Download Fisheries Options Paper

Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas
Fisheries Management Options Paper
EAST OF GANNET AND MONTROSE FIELDS MPA
This is a working draft which has been produced to support discussions with
stakeholders about management.
Table 1. Management options summary
Fishing
activity
All mobile
bottom
contact gears
Management options
Option 1: No additional management
There is a risk of not achieving the conservation objectives for ocean
quahog aggregations and offshore deep sea muds.
Option 2: Reduce/limit pressures
This option would reduce, but not entirely eliminate, the risk of not
achieving the conservation objectives for offshore deep sea muds and
ocean quahog aggregations. Appropriate management for ocean
quahog could include restrictions on gears known to impact the species,
such as scallop and hydraulic dredging. Appropriate management for
offshore deep sea muds could include closure of a proportion of the area
where the feature occurs to damaging gears. Restrictions could be
permanent in some cases or temporary/adaptive in others. The location of
areas to be covered by management restrictions would be decided in
consultation with fishers.
All static
bottom
contact gears
Option 3: Remove/avoid pressures
This option would reduce the risk of not achieving the conservation
objectives for offshore deep sea muds and ocean quahog
aggregations to the lowest possible levels.
Option 1: No additional management
It is unlikely that any additional management of static gear activities will be
required, as the risk of not achieving the conservation objectives for
offshore deep sea muds and ocean quahog aggregations associated
with these activities is minimal. Static gear activity is not believed to take
place within the MPA at the current time; however, if it were to start and
monitoring showed evidence of detrimental effects, it may be necessary to
apply limits in the future.
1. Introduction
The purpose of this document is to support discussion of fisheries management measures
for the East of Gannet and Montrose Fields Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area
(MPA). The site lies within a shallow sediment plain to the east of Scotland (see figure 2).
The sandy seabed provides an ideal home for ocean quahog, a species of thick shelled clam
that lives buried in the sand. The southern part of the MPA includes one of very few
examples of offshore deep sea mud on the shelf in the North Sea outside of the Fladen
Grounds. The area of the East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA is approximately 1,839
km2.
The East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA is comprised mainly of sand and gravel
habitats that support a range of benthic species. One such species is the ocean quahog
(Arctica islandica), which are considered Threatened and/or Declining across the North-east
Atlantic by the OSPAR Commission. This species of clam is typically found beneath the
surface of sandy sediments, in water depths from 4m to over 400m. Ocean quahog filter
food from passing currents and use their shovel-like ‘foot’ to bury into the sediment. Ocean
quahog are an important food source for several species of fish, including cod, and can live
buried deep in the sand for long periods of time without food or oxygen to escape predators.
They can live for more than 400 years and are one of the longest living creatures on Earth.
The MPA also protects the full extent of an area of offshore deep sea mud. Muddy
sediments develop in low-energy environments and species found in such habitats are
adapted to life in relatively low-oxygen environments. Deep sea muds support diverse
communities including species such as nephrops, polychaete worms, bivalve molluscs,
brittlestars, foraminifera and seapens. By protecting the full extent of the deep sea mud in
this area, the MPA protects a coherent, rather than fragmented, example of this habitat. This
is one of the few examples of Atlantic-influenced offshore deep sea mud habitats on the
continental shelf in the region. Furthermore, East of Gannet and Montrose Fields NCMPA is
the only MPA designated in the northern North Sea region for the protection of offshore deep
sea muds. The deep sea muds occur in a 2-7 km wide band from the south east to the north
west of the MPA, approximately 100 m deep.
Figure 1. Examples of the features within the East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA
Ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) © Crown Copyright
2014. Image provided by DOENI.
Northern feather stars (Leptometra celtica) on soft
sediment © JNCC and Cefas
Figure 2. East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA site map
2. Protected features and conservation objectives
The East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA has been designated for the following
protected features:
 Offshore deep sea muds
 Ocean quahog aggregations, including sediment areas suitable for their
colonisation (sand and gravel habitat).*
*The protection of ocean quahog requires the protection of its supporting habitat; certain
types of offshore subtidal sands and gravels. Protection of this habitat will be focused on that
required to sustain the ocean quahog (e.g. minimising the alteration of local habitat type in
the region) rather than on conserving the range of species associated with offshore subtidal
sand and gravel habitats per se.
Conservation objectives set out the desired quality of the protected features within each
Nature Conservation MPA. The conservation objectives for the features in the East of
Gannet and Montrose Fields are:
Subject to natural change, conserve the offshore deep sea mud feature in favourable
condition, such that:
 its extent is stable or increasing; and
 its structures and functions, its quality, and the composition of its characteristic
biological communities are such as to ensure that it is in a condition which is healthy
and not deteriorating.
Subject to natural change, conserve the ocean quahog feature in favourable condition,
such that:
 quality and quantity of its habitat is maintained; and
 the composition of its population are such that they ensure that the population is
maintained in numbers which enable it to thrive.
More information regarding the Designation Orders for the East of Gannet and Montrose
Fields MPA is available in the Designation Order.
3. Roles
The role of JNCC is to advise the Scottish Government on management options for the East
of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA. In doing this, JNCC aim is to ensure the conservation
objectives for the protected features are met. Fisheries management in areas outside the
UK’s 12 nautical miles fisheries limit is an exclusive competence of the European Union and
management can only be implemented through the provisions of the Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP).
Marine Scotland will lead discussions on management with stakeholders. They will consider
JNCC’s advice and will lead on the development of specific management measures. They
will be responsible for making recommendations to Scottish Ministers on these measures
and the submission of potential measures to the European Commission.
Stakeholders can provide additional evidence to support the development of management
measures, including local knowledge of the environment and activities. Discussions with
stakeholders will be one way of highlighting the implications of any management options to
both JNCC and Scottish Government. This will contribute to the development of welldesigned and effective management measures.
4. Effects of fishing on the features
JNCC have prepared feature specific fisheries management guidance1 providing advice on
the impact various fishing activities may have on features in Scotland’s seas. Further
information regarding the sensitivity of the protected features to fishing activity is provided
within the Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool (FeAST).
4.1 Mobile bottom contact gear
Studies have shown that areas of mud habitats (which includes offshore deep sea mud)
subject to mobile fishing activity may support a modified biological community with lower
diversity, reduction or loss of long-lived filter-feeding species and increased abundance of
opportunistic scavengers (Ball et al., 2000; Tuck et al., 2000). This effect was greatest in the
more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that impact is related to the intensity of fishing
(Ball et al., 2000). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is
produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006).
Evidence suggests that ocean quahog can be caught or damaged by beam trawls
(Witbaard and Klein 1994; Klein & Witbaard 1993), with an individual pass of the gear
causing around 20% mortality (Bergman and van Santbrink 2000). Population density has
been found to be inversely related to beam trawling effort (Craeymeersch et al, 2000).
There is insufficient evidence to assess the mortality at a population level caused by otter
trawling on ocean quahog. No evidence was found on the effects of shellfish dredging.
However, the physical effects of scallop dredging on seabed sediments are similar to those
of beam trawls (penetration to depths >5cm) and so the effects on ocean quahog are likely
to be similar. Hydraulic gears penetrate sediments more deeply than other gears and so
could be expected to cause a greater mortality, particularly where ocean quahog is the target
species (although there is no known direct exploitation of the species in this country).
4.2 Static bottom contact gear
None of the protected features within the site are considered sensitive to static gear activity.
Studies on the impacts of pots on seapens have shown limited adverse effect on seapens
from a ‘single’ fishing operation (Eno et al., 1996; Eno et al., 2001; Kinnear et al., 1996).
However, the extent of damage and the impacts of repeated exposure to these types of
fishing gear at high levels of fishing activity are less well understood (Eno et al., 2001; Adey,
2007).
If static fishing activity is low, direct impact on habitat is likely to be minimal and seabed
structure is likely to be maintained in a slightly modified state (Adey, 2007). Nephrops may
be an important component of the benthic community so fisheries that greatly alter its
abundance or size composition may be seen to have a negative impact.
5. Development of management options
A range of options are available to managers, which differ in the degree of restriction they
would place on fishing operations and the risk they would pose to the achievement of the
conservation objectives. Three broad categories of possible management are considered
below and further elaborated in Tables 3 and 4.
For each of these broad management categories, we have evaluated the level of risk posed
to the achievement of the conservation objectives. It is not generally possible to quantify the
1
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6498
degree of risk posed by each management option; however we have indicated in Tables 1
and 2, where we consider that a risk exists, where it would be ‘significant’, and where it
would be reduced by application of management. In most cases we have not recommended
a single preferred option but would advise that fisheries managers and stakeholders
consider the identified levels of risk when further developing management measures.
Risks were evaluated using existing data and information on protected features and relevant
activities, and also our understanding of the relationships between the feature and relevant
activities. Our identification of the risk has been refined using available information on the
interaction between the features and activities where this is available (see section 4). The
text focuses on interactions in terms of physical overlap but the assessment of risk in future
should also take account of the intensity and frequency of activities within the NCMPA.
A gradient of management options has been considered. These have been described under
three potential management option categories:
a) No additional management - where fisheries managers choose to apply no additional
site specific fisheries management within the site
b) Additional management to reduce pressures – where fisheries managers may wish to
consider a range of measures that could be used to reduce the risk to features by
managing fishing activity. These could include:
-
Area restrictions (permanently closing some or all of the feature’s area)
Gear restrictions (e.g. restricting use of the more damaging gears)
Ideally, any measures would generally apply only to the parts of the sites where the
feature is present. However, there may be some circumstances in which it could be
desirable to extend management measures beyond the known area of feature
distribution, for example, where conditions are suitable for a feature to exist but there are
insufficient data to confirm its presence.
In situations where there is high uncertainty regarding the impacts of fishing on the
features, these management measures could be “adaptive” i.e. changes in the features’
condition following introduction of managing measures will be monitored and future
management may be modified accordingly.
c) Additional management to remove pressures – where fishing activities known to
adversely affect the feature would be excluded. Such exclusion would generally apply
only to the parts of the sites where the feature is present, although it may occasionally be
necessary to apply them to a wider area.
We recognise that stakeholders can provide local environmental knowledge and more
detailed information on activities, including distribution and intensity of effort, frequency of
activity, and fishing methods employed. This additional information will help us to develop
more specific management measures, focused on interactions between features and
activities.
6. Overview of activities
Table 2. Overview of existing fishing activities believed to take place within or close to the
East of Gannet and Montrose Fields NCMPA
Activities considered capable of affecting
the protected features
Fishing activities:


Otter trawling
Demersal seine netting
Activities not considered capable of
affecting the protected features
Fishing activities:
 Pelagic trawling and purse seining
7. Management options
Table 3: Management options for mobile bottom contact gear
Management
option
Risk to achieving the conservation objectives
Option 1: No
additional
management
There is a risk of not achieving the conservation objectives for ocean
quahog aggregations and offshore deep sea muds.
Option 2:
Reduce/limit
pressures
This option would reduce, but not entirely eliminate, the risk of not achieving
the conservation objectives for offshore deep sea muds and ocean
quahog aggregations. Appropriate management for ocean quahog could
include restrictions on gears known to impact the species, such as scallop and
hydraulic dredging. Appropriate management for offshore deep sea muds
could include closure of a proportion of the area where the feature occurs to
damaging gears. Restrictions could be permanent in some cases or
temporary/adaptive in others. The location of areas to be covered by
management restrictions would be decided in consultation with fishers.
Option 3:
This option would reduce the risk of not achieving the conservation
Remove/avoid objectives for offshore deep sea muds and ocean quahog aggregations
pressures
to the lowest possible levels.
Table 4: Management options for static bottom contact gear:
Management
option
Risk to achieving the conservation objectives
Option 1: No
additional
management
It is unlikely that any additional management of static gear activities will be
required, as the risk of not achieving the conservation objectives for
offshore deep sea muds and ocean quahog aggregations associated
with these activities is minimal. Static gear activity is not believed to take
place within the MPA at the current time; however, if it were to start and
monitoring showed evidence of detrimental effects, it may be necessary to
apply limits in the future.
8. Conclusions
Fisheries management measures for the East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA will be
developed through discussion with stakeholders. Discussions will focus on our
understanding of the features and the likely risks to the designated features where there are
interactions with fishing activities. Based on the options presented here, it is hoