potential reference area.

The nearest neighbouring pMCZ is South-West Deeps (West), separated by a corridor approximately 27km in width. The Canyons pMCZ (and potential reference are within it) is approximately 30km to the south-west of the southernmost boundary.

124

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features NS-H Physical change (to another seabed type) M Salinity changes - local L-M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface L-M and penetration ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) NS-M Removal of non-target species (lethal) NS-M Siltation rate changes (high) Siltation rate changes (low) NS-M

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

125

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

Subtidal sand: Maintain in favourable condition

AF T

Subtidal sand is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy. Subject to natural change, maintain the Subtidal sand in favourable condition, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Subtidal sand in the biogeographic region are maintained. Subtidal sand is sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Physical change (to another seabed type) H H Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) Siltation rate changes (high) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Siltation rate changes (low) M Temperature changes - regional/national M Salinity changes - local L-M Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) NS-M Removal of non-target species (lethal) Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed NS-M surface and penetration ≤25mm NS-M Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes - NS-L regional/national Water flow (tidal current) changes - local NS-L

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

126

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

Deep-sea bed: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity+ Physical change (to another seabed type) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) H Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and penetration H ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to seabed >25mm H H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes - regional/national H Siltation rate changes (high) L-H L-H Siltation rate changes (low) Organic enrichment NS-H Removal of non-target species (lethal) NS-H Removal of target species (lethal) NS-H M Temperature changes - regional/national Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & translocations NS-M (competition)

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

127

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L L L L L L

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ site report

Celtic Sea Relict Sandbanks: Maintain in favourable condition

AF T

Brief description of the sources of the best available scientific and stakeholder information used to identify sites and conservation objectives. Include references if possible. SNCBs suggested a “table of survey dates, type of data collected etc”. Include list of ecological datasets relevant to site. BSH: check if modelled, MESH or REC data Local / lay knowledge Site map series

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

128

Map: SAP_205a Version: Jun11

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ

9°23'0"W

9°8'30"W

8°54'0"W

8°39'30"W

8°25'0"W

8°10'30"W

7°56'0"W

7°41'30"W

7°27'0"W

30 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

49°18'0"N

Long

Lat

Long

A 48.5408 -9.1667 48° 32' 26'' N 9° 9' 59'' W

B 49.3657 -7.8333 49° 21' 56'' N 7° 49' 59'' W

100

South-West Deeps (West)

48°57'0"N

48°46'30"N

D R AF

49°7'30"N

C 48.6171 -7.8336 48° 37' 1'' N 7° 50' 0'' W D 48.2276 -9.1667 48° 13' 39'' N 9° 10' 0'' W

South-West Deeps (East)

48°36'0"N

48°25'30"N

200 48°15'0"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

200

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

South-West Deeps (East) pMCZ

49°22'30"N 9°22'30"W

49°10'0"N

48°57'30"N

48°45'0"N

48°32'30"N

48°20'0"N

9°5'0"W

8°47'30"W

8°30'0"W

8°12'30"W

7°55'0"W

7°37'30"W

30 km

7°20'0"W

7°2'30"W

Version: Jun11

South-West Deeps (West)

D R AF

Map: SAP_205b

South-West Deeps (East)

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

Celtic Sea relict sandbanks A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

II.3.4 North-west of Jones Bank pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Long

Lat

Long

49.9151

-8.1936

49° 54' 54'' N'

8° 11' 36' W'

Site area: 399.1 km2

AF T

Lat

Biogeographic region:

JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary

This site is a simple rectangle following N-S and E-W lines, in line with ENG guidelines. Environmental site summary

The site comprises an area of continental shelf sea where the seafloor habitat dominated by subtidal mud. The eastern site boundary is approximately 165km west of Land’s End. The area is included in the network in order to meet ENG broad-scale habitat targets. The depth of the site is between 100 and 200m. The area has been highlighted by conservation representatives on the JWG as a foraging ground for seabirds during the winter.

Features proposed for designation within North-west of Jones Bank pMCZ Conservation Objective

Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal coarse sediment seabirds

recover recover maintain * ?

Feature

131

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

AF T

3.8 5.9 389.5

< 0.1% < 0.1% 6.2%

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

329.3

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal, following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not Direct implications: be allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK Likely management: Prohibition of o Displacement of bottom-towed gear bottom-towed gear types within o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing the site. o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will not Direct implications: be allowed (except in emergencies) o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be Direct implications: allowed o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and Likely management: None (beyond discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in standard existing licensing / EIA MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and requirements). management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national However, there may be added EIA / construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. concerns:o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply & coast defence.

133

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Assumptions

AF T

Dumping and disposal will not be Direct implications: allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site.

Static fishing gear (except netting and longlining in the zone that includes water column protection) will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area. Changed to: Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may ned to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area. Likely management: None. The installation and maintenance of cables will be permitted and will not be made prohibitively expensive within the site. This applies to power cables (including cables for renewable energy devices), and telecommunications cables. Likely management: None It is our understanding that UNCLOS states that the freedom to lay cables outside territorial waters is one of the basic freedoms of the high seas, and that nations are to have due regard to pipelines and cables already in position, the repair of which should not be prejudiced. Therefore, there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, even where it would prevent conservation objectives from being achieved.

134

Implications

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers **realistic implication?** Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Direct implications: o If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets.

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Direct implications: o

Likely management: None

AF T

135

Direct implications:o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns:o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in:additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring- delays to renewables developmento If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment.If the assumption turns out to be wrong:o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Handlining (recreational angling Direct implications: and commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and permitted. Handlining includes sea recreational activity angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Likely management: None. o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Netting will not be allowed within Direct implications: the zone that includes water column protection (but will be permitted in the rest of the site)

Longlining will not be allowed within the zone that includes water column protection (but will be permitted in the rest of the site)

Pelagic trawls will be permitted, but will require mitigation against bycatch for seabirds within the zone that includes water column protection. Mitigation might mean restricting trawling to a depth of water, and not allow it near the surface.

Changed to: Pelagic longlining, pelagic netting and pelagic trawls will be allowed to continue (for static gear, see previous).

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted. Likely management: None. Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Likely management: None.

136

(text copied from left column): Reason for changed assumption: Mobile species (seabirds and cetaceans) not considered as features needing protection when the vulnerability assessment was carried out with JNCC specialists. Likely management: None.

Direct implications:

Direct implications: Direct implications:

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted.

Direct implications:

**No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?** Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to:

AF T

Uncertainties • ...

Levels of support • All stakeholders present at the OWG meeting, except commercial fishermen, were supportive of the sea floor and water column protection zone within this site.

Additional comments • This is an offshore site, so any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. • The area has been highlighted through a Marxan analysis as an area of lower than average fishing utility, which was an additional reason (in addition to representing BSH) for developing building blocks in the region to begin with. • Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). Sites to which the site is related The North-west of Jones Bank pMCZ neighbours Greater Haig Fras pMCZ and Greater Haig Fras potential reference area which are to the north-east and East of Jones Bank pMCZ which is to the east.

137

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

138

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Subtidal mud: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Subtidal mud is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy. Subject to natural change, recover the Subtidal mud to favourable condition by 2020, and maintain thereafter, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Subtidal mud in the biogeographic region are recovered. Subtidal mud is sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Organic enrichment NS-H Physical change (to another seabed type) M Physical removal (extraction of substratum) M Removal of non-target species (lethal) M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface M and penetration ≤25mm M Siltation rate changes (high) Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to M seabed >25mm Temperature changes - local M Temperature changes - regional/national M L-M Salinity changes - local Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features L-M Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) NS-M Removal of target species (lethal) Siltation rate changes (low) NS-L Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes - NS-L regional/national Water flow (tidal current) changes - local NS-L Wave exposure changes - local NS-L NS-L Wave exposure changes - regional/national

Confidence+ L L L L L-H L L L

L L L L L

L-H L L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

139

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

140

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Supporting documentation ***To be added. Site map series

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

141

Map: SAP_206a Version: Jun11

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ

8°26'30"W

8°23'0"W

8°19'30"W

8°16'0"W

8°12'30"W

8°9'0"W

8°5'30"W

8°2'0"W

7°58'30"W

50°2'30"N

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

D R AF

50°0'0"N

49°57'30"N

8 km

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.0045 -8.3333 50° 0' 16'' N 8° 19' 59'' W B 50.0048 -8.0547 50° 0' 17'' N 8° 3' 16'' W C 49.8252 -8.0545 49° 49' 30'' N 8° 3' 16'' W D 50.0047 -8.1940 50° 0' 16'' N 8° 11' 38'' W E 49.8255 -8.1939 49° 49' 31'' N 8° 11' 38'' W F 49.8257 -8.3321 49° 49' 32'' N 8° 19' 55'' W

North-West of Jones Bank

49°55'0"N

49°52'30"N

49°50'0"N

49°47'30"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_206b Version: Jun11

North-West of Jones Bank pMCZ

8°18'30"W

8°13'0"W

8°7'30"W

3.5

7 km

8°2'0"W

7°56'30"W

49°56'30"N

D R AF

50°0'0"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

North-West of Jones Bank

49°53'0"N

49°49'30"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

II.3.5 Greater Haig Fras pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.3014

-7.7940

50° 18' 4'' N'

7° 47' 38' W'

AF T

Site area: 2,045.1 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary

The western boundary of this site is aligned with the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The remainder of the site has been drawn to encompass the entirety of the geomorphological feature Haig Fras and Haig Fras cSAC, with surrounding areas of sediment. The boundary has been made simple, in line with ENG guidelines. Environmental site summary

The easternmost boundary of this pMCZ is approximately 120km west of Land’s End. The site includes Haig Fras rock complex, an ENG-listed geomorphological feature consisting of a rocky outcrop from the surrounding sediment-dominated shelf seabed. The outcrop rises to a depth of less than 50m. The surrounding seabed is at a depth of between 100 and 200m, and it is covered in a diversity of sediment types, ranging from mud to coarse and mixed sediments.

Within the boundary of the cSAC, the rock is already protected, so only the sediment broadscale habitats present are to be protected by the pMCZ. The figures in the table below do not include the rock that is already protected within the cSAC boundary. A recent (Jan / Feb 2011) offshore survey conducted by the JNCC found Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitat present within the area of the pMCZ, though we do not have the number or location of the records mapped. Any of this FOCI present within the current cSAC boundary would already be protected, so would not be added to the Conservation Objectives for the pMCZ. ***add reference if poss***

144

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Features proposed for designation within Greater Haig Fras pMCZ Conservation Objective

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal mud Subtidal sand

recover maintain * recover recover recover

Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Haig Fras rock complex

? (pending check; presence of records outside SAC to be confirmed) maintain

AF T

Feature

3.7% 1.4% 0.9% 3.8% 3.3%

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

1374.6

74.9

100%

145

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

AF T

146

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to Greater Haig Fras pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal, following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be Direct implications: allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK Likely management: Prohibition of o Displacement of bottom-towed gear bottom-towed gear types within the o Increased competition for fishing grounds site. o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies). o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be allowed.

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation.

147

Direct implications: o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Direct implications:

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear will be permitted, Direct implications: but there may need to be a limit on o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear the amount of static gear used in the and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team area. comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Current levels of static gear are Given this assumption, there are still the following assumed to be ok. concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional Likely management: None. costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not o be made prohibitively expensive If the assumption turns out to be wrong: within the site. This applies to power o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or cables (including cables for site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km renewable energy devices), and depending on cables telecommunications cables. o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with Likely management: None mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of It is our understanding that UNCLOS states that the freedom to lay cables renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the outside territorial waters is one of the basic freedoms of the high seas, renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications and that nations are to have due regard to pipelines and cables already for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. in position, the repair of which should not be prejudiced. Therefore, there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, even where it would prevent conservation objectives from being achieved. The operation of cables (power and Direct implications: telecommunications) & pipelines will o be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Likely management: None Note the comment on UNCLOS above.

148

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: PT comment: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable Currently, this assumption is energy developments. This could result in: recorded for all sites, except - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for reference areas. However, based on mitigation and monitoring SAP feedback the assumption cannot - delays to renewables development apply to all sites in the network. The o If there are costs associated with co-location of compatibility of renewable energy renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 developments in any single site years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of remains an uncertainty. Note that deployment of wind and wave developments. This may (with the exception of the Atlantic have serious implications for industry and Government in Array and West of Wight sites), the terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate Working Groups have tended to plan change targets. the sites away from the areas of most o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically interest to renewable developments. restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: Likely management: None (beyond o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts standard existing licensing / EIA would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, requirements). increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000However, there is some outstanding £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km uncertainty over whether an MCZ depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet designation would make a difference renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional to EIA / mitigation requirements and monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and costs. declining investor confidence in renewables activities. Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and permitted. Handlining includes sea recreational activity angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Likely management: None. o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Pelagic trawls will be permitted Direct implications:

AF T

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted.

Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted Likely management: None.

149

Direct implications:

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Likely management: None.

**No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?**

Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to:

No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table).

Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts.

Likely management: None.

150

Direct implications:

AF T

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted.

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Uncertainties • ...

AF T

Levels of support • This site is far enough offshore to be supported by the renewables industry. Additional comments • This is an offshore site, so any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. • The Haig Fras SAC falls within this pMCZ. The SAC does not protect all seafloor habitats that fall within it. the pMCZ would protect features within the current SAC boundaries which are not protected by the SAC designation, including subtidal mixed sediments, coarse sediment and sand. • Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). Sites to which the site is related

The Greater Haig Fras pMCZ contains the Greater Haig Fras potential reference area. The Haig Fras cSAC is wholly within the Greater Haig Fras pMCZ.

The site neighbours North-west of Jones Bank pMCZ (approximately 9km south of the southern site boundary), East of Jones Bank pMCZ (immediately to the south-east, with the smallest gap being less than 2km), North-east of Haig Fras pMCZ (approximately 22km to the north-east of the northern boundary), and East of Haig Fras pMCZ (approximately 40km to the east).

151

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for Greater Haig Fras pMCZ Moderate energy circalittoral rock: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Moderate energy circalittoral rock is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy. Subject to natural change, recover the Moderate energy circalittoral rock to favourable condition by 2020, and maintain thereafter, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Moderate energy circalittoral rock in the biogeographic region are recovered. Moderate energy circalittoral rock is sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical change (to another seabed type) M-H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) M-H Removal of non-target species (lethal) M-H Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed M-H surface and penetration ≤25mm M-H Siltation rate changes (high) Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to M-H seabed >25mm Salinity changes - local L-H L-H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features Siltation rate changes (low) NS-H Temperature changes - local NS-H Water clarity changes NS-H Temperature changes - regional/national M Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & L-M translocations (competition) Removal of target species (lethal) NS-M Wave exposure changes - local NS-M NS-M Wave exposure changes - regional/national

Confidence+ L L L M L L L

L L L L L L L

H L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

152

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

153

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal mixed sediments: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity H H H H

Confidence L L L L

NS-H NS-H M M M M M L-M

L L M L L L L M

NS-M L NS-L

L M L

NS-L NS-L NS-L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

154

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal mud: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L-H L L L

L L L L L

L-H L L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

155

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

156

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Haig Fras Rock Complex: Maintain in favourable condition

AF T

Haig Fras Rock Complex is listed in the ENG as a geological / geomorphological feature of importance. Subject to natural change, maintain the Haig Fras Rock Complex in favourable condition, such that the: - extent - component features - spatial distribution - integrity - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of the Haig Fras Rock Complex in the biogeographic region are maintained.

The addition of a conservation objective for the FOCI habitat Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats is possible, pending check (see above). Supporting documentation

Site map series

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. This map also features the Haig Fras rock complex. Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

157

Map: SAP_207a Version: Jun11

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ

100 8°4'30"W

7°58'0"W

7°51'30"W

7°45'0"W

50°33'0"N

7°38'30"W

7°32'0"W

7°25'30"W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

7°19'0"W

T G

50°19'30"N

D R AF

100

50°24'0"N

Long

Lat

Long

B 50.4994 -7.3617 50° 29' 58'' N 7° 21' 41'' W

C 50.3752 -7.3616 50° 22' 30'' N 7° 21' 41'' W D 50.0765 -7.7426 50° 4' 35'' N 7° 44' 33'' W E 50.0766 -8.0426 50° 4' 35'' N 8° 2' 33'' W

F 50.1667 -8.2000 50° 9' 59'' N 8° 12' 0'' W

G 50.3333 -8.2000 50° 19' 59'' N 8° 12' 0'' W

H 50.3333 -8.0000 50° 19' 59'' N 7° 59' 59'' W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

50°6'0"N

Lat

A 50.5000 -8.0000 50° 29' 59'' N 7° 59' 59'' W

Greater Haig Fras

50°15'0"N

50°10'30"N

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

A 50°28'30"N

10 km

East of Jones Bank

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Haig Fras

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

100

Map: SAP_207b Version: Jun11

Greater Haig Fras pMCZ

8°3'0"W

7°53'30"W

7°44'0"W

7°34'30"W

10 km

7°25'0"W

7°15'30"W

50°22'30"N

D R AF

50°30'0"N

Greater Haig Fras

50°15'0"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

Haig Fras

50°7'30"N

East of Jones Bank

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Haig Fras rock complex A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

II.3.6 East of Jones Bank pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 49.9984

-7.5597

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 49° 59' 54'' 7° 33' 35' W' N'

Site boundary

AF T

Site area: 360.2 km2 Biogeographic region: *** JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).***

The boundary of this site is a simple shape consisting of N-S and E-W lines, in line with the ENG. Environmental site summary

The eastern site boundary is approximately 126km to the west of Land’s End. The site at a depth of between 100 and 200m, and is largely characterised by moderate energy circalittoral rock. There is anecdotal evidence from fishing representatives on the stakeholder group that this area is characterised not by solid bedrock, but loose cobbles (which in the modelled EUNIS L3 data would be classified as “rock”). The site is included to meet ENG targets for broad-scale habitats. Features proposed for designation within East of Jones Bank pMCZ Conservation Objective

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal mud Subtidal sand

recover recover recover

Feature

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table ##.#.##a Subtidal broad-scale habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal sand Subtidal mud

160

342.8 2.2 15.2

1.8% < 0.1% 0.2%

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

354.9

AF T

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

161

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to East of Jones Bank pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal, following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will Direct implications: not be allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK Likely management: Prohibition o Displacement of bottom-towed gear of bottom-towed gear types o Increased competition for fishing grounds within the site. o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will Direct implications: not be allowed (except in o emergencies). Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be allowed.

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation.

162

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear will be Direct implications: permitted, but there may need o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and to be a limit on the amount of cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if static gear used in the area. there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Likely management: None. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed The installation and Direct implications: maintenance of cables will be o permitted and will not be made If the assumption turns out to be wrong: prohibitively expensive within o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or site the site. This applies to power might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000cables (including cables for £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km renewable energy devices), and depending on cables telecommunications cables. o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. Likely management: None o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer It is our understanding that term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in UNCLOS states that the terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This freedom to lay cables outside may have serious implications for industry and Government in territorial waters is one of the terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate basic freedoms of the high seas, change targets. and that nations are to have due regard to pipelines and cables already in position, the repair of which should not be prejudiced. Therefore, there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, even where it would prevent conservation objectives from being achieved. The operation of cables (power Direct implications: and telecommunications) & o pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Likely management: None Note the comment on UNCLOS above.

163

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted.

PT comment:

AF T

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

However, there is some outstanding uncertainty over whether an MCZ designation would make a difference to EIA / mitigation requirements and costs. Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling Direct implications: and commercial handlining) will be permitted. Handlining Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: includes sea angling and o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation trolling. measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Likely management: None. Pelagic trawls will be permitted Direct implications: Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Likely management: None.

164

Direct implications:

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Passage of ships will be permitted

Direct implications:

Likely management: None.

Direct implications:

AF T

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Likely management: None.

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted.

Direct implications:

**No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?** Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to:

No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table).

Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: None.

165

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support • ... Additional comments •

AF T

•

This is an offshore site, so any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”).

Sites to which the site is related

The East of Jones Bank pMCZ neighbours North-west of Jones Bank pMCZ (approximately 27km is to the west), and Greater Haig Fras pMCZ (immediately to the north-west).

The Haig Fras SAC is nearby East of Jones Bank pMCZ.

166

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for East of Jones Bank pMCZ Moderate energy circalittoral rock: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L M L L L

L L L L L L L

H L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

167

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Subtidal mud: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L-H L L L

L L L L L

L-H L L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

168

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

169

East of Jones Bank pMCZ site report

Supporting documentation ***To be added. Site map series On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference.

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

170

Map: SAP_208a Version: Jun11

10 7°48'0"W

East of Jones Bank pMCZ

Greater Haig Fras

7°40'0"W

7°36'0"W

7°32'0"W

7°28'0"W

7°24'0"W

7°20'0"W

Lat

50°6'0"N

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

8 km

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.1108 -7.6674 50° 6' 38'' N 7° 40' 2'' W B 50.1094 -7.4607 50° 6' 33'' N 7° 27' 38'' W C 49.8757 -7.4644 49° 52' 32'' N 7° 27' 51'' W D 49.8768 -7.6334 49° 52' 36'' N 7° 38' 0'' W E 49.9603 -7.6324 49° 57' 36'' N 7° 37' 56'' W F 49.9605 -7.6685 49° 57' 37'' N 7° 40' 6'' W

00 50°3'0"N

50°0'0"N

D R AF

10 0

East of Jones Bank

49°57'0"N

49°54'0"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Version: Jun11

7°51'0"W

50°7'0"N

East of Jones Bank pMCZ

7°40'0"W

7°34'30"W

49°53'0"N

D R AF

49°56'30"N

7°29'0"W

7°23'30"W

8 km

7°18'0"W

7°12'30"W

Greater Haig Fras

50°3'30"N

50°0'0"N

Map: SAP_208b

East of Jones Bank

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

II.3.7 East of Haig Fras pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat

Long

50.4994

-6.6546

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat 50° 29' 57'' N'

Long 6° 39' 16' W'

AF T

Site area: 396.5 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site is a simple rectangle with boundaries aligned N-S and E-W, in line with ENG guidelines. The northern part of the site overlaps with the Trevose Box. Environmental site summary

The south-eastern corner of the site is approximately 67km from the Land’s End peninsula. The site is an area of continental shelf, most of which is between 50m and 100m in depth. Small areas in the western end of the site dip below the 100m depth contour. The seabed is characterised by coarse sediment and sand. The site has been included in the network to meet ENG criteria on broad-scale habitats. Features proposed for designation within East of Haig Fras pMCZ Conservation Objective

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand

maintain maintain * recover

Feature

173

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

9.6 232.3 154.5

< 0.1% 0.8% 0.5%

AF T

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

263.4

In the table below, the first column shows assumptions about activity restrictions, i.e. whether or not activities would be allowed to continue within a site, or whether they might need to be restricted or excluded. These assumptions are based on a consideration of whether an activity would prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. In addition, the first column also includes comments on the likely management needed, based on the vulnerability assessment discussions. If an activity is deemed incompatible with conservation objectives, it will not necessarily require management that is new and specific to this site. Whether or not management is likely to be put in place depends on the extent to which the activity is happening, and on whether existing management is already in place (e.g. through licensing). 174

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to East of Haig Fras pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). The red tilde ~ indicates a change from the tables presented at the April JWG meeting (see main text). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal, following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications ~ Bottom-towed fishing gear will not Direct implications: be allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK Likely management: Prohibition of o Displacement of bottom-towed gear bottom-towed gear types within the o Increased competition for fishing grounds site. o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies). o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be Direct implications: allowed. o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and Likely management: None (beyond discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in standard existing licensing / EIA MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and requirements). management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

175

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Direct implications:

AF T

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear will be permitted, Direct implications: but there may need to be a limit on o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear the amount of static gear used in the and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team area. comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Likely management: None. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not o be made prohibitively expensive If the assumption turns out to be wrong: within the site. This applies to power o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or cables (including cables for site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000renewable energy devices), and £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km telecommunications cables. depending on cables Likely management: None o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with It is our understanding that UNCLOS mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. states that the freedom to lay cables o If there are costs associated with co-location of outside territorial waters is one of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there the basic freedoms of the high seas, might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the and that nations are to have due renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and regard to pipelines and cables already wave developments. This may have serious implications in position, the repair of which for industry and Government in terms of loss of should not be prejudiced. Therefore, operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, even where it would prevent

176

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

conservation objectives from being achieved. The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Direct implications: o

Likely management: None Note the comment on UNCLOS above. The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted.

AF T

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: PT comment: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable Currently, this assumption is energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for recorded for all sites, except mitigation and monitoring reference areas. However, based on SAP feedback the assumption cannot - delays to renewables development apply to all sites in the network. The o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 compatibility of renewable energy developments in any single site years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may remains an uncertainty. Note that have serious implications for industry and Government in (with the exception of the Atlantic terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate Array and West of Wight sites), the Working Groups have tended to plan change targets. the sites away from the areas of most o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically interest to renewable developments. restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: Likely management: None (beyond o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts standard existing licensing / EIA would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, requirements). increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000However, there is some outstanding £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km uncertainty over whether an MCZ depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet designation would make a difference renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional to EIA / mitigation requirements and monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and costs. declining investor confidence in renewables activities. Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and permitted. Handlining includes sea recreational activity angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Likely management: None. o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

177

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Pelagic trawls will be permitted

Direct implications:

Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Direct implications:

Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted

Direct implications:

Likely management: None. Direct implications:

AF T

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Likely management: None.

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted.

**No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?**

Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to:

No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table).

Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: None.

Uncertainties • ...

Levels of support • ...

178

Direct implications:

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Additional comments • • •

AF T

•

This is an offshore site, so any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. The area has been highlighted through a Marxan analysis as an area of lower than average fishing utility. This area would impact on the fishing industry. However, the area included in the developing network configuration has less of an impact than the other building blocks that were previously drawn in the surrounding area. Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”).

Sites to which the site is related

The East of Haig Fras pMCZ neighbours Greater Haig Fras pMCZ which is approx. 40km to the west west, North-east of Haig Fras pMCZ which is approx. 9km to the north-west and South of Celtic Deep pMCZ which is approx. 27km to the north.

179

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

East of Haig Fras pMCZ Moderate energy circalittoral rock: Maintain in favourable condition

AF T

Moderate energy circalittoral rock is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy.Subject to natural change, maintain the Moderate energy circalittoral rock in favourable condition, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Moderate energy circalittoral rock in the biogeographic region are maintained. Moderate energy circalittoral rock is sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical change (to another seabed type) M-H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) M-H Removal of non-target species (lethal) M-H Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed M-H surface and penetration ≤25mm Siltation rate changes (high) M-H Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to M-H seabed >25mm L-H Salinity changes - local L-H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features Siltation rate changes (low) NS-H Temperature changes - local NS-H Water clarity changes NS-H Temperature changes - regional/national M Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & L-M translocations (competition) Removal of target species (lethal) NS-M Wave exposure changes - local NS-M Wave exposure changes - regional/national NS-M

Confidence+ L L L M L L L

L L L L L L L

H L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

180

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

181

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

182

East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Supporting documentation ***To be added. Site map series On the following pages there are three maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference.

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The third map indicates the location of the Trevose Box Closure with reference to the pMCZ.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

183

Map: SAP_209a Version: Jun11

East of Haig Fras pMCZ

6°52'0"W

6°48'30"W

6°45'0"W

6°41'30"W

6°38'0"W

6°34'30"W

6°31'0"W

6°27'30"W

8 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

100

50°35'0"N

50°30'0"N

D R AF

50°32'30"N

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.5887 -6.7953 50° 35' 19'' N 6° 47' 42'' W B 50.5886 -6.5130 50° 35' 19'' N 6° 30' 46'' W

C 50.4089 -6.5161 50° 24' 32'' N 6° 30' 58'' W D 50.4106 -6.7949 50° 24' 38'' N 6° 47' 41'' W

East of Haig Fras

50°27'30"N

100 100 50°25'0"N

1 00

50°22'30"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_209b Version: Jun11

6°54'0"W

East of Haig Fras pMCZ

6°45'0"W

6°40'30"W

6°36'0"W

6°31'30"W

3.5

7 km

6°27'0"W

6°22'30"W

50°31'30"N

D R AF

50°35'0"N

East of Haig Fras

50°28'0"N

50°24'30"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_209c Version: Jun11

East of Haig Fras pMCZ

This is one of a series of maps showing socio-economic data related to particular pMCZs. The blue rectangle on the small map in the bottom corner of this page indicates the location in the south west of the large zoomed map. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N.

6°54'0"W

6°49'30"W

6°45'0"W

6°40'30"W

6°36'0"W

6°31'30"W

3.5

7 km

6°27'0"W

6°22'30"W

50°31'30"N

D R AF

100

50°35'0"N

East of Haig Fras

0 50°24'30"N

10 100

50°28'0"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

Trevose Box A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

II.3.8 North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat

Long

50.7498

-7.0229

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat 50° 44' 59'' N'

Long 7° 1' 22' W'

AF T

Site area: 464.3 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site Western and northern boundaries of this site align with the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The site is a rectangle consisting of simple N-S and E-W lines, in line with the ENG. The eastern part of the site overlaps with the Trevose Box. Environmental site summary

This site is located on a section of continental shelf. The depth is between 50 and 100m, with some sections dipping below the 100m depth contour. The seabed is characterised by a range of sediments including subtidal sand, subtidal coarse sediment, subtidal mixed sediment and subtidal mud. The site has been included in the network in order to meet ENG criteria for broad-scale habitats. The south-eastern corner of the site is approximately 100km to the north-west of the Land’s End peninsula. Features proposed for designation within North-east of Haig Fras pMCZ

Feature

Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal mud Subtidal sand

187

Conservation Objective maintain recover recover maintain

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table ##.#.##a Subtidal broad-scale habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments

56.4 191.1 192.6 24.0

0.2% 0.6% 3.1% 0.7%

AF T

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

382.3

188

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

extent to which the activity is happening, and on whether existing management is already in place (e.g. through licensing). The second column lists implications, based on the assumptions made, as highlighted by stakeholders during working group meetings and Steering Group meetings. Note that this column reflects the considerations that were recorded and discussed during the planning discussions. It is not a replication of the Impact Assessment, and is not intended to be comprehensive.

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal, following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Anchoring of large vessels will not Direct implications: be allowed (except in o emergencies). Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be allowed.

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions.

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation.

189

Direct implications: o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Direct implications:

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not Direct implications: be allowed (includes benthic o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both trawling and hydraulic dredging) UK and non-UK (but loss further offshore would be less bad than loss of grounds inshore) Changed to: o Loss of earnings for south-west / Newlyn beamers Closure of the western part of the o Displacement of bottom-towed gear pMCZ to bottom-towed fishing o Increased competition for fishing grounds gear. If zoning is not practical, o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing assume closure of the whole site o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where to bottom-towed fishing gears. protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear Reasons for changed assumptions: and cause difficulties for sea anglers

Benthic trawling should be managed over mixed sediment and mud BSHs. These BSHs are predominantly located in the western part of the pMCZ. It may be possible to zone the pMCZ. If not, the whole pMCZ should be closed to benthic trawls.

Prohibition of benthic trawling in the western part of the pMCZ. [If zoning is not feasible, the whole site will be closed to bottomtowed gears.] Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Likely management: None.

Likely management: None

190

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Direct implications: o If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets.

AF T

Currently, this assumption is recorded for all sites, except reference areas. However, based on SAP feedback the assumption cannot apply to all sites in the network. The compatibility of renewable energy developments in any single site remains an uncertainty. Note that (with the exception of the Atlantic Array and West of Wight sites), the Working Groups have tended to plan the sites away from the areas of most interest to renewable developments. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). However, there is some outstanding uncertainty over whether an MCZ designation would make a difference to EIA / mitigation requirements and costs.

191

Direct implications: o

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling Direct implications: and commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and permitted. Handlining includes sea recreational activity angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Likely management: None. o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Pelagic trawls will be permitted Direct implications:

AF T

Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted

Direct implications:

Likely management: None.

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Likely management: None.

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted. **No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?**

Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to: No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table). Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: None.

192

Direct implications:

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support • ... Additional comments

• •

•

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ neighbours Greater Haig Fras pMCZ (approx. 22km to the south-west), East of Haig Fras pMCZ which is approx 9km to the south-east and South of Celtic Deep pMCZ which is approx 12km to the north-east.

193

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ Subtidal coarse sediment: Maintain in favourable condition

AF T

Subtidal coarse sediment is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy. Subject to natural change, maintain the Subtidal coarse sediment in favourable condition, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Subtidal coarse sediment in the biogeographic region are maintained. Subtidal coarse sediment is sensitive to the pressures:

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features NS-H Physical change (to another seabed type) M Salinity changes - local L-M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface L-M and penetration ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) NS-M Removal of non-target species (lethal) NS-M Siltation rate changes (high) Siltation rate changes (low) NS-M

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

194

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal mixed sediments: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity H H H H

Confidence L L L L

NS-H NS-H M M M M M L-M

L L M L L L L M

NS-M L NS-L

L M L

NS-L NS-L NS-L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

195

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal mud: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L-H L L L

L L L L L

L-H L L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

196

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

Subtidal sand: Maintain in favourable condition

AF T

Subtidal sand is a widespread broad-scale habitat that must be represented in the network to meet the ENG principles of representativity and adequacy. Subject to natural change, maintain the Subtidal sand in favourable condition, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Subtidal sand in the biogeographic region are maintained. Subtidal sand is sensitive to the pressures:

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

197

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ site report

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The third map indicates the location of the Trevose Box Closure with reference to the pMCZ.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

198

Map: SAP_210a Version: Jun11

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ

7°16'30"W

7°13'0"W

7°9'30"W

7°6'0"W

7°2'30"W

6°59'0"W

6°55'30"W

6°52'0"W

6°48'30"W

8 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

Lat

Long

B 50.8330 -6.8453 50° 49' 58'' N 6° 50' 43'' W

50°50'0"N

Long

A 50.8333 -7.2000 50° 49' 59'' N 7° 11' 59'' W C 50.6661 -6.8463 50° 39' 58'' N 6° 50' 46'' W

D 50.6667 -7.2000 50° 40' 0'' N 7° 11' 59'' W

50°47'30"N

D R AF

50°45'0"N

North-East of Haig Fras

50°42'30"N

50°40'0"N

50°37'30"N

10 0

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_210b Version: Jun11

50°51'50"N

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ

7°10'20"W

7°6'0"W

7°1'40"W

6°57'20"W

3.5

6°53'0"W

7 km

6°48'40"W

6°44'20"W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

50°45'30"N

D R AF

50°48'40"N

North-East of Haig Fras

50°42'20"N

50°39'10"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_210c Version: Jun11

50°51'50"N

North-East of Haig Fras pMCZ

7°10'20"W

7°6'0"W

7°1'40"W

6°57'20"W

3.5

6°53'0"W

7 km

6°48'40"W

6°44'20"W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

50°45'30"N

100

D R AF

50°48'40"N

North-East of Haig Fras

50°42'20"N

50°39'10"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Trevose Box A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

II.3.9 South of Celtic Deep pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat

Long

50.9608

-6.6359

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat 50° 57' 38'' N'

Long 6° 38' 9' W'

AF T

Site area: 552.8 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The western boundary of this pMCZ aligns with the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The site has an arrow shape pointing south-east, with straight N-S and E-W lines making up the tip. This is a simplification of a previous complex outline, in line with ENG guidelines. The southern part of the site overlaps with the Trevose Box. Environmental site summary

The south-eastern tip of the site is approximately 90km to the north-west of the Land’s End peninsula. The site is within the 50-100m depth range, with two small areas dipping beneath the 100m contour. The seafloor is characterised by coarse sediment and sand, with some mixed sediment present. The site has been included in the network in order to meet ENG criteria on broad-scale habitat.

Features proposed for designation within South of Celtic Deep pMCZ

Feature

Conservation Objective

Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand

recover recover recover

202

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table ##.#.##a Subtidal broad-scale habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments

308.3 193.6 4.2 46.7

1.1% 0.6% < 0.1% 1.3%

AF T

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

249.2

203

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to South of Celtic Deep pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be Direct implications: allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK Likely management: Prohibition of o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds bottom-towed gear types within the o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing site. o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies). o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be Direct implications: allowed. o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and requirements). management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Dumping and disposal will not be Direct implications: allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions.

204

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

(text moved from left column): However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation.

AF T

Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear will be permitted, Direct implications: but there may need to be a limit on o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear the amount of static gear used in the and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team area. comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Likely management: None. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not o be made prohibitively expensive If the assumption turns out to be wrong: within the site. This applies to power o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or cables (including cables for site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000renewable energy devices), and £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km telecommunications cables. depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with Likely management: None mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of It is our understanding that UNCLOS renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there states that the freedom to lay cables might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the outside territorial waters is one of renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and the basic freedoms of the high seas, wave developments. This may have serious implications and that nations are to have due for industry and Government in terms of loss of regard to pipelines and cables already operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. in position, the repair of which should not be prejudiced. Therefore, there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, even where it would prevent conservation objectives from being achieved. The operation of cables (power and Direct implications: telecommunications) & pipelines will o be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Likely management: None Note comment on UNCLOS above.

205

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: PT comment: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable Currently, this assumption is energy developments. This could result in: recorded for all sites, except - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for reference areas. However, based on mitigation and monitoring SAP feedback the assumption cannot - delays to renewables development apply to all sites in the network. The o If there are costs associated with co-location of compatibility of renewable energy renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 developments in any single site years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of remains an uncertainty. Note that deployment of wind and wave developments. This may (with the exception of the Atlantic have serious implications for industry and Government in Array and West of Wight sites), the terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate Working Groups have tended to plan change targets. the sites away from the areas of most o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically interest to renewable developments. restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: Likely management: None (beyond o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts standard existing licensing / EIA would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, requirements). increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000However, there is some outstanding £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km uncertainty over whether an MCZ depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet designation would make a difference renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional to EIA / mitigation requirements and monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and costs. declining investor confidence in renewables activities. Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and permitted. Handlining includes sea recreational activity angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Likely management: None. o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Pelagic trawls will be permitted Direct implications: Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities Direct implications: will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted Direct implications: Likely management: None.

AF T

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted.

206

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted. **No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?** Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to: No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table). Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: None.

Direct implications:

Uncertainties • ...

AF T

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.) Likely management: None.

Levels of support • Southern part of this pMCZ is less contentious for commercial fishing than other sites of similar broad scale habitat.

Additional comments • This is an offshore site, so any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. • The pMCZs based on earlier D blocks are contentious, but would be less so if aligned with traffic lanes • The area has been highlighted through a Marxan analysis as an area of lower than average fishing utility. • Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). Sites to which the site is related The South of Celtic Deep pMCZ neighbours North-east of Haig Fras pMCZ which is approx. 12km to the south-west, East of Haig Fras pMCZ which is approx 27km to the south and

207

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Celtic Deep pMCZ (with the Celtic Deep potential reference area) approx 25km to the northeast. Conservation Objectives for South of Celtic Deep pMCZ Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features NS-H M Physical change (to another seabed type) Salinity changes - local L-M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface L-M and penetration ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) NS-M Removal of non-target species (lethal) Siltation rate changes (high) NS-M Siltation rate changes (low) NS-M

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

208

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Subtidal mixed sediments: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity H H H H

Confidence L L L L

NS-H NS-H M M M M M L-M

L L M L L L L M

NS-M L NS-L

L M L

NS-L NS-L NS-L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

209

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

210

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The third map indicates the location of the Trevose Box Closure with reference to the pMCZ.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

211

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ

6°59'30"W

6°53'0"W

6°46'30"W

6°40'0"W

6°33'30"W

Version: Jun11

Map: SAP_211a

6°27'0"W

12 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

6°20'30"W

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 51.1487 -6.8000 51° 8' 55'' N 6° 47' 59'' W B 50.9470 -6.4317 50° 56' 49'' N 6° 25' 54'' W

51°7'20"N

100

C 50.8323 -6.4332 50° 49' 56'' N 6° 25' 59'' W D 50.8323 -6.6151 50° 49' 56'' N 6° 36' 54'' W E 51.0001 -6.8815 51° 0' 0'' N

6° 52' 53'' W

F 51.0000 -6.8000 50° 59' 59'' N 6° 47' 59'' W

10 0

51°3'0"N

D R AF

1 00

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

100

50°58'40"N

South of Celtic Deep

50°54'20"N

50°50'0"N

1 00

North-East of Haig Fras

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Version: Jun11

51°9'20"N

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ

6°52'30"W

6°45'0"W

6°37'30"W

6°30'0"W

10 km

6°22'30"W

6°15'0"W

Map: SAP_211b

D R AF

51°4'0"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

50°58'40"N

South of Celtic Deep

50°53'20"N

North-East of Haig Fras 50°48'0"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_211c Version: Jun11

6°52'30"W

6°45'0"W

6°37'30"W

6°30'0"W

100

0 10

D R AF South of Celtic Deep

North-East of Haig Fras 50°48'0"N

100

6°15'0"W

1 00 1 00

10 0

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

50°53'20"N

100

1 00

51°4'0"N

50°58'40"N

10 km

6°22'30"W

51°9'20"N

South of Celtic Deep pMCZ

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Trevose Box A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

II.3.10 Celtic Deep pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat

Long

51.3265

-6.3507

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat 51° 19' 35'' N'

Long 6° 21' 2' W'

AF T

Site area: 348 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The boundary of the Celtic Deep pMCZ has been drawn using simple, straight lines, around a portion of the Celtic Deep area containing subtidal mud and mud habitat in deep water FOCI records. Environmental site summary

The southern tip of the site is approximately 112 km to the north-west of Trevose Head, and the northern tip is approximately 84km from the Pembrokeshire coast in Wales. The depth is largely between 100m and 200m, constituting a depression on the seafloor which in the surrounding area is shallower than 100m. The seafloor is characterised by subtidal mud habitat, and the Celtic Deep pMCZ is the only offshore area within our study region where the “mud habitats in deep water” FOCI has been recorded. In addition, this area is an area where frontal systems occur during the summer months, indicating high productivity. Offshore bird observation data indicates this as an important aggregation area for a number of seabird species year-round. Area of importance for common dolphins.

215

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Features proposed for designation within Celtic Deep pMCZ Feature

Conservation Objective

Subtidal mud Mud habitats in deep water Seabirds Common dolphins

recover recover ? ?

AF T

Table ##.#.##a Subtidal broad-scale habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) Subtidal mud

348.0

5.5%

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Mud Habitats in Deep Water

101.5

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to Celtic Deep pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not Direct implications: be allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK Likely management: Prohibition of o Displacement of bottom-towed gear bottom-towed gear types within the o Increased competition for fishing grounds site. o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies) o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be Direct implications: allowed o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral Likely management: None (beyond resources are geologically located – in highly localised and standard existing licensing / EIA discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in requirements). MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and However, there may be added EIA / management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate mitigation requirements and costs resource, then this will have significant impact on national resulting from the designation. construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

217

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

AF T

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions.

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

Changed to: Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may ned to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Likely management: None. The installation and maintenance of cables will be permitted and will not be made prohibitively expensive within the site. This applies to power cables (including cables for renewable energy devices), and telecommunications cables. Likely management: None

218

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

PT comment:

219

AF T

Direct implications: o

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and permitted. Handlining includes sea recreational activity angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following Likely management: None. concerns: o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Pelagic trawls will be permitted, but Direct implications: will require mitigation against bycatch for seabirds .Mitigation (text moved from left column): might mean restricting trawling to a Reason for changed assumption: depth of water, and not allow it near the surface. Mobile species (seabirds and cetaceans) not considered as Changed to: features needing protection when the vulnerability Pelagic trawls will be allowed to assessment was carried out with JNCC specialists. continue (for static gear, see previous). Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities Direct implications: will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted. Direct implications: Likely management: None. Anchoring of small vessels will be Direct implications: permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.) Likely management: None. Anchoring for maintenance and Direct implications: access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted. **No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?**

Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed. Changed to: No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table).

Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: None.

220

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support • JNCC have stated that they will not support any recommendations for pMCZs that do not protect seafloor features. This site, as it stands, contains areas for water column protection only. Additional comments

•

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The Celtic Deep pMCZ contains the Celtic Deep potential reference area. The site neighbours South of Celtic Deep which approx 25km lies to the south-west, and East of Celtic Deep approx. 28km to the north-east.

221

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for Celtic Deep pMCZ Subtidal mud: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Organic enrichment NS-H Physical change (to another seabed type) M Physical removal (extraction of substratum) M Removal of non-target species (lethal) M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface M and penetration ≤25mm Siltation rate changes (high) M Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to M seabed >25mm M Temperature changes - local M Temperature changes - regional/national Salinity changes - local L-M Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features L-M Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) Removal of target species (lethal) NS-M NS-L Siltation rate changes (low) Water flow (tidal & ocean current) changes - NS-L regional/national Water flow (tidal current) changes - local NS-L Wave exposure changes - local NS-L Wave exposure changes - regional/national NS-L

Confidence+ L L L L L-H L L L

L L L L L

L-H L L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

222

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Mud Habitats in Deep Water: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

The Mud Habitats in Deep Water FOCI is listed in the ENG as a feature that has to be represented in the network. Subject to natural change, recover the Mud habitats in deep water to favourable condition by 2020, and maintain thereafter, such that the: - extent; - diversity; - community structure; - natural environmental quality; and - natural environmental processes representative of Mud habitats in deep water in the biogeographic region are recovered. Mud habitats in deep water is sensitive to the pressures listed below. Human activities which cause these pressures:

Sensitivity+ Organic enrichment H Physical change (to another seabed type) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) H Removal of non-target species (lethal) H Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed H surface and penetration ≤25mm H Siltation rate changes (high) Siltation rate changes (low) H Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage H to seabed >25mm Temperature changes - regional/national M Removal of target species (lethal) L

Confidence+ M L M H M L L M L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

The Joint Working Group came to no agreement over whether or not to recommend conservation objectives for seabirds and cetaceans (common dolphins) in this pMCZ. No conservation objectives have been written up in this report for these features.

223

Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Supporting documentation ***To be added. Site map series On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference.

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

224

Map: SAP_212a Version: Jun11

Celtic Deep pMCZ

6°36'15"W

6°32'45"W

6°29'15"W

51°25'50"N

6°25'45"W

6°22'15"W

6°18'45"W

6°15'15"W

1.5

6°11'45"W

6 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 51.4250 -6.4831 51° 25' 30'' N 6° 28' 59'' W

B 51.4246 -6.3301 51° 25' 28'' N 6° 19' 48'' W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary 51°20'50"N

D R AF

51°23'20"N

0 10

51°15'50"N

E 51.2361 -6.2971 51° 14' 9'' N 6° 17' 49'' W F 51.2634 -6.4840 51° 15' 48'' N 6° 29' 2'' W

51°13'20"N

D 51.2356 -6.2004 51° 14' 8'' N 6° 12' 1'' W

Celtic Deep

51°18'20"N

C 51.3294 -6.1991 51° 19' 45'' N 6° 11' 56'' W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_212b Version: Jun11

Celtic Deep pMCZ

6°23'0"W

6°17'30"W

51°20'30"N

D R AF

51°24'0"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

3.5

7 km

6°12'0"W

6°6'30"W

6°34'0"W

Celtic Deep

51°17'0"N

51°13'30"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

II.3.11 East of Celtic Deep pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

51.4980

-5.7990

51° 29' 52'' N'

5° 47' 56' W'

AF T

Site area: 94.9 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The northern boundary of this site abuts the 12nm limit off south Wales. Rather than tracing the curved boundary of the 12nm limit, the site has been squared off with straight N-S and E-W boundary sections. The site was originally suggested further east, but was moved west to avoid potential impacts from a planned disposal site for dredged materials from Milford Haven (***ref). Environmental site summary

The site is approximately 40km south of the Pembrokeshire coast in Wales. The depth is within the 50m to 100m range, with the western edge dipping below the 100m depth contour. The seabed is characterised by subtidal sand, with a patch of mud. The site was included in the network because of its contribution to ENG criteria to broad-scale habitat targets, and its added ecological importance. It is in an area where frontal systems occur during the summer months, indicating high productivity. Offshore bird observation data indicates this as an important aggregation area for a number of seabird species year-round; and is of particular importance for wintering birds. Features proposed for designation within East of Celtic Deep pMCZ

Feature

Conservation Objective

Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal coarse sediment seabirds cetaceans

recover recover recover ? ?

227

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

AF T

0.7 84.0 10.2

< 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

94.9

228

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to East of Celtic Deep pMCZ. The assumptions have been fundamentally revised from those recorded in progress report 3, when this site was included solely for the protection of seabirds (“water column only pMCZ”). Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be Direct implications:o Loss of ground for bottom-towed allowed. gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK o Displacement of bottom-towed gear Likely management: Prohibition of o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing bottom-towed gear types within the o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where site. protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies). o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be Direct implications: allowed. o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and Likely management: None (beyond discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in standard existing licensing / EIA MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and requirements). management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns:o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

229

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions.

Direct implications:

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

AF T

However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear will be permitted, Direct implications: but there may need to be a limit on o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear the amount of static gear used in the and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team area. comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Likely management: None. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not o be made prohibitively expensive If the assumption turns out to be wrong: within the site. This applies to power o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or cables (including cables for site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000renewable energy devices), and £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km telecommunications cables. depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with Likely management: None mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of It is our understanding that UNCLOS renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there states that the freedom to lay cables might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the outside territorial waters is one of renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and the basic freedoms of the high seas, wave developments. This may have serious implications and that nations are to have due for industry and Government in terms of loss of regard to pipelines and cables already operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. in position, the repair of which should not be prejudiced. Therefore, there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, even where it would prevent conservation objectives from being achieved.

230

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Direct implications: o

Likely management: None

AF T

It is our understanding that UNCLOS states that the freedom to lay cables outside territorial waters is one of the basic freedoms of the high seas, and that nations are to have due regard to pipelines and cables already in position, the repair of which should not be prejudiced. Therefore, there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, even where it would prevent conservation objectives from being achieved. The installation, operation and Direct implications: maintenance of renewable energy o devices will be permitted. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: PT comment: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable Currently, this assumption is energy developments. This could result in: recorded for all sites, except - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for reference areas. However, based on mitigation and monitoring SAP feedback the assumption cannot - delays to renewables development apply to all sites in the network. The o If there are costs associated with co-location of compatibility of renewable energy renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 developments in any single site years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of remains an uncertainty. Note that deployment of wind and wave developments. This may (with the exception of the Atlantic have serious implications for industry and Government in Array and West of Wight sites), the terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate Working Groups have tended to plan change targets. the sites away from the areas of most o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically interest to renewable developments. restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: Likely management: None (beyond o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts standard existing licensing / EIA would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, requirements). increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000However, there is some outstanding £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km uncertainty over whether an MCZ depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet designation would make a difference renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional to EIA / mitigation requirements and monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and costs. declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

231

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and recreational activity permitted. Handlining includes sea angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Likely management: None. o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Pelagic trawls will be permitted Direct implications: Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities Direct implications: will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted Direct implications:

Likely management: None.

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Likely management: None.

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted.

**No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?**

Likely management: None. Bioprospecting will not be allowed.

Changed to:

232

Direct implications:

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support • JNCC have stated that they will not support any recommendations for pMCZs that do not protect seafloor features. Additional comments

•

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The East of Celtic Deep pMCZ is approx 28km to the north-east of the Celtic Deep pMCZ. The Pembrokeshire marine SAC is approx. 14km to the north.

233

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for East of Celtic Deep pMCZ Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

234

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Subtidal mud: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L-H L L L

L L L L L

L-H L L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

235

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

236

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ site report

Supporting documentation ***To be added.

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The third map indicates the location of the Trevose Box Closure with reference to the pMCZ.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

237

Map: SAP_213a Version: Jun11

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ

5°52'30"W

5°50'0"W

5°47'30"W

5°45'0"W

5°42'30"W

1.25

5°40'0"W

51°34'30"N

2.5

5 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

100

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 51.5483 -5.8983 51° 32' 53'' N 5° 53' 53'' W

51°32'45"N

51°31'0"N

10 51°29'15"N

D R AF

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

51°25'45"N

D 51.5168 -5.6776 51° 31' 0'' N 5° 40' 39'' W E 51.4683 -5.6775 51° 28' 5'' N 5° 40' 39'' W

F 51.4689 -5.8985 51° 28' 7'' N 5° 53' 54'' W

East of Celtic Deep

51°27'30"N

B 51.5482 -5.8463 51° 32' 53'' N 5° 50' 46'' W

C 51.5168 -5.8463 51° 31' 0'' N 5° 50' 46'' W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_213b Version: Jun11

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ

5°55'0"W

5°52'30"W

5°50'0"W

5°47'30"W

5°45'0"W

5°42'30"W

4 km

5°40'0"W

5°37'30"W

5°35'0"W

51°31'25"N

51°29'50"N

51°28'15"N

51°26'40"N

D R AF

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

51°33'0"N

East of Celtic Deep

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_213c Version: Jun11

East of Celtic Deep pMCZ

5°55'0"W

5°52'30"W

5°50'0"W

5°47'30"W

5°45'0"W

5°42'30"W

4 km

5°40'0"W

5°37'30"W

5°35'0"W

51°31'25"N

51°29'50"N

51°28'15"N

51°26'40"N

D R AF

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

51°33'0"N

East of Celtic Deep

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

Trevose Box A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Western Channel pMCZ site report

II.3.12 Western Channel pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: *** Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

49.4186

-4.8071

49° 25' 6'' N'

4° 48' 25' W'

AF T

Site area: 1,613.5 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The southern boundary of the site follows the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The other boundaries have been drawn to include an area of higher than average benthic biodiversity, to avoid overlap with the Mid-Channel Potting Agreement area to the east, and to maximise overlap with busy shipping areas in the Channel. Environmental site summary

The northern tip of the Western Channel pMCZ is located approximately 54km to the southeast of the Lizard Peninsula. The site depth of the seabed is in the 50-100m range, with the western end of the site dipping below the 100m contour. The seabed habitat is characterised by coarse sediment, rock and mixed sediment. There is anecdotal evidence (supported by VMS data showing bottom-towed fishing gears being used) that the rock habitat here consists of cobbles, not bedrock. The is of additional ecological importance, in that it is an area of productive frontal systems, of importance for seabirds and cetaceans (reflected in the data mapped on maps ***).

Features proposed for designation within Western Channel pMCZ

Feature

Conservation Objective

Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Moderate energy circalittoral rock seabirds cetaceans

recover recover recover ? ?

241

Western Channel pMCZ site report

AF T

675.9 755.9 175.4

3.6% 2.6% 4.9%

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

1038.3

242

Western Channel pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to Western Channel pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not Direct implications: be allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK Likely management: Prohibition of o Displacement of bottom-towed gear bottom-towed gear types within the o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing site. o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies) o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be Direct implications:o Aggregate dredging can only occur allowed where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations Likely management: None (beyond are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate standard existing licensing / EIA monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs requirements). coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate However, there may be added EIA / supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. concerns:o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

243

Western Channel pMCZ site report

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions.

Direct implications:

Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements).

AF T

However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation. Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear (except netting Direct implications: and longlining) will be permitted, but o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear there may need to be a limit on the and cause difficulties for sea anglers **realistic amount of static gear used in the implication?** area. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Netting will not be allowed. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed Longlining will not be allowed. o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Changed to: Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may ned to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area. Current levels of static gear use are assumed to be ok. Likely management: None. The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not o be made prohibitively expensive If the assumption turns out to be wrong: within the site. This applies to power o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or cables (including cables for site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000renewable energy devices), and £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km telecommunications cables. depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with Likely management: None mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of Note the comment on UNCLOS renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there above. might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets.

244

Western Channel pMCZ site report

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Direct implications: o

Likely management: None

PT comment:

AF T

245

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

Western Channel pMCZ site report

Changed to:

AF T

costs. Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and permitted. Handlining includes sea recreational activity angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following Likely management: None. concerns: o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Pelagic trawls will be permitted, but Direct implications: will require mitigation against bycatch for seabirds .Mitigation might mean restricting trawling to a depth of water, and not allow it near the surface.

Pelagic trawls will be allowed to continue (for static gear, see previous). Reason for changed assumption:

Mobile species (seabirds and cetaceans) not considered as features needing protection when the vulnerability assessment was carried out with JNCC specialists.

Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted. Likely management: None. Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.) Likely management: None. Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted. **No heritage wrecks currently present - remove this line?** Likely management: None.

246

Direct implications:

Direct implications: Direct implications:

Direct implications:

Western Channel pMCZ site report

Bioprospecting will not be allowed.

Changed to: No assumption made about bioprospecting (i.e. remove this line from the table).

AF T

Reason for change: this activity was not considered relevant in the vulnerability assessment carried out with JNCC experts. Likely management: None.

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support •

Subject to further information and feedback, the fishing industry have provisionally accepted Western Channel (P5) as a replacement for P3 and P4 of applying the ENG rules, where alternative choices for sites appear to have greater implications for the industry.

Additional comments •

•

Sites to which the site is related

The Western Channel pMCZ doesn’t have any other pMCZs or existing MPAs nearby. ***check French

247

Western Channel pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for Western Channel pMCZ Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) L-H Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features NS-H Physical change (to another seabed type) M Salinity changes - local L-M Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface L-M and penetration ≤25mm Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to L-M seabed >25mm Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & NS-M translocations (competition) NS-M Removal of non-target species (lethal) NS-M Siltation rate changes (high) Siltation rate changes (low) NS-M

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

248

Western Channel pMCZ site report

Subtidal mixed sediments: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Sensitivity H H H H

Confidence L L L L

NS-H NS-H M M M M M L-M

L L M L L L L M

NS-M L NS-L

L M L

NS-L NS-L NS-L

L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

249

Western Channel pMCZ site report

Moderate energy circalittoral rock: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Moderate energy circalittoral rock is sensitive to the pressures: Sensitivity+ Physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat) H Physical change (to another seabed type) M-H Physical removal (extraction of substratum) M-H Removal of non-target species (lethal) M-H Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed M-H surface and penetration ≤25mm M-H Siltation rate changes (high) Structural abrasion/penetration: Structural damage to M-H seabed >25mm L-H Salinity changes - local Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features L-H Siltation rate changes (low) NS-H NS-H Temperature changes - local Water clarity changes NS-H Temperature changes - regional/national M Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species & L-M translocations (competition) Removal of target species (lethal) NS-M NS-M Wave exposure changes - local Wave exposure changes - regional/national NS-M

Confidence+ L L L M L L L

L L L L L L L

H L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

Western Channel pMCZ site report

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

The third map indicates the location of the Mid-channel potting agreement with reference to the pMCZ.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

251

Western Channel pMCZ

Map: SAP_214a

Version: Jun11

5°35'0"W

5°22'0"W

5°9'0"W

49°48'0"N

4°56'0"W

4°43'0"W

4°30'0"W

4°17'0"W

4°4'0"W

20 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 49.2855 -5.5000 49° 17' 7'' N 5° 29' 59'' W

B 49.4141 -5.0000 49° 24' 50'' N 4° 59' 59'' W

49°39'0"N

49°30'0"N 10 0

100

100 1 00 100 100

100

1 49°21'0"N 1 00

1 0 10

100

E 49.4872 -4.1667 49° 29' 13'' N 4° 9' 59'' W

F 49.4601 -4.2998 49° 27' 36'' N 4° 17' 59'' W

G 49.4554 -4.3642 49° 27' 19'' N 4° 21' 51'' W H 49.3862 -4.5456 49° 23' 10'' N 4° 32' 44'' W I 49.2401 -5.1848 49° 14' 24'' N 5° 11' 5'' W

J 49.2218 -5.3014 49° 13' 18'' N 5° 18' 5'' W

K 49.2157 -5.3459 49° 12' 56'' N 5° 20' 45'' W L 49.2093 -5.5000 49° 12' 33'' N 5° 29' 59'' W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

D 49.5308 -4.1667 49° 31' 51'' N 4° 9' 59'' W

100

49°3'0"N

100 49°12'0"N

100

Western Channel

100

0 10 10 0 1 00

1 1 00

100 1 00

D R AF

C 49.6284 -4.6667 49° 37' 42'' N 4° 39' 59'' W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Western Channel pMCZ

5°35'0"W

49°36'0"N

49°28'0"N

5°23'30"W

5°12'0"W

5°0'30"W

4°49'0"W

4°37'30"W

20 km

4°26'0"W

4°14'30"W

Version: Jun11

D R AF

Map: SAP_214b

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

Western Channel

49°20'0"N

49°12'0"N

49°4'0"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_214c

Western Channel pMCZ

Version: Jun11

5°31'0"W

5°17'30"W

5°4'0"W

4°50'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°37'0"W

4°23'30"W

4°10'0"W

20 km

3°56'30"W

3°43'0"W

49°45'50"N

100

49°27'50"N

D R AF

49°36'50"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

Western Channel

100

10 100

0 10

49°9'50"N

0 100

100

1 00

100

49°18'50"N

100

1 1 00

1 0 10 0

100

Map Legend

6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

49°0'50"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Mid-channel potting agreement

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

II.3.13 South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

49.6902

-6.2122

49° 41' 24'' N'

6° 12' 43' W'

AF T

Site area: 132.3 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The boundary of this site is a simple rectangle, in line with ENG guidelines. It is bisected by the 12nm limit. Environmental site summary

This site is located approximately 15km to the south of the Isles of Scilly. The depth is within the range of 50-100m, with the western tip dipping below the 100m contour. The site has been included in the network to meet ENG criteria for broad-scale habitats, and improve connectivity for sediment habitats. The seafloor is predominantly coarse sediment, with some patches of sand present. Features proposed for designation within South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ Conservation Objective

Subtidal sand Subtidal coarse sediment

recover recover

Feature

255

115.3 17.0

0.4% < 0.1%

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

Table ##.#.##d FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

2.2

AF T

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

256

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

AF T

Table*** Assumptions and implications relating to South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ. Where the vulnerability assessment resulted in an assumption being changed from that recorded in progress report 3, it is highlighted in red text. Several assumptions recorded for this site in progress report 3 related to inshore activities (e.g. coastal defence), these rows have been removed, and this site was treated as an offshore site for the vulnerability assessment, although it straddles the 12nm limit. Project team comments are included in green, usually relating to questions that remain to be clarified. Likely management is in blue (in the first column). Fully greyed out rows are suggested for removal following the vulnerability assessment. Activities that we assume will not be allowed within the site Assumptions Implications Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be Direct implications: allowed. o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK Likely management: Prohibition of o Displacement of bottom-towed gear bottom-towed gear types within the o Increased competition for fishing grounds site. o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Anchoring of large vessels will not be Direct implications: allowed (except in emergencies). o Likely management: None. Aggregate extraction will not be Direct implications: allowed. o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and Likely management: None (beyond discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in standard existing licensing / EIA MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and requirements). management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Dumping and disposal will not be Direct implications: allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste from processing vessels and munitions. Likely management: None (beyond standard existing licensing / EIA requirements). However, there may be added EIA / mitigation requirements and costs resulting from the designation.

257

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

AF T

Activities that we assume may need restricting (limiting or mitigating) within the site or parts of the site. Assumptions Implications Static fishing gear will be permitted, Direct implications: but there may need to be a limit on o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear the amount of static gear used in the and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team area. comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Current levels of static gear are Given this assumption, there are still the following assumed to be ok. concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional Likely management: None. costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not o be made prohibitively expensive If the assumption turns out to be wrong: within the site. This applies to power o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature or cables (including cables for site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km renewable energy devices), and depending on cables telecommunications cables. o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. Likely management: None o If there are costs associated with co-location of It is our understanding that UNCLOS renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there states that the freedom to lay cables might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the outside territorial waters is one of renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications the basic freedoms of the high seas, for industry and Government in terms of loss of and that nations are to have due regard to pipelines and cables already operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. in position, the repair of which should not be prejudiced. Therefore, there is currently no way to manage or restrict this activity in the offshore area, even where it would prevent conservation objectives from being achieved. The operation of cables (power and Direct implications: telecommunications) & pipelines will o be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Likely management: None Note the comment on UNCLOS above.

258

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: PT comment: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable Currently, this assumption is energy developments. This could result in: recorded for all sites, except - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for reference areas. However, based on mitigation and monitoring SAP feedback the assumption cannot - delays to renewables development apply to all sites in the network. The o If there are costs associated with co-location of compatibility of renewable energy renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 developments in any single site years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of remains an uncertainty. Note that deployment of wind and wave developments. This may (with the exception of the Atlantic have serious implications for industry and Government in Array and West of Wight sites), the terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate Working Groups have tended to plan change targets. the sites away from the areas of most o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically interest to renewable developments. restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: Likely management: None (beyond o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts standard existing licensing / EIA would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, requirements). increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000However, there is some outstanding £400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km uncertainty over whether an MCZ depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet designation would make a difference renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional to EIA / mitigation requirements and monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and costs. declining investor confidence in renewables activities. Activities that we assume will be allowed to continue / occur within the site Assumptions Implications Handlining (recreational angling and Direct implications: commercial handlining) will be o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and permitted. Handlining includes sea recreational activity angling and trolling. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: Likely management: None. o Handliners might face possible additional costs if mitigation measures are needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed Pelagic trawls will be permitted Direct implications:

AF T

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted.

Likely management: None. Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Likely management: None. Passage of ships will be permitted Likely management: None.

259

Direct implications:

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

Direct implications:

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support

The Crown Estates highlighted that what were building blocks iL13 and iL20 are in an area with an active telecommunication cables interconnecting UK mainland overseas. Supportive with the assumption that MCZ designation would not restrict maintenance / repair of cables described

•

AF T

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted. (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.) Likely management: None.

Additional comments

This pMCZ straddles the 12 nautical mile limit. This means that any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”).

•

Sites to which the site is related The South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ neighbours the Isles of Scilly pMCZs (approx 15km to the north, inside the 6nm limit) and the Isles of Scilly Complex SAC.

260

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

Conservation Objectives for South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ Subtidal sand: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L M L L L L-M L

H L L L L

Sensitivity and Confidence information extracted from national sensitivity matrices.

261

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

Subtidal coarse sediment: Recover to favourable condition

AF T

Confidence+ L L L L L L L L

L L L

262

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ site report

AF T

The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

The third map indicates the location of the Traffic Separation Scheme with reference to the pMCZ.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

263

Map: SAP_215a Version: Jun11

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ

6°20'15"W

6°18'0"W

6°15'45"W

6°13'30"W

6°11'15"W

6°9'0"W

6°6'45"W

4 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

49°42'30"N

D R AF

49°44'15"N

Long

Lat

Long

A 49.7405 -6.2943 49° 44' 25'' N 6° 17' 39'' W B 49.7400 -6.1299 49° 44' 23'' N 6° 7' 47'' W

C 49.6403 -6.1297 49° 38' 25'' N 6° 7' 46'' W

D 49.6400 -6.2944 49° 38' 23'' N 6° 17' 39'' W

South of the Isles of Scilly

49°40'45"N

49°39'0"N

10 0

100

1 00

100

49°37'15"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_215b Version: Jun11

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ

6°18'0"W

6°15'45"W

6°13'30"W

6°11'15"W

6°9'0"W

6°6'45"W

4 km

6°4'30"W

6°2'15"W

49°42'30"N

D R AF

49°44'15"N

South of the Isles of Scilly

49°40'45"N

49°39'0"N

49°37'15"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Version: Jun11

South of the Isles of Scilly pMCZ

6°20'15"W

6°18'0"W

6°15'45"W

6°13'30"W

6°11'15"W

6°9'0"W

D R AF

49°44'15"N

49°42'30"N

2.5

5 km

6°6'45"W

6°4'30"W

South of the Isles of Scilly

49°40'45"N

49°39'0"N

10 0

100

49°37'15"N

6°2'15"W

Map: SAP_215c

100

1 00

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) zone Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) lane

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

AF T

II.4 Site-level reports for inshore pMCZs

II.4.1 Poole Rocks pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.6865

-1.8860

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 41' 11'' N'

1° 53' 9' W'

Site area: 3.7 km2

AF T

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Eastern Channel OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The shape of the site is a simple square. The site boundaries were drawn using simple N-S and E-W lines and minimum nodes, in line with ENG guidelines. The site was situated on top of a rock feature shown on nautical charts. Environmental site summary ***To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Poole Rocks pMCZ

Table II.4.1.a*** Working conservation objective feature list for Poole Rocks pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings). *** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list for Poole Rocks pMCZ Review Comments Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Moderate energy circalittoral rock Included based on anecdotal evidence and on the basis of charted sea feature. IFCA state they have recently visited the area & dropped camera, rocky reef present. Gobius couchi Couch's Goby single record, and the species is difficult to identify. However, the species is known to occur in Poole Bay, and the habitat in this site is appropriate. Keep on CO list. Lithothamnion corallioides Maёrl single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list. Ostrea edulis Native oyster

268

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table II.4.1.b*** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) Subtidal sand Subtidal mixed sediments

2.73 1.01

< 0.1% < 0.1%

AF T

Table II.4.1.c*** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Gobius couchi 1 Lithothamnion corallioides 1 Ostrea edulis 6 Table II.4.1.d*** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

0.27 (< 0.1%)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** (to be added***) shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site.

The vulnerability assessment work (still ongoing for inshore sites) is reviewing these assumptions, to ensure that they are as realistic as possible, i.e. a reflection of what is likely to happen should the site be implemented. The Joint Working Group will review the outputs of the vulnerability assessment at their June 2011 meeting. The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below*** specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ. ***Assumptions / implications table tba.

269

Sites to which the site is related The site lies approximately 3km to the east of the Poole Bay SPA and SSSI and Studland and Godlingston Heaths SSSI. It also lies approximately 4km north-east of the Studland to Portland draft SAC.*** Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance8.

To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Supporting documentation

On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

270

Map: SAP_216a Version: Jun11

Poole Rocks pMCZ

1°54'35"W

1°54'10"W

1°53'45"W

1°53'20"W

1°52'55"W

1°52'30"W

1°52'5"W

450

1°51'40"W

900 m

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

50°42'0"N

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50°41'42"N

D R AF

A 50.6955 -1.8992 50° 41' 43'' N 1° 53' 56'' W B 50.6955 -1.8729 50° 41' 43'' N 1° 52' 22'' W

C 50.6774 -1.8728 50° 40' 38'' N 1° 52' 22'' W D 50.6774 -1.8991 50° 40' 38'' N 1° 53' 56'' W

50°41'24"N

Poole Rocks

50°41'6"N

50°40'48"N

50°40'30"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_216b Version: Jun11

1°55'0"W

Poole Rocks pMCZ

1°54'0"W

1°53'30"W

1°53'0"W

1°52'30"W

450

1°52'0"W

900 m

1°51'30"W

1°51'0"W

50°42'0"N

50°41'24"N

D R AF

50°41'42"N

Poole Rocks

50°41'6"N

50°40'48"N

50°40'30"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.2 Studland Bay pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.6535 -1.9401

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 39' 12'' N' 1° 56' 24' W'

Site area: 3.9 km2

AF T

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Eastern Channel OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline up to the mean high water line from *** to ***. A line has been drawn from these points to join up the site.*** Environmental site summary ***To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Studland Bay pMCZ

Table II.4.2.a*** Working conservation objective feature list for Studland Bay pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list for Studland Bay pMCZ Review Comments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Seagrass beds Hippocampus hippocampus Short snouted seahorse Ostrea edulis Native oyster Raja undulata Undulate ray

273

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table II.4.2.b*** Subtidal broad-scale recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Subtidal sand Subtidal mixed sediments

0.05 3.74

% of total in study area < 0.1% 0.1%

AF T

Table II.4.2.c*** Intertidal broad-scale habitats to be recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud

0.03 0.11

0.3% < 0.1%

Table II.4.2.d*** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Hippocampus guttulatus 3.69 (0.6%)* Hippocampus hippocampus 1 Ostrea edulis 4 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Table II.4.2.e*** FOCI habitats to be protected in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Seagrass Beds

0.91

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** (***to be added) shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site. The vulnerability assessment work (still ongoing for inshore sites) is reviewing these assumptions, to ensure that they are as realistic as possible, i.e. a reflection of what is likely to happen should the site be implemented. The Joint Working Group will review the outputs of the vulnerability assessment at their June 2011 meeting. The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent

274

the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below *** specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ. ***Assumptions / implications table tba. Sites to which the site is related The site is coincident with Studland & Godlingston Heaths SSSI, Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC and Studland to Portland draft SAC.***

AF T

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance9. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

275

Map: SAP_217a Version: Jun11

Studland Bay pMCZ

1°58'6"W

1°57'29"W

1°56'52"W

1°56'15"W

1°55'38"W

1°55'1"W

0.3

0.6

1.2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

1°54'24"W

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.6738 -1.9418 50° 40' 25'' N 1° 56' 30'' W

50°40'25"N

B 50.6421 -1.9238 50° 38' 31'' N 1° 55' 25'' W

D R AF

50°40'0"N

50°39'35"N

Studland Bay

50°39'10"N

50°38'45"N

Studland

50°38'20"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_217b Version: Jun11

1°58'30"W

Studland Bay pMCZ

1°57'0"W

1°56'15"W

1°55'30"W

1°54'45"W

600

1,200 m

Poole Rocks

1°54'0"W

1°53'15"W

50°40'25"N

50°39'35"N

D R AF

50°40'0"N

Studland Bay

50°39'10"N

50°38'45"N

Studland

50°38'20"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.3 Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.6093

-2.1435

50° 36' 33'' N'

2° 8' 36' W'

AF T

Site area: 84,990 m2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Eastern Channel OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the intertidal area from Broad Bench to the western end of Kimmeridge Bay. The upper limit is the high water mark (the line on our maps is OS Boundary Line mean high water). The lower limit is the low water mark. We do not have a low water line to use, so a buffer has been drawn. If available, a low water line should be used in preference to mark the lower limit. Environmental site summary

***To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay pMCZ

Table II.4.3.a*** Working conservation objective feature list for Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments High energy infralittoral rock Intertidal coarse sediment Moderate energy intertidal rock Padina pavonica Peacock's tail seaweed Paludinella littorina Sea snail Phymatolithon calcareum Maёrl single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

278

Table II.4.3.b*** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) High energy infralittoral rock

< 0.01

< 0.1%

Table II.4.3.c*** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) 0.03 < 0.01

0.6% < 0.1%

AF T

Moderate energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments

Table II.4.3.c*** FOCI species to be recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Hippocampus guttulatus 0.07 (< 0.1%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Padina pavonica 1 Paludinella littorina 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

279

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance10. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

280

Map: SAP_218a Version: Jun11

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay pMCZ

2°8'40"W

2°8'30"W

2°8'20"W

110

2°8'10"W

220 m

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.6105 -2.1393 50° 36' 37'' N 2° 8' 21'' W B 50.6095 -2.1393 50° 36' 34'' N 2° 8' 21'' W

D R AF

50°36'40"N

50°36'45"N

C 50.6097 -2.1424 50° 36' 35'' N 2° 8' 32'' W D 50.6078 -2.1478 50° 36' 27'' N 2° 8' 52'' W

E 50.6087 -2.1469 50° 36' 31'' N 2° 8' 48'' W

50°36'35"N

50°36'30"N

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay

50°36'25"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

50°36'45"N

50°36'42"N

50°36'38"N

50°36'34"N

50°36'31"N

50°36'28"N

50°36'24"N

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay pMCZ

2°8'51"W

2°8'44"W

2°8'37"W

2°8'30"W

2°8'23"W

190 m

2°8'16"W

2°8'9"W

Version: Jun11

D R AF

Map: SAP_218b

Broad Bench to Kimmeridge Bay

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.4 South Dorset pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.3863

-2.2138

50° 23' 10'' N'

2° 12' 49' W'

AF T

Site area: 192.6 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Eastern Channel, Western Channel and Celtic Sea*** OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site is the shape of a simple rectangle, with boundary line running N-S and E-W in line with ENG guidelines. The eastern part of the site overlaps with the West of Wight round 3 wind farm licence area, but it does not overlap with the area where the West of Wight wind farm is currently planned (***refs; add to maps). The site intersects the 12nm limit. Environmental site summary ***To be added.

Features proposed for designation within South Dorset pMCZ

Table II.4.4.a Working conservation objective feature list for South Dorset pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments

High energy circalittoral rock

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal chalk

283

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table II.4.4.b*** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments

30.60 7.42 27.66 126.97

2.4% < 0.1% < 0.1% 3.6%

AF T

Table II.4.4.c*** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Subtidal chalk Subtidal sands and gravels

27.93

Number of point records (pre-1980)

4 < 0.1%

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

***Assumptions / implications table tba. Sites to which the site is related The site lies approximately 4km to the west of Wight-Barfleur draft SAC and 5km south of Studland to Portland draft SAC.***

284

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance11. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

285

Map: SAP_219a

South Dorset pMCZ

Version: Jun11

50°30'0"N

20 20 2 0 2°24'0"W

2°19'30"W

2°15'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°10'30"W

2°6'0"W

1.5

2°1'30"W

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

6 km

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

South-East of Portland Bill

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.4176 -2.4088 50° 25' 3'' N 2° 24' 31'' W

B 50.4175 -2.0188 50° 25' 2'' N 2° 1' 7'' W

50°27'30"N

D 50.3551 -2.4087 50° 21' 18'' N 2° 24' 31'' W

50 0 50

50°25'0"N

A 50

D R AF

C 50.3550 -2.0188 50° 21' 17'' N 2° 1' 7'' W

South Dorset

50°22'30"N

South Dorset

Map Legend

50°17'30"N

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

50°20'0"N

6 nautical mile limit

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_219b

South Dorset pMCZ

Version: Jun11

2°19'0"W

2°15'30"W

2°12'0"W

50°26'0"N

50°24'0"N

D R AF

South Dorset

2°8'30"W

6 km

2°5'0"W

2°1'30"W

2°26'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

South Dorset

50°22'0"N

50°20'0"N

50°18'0"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.5 South of Portland pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information

Site area: 17.5 km2

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 29' 22'' N' 2° 29' 55' W'

AF T

Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.4896 -2.4989

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site is a simple parallelogram designed to capture broad scale habitats and FOCI in the area of Portland Deep. Environmental site summary

***To be added. • The FOCI habitat Blue Mussel Beds has also been recorded in this pMCZ, but is already protected under the Studland to Portland dSAC. It is therefore not recorded in the tables below. • Geological/geomorphological feature of importance: This pMCZ encompasses Portland Deep – a geomorphological feature of importance, with strong tidal streams. • The southern and western side of Portland has been mapped as an area of higher than average benthic species diversity (within the south-west context). • Members from the Dorset Local Group have also commented on the presence of maërl beds and Sabellaria within 3nm of the Dorset coastline, but neither the precise locations nor species (of Sabellaria) were cited. • Local Group feedback mentions bream nests in the area. • Local Group feedback indicates that this area is important for seabirds and cetaceans, but these are not currently part of the developing conservation objectives.

288

Features proposed for designation within South of Portland pMCZ

AF T

Table II.4.5a Working conservation objective feature list for South of Portland pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. pMCZ Name Features on CO list Review Comments South of High energy circalittoral Portland rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Mussel Beds protected by existing SAC Portland Deep geological feature

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

Table II.4.5.b*** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mixed sediments

1.54 7.62 2.50 0.85 3.00

0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1%

Table II.4.5.c*** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

0.83 (< 0.1%)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** below shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site in the third progress report. The vulnerability assessment work (still ongoing for inshore sites) is reviewing these assumptions, to ensure that they are as realistic as possible, i.e. a reflection of what is likely to happen should the site be implemented. The Joint Working Group will review the outputs of the vulnerability assessment at their June 2011 meeting, and the content of table *** may change as a result.

289

Implications

Commercial and recreational fishing Direct implications: (may not be relevant to this site because the fishing industry commented that there is no mobile gear fishing in this pMCZ ) o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen ( o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Some Local Group members are concerned about impacts on sand eel trawling, and would like this activity to continue to be permitted. o Other Local Group feedback indicates that the Portland Race (strong tidal race off Portland Bill) naturally restricts a lot of fishing activity that can take place in the area.

AF T

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

290

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Whilst some Local group feedback states that the area is important for static gear fishermen, including potters and netters, other Local Group feedback indicates that the Portland Race (strong tidal race off Portland Bill) naturally restricts a lot of fishing activity that can take place in the area. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Direct implications: o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and recreational activity Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback indicates that this area is used by commercial rod and line bass fishermen, who use the area sustainably. o Local Group feedback indicates that the Portland Race (strong tidal race off Portland Bill) naturally restricts a lot of fishing activity that can take place in the area. o Handliners might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

AF T

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not o be made prohibitively expensive within If the assumption turns out to be wrong: the site. This applies to power cables o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a (including cables for renewable energy feature or site might mean longer cable routes, at a devices), and telecommunications cost of £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to cables. ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets.

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

291

Direct implications:

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. o This pMCZ is located in the western fringe of a tidal resource area, which might impact on potential future exploitation of the resource.

AF T

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted Project team comments: Currently, this assumption is recorded for all sites that are common to the colocation and no co-location network variation. However, based on SAP feedback the assumption cannot apply to all sites in the network. The compatibility of renewable energy developments in any single one of the common sites remains an uncertainty. Note that the Working Groups have planned the sites that are common to both DNC variations away from the areas of most interest to renewable developments.

Tourism and recreation

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Direct implications:

Ports, shipping

Maintenance dredging in ports (to enable access to ports) will be permitted (The project team have advised that this would mean that the dredged areas of seafloor could not be counted towards ENG targets.)

292

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

AF T

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

Waste disposal

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging

293

Direct implications:

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

Direct implications:

Aquaculture Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

AF T

Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support •

•

Direct implications:

The Crown Estates provided feedback to state that they would be supportive of the site based on the assumption that coastal protection works and waste water outfalls would not be affected. Natural England (on the Local Group) are supportive of the site.

Additional comments •

•

The building block that this pMCZ derived from was the preferred option in the area by commercial fishing representatives Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”).

Sites to which the site is related The site partially overlaps with the Studland to Portland draft SAC.***

294

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance12. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

On the following pages there are hree maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The third map shows DORIS bathymetry data (***reference).

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

295

South of Portland pMCZ

Version: Jun11

2°33'0"W

2°32'0"W

2°31'0"W

2°30'0"W

2°29'0"W

2°28'0"W

0.5

2°27'0"W

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

50°31'20"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Map: SAP_220a

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.5167 -2.4961 50° 31' 0'' N 2° 29' 46'' W

50°30'40"N

B 50.5079 -2.4561 50° 30' 28'' N 2° 27' 22'' W

50°30'0"N

D R AF

D 50.4712 -2.5416 50° 28' 16'' N 2° 32' 29'' W

C 50.4625 -2.5016 50° 27' 44'' N 2° 30' 5'' W

50°29'20"N

South of Portland

1 00

50°28'40"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

50°28'0"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_220b

South of Portland pMCZ

Version: Jun11

2°31'50"W

2°30'40"W

2°29'30"W

50°29'20"N

50°28'40"N

D R AF

50°30'40"N

50°30'0"N

2°28'20"W

2°27'10"W

2 km

2°26'0"W

2°24'50"W

South-East of Portland Bill

South of Portland

Blue mussel bed habitat FOCI

50°28'0"N

50°31'20"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Portland Deep A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_220c

South of Portland pMCZ

Version: Jun11

This map shows bathymetry data supplied by the DORIS (DORset Integrated Seabed Study) project.The blue rectangle on the small map in the bottom corner of this page indicates the location in the south west of the large zoomed map. Datum: WGS84; Projection: UTM30N. 2°33'0"W

2°31'50"W

2°30'40"W

2°29'30"W

50°29'20"N

50°28'40"N

50°28'0"N

D R AF

50°30'40"N

50°30'0"N

2°28'20"W

2°27'10"W

2 km

2°26'0"W

2°24'50"W

50°31'20"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

South-East of Portland Bill

South of Portland

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Portland Deep A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.6 Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report (site report for West of Portland and The Fleet pMCZ), and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information

Site area: 37.7 km2

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 35' 31'' N' 2° 31' 53' W'

AF T

Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.5919 -2.5316

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline up to mean high water from Abbotsbury in the west to Weston on Portland Bill in the east. The western edge follows the boundary of the Lyme Bay and Torbay candidate SAC. The southern edge has been drawn NE-SW until the Stennis Ledges, where the boundary then changes to incorporate the Stennis Ledges in full. DORIS seabed data was used to help draw a boundary around the ledges. From there it follows NESW again to join the coastline at Weston.*** Environmental site summary ***To be added.

The southern and western side of Portland has been mapped as an area of higher than average benthic species diversity (within the south-west context).

•

Local Group feedback mentions bream nests in the area.

•

Members from the Dorset Local Group have also commented on the presence of maërl beds and Sabellaria within 3nm of the Dorset coastline, but neither the precise locations nor species (of Sabellaria) were cited.

•

Local Group feedback also indicated possible geological interest of the site, with soft Lias reefs believed to be present.

Features proposed for designation within Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges pMCZ 299

AF T

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Arctica islandica Ocean quahog Eunicella verrucosa Pink sea-fan Ostrea edulis Native oyster Padina pavonica Peacock's tail seaweed single record older than 30 years

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale ecorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) High energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand

< 0.01 26.13 4.26

< 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1%

0.03 < 0.01

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2)

% of total in study area

0.4% < 0.1%

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Eunicella verrucosa 2 Hippocampus guttulatus 1.51 (0.2%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Ostrea edulis 2 Padina pavonica 1 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Subtidal sands and gravels

300

21.68 (< 0.1%)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

AF T

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen o Scallop dredge fishermen would no longer have access to this area. The site follows the boundary of an existing byelaw which restricts scalloping seasonally, so scallopers are already restricted to some degree within this area. o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Some Local Group members are concerned about impacts on sand eel trawling, and would like this activity to continue to be permitted.

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging) (Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

301

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Some Local Group feedback indicated that there was a suggestion to restrict / exclude fixed netting for health and safety concerns, but the rationale is not clear. o Local Group feedback indicates that the area is important for static gear fishermen, including netters and potters. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

AF T

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Direct implications: o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and recreational activity Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback indicates that the area is important for anglers. o Handliners might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

302

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Direct implications:

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Direct implications:

Project team comments:

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean additional management requirements for renewable energy developments. This could mean: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. o This pMCZ is located in the western fringe of a tidal resource area, which might impact on potential future exploitation of the resource.

AF T

Currently, this assumption is recorded for all sites that are common to the colocation and no co-location network variation. However, based on SAP feedback the assumption cannot apply to all sites in the network. The compatibility of renewable energy developments in any single one of the common sites remains an uncertainty. Note that the Working Groups have planned the sites that are common to both DNC variations away from the areas of most interest to renewable developments.

Tourism and recreation Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Added comment from a Steering Group member: “Sub aqua diving should continue, shotting wrecks should continue – anchoring is not often done by dive boats.”

303

Direct implications: o The area is rich in important wrecks and visiting divers and families have a very positive socioeconomic benefit – we also see what is on the seabed.

Ports, shipping Maintenance dredging in ports (to enable access to ports) will be permitted (The project team have advised that this would mean that the dredged areas of seafloor could not be counted towards ENG targets.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

AF T

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback indicates that the area is important for shipping as a refuge and anchorage in north easterly winds

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback indicates that the area is important for shipping as a refuge and anchorage in north easterly winds.

Direct implications:

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

304

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting Direct implications: o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

AF T

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

Waste disposal

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Direct implications:

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

Direct implications:

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on waste water outfalls

Aquaculture

Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities

Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

305

Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support •

•

AF T

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on coastal protection works. o A Steering Group member raised a concern about current beach management plans being impacted by an MCZ designation. The Beach management plan is important and exists for flood risk management / coastal erosion purposes.

Sites to which the site is related

The site shares a boundary with Lyme Bay and Torbay candidate SAC and partially overlaps with Chesil and The Fleet SSSI, Studland to Portland draft SAC, Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs SAC and Isle of Portland SSSI. *** Conservation Objectives

***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance13. Supporting documentation

To be added. ***

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

306

Site map series On the following pages there are three maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The third map shows DORIS bathymetry data (***reference).

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

307

Map: SAP_221a

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges pMCZ

Version: Jun11

2°35'10"W

2°33'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°30'50"W

2°28'40"W

2°26'30"W

Suton Poynt z Preston

2 0

The Fleet 20

Chickerell

D R AF

Weymouth

50°37'20"N

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.5426 -2.4564 50° 32' 33'' N 2° 27' 22'' W B 50.5716 -2.5016 50° 34' 17'' N 2° 30' 5'' W

Notngt on

Langton Herring

50°38'40"N

4 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

C 50.5493 -2.5344 50° 32' 57'' N 2° 32' 4'' W D 50.5577 -2.5635 50° 33' 27'' N 2° 33' 48'' W E 50.5866 -2.5258 50° 35' 11'' N 2° 31' 32'' W F 50.6133 -2.5747 50° 36' 47'' N 2° 34' 29'' W G 50.6248 -2.5974 50° 37' 29'' N 2° 35' 50'' W H 50.6378 -2.6245 50° 38' 16'' N 2° 37' 28'' W I 50.6392 -2.6142 50° 38' 20'' N 2° 36' 51'' W J 50.6534 -2.6133 50° 39' 12'' N 2° 36' 47'' W

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

3 0

10 10

Fortuneswell

Weston

Easton 10

50°32'0"N

50 Work in progress Southwell Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

50°33'20"N

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

50°34'40"N

10 10

Wyke Regis

10 10

50°36'0"N

Map: SAP_221b

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges pMCZ

Version: Jun11

2°35'20"W

2°33'0"W

2°30'40"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°28'20"W

2°26'0"W

2°23'40"W

Suton Poynt z

Preston The Fleet

Weymouth

D R AF

50°36'0"N

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

50°34'40"N

Wyke Regis

Fortuneswell

50°33'20"N

Weston

50°32'0"N

Osmington

Notngt on

Langton Herring

Chickerell 50°37'20"N

2°21'20"W

50°38'40"N

4 km

Easton

Southwell

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_221c

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges pMCZ

Version: Jun11

2°35'20"W

2°33'0"W

2°30'40"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°28'20"W

2°26'0"W

2°23'40"W

Suton Poynt z

Preston The Fleet

Weymouth

D R AF

50°36'0"N

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

50°34'40"N

Wyke Regis

Fortuneswell

50°33'20"N

Weston

50°32'0"N

Osmington

Notngt on

Langton Herring

Chickerell 50°37'20"N

2°21'20"W

50°38'40"N

4 km

Easton

Southwell

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.7 Axe Estuary pMCZ

AF T

311

Map: SAP_222a

Axe Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°4'10"W

Colyford 3°3'45"W

3°3'20"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°2'55"W

3°2'30"W

0.2

3°2'5"W

0.4

0.8 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.7023 -3.0552 50° 42' 8'' N 3° 3' 18'' W

B 50.7020 -3.0538 50° 42' 7'' N 3° 3' 13'' W

50°43'3"N

50°42'46"N

D R AF

50°43'20"N

Axe Estuary

50°42'29"N

50°42'12"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_222b

Axe Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°5'0"W

3°4'35"W

3°4'10"W

Colyford 3°3'45"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°3'20"W

3°2'55"W

3°2'30"W

0.4

0.8 km

3°2'5"W

3°1'40"W

3°1'15"W

50°43'28"N

50°42'56"N

D R AF

50°43'12"N

Axe Estuary

50°42'40"N

50°42'24"N

50°42'8"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.8 Otter Estuary pMCZ

AF T

314

Map: SAP_223a

Otter Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°19'35"W

3°19'16"W

3°18'57"W

3°18'38"W

3°18'19"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°18'0"W

3°17'41"W

0.15

0.3

3°17'22"W

0.6 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.6297 -3.3068 50° 37' 46'' N 3° 18' 24'' W

B 50.6296 -3.3064 50° 37' 46'' N 3° 18' 22'' W

50°38'31"N

50°38'18"N

D R AF

50°38'44"N

Otter Estuary

50°37'52"N

6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

50°38'5"N

Map Legend

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_223b

Otter Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°20'0"W

3°19'35"W

3°19'10"W

3°18'45"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°18'20"W

0.3

3°17'55"W

0.6 km

3°17'30"W

3°17'5"W

50°38'18"N

D R AF

50°38'31"N

50°38'44"N

Otter Estuary

50°38'5"N

50°37'52"N

50°37'39"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.9 Torbay pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.4335 -3.5117

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 26' 0'' N' 3° 30' 41' W'

AF T

Site area: 19.8 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).***

This pMCZ consists of two zones. The area within the Torbay cSAC is suggested for the protection of ENG seafloor species and habitats not protected by the SAC designation (see table ***). The extension zone around Berry Head is suggested for the protection of seabirds and cetaceans, but not for seafloor features. The extension is suggested after detailed discussion within the Joint Working Group, on the basis that there is a known problem with motorised leisure craft causing disturbance to seabirds and collisions with cetaceans around Berry Head. Site boundary

The site boundary follows the boundary of Lyme Bay and Torbay cSAC between Oddicombe Beach and just south of Berry Head. The areas within Brixham and Torquay harbours are not included. There is an extension beyond the cSAC boundary around Berry Head, this is an extension zone suggested for the protection of seabirds and cetaceans (not seafloor features). Environmental site summary

***To be added. •

Intersects with an area of higher than average benthic species and habitat diversity (within the south-west context).

•

Local Group feedback has highlighted the sea caves present in and around Torbay, though rocky reefs and sea caves will be protected by the SAC designation.

•

Local Group and Working Group discussions have recognised the importance of the area for birds, with an important wintering bird roost at Broadsands, and the second

317

most important area for wintering diver and grebe concentrations in the south west. The area is also important for bird breeding colonies, and guillemot feeding areas. •

The area has also been highlighted in Local Group feedback as being an important breeding area and nursery for commercial fish species.

Features proposed for designation within Torbay pMCZ

AF T

Table II.4.9.a*** Working conservation objective feature list for Torbay pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list for Torbay pMCZ Review Comments Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud likely to be predominantly sandy habitat. Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy infralittoral rock protected by existing SAC Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock protected by existing SAC Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal mud Probably sandy mud and muddy sand, not pure mud Intertidal under boulder communities Mud habitats in deep water Record is too shallow for this FOCI habitat. Sabellaria alveolata reefs Seagrass beds Eunicella verrucosa protected by existing SAC Hippocampus guttulatus Long snouted seahorse Ostrea edulis Native oyster Padina pavonica Peacock's tail This is a single record older than 30 seaweed years but habitat is right for this species so keep this on the CO list. Paludinella littorina Sea snail Seabirds Only within extension zone around Berry Head. Cetaceans Only within extension zone around Berry Head.

318

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

% of total in study area < 0.1% < 0.1% 5.0% < 0.1%

AF T

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) High energy infralittoral rock < 0.01 Moderate energy infralittoral 0.05 rock Low energy infralittoral rock 0.39 Moderate energy circalittoral < 0.01 rock Subtidal sand 1.24 Subtidal mud 8.82 Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Moderate energy intertidal rock 0.07 Low energy intertidal rock 0.06 Intertidal coarse sediments 0.11 Intertidal sand and muddy sand 0.02 Intertidal mud 0.48 Intertidal mixed sediments 0.11

< 0.1% 0.1%

% of total in study area

1.4% 2.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 2.5%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) records (pre-1980) Hippocampus guttulatus 1 6.26 (1.0%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Ostrea edulis 4 Padina pavonica 4 3 Paludinella littorina 1 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

319

Number of point records (total) 6

Number of point records (pre-1980)

2 1 3

AF T

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Intertidal underboulder communities Mud Habitats in Deep Water Sabellaria alveolata reefs Seagrass Beds 0.90 (2.6%) Subtidal sands and 7.83 (< 0.1%) gravels

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** below shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site in the third progress report (note that at that stage, the extension zone for seabird and cetacean protection was not included in the site).

320

Table II.3.40b Specific assumptions and implications relating to Torbay pMCZ. Assumptions

Implications

Commercial and recreational fishing Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

AF T

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o Change of method /reinvestment in other gear types may be needed o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback has suggested excluding netting from the area, or restricting it so fixed nets are not allowed, in order to protect birds – these are currently not part of the conservation objectives (see “additional comments”). o Local Group feedback has suggested limiting potting. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

321

Direct implications: o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and recreational activity Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Handliners might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

AF T

The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not be o made prohibitively expensive within If the assumption turns out to be wrong: the site. This applies to power cables o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature (including cables for renewable energy or site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of devices), and telecommunications £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 cables. £1.3m/km depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Direct implications: o

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification,

Project team comments:

322

additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. Tourism and recreation

Ports, shipping

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Zoning/information/increased advice costs (generic) o Refer to Sea Torbay and Harbour management plans o Local Group feedback has suggested restricting boating activity, but has also highlighted that all leisure activities should be allowed to continue. The area is of great importance to tourism, with harbour activities, leisure sailing and water sports, and some people on the Local Group felt that any restrictions on these activities would have negative socio-economic consequences. o Local Group feedback has recognised the conflicts around leisure activities and conservation interests in the area, and also possible health and safety problems related to leisure activities. Zonation has been suggested as a possible tool to help resolve conflicts. o Some Local Group feedback indicates that they feel recreational activities may not have a negative impact on the conservation interests of the site.

AF T

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to maintenance dredging in ports). o It is essential that this activity can continue in this site, this has been indicated within the regional Working Groups as well as the Local Group.

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Essential for compliance of shipping sector/ economics o Impact on seagrass beds?

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to the anchoring of small vessels). o Concerns have been voiced over potential damage of

323

anchors to seagrass beds within the pMCZ, and the possibility of restricting or limiting anchoring in sensitive areas has been raised. This would mean zoning harbour and recreational activities. Some Local Group feedback has raised concern about any restrictions on anchorage of small vessels, moorings for vessels or navigation aids

Direct implications: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to the anchoring of large vessels).

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to the passage of ships).

AF T

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications: o

Waste disposal

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Direct implications: o

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The Crown Estates have highlighted that the pMCZ is located near an area of waste water outfalls to the

324

north which need to be able to continue. A comment has been made to check with South West Water on their level of treatment in the area

Aquaculture

Other activities

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o There is concern around potential increases in cost to these activities resulting from an MCZ designation, and a suggestion was made by a Steering Group member to model those costs.

AF T

Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Zoning at the least (generic) / restriction of numbers

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Removal of seaweed is in the control of the Harbour master

Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications: o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The Crown Estates have highlighted that the pMCZ is located in an area with coastal protection works which need to be able to continue. o The Environment Agency ask for coastal erosion and flood risk management activities to be taken into account.

Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Uncertainties

Effect of MCZ designation on ports and harbour ability to manage area effectively

•

Levels of support • •

325

Ports and Harbour sector would prefer an alternative site to be found. The Crown Estates provided feedback to state that the pMCZ is located in an area with coastal protection works, nearby waste water outfalls to the north and port/harbour facilities. They are supportive of the pMCZ with the assumption that MCZ designation would not restrict ongoing activities described.

Additional comments

•

The area around and to the south of Berry Head is important for seabird colonies and is protected under a byelaw. The existing byelaw isn’t enforced. (...) If the birds are added to the conservation objectives, the assumption is that the MCZ status would supersede the existing byelaw to protect birds and restrictions should be modified to allow some trafficking with speed restrictions. (...) A suggestion was made by a Steering Group member to ensure that static gear will have regard for sensitive species – winter bird roosts and feeding sites etc, and to assure a formalisation of of current voluntary bird byecatch agreements (seagrass). This might happen if birds are added to the conservation objectives. Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). Local Group feedback has suggested that additional resources ought to be made available to the harbour authority if an MCZ designation results in additional work.

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The site partially overlaps with Lyme Bay and Torbay candidate SAC.*** Conservation Objectives

Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

326

Map: SAP_224a

Torbay pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°30'0"W

3°28'0"W

3°26'0"W

0.5

3°24'0"W

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

3°34'0"W

3°36'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

50°29'10"N

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.4824 -3.5149 50° 28' 56'' N 3° 30' 53'' W

50°28'0"N

2 0 20

Marldon

D R AF

B 50.4824 -3.5115 50° 28' 56'' N 3° 30' 41'' W

50°26'50"N

50°25'40"N

Torbay

C 50.4602 -3.4546 50° 27' 36'' N 3° 27' 16'' W D 50.4490 -3.4545 50° 26' 56'' N 3° 27' 16'' W E 50.4513 -3.5344 50° 27' 4'' N 3° 32' 3'' W F 50.4256 -3.5471 50° 25' 32'' N 3° 32' 49'' W G 50.4144 -3.5361 50° 24' 51'' N 3° 32' 9'' W H 50.4100 -3.5165 50° 24' 35'' N 3° 30' 59'' W I 50.4011 -3.4769 50° 24' 4'' N 3° 28' 36'' W J 50.3817 -3.4788 50° 22' 54'' N 3° 28' 43'' W K 50.3817 -3.4963 50° 22' 53'' N 3° 29' 46'' W L 50.4056 -3.5131 50° 24' 20'' N 3° 30' 47'' W M 50.4032 -3.5195 50° 24' 11'' N 3° 31' 10'' W N 50.4326 -3.5557 50° 25' 57'' N 3° 33' 20'' W O 50.4327 -3.5563 50° 25' 57'' N 3° 33' 22'' W P 50.4577 -3.5290 50° 27' 27'' N 3° 31' 44'' W Q 50.4573 -3.5290 50° 27' 26'' N 3° 31' 44'' W R 50.4102 -3.4598 50° 24' 36'' N 3° 27' 35'' W S 50.4004 -3.4598 50° 24' 1'' N 3° 27' 35'' W

50°24'30"N

Churston Ferrers

50°23'20"N

Galmpton

Dart Estuary

Ditsham

10 10

20 30

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_224b

Torbay pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°33'45"W

3°31'30"W

50°28'0"N

3°27'0"W

D R AF

Marldon

50°26'50"N

3°29'15"W

1.5

3 km

3°24'45"W

3°22'30"W

50°29'10"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Torbay

50°25'40"N

50°24'30"N

Stoke Gabriel

Dart Estuary

Galmpton

50°23'20"N

Churston Ferrers

Ditsham

50°22'10"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.10 Dart Estuary pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.3971 -3.6197

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 23' 49'' N' 3° 37' 10' W'

Site area: 4.7 km2

AF T

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline along the mean high water mark from the Anchor Stone upstream as far as Totnes.*** Environmental site summary ***To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Dart Estuary pMCZ

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for the Dart Estuary pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments Intertidal mud Low energy intertidal rock Subtidal mud Coastal saltmarsh & saline reedbeds Estuarine rocky habitats Intertidal under boulder communities Alkmaria romijni Tentacled No records in our dataset but lagoon-worm NE knowledge of recent survey finding this species, presence to be confirmed Anguilla anguilla European eel

329

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) Subtidal mud 2.27 < 0.1%

% of total in study area

AF T

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Low energy intertidal rock < 0.01 Intertidal coarse sediments 0.05 Intertidal mud 1.90 Coastal saltmarshes and saline 0.02 reedbeds

0.1% 0.3% 1.1% 0.8%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) records (pre-1980) Hippocampus guttulatus 1.59 (0.3%)* Hippocampus hippocampus * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Number of point Number of point records (total) records (pre-1980) 5 1

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Estuarine rocky habitats Intertidal underboulder communities

330

happen should the site be implemented. The Joint Working Group will review the outputs of the vulnerability assessment at their June 2011 meeting. The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below (***to be added) specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ. ***Assumptions/implications tables to be added

AF T

Sites to which the site is related The site is approximately 4km upstream of part of the Lyme Bay and Torbay candidate SAC, which lies at the mouth of the Dart Estuary.*** Conservation Objectives

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

331

Map: SAP_225a

Dart Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°42'0"W

3°40'30"W

3°39'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°37'30"W

3°36'0"W

Marldon

0.5

3°34'30"W

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

Dartngt on

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

50°27'0"N

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.3795 -3.5895 50° 22' 46'' N 3° 35' 22'' W Cot

B 50.3798 -3.5863 50° 22' 47'' N 3° 35' 10'' W

Berry Pomeroy

Totnes

50°25'0"N

D R AF

50°26'0"N

Harberton

Dart Estuary

Stoke Gabriel

Ashprington

50°24'0"N

Galmpton

Cornworthy

50°23'0"N

Washbourne

Ditsham

50°22'0"N

Halwell

6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map Legend

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under 1 to the Finding Sanctuary development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_225b

Dart Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°41'40"W

3°40'0"W

3°38'20"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°36'40"W

Marldon 3°35'0"W

1.5

3 km

3°33'20"W

3°31'40"W

Dartngton 50°27'0"N

Cot Berry Pomeroy

Totnes

50°25'0"N

D R AF

50°26'0"N

Torbay

Harberton

Dart Estuary

Stoke Gabriel

Ashprington

50°24'0"N

Map Legend Galmpton

Cornworthy

50°23'0"N

50°22'0"N

Washbourne

Halwell

Ditsham

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

6 nautical mile limit

12Churston nautical mile limit Ferrers

Existing MPAs SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.11 Skerries Bank and surrounds pMCZ

AF T

334

3°40'0"W

3°36'0"W

3°32'0"W0 1

50°20'0"N

East Allington

Loddiswell

K 50

Skerries Bank and surrounds

50 50 50

50 5

50°10'0"N

50°7'30"N

50°5'0"N

Long

Lat

Long

C 50.2332 -3.5941 50° 13' 59'' N 3° 35' 38'' W

Kellaton Chivelstone South Allington

East Prawle

Lat

20 30

Beeson

South Pool

East Portlemouth

Stokenham A Chillington

Frogmore

Malborough

50°12'30"N

South Milton

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

A 50.2677 -3.6517 50° 16' 3'' N 3° 39' 6'' W

Slapton

Sherford

West Alvington

3°24'0"W

8 km

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

D R AF

Hope

50°15'0"N

3°28'0"W

North Upton

Galmpton

B 50.2730 -3.5733 50° 16' 22'' N 3° 34' 24'' W

Churchstow

Bantham Thurleston

Bigbury

Stoke Fleming

Devon Avon Aveton Giﬀor d

50°17'30"N

3°48'0"W

3°52'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Skerries Bank and Surrounds pMCZ

Version: Jun11

Map: SAP_226a

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

D 50.2264 -3.5854 50° 13' 35'' N 3° 35' 7'' W E 50.2456 -3.5731 50° 14' 44'' N 3° 34' 23'' W F 50.2740 -3.5564 50° 16' 26'' N 3° 33' 22'' W G 50.3190 -3.5380 50° 19' 8'' N 3° 32' 16'' W H 50.3240 -3.5213 50° 19' 26'' N 3° 31' 16'' W I 50.3048 -3.4814 50° 18' 17'' N 3° 28' 52'' W J 50.2640 -3.5014 50° 15' 50'' N 3° 30' 5'' W K 50.2248 -3.5265 50° 13' 29'' N 3° 31' 35'' W L 50.2106 -3.5082 50° 12' 38'' N 3° 30' 29'' W M 50.1631 -3.5482 50° 9' 47'' N 3° 32' 53'' W N 50.1215 -3.5932 50° 7' 17'' N 3° 35' 35'' W O 50.0873 -3.6399 50° 5' 14'' N 3° 38' 23'' W P 50.1032 -3.6973 50° 6' 11'' N 3° 41' 50'' W Q 50.1023 -3.7181 50° 6' 8'' N

3° 43' 5'' W

R 50.1507 -3.7364 50° 9' 2'' N

3° 44' 10'' W

S 50.1824 -3.7513 50° 10' 56'' N 3° 45' 4'' W T 50.1915 -3.7563 50° 11' 29'' N 3° 45' 22'' W U 50.2040 -3.7646 50° 12' 14'' N 3° 45' 52'' W V 50.2237 -3.7727 50° 13' 25'' N 3° 46' 21'' W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_226b

Skerries Bank and Surrounds pMCZ

Version: Jun11

Kingston

Bigbury

3°37'40"W

North Upton

3°28'50"W

Slapton

Sherford

Stokenham

Frogmore

Beeson

D R AF

Galmpton Malborough

3°33'15"W

Hope

3.5

7 km

3°24'25"W

3°20'0"W

Stoke Fleming

Churchstow

West Alvington Bantham Thurleston South Milton

50°15'0"N

3°42'5"W

East Allington

Loddiswell

Aveton Giﬀor d

Devon Avon

Ringmore 50°17'30"N

3°46'30"W

3°55'20"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

South Pool

Kellaton Chivelstone East Portlemouth South Allington East Prawle

50°12'30"N

Skerries Bank and surrounds

50°10'0"N

50°7'30"N

50°5'0"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.12 Devon Avon Estuary pMCZ

AF T

***This site has been added since the completion of the third progress report. No site report has been completed at this stage. A site map is included on the next page.

337

Map: SAP_227a

Devon Avon Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

50°19'0"N

Kingston

3°53'0"W

3°52'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°51'0"W

0.375

0.75

3°50'0"W

1.5 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

Aveton Giﬀor d

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.2818 -3.8952 50° 16' 54'' N 3° 53' 42'' W

B 50.2735 -3.8817 50° 16' 24'' N 3° 52' 53'' W

50°18'30"N

50°18'0"N

D R AF

Bigbury

Ringmore

50°17'30"N

North Upton

Map Legend

Devon Avon

50°17'0"N

6 nautical mile limit

20 20

50°16'0"N

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Bantham

50°16'30"N

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

Thurleston

South Milton

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_227b

Devon Avon Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

Kingston

3°53'45"W

3°52'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°51'15"W

0.5

1 km

3°50'0"W

3°48'45"W

Aveton Giﬀor d

Bigbury

D R AF

50°18'12"N

50°18'40"N

Churchstow

Ringmore

50°17'44"N

Devon Avon

50°17'16"N

50°16'48"N

North Upton

Bantham

50°16'20"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Thurleston

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

South Milton

II.4.13 Erme Estuary pMCZ

AF T

340

Map: SAP_228a

Erme Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

3°57'45"W

3°57'0"W

3°56'15"W

3°55'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°54'45"W

0.4

3°54'0"W

50°21'0"N

0.8

1.6 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.3258 -3.9285 50° 19' 32'' N 3° 55' 42'' W

B 50.3257 -3.9283 50° 19' 32'' N 3° 55' 41'' W

50°20'30"N

50°20'0"N

D R AF

Holberton

C 50.3016 -3.9466 50° 18' 5'' N 3° 56' 47'' W D 50.3046 -3.9603 50° 18' 16'' N 3° 57' 37'' W

Erme Estuary

50°19'30"N

50°19'0"N

Kingston

Mothercombe

Erme Estuary

50°18'30"N

50°18'0"N10

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Erme Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

Yealmpton 4°0'0"W

3°59'10"W

3°58'20"W

3°57'30"W

3°56'40"W

50°20'30"N

50°20'0"N

3°55'50"W

0.5

3°55'0"W

D R AF

Holberton

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

1 km

3°54'10"W

3°53'20"W

Modbury

Map: SAP_228b

Erme Estuary

50°19'30"N

50°19'0"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Kingston

Erme Estuary

Mothercombe

50°18'30"N

50°18'0"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.14 Tamar Estuary Sites pMCZ Basic site information This site consists of two component parts. The centroid lat/lon is a centroid calculated for a two-part site polygon. Any feature present in both parts is counted as a single replicate for the network-level statistics in section II.2.4***.

Site area: 15.3 km2

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 25' 26'' N' 4° 13' 17' W'

AF T

Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.4241 -4.2214

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

***This site consists of two spatially separate component areas, the upper Tamar and the Lynher estuaries up to mean high water. Environmental site summary

***To be added.

343

Features proposed for designation within Tamar Estuary Sites pMCZ

AF T

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Tamar Estuary Sites pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments Coastal saltmarshes and protected by existing SAC/SPA saline reedbeds Intertidal biogenic reefs Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud protected by existing SAC/SPA Low energy infralittoral rock protected by existing SAC/SPA Low energy intertidal rock protected by existing SAC/SPA Subtidal coarse sediment protected by existing SAC/SPA Subtidal mixed sediments protected by existing SAC/SPA Subtidal mud protected by existing SAC/SPA Blue Mussel beds (including intertidal beds on mixed and sandy sediments) Estuarine rocky habitats protected by existing SAC/SPA Ostrea edulis Native oyster Osmerus eperlanus Smelt Anguilla anguilla European eel

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Subtidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments

0.01 < 0.01

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal biogenic reefs

344

% of total in study area

< 0.1% < 0.1%

% of total in study area

< 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01

< 0.1% 0.2% < 0.1% 0.3%

0.01

12.9%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Hippocampus guttulatus 3.67 (0.6%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Ostrea edulis 4 4 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Blue Mussel beds Estuarine rocky habitats

AF T

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

< 0.01 (2.5%)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

***Assumptions / Implications table to be added. Sites to which the site is related The site is included within the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC and overlaps with the Tamar Estuaries complex SPA. The Tamar-Tavy Estuary SSSI is completely included within the site boundary.***

345

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance16. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

346

Tamar Estuary pMCZ

Version: Jun11

South Hill

4°21'20"W

4°18'10"W

4°15'0"W

4°11'50"W

Gunnislake

Kelly Bray

Golberdon

1.5

Sampford Spiney

4°5'30"W

4°2'20"W

6 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Calstock

Bere Alston

Lat

Long

B 50.5190 -4.2059 50° 31' 8'' N 4° 12' 21'' W

Dousland

Crapstone Yelverton

Long

A 50.5192 -4.2069 50° 31' 9'' N 4° 12' 24'' W

Walkhampton

Horrabridge

Callington

50°30'0"N

4°8'40"W

Map: SAP_229a

DARTMOOR

Meavy

C 50.4106 -4.1991 50° 24' 38'' N 4° 11' 56'' W D 50.4105 -4.2070 50° 24' 37'' N 4° 12' 25'' W E 50.3904 -4.2309 50° 23' 25'' N 4° 13' 51'' W F 50.3934 -4.2351 50° 23' 36'' N 4° 14' 6'' W

D R AF

Milton Combe

St Mellion

50°28'0"N

Quethiock

Pillaton

Bere Ferrers

Tamar Estuary sites

50°26'0"N

Cargreen

Botus Fleming

Roborough

Shaugh Prior

Bickleigh

Landulph

Landrake

Tideford

Trematon

Map Legend

D SaltashC 10

Torpoint

Antony

Freathy

Millbrook

20 20

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

30 1 0

Brixton

Whitsand and Looe Bay 20

20 10

St. John

Plympton

Plymouth

1 0 10

Crafthole

50°22'0"N

Sheviock

Devonport

Polbathic

St Germans

50°24'0"N

6 nautical mile limit

Version: Jun11

Tamar Estuary pMCZ

4°23'20"W Caradon Town

4°20'0"W

Golberdon

Kelly Bray

Pensilva

Gunnislake

4°16'40"W

4°13'20"W

4°10'0"W

2.5

Calstock

5 km

4°6'40"W

4°3'20"W

Horrabridge

Callington

Middlehill 50°30'0"N

Dousland

Crapstone Yelverton

Bere Alston St Mellion

Quethiock

Menheniot 50°26'0"N

Pillaton

Bere Ferrers

Cargreen

Tamar Estuary sites

Botus Fleming

Meavy

DARTMOOR

Milton Combe

D R AF

50°28'0"N

4°0'0"W

Walkhampton

Map: SAP_229b

Shaugh Prior Roborough Bickleigh

Lee Moor

Landulph

Landrake

Tideford

Trematon

Saltash

50°24'0"N

St Germans Polbathic

Devonport

Sheviock

50°22'0"N

Crafthole

Whitsand and Looe Bay

Torpoint

Antony

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

Plympton

Potential reference area

Sparkwell SPA Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Plymouth

St. John

Freathy

Millbrook

Brixton

Yealmpton

II.4.15 Whitsand and Looe Bay pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Long

Lat

Long

50.3434

-4.3459

50° 20' 36'' N'

4° 20' 45' W'

Site area: 51.5 km2

AF T

Lat

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline along the mean high water mark from Talland Bay in the west to Rame Head in the east. A,line has been drawn across the bay to join these points with a small extension jutting out to the south around Looe Island (following the outline of the VMCA). ***

Environmental site summary

Intersects with an area of higher than average benthic species diversity (within the south-west context).

•

Local Group feedback indicates that this is a good breeding area and nursery for commercial fish species.

•

Local Group feedback indicates that this is an important site for seabirds.

•

Note that Local Group feedback mentions that blue mussel beds, intertidal underboulder communities, tide swept biotopes, the fan mussel Atrina fragilis and the sunset cup coral Leptopsammia pruvoti are found at this site, but we have no data mapped for these FOCI in this area. This information is therefore not reflected in the tables below, and it has not been taken into consideration in the network-level statistics, i.e. this pMCZ is not counted as a replicate for these features.

•

Local Group feedback also mentions this area is an important habitat for seahorses, confirming the data mapped by the Seahorse Trust (tableII.3.24c).

•

349

Features proposed for designation within Whitsand and Looe Bay pMCZ

AF T

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Whitsand and Looe Bay pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments Moderate energy circalittoral rock No data in combined EUNIS L3 map, but there is anecdotal evidence of rocky ledges in the area, a detailed sidescan dataset exists at the MBA confirming this High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Seagrass beds Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-fan anemone Arctica islandica Ocean quahog Eunicella verrucosa Pink sea-fan Gobius cobitis Giant Goby Haliclystus auricula Stalked jellyfish Hippocampus hippocampus Short snouted seahorse Phymatolithon calcareum Maёrl single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

350

1.26 25.60 22.33

% of total in study area 0.2% < 0.1% < 0.1%

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.47 0.18 0.95 0.45

0.4% 1.5% 1.7% 2.4% 1.6% 0.6% 10.0%

AF T

High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments

% of total in study area

Table *** FOCI species ecorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Amphianthus dohrnii 4 Arctica islandica 3 Eunicella verrucosa 26 1 Gobius cobitis 3 1 Haliclystus auricula 2 1 Hippocampus guttulatus 1 2.32 (0.4%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Phymatolithon calcareum 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Seagrass Beds Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

0.02 (< 0.1%) 42.88 (< 0.1%)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** below shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site in the third progress report. The vulnerability assessment work (still ongoing for inshore sites) is reviewing these assumptions, to ensure that they are as realistic as possible, i.e. a reflection of what is likely to happen should the site be implemented. The Joint Working Group will review the outputs of the vulnerability assessment at their June 2011 meeting, and the content of table *** may change as a result.

351

The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ. Table II.3.40b Specific assumptions and implications relating to Whitsand and Looe Bay pMCZ. Assumptions Implications Commercial and recreational fishing Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen (Local Group feedback mentions that this is an important trawling ground for Plymouth fishermen). o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers

AF T

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed o Local Group feedback indicates that the Local group discussed the possibility of limiting netting in the area, to enhance fish stocks, but that there was more evidence needed on the impacts of netting on the site. It is not clear whether this related to ring netting or static netting. The restriction of static netting is not currently part of the working assumptions for the site.

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Ring netting will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of gear used in the area.

352

Direct implications:

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Direct implications: o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and recreational activity Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback indicates potential benefits to recreational angling. o Handliners might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

AF T

Direct implications:

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Direct implications:

Project team comments:

353

Tourism and recreation

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. A specific comment was made by a Steering Group member to state that recreational sub aqua diving will be permitted. Ports, shipping

for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. o This pMCZ is located within a wave resource area which would be lost to potential future development.

AF T

planned the sites that are common to both DNC variations away from the areas of most interest to renewable developments.

Direct implications: o Profound socio-economic effects – cost benefits o Local Group feedback mentions potential benefits to diving (James Egan Layne and Scylla wrecks). o Local Group feedback mentions that wildlife watching and recreational angling could benefit.

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

354

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting Direct implications: o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

AF T

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

Waste disposal

Direct implications:

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

355

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The Crown Estates have highlighted that there is a closed disposal site (off Rame Head) less than 1km from the boundary of the pMCZ. Reopening this disposal site would not be compatible with the assumptions as stated. o Local Group feedback has raised concerns that the knock-on effects of the Rame Head dump site on the pMCZ reduce the viability of the pMCZ. Direct implications:

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The Crown Estates have highlighted that the pMCZ contains a waste water outfall which needs to be able to continue.

Aquaculture Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

AF T

o Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support •

The Crown Estates provided feedback to state that the area is located in a wave resource area. It is also within an area where there is a wastewater outfall, and the closed disposal site off Rame Head is less than 1km from the site boundary. They support the pMCZ based on the assumption that the activities they mention can continue.

Additional comments

Local Groups has raised concern over proximity to licensed disposal ground and the resulting deterioration in the quality of the area. The Working Group recognised this concern and kept the site in the Developing Network Configuration. The Environment Agency notes that within the Looe Estuary (which flows into this pMCZ but is not within the site boundary), the coastal defence policy is to “hold the line” in the town, and “managed retreat” in the estuary. They highlighted that they would have more comments to make if the estuary were to be included in the DNC. Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). There was a suggestion from some Local Group members to add protection for birds to this site.

•

Direct implications:

•

Sites to which the site is related

The site lies to the west of the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC and includes the Looe VMCA.*** 356

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance17. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

357

Map: SAP_230a Version: Jun11

Whitsand and Looe Bay pMCZ

4°25'0"W

Tideford

4°22'30"W

4°20'0"W

4°15'0"W

10 10

E 50.3334 -4.4772 50° 20' 0'' N 4° 28' 37'' W F 50.3504 -4.4512 50° 21' 1'' N 4° 27' 4'' W

G 50.3509 -4.4510 50° 21' 3'' N 4° 27' 3'' W

Freathy

Millbrook

Map Legend

50°16'40"N

D 50.3276 -4.4712 50° 19' 39'' N 4° 28' 16'' W

C 50.3284 -4.4353 50° 19' 42'' N 4° 26' 7'' W

Long

St. John

Lat

Whitsand and Looe Bay

Long

Lat

West Looe

East Looe

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

Antony

D R AF

Crafthole

50°21'40"N

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

B 50.3396 -4.4296 50° 20' 22'' N 4° 25' 46'' W

Sheviock

5 km

A 50.3198 -4.2264 50° 19' 11'' N 4° 13' 34'' W

Tamar Estuary sites

Polbathic

Sandplace Morval

St Martin

50°18'20"N

4°12'30"W

50°23'20"N

2.5

Saltash

St Germans

50°20'0"N

1.25

Trematon

4°17'30"W

Duloe

Talland

1 0

20 30

30 30

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conservation Zones and remain under 0 development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering5Group. Please refer to the Finding Sanc tuary work ing group and progres s reports for further information (www.finding-sanctuary.org).

6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_230b Version: Jun11

Whitsand and Looe Bay pMCZ

4°29'20"W

4°26'40"W

4°24'0"W

4°21'20"W

Tideford 4°18'40"W

Trematon

4°16'0"W

Duloe

2.5

4°13'20"W

Tamar Estuary sites

5 km

Saltash

4°10'40"W

4°8'0"W

50°23'20"N

Polbathic

SandplaceMorval

Sheviock

St Martin

Crafthole

West LooeEast Looe

Talland 50°20'0"N

50°18'20"N

50°16'40"N

50°15'0"N

Whitsand and Looe Bay

Devonport Torpoint

Antony

D R AF

50°21'40"N

St Germans

Freathy

Plymouth

St. John

Millbrook

CawsandCawsand

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.16 Upper Fowey and Pont Pill pMCZ Basic site information

Site area: 2 km2

AF T

This site consists of two component parts. The centroid lat/lon is a centroid calculated for a two-part site polygon. Any feature present in both parts is counted as a single replicate for the network-level statistics in section II.2.4***. Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long Lat Long 50.3699 -4.6393 50° 22' 11'' N' 4° 38' 21' W'

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline along the mean high water and follows the boundary of the Fowey VMCA *** Environmental site summary ***To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Upper Fowey and Pont Pill pMCZ

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Upper Fowey and Pont Pill pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Estuarine rocky habitats Sheltered muddy gravels Hippocampus guttulatus Long snouted single record only, no seahorse significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

360

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

% of total in study area 0.7% < 0.1% < 0.1% 0.9% 0.4%

AF T

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Low energy intertidal rock 0.02 Intertidal coarse sediments < 0.01 Intertidal sand and muddy sand < 0.01 Intertidal mud 1.51 Coastal saltmarshes and saline 0.01 reedbeds

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) records (pre-1980) Estuarine rocky habitats 13 Seagrass Beds < 0.01 (< 0.1%) Sheltered muddy gravels 0.01 (1.1%)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. The vulnerability assessment work (still ongoing for inshore sites) is reviewing these assumptions, to ensure that they are as realistic as possible, i.e. a reflection of what is likely to happen should the site be implemented. The Joint Working Group will review the outputs of the vulnerability assessment at their June 2011 meeting. The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below (***to be added) specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ.

361

***Assumptions / implications table to be added. Sites to which the site is related The site lies north of the Polruan to Polperro SSSI and includes the Fowey VMCA.*** Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance18.

To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Supporting documentation

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

362

Map: SAP_231a Version: Jun11

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill pMCZ

4°41'15"W

4°39'50"W

4°38'25"W

4°37'0"W

4°35'35"W

0.5

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

4°34'10"W

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lostwithiel

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.3536 -4.6384 50° 21' 12'' N 4° 38' 18'' W B 50.3537 -4.6359 50° 21' 13'' N 4° 38' 9'' W

50°23'0"N

50°22'0"N

St Blazey

D R AF

50°24'0"N

Lanlivery

St Veep

Golant

1 0 in progress 10 Work Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conservation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Please refer to the Finding Sanc tuary work ing group and progres s reports for further information (www.finding-sanctuary.org).

50°19'0"N

Lansallos

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

6 nautical mile limit

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill

50°20'0"N

Map Legend

Par

D 50.3348 -4.6248 50° 20' 5'' N 4° 37' 29'' W

Lanreath

Tywardreath

50°21'0"N

C 50.3338 -4.6232 50° 20' 1'' N 4° 37' 23'' W

Map: SAP_231b

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill pMCZ

Version: Jun11

4°45'5"W

4°43'30"W

4°41'55"W

4°40'20"W

4°38'45"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°37'10"W

4°35'35"W

1.5

3 km

4°34'0"W

4°32'25"W

Lostwithiel

Lanlivery

50°24'0"N

50°23'0"N

50°22'0"N

D R AF

Luxulyan

St Blazey

Golant

Carlyon Bay 50°20'0"N

Par

Upper Fowey and Pont Pill

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

50°19'0"N

Pelynt

St Veep

Tywardreath

50°21'0"N

Lanreath

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Lansallos

II.4.17 South-East of Falmouth pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report (the SouthEast of Falmouth pMCZ site report, relating to a precursor pMCZ) and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Long

49.9830

-4.7143

Site area: 25 km2

Lat

Long

AF T

Lat

49° 58' 58'' N'

4° 42' 51' W'

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site is a simple square measuring 5km on each side in line with ENG guidelines.*** Environmental site summary

***To be added. Site of added ecological importance (pelagic).

Features proposed for designation within South-East of Falmouth

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for South-East of Falmouth. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand

365

24.34 0.69

% of total in study area < 0.1% < 0.1%

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

21.00 (< 0.1%)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

AF T

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** below shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site in the third progress report.

Commercial and recreational fishing

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

366

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, both UK and non-UK (Mobile benthic fishing does occur in the area, which is deemed important for scalloping and beam trawling. However, this pMCZ was selected by the Working Groups out of several building blocks in the area, as it was deemed the least contentious to the fishing industry and it was recognised that a protected area is required in this area in order to meet the Ecological Network Guidance). o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback indicated that some Local group members thought that mitigation measures should be put in place to prevent bycatch in static nets, including regulation of when and how nets are set. Other Local Group members indicated that bycatch of birds was not a problem in set nets in this area. The protection of birds is not currently included in the developing conservation objectives for this site. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

AF T

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

367

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Direct implications:

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Direct implications:

Project team comments:

AF T

Tourism and recreation

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Direct implications:

Ports, shipping

Maintenance dredging in ports (to enable access to ports) will be permitted (The project team have advised that this would mean that the dredged areas of seafloor could not be counted towards

368

Direct implications:

ENG targets.) Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

AF T

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

Waste disposal

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Direct implications:

Aquaculture Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation /

369

Direct implications:

management Other activities Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support •

• •

Direct implications:

AF T

Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Additional comments • Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). Sites to which the site is related The site lies approximately 22km south-west of the Fal and Helford SAC.***

370

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance19. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

371

Map: SAP_232a

South-East of Falmouth pMCZ

Version: Jun11

4°46'0"W

4°45'0"W

4°44'0"W

4°43'0"W

4°42'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°41'0"W

0.5

4°40'0"W

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

50°0'40"N

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.0055 -4.7492 50° 0' 19'' N 4° 44' 57'' W B 50.0055 -4.6794 50° 0' 19'' N 4° 40' 46'' W

49°59'20"N

D R AF

50°0'0"N

C 49.9605 -4.6794 49° 57' 37'' N 4° 40' 45'' W D 49.9605 -4.7492 49° 57' 37'' N 4° 44' 57'' W

South-east of Falmouth

49°58'40"N

49°58'0"N

49°57'20"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_232b Version: Jun11

4°47'10"W

South-East of Falmouth pMCZ

4°44'50"W

4°43'40"W

4°42'30"W

4°41'20"W

4°40'10"W

2 km

4°39'0"W

4°37'50"W

50°0'40"N

49°59'20"N

D R AF

50°0'0"N

South-east of Falmouth

49°58'40"N

49°58'0"N

49°57'20"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.18 South of Falmouth pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report (the SouthEast of Falmouth pMCZ site report, relating to a precursor pMCZ) and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 49° 54' 27'' N' 4° 58' 33' W'

AF T

Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 49.9077 -4.9760 Site area: 25 km2

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site is a simple square measuring 5km on each side in line with ENG guidelines.*** Environmental site summary

***To be added. Site of added ecological importance (pelagic).

Features proposed for designation within South of Falmouth pMCZ

Table *** Working inshore pMCZ conservation objective feature list. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Moderate energy circalittoral 2.69 rock Subtidal coarse sediment 22.28

374

% of total in study area < 0.1% < 0.1%

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Subtidal sands and 22.86 (< 0.1%) gravels

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

AF T

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** below shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site in the third progress report.

Commercial and recreational fishing

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

375

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback indicated that some Local group members thought that mitigation measures should be put in place to prevent bycatch in static nets, including regulation of when and how nets are set. Other Local Group members indicated that bycatch of birds was not a problem in set nets in this area. The protection of birds is not currently included in the developing conservation objectives for this site. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

AF T

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

376

Direct implications:

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Project team comments:

Tourism and recreation

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

AF T

Direct implications:

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Ports, shipping

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a

Direct implications:

377

‘small vessel’.) Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

o o

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting Direct implications: o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

AF T

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Waste disposal

Direct implications:

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Aquaculture

Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities

Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

o Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

378

Direct implications:

Sites to which the site is related The site lies approximately 9 km east of the Lizard Point pSAC*** Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance20.

To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Supporting documentation

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

379

Map: SAP_233a Version: Jun11

5°2'0"W

South of Falmouth pMCZ

5°0'0"W

4°59'0"W

4°58'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°57'0"W

0.45

0.9

4°56'0"W

1.8 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

49°56'0"N

Lat

Long

A 49.9301 -5.0108 49° 55' 48'' N 5° 0' 39'' W

D R AF

49°55'20"N

49°54'40"N

Long

B 49.9302 -4.9413 49° 55' 48'' N 4° 56' 28'' W

C 49.8852 -4.9412 49° 53' 6'' N 4° 56' 28'' W D 49.8852 -5.0108 49° 53' 6'' N 5° 0' 38'' W

South of Falmouth

49°54'0"N

49°53'20"N

49°52'40"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_233b Version: Jun11

South of Falmouth pMCZ

5°2'20"W

5°1'10"W

5°0'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°58'50"W

4°57'40"W

4°56'30"W

2 km

4°55'20"W

4°54'10"W

49°56'0"N

49°54'40"N

D R AF

49°55'20"N

South of Falmouth

49°54'0"N

49°53'20"N

49°52'40"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.19 The Manacles pMCZ

AF T

382

Map: SAP_234a

The Manacles pMCZ

Version: Jun11

5°3'51"W

5°3'30"W

5°3'9"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°2'48"W

5°2'27"W

0.35

5°2'6"W

0.7 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Lat

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds 0

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.0548 -5.0596 50° 3' 17'' N 5° 3' 34'' W

A B

50°3'15"N

D 50.0396 -5.0696 50° 2' 22'' N 5° 4' 10'' W

D R AF

B 50.0548 -5.0356 50° 3' 17'' N 5° 2' 8'' W C 50.0396 -5.0355 50° 2' 22'' N 5° 2' 7'' W

50°3'0"N

The Manacles

50°2'45"N

50°2'30"N

50°2'15"N

Map Legend

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_234b

The Manacles pMCZ

Version: Jun11

5°3'20"W

5°2'55"W

50°2'45"N

50°2'30"N

50°2'15"N

D R AF

50°3'15"N

50°3'0"N

5°2'30"W

0.35

5°2'5"W

0.7 km

5°1'40"W

5°1'15"W

5°4'10"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

The Manacles

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.20 Mounts Bay pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information

Site area: 11.2 km2

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 6' 39'' N' 5° 28' 12' W'

AF T

Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.1111 -5.4701

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline along the mean high water mark from Long Rock to the peninsula west of Praa Sand and east of Perrananuthnoe. From Long rock it extends N-S for approximately 1 nautical mile at which point it extends eastwards to join the coastal points. The site boundary has been retracted from precursor sites which covered the whole bay. The southern boundary was brought in closer to shore in order to avoid the dumping and disposal sites in the outer bay (see ***map), and the western part of the bay was excluded following feedback from Cornwall County Council about anchorages outside Newlyn harbour. The current extent of the site captures records of FOCI that Environmental site summary

Intersects with an area of higher than average benthic species diversity (within the south-west context).

•

The Environment Agency has highlighted the nursery function of the area, and the importance of the area as a sea trout foraging area.

•

Local Group feedback has indicated that this area is of importance for wintering divers.

•

Local Group feedback indirectly states that the area is of importance for basking sharks and cetaceans (by Local Group members suggesting measures be put in place to protect these features).

385

Features proposed for designation within Mounts Bay pMCZ

AF T

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Mounts Bay pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. Features on CO list Review Comments High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud more likely to be sand or muddy sand Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal sand Seagrass beds Arctica islandica Ocean quahog Atrina pectinata Fan mussel single historic record Gobius cobitis Giant Goby Haliclystus auricula Stalked jellyfish Lucernariopsis campanulata Stalked jellyfish Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis Stalked jellyfish Phymatolithon calcareum Maёrl single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list.

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2)

High energy infralittoral rock Subtidal sand Subtidal mixed sediments

0.16 10.31 0.01

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mixed sediments

386

0.12 0.04 0.56 < 0.01 0.01

% of total in study area < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1%

% of total in study area 1.7% 0.9% 2.9% < 0.1% 0.2%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

AF T

Arctica islandica 2 1 Atrina pectinata 1 1 Gobius cobitis 3 Haliclystus auricula 4 4 Hippocampus guttulatus 1.88 (0.3%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Lucernariopsis campanulata 1 1 Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis 1 1 Phymatolithon calcareum 1 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Seagrass Beds Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

0.01 (< 0.1%) 9.31 (< 0.1%)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** below shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site in the third progress report.

The vulnerability assessment work (still ongoing for inshore sites) is reviewing these assumptions, to ensure that they are as realistic as possible, i.e. a reflection of what is likely to happen should the site be implemented. The Joint Working Group will review the outputs of the vulnerability assessment at their June 2011 meeting, and the content of table *** may change as a result. The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ.

387

Table II.3.40b Specific assumptions and implications relating to (...) pMCZ. Assumptions Implications Commercial and recreational fishing Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

AF T

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen o Given that this building block is surrounded by a number of major Cornish fishing ports it is expected to be heavily fished. However only one trawler is known to work within the building block area. o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The Environment Agency have suggested adding a netting restriction in the water column to protect fish nursery function and sea trout foraging. o Local group feedback has included the suggestion to allow static nets with pingers, which implies that the area is of importance for cetaceans. Other Local Group feedback has suggested restricting gill and trammel netting to avoid cetacean bycatch. Cetaceans are not currently part of the developing conservation objectives. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

388

Direct implications: o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and recreational activity Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local group feedback has indicated this as a good area for recreational sea anglers targeting bass and plaice. o Handliners might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

AF T

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o There is an active power/telecommunications cable located within this pMCZ (at Marazion). These activities need to remain unrestricted. Direct implications:

Project team comments:

Direct implications:

389

Tourism and recreation

AF T

impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. o This pMCZ is located within a wave resource area (based on ORRAD data) which would be lost to potential future development.

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Ports, shipping

Direct implications: o Potential benefits to ecotourism and the diving industry. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The area is used for recreational boating, including moorings. There is concern around this activity being impacted.

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to the anchoring of large vessels).

Passage of ships will be permitted

Direct implications:

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to maintenance dredging in ports).

390

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to the anchoring of small vessels). o Recreational boat mooring should not be affected.

The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to the passage of ships). o Local Group feedback has included a suggestion to add a speed limit to protect basking sharks in the area. Basking sharks are currently not part of the developing conservation objectives.

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting Direct implications: o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

AF T

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Waste disposal

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

391

Direct implications:

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o There is an open disposal site in Mounts Bay and a closed disposal site in Newlyn harbour. Usage of either site would not be compatible with the assumption as stated. The Crown Estates have indicated that they would be supportive of the site if the existing disposal sites were not affected.

Direct implications: o This pMCZ is located within an area overlapping the Mounts Bay open disposal site and Newlyn Harbour closed disposal site. Not permitting disposal or reopening the closed disposal site would not be compatible with the assumptions as stated.

Aquaculture Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

AF T

o Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o A Steering Group member commented that there are managed retreat sites along the shoreline of this pMCZ.

Uncertainties •

Effect on ports and harbour ability to manage area effectively.

Levels of support

Ports and harbour sector would prefer an alternative site to be found. The Crown Estates indicated that the area includes an active power/telecommunications cable at Marazion, recreational boat mooring and port/harbour facilities. In addition there is the Mounts By open disposal site and Newlyn Harbour closed disposal site. Supportive with the assumption that MCZ designation would not restrict ongoing activities described.

• •

Additional comments • Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). • Some Local Group members have suggested measures be put in place to protect basking sharks and cetaceans. Sites to which the site is related ***Mounts Bay pMCZ does not overlap with other MPAs.

392

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance21. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

393

Map: SAP_235a Version: Jun11

Mounts Bay pMCZ

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°31'30"W

Crowlas

5°29'10"W Ludgvan

5°30'20"W

5°28'0"W

5°26'50"W

0.5

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

5°25'40"W

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.0971 -5.4293 50° 5' 49'' N 5° 25' 45'' W

50°8'15"N

B 50.1026 -5.5000 50° 6' 9'' N

Gulval

St. Hilary

Longrock

Heamoor

50°7'30"N

Goldsithney

D R AF

Marazion

50°6'45"N

Perranuthnoe

Mounts Bay 20

0 30 3 0 3 0 3

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

50°4'30"N

50°5'15"N

6 nautical mile limit

Paul

Map Legend

Rosudgeon

50°6'0"N

5° 29' 59'' W

C 50.1282 -5.5000 50° 7' 41'' N 5° 29' 59'' W

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_235b Version: Jun11

Mounts Bay pMCZ

5°32'0"W

Madron

Gulval

5°30'40"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°29'20"W

5°28'0"W

* ## *

Paul

W X

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

* #

50°3'45"N

k *k #

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

* #

* # D k

* #

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

k k

Lamorna

kk k

W X

Rosudgeon

Mounts Bay

50°4'30"N

Perranuthnoe

D R AF

Tredavoe

50°5'15"N

W X

j k

50°6'0"N

* # kk k k

Relubbus 5°24'0"W

Goldsithney

Marazion

kk kk 50°6'45"N

5°25'20"W

St. Hilary

50°7'30"N

2.5 km

5°26'40"W

Longrock

Heamoor

1.25

* #

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

II.4.21 Land’s End pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information

Site area: 18.6 km2

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 1' 32'' N' 5° 40' 27' W'

AF T

Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.0257 -5.6743

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline along the mean high water mark from south of Penberth in the east to south of Land’s End in the west. It then extends out roughly westwards and forms an arc back to the coast at Penberth. The boundary is the same as the Land’s End “no co-location” pMCZ option in progress report 3.*** ***check “Runnelstone box”

Environmental site summary

*** To be added. Highlight Runnelstone reef. • Haliclystus auricula and Palinurus elephas have been recorded close to the boundaries of this pMCZ, and may also be present within in. • Note that the Land’s End peninsula is the only place in the region where the gooseneck barnacle Pollicipes pollicipes has been recorded (to the north of the boundary of this pMCZ (...)) • Area of importance for migratory seabirds including shearwaters, auks, kittiwakes and gannets. • Important feeding area for small cetaceans, in particular harbour porpoises and seasonally, minke whales. Basking sharks also frequent the area. • Intersects with an area of higher than average benthic species diversity (within the south-west context). • Local Group feedback highlights the importance of the area for grey seal haul-out and pupping sites.

396

Features proposed for designation within Land’s End pMCZ

AF T

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Land’s End pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** Features on CO list Review Comments High energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud more likely to be sand Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Eunicella verrucosa Pink sea-fan Lithothamnion corallioides Maёrl single record only, just outside site boundary, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list. Paludinella littorina Sea snail Seabirds Cetaceans

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2)

High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand

3.36 0.27 0.09 1.74 1.92 11.09

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud

397

0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03

% of total in study area

0.5% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1%

% of total in study area 0.4% < 0.1% 0.1% < 0.1%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Eunicella verrucosa Paludinella littorina

2 1

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

9.53 (< 0.1%)

AF T

Subtidal sands and gravels

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** below shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site in the third progress report.

Commercial and recreational fishing

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

398

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen (but the area is difficult to fish) o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback suggests the possibility of excluding gill netting within a mile off the shoreline, or a seasonal netting restriction. Local Group fishing representatives suggested allowing netting with pingers. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed o A Steering Group member raised concern that longlining may be prohibited in the site, a prohibition they would not support, on the basis that longlining in the area is small scale only from small vessels and for tagged Bass scheme.

AF T

Static fishing gear will be permitted, with possible need for mitigation against bycatch of cetaceans, sharks and seabirds. There may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Direct implications: o Potential for increased and enhanced leisure and recreational activity Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The rationale for this assumption has been strongly questioned in recent comments, as bycatch is not considered a problem for the kind of longlining in the region. o Handliners might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures and costs due to monitoring needed

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Pelagic trawls will be permitted with mitigation against bycatch of cetaceans, sharks and seabirds.

Direct implications:

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local group feedback suggests that mobile netting may be causing bycatch problems.

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

The installation and maintenance of cables for renewable energy devices will be permitted and will not be made prohibitively expensive within the site

399

Direct implications:

o If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o Re-routing of cables around a feature or site may mean longer cable routes, at a cost of £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 £1.3m/km depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with

mitigation measures and monitoring requirements.

o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. Direct implications: o This area has been highlighted as an area of significant nearshore wave energy resource, which would be lost as an exploitable resource. If there was a general exclusion of renewable energy developments from many areas, the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities.

AF T

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will not be allowed

Direct implications: o Should cables not be permitted, this will have a significant effect on the worldwide transmission of data. This area is one of a few in Cornwall suitable for cable landings and should be preserved at all costs. o If renewable energy cables are assumed to be permitted throughout the network then there is no reason why Telecom and other cables should not also.

The installation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted, with potential mitigation if particularly sensitive seafloor areas are identified in future within this site.

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Direct implications: o Should operation be discontinued the consequences will be significant at a national and international economy level.

Tourism and recreation Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

400

Direct implications: o Benefits to ecotourism Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group members have raised concerns over disturbance to grey seal haul-out sites, and have suggested measures to ensure no approach within

100m of shoreline and no disturbance from land where seal sites exist Ports, shipping Maintenance dredging in ports (to enable access to ports) will be permitted (The project team have advised that this would mean that the dredged areas of seafloor could not be counted towards ENG targets.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

AF T

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: A Steering Group member stated that it is imperative that “small vessel” is defined and definition is universally accepted and clear of ambiguity – consultation should take place on the meaning/ definition. This comment was recorded on a sheet that related to this specific pMCZ but would presumably apply to all pMCZs where this assumption about small vessels anchoring has been made.

o o

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group members have raised concerns over disturbance to grey seal haul-out sites, and have suggested measures to ensure no approach within 100m of shoreline and no disturbance from land where seal sites exist

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

401

national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

Waste disposal

AF T

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Direct implications:

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

Direct implications:

Aquaculture

Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities

Direct implications: o A Steering Group commented that this assumption is not relevant to this area

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Uncertainties • ...

402

Direct implications:

Levels of support •

There is strong support for a pMCZ in this area from the Cornwall Local Group, who unanimously suggested what was building block iK5 – their preferred option (was) the larger “co-location” pMCZ from iK5.

AF T

Additional comments • Note that a Steering Group member commented to question whether the wave resource would really be exploitable in such a remote rural area, and that if not, this consideration should be discounted as part of the discussion. However, the wave resource potential of the area was highlighted repeatedly during Working Group discussions, and also by The Crown Estates. We consider this to be a relevant consideration, which (previously) led to the Working Groups developing two alternative sites in this location. • Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). • Local Group feedback highlights the existence of traditional fishing methods in the area, and Local Group members would like to see these activities enhanced and protected. Concern was raised over any potential moves to put in place a reference area within this area, because small fishing boats based in coves would be unable to move to alternative fishing grounds, and the fishing carried out by the small cove boats is deemed sustainable. • Local Group feedback indicates that the Runnelstone “box” has been successful in protecting the area and the livelihoods of local cove fishermen. An extension of similar regulation would offer protection and security to cove fishermen.

Sites to which the site is related

The site partially overlaps with Treen Cliff SSSI and lies approximately 1.5 km south of Lands End and Cape Bank pSAC.*** Conservation Objectives

To be added. ***

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

403

Site map series On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the pMCZ boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The second map shows the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

404

Land's End pMCZ

Map: SAP_236a

Version: Jun11

5°42'0"W

5°43'0"W

5°41'0"W

5°40'0"W

5°39'0"W

0.5

5°38'0"W

5°37'0"W

Treen

Porthcurno

50°2'40"N

D R AF

0 2 0 2 02 20 0

D 50.0274 -5.6309 50° 1' 38'' N 5° 37' 51'' W E 50.0244 -5.6333 50° 1' 27'' N 5° 38' 0'' W

F 50.0207 -5.6368 50° 1' 14'' N 5° 38' 12'' W

G 50.0178 -5.6401 50° 1' 4'' N

5° 38' 24'' W

H 50.0151 -5.6471 50° 0' 54'' N 5° 38' 49'' W I 50.0117 -5.6583 50° 0' 42'' N 5° 39' 29'' W

J 50.0093 -5.6662 50° 0' 33'' N 5° 39' 58'' W

L 50.0081 -5.6871 50° 0' 29'' N 5° 41' 13'' W

N 50.0125 -5.7021 50° 0' 45'' N 5° 42' 7'' W

O 50.0166 -5.7107 50° 0' 59'' N 5° 42' 38'' W P 50.0195 -5.7150 50° 1' 10'' N 5° 42' 54'' W

B C

5° 37' 32'' W

C 50.0321 -5.6266 50° 1' 55'' N 5° 37' 35'' W

M 50.0106 -5.6966 50° 0' 38'' N 5° 41' 47'' W

50°0'0"N

Long

K 50.0079 -5.6755 50° 0' 28'' N 5° 40' 31'' W

10 1

10 10

Lands End

50°0'40"N

2 0

50°1'20"N

30 30

Penberth

Lat

B 50.0344 -5.6258 50° 2' 3'' N

Long

A 50.0441 -5.6290 50° 2' 38'' N 5° 37' 44'' W

50°3'20"N

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Lat

50°2'0"N

2 km

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

5°44'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Q 50.0241 -5.7224 50° 1' 26'' N 5° 43' 20'' W

R 50.0280 -5.7274 50° 1' 40'' N 5° 43' 38'' W S 50.0302 -5.7289 50° 1' 48'' N 5° 43' 44'' W T 50.0345 -5.7308 50° 2' 4'' N

5° 43' 51'' W

U 50.0364 -5.6812 50° 2' 10'' N 5° 40' 52'' W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_236b Version: Jun11

Land's End pMCZ

D 5°44'20"W

5°43'10"W

5°42'0"W

5°40'50"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°39'40"W

5°38'30"W

2 km

5°37'20"W

¯ 5°36'10"W

50°3'20"N

Treen

Penberth

Porthcurno

50°2'40"N

D R AF

* #

50°2'0"N

50°1'20"N

50°0'40"N

50°0'0"N

Lands End

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.22 Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information

AF T

The Isles of Scilly Sites pCMZ consists of 11 spatially separate areas. Two of the 11 areas (Smith Sound Tide Swept Channel and Tean) contain a suggested “non-disturbance site”, where the Local Group have suggested higher levels of restriction of human activities than in the remaining areas. This was in response to being asked to consider a potential reference area in the Isles of Scilly. No reference areas are included in the network for the Isles of Scilly. The Isles of Scilly Local Group have also suggested sites suitable for monitoring – please refer to Local Group reports (***expand on this in final report***. The lat/lon points listed below are the centroids of each component area of the 11-part pMCZ. In the network-level statistics (section II.2.4***), any feature that is recorded in more than one of these 11 areas is counted as several replicates, not a single replicate for the Isles of Scilly as a whole. Area centroids:

Decimal Degrees Lat Long 49.8861 -6.4508 50.0136 -6.1709 49.8626 -6.3934 49.9656 -6.2552 49.9529 -6.2730 49.9411 -6.2540 49.9785 -6.3032 49.9136 -6.2845 49.8889 -6.3269

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 49° 53' 9'' N' 6° 27' 2' W' 50° 0' 49'' N' 6° 10' 15' W' 49° 51' 45'' N' 6° 23' 36' W' 49° 57' 56'' N' 6° 15' 18' W' 49° 57' 10'' N' 6° 16' 22' W' 49° 56' 28'' N' 6° 15' 14' W' 49° 58' 42'' N' 6° 18' 11' W' 49° 54' 48'' N' 6° 17' 4' W' 49° 53' 19'' N' 6° 19' 36' W'

49.8888

-6.3591

49° 53' 19'' N'

6° 21' 32' W'

49.9634

-6.3121

49° 57' 48'' N'

6° 18' 43' W'

Site Name Bishop to Crim Bristows to the Stones Gilstone to Gorregan Hanjague to Deep Ledge Higher Town Lower Ridge to Innisvouls Men a Vaur to White Island Peninnis to Dry Ledge Plympton to Spanish Ledge Smith Sound Tide Swept Channel Tean Site area: *** km2

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. As the boundaries are complex, the main site maps show lat/long points along the site boundary, but do not show the coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The coordinates are shown in the tables below.

407

Bishop to Crim boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.9061 49.9062 49.8965 49.8874 49.8794 49.8718 49.8649 49.8654 49.8710 49.8780 49.8856

-6.4596 -6.4498 -6.4421 -6.4390 -6.4368 -6.4361 -6.4384 -6.4477 -6.4544 -6.4599 -6.4643

Bristows to the Stones boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long

6° 27' 34'' W 6° 26' 59'' W 6° 26' 31'' W 6° 26' 20'' W 6° 26' 12'' W 6° 26' 9'' W 6° 26' 18'' W 6° 26' 51'' W 6° 27' 15'' W 6° 27' 35'' W 6° 27' 51'' W

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

50.0425

-6.1607

50° 2' 33'' N

6° 9' 38'' W

50.0455

-6.1526

50° 2' 43'' N

6° 9' 9'' W

50.0484

-6.1470

50° 2' 54'' N

6° 8' 49'' W

50.0485

-6.1425

50° 2' 54'' N

6° 8' 33'' W

50.0419

-6.1333

50° 2' 30'' N

6° 7' 59'' W

50.0390

-6.1292

50° 2' 20'' N

6° 7' 45'' W

50.0311

-6.1221

50° 1' 51'' N

6° 7' 19'' W

50.0178

-6.1378

50° 1' 4'' N

6° 8' 16'' W

49.9944

-6.1638

49° 59' 39'' N

6° 9' 49'' W

49.9862

-6.1739

49° 59' 10'' N

6° 10' 26'' W

49.9869

-6.1899

49° 59' 12'' N

6° 11' 23'' W

50.0001

-6.2238

50° 0' 0'' N

6° 13' 25'' W

50.0043

-6.2240

50° 0' 15'' N

6° 13' 26'' W

50.0152

-6.2036

50° 0' 54'' N

6° 12' 13'' W

50.0286

-6.1595

50° 1' 42'' N

6° 9' 34'' W

50.0273

-6.1441

50° 1' 38'' N

6° 8' 38'' W

D 408

49° 54' 21'' N 49° 54' 22'' N 49° 53' 47'' N 49° 53' 14'' N 49° 52' 45'' N 49° 52' 18'' N 49° 51' 53'' N 49° 51' 55'' N 49° 52' 15'' N 49° 52' 40'' N 49° 53' 8'' N

AF T

A B C D E F G H I J K

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

50.0324

-6.1569

50° 1' 56'' N

6° 9' 24'' W

50.0362

-6.1495

50° 2' 10'' N

6° 8' 58'' W

50.0383

-6.1633

50° 2' 17'' N

6° 9' 47'' W

50.0410

-6.1590

50° 2' 27'' N

6° 9' 32'' W

Gilstone to Gorregan boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.8696 49.8699 49.8661 49.8664 49.8685 49.8672 49.8623 49.8580 49.8570 49.8575 49.8593 49.8617 49.8639 49.8665 49.8666

-6.3939 -6.3904 -6.3893 -6.3847 -6.3799 -6.3774 -6.3790 -6.3944 -6.4035 -6.4116 -6.4115 -6.4071 -6.3984 -6.3966 -6.3947

Hanjague to Deep Ledge boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.9756 49.9765 49.9714 49.9723 49.9701 49.9660 49.9621 49.9543 49.9566 49.9594 49.9606 49.9621 49.9644 49.9679 49.9700 49.9731

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

409

49° 52' 10'' N 49° 52' 11'' N 49° 51' 57'' N 49° 51' 58'' N 49° 52' 6'' N 49° 52' 1'' N 49° 51' 44'' N 49° 51' 28'' N 49° 51' 25'' N 49° 51' 27'' N 49° 51' 33'' N 49° 51' 42'' N 49° 51' 50'' N 49° 51' 59'' N 49° 51' 59'' N

6° 23' 38'' W 6° 23' 25'' W 6° 23' 21'' W 6° 23' 5'' W 6° 22' 47'' W 6° 22' 38'' W 6° 22' 44'' W 6° 23' 39'' W 6° 24' 12'' W 6° 24' 41'' W 6° 24' 41'' W 6° 24' 25'' W 6° 23' 54'' W 6° 23' 47'' W 6° 23' 40'' W

AF T

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

-6.2698 -6.2647 -6.2559 -6.2508 -6.2500 -6.2403 -6.2385 -6.2419 -6.2503 -6.2548 -6.2595 -6.2642 -6.2757 -6.2749 -6.2697 -6.2708

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

49° 58' 32'' N 49° 58' 35'' N 49° 58' 16'' N 49° 58' 20'' N 49° 58' 12'' N 49° 57' 57'' N 49° 57' 43'' N 49° 57' 15'' N 49° 57' 23'' N 49° 57' 33'' N 49° 57' 38'' N 49° 57' 43'' N 49° 57' 51'' N 49° 58' 4'' N 49° 58' 12'' N 49° 58' 23'' N

6° 16' 11'' W 6° 15' 53'' W 6° 15' 21'' W 6° 15' 2'' W 6° 14' 59'' W 6° 14' 24'' W 6° 14' 18'' W 6° 14' 30'' W 6° 15' 0'' W 6° 15' 17'' W 6° 15' 34'' W 6° 15' 51'' W 6° 16' 32'' W 6° 16' 29'' W 6° 16' 11'' W 6° 16' 14'' W

Higher Town boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.9573 49.9572 49.9565 49.9573 49.9584 49.9590 49.9611 49.9564 49.9553 49.9539 49.9527 49.9473 49.9448 49.9447 49.9448 49.9464 49.9468 49.9495 49.9544

-6.2895 -6.2852 -6.2814 -6.2736 -6.2745 -6.2727 -6.2678 -6.2635 -6.2595 -6.2598 -6.2613 -6.2622 -6.2662 -6.2665 -6.2679 -6.2687 -6.2729 -6.2820 -6.2889

Lower Ridge to Innisvouls boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.9512 49.9516 49.9498 49.9477 49.9444 49.9414 49.9390 49.9368 49.9341 49.9328 49.9326 49.9360 49.9383 49.9400 49.9433 49.9459 49.9485

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q

410

49° 57' 26'' N 49° 57' 25'' N 49° 57' 23'' N 49° 57' 26'' N 49° 57' 30'' N 49° 57' 32'' N 49° 57' 39'' N 49° 57' 23'' N 49° 57' 19'' N 49° 57' 14'' N 49° 57' 9'' N 49° 56' 50'' N 49° 56' 41'' N 49° 56' 41'' N 49° 56' 41'' N 49° 56' 47'' N 49° 56' 48'' N 49° 56' 58'' N 49° 57' 15'' N

6° 17' 22'' W 6° 17' 6'' W 6° 16' 52'' W 6° 16' 25'' W 6° 16' 28'' W 6° 16' 21'' W 6° 16' 4'' W 6° 15' 48'' W 6° 15' 34'' W 6° 15' 35'' W 6° 15' 40'' W 6° 15' 43'' W 6° 15' 58'' W 6° 15' 59'' W 6° 16' 4'' W 6° 16' 7'' W 6° 16' 22'' W 6° 16' 55'' W 6° 17' 20'' W

AF T

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

-6.2540 -6.2487 -6.2422 -6.2413 -6.2430 -6.2457 -6.2499 -6.2493 -6.2527 -6.2591 -6.2687 -6.2688 -6.2649 -6.2591 -6.2565 -6.2532 -6.2542

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

49° 57' 4'' N 49° 57' 5'' N 49° 56' 59'' N 49° 56' 51'' N 49° 56' 39'' N 49° 56' 29'' N 49° 56' 20'' N 49° 56' 12'' N 49° 56' 2'' N 49° 55' 58'' N 49° 55' 57'' N 49° 56' 9'' N 49° 56' 18'' N 49° 56' 23'' N 49° 56' 36'' N 49° 56' 45'' N 49° 56' 54'' N

6° 15' 14'' W 6° 14' 55'' W 6° 14' 32'' W 6° 14' 28'' W 6° 14' 34'' W 6° 14' 44'' W 6° 14' 59'' W 6° 14' 57'' W 6° 15' 9'' W 6° 15' 32'' W 6° 16' 7'' W 6° 16' 7'' W 6° 15' 53'' W 6° 15' 32'' W 6° 15' 23'' W 6° 15' 11'' W 6° 15' 15'' W

Men a Vaur to White Island boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.9778 49.9790 49.9820 49.9803 49.9836 49.9836 49.9848 49.9854 49.9799 49.9739 49.9688 49.9659 49.9717 49.9722 49.9767 49.9764 49.9758 49.9752

-6.3378 -6.3278 -6.3262 -6.3180 -6.3141 -6.3047 -6.3036 -6.2888 -6.2806 -6.2860 -6.2869 -6.2882 -6.2994 -6.3026 -6.3016 -6.3194 -6.3307 -6.3366

Peninnis to Dry Ledge boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.9291

-6.2769

6° 20' 15'' W 6° 19' 39'' W 6° 19' 34'' W 6° 19' 4'' W 6° 18' 50'' W 6° 18' 17'' W 6° 18' 13'' W 6° 17' 19'' W 6° 16' 50'' W 6° 17' 9'' W 6° 17' 12'' W 6° 17' 17'' W 6° 17' 57'' W 6° 18' 9'' W 6° 18' 5'' W 6° 19' 9'' W 6° 19' 50'' W 6° 20' 11'' W

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

49° 55' 44'' N

6° 16' 36'' W

49.9297

-6.2703

49° 55' 46'' N

6° 16' 13'' W

49.9266

-6.2681

49° 55' 35'' N

6° 16' 5'' W

49.9220

-6.2695

49° 55' 19'' N

6° 16' 10'' W

49.9215

-6.2654

49° 55' 17'' N

6° 15' 55'' W

49.9175

-6.2715

49° 55' 2'' N

6° 16' 17'' W

49.9162

-6.2699

49° 54' 58'' N

6° 16' 11'' W

D 411

49° 58' 40'' N 49° 58' 44'' N 49° 58' 55'' N 49° 58' 49'' N 49° 59' 1'' N 49° 59' 0'' N 49° 59' 5'' N 49° 59' 7'' N 49° 58' 47'' N 49° 58' 26'' N 49° 58' 7'' N 49° 57' 57'' N 49° 58' 18'' N 49° 58' 19'' N 49° 58' 36'' N 49° 58' 35'' N 49° 58' 32'' N 49° 58' 30'' N

AF T

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

49.9144

-6.2746

49° 54' 51'' N

6° 16' 28'' W

49.9110

-6.2787

49° 54' 39'' N

6° 16' 43'' W

49.9071

-6.2825

49° 54' 25'' N

6° 16' 57'' W

49.9028

-6.2914

49° 54' 9'' N

6° 17' 29'' W

49.9002

-6.2973

49° 54' 0'' N

6° 17' 50'' W

49.9021

-6.3047

49° 54' 7'' N

6° 18' 16'' W

49.9050

-6.3085

49° 54' 17'' N

6° 18' 30'' W

49.9038

-6.3063

49° 54' 13'' N

6° 18' 22'' W

Plympton to Spanish Ledge boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.9006 49.8990 49.8937 49.8852 49.8812 49.8793 49.8769 49.8811 49.8824 49.8835 49.8886 49.8902 49.8927 49.8938 49.8935 49.8959

-6.3148 -6.3057 -6.3099 -6.3221 -6.3343 -6.3397 -6.3476 -6.3522 -6.3516 -6.3431 -6.3361 -6.3315 -6.3270 -6.3260 -6.3235 -6.3211

Smith Sound Tide Swept Channel boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.8968 49.8980 49.8979 49.8951 49.8928 49.8919 49.8877 49.8824 49.8811 49.8792 49.8788 49.8833 49.8867 49.8925

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

412

49° 54' 2'' N 49° 53' 56'' N 49° 53' 37'' N 49° 53' 6'' N 49° 52' 52'' N 49° 52' 45'' N 49° 52' 36'' N 49° 52' 52'' N 49° 52' 56'' N 49° 53' 0'' N 49° 53' 18'' N 49° 53' 24'' N 49° 53' 33'' N 49° 53' 37'' N 49° 53' 36'' N 49° 53' 45'' N

6° 18' 53'' W 6° 18' 20'' W 6° 18' 35'' W 6° 19' 19'' W 6° 20' 3'' W 6° 20' 22'' W 6° 20' 51'' W 6° 21' 7'' W 6° 21' 5'' W 6° 20' 35'' W 6° 20' 9'' W 6° 19' 53'' W 6° 19' 37'' W 6° 19' 33'' W 6° 19' 24'' W 6° 19' 16'' W

AF T

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

-6.3698 -6.3653 -6.3614 -6.3576 -6.3574 -6.3522 -6.3526 -6.3516 -6.3522 -6.3565 -6.3603 -6.3622 -6.3625 -6.3660

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

49° 53' 48'' N 49° 53' 52'' N 49° 53' 52'' N 49° 53' 42'' N 49° 53' 34'' N 49° 53' 30'' N 49° 53' 15'' N 49° 52' 56'' N 49° 52' 52'' N 49° 52' 44'' N 49° 52' 43'' N 49° 52' 59'' N 49° 53' 12'' N 49° 53' 32'' N

6° 22' 11'' W 6° 21' 55'' W 6° 21' 41'' W 6° 21' 27'' W 6° 21' 26'' W 6° 21' 7'' W 6° 21' 9'' W 6° 21' 5'' W 6° 21' 7'' W 6° 21' 23'' W 6° 21' 37'' W 6° 21' 43'' W 6° 21' 45'' W 6° 21' 57'' W

Tean boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long 49.9701 49.9712 49.9700 49.9684 49.9682 49.9669 49.9639 49.9600 49.9564 49.9552 49.9549 49.9574 49.9581 49.9600 49.9635 49.9684

-6.3240 -6.3193 -6.3157 -6.3098 -6.3055 -6.3047 -6.3043 -6.3021 -6.3017 -6.3027 -6.3052 -6.3086 -6.3117 -6.3158 -6.3196 -6.3242

49° 58' 12'' N 49° 58' 16'' N 49° 58' 12'' N 49° 58' 6'' N 49° 58' 5'' N 49° 58' 1'' N 49° 57' 50'' N 49° 57' 35'' N 49° 57' 23'' N 49° 57' 18'' N 49° 57' 17'' N 49° 57' 26'' N 49° 57' 29'' N 49° 57' 35'' N 49° 57' 48'' N 49° 58' 6'' N

6° 19' 26'' W 6° 19' 9'' W 6° 18' 56'' W 6° 18' 35'' W 6° 18' 19'' W 6° 18' 17'' W 6° 18' 15'' W 6° 18' 7'' W 6° 18' 6'' W 6° 18' 9'' W 6° 18' 18'' W 6° 18' 30'' W 6° 18' 41'' W 6° 18' 56'' W 6° 19' 10'' W 6° 19' 27'' W

AF T

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

Smith Sound Non-disturbance Area boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Vertex Lat Long Lat Long 49.8931

-6.3634

49° 53' 35'' N

6° 21' 48'' W

49.8937

-6.3608

49° 53' 37'' N

6° 21' 38'' W

49.8885

-6.3564

49° 53' 18'' N

6° 21' 22'' W

49.8878

-6.3563

49° 53' 16'' N

6° 21' 22'' W

49.8880

-6.3547

49° 53' 16'' N

6° 21' 16'' W

49.8878

-6.3539

49° 53' 15'' N

6° 21' 14'' W

49.8872

-6.3537

49° 53' 13'' N

6° 21' 13'' W

49.8870

-6.3547

49° 53' 13'' N

6° 21' 16'' W

49.8853

-6.3546

49° 53' 7'' N

6° 21' 16'' W

413

49.8850

-6.3560

49° 53' 5'' N

6° 21' 21'' W

49.8848

-6.3559

49° 53' 5'' N

6° 21' 21'' W

49.8849

-6.3547

49° 53' 5'' N

6° 21' 16'' W

49.8844

-6.3542

49° 53' 3'' N

6° 21' 15'' W

49.8837

-6.3529

49° 53' 1'' N

6° 21' 10'' W

49.8813

-6.3576

49° 52' 52'' N

6° 21' 27'' W

Tean Non-disturbance Area boundary coordinates Decimal degrees Vertex Lat Long

Site boundary

49.9660 49.9661 49.9648 49.9643 49.9640 49.9610 49.9608 49.9604 49.9585 49.9583 49.9588 49.9625 49.9636 49.9645 49.9650 49.9657

-6.3080 -6.3072 -6.3070 -6.3064 -6.3053 -6.3040 -6.3064 -6.3071 -6.3083 -6.3098 -6.3102 -6.3096 -6.3076 -6.3074 -6.3084 -6.3080

49° 57' 57'' N 49° 57' 57'' N 49° 57' 53'' N 49° 57' 51'' N 49° 57' 50'' N 49° 57' 39'' N 49° 57' 38'' N 49° 57' 37'' N 49° 57' 30'' N 49° 57' 29'' N 49° 57' 31'' N 49° 57' 45'' N 49° 57' 48'' N 49° 57' 52'' N 49° 57' 53'' N 49° 57' 56'' N

6° 18' 28'' W 6° 18' 25'' W 6° 18' 25'' W 6° 18' 22'' W 6° 18' 18'' W 6° 18' 14'' W 6° 18' 23'' W 6° 18' 25'' W 6° 18' 29'' W 6° 18' 35'' W 6° 18' 36'' W 6° 18' 34'' W 6° 18' 27'' W 6° 18' 26'' W 6° 18' 30'' W 6° 18' 28'' W

AF T

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

***To be added. Refer to Local Group outputs – boundaries were defined by Local Group, adjusted to come up to mean high water where relevant, follow depth contours (often 50m). Environmental site summary

***To be added.

Broad-scale habitats: These pMCZs largely cover high and moderate energy infralittoral rock, and moderate energy circalittoral rock. They also include some patches of subtidal coarse sediment and subtidal mixed sediments, and subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment (which coincide with the FOCI habitat seagrass beds). A diverse range of intertidal habitats are also within these pMCZs (see tables II.3.30b and II.3.30c for a complete list of broad-scale habitats to be protected in the Isles of Scilly pMCZs).

•

414

FOCI: The primary reason for selecting these pMCZs is the large range and quality of FOCI that occur in the Isles of Scilly. The primary FOCI habitats are fragile sponge and anthozoan communities, and seagrass beds, but there are records of others including intertidal underboulder communities, and the only SW records of tide swept communities. These habitats support a large range of FOCI species including Eunicella verrucosa, Leptopsammia pruvoti, Palinurus elephas, Gobius cobitis, Lucernariopsis campanulata, and areas of importance for sea horses. Please refer to tables II.3.30d and II.3.30e for a full list.

Intersects with an area of higher than average benthic species and habitat diversity (within the south-west context).

•

These pMCZs are considered unique areas as they are well supported by local stakeholders, and contribute to many ENG targets, and cover areas of reef habitat that are of exceptional quality.

•

Full details on the conservation interest of these sites was provided by the Isles of Scilly Local Group, in the shape of photographs from a large number of locations within these pMCZs, showing a large range of the FOCI and additional biodiversity present. Much of the information on the photos is not included in the regional GIS datasets. Due to time and resource constraints, the Finding Sanctuary project team have been unable to convert these photographic records to GIS data, so this information is not accounted for in the tables below. Instead, the photographic materials have been made available directly to the SAP, and will be supplied as additional supporting evidence with the final recommendations at the end of the project. Note, however, that we have included polygon data mapped from Local Group knowledge in our GIS datasets – this was based on the map of the initial set of sites that were proposed (as presented in the second progress report), where each site was labelled with the habitat it contained. This polygon data is reflected in the figures below.

AF T

•

415

Features proposed for designation within Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ

AF T

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for the Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ. The Isles of Scilly vulnerability assessment work had not begun at the time of writing this report, so no detailed review has been carried out to check which of the below are covered by existing designations; or which component areas will have what conservation objectives. The statistics tables (***below) break down which features are recorded in each component area. Features on CO list Review Comments High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment Subtidal mixed sediments High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-fan anemone Arctica islandica Ocean quahog Cruoria cruoriaeformis Burgundy maerl paint weed Gobius cobitis Giant Goby Grateloupia montagnei Greateloup's little-lobed weed Haliclystus auricula Stalked jellyfish Lucernariopsis campanulata Stalked jellyfish Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis Stalked jellyfish Palinurus elephas Spiny lobster Paludinella littorina Sea snail Hippocampus guttulatus Long snouted seahorse Peat and clay exposures Tide-swept channel Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Subtidal sands and gravels Seagrass beds

416

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Isles of Scilly - Bristows to the Stones Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) 3.05 18.12 1.60 0.03

1.0% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1%

AF T

Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

22.81 (61.6%)

11.96 (< 0.1%)

Isles of Scilly - Gilstone to Gorregan

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) 0.01

High energy infralittoral rock

< 0.1%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ area. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total)

Gobius cobitis Haliclystus auricula Palinurus elephas Paludinella littorina

2 1 1 1

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Tide-swept channel

417

Number of point records (pre-1980) 1 1 1

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Isles of Scilly - Hanjague to Deep Ledge Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) Moderate energy infralittoral rock

0.02

< 0.1%

AF T

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments

0.04 0.01

0.6% < 0.1%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ area. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Amphianthus dohrnii 5 Hippocampus guttulatus 0.89 (0.1%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Palinurus elephas 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Isles of Scilly - Higher Town

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2)

High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment

0.06 < 0.01 0.01 0.09

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale recorded in this pMCZ area. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments

418

0.01 0.01 0.02 < 0.01

< 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% 0.4%

% of total in study area 0.4% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ area. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) records (pre-1980) Haliclystus auricula 10 Hippocampus guttulatus 1.64 (0.3%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Lucernariopsis campanulata 2 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

AF T

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Peat and clay exposures Tide-swept channel

Number of point records (total) 1 1

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Isles of Scilly - Lower Ridge to Innisvouls

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) High energy infralittoral rock 0.01 Moderate energy infralittoral rock 0.07

% of total in study area < 0.1% < 0.1%

Isles of Scilly - Men a Vaur to White Island

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area.

Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) High energy infralittoral rock 0.12 Moderate energy infralittoral rock 0.13 Moderate energy circalittoral rock < 0.01

% of total in study area < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1%

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) High energy intertidal rock 0.02 Intertidal coarse sediments 0.08 Intertidal sand and muddy sand 0.02 Intertidal mud 0.02

419

% of total in study area 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% < 0.1%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ area. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2) Haliclystus auricula Lucernariopsis campanulata Palinurus elephas

Number of point records (total) 2 1 1

Number of point records (pre-1980) 1 1

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ area.

Tide-swept channel

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

AF T

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) 0.54 (32.6%)

Isles of Scilly - Peninnis to Dry Ledge

% of total in study area < 0.1% < 0.1%

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area.

Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Moderate energy intertidal rock 0.11 Intertidal coarse sediments 0.08 Intertidal sand and muddy sand 0.04 Intertidal mud < 0.01 Intertidal mixed sediments 0.01

% of total in study area 2.3% 0.4% 0.4% < 0.1% 0.1%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ area.

Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point Number of point (km2) records (total) records (pre-1980) Amphianthus dohrnii 2 1 Arctica islandica 3 Gobius cobitis 5 3 Haliclystus auricula 1 1 Hippocampus guttulatus 1.81 (0.3%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Lucernariopsis campanulata 3 3 Palinurus elephas 6 4 Paludinella littorina 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

420

Isles of Scilly - Plympton to Spanish Ledge Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock

< 0.01 < 0.01

< 0.1% < 0.1%

AF T

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within % of total in study area pMCZ (km2) High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal sand and muddy sand

0.04 0.02 < 0.01 0.03

0.6% 0.3% < 0.1% 0.2%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ area. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Amphianthus dohrnii 3 Hippocampus guttulatus 0.21 (< 0.1%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Palinurus elephas 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Isles of Scilly - Smith Sound tide swept channel

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km )

High energy infralittoral rock

0.03

< 0.1%

421

0.02

0.3%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ area. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

AF T

Cruoria cruoriaeformis 2 Grateloupia montagnei 2 Hippocampus guttulatus 0.15 (< 0.1%)* Hippocampus hippocampus Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Tide-swept channel

Isles of Scilly - Tean

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within % of total in study area 2 pMCZ (km ) Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal mixed sediments

0.20 0.02

< 0.1% < 0.1%

< 0.01 0.08 < 0.01 < 0.01

< 0.1% 0.4% < 0.1% < 0.1%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ area. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Hippocampus guttulatus 0.86 (0.1%)* Hippocampus hippocampus * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

422

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ area. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point 2 (km ) records (total) Tide-swept channel

0.18 (11.0%)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

AF T

As described in detail in the last two progress reports, and in section***, stakeholder representatives have planned pMCZs based on working assumptions on how those pMCZs might impact on human activities within the site. This narrative is a vital underpinning of the site recommendations. Table *** below shows assumptions and implications recorded for this site in the third progress report (note this does not contain the assumptions made about the two “non-disturbance sites”, please refer to the most recent Working Group and Local Group reports).

Assumptions

Implications

Commercial and recreational fishing

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables The installation and maintenance of cables will be permitted and will not be made prohibitively expensive within the site. This applies to power cables (including cables for renewable energy devices), and telecommunications cables.

423

In this site, any new cables would have to be routed around the most sensitive canyon seafloor habitat, (areas of live deep-sea coral and biogenic rubble, where coral may recover).

o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. Direct implications:

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Direct implications:

Project team comments:

AF T

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Currently, this assumption is recorded for all sites that are common to the co-location and no co-location network variation. However, based on SAP feedback the assumption cannot apply to all sites in the network. The compatibility of renewable energy developments in any single one of the common sites remains an uncertainty. Note that the Working Groups have planned the sites that are common to both DNC variations away from the areas of most interest to renewable developments.

424

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The Crown Estates highlighted that there are many active power/telecommunications cables interconnecting the Isles of Scilly and with the UK mainland. Supportive with the assumption that MCZ designation would not restrict maintenance/repair of cables described.

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: • The impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 -

•

£1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. The Crown Estates provided feedback to highlight that these areas are within a significant wave resource area, which would be lost to exploitation.

Tourism and recreation

Ports, shipping

Direct implications:

AF T

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

425

o o

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting Direct implications: o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation & management) are restricted adjacent to MCZs, this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply & coast defence.

AF T

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

Waste disposal

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Direct implications:

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

Direct implications:

Aquaculture

Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities

Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Beach replenishment will be permitted with Direct implications: mitigation / management o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Need to be aware of flood risk management and coastal erosion protection activities.

Uncertainties • ...

426

Levels of support • • •

Unanimous suggestions from the Isles of Scilly Local Group. Accepted by the Working Groups and wider Steering Group. The Crown Estates highlighted that there are many active power/ telecommunications cables interconnecting the Isles of Scilly and with the UK mainland. Supportive with the assumption that MCZ designation would not restrict maintenance/repair of cables described. The feedback from The Crown Estates acknowledges the local support for these sites.

•

The Isles of Scilly Local Group have unanimously agreed that they would not like any reference areas in the Isles of Scilly. The SAP have advised that they would like to see a reference area within the Isles of Scilly. The Working Groups considered the possibility of a reference area option within the Isles of Scilly, but decided that they would prefer the discussion to happen within the Local Group. Note the Local Group have developed (two) proposed non-disturbance area(s). Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”).

•

AF T

Additional comments

427

Sites to which the site is related The site overlaps with Western Rocks SSSI, St. Helen’s SSSI, Annet SSSI, St Martin’s Sedimentary Shore SSSI and Chapel Down (St. Martin’s) SSSI. The site also lies completely within the Isles of Scilly Complex SAC. *** Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance23.

To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Supporting documentation

On the following pages there are ***four maps of this site. There are two main site maps showing the pMCZ boundary and lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The maps also show charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The other two maps show the pMCZ boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

428

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

6°12'30"W

6°10'0"W

50 2

50°1'30"N

5 0O

3 0

O 20

ONM

K 30 2 020 J

P10

Hanjague to Deep Ledge

C D

20 E

F G 50

H I 50

20 3

10 O 20

Hugh Town

I J A B 0 10 H

2 0 10 10

Higher Town

E F A B G C

49°55'30"N 10

C5 0 D

1 0

2 10

M L

10 2 0

E F

C D

Tean 49°57'0"N

R 10

2 1 0

49°58'30"N3 0

D R AF

Men a Vaur to White Island C

Bristows to the Stones

The co-ordinates for the pMCZs shown on this map can be found at the start of the Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ site report.

10 F 10

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

6°7'30"W

4 km

T Q 5 0

50°0'0"N

D3 0

6°15'0"W

6°17'30"W

6°20'0"W

10 2 30 0

Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ (part 1)

Version: Jun11

Map: SAP_237a

Lower Ridge to Innisvouls

Peninnis to Dry Ledge

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_237b Version: Jun11

Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ (part 1)

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

6°21'20"W

6°18'40"W

6°16'0"W

6°13'20"W

6°10'40"W

6°8'0"W

50°0'0"N

D R AF

50°1'30"N

4 km

Bristows to the Stones

Men a Vaur to White Island

49°58'30"N

k k D

W X

49°57'0"N

) "

D k

* # k k k

# * )" " ) ) " * # * ?# * " # ) " * )# ?

k k ^ ^

* #

( !

W X

^k ^

Hanjague to Deep Ledge ll k kk^ kk^ k ^ k k l ^ k kk kk ^ k k

k ? k ( k k ! ^

WX X ) Xk" WX W * # *W #

W ?X

X" W ? ? )

)" " X W ) W X Hugh ? k Town W X

" k# ) *

k? W X

) W X X" W

"" ) ) k? ?

Higher Town

) "

49°55'30"N

k " ) k " )

k k

"" ) )

^ ? ^ ?

*X # W

#^ * )k ? *" ) Tean # k k )" " ? k? * #

* # k X

k ^ kk k

* # k D W X

k k kk k k D

* #

? k

# * k

k k kk kk

Lower Ridge to Innisvouls

^^ k ^kk k kk ^ ^ k k W ? ^ )X " )X^ " k ^ k ^ ^ Peninnis to Dry Ledge k W X k k * # k ^ * # ^k^ k ) " k l k k k k D k k k k D D Wk X k

kk k k k k ^ k

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ (part 2)

0 1

10 30 M

E G

Peninnis to Dry Ledge

Plympton to Spanish Ledge

6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Gilstone to Gorregan

Map Legend

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

20 1 0

10 10

10 20

1 0 30

10 10

20 50

The co-ordinates for the pMCZs shown on this map can be found at the start of the Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ site report.

D R AF 20

10 20

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

J I 30 10 I 10 H20 J G

0 0

D E

N O 20

L 10

1 0

1 C 10 0 2 0D O

0 L

A B

N 10 M

1 0

10 10

Hugh Town

20 20

Bishop to Crim

5 0

F 20

20 0 30 2

Smith Sound 0 10 Tide Swept Channel 1 0 M 20

20 0

20 20

J I

2 0

49°54'0"N

Lower Ridge to Innisvouls0

10 10 0

49°55'30"N

Higher Town

20 2 0

4 km

36°15'0"W

Hanjague to Deep Ledge

10 0 1

20 10

6°17'30"W

Tean

49°57'0"N

49°51'0"N

10 20

6°20'0"W

6°22'30"W 50

6°25'0"W

6°27'30"W

49°52'30"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Version: Jun11

Map: SAP_238a

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Version: Jun11

Isles of Scilly Sites pMCZ (part 2)

6°29'20"W

6°26'40"W

6°24'0"W

49°57'0"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

W X

*X # W

) "

6°21'20"W

#^ * ? ) )" " * #

* # k X D

* # k k k

) "

* #

W" X ? ? )

Smith Sound Tide Swept Channel

^ j ^^ j k ^

k ^ ^

Bishop to Crim

* #

k k k k^ k k ^ * # D k W X

* # W X

)" " X W ) W X ?Hugh k Town W X

"k ) * #

) " k? WX X W W k^ X * # W W kX X k W W X ^ k X W ^ XDkkk k k D k^k kk ^ kk ^ ^ ^ ^Dk k

* " ) # * )# "

) k " X W W X W X W X k X k ) W W " X WX k k k WX X W" ) )"

6°13'20"W

k k kk k k D

* #

? k k

#k *

k k kk k k

D Wk X

k kk k k kk k ^^ Peninnis to Dry Ledge

l k ^

^ kk ^ k l kk ^ k^ D k l k

k k

* # D k W X

4 km

^ k ^kkk ^ k k ^ ^ k k W ? ^ )X " )X^ " k ^ k ^ ^ k W X k k * # k ^ k * # ^^ k ) " k l k k D k k k k D k

* #

W ?X

W X

49°49'30"N

)" " ) k ? k k ? ? k k ! ( ^

D R AF

49°51'0"N

Higher Town

49°52'30"N

Hanjague to k Deep Ledge

( !

49°55'30"N

49°54'0"N

* #

l kl kk^ kk^ k ^ k l ^ kk k k k ^ kk k

6°16'0"W

"" ) ) Ridge to Innisvouls Lower WX X ) k WX Wk" X W

^k ^

6°18'40"W

)k " * # k k Tean ? k?

# * )" " ) ) " * # * ?# * " # ) " * )# ?

^ ? ^ ?

Map: SAP_238b

k " )

Plympton to Spanish Ledge

Gilstone to Gorregan

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.23 Cape Bank pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Long

Lat

Long

50.2173

-5.9216

50° 13' 2'' N'

5° 55' 17' W'

Site area: 472.8 km2

AF T

Lat

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

***To be added. This site straddles the 6nm and 12nm limits. The eastern boundary follows the boundary of the Cape Bank section of the Land’s End and Cape Bank cSAC. The site overlaps with a Traffic Separation Scheme*** Environmental site summary

***To be added. There is anecdotal evidence that the moderate energy circalittoral rock in the western portion of the site is not bedrock-reef, but cobbles.

(...) note that this pMCZ intersects with Cape Bank cSAC, which will already serves to protect Annex I reef habitat. We are not counting the rocky reef area within the cSAC boundary towards the conservation objectives or statistics reported for this site. This is reflected in table II.3.32a.

•

Palinurus elephas (...)

•

Note that the FOCI habitat “Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats” is also present in the area, indicated in the gap analysis, and in recent survey information from Natural England (although there are no records present in the national datasets), but is already protected within the SAC boundary. The SAC selection assessment document24 indicates that the identified reef biotopes most

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/LECB-sad_tcm6-21669.pdf

433

similar to this FOCI are mostly found within the Cape Bank area. These may also be present outside the cSAC boundary where there is additional rocky habitat, in which case the pMCZ would contribute addition protection. •

Local Group feedback indicates that this area is an important area for water column interest, with frontal activity, and used by summer foraging birds, including sea bird colonies on the Isles of Scilly such as kittiwake, puffin, guillemot and razorbill. Fin whales are present in the area in winter. (...)

Features proposed for designation within Cape Bank pMCZ

AF T

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Cape Bank pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** The term “existing SAC” can refer to SACs, cSACs, dSACs or pSACs. pMCZ Name Features on CO list Review Comments Cape Bank High energy circalittoral protected by existing SAC rock High energy infralittoral protected by existing SAC rock Moderate energy protected within SAC boundaries circalittoral rock but not outside SAC boundaries, some unprotected feature occurs within pMCZ Moderate energy protected by existing SAC infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Palinurus elephas Spiny lobster

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ.

Sub-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Moderate energy circalittoral rock 19.51 Subtidal coarse sediment 308.20

% of total in study area 0.1% 1.1%

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ.

Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2) Palinurus elephas

Number of point records (total) 2

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Subtidal sands and gravels

434

115.49 (0.2%)

AF T

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen, o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers.

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

435

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback has suggested that mitigation measures against bycatch be put in place for netting, but seabirds and cetaceans are currently not part of the developing conservation objectives of the site. o Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

AF T

The installation and maintenance of Direct implications: cables will be permitted and will not be o made prohibitively expensive within If the assumption turns out to be wrong: the site. This applies to power cables o For renewables, re-routing of cables around a feature (including cables for renewable energy or site might mean longer cable routes, at a cost of devices), and telecommunications £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 cables. £1.3m/km depending on cables o There may be other costs, e.g. costs associated with mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs (e.g. increased cost of cabling), there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. Direct implications: o This pMCZ is located within an area with active telecommunication cables linking the UK mainland and overseas. These activities need to remain unrestricted.

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Direct implications:

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Project team comments:

436

developments.

o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts

Tourism and recreation

AF T

would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. o The Crown Estate highlighted that this pMCZ is located within a wave resource area, but recognise that the area also has high shipping density (which may pose an obstacle to any potential future wave technology being deployed in the area, irrespective of its status as an MCZ or not). o There has been an assumption that renewable energy installations won’t be developed within a Traffic Separation Scheme, so that, if this assumption turned out to be wrong, it would have less of a negative impact on the renewables sector than other sites might, given that the pMCZ intersects with a TSS.

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted. Ports, shipping

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

437

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting Direct implications: o Aggregate dredging can only occur where the mineral resources are geologically located – in highly localised and discrete areas. If aggregate operations are not allowed in MCZs (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management), and MCZs coincide with aggregate resource, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence.

AF T

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

Waste disposal

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Aquaculture

Direct implications:

Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities

Direct implications:

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Uncertainties • ...

438

o Direct implications:

Levels of support •

The Crown Estates indicated that this is an area with an active telecommunication cables interconnecting UK mainland overseas. Supportive with the assumption that MCZ designation would not restrict maintenance / repair of cables described.

Additional comments

• •

(...) there may be non-UK vessels with historical fishing rights in the area. Note that we have received the following statement from the SNCBs and Defra: “When considering the impacts of fishing restrictions on non UK vessels, it is the Government’s intention that fishing restrictions will not be imposed unilaterally on UK vessels before they can be applied to equivalent EU vessels operating within the relevant areas. In the case of those EU fishing vessels with historic fishing rights in UK waters between 6 and 12 nm, Defra will negotiate with the relevant Member States and the European Commission before introducing byelaws, or orders that are applicable to all EU vessels, or seeking Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) regulation measures. Once introduced, these would apply to all EU vessels (including UK vessels) equally and at the same time.” This building block has been placed in a Traffic Separation Scheme area in an effort to reduce impacts to the fishing industry. Local Group suggested adding water column protection to part of this pMCZ (within the iL23 building block), as there is frontal mixing in the area. The Working Groups will consider this once they have seen and examined the pelagic biodiversity data layers, which were recently received (and on which feedback from conservation representatives is due at the upcoming March JWG meeting). The pMCZ overlaps with a cSAC which is in place for the protection of reef habitats. Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). Note that this pMCZ has been placed in a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) area in an effort to reduce impacts to the fishing industry. This is based on an assumption that fishing activity is less intense within the TSS. If fishing activity is not less intensive in the TSS, then some fishing activity will be restricted/displaced (as described in the table above).

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The site completely includes the Cape Bank section of the Lands End and Cape Bank pSAC. It also contains Cape Bank potential reference area.***

439

Conservation Objectives ***To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance25. Supporting documentation To be added. *** Site map series

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

440

Version: Jun11

Cape Bank pMCZ

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

6°8'30"W

6°3'20"W

5°58'10"W

5°53'0"W

5°47'50"W

5°42'40"W

50°21'0"N

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

C 50.3210 -5.8708 50° 19' 15'' N 5° 52' 15'' W

B 50.3000 -5.8995 50° 18' 0'' N 5° 53' 58'' W

St. Just

Bosavern Kelynack

3 10

Sennen

0 2 50 0

0 2

Newbridge

Madron

Sancreed

Lower DriftTredavoe

St. Buryan Lamorna

Work 0 in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary0 3 0 by2the 0 1Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Treen (www.finding-s anctuary.org). 1 working for further information 20 30 group and progress reportsPorthcurno

30 5 0

50 50

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Porthmeor

Zennor

Trewellard

Morvah Boscaswell Bojewyan

0 2

I 50.0999 -5.8481 50° 5' 59'' N 5° 50' 53'' W

J 50.0999 -5.9330 50° 5' 59'' N 5° 55' 58'' W

30 30 30

50°3'30"N

H 50.0746 -5.8136 50° 4' 28'' N 5° 48' 48'' W

50°7'0"N

F 50.2841 -5.8085 50° 17' 2'' N 5° 48' 30'' W

G 50.1409 -5.7842 50° 8' 27'' N 5° 47' 3'' W

50°10'30"N

E 50.3333 -5.7172 50° 20' 0'' N 5° 43' 1'' W

L 50.1992 -6.0999 50° 11' 57'' N 6° 5' 59'' W

D 50.3543 -5.7422 50° 21' 15'' N 5° 44' 31'' W

K 50.1664 -6.0673 50° 9' 59'' N 6° 4' 2'' W

Cape Bank

Long

Lat

A 50.3000 -6.1000 50° 17' 59'' N 6° 6' 0'' W

50°14'0"N

Long

D R AF

Cape Bank

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

50°17'30"N

10 km

Lat

2.5

5°37'30"W

Map: SAP_239a

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_239b Version: Jun11

Cape Bank pMCZ

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

6°13'20"W

6°7'40"W

6°2'0"W

5°56'20"W

5°50'40"W

5°45'0"W

10 km

5°39'20"W

5°33'40"W

50°21'0"N

50°17'30"N

50°14'0"N

D R AF

Cape Bank

50°10'30"N

50°7'0"N

50°3'30"N

Bristows to the Stones

k k

k D

St Ives

Zennor

Porthmeor

Map Legend BoscaswellBojewyan Trewellard St. Just Bosavern Kelynack

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

Crowlas SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Ludgvan Lundy NTZ Gulval Newbridge Madron A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices Heamoor Longrock Potential reference area

of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

kk k *X # k W k k k k Marazion kk k Sancreed k j j k Lower DriftTredavoe kk X # * * # D k Paul k k k *# * DD# j# * St. Buryan W kk X Sennen * # * k# * # D Lamorna k * # # * k * # k k Dk PorthcurnoTreen k D k Dkk Penberth k * k # k j

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

6 nautical mile limit

Morvah

Halse Town Towednack

II.4.24 Newquay and the Gannel pMCZ

AF T

443

Map: SAP_240a

Newquay and The Gannel pMCZ

Version: Jun11

5°9'10"W

5°8'20"W

5°7'30"W

5°6'40"W

5°5'50"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°5'0"W

5°4'10"W

0.45

0.9

5°3'20"W

1.8 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.4141 -5.1473 50° 24' 50'' N 5° 8' 50'' W B 50.4178 -5.1366 50° 25' 4'' N 5° 8' 11'' W

20 20

F 20

G 50°25'40"N 10

D R AF

50°26'15"N

D 50.4226 -5.1154 50° 25' 21'' N 5° 6' 55'' W E 50.4231 -5.1148 50° 25' 22'' N 5° 6' 53'' W F 50.4342 -5.1055 50° 26' 3'' N 5° 6' 19'' W G 50.4297 -5.0852 50° 25' 47'' N 5° 5' 6'' W H 50.4275 -5.0659 50° 25' 39'' N 5° 3' 57'' W I 50.4121 -5.1257 50° 24' 43'' N 5° 7' 32'' W J 50.4088 -5.1348 50° 24' 31'' N 5° 8' 5'' W K 50.4053 -5.1469 50° 24' 18'' N 5° 8' 48'' W

C 50.4217 -5.1195 50° 25' 18'' N 5° 7' 10'' W

St. Columb Porth

50°25'5"N

Newquay and The Gannel

50°24'30"N

Crantock

50°23'55"N

50°23'20"N

Holywell

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_240b

Newquay and The Gannel pMCZ

Version: Jun11

5°9'0"W

5°8'0"W

5°7'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°6'0"W

5°5'0"W

0.5

1 km

5°4'0"W

5°3'0"W

5°2'0"W

50°26'15"N

50°25'5"N

50°24'30"N

D R AF

50°25'40"N

50°23'20"N

St. Columb Minor

Newquay and The Gannel

Crantock

50°23'55"N

St. Columb Porth

Holywell

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.25 Padstow Bay and surrounds pMCZ

AF T

446

Map: SAP_241a

Padstow Bay and Surrounds pMCZ

Version: Jun11

5°3'45"W

5°1'30"W

5°8'15"W 5

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°59'15"W

4°57'0"W

4°54'45"W

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

4 km

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.5833 -5.1333 50° 34' 59'' N 5° 7' 59'' W B 50.5843 -5.0335 50° 35' 3'' N 5° 2' 0'' W

50°36'0"N 0 5

2 0

L 50.4977 -5.0467 50° 29' 51'' N 5° 2' 48'' W M 50.4977 -5.1330 50° 29' 51'' N 5° 7' 58'' W

6 nautical mile limit

Treyarnon

Camel Estuary

Rumford

50°28'30"N

K 50.5692 -4.9453 50° 34' 9'' N 4° 56' 42'' W

Map Legend

Penrose

I 50.5874 -4.9350 50° 35' 14'' N 4° 56' 6'' W

Rock

St. Merryn

Polzeath

Trebetherick

Litl e Pet her i ck St. Issey

50°30'0"N

Pentregl aze

J 50.5867 -4.9354 50° 35' 12'' N 4° 56' 7'' W

Padstow Bay and surrounds

H 50.5882 -4.9125 50° 35' 17'' N 4° 54' 45'' W

Crugmeer

Trevone

F 50.5974 -4.9378 50° 35' 50'' N 4° 56' 16'' W G 50.6016 -4.9135 50° 36' 5'' N 4° 54' 48'' W

E 50.5930 -4.9463 50° 35' 34'' N 4° 56' 46'' W

2 0

50°31'30"N

50°33'0"N

D R AF 30

D 50.5838 -4.9486 50° 35' 1'' N 4° 56' 55'' W

50°34'30"N

30 0 3

B 30

C 50.5717 -4.9948 50° 34' 18'' N 4° 59' 41'' W

St Eval

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_241b

Padstow Bay and Surrounds pMCZ

Version: Jun11

5°11'40"W

5°9'15"W

5°6'50"W

5°4'25"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°2'0"W

4°59'35"W

4°57'10"W

4 km

4°54'45"W

4°52'20"W

D R AF

50°34'30"N

50°36'0"N

Pentregl aze

Trebetherick St Minver

Padstow Bay and surrounds

50°33'0"N

Crugmeer

Trevone

50°31'30"N

50°30'0"N

Rock

Map Legend Camel Existing MPAs 6 nautical mile limit Estuary

St. Merryn

Treyarnon

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA SSSI

Lundy NTZ Wadebridge

Litle Pet her ick St. IsseyA comprehensive legend is Whitecross Breock provided in theStappendices

Penrose

St Eval

Trenance

12 nautical mile limit

Zone within a pMCZ

Rumford

50°28'30"N

Trelights

Polzeath

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Potential reference area

of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.26 Camel Estuary pMCZ Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.5294 -4.8698

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 31' 45'' N' 4° 52' 11' W'

Site area: 2.2 km2

AF T

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline (OS Boundary Line mean high water) along the mean high water mark upstream of a point due south of Rock*** Environmental site summary ***To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Camel Estuary pMCZ

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Camel Estuary pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** Features on CO list Review Comments Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Low energy intertidal rock Estuarine rocky habitats Anguilla anguilla European eel

449

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

% of total in study area 0.3% 0.2% 1.0% 4.8%

AF T

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Low energy intertidal rock 0.01 Intertidal coarse sediments 0.04 Intertidal mud 1.77 Coastal saltmarshes and saline 0.15 reedbeds

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

450

Map: SAP_242a Version: Jun11

4°55'0"W

Camel Estuary pMCZ

4°53'0"W

4°52'0"W

4°51'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°50'0"W

4°49'0"W

0.5

4°48'0"W

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

50°32'40"N

50°31'20"N

Long

B 50.5263 -4.9000 50° 31' 34'' N 4° 53' 59'' W

A B

Lat

A 50.5310 -4.9000 50° 31' 51'' N 4° 54' 0'' W

Chapel Amble

D R AF

50°32'0"N

Long

Camel Estuary

Wadebridge

50°30'40"N

50°30'0"N

50°29'20"N

Whitecross

St Breock

Egloshayle

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_242b Version: Jun11

4°55'20"W

Rock

Camel Estuary pMCZ

4°53'0"W

4°51'50"W

4°50'40"W

* #

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°49'30"W

Chapel Amble

4°48'20"W

2 km

4°47'10"W

St Kew Highway 4°46'0"W

50°32'0"N

" "

50°31'20"N

D R AF

Camel Estuary

St Mabyn

Wadebridge

50°30'40"N

50°30'0"N

50°29'20"N

50°28'40"N

Whitecross

St Breock

Egloshayle

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.27 Hartland Point to Tintagel pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Long

Lat

Long

50.7965

-4.7094

50° 47' 47'' N'

4° 42' 33' W'

Site area: 303.8 km2

AF T

Lat

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline along the mean high water mark from Tintagel to Hartland Point. It then extends E-W and N-S to form two rectangular areas towards Bude where it approximately tracks the 10m contour line to St Gennys. After this point it extends NS and E-W to form a large rectangular area around Boscastle. ***

Environmental site summary ***To be added.

Area of importance for cetaceans.

•

This pMCZ Intersects with an area of higher than average species diversity, and the Bude and Boscastle sections intersect with areas of higher than average benthic habitat diversity (within the south-west context).

•

Note that Local Group feedback indicated the presence of Sabellaria reef in the area (the species is not specified in the Local Group report). We do not have this mapped, so it is not reflected in the tables below.

•

Local Group feedback has commented on the importance of this area for connectivity, also pointing out the different nature of the sediment habitats found in this area compared to other parts of the region (different exposure regime).

453

•

Local Group feedback has indicated that this area may be important for porbeagle sharks, but this was not certain.

Features proposed for designation within Hartland Point to Tintagel pMCZ

AF T

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Hartland Point to Tintagel pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** Features on CO list Review Comments Coastal saltmarshes and saline Small area only, in one of the combes reedbeds High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediment Intertidal mud unlikely to be present, this is probably sand Intertidal sand and muddy sand Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Fragile sponge&anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Sabellaria alveolata reefs No records in our dataset but there is anecdotal evidence of MarClim records near Bude, to be pursued Eunicella verrucosa Pink sea-fan Lithothamnion corallioides Maёrl single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list. Padina pavonica Peacock's tail seaweed

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

454

1.43 155.58 141.00

% of total in study area 0.2% 0.5% 0.4%

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2)

% of total in study area

AF T

High energy intertidal rock 1.76 24.2% Moderate energy intertidal rock 0.01 0.1% Intertidal coarse sediments 1.56 8.1% Intertidal sand and muddy sand 0.22 1.9% Intertidal mud 1 1.40 0.8% Intertidal mixed sediments 0.78 17.4% Coastal saltmarshes and saline < 0.01 < 0.1% reedbeds 1 Intertidal mud is unlikely to be present along this high-energy exposed stretch of coastline, what is classed as “mud” here is probably sand. The intertidal habitat data is derived from Environment Agency intertidal maps, and there is a known issue with the translation between the EA habitat types and EUNIS L3, where an intertidal “sand and mud” category is translated to “intertidal mud”. Refer to ***Appendix 4 for details.

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Eunicella verrucosa 5 4 Hippocampus guttulatus 1.41 (0.2%)* Hippocampus hippocapus Padina pavonica 1 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Table *** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

224.65 (0.4%)

455

happen should the site be implemented. The Joint Working Group will review the outputs of the vulnerability assessment at their June 2011 meeting, and the content of table *** may change as a result. The fundamental assumption about human activities within MCZs is that activities can continue (under current licensing regimes where applicable), as long as they do not prevent the conservation objectives from being achieved. This assumption applies to all activities. The table below specifies in more detail what this is likely to mean within this particular pMCZ.

AF T

Table II.3.40b Specific assumptions and implications relating to [site name] pMCZ. Assumptions Implications Commercial and recreational fishing

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen o Will affect day boats in particular, which are less able to travel far for alternative grounds than larger boats would be o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers.

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

456

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for netters o Displacement of netters o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on netters where protected areas are close together Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Local Group feedback suggested allowing netting with mitigation measures against bycatch.

Longlining will not be allowed in the water column and seafloor protection zone

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for longliners o Displacement of longliners o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on longliners where protected areas are close together Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: • The rationale for this assumption has been strongly questioned in recent comments, as bycatch is not considered a problem for the kind of longlining in the region. o A Steering Group member commented to state that longlining in this area is small scale only from small vessels, and for tagged Bass scheme. Removal of longlining as a prohibited activity would aid approval support for this site.

Pelagic trawls will be permitted, but in the water column and seafloor protection zone will require mitigation against bycatch of cetaceans

Direct implications:

AF T

In the water column and seafloor protection zone, no netting except herring drift netting will be allowed

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

457

may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets.

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Project team comments:

Direct implications:

o If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o There are active telecommunication cables interconnecting the UK mainland from Bude overseas. There would be implications for telecommunications if these cables were not able to stay operational, including access for maintenance purposes.

AF T

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The MCZ designation may mean that additional management requirements are defined for renewable energy developments. This could result in: - additional costs to the renewables industry, e.g. for mitigation and monitoring - delays to renewables development o If there are costs associated with co-location of renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. o The pMCZ is located in an area of wave resource, which would be lost to potential exploitation.

Direct implications:

458

Tourism and recreation Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications: o There are small port and harbour facilities in the area, and a wider concern has been raised about whether they would be impacted by an MCZ designation.

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications:

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

AF T

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: There are small port and harbour facilities in the area, and a wider concern has been raised about whether they would be impacted by an MCZ designation.

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o There are small port and harbour facilities in the area, and a wider concern has been raised about whether they would be impacted by an MCZ designation.

o o

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

459

defence. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o If aggregate operations (subject to appropriate monitoring, mitigation and management) are restricted in areas adjacent to an MCZ, then this will have significant impact on national construction aggregate supply and coast defence. Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

AF T

Waste disposal Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Direct implications:

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

Direct implications:

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: There are current coastal protection works in the area, and there has been concern around whether there would be any impacts on them arising from an MCZ designation. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o There are current coastal protection works in the area, and there has been concern around whether there would be any impacts on them arising from an MCZ designation.

Aquaculture

Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities

Direct implications: o A Steering Group member commented to state that it is not clear where this occurs on the site, so there may not be implications fomr this assumption

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

460

Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o There are current coastal protection works in the area, and there has been concern around whether there would be any impacts on them arising from an MCZ designation.

Uncertainties •

...

Levels of support •

•

Although this pMCZ is inshore (within territorial waters), part of the Boscastle section (previously iO5) lies beyond the 6 nautical mile limit. This means that any restrictions on fishing activity would require regulation through the CFP. The Local Group suggested and support what was iP6, based on the above assumptions. There was concern from the Local Group about the concentration of the number of building blocks on the north coast of Cornwall. These have since been reduced in size and changed in shape. The Crown Estates indicated that what was building blocks iO1 and iO2 is an area with active telecommunication cables interconnecting UK mainland from Bude overseas. Supportive with the assumption that MCZ designation would not restrict maintenance / repair of cables described. The Crown Estates indicated that what was building block iP6 is an area with licensed wildfowling, recreation boat moorings, port activities, coastal protection works, active telecommunication cables and waste water outfalls. Supportive of the area, as long as the activities they highlighted in their feedback would not be affected.

•

Direct implications:

AF T

Wildfowling would be permitted (this was not an agreed assumption from the Working Group, but was been highlighted in feedback as an activity that currently is ongoing in the area, prior to the February 2011 Steering Group meeting)

•

461

•

• •

Local Group feedback indicates that breeding seabird colonies use the area between April and July, and suggested a standard 1km extension around seabird colonies to protect the areas used by the birds during this time period. It is not clear from the comment whether the current Hartland zone fully accounts for this feedback. Local Group feedback indicates that reference areas would be controversial in this area, as a reference area would not allow fixed gear or single-hook line fishing. The latest report from the North Devon Biosphere Reserve Marine Working Group, supplied as a separate document, provides local perspectives on this area. This subgroup of the Devon Local Group has provided unanimous, cross-sectoral input, which has largely been integrated into the DNC.

AF T

Sites to which the site is related

The site includes Steepple Point to Marsland Mouth, Bude Cliffs and Boscastle to Widemouth SSSI’s. It also overlaps with Tintagel Cliffs and Marsland to Clovelly SSSI’s.*** Conservation Objectives

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

462

Hartland Point to Tintagel pMCZ

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°39'0"W

4°32'0"W

20 20

50°53'30"N

Lat

Hartland

Philham

Woolfardisworthy

Welcombe

Milton Damerel

Holsworthy Beacon

Poughill Bush

50°42'30"N

E 0

St Gennys

Tintagel

Lesnewth

Otterham

Poundstock

Holsworthy

Hollacombe

Pyworthy

Marhamchurch

Hartland Point to Tintagel

A 50.6693 -4.7647 50° 40' 9'' N 4° 45' 52'' W B 50.6690 -4.8411 50° 40' 8'' N 4° 50' 28'' W

C 50.8368 -4.8429 50° 50' 12'' N 4° 50' 34'' W D 50.8371 -4.6544 50° 50' 13'' N 4° 39' 15'' W

E 50.7410 -4.6537 50° 44' 27'' N 4° 39' 13'' W F 50.7669 -4.6172 50° 46' 0'' N 4° 37' 2'' W

G 50.7730 -4.5913 50° 46' 22'' N 4° 35' 28'' W H 50.7846 -4.5778 50° 47' 4'' N 4° 34' 40'' W I 50.8280 -4.5674 50° 49' 40'' N 4° 34' 2'' W

J 50.8497 -4.5677 50° 50' 58'' N 4° 34' 3'' W

N 50.9585 -4.5750 50° 57' 30'' N 4° 34' 30'' W

O 51.0214 -4.5750 51° 1' 16'' N 4° 34' 30'' W P 51.0215 -4.5290 51° 1' 17'' N 4° 31' 44'' W

Q 51.0205 -4.5244 51° 1' 13'' N 4° 31' 27'' W R 50.8827 -4.5656 50° 52' 57'' N 4° 33' 56'' W

Stratton

Bude

50°48'0"N

Long

M 50.9583 -4.6130 50° 57' 29'' N 4° 36' 46'' W

Abbots Bickington Sutcombe

Lat

L 50.8835 -4.6160 50° 53' 0'' N 4° 36' 57'' W

Bradworthy

Long

K 50.8829 -4.5769 50° 52' 58'' N 4° 34' 36'' W

Eastcott

Shop

4°18'0"W

D R AF

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

12 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

4°25'0"W

Stoke

50°59'0"N

4°46'0"W

4°53'0"W

5°0'0"W

Version: Jun11

Map: SAP_243a

Clawton

Whitstone

Week St Mary

North Tamerton

Cornworthy WaterTroswell Brazacott Warbstow Tremaine

North Petherwin

6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Jacobstow

Boyton

Map Legend

Virginstow

St Giles on the Heath

Work in progress Trenglos Yeolmbridge recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under Hallworthy Thes e are draft Tresmeer development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary Davidstow Egloskerry working group andTregeare progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_243b Version: Jun11

Hartland Point to Tintagel pMCZ

4°52'30"W

4°45'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°37'30"W

4°30'0"W

* Taw Torridge #

Weare Giffard Buckland Brewer Monkleigh

Woolfardisworthy

Hartland Point to Tintagel

50°48'0"N

Poundstock

50°42'30"N

St Gennys

Whitstone

Week St Mary

k ^ Tintagel

Treligga

Tresmeer Tregeare Egloskerry

Pyworthy

St Clethner

Pipers Pool

Milton Damerel

Holsworthy Hollacombe

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Clawton 12 nautical mile limit North Tamerton

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

Ashwater

Black Torrington

Existing MPAs

Halwill

Quoditch

Zone within a pMCZ

Potential reference area

Beaworthy SAC SPA

SSSI

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices Germansweek of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Virginstow

Bratton Clovelly

St Giles on the Heath Broadwoodwidger

Yeolmbridge

Launceston Lifton

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Trevivian

Newton St Petrock

Cookbury

Boyton Cornworthy WaterTroswell Brazacott Otterham Warbstow Lesnewth North Petherwin Tremaine Trenglos

Abbots Bickington Peters Marland

Shebbear Holsworthy BeaconThornbury Bradford

Jacobstow

Davidstow

Langtree

Sutcombe

Little Torrington

Bradworthy

PoughillBush Bude Stratton

Marhamchurch

Frithelstock Frithelstock Stone Taddiport

Eastcott

D R AF

50°53'30"N

Landcross

Estuary

Welcombe

Shop

4°15'0"W

Hartland Philham

10 km

4°22'30"W

Stoke

50°59'0"N

!! !

Lewdown Tinhay

Lewtrenchard

II.4.28 Lundy MCZ

AF T

465

Map: SAP_244a

Lundy MCZ

Version: Jun11

51°13'20"N

4°43'45"W

4°42'30"W

4°41'15"W

4°40'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°38'45"W

4°37'30"W

0.5

4°36'15"W 10

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

B 51.2162 -4.6342 51° 12' 58'' N 4° 38' 3'' W

Long

A 51.2170 -4.7020 51° 13' 1'' N 4° 42' 7'' W

51°12'30"N

2 km

C 51.1497 -4.6355 51° 8' 58'' N 4° 38' 7'' W D 51.1506 -4.7029 51° 9' 2'' N

4° 42' 10'' W

51°11'40"N

D R AF

Lundy

51°10'50"N

Map Legend

51°10'0"N

6 nautical mile limit

2 0

20 20

2 0

51°9'10"N

Lundy

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

30 20

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_244b

Lundy MCZ

Version: Jun11

4°42'40"W

4°41'15"W

4°39'50"W

51°10'50"N

51°10'0"N

51°9'10"N

D R AF

51°12'30"N

51°11'40"N

4°38'25"W

1.25

2.5 km

4°37'0"W

4°35'35"W

4°34'10"W

4°45'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Lundy

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.4.29 Taw Torridge Estuary pMCZ Basic site information This site consists of two component parts. The centroid lat/lon is a centroid calculated for a two-part site polygon. Any feature present in both parts is counted as a single replicate for the network-level statistics in section II.2.4***. Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Long

Lat

Long

51.0722

-4.1188

51° 4' 19'' N'

4° 7' 7' W'

Site area: 5 km2

AF T

Lat

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follows the coastline along the mean high water mark upstream of Appledore in the Torridge estuary and Old Bideford Bridge in the Taw Estuary.***

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Taw Torridge Estuary

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for the Taw Torridge Estuary pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** Features on CO list Review Comments Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal mud protected in existing SSSI Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Subtidal mud Subtidal sand

468

% of total in study area

AF T

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) Low energy intertidal rock 0.02 Intertidal coarse sediments < 0.01 Intertidal sand and muddy sand 0.14 Intertidal mud 0.42 Coastal saltmarshes and saline 0.08 reedbeds

0.5% < 0.1% 1.2% 0.2% 2.6%

Assumptions underpinning the pMCZ and implications for stakeholders

Levels of support • ...

469

Additonal comments

AF T

(***the grey text below is copied and pasted from the third progress report, site report on Bideford to Foreland Point pMCZ – the comments are relevant to the Taw/Torridge). • The Environment Agency has provided data on the fish nursery function of the Taw/Torridge estuary and the importance of the supporting FOCI habitat of mudflat and saltmarsh. They ask for re-consideration of the estuary and would support the inclusion of the Taw/Torridge estuary to mean high water springs and tidal limits, including the smaller tributaries of these estuaries. • The EA suggest that for the estuaries, sea floor and water column protection would be appropriate. • The EA support the use of existing estuarine partnership agreements as the basis for the restricted activities list and management measures. • The EA suggest that no unlicensed netting activities can continue and some protection should be in place from excessive crab tiling/bait digging causing disturbance of intertidal habitat. • The Taw/Torridge Estuary is a surveillance water body for the Water Framework Directive. Sites to which the site is related

The site overlaps with Taw Torridge Estuary SSSI and lies upstream of Northam Burrows SSSI.*** Conservation Objectives

Site map series

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

470

Version: Jun11

Taw Torridge Estuary pMCZ 4°14'0"W

4°12'0"W

4°10'0"W

Braunton

4°4'0"W

4°2'0"W

4°0'0"W

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Lat

Goodleigh

Long

Lat

D R AF

Bickington

Long

4° 8' 16'' W

B 51.0792 -4.1381 51° 4' 45'' N 4° 8' 16'' W

C 51.0163 -4.2019 51° 0' 58'' N 4° 12' 6'' W D 51.0168 -4.2046 51° 1' 0'' N

4° 12' 16'' W

Landkey

Appledore

Instow

Tawstock

Northam

Bishops Tawton

Taw Torridge Estuary

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Alverdiscott

Landcross

Yarnscombe

Weare Giffard

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Atherington

Huntshaw

50°58'55"N

4 km

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

51°4'35"N

51°0'20"N

4°6'0"W

A 51.0851 -4.1380 51° 5' 6'' N

Bideford to Foreland Point

51°1'45"N

4°8'0"W

Heanton Punchardon

51°6'0"N

51°3'10"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Map: SAP_245a

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_245b Version: Jun11

51°6'0"N

Taw Torridge Estuary pMCZ

4°13'20"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°8'40"WHeanton Punchardon 4°6'20"W

4°11'0"W

4°4'0"W

4 km

4°1'40"W

3°59'20"W

Bideford to Foreland Point

Goodleigh

51°4'35"N

51°3'10"N

D R AF

Bickington

Appledore

Instow

Northam

51°1'45"N

51°0'20"N

Tawstock

Swimbridge

Bishops Tawton

Taw Torridge Estuary

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

12 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs Cobbaton SAC SPA

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SSSI

Zone within a pMCZ

Lundy NTZ

Potential reference area

Alverdiscott

Landcross

Additional Data

Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites

Yarnscombe

Huntshaw

50°58'55"N

Landkey

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Atherington

Umberleigh

Weare Giffard

Buckland Brewer

Monkleigh

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

High Bickington

II.4.30 Bideford to Foreland Point pMCZ N.B. Any text in grey has been copied and pasted from the Third Progress Report and will be updated after the June Joint Working Group meeting. Basic site information

Site area: 101 km2

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 51° 11' 26'' N' 4° 5' 3' W'

AF T

Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 51.1906 -4.0842

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/long points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary follow the coastline along the mean high water mark from south of the Taw Torridge Estuary to Foreland Point. At the south end it extends out to the 5m contour line until Baggy Point, after which it follows the 10m contour line to Morte Point. It then extends to a 1 nautical mile buffer from the coastline until Foreland Point. *** Environmental site summary

***To be added. • The Local Group highlighted that this area is important for sea birds, particularly guillemot and razorbills. • The Local Group highlighted that Halichoerus grypus Atlantic grey seals and Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise are present. • The Local Group highlighted that Sea Bass, Grey Plover, Golden Plover, Sea Lavender and Atlantic Salmon present. • Intersects with an area of higher than average benthic species and habitat diversity (within the south-west context). • The Local Group highlighted that the area is also a spawning, nursery and juvenile area for bass and salmon. • This area is within the North Devon Biosphere Reserve region and contains many areas of particular importance. This area is recognised as important and is an existing VMCA. • The Local Group also noted the presence of tide swept channels, fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats, intertidal underboulder communities, sheltered muddy gravels, Sabellaria spinulosa Ross worm, Anguilla anguilla European eel, Padina pavonica Peacock’s tail, Palinurus elephas Spiny Lobster,

473

AF T

Lophius piscatorius Anglerfish, common maërl, Onchidela celtica, Asterina phylactica, Anthopleura thalia, Leopard Spotted Goby, Allis Shad and Ostrea edulis Common Mussel. As we do not have these features mapped, they are not reflected in the tables below or in the network-level statistics. • Additional rare, scarce and sensitive species present are Balanophyllia regia scarlet & gold star coral, Hoplangia durotrix Weymouth carpet coral, Mesacmaea mitchelli policeman anemone, Caryophyllia smithii Devonshire cup coral, Haliclystus auricula Stalked jellyfish, Hippocampus hippocampus Short-snouted seahorse and Solea solea Sole. • It is felt within the Local Group that the SSSI does not offer enough protection for marshes outside of the system, nor protection for peeler crab exploitation. Features proposed for designation within Bideford to Foreland Point pMCZ

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Bideford to Foreland Point pMCZ. This is currently under review (as part of the inshore vulnerability assessment meetings)*** Features on CO list Review Comments High energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Low energy intertidal rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Sabellaria alveolata reefs Eunicella verrucosa Pink sea-fan Hippocampus hippocampus Short snouted seahorse single record only, remove from CO list. Paludinella littorina Sea snail Phymatolithon calcareum Maёrl single record only, no significant amount likely, remove from CO list. Seabirds Cetaceans Halychoerus grypus Grey Seals

474

1.2% 1.3% 0.1% 0.2% < 0.1%

AF T

High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand

% of total in study area

Table *** Intertidal broad-scale habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Inter-tidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Broad-scale habitat Area covered within pMCZ (km2) High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments

0.89 0.40 0.12 0.76 0.33 7.70 0.43

Table *** FOCI species recorded in this pMCZ. Species of conservation importance Species Area covered (km2)

% of total in study area

12.3% 8.0% 3.7% 3.9% 2.8% 4.5% 9.5%

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Eunicella verrucosa 2 Hippocampus guttulatus 2.99 (0.5%)* Hippocampus hippocampus 1 Padina pavonica 1 1 Paludinella littorina 1 Phymatolithon calcareum 2 1 * Seahorse polygon data is limited to genus and consists of local knowledge mapped by The Seahorse Trust as areas where seahorses are known to occur – this is not survey data.

Table*** FOCI habitats recorded in this pMCZ. Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) Sabellaria alveolata reefs Subtidal sands and gravels

475

Number of point records (total) 1

64.10 (0.1%)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

AF T

Implications

Commercial and recreational fishing

Bottom-towed fishing gear will not be allowed (includes benthic trawling and hydraulic dredging)

(Project team comment: the last bullet point under “implications” may not be a problem if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used.)

Direct implications: o Loss of ground for bottom-towed gear fishermen o Displacement of bottom-towed gear o Increased competition for fishing grounds o Reduced diversity and flexibility of fishing o Cumulative impact on bottom-towed gear fleet where protected areas are close together o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers

Static fishing gear will be permitted, but there may need to be a limit on the amount of static gear used in the area.

476

Direct implications: o No tow zones will be inundated with pots and static gear and cause difficulties for sea anglers (project team comment: if there is a limit on the amount of static gear used, then this may not be a problem). o The area is already a fixed netting restricted area. Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns:Static gear fishermen might face possible additional costs for mitigation measures, should they be needed o There would be costs if monitoring is needed o Local Group feedback states that this is a major potting area and restriction to potting activity would be financially restricting to a large part of the fishing population in the North Devon area.

Handlining (recreational angling and commercial handlining) will be permitted Handlining includes sea angling and trolling.

Energy generation, energy cables, telecommunication cables

AF T

The installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy devices will be permitted

Direct implications:

The operation of cables (power and telecommunications) & pipelines will be permitted (i.e. any existing cables will be allowed to stay operational)

Project team comments: Currently, this assumption is recorded for all sites that are common to the colocation and no co-location network variation. However, based on SAP feedback the assumption cannot apply to all sites in the network. The compatibility of renewable energy

477

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o There are active cables bordering the offshore limit of the area which need to be maintained.

Tourism and recreation

Tourism and recreational activities will be permitted.

Direct implications:

Ports, shipping

renewables in MCZs, there might be longer term (> 10 years) implications for the renewable sector in terms of deployment of wind and wave developments. This may have serious implications for industry and Government in terms of loss of operational revenue, missing EU climate change targets. o Enforced co-location with MCZs would dramatically restrict deployment. If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If co-location assumptions are not correct the impacts would/could be: site locations that can’t be developed, increased costs (the implications could be re-routing of cables around a feature could cost an extra £300,000-£400,000 per km, possibly up to ~£600,000 - £1.3m/km depending on cables), construction delays, failure to meet renewables targets, impacts on acidification, additional monitoring requirements, increased uncertainty and declining investor confidence in renewables activities. o This pMCZ is located within a wave and tidal resource area which may need to be developed in the future. This potential future development may be hampered if the assumption turns out to be wrong.

AF T

developments in any single one of the common sites remains an uncertainty. Note that the Working Groups have planned the sites that are common to both DNC variations away from the areas of most interest to renewable developments.

Direct implications:

Anchoring for maintenance and access for licensed visitors to heritage wrecks will be permitted

Direct implications:

Anchoring of small vessels will be permitted (There isn’t a clear, agreed Working Group definition for what constitutes a ‘small vessel’.)

Direct implications:

478

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to maintenance dredging in ports).

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a

general concern, not just relating to the anchoring of small vessels). Anchoring of large vessels will not be allowed (except in emergencies)

Direct implications: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to the anchoring of large vessels).

Passage of ships will be permitted The movement of surface vessels not carrying out intensive operations on the marine environment will not be affected.

Direct implications:

AF T

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o Possible effects on ports and harbours (this is a general concern, not just relating to the passage of ships).

Aggregate extraction, mining, bioprospecting

Aggregate extraction will not be allowed

Bioprospecting will not be allowed

Direct implications:

Waste disposal

Dumping and disposal will not be allowed. That includes dumping of fish waste, munitions, or dumping of waste from dredging.

Sewerage disposal, industrial and agricultural liquid discharges will be permitted with management / mitigation

479

Direct implications:

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The Crown Estates have highlighted that there is a closed disposal site (Morte Bay) within 500m of the boundary of the pMCZ. Direct implications:

o Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o The Crown Estates have highlighted that the pMCZ

is located near an area with waste water outfalls which need to be able to continue. Aquaculture Aquaculture of fin fish and shell fish will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Other activities Crab tiling / bait digging will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Seaweed harvesting will be permitted

Direct implications:

AF T

Beach replenishment will be permitted with mitigation / management

Direct implications:

Given this assumption, there are still the following concerns: o A Steering Group member stated that Flood and Erosion Risk Management activities needed to be permitted in the site, including managed realignment sites.

Direct implications:

If the assumption turns out to be wrong: o If this is wrong then the MOD could not support this pMCZ as Saunton Sands is an important landing area as it leads directly to a training area behind. Assumptions landings on Saunton Sands will have no impact on the specific items to be protected.

Military exercises – landings at Saunton Sands would continue to be permitted (note, this is an new assumption added as a comment during the February 2011 Steering Group meeting)

Uncertainties • Potential effect on sea angling if anchoring of small vessels is not allowed.

Levels of support • •

•

480

Relatively non-contentious. Suggested by North Devon Biosphere Reserve Marine Working Group through the Devon Local Group. This site was agreed in their cross-sector stakeholder meeting, which included renewable industry representatives. The Crown Estates are supportive of this pMCZ based on the assumptions that the potential deployment and maintenance of power cables is acceptable from Zone 8 Atlantic Array and does not require any additional mitigation; and on the assumption that the cables, port/harbour facilities, and water outfalls within the area would not be affected.

•

• •

Renewables and cables representatives have made a general comment that they would be more supportive of pMCZ if an assumption was made that there would be no additional cost to cable installation, operation and maintenance within MCZs (as opposed to the current assumption that it would not be “prohibitively expensive”, without stating at what level cost would be deemed “prohibitive”). The Local Group only agree to this site if it is not a reference area. The Local Group are only able to support this area if anchoring is allowed, particularly of small vessels. Anglers use the area seasonally (due to weather and species), go out 2-4nm and anchor.

•

• • • •

AF T

Additional comments The North Devon Biosphere Reserve Marine Working Group have stated that they would like to have the protection of birds and cetaceans added to the conservation objectives for this site, (...) The Local Group made an assumption that port authorities (i.e. Bideford and Appledore) should not be restricted. The Local Group have suggested extending the VMCA to include Bideford Bay. The Local Group would like to see a reduction/status quo on crab tiling. The latest report from the North Devon Biosphere Reserve Marine Working Group, supplied as a separate document, provides local perspectives on this area. This subgroup of the Devon Local Group has provided unanimous, cross-sectoral input, which has largely been integrated into the DNC.

Sites to which the site is related

The site overlaps with Morte Point SSSI, Exmoor Coast and Heaths SSSI and West Exmoor Coast and Woods SSSI.*** Braunton Burrows to be included here??

Conservation Objectives

Supporting documentation To be added. ***

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

481

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

482

Bideford to Foreland Point pMCZ

Map: SAP_246a

Version: Jun11

4°17'0"W

4°12'40"W

4°8'20"W

4°4'0"W

51°16'0"N

3°59'40"W

30 30

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°55'20"W

Morte Platform 30

10 1

Lee

Martinhoe

Knowle

20 20

Brendon

Kings Heanton

Stoke Rivers

Landkey

Appledore Instow

Northam

Taw Torridge Estuary

Tawstock

North Molton

Chittlehampton

Landcross

Yarnscombe

Atherington

Umberleigh

D 51.2367 -3.9653 51° 14' 11'' N 3° 57' 55'' W E 51.2450 -3.8904 51° 14' 41'' N 3° 53' 25'' W

F 51.2514 -3.8196 51° 15' 5'' N 3° 49' 10'' W

G 51.2605 -3.7996 51° 15' 37'' N 3° 47' 58'' W

H 51.2442 -3.7828 51° 14' 39'' N 3° 46' 58'' W I 51.2132 -4.1021 51° 12' 47'' N 4° 6' 7'' W

J 51.2163 -4.1021 51° 12' 58'' N 4° 6' 7'' W

O 51.0350 -4.2615 51° 2' 6'' N

4° 15' 41'' W

Q 51.0836 -4.2550 51° 5' 1'' N

4° 15' 18'' W

S 51.1576 -4.2653 51° 9' 27'' N 4° 15' 55'' W T 51.1583 -4.2336 51° 9' 29'' N 4° 14' 0'' W

U 51.1879 -4.2404 51° 11' 16'' N 4° 14' 25'' W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Twitchen

Stags Head

Cobbaton

B 51.2293 -4.1165 51° 13' 45'' N 4° 6' 59'' W

C 51.2351 -4.0842 51° 14' 6'' N 4° 5' 3'' W

R 51.1383 -4.2814 51° 8' 18'' N 4° 16' 53'' W

Brayford High Bray

Swimbridge

A 51.2042 -4.2397 51° 12' 15'' N 4° 14' 23'' W

P 51.0385 -4.2675 51° 2' 18'' N 4° 16' 3'' W

Challacombe

West Buckland East Buckland

Long

N 51.0652 -4.2191 51° 3' 54'' N 4° 13' 8'' W

Charles

Bickington

Lat

L 51.2114 -4.1129 51° 12' 41'' N 4° 6' 46'' W

Bratton Fleming

Shirwell

Long

M 51.0754 -4.2154 51° 4' 31'' N 4° 12' 55'' W

Loxhore

Muddiford

Lat

K 51.2164 -4.1129 51° 12' 58'' N 4° 6' 46'' W

Georgeham

Alverdiscott

50°59'45"N

EXMOOR

Goodleigh

Kentisbury

Barton Town

Parracombe

Heanton Punchardon

Barbrook

East Down

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

G1 0

Lynton Lynmouth

8 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

3°46'40"W 30

Berrynarbor

Braunton

West Down

Croyde

51°6'15"N

Mortehoe Bideford to Foreland Point

Saunton

51°3'0"N

K 20

Woolacombe

J 10

D R AF

51°9'30"N

51°12'45"N

30 10 30 30

3°51'0"W

South Molton

Work in progress Bishops Nympton Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org). George Nympton

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_246b Version: Jun11

51°16'0"N

Bideford to Foreland Point pMCZ

4°13'20"W

4°8'40"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°4'0"W

3°59'20"W

3°54'40"W

3°50'0"W

51°12'45"N

Berrynarbor

Bideford to Foreland Point

West Down

Croyde

51°6'15"N

East Down

Barton Town

Georgeham

Knowle

Saunton

Muddiford

Kings Heanton

Braunton

Bratton Fleming

Shirwell

Heanton Punchardon

Stoke Rivers

Bickington

Landkey

Appledore Instow

Northam

Taw Torridge Estuary

Tawstock

6 nautical mile limit

Brayford High Bray Charles

Swimbridge

Yarnscombe

Umberleigh Atherington

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ) Potential reference area

SPA

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites

Twitchen A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011). North Molton

Molland

Stags Head

South Molton

Chittlehampton

Alverdiscott

Landcross

Map Legend

West Buckland East Buckland

Cobbaton

50°59'45"N

EXMOOR

Challacombe

Loxhore

Goodleigh

51°3'0"N

Oare

Kentisbury

Woolacombe

51°9'30"N

Brendon

Barbrook

Parracombe

D R AF

Mortehoe

3°45'20"W

Lynton Lynmouth

Martinhoe

Lee

8 km

Morte Platform

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

George Nympton

Bishops Nympton

II.4.31 Morte Platform pMCZ

AF T

***This site report has not been updated since progress report 3, and the site boundaries have not changed. The full report (with conservation objectives, updated statistics and in the updated format) will be included in the final report. In the meantime, please continue to refer to the information in the third progress report, and in the summary and network level sections of this draft. An updated site map is included on the next page.

485

Map: SAP_247a Version: Jun11

Morte Platform pMCZ

4°22'0"W

4°21'0"W

4°20'0"W

4°19'0"W

4°18'0"W

51°15'45"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°17'0"W

4°16'0"W

0.5

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

4°15'0"W

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 51.2265 -4.3564 51° 13' 35'' N 4° 21' 23'' W

B 51.2642 -4.2932 51° 15' 51'' N 4° 17' 35'' W

51°15'0"N

C 51.2467 -4.2515 51° 14' 48'' N 4° 15' 5'' W

D 51.1975 -4.3149 51° 11' 51'' N 4° 18' 53'' W

51°14'15"N

D R AF

Morte Platform

A 51°13'30"N

51°12'45"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

51°12'0"N

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_247b

Morte Platform pMCZ

Version: Jun11

4°22'40"W

4°21'30"W

4°20'20"W

4°19'10"W

4°18'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°16'50"W

4°15'40"W

2 km

4°14'30"W

4°13'20"W

51°15'45"N

51°14'15"N

D R AF

51°15'0"N

Morte Platform

51°13'30"N

51°12'45"N

51°12'0"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Bideford to Foreland Point

II.4.32 North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) pMCZ

AF T

488

Map: SAP_248a

North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) pMCZ

Version: Jun11

D R AF 50

D 51.3762 -4.2441 51° 22' 34'' N 4° 14' 38'' W E 51.3261 -4.2860 51° 19' 34'' N 4° 17' 9'' W F 51.2487 -4.4072 51° 14' 55'' N 4° 24' 25'' W G 51.2471 -4.4849 51° 14' 49'' N 4° 29' 5'' W H 51.2761 -4.5170 51° 16' 33'' N 4° 31' 1'' W I 51.3162 -4.5943 51° 18' 58'' N 4° 35' 39'' W J 51.3230 -4.6809 51° 19' 22'' N 4° 40' 51'' W K 51.3184 -4.7153 51° 19' 6'' N 4° 42' 55'' W

C 51.3592 -4.4469 51° 21' 33'' N 4° 26' 48'' W

North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area)

Long

50 50

Bideford to Foreland Point 10

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

2 010

20 20

0 30 2

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Morte Platform

51°12'0"N

30 20 10

Lundy

6 nautical mile limit

51°15'0"N

Map Legend

Lat

B 51.4293 -4.7537 51° 25' 45'' N 4° 45' 13'' W

Long

A 51.4152 -4.7946 51° 24' 54'' N 4° 47' 40'' W

50 50

51°18'0"N

Lat

51°21'0"N

30 30

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

51°24'0"N

30 30

10 km

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

4°15'0"W

4°20'0"W

4°25'0"W

2.5

51°27'0"N

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

0 4°30'0"W

4°35'0"W

4°40'0"W

4°45'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_248b

North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area) pMCZ

Version: Jun11

4°44'0"W

4°38'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°33'0"W

4°27'30"W

4°22'0"W

10 km

4°16'30"W

4°11'0"W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

51°21'0"N

D R AF

51°24'0"N

51°27'0"N

North of Lundy (Atlantic Array area)

51°18'0"N

51°15'0"N

51°12'0"N

51°9'0"N

Map Legend Existing MPAs

6 nautical mile limit

Morte Platform

Lundy

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Bideford to Foreland Point Mortehoe

Lee

Woolacombe West Down

AF T

II.5 Site reports for potential reference areas

491

II.5.1 The Canyons potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

48.4701

-9.6315

48° 28' 12'' N'

9° 37' 53' W'

AF T

Site area: 34.7 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Atlantic South West Approaches and Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary

The northern boundary of The Canyons potential reference area abuts the boundary of The Canyons pMCZ and the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The boundaries have been drawn to ensure that the known patch of Cold Water Coral Reefs are situated in the centre of the site, and angled to capture a steep section of continental shelf slope (to capture a cross-section of seafloor habitats and diversity). Environmental site summary

***To be added.

Features proposed for designation within The Canyons potential reference area Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Canyons potential reference area. This is subject to review.

Viable size guidelines met

The Canyons Broad-scale habitats Deep-sea bed FOCI habitats Cold water coral reefs

492

Viable size guidelines not met

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 5.78 km2 Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2) Deep-sea bed

34.69

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

AF T

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area (km2)

Cold water coral reefs 0.17* * From biotope data supplied by the JNCC.

Reference areas will exclude all depositional and extractive activities, and might restrict or manage potentially damaging and disturbing activities, as defined in the SNCB’s draft reference area guidance document (available here29). Implications • ...

Uncertainties • ...

Levels of support

Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas. ...

•

Additional comments • ... Sites to which the site is related

The Canyons reference area sits within the boundary of The Canyons pMCZ.

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

493

Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area *** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance30. Supporting documentation *** To be added. Site map series

AF T

On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the potential reference area boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The second map shows the boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

494

Map: SAP_249a Version: Jun11

Canyons Potential Reference Area

9°43'0"W

9°41'0"W

200

9°39'0"W

9°37'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

9°35'0"W

1.5

9°33'0"W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

3 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 48.5000 -9.6555 48° 30' 0'' N 9° 39' 19'' W

D R AF

48°30'0"N

B 48.5000 -9.6225 48° 30' 0'' N 9° 37' 20'' W

C 48.4601 -9.5750 48° 27' 36'' N 9° 34' 30'' W D 48.4321 -9.6282 48° 25' 55'' N 9° 37' 41'' W

E 48.4829 -9.6886 48° 28' 58'' N 9° 41' 18'' W

48°29'0"N

Canyons

48°28'0"N

48°27'0"N

Canyons

48°26'0"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_249b Version: Jun11

Canyons Potential Reference Area

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

9°40'0"W

9°37'30"W

1.25

2.5 km

9°35'0"W

9°32'30"W

Finding Sanctuary Project Boundary

48°29'0"N

48°28'0"N

48°27'0"N

D R AF

48°30'0"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Canyons

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Deep Sea Biotopes (JNCC survey data)

l l ll l lll l l l l Communities of Deep-Sea Corals l l l l l l l l l ll ll l l Deep Circalittoral Coarse Sediment

Canyons

48°26'0"N

Existing MPAs

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Deep-Sea Bedrock Deep-Sea Biogenic Gravel Deep-Sea Mixed Substrata Deep-Sea Mud Deep-Sea Sand A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.2 Greater Haig Fras potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.1585

-7.9588

50° 9' 30'' N'

7° 57' 31' W'

AF T

Site area: 148.6 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Greater Haig Fras potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Greater Haig Fras potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Greater Haig Fras Broad-scale habitats Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal mud Subtidal sand

497

Viable size guidelines not met

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 12.49 km2 Table *** Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2) 30.08 48.31 54.57 8.52 7.08

AF T

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal mud Subtidal sand

Table *** FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

75.75

Implications • ...

Uncertainties • ...

Levels of support •

Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

498

Sites to which the site is related The Greater Haig Fras potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Greater Haig Fras pMCZ and partially within the Haig Fras cSAC. Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area *** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance32.

*** To be added. Site map series

AF T

Supporting documentation

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

499

Map: SAP_250a

Haig Fras Potential Reference Area

Version: Jun11

8°7'20"W

8°4'45"W

8°2'10"W

7°59'35"W

7°57'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

7°54'25"W

7°51'50"W

2.5

7°49'15"W

5 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

100

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.2232 -7.9887 50° 13' 23'' N 7° 59' 19'' W B 50.2234 -7.8816 50° 13' 24'' N 7° 52' 53'' W

50°13'10"N

50°11'20"N

50°9'30"N

D R AF

Greater Haig Fras

50°7'40"N

Greater Haig Fras

50°5'50"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

C 50.0982 -7.8829 50° 5' 53'' N 7° 52' 58'' W D 50.0985 -7.9932 50° 5' 54'' N 7° 59' 35'' W E 50.1374 -8.0730 50° 8' 14'' N 8° 4' 22'' W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_250b

Haig Fras Potential Reference Area

Version: Jun11

8°3'0"W

50°13'10"N

50°11'20"N

50°9'30"N

50°7'40"N

7°57'0"W

7°54'0"W

D R AF

Greater Haig Fras

8°0'0"W

2.5

7°51'0"W

Greater Haig Fras

50°5'50"N

5 km

7°48'0"W

7°45'0"W

8°9'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Haig fras rock complex A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.3 Celtic Deep potential reference area Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

51.3559

-6.4012

51° 21' 21'' N'

6° 24' 4' W'

Site area: 1 km2

AF T

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Celtic Deep potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Celtic Deep potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Celtic Deep Broad-scale habitats FOCI habitats Mud Habitats in Deep Water

Viable size guidelines not met

Subtidal mud

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG

Minimum dimension of this reference area: 1.03 km2 Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

Subtidal mud

1.0

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total)

Mud Habitats in Deep Water

502

1.0

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Implications • ... Uncertainties • ... Levels of support

AF T

•

Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

Sites to which the site is related

The Celtic Deep potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Celtic Deep pMCZ. Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area

*** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance34.

Supporting documentation

*** To be added.

33 34

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

503

Site map series On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the potential reference area boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The second map shows the boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

504

Map: SAP_251a Version: Jun11

Celtic Deep Potential Reference Area

6°24'30"W

6°24'15"W

6°24'0"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

6°23'45"W

6°23'30"W

0.2

6°23'15"W

0.4 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 51.3604 -6.4083 51° 21' 37'' N 6° 24' 30'' W

51°21'20"N

51°21'10"N

D R AF

51°21'30"N

Celtic Deep

51°21'0"N

51°20'50"N

B 51.3604 -6.3940 51° 21' 37'' N 6° 23' 38'' W

51°21'40"N

C 51.3514 -6.3940 51° 21' 4'' N 6° 23' 38'' W D 51.3514 -6.4083 51° 21' 4'' N 6° 24' 30'' W

Celtic Deep

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Celtic Deep Potential Reference Area

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

0.2

0.4 km

¯ 6°23'0"W

Celtic Deep

Version: Jun11

D R AF

Map: SAP_251b

Celtic Deep

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.4 South Dorset potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.3831

-2.3557

50° 22' 59'' N'

2° 21' 20' W'

AF T

Site area: 25 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within South Dorset potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for South Dorset potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

South Dorset Broad-scale habitats High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal mixed sediments FOCI habitats Subtidal chalk

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 5.52 km2 Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal mixed sediments

507

20.52 3.70 0.78

Viable size guidelines not met

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Subtidal chalk 3

Number of point records (pre-1980)

AF T

Assumptions underpinning the potential reference area Reference areas will exclude all depositional and extractive activities, and might restrict or manage potentially damaging and disturbing activities, as defined in the SNCB’s draft reference area guidance document (available here35). Implications • ... Uncertainties • ... Levels of support

Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

•

Additional comments • ...

Sites to which the site is related

The South Dorset potential reference area sits within the boundary of the South Dorset pMCZ.

35 36

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

508

Supporting documentation *** To be added. Site map series On the following pages there are two maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the potential reference area boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference.

AF T

The second map shows the boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

509

Map: SAP_252a Version: Jun11

South Dorset Potential Reference Area

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°25'0"W

2°23'45"W

2°22'30"W

2°21'15"W

2°20'0"W

2°18'45"W

0.5

2°17'30"W

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

South Dorset

50°24'45"N

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.4056 -2.3908 50° 24' 20'' N 2° 23' 26'' W B 50.4056 -2.3204 50° 24' 20'' N 2° 19' 13'' W

C 50.3606 -2.3205 50° 21' 38'' N 2° 19' 13'' W D 50.3607 -2.3908 50° 21' 38'' N 2° 23' 26'' W

D R AF

50°24'0"N

South Dorset

50°23'15"N

50°22'30"N

50°21'45"N

50°21'0"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_252b Version: Jun11

South Dorset Potential Reference Area

2°25'20"W

2°24'0"W

2°22'40"W

2°21'20"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°20'0"W

2°18'40"W

50°25'0"N

2 km

2°17'20"W

2°16'0"W

South Dorset

D R AF

50°24'10"N

) "

South Dorset

) "

50°23'20"N

) "

50°22'30"N

50°21'40"N

50°20'50"N

) "

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.5 South-East of Portland Bill Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.4883

-2.4105

50° 29' 18'' N'

2° 24' 37' W'

AF T

Site area: 250000 m2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Eastern Channel OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within South-East Portland Bill potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for South-East Portland Bill potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Viable size guidelines not met

South-East of Portland Bill Broad-scale habitats FOCI habitats Blue Mussel beds

High energy circalittoral rock

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 0.55km2 Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

High energy circalittoral rock

512

Area covered (m2)

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

Blue Mussel beds

235,487

0.24

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre1980)

AF T

Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

•

Additional comments • ...

Sites to which the site is related

The South-East of Portland Bill potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Studland to Portland dSAC. Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area *** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance38.

37 38

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

513

AF T

The second map shows the boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI.

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

514

Map: SAP_253a Version: Jun11

2°25'4"W

South East of Portland Bill Potential Reference Area

2°24'50"W

2°24'43"W

2°24'36"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°24'29"W

2°24'22"W

110

2°24'15"W

220 m

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

50°29'30"N

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.4906 -2.4140 50° 29' 26'' N 2° 24' 50'' W

B 50.4906 -2.4070 50° 29' 26'' N 2° 24' 25'' W

50°29'20"N

D R AF

50°29'25"N

C 50.4861 -2.4070 50° 29' 9'' N 2° 24' 25'' W D 50.4861 -2.4140 50° 29' 9'' N 2° 24' 50'' W

South-East of Portland Bill

50°29'15"N

50°29'10"N

50°29'5"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_253b Version: Jun11

2°25'4"W

South-East of Portland Bill Potential Reference Area

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°24'48"W

2°24'40"W

2°24'32"W

2°24'24"W

0.1

0.2 km

2°24'16"W

2°24'8"W

Blue mussel bed habitat FOCI

50°29'20"N

50°29'15"N

50°29'11"N

50°29'6"N

D R AF

50°29'24"N

50°29'28"N

South-East of Portland Bill

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.6 The Fleet potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.6361

-2.5699

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 38' 9'' N'

2° 34' 11' W'

Site area: 2.1 km2

AF T

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within The Fleet potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for The Fleet potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

The Fleet Broad-scale habitats

Viable size guidelines not met

Subtidal coarse sediment Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds1 Intertidal coarse sediments1 Intertidal mud1 Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms1 FOCI habitats Seagrass Beds FOCI species Tenellia adspersa 2 1 None of the intertidal broad-scale habitats are represented in potential reference areas that meet the minimum size guideline (5km), but recent SAP and SNCB advice has recognised that the size guideline is not realistic for intertidal habitats. The intertidal habitats have been highlighted in green to show that we are considering these to be represented within the current set of potential reference areas (unlike the other features listed in the second column). 2 The minimum patch size for Tenellia adspersa is the whole feature. As this potential reference area does not cover the entire Fleet Lagoon, this site does not meet the minimum size guidance for this species.

517

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 0.42km2 Note that the MPA reporting tool does not account for sites mostly bound by land (e.g. estuarine sites). A manual measurement of the unbound parts of this site estimates the minimum dimension to be greater than 5 km. Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

Subtidal coarse sediment

1,795,772

AF T

1.80

Table ***b Intertidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Intertidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2) Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal coarse sediments Intertidal mud Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms

0.001 0.02 0.11 0.00003

Area covered (m2)

1,240 23,533 113,309 31

Table ***c FOCI species within this reference area

Species of conservation importance Species Number of point records (total) Tenellia adspersa

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Area covered (m2)

Number of point records (total)

Seagrass Beds

2,479,660

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2) 2.48

Number of point records (pre1980)

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

518

Implications • ... Uncertainties • ... Levels of support Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The Fleet potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Fleet Lagoon SAC, SPA and SSSI. ***check exact names Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area

*** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance40. Supporting documentation

*** To be added. Site map series

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

519

Map: SAP_254a Version: Jun11

The Fleet Potential Reference Area

2°36'45"W

2°36'0"W

2°35'15"W

2°34'30"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°33'45"W

2°33'0"W

0.35

2°32'15"W

50°39'30"N

B C

D R AF S

Long

The Fleet

C 50.6537 -2.6062 50° 39' 13'' N 2° 36' 22'' W D 50.6541 -2.5985 50° 39' 14'' N 2° 35' 54'' W E 50.6509 -2.6007 50° 39' 3'' N 2° 36' 2'' W

F 50.6452 -2.5864 50° 38' 42'' N 2° 35' 11'' W

G 50.6376 -2.5703 50° 38' 15'' N 2° 34' 12'' W

H 50.6392 -2.5605 50° 38' 21'' N 2° 33' 37'' W I 50.6307 -2.5576 50° 37' 50'' N 2° 33' 27'' W

J 50.6309 -2.5454 50° 37' 51'' N 2° 32' 43'' W

K 50.6277 -2.5468 50° 37' 39'' N 2° 32' 48'' W L 50.6274 -2.5519 50° 37' 38'' N 2° 33' 6'' W

M 50.6247 -2.5479 50° 37' 28'' N 2° 32' 52'' W

Langton Herring

N 50.6260 -2.5459 50° 37' 33'' N 2° 32' 45'' W

O 50.6192 -2.5368 50° 37' 9'' N 2° 32' 12'' W

P 50.6176 -2.5386 50° 37' 3'' N 2° 32' 18'' W

Q 50.6269 -2.5568 50° 37' 36'' N 2° 33' 24'' W

R 50.6339 -2.5699 50° 38' 2'' N 2° 34' 11'' W S 50.6433 -2.5892 50° 38' 35'' N 2° 35' 21'' W

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

Map Legend

6 nautical mile limit

50°37'0"N

Lat

B 50.6549 -2.6068 50° 39' 17'' N 2° 36' 24'' W

50°37'30"N

Long

A 50.6541 -2.6115 50° 39' 14'' N 2° 36' 41'' W

50°39'0"N 10

50°38'0"N

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Lat

50°38'30"N

1.4 km

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

0.7

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map: SAP_254b Version: Jun11

The Fleet Potential Reference Area

2°35'50"W

2°35'0"W

2°34'10"W

2°33'20"W

D R AF The Fleet

k ^ 50°38'16"N

800

1,600 m

2°31'40"W

2°30'50"W

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

12 nautical mile limit

Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Existing MPAs Chickerell SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

50°36'52"N

2°30'0"W

?? ? ? ?

* # k D

50°37'20"N

Langton Herring

* #

50°37'48"N

2°32'30"W

50°39'12"N

50°38'44"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

II.5.7 Lyme Bay potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.7111

-2.9553

50° 42' 40'' N'

2° 57' 19' W'

AF T

Site area: 293623 m2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Lyme Bay potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Lyme Bay potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Lyme Bay Broad-scale habitats

Viable size guidelines not met High energy infralittoral rock Subtidal mixed sediments Intertidal coarse sediments1

FOCI habitats Sabellaria alveolata reefs FOCI species Haliclystus auricula Padina pavonica 1 None of the intertidal broad-scale habitats are represented in potential reference areas that meet the minimum size guideline (5km), but recent SAP and SNCB advice has recognised that the size guideline is not realistic for intertidal habitats. The intertidal habitats have been highlighted in green to show that we are considering these to be represented within the current set of potential reference areas (unlike the other features listed in the second column).

522

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 0.59km2 Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

High energy infralittoral rock Subtidal mixed sediments

181,561 68,428

0.18 0.07

Table ***b Intertidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Area covered (m2)

Intertidal coarse sediments

43,510

AF T

Intertidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2) 43510

Table ***c FOCI species within this reference area

Species of conservation importance Species Number of point records (total) Haliclystus auricula Padina pavonica

Number of point records (pre-1980)

1 1

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Sabellaria alveolata reefs

Area covered (m2)

Number of point records (total) 1

Number of point records (pre1980)

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

523

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The Lyme Bay potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Lyme to Torbay Bay cSAC *** Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area

*** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance42. Supporting documentation *** To be added.

Site map series

The second map shows the boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

524

Map: SAP_255a Version: Jun11

50°43'4"N

Lyme Bay Potential Reference Area

2°57'36"W

2°57'24"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°57'12"W

2°57'0"W

87.5

2°56'48"W

175

350 m

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.7131 -2.9591 50° 42' 46'' N 2° 57' 32'' W

50°42'48"N

50°42'40"N

D R AF

50°42'56"N

B 50.7155 -2.9520 50° 42' 55'' N 2° 57' 7'' W

50°42'24"N

D 50.7085 -2.9591 50° 42' 30'' N 2° 57' 32'' W

Lyme Bay

50°42'32"N

C 50.7085 -2.9520 50° 42' 30'' N 2° 57' 7'' W

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_255b Version: Jun11

Lyme Bay Potential Reference Area

2°58'0"W

2°57'48"W

2°57'36"W

2°57'24"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

2°57'12"W

180

2°57'0"W

2°56'48"W

360 m

2°56'36"W

2°56'24"W

50°43'4"N

50°42'48"N

D R AF

50°42'56"N

R j

50°42'40"N

50°42'32"N

50°42'24"N

Lyme Bay

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.8 Erme Estuary potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.3259

-3.9368

50° 19' 33'' N'

3° 56' 12' W'

AF T

Site area: 193539.5 m2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Erme Estuary potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Erme Estuary potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Erme Estuary Broad-scale habitats

Viable size guidelines not met Low energy infralittoral rock Subtidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds1 Intertidal mixed sediments1 Intertidal mud1

FOCI habitats Sheltered muddy gravels None of the intertidal broad-scale habitats are represented in potential reference areas that meet the minimum size guideline (5km), but recent SAP and SNCB advice has recognised that the size guideline is not realistic for intertidal habitats. The intertidal habitats have been highlighted in green to show that we are considering these to be represented within the current set of potential reference areas (unlike the other features listed in the second column). 1

527

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 0.25km2 Note that the MPA reporting tool does not account for sites mostly bound by land (e.g. estuarine sites). A manual measurement of the unbound parts of this site estimates the minimum dimension to be greater than 0.5 km. Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

Low energy infralittoral rock Subtidal mud

18, 048 233

AF T

0.02 0.0002

Table ***b Intertidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Intertidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2) Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal mixed sediments Intertidal mud

Area covered (m2)

0.04

37,143

0.006 0.1

5,586 131,074

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

Sheltered muddy gravels

67,526

Number of point records (pre1980)

0.07

Number of point records (total)

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

528

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The Erme Estuary potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Erme Estuary pMCZ, and the Erme Estuary SSSI *** Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area

*** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance44. Supporting documentation *** To be added.

Site map series

The second map shows the boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The third map indicates the location of the fixed net restrictions (Section 6 Salmon Act 1975) with reference to the potential reference area. Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

529

Map: SAP_256a Version: Jun11

3°56'51"W

Erme Estuary Potential Reference Area

3°56'25"W

3°56'12"W

3°55'59"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°55'46"W

100

3°55'33"W

200

400 m

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.3292 -3.9384 50° 19' 45'' N 3° 56' 18'' W

Erme Estuary

50°19'48"N

D R AF

50°19'39"N

B 50.3291 -3.9345 50° 19' 44'' N 3° 56' 4'' W

C 50.3250 -3.9328 50° 19' 30'' N 3° 55' 58'' W D 50.3238 -3.9326 50° 19' 25'' N 3° 55' 57'' W E 50.3226 -3.9350 50° 19' 21'' N 3° 56' 5'' W

F 50.3235 -3.9385 50° 19' 24'' N 3° 56' 18'' W

Erme Estuary

50°19'30"N

50°19'21"N

50°19'12"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_256b Version: Jun11

Erme Estuary Potential Reference Area

3°56'36"W

3°56'24"W

3°56'12"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°56'0"W

3°55'48"W

200

3°55'36"W

400 m

3°55'24"W

3°55'12"W

Erme Estuary

D R AF

50°19'44"N

50°19'52"N

Sheltered muddy gravels

50°19'36"N

Erme Estuary

50°19'28"N

50°19'20"N

50°19'12"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_256c Version: Jun11

Erme Estuary Potential Reference Area

3°56'36"W

3°56'24"W

3°56'12"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

3°56'0"W

3°55'48"W

200

3°55'36"W

400 m

3°55'24"W

3°55'12"W

Erme Estuary

50°19'36"N

D R AF

50°19'44"N

50°19'52"N

Erme Estuary

50°19'28"N

50°19'20"N

50°19'12"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

Fixed net restrictions. Section 6 Salmon Act 1975 A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.9 Mouth of the Yealm potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.3136

-4.0712

50° 18' 49'' N'

4° 4' 16' W'

AF T

Site area: 35383.6 m2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region II: Greater North Sea

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary

*** To be added. This site is meant to be intertidal only; statistics / site map may capture some subtidal habitat as we do not have MLW /LAT line to work with. Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Mouth of the Yealm potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Mouth of the Yealm potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Mouth of the Yealm Broad-scale habitats

Viable size guidelines not met

High energy intertidal rock1 Intertidal coarse sediments1 Moderate energy intertidal rock1 FOCI habitats Estuarine rocky habitats2 Seagrass Beds2 1 None of the intertidal broad-scale habitats are represented in potential reference areas that meet the minimum size guideline (5km), but recent SAP and SNCB advice has recognised that the size guideline is not realistic for intertidal habitats. The intertidal habitats have been highlighted in green to show that we are considering these to be represented within the current set of potential reference areas (unlike the other features listed in the second column). 2 The Mouth of the Yealm potential reference area only covers the intertidal. Estuarine rocky habitats and Seagrass beds may be present in the intertidal, or they might only be found only in the subtidal area. If the latter is the case, the features should come off the list for this site. [We do not have a definitive low water line to use to delimit this site, nor to use in spatial analyses – please refer to the site report for this potential reference area for details ***].

533

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 0.07km2 Note that this reference area was selected for intertidal broad-scale habitats and is intended to stretch from the mean high to mean low water boundaries. The Finding Sanctuary working group considered the 5km minimum patch size unrealistic for intertidal broad-scale habitats. As such, reference areas that cover the mean high to mean low water boundaries have been assumed to have met the viability target. Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Area covered (m2)

High energy infralittoral rock

17,697

AF T

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2) 0.02

Table ***b Intertidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Intertidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

High energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediments Moderate energy intertidal rock

8,744 3,401 4,578

0.009 0.003 0.005

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

Estuarine rocky habitats Seagrass Beds

1,467 2,909

0.001 0.003

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre1980)

Implications • ...

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

534

Uncertainties • ... Levels of support Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The Mouth of the Yealm potential reference area sits within the boundary of Yealm Estuary SSSI. Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area

*** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance46. Supporting documentation *** To be added.

Site map series

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

535

Map: SAP_257a Version: Jun11

4°4'32"W

Mouth of The Yealm Potential Reference Area

4°4'24"W

4°4'20"W

4°4'16"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°4'12"W

4°4'8"W

4°4'4"W

140 m

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.3125 -4.0684 50° 18' 44'' N 4° 4' 6'' W B 50.3120 -4.0684 50° 18' 43'' N 4° 4' 6'' W

50°18'54"N

L K

50°18'51"N

D R AF

C 50.3118 -4.0696 50° 18' 42'' N 4° 4' 10'' W D 50.3123 -4.0703 50° 18' 44'' N 4° 4' 12'' W

E 50.3129 -4.0703 50° 18' 46'' N 4° 4' 12'' W F 50.3133 -4.0705 50° 18' 47'' N 4° 4' 13'' W

G 50.3137 -4.0710 50° 18' 49'' N 4° 4' 15'' W H 50.3138 -4.0719 50° 18' 49'' N 4° 4' 18'' W

I 50.3144 -4.0725 50° 18' 51'' N 4° 4' 20'' W

J 50.3145 -4.0733 50° 18' 52'' N 4° 4' 23'' W

K 50.3147 -4.0746 50° 18' 52'' N 4° 4' 28'' W L 50.3150 -4.0744 50° 18' 54'' N 4° 4' 27'' W

Mouth of the Yealm

50°18'48"N

50°18'45"N

50°18'42"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_257b Version: Jun11

Mouth of The Yealm Potential Reference Area

4°4'30"W

4°4'25"W

4°4'20"W

4°4'15"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°4'10"W

4°4'5"W

130 m

4°4'0"W

4°3'55"W

D R AF

50°18'51"N

50°18'54"N

Mouth of the Yealm

50°18'48"N

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? k ? ? ?

50°18'45"N

50°18'42"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend

Existing MPAs

6 nautical mile limit

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

k ?

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

SSSI

Zone within a pMCZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

?? ??

????

Map: SAP_257c Version: Jun11

Mouth of The Yealm Potential Reference Area

4°4'30"W

4°4'25"W

4°4'20"W

4°4'15"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

4°4'10"W

4°4'5"W

130 m

4°4'0"W

4°3'55"W

D R AF

50°18'51"N

50°18'54"N

Mouth of the Yealm

50°18'48"N

50°18'45"N

50°18'42"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data

Fixed net restrictions. Section 6 Salmon Act 1975 A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5. 10 The Fal potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 50.1676

-5.0278

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long 50° 10' 3'' N'

5° 1' 40' W'

Site area: 715195.1 m2

AF T

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary

*** To be added.

539

Features proposed for designation within The Fal potential reference area Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for The Fal potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met The Fal Broad-scale habitats

Viable size guidelines not met Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment Subtidal sand Intertidal coarse sediments1 Low energy intertidal rock1

AF T

FOCI habitats Maërl Beds Seagrass Beds FOCI species Lithothamnion corallioides Cruoria cruoriaeformis 2 Ostrea edulis Gobius couchi 2 Phymatolithon calcareum Grateloupia montagnei 2 1 None of the intertidal broad-scale habitats are represented in potential reference areas that meet the minimum size guideline (5km), but recent SAP and SNCB advice has recognised that the size guideline is not realistic for intertidal habitats. The intertidal habitats have been highlighted in green to show that we are considering these to be represented within the current set of potential reference areas (unlike the other features listed in the second column). 2 The Fal potential reference area, is a little smaller than the minimum size requirement of 1km. Enlarging this site westwards, however, would not capture more of the same habitat (maërl and seagrass beds), as the depth increases to the west – so enlarging the site to meet the minimum size guidelines would probably not provide more habitat suitable for these species.

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 0.71km2

Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment Subtidal sand

Area covered (m2)

0.05 0.26

48,821 255,621

0.38

377,651

Table ***b Intertidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Intertidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

Intertidal coarse sediments Low energy intertidal rock

4,702 16,505

540

0.005 0.02

Table ***c FOCI species within this reference area

Species of conservation importance Species Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Cruoria cruoriaeformis Gobius couchi Grateloupia montagnei Lithothamnion corallioides Ostrea edulis Phymatolithon calcareum

1 1

1 1 1 5 3 7

AF T

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

Number of point records (total)

Maerl Beds Seagrass Beds

244,481 341,435

11 2

0.24 0.34

Number of point records (pre1980)

Uncertainties • ...

Levels of support •

Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

541

Sites to which the site is related The Fal potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Fal and Helford SAC. Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area *** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance48.

*** To be added. Site map series

AF T

Supporting documentation

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

542

Map: SAP_258a Version: Jun11

The Fal Potential Reference Area

5°2'4"W

5°1'51"W

5°1'38"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°1'25"W

5°1'12"W

100

200

5°0'59"W

400 m

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

B 10

D R AF

50°10'12"N

50°10'21"N

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.1723 -5.0314 50° 10' 20'' N 5° 1' 53'' W B 50.1723 -5.0223 50° 10' 20'' N 5° 1' 20'' W

C 50.1623 -5.0265 50° 9' 44'' N 5° 1' 35'' W D 50.1633 -5.0339 50° 9' 48'' N 5° 2' 1'' W

The Fal

50°10'3"N

50°9'54"N

50°9'45"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Version: Jun11

The Fal Potential Reference Area

5°2'34"W

* #

5°2'20"W

5°2'6"W

5°1'52"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°1'38"W

* #

50°10'21"N

j ? j

X j

* #

200

400 m

5°1'10"W

5°0'56"W

* #

* ## *

D R AF

50°10'12"N

5°1'24"W

Map: SAP_258b

j ?

j? ? * # j

50°10'3"N

j ?

50°9'54"N

j ?

* #

j ?

50°9'45"N

j X

* #

50°9'36"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.11 Swanpool potential reference area Basic site information The Swanpool Lagoon in Falmouth is the only place in English waters where the trembling sea mat Victorella pavida has been recorded. It would need to be a reference area in order to meet the ENG. However, the site falls above the OS Boundary Line mean high water line, which is the line we use to define the limit of our study region. Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long

AF T

50.1428

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

-5.0781

Site area: 64347.5 m2

50° 8' 34'' N'

5° 4' 41' W'

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary

*** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Swanpool potential reference area Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Swanpool potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Viable size guidelines not met

Swanpool

FOCI species

Victorella pavida

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: size of the feature Table ***c FOCI species within this reference area

Species of conservation importance Species Number of point records (total) Victorella pavida 102

545

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Implications • ... Uncertainties • ... Levels of support

AF T

•

Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

Sites to which the site is related

The Swanpool potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Fal and Helford SAC. Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area

*** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance50.

Supporting documentation

*** To be added.

49 50

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

546

AF T

Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

547

Map: SAP_259a Version: Jun11

Swanpool Potential Reference Area

5°4'50"W

5°4'45"W

5°4'40"W

5°4'35"W

5°4'30"W

5°4'25"W

180 m

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84) Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

50°8'31"N

50°8'27"N

50°8'24"N

Long

C 50.1434 -5.0771 50° 8' 36'' N 5° 4' 37'' W D 50.1411 -5.0764 50° 8' 28'' N 5° 4' 35'' W E 50.1408 -5.0776 50° 8' 26'' N 5° 4' 39'' W

F 50.1411 -5.0785 50° 8' 27'' N 5° 4' 42'' W

G 50.1432 -5.0794 50° 8' 35'' N 5° 4' 45'' W

50°8'35"N

Lat

B 50.1449 -5.0782 50° 8' 41'' N 5° 4' 41'' W

50°8'38"N

D R AF

50°8'41"N

Long

A 50.1447 -5.0796 50° 8' 41'' N 5° 4' 46'' W

Swanpool

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Version: Jun11

Swanpool Potential Reference Area

50°8'40"N

50°8'36"N

50°8'32"N

50°8'28"N

50°8'24"N

5°4'48"W

5°4'42"W

5°4'36"W

ÏÏ Ï ÒÏÏ ÒÏ ÏÒÏ Ï ÒÏ ÏÏ ÒÏ ÏÏÏ ÏÏ ÏÏ Ï Ï Ò ÒÏÏÏ Ï ÒÏ ÏÒÏ ÒÏ Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï Ò Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ ÏÏ ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ ÏÏ Ò Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï Ò Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ ÏÏ Ï Ï Ï Ò Ò Ï Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ò Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï ÒÏ ÏÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ò Ï Ï Ò Ï Ï Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï Ò Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ ÏÏ ÏÏ Ï Ò Ï Ï Ò Ï ÒÏÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï ÒÏ Ò Ï Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ò Ï Ï Ï ÒÏÏ Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ò Ï Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï ÏÏ Ï ÒÏ ÏÏ ÏÏ Ï Ò Ò Ï Ï ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï Ò Ï ÒÏÏ Ï ÒÏ ÏÏÏ ÒÏ Ï Ï Ï ÒÏÏ Ï Ò Ï ÒÏÏ Ï ÒÏÏÏ ÏÏ ÒÏÏÏÏÏ ÒÏ ÒÏÒÏ

5°4'30"W

D R AF

5°4'54"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

87.5

5°4'24"W

175 m

5°4'18"W

5°4'12"W

Map: SAP_259b

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

W X

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.12 Cape Bank potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees

Degrees Minutes Seconds

Lat

Long

Lat

Long

50.2796

-5.8568

50° 16' 46'' N'

5° 51' 24' W'

AF T

Site area: 25 km2 Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary *** To be added.

Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Cape Banks potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Cape Bank potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Viable size guidelines not met

There are no records in our spatial datasets of these species within the boundaries of this site, but a recent NE SAC survey (***reference) confirmed the presence of both species on Cape Bank. We therefore assume these species are represented within this site.

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 5.3 km2

550

Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2) High energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment

0.42 0.69 20.59 0.69 2.60

Table ***c FOCI species within this reference area

Number of point records (pre-1980)

AF T

Species of conservation importance Species Number of point records (total) Palinurus elephas 1* Eunicella verrucosa 1*

* These records have been communicated verbally from Natural England following SAC surveys in the area. Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered Number of point (km2) records (total) Subtidal sands and gravels

Number of point records (pre-1980)

3.16

Assumptions underpinning the potential reference area

Implications • ...

Uncertainties • ...

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

551

Levels of support •

Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

AF T

Sites to which the site is related

The Cape Bank potential reference area sits within the boundary of the Cape Bank pMCZ and the Cape Bank section of the Land’s End and Cape Bank cSAC. Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area

*** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance52. Supporting documentation *** To be added. Site map series

The third map indicates the location of the fixed net restrictions (Section 6 Salmon Act 1975) with reference to the potential reference area. Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

552

Map: SAP_260a

Cape Bank Potential Reference Area

Version: Jun11

5°53'35"W

5°52'28"W

5°51'21"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

5°50'14"W

5°49'7"W

0.5

5°48'0"W

2 km

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

50 50

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat

Long

Lat

Long

A 50.3020 -5.8919 50° 18' 7'' N 5° 53' 30'' W 30

B 50.3021 -5.8217 50° 18' 7'' N 5° 49' 18'' W

50°18'20"N 50

Cape Bank

D 50.2571 -5.8919 50° 15' 25'' N 5° 53' 30'' W

D R AF

50°17'30"N

C 50.2571 -5.8218 50° 15' 25'' N 5° 49' 18'' W

50°16'40"N

Cape Bank

50°15'50"N

5 0

50°15'0"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary 0working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_260b

Cape Bank Potential Reference Area

Version: Jun11

5°53'54"W

5°52'41"W

5°51'28"W

D R AF

50°18'10"N

50°17'20"N

5°50'15"W

0.5

5°49'2"W

2 km

5°47'49"W

5°46'36"W

5°56'20"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Cape Bank

50°16'30"N

50°15'40"N

50°14'50"N

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Cape Bank Potential Reference Area

Version: Jun11

5°55'7"W

5°53'54"W

5°52'41"W

5°51'28"W

5°50'15"W

0.5

5°49'2"W

2 km

5°47'49"W

5°46'36"W

5°45'23"W

5°57'33"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Map: SAP_260c

50°19'0"N

3 0

5 0

50°18'10"N

D R AF

50°15'40"N

50°16'30"N

50°14'50"N

3 0 0

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary 3 working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

50°14'0"N

3 0

Cape Bank

50°17'20"N

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) lane Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) zone A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

II.5.13 Lundy potential reference area Basic site information Site centroid: Decimal Degrees Lat Long 51.1859

Degrees Minutes Seconds Lat Long

-4.6575

51° 11' 9'' N'

4° 39' 27' W'

Site area: 3.7 km2

AF T

Biogeographic region: JNCC regional sea: Western Channel and Celtic Sea OSPAR region: Region III: Celtic Seas

Maps of the site are included at the end of this site report. The main site map shows lat/lon points along the site boundary with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM29N).*** Site boundary

The site boundary is identical to the boundary of the existing Lundy no-take zone. Environmental site summary *** To be added.

Features proposed for designation within Lundy potential reference area

Table *** Working conservation objective feature list for Lundy potential reference area. This is subject to review

Viable size guidelines met

Viable size guidelines not met

Lundy

Broad-scale habitats

FOCI habitats Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats FOCI species Amphianthus dohrnii Leptopsammia pruvoti Phymatolithon calcareum

556

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Mud Habitats in Deep Water

Eunicella verrucosa Palinurus elephas

Assessment of interest features in site in relation to ENG Minimum dimension of this reference area: 0.85km2 Table ***a Subtidal broad-scale habitats within this reference area

Subtidal broad-scale habitats (EUNIS level 3) Habitat Area covered (km2)

Area covered (m2)

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand

42,063 989,348 141,867 2,531,015

AF T

0.04 0.99 0.14 2.53

Table ***c FOCI species within this reference area

Species of conservation importance Species Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre-1980)

Amphianthus dohrnii Eunicella verrucosa Leptopsammia pruvoti Palinurus elephas Phymatolithon calcareum

14 1 1 1

1 37 12 2

Table ***d FOCI habitats within this reference area

Habitats of conservation importance Habitat Area covered (km2)

Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Mud Habitats in Deep Water Subtidal sands and gravels

2.21

Area covered (m2)

Number of point records (total)

Number of point records (pre1980)

2,205,833

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-regional-guidance_tcm6-23451.pdf

557

Implications • ... Uncertainties • ... Levels of support Fishing representatives have stated that they will not support any recommendations for potential reference areas.

•

...

Additional comments • ...

AF T

•

Sites to which the site is related

The Lundy potential reference area is identical to the boundary of the existing Lundy no-take zone and sits within the Lundy MCZ and SAC. Conservation Objectives for The Canyons reference area

*** To be added. For conservation objectives features list, see above. For each feature, the objective will be “recover to reference condition”, and follow the standard 1-page layout as defined on page 15 of the draft Conservation Objective Guidance54. Supporting documentation

*** To be added. Site map series

On the following pages there are three maps of this site. The first is the main site map showing the potential reference area boundary and includes lat/lon points with coordinates (in WGS84 UTM30N). The map also shows charted depth and existing Marine Protected Areas for reference. The second map shows the boundary over broad-scale habitats, and habitat and species FOCI. The third map indicates the location of the fixed net restrictions (Section 6 Salmon Act 1975) with reference to the potential reference area. Please refer to ***appendix 5 for a full map legend.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/MCZ%20Project%20Conservation%20Objective%20Guidance.pdf

558

30 4°41'15"W

3 0

4°40'30"W

4°38'15"W

Long

Lat

Long

A 51.2007 -4.6705 51° 12' 2'' N 4° 40' 13'' W B 51.2007 -4.6500 51° 12' 2'' N 4° 38' 59'' W

Lat/Long Co-ordinates (WGS84)

4°37'30"W

51°11'30"N

1.5 km

Lat

D R AF

1 0

C 51.1678 -4.6500 51° 10' 4'' N 4° 38' 59'' W D 51.1678 -4.6614 51° 10' 4'' N 4° 39' 40'' W

Lundy

51°11'0"N

0.75

Decimal degrees Degrees Minutes Seconds

0.375

51°12'0"N

4°39'0"W

4°39'45"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Lundy Potential Reference Area

Version: Jun11

Map: SAP_261a

51°10'30"N

51°10'0"N

51°9'30"N

20 30

30 in progress 20 Work

Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Version: Jun11

Lundy Potential Reference Area 4°42'55"W

4°42'0"W

4°41'5"W

4°40'10"W

kk k k k ^

51°11'58"N

k ^

^Lundy

0.8

k k ^kk

k kk k k D D

4°37'25"W

4°36'30"W

4°35'35"W

k^ k D ^

kk kk

kk k k ^

1.6 km

Lundy

51°9'13"N

0.4

kk ^ k kD

k kD k k

51°9'46"N

51°10'19"N

4°38'20"W

D R AF

k k

51°10'52"N

4°39'15"W

k k kk k k l k k kk

D 51°11'25"N

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Map: SAP_261b

k ^

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Map Legend 6 nautical mile limit

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Map: SAP_261c

Lundy Potential Reference Area

Version: Jun11

30 20

4°40'10"W

4°38'20"W

0.8

1.6 km

4°37'25"W

4°36'30"W

4°35'35"W

0 30

51°11'58"N

Lundy

N.B. Same boundary as Lundy NTZ 30

D R AF

51°11'25"N

0.4

4°39'15"W

4°42'0"W

4°42'55"W

Maritime basemap © British Crown and SeaZone Solutions Limited, 2010. All Rights Reserv ed. Data Licence No. 062006.004. Land basemap part © OpenStreetMap & contributors, CC-BY-SA. Not to be us ed for navigation.

Lundy

51°10'19"N

Map Legend

6 nautical mile limit

51°10'52"N

51°9'46"N

20 3 2

51°9'13"N

2 0

Work in progress Thes e are draft recommendations for Marine Conserv ation Zones and remain under development by the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group. Pleas e refer to the Finding Sanctuary working group and progress reports for further information (www.finding-s anctuary.org).

Existing MPAs

12 nautical mile limit

SAC

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

SPA

Zone within a pMCZ

SSSI

Potential reference area

Lundy NTZ

Additional Data Protected wrecks - archaeology A comprehensive legend is provided in the appendices of the Finding Sanctuary Draft Final Report (June 2011).

Appendix 1: Table of Steering Group members grouped by sector

AF T

To be added to final report. In the meantime, please refer to www.finding-sanctuary.org

562

Appendix 2: Named Consultative Stakeholders

AF T

To be added to final report. In the meantime, please refer to www.finding-sanctuary.org

563

Appendix 3: Finding Sanctuary project team and facilitators The Finding Sanctuary Stakeholder Process has been designed and facilitated by Rob Angell of R K Partnership Ltd (RKP). Lynn Wetenhall and Jim Welch have supported the facilitation and process design. Project Team Project Manager

Tom Hooper

MPA Planner Senior GIS Specialist Planning & GIS Specialist Planning & GIS Specialist Economist

AF T

Planning Team

Communications Communications Coordinator Liaison South Devon, Cornwall And the Isles of Scilly Dorset, South East and North Devon

Rupert Haines

Hannah Carr

David Murphy

John Weinberg

Martin Syvret

Somerset

Louise Lieberknecht Shaun Lewin Tom Mullier Alana Murphy

564

Appendix 4: Ecological data and planning tools used during the planning process Introduction The following is a description of the ecological datasets that were used during the planning, and the datasets that were used to calculate statistics in Part II of this report. It assumes a working knowledge of the MCZ project, and the national datasets that have been gathered by the Defra-funded MB102 data layers project.

AF T

Some of the ecological datasets were being updated and added to during the planning process. We have tried to prioritise the updating of our data and maps in such a way that we always had the most up-to-date information to hand when it made the most difference generally within the Working Groups. This has meant that maps have changed from meeting to meeting. Much of the data in our regional profile is less up to date than the information shown on the A2-sized maps and interactive PDFs we have been using in Working Group meetings. Where possible, readers are now advised to refer to our interactive PDFs and Working Group maps (with “OWG” and “IWG” codes) in preference to the regional profile maps. The latest versions of these maps are available via a secure website provided for our Steering Group members (and the SAP upon receipt of this report).

We are not providing a full list of socio-economic and human use datasets here, because the SAP’s role is limited to providing feedback on the scientific integrity of the ecological aspects of our work, and how we have met the ENG. The socio-economic data that we use is reflected in the Working Group and Steering Group meeting reports, and the Working Group maps. The Impact Assessment also includes its own reference list. Broad-scale habitats

Our maps of EUNIS level 3 habitats use data supplied to us by the JNCC. Over the course of our project, it has gone through several iterations and updates. At the beginning of iteration 2, we were working with the same EUNIS level 3 habitat data that we had available for the first iteration. The dataset was substantially updated over the summer of 2010, and by the end of the second planning iteration we had a combined dataset, consisting of modelled subtidal habitat data (from UKSeaMap), survey data from MESH (where this is of sufficient quality to replace the modelled data), and intertidal habitat data from MB102. Corrections to that dataset (which were still outstanding at the time of writing our second progress report) were thought to have been finalised prior to the third progress report, however between that report and now, data from the South Coast REC (Regional Environmental Characterisation, www.southcoastrecgis.org.uk/sc/) was added. We carried out our own (minor) edits to the combined EUNIS L3 habitat map, mostly in order to correct some minor errors in the modelled data along the edge of our study region (small misclassified areas). More significantly, the modelled data showed what we considered to be a spurious patch of “deep-sea bed” habitat located in the south-west of our study area, on the continental shelf and at a distance from the actual shelf break. This patch came from the UKSeaMap modelled data, which uses 200m depth as a cut-off for the differentiation between the continental shelf habitats (subtidal sand, subtidal mixed

sediments etc), and the deep-sea habitat that lies beyond the shelf break. In general terms this works well – on nautical charts in the south-west region, the 200m contour coincides with the location of the shelf break. However, the bathymetry data used by the UKSeaMap model showed an area of a depression below 200m, located on the continental shelf – this was not an area of rapid change in slope. In the modelled outputs, this was classified as “deep-sea bed”. We reclassified it as the surrounding shelf habitat (subtidal sand) in the dataset that we used during stakeholder meetings and in order to calculate the figures presented here.

AF T

For intertidal broad-scale habitat, a significant addition to the JNCC-provided EUNIS L3 data was provided to us in the shape of detailed intertidal habitat data from the Environment Agency. We used a lookup table provided by the EA (huchitang.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ihsbrief-definitions-1-100.htm) to reclassify the intertidal habitat types mapped by the EA (IHS, Integrated Habitat System) to EUNIS L3, and amalgamated the resulting polygons with our EUINIS L3 data layer. Where the EA data overlapped with the EUNIS L3 habitat data provided by the JNCC (which was delivered through MB102), we chose the EA data in preference.

During the vulnerability assessment meetings queries were raised around some of the intertidal data. Further investigation of the IHS-EUNIS translation tables found that the IHS code LS41 (mudflats and sandflats not covered by sea water at low tide) was translated as EUNIS A2.3 (intertidal mud), potentially underestimating the quantity of intertidal sand. This indicates that some areas currently mapped as mud, may actually be intertidal sand.

Our EUNIS L3 habitat data is shown on working group maps IWG_09 and OWG_08 (these are A2 Working Group maps), on our interactive biophysical PDF maps, and also on the site maps included within this report. The combined EUNIS dataset was also used to generate the maps at EUNIS level 2, which were used for the connectivity buffer maps presented in ***section II.2.3 of the report.

Species of Conservation Importance (non-mobile)

Our Working Group maps and the figures presented in this report are primarily based on records extracted from the MB102 national data layers. We excluded all records marked as “uncertain”. In addition to the national MB102 data layers, we have been supplied with a number of regional datasets that we have added to the MB102 data, to create combined FOCI species and habitat layers. These additional datasets have significantly added to the MB102 data, especially in the Isles of Scilly, along the coast of Cornwall, and in some inshore areas off Dorset. The data is shown on maps IWG_10b and IWG_10c (these are A2 Working Group maps), the site maps in this report, and on our interactive biophysical PDFs. During iteration 2, the combined FOCI data layers included data supplied by the Dorset Environmental Records Centre and Seasearch 2009. For the calculation of the statistics presented in the second progress report, we added further records which we received from the Marine Conservation Society (who provided a small number of additional records of the 566

AF T

fan mussel Atrina pectinata), from Dorset Wildlife Trust, and from Cornwall Wildlife Trust (who have sent us some of their own records, and those held by the Ecological Records Centre for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, including data from recent Seasearch surveys). We also did a brief cross-check between our combined non-mobile FOCI records, and 2009/2010 records in the JNCC’s Marine Recorder database, in order to check whether any substantial number of new records had been entered into this national database following the completion of MB102 Defra data gathering contract. We did not find any significant additional data. At the start of the third planning iteration, a final review and update of the combined FOCI datasets was carried out. We added a small number of records from Environment Agency benthic survey data, records provided by Dorset Wildlife Trust, and some data from the DORIS (Dorset Integrated Seabed Study) project (also provided by Dorset Wildlife Trust). The Seahorse Trust provided us with their local knowledge on the distribution of seahorses (both species) in the south west coastal region, mapped as polygon data via the interactive webGIS tool. This data was added to our FOCI maps in the third iteration, and has been reported from in this report.

In response to advice from the SAP, we have not excluded any data on the basis of age of the records. Instead, we have maps to accompany the FOCI species (and habitat) maps which show the age distribution of the data, and in this report, wherever possible we have reported pre-1980 data separately.

One difficulty we have encountered with FOCI non-mobile species records is that there have been overlaps between the different datasets that we have been provided with, but that there is no simple way of finding them. The same survey data may have been entered into two separate databases, but with different unique identifiers, and often with incomplete survey information. Furthermore, the same record, after it has been entered into different datasets, will often not plot out on exactly the same location on a map (for example, because of errors created through transforming GIS data between projections, or rounding errors in decimal degree lat/long data provided in tables) – mismatches in the order of 10s of metres are common. This means that the only thorough way of identifying duplicate data is through time-consuming manual cross-checking of individual records. Because we have limited time available to spend on this work, we applied the following rules of thumb: MB102 data was used as the starting point, against which other data was crossreferenced. Where there are duplicate records, we used the ones from MB102 in preference to other sources, because MB102 data went through a thorough quality assurance (QA) process and is presented in a standard format, with a good level of attribution. Data from additional sources was checked against the top copy (in the first instance, MB102). Any records of the same species from the same date that fall within 150 metres of a record already in our dataset were discarded, unless we were certain that they were genuinely separate records. Records that were further apart were removed if we could see a consistent pattern of transformation-induced spatial “slippage” across a set of records. A small number of records we received fell more than 10m landward of the mean high water line on our maps – we assumed these to have erroneous geographical references and they were discarded.

567

The above steps were carried out one dataset at a time, creating a growing combined dataset that became the top copy against which each successive new dataset was cross-referenced. Any data that was flagged as uncertain, or which did not have a minimum of a species name, year, and source, was discarded.

AF T

Because the cross-checking between FOCI species datasets was a time-consuming task, we had a cut-off for accepting any further survey data to be incorporated into our process, and we have not incorporated new datasets as of January 2011 (this applies to FOCI species as well as habitats). However, where we have knowledge of additional datasets that we have not been able to access within the time available, this is stated throughout the report. Habitats of Conservation Importance

The data for habitats of conservation importance consists of point records and polygon data from MB102, survey records provided by Cornwall Wildlife Trust (who have sent us some of their own records, and those held by the Ecological Records Centre for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, including data from recent Seasearch surveys), data from the DORIS project and data provided by Dorset Wildlife Trust. We also have additional data for the Isles of Scilly, provided by the Isles of Scilly Local Group, mapped from their local knowledge. The data is shown on maps IWG_11b and IWG_11c (these are A2 Working Group maps).

One aspect of this data that has changed is the working definition of “tide-swept channels”. The MB102 data layers included a lot of records labelled “tide-swept communities”, and some modelled polygon data showing areas where tidal streams above 7 knots occur in the UK. During the second planning iteration, we received guidance that the working definition of the listed FOCI should only include records located in the areas where the tidal streams are above 7 knots. On that basis, we have removed the data we had previously mapped for this habitat, as none of the MB102 “tide-swept communities” records in the south-west intersect with the mapped polygons. The data that we have currently mapped for tideswept channels in the Isles of Scilly is from two sources. One is polygon labelled as “tideswept channels, which is based on the knowledge of the Local Group, and which we consider to be reliable information. The other source is recent survey data provided by Cornwall Wildlife Trusts which includes records labelled as the equivalent BAP habitat, also located in the Isles of Scilly.

Note that the Environment Agency went to great efforts to provide us with detailed intertidal habitat maps for the south-west coastline. This data was used to supplement the intertidal broad-scale habitat data provided through MB102 (see above). It could possibly supplement some of the intertidal FOCI habitat data, but we have not had time to review it in detail at the site level. There were complex licensing arrangements that had to be resolved, and we only received the data very late in 2010. The data was supplied before our end-of-year data deadline, and it was supplied in a very well-organised series of geodatabases with group layer files. However, the GIS datasets are very large, and require processing time to extract specific habitat data. Even creating maps from the data at its original level of detail is a time-consuming task, because of its size and complexity (which slows down on-screen rendering and map exports). 568

MB102 benthic biodiversity data

AF T

The MB102 data contract included a task to develop benthic biodiversity data layers, to help identify areas of additional ecological importance. The data were not available soon enough to be considered during the second planning iteration, but we reviewed them during the third iteration. The datasets include different biodiversity scores (including Chao2 and taxonomic distinctness), presented on a data grid. The grid used for the intertidal area is relatively fine, as this is where the most records are available. The inshore area uses a coarser grid, and the offshore grid is very coarse (and contains so little information that it was disregarded entirely in our process). Exact details of the methods used and the outputs generated can be found in the MB102 reports, and are not repeated here. For the inshore and the intertidal data, we mapped out the grid cells falling within the top 10 and 25 percentile of each score. We presented two maps, one showing the scores relative to the entire UK dataset (which highlights a lot of the grid cells in our region, as the south-west benthos is diverse within a UK context), and one highlighting the highest scoring grid cells within a south-west context. The latter map was reviewed in detail by the Inshore Working Group (as described in this report).

Late in the process (February 2011) we received new versions of these datasets combining the various different biodiversity measures into areas of low, medium and high benthic biodiversity for species and habitats. These were provided to aid presentation of the data, and were minimally used in the planning process.

Bird foraging ranges We received information from the RSPB on the kind of habitat utilised for foraging by a number of shore-nesting bird species, as well as information on their known foraging ranges. We also have data from the Seabird 2000 dataset (a survey of shore-nesting birds, indicating the location of colonies and observed counts of breeding pairs within them, from surveys carried out in 2000). Using the RSPB information on known foraging ranges, we created buffers around the location of the colonies within the Seabird 2000 dataset for a number of nesting species, thereby mapping an indicative foraging area. We then used the RSPB’s knowledge on foraging habitat type (substrate type, depth, frontal areas) to overlay the buffers with areas that might be suitable for foraging for the different species, using information such as the MB102 sea surface temperature fronts data, EUNIS level 3 habitat data, and bathymetry. These maps are IWG_21 to IWG_25, and IWG_31 (supplied to the SAP via a secure web link). Offshore bird observation / aggregation areas The JNCC provided us with data extracted from the European Seabirds at Sea (ESAS) dataset, which is data collated from survey work carried out over several decades, corrected for sampling intensity on a grid. The data extracts we were given were the top 25% grid cells for each species in terms of average densities observed during the breeding and wintering seasons, plus the average density values for those grid cells. These data have been summed across species for the two seasons, and mapped to create an overall rough indication of the areas where the highest densities are observed across all species combined. This data is on maps OWG_15 and OWG_16 (these are A2 Working Group maps). We were supplied with 569

an updated version of this, consisting of the full dataset, however following the guidance from the JNCC regarding designation of offshore pMCZs for birds, we have not updated the maps. Frontal systems Data on frontal systems can be used as a surrogate for pelagic productivity, and we have used the data supplied with MB102 to create maps of locations of persistent seasonal fronts. We have mapped persistent summer fronts on map OWG_10; and the location of the strongest persistent fronts in all four seasons on map OWG_11 (these are A2 Working Group maps).

AF T

Cetaceans and basking sharks

During the third planning iteration, we took along additional information on the distribution and sightings of marine megafauna. That includes a map of basking shark sightings which we created from Marine Conservation Society sightings data (map OWG_38). Given constraints on our time, and the fact that these features are not specifically mentioned in the ENG, we relied mainly on mapped products created by other organisations, i.e. the JNCC’s cetaceans atlas, and the recent report by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society on areas of importance for cetaceans. Combined AEI score

As described in section ***I.2.2*** of the report, we recently received a data layer on a combined score for “additional ecological importance” for the seas within our region. As this is described in the main report, a detailed explanation has not been included here. Datasets not used in the planning process

We have received two datasets from the national data contracts which we reviewed and discussed, both within the project and cross-regionally, and which were not used in the planning process. They are the MB102 data on mobile FOCI (which is very coarse scale) and MB102 data on spawning and nursery areas (which, again, is too broad-scale to be meaningful in our planning context).

However, note that the Environment Agency has provided us with detailed evidence on the importance of estuaries for spawning and nursery habitats and for mobile FOCI (mainly eels). This was referred to during discussions around which estuaries to include as pMCZs in the DNC. Excel planning tool Tom Mullier, one of the GIS specialists at Finding Sanctuary, developed an interactive Excel planning tool, which allowed us to calculate the amount of EUNIS level 3 habitat and FOCI records within a selected set of building blocks automatically during the Working Group meetings. The tool incorporated figures from the gap analysis for the existing sites, so it was able to provide an indication of how well a given configuration of sites would perform 570

against these aspects of the ENG. This tool proved to be very useful for speeding up progress during the Working Group meetings, as it allowed stakeholders to swap selected building blocks and get instant feedback, rather than having to wait for the project team to carry out time-consuming GIS analyses at every point. An updated version of this tool was also used during the reference area planning process to measure how well different combinations of potential reference areas met the ENG, including how the minimum dimension of sites affected the viability of the species and habitats within it. This proved to be invaluable during the reference area discussions, providing instant feedback and minimising delays.

AF T

Interactive PDFs

We have created interactive PDF maps that can include multiple, switchable, layers of information. This proved effective during planning, particularly in the discussions around reference areas. This approach, to some extent, replaced the need for large numbers of hard copy maps to be used.

571

Appendix 5 Legend (Part 1) MPAs and Broad-scale Habitats

Finding Sanctuary project area

Broad-scale Intertidal habitats (EUNIS level 3) Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds

12 nautical mile limit

Mosaic of intertidal mud and coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds

Potential MCZ (pMCZ)

Littoral biogenic reefs

Zone within a pMCZ

Littoral sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms

Potential reference area

High energy intertidal rock

SAC SPA SSSI Lundy NTZ

Moderate energy intertidal rock

Existing MPAs

6 nautical mile limit

Low energy intertidal rock

Intertidal coarse sediments

Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud

Intertidal mixed sediments

Broad-scale Subtidal habitats (EUNIS level 3)

Deep-sea bed

High energy circalittoral rock

Moderate energy circalittoral rock Low energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Low energy infralittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal mud Subtidal sand Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment

Legend (part 2) Species and Habitat FOCI Habitats of conservation importance (FOCI)

Species of conservation importance (FOCI)

Habitat areas

Species areas

Blue Mussel beds

Area of pink seafans (from DORIS survey)

Estuarine rocky habitats

Areas of importance for seahorses (mapped by Seahorse Trust)

Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats

Individual species records Trembling sea mat (Victorella pavida)

Maerl beds

Sea fan anemone (Amphianthus dohrnii)

Mud habitats in deep water

Pink sea fan (Eunicella verrucosa)

Intertidal underboulder communities

Sabellaria alveolata reefs

Sunset cup coral (Leptopsammia pruvoti)

Sabellaria spinulosa reefs

Starlet sea anemone (Nematostella vectensis)

Seagrass beds

Stalked jellyfish (Lucernariopsis campanulata)

Sheltered muddy gravels

Tideswept communities Tideswept channel

Individual habitat records Blue Mussel beds Estuarine rocky habitats

Subtidal chalk

St. John's jellyfish (Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis)

Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats

Intertidal underboulder communities Maerl beds

Mud habitats in deep water Peat and clay exposures

Sabellaria alveolata reefs

Sabellaria spinulosa reefs Seagrass beds Subtidal chalk

Kaleidoscope jellyfish (Haliclystus auricula) Tentacled lagoon worm (Alkmaria romijni) Lagoon sandworm (Armandia cirrhosa) Ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) Fan mussel (Atrina pectinata) Defolin's lagoon snail (Caecum armoricum) Lagoon sea slug (Tenellia adspersa) Native oyster (Ostrea edulis) Sea snail (Paludinella littorina) Burgundy maerl paint weed (Cruoria cruoriaeformis) Grateloup's little-lobed weed (Grateloupia montagnei) Coral maerl (Lithothamnion corallioides) Common maerl (Phymatolithon calcareum) Peacock's tail (Padina pavonica) Giant goby (Gobius cobitis)

Tideswept channel

Couch's goby (Gobius couchi) Long snouted seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus) Short snouted seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus) Lagoon sand shrimp (Gammarus insensibilis) Amphipod shrimp (Gitanopsis bispinosa) Spiny lobster (Palinurus elephas) Gooseneck barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes)

Appendix 6: Gap Analysis Table

AF T

Broad-scale habitats and FOCI protected in existing marine protected areas Name Type Broad-scale habitats protected FOCI protected Braunton Burrows SAC Chesil & The Fleet SAC intertidal coarse sediment Seagrass beds intertidal sand and muddy sand Subtidal sands and gravels intertidal mud Armandia cirrhosa Intertidal mixed sediments Caecum armoricum Coastal saltmarshes and saline Alkmaria romijni reedbeds Nematostella vectensis Gammarus insensibilis Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal macrophyte-dominated Tenellia adspersa sediment Paludinella littorina Fal & Helford SAC Moderate energy intertidal rock Intertidal underboulder communities Low energy intertidal rock Maerl beds Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal sand and muddy sand Seagrass beds Sheltered muddy gravels Intertidal mud Estuarine rocky habitats Intertidal mixed sediments Fragile sponge and Coastal saltmarshes and saline anthozoan communities on reedbeds subtidal rocky habitats High energy infralittoral rock Lithothamnion corallioides Moderate energy infralittoral Ostrea edulis rock Phymatolithon calcareum Low energy infralittoral rock Eunicella verrucosa Moderate energy circalittoral rock Low energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment Haig Fras SAC Moderate energy circalittoral rock Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Isle of Portland to SAC Studland Cliffs Isles of Scilly SAC Moderate energy intertidal rock Intertidal underboulder Complex Intertidal sand and muddy sand communities High energy infralittoral rock Seagrass beds Moderate energy infralittoral Subtidal sands and gravels 574

rock Low energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Low energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mixed sediments SAC

Lizard Point

SAC

Lundy

SAC

High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Low energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Low energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal biogenic reefs

AF T

Lands End and Cape Bank

SAC

Lyme Bay and Torbay

Plymouth Sound & Estuaries

Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Subtidal macrophytedominated sediment Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms Leptopsammia pruvoti Eunicella verrucosa Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats

SAC

High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal sand and muddy sand 575

Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Eunicella verrucosa

Intertidal underboulder communities Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Leptopsammia pruvoti Eunicella verrucosa Amphianthus dohrnii1

Blue Mussel beds (including intertidal beds on mixed and sandy sediments) Ross worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) reefs1 Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Leptopsammia pruvoti Eunicella verrucosa Intertidal underboulder communities Seagrass beds Sea-pen and burrowing

SAC

Prawle Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone extension

SAC

Severn Estuary

SAC

Prawle Point to Plymouth Sound & Eddystone

megafauna communities Subtidal chalk Subtidal sands and gravels Estuarine rocky habitats Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Eunicella verrucosa

AF T

Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Low energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Low energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal biogenic reefs High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Low energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Low energy circalittoral rock 576

Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Leptopsammia pruvoti Eunicella verrucosa Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats Leptopsammia pruvoti Eunicella verrucosa

Blue Mussel beds (including intertidal beds on mixed and sandy sediments) Seagrass beds Estuarine rocky habitats Honeycomb worm (Sabellaria alveolata) reefs Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms Subtidal macrophytedominated sediment

Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal biogenic reefs Sidmouth to West Bay Studland to Portland

SAC

Wight-Barfleur Reef 1

SAC

Poole Harbour

SPA

Tamar Estuaries Complex

SPA

Berrow Dunes

SSSI

Bridgwater Bay

SSSI

High energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock Low energy infralittoral rock High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal biogenic reefs High energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock Subtidal coarse sediment Subtidal mixed sediments intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mixed sediments Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Low energy infralittoral rock Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Subtidal sand Subtidal mud Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds

Blue Mussel beds (including intertidal beds on mixed and sandy sediments) Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats

AF T

SAC

Chesil Beach & The SSSI Fleet Christchurch Harbour

SSSI

Dawlish Warren

SSSI

577

Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats

Seagrass beds

Coastal saltmarsh Coastal saltmarsh Coastal saltmarsh Saline lagoons Nematostella vectensis Coastal saltmarsh Saline lagoons

Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats

SSSI

Exe Estuary

SSSI

Hayle Estuary & Carrack Gladden

SSSI

Lower Fal & Helford Intertidal

SSSI

Malpas Estuary

SSSI

Otter Estuary

SSSI

Plymouth Sound Shores & Cliffs

SSSI

Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Subtidal mud Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Intertidal mixed sediments Low energy infralittoral rock

Pool of Bryher & Popplestone Bank (Bryher) Poole Harbour

Porlock Ridge & Saltmarsh Portland Harbour Shore Rosemullion

Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats

Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats Saline lagoons Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats

AF T

Erme Estuary

SSSI

SSSI SSSI SSSI

Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms Low energy infralittoral rock Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock 578

Intertidal underboulder communities Sheltered muddy gravels Intertidal mudflats Estuarine rocky habitats Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats Estuarine rocky habitats

Coastal saltmarsh

Intertidal underboulder communities Estuarine rocky habitats Saline lagoons

Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats Saline lagoons Estuarine rocky habitats Nematostella vectensis

Coastal saltmarsh Coastal saltmarsh

SSSI

Saltern Cove

SSSI

Severn Estuary

SSSI

St Martin's Sedimentary Shore Swanpool Tamar-Tavy Estuary Taw-Torridge Estuaries

SSSI

Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal coarse sediment Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms Intertidal biogenic reefs Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud

SSSI SSSI SSSI

SSSI

Wembury Point

SSSI

Yealm Estuary

SSSI

Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds Intertidal mud Coastal saltmarshes and saline reedbeds High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal mixed sediments High energy intertidal rock Moderate energy intertidal rock Low energy intertidal rock Intertidal sand and muddy sand Intertidal mud Intertidal mixed sediments

Upper Fal Estuary & Woods

Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats Estuarine rocky habitats

Intertidal underboulder communities Sheltered muddy gravels Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats Estuarine rocky habitats

AF T

Salcombe to Kingsbridge Estuary

Changes since progress report 3.

579

Intertidal mudflats Victorella pavida Coastal saltmarsh

Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats Coastal saltmarsh Intertidal mudflats

Intertidal underboulder communities Intertidal underboulder communities Intertidal underboulder communities Sheltered muddy gravels Intertidal mudflats Estuarine rocky habitats

Appendix 7: List of abbreviations ***grey text is copied from the third progress report, final review pending***

EA EIA ENG

FOCI

GCR GIS

EUNIS L3

FS IA

Broad-scale habitat The Crown Estate Common Fisheries Policy Cornish Fish Producers Organisation Conservation Objective Conservation Objective Guidance Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Developing Network Configuration Dorset Integrated Seabed Study - a recent joint project between a number of organisations to map seabed habitats off Dorset. More information can be found here: http://www.dorsetwildlifetrust.org.uk/mapping_the_seabed_doris.html Environment Agency Environmental Impact Assessment Ecological Network Guidance - the ecological criteria that the overall MPA network (MCZs plus existing MPAs) has to meet, and that the Finding Sanctuary recommendations have to adhere to. The ENG are published here http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/100608_ENG_v10_tcm617607.PDF and an official summary can be downloaded here http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/identifyingMCZs_tcm621967.PDF Features of Conservation Importance – habitats and species listed in the ENG. Geological Conservation Review Geographical Information System (software used to process spatial data and to make maps) EUNIS level 3. The EUNIS habitat classification is a European-scale hierarchical habitat classification system covering terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats. Level 3 is a very broad level in the hierarchy, and the broadscale habitats listed in the ENG are defined at EUNIS L3. Finding Sanctuary Impact Assessment – Assessment being carried out by Finding Sanctuary economist looking at the socio-economic impacts of pMCZs. Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. Inshore Potting Agreement (refers to an agreement between fishermen using the area off Start Point in Devon to resolve conflict between fishing gear types, this started as a voluntary agreement and is now a set of fisheries byelaws). Inshore Working Group - A subgroup of the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group, which focussed on the detailed planning work for the inshore area (within 12nm) within the wider Finding Sanctuary project boundary. It has

AF T

BSH TCE CFP CFPO CO COG Defra DNC DORIS

IFCA IPA

IWG

580

LG MB102 MCZ MMO MoD MPA N2K NE NGO OWG

PG PT pMCZ REC RP SAC

AF T

JNCC JWG

now merged with the Offshore Working Group to form the Joint Working Group. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Joint Working Group - A subgroup of the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group consisting of the Inshore and Offshore Working Groups. Reports to the Steering Group. Local Group – cross-sectoral county-based stakeholder groups providing a local perspective on MCZ planning to the Finding Sanctuary Working Groups Defra contract that gathered ecological data for Marine Protected Area projects. Marine Conservation Zone (specific term to denote areas designated under the Marine and Coastal Access Act) Marine Management Organisation Ministry of Defence Marine Protected Area (umbrella term relating to any designation) Natura 2000, an ecological network of protected areas within the European Union. Includes SACs and SPAs. Natural England Non-Governmental Organisation Offshore Working Group - A subgroup of the Finding Sanctuary Steering Group, which carried out the detailed planning work for the offshore area (outside 12nm) within the wider Finding Sanctuary project boundary. It has now merged with the Inshore Working Group to form the Joint Working Group. Finding Sanctuary’s Process Group Finding Sanctuary’s Project Team potential Marine Conservation Zone Regional Environmental Characterisation Regional Project Special Areas of Conservation, a designation defined in the European Union Habitats Directive. Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act Science Advisory Panel Steering Group Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (e.g. Natural England & JNCC) Special Protected Area, a designation under the European Union Directive on the conservation of wild birds. Sites of Special Scientific Interest South-West Inshore Fishermen's Association Traffic Separation Scheme Voluntary Marine Conservation Area Vessel Monitoring System Working Groups - subgroups of Finding Sanctuary Steering Group, includes the inshore, offshore and joint working groups

SAFFA SAP SG SNCBs SPA

SSSI SWIFA TSS VMCA VMS WGs

581

Appendix 8: Management measures terminology ***grey text is copied from the third progress report, final review pending*** A note on terminology in relation to the Finding Sanctuary project (briefing note prepared January 2011)

AF T

At Finding Sanctuary we’ve always considered it of key importance to clarify what activities will need restricting in MCZs, in order for our process to work effectively, and for our recommendations to be clear. We have strived hard to get as much clarity as possible, working with (amongst others) Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Defra, the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant authorities and organisations. It has become increasingly evident that there is a lot of confusion around terminology. In particular, the term “management measures” is sometimes used loosely to refer to the nature of activity restrictions, the mechanism by which restrictions are achieved, or both. Other people use the term in a much more narrowly defined way, to mean the mechanism through which management is put in place. Our own usage of the term has changed as we’ve realised this, and we now use the term in its narrower definition.

When it comes to management of MCZs, we now distinguish between the “what” and the “how”: - The “what” refers to what needs to happen on the ground in order to achieve the conservation objectives: what activities need excluding entirely from a site, what activities are allowed to happen without restrictions, and what activities are allowed as long as they are managed, restricted, or modified in a particular way. - The “how” refers to the mechanism through which activity restrictions are put in place. For example, that might be a byelaw, activity licensing, a voluntary agreement, or a restriction put in place through the Common Fisheries Policy.

We use the term “management measures” to refer only to the “how”, not to the “what”. We have now been given an extended timeline and remit, in that we’ve been asked to develop options for management measures within our proposed MCZs, and to do so by working together with relevant regional stakeholders. We’re currently planning how to approach this new work area. However, before the “how” can be addressed in any meaningful way, the “what” needs to be clear. Getting the “what” right and properly defined has been a real priority for us throughout, and a central aspect of our stakeholder work. In the absence of official guidance, we started by developing assumptions on what management restrictions would need to be put in place. These assumptions were based on project team and stakeholder knowledge. Late last year, the regional projects were given official guidance on the environmental pressures that the species and habitats listed in the Ecological Network Guidance are 582

AF T

sensitive to, and some guidance on what activities cause these pressures. This gives an indication of the activities that might need restricting in MCZs, but unfortunately does not give us any clear answers. We are therefore continuing to work with assumptions as previously, although the project team will now be cross-referencing the assumptions with the official guidance to ensure there are no obvious discrepancies. We have also asked Natural England and the JNCC to provide us with a “reality check” of our assumptions throughout the remainder of our process, so that we can be assured that they will able to support our recommendations.

583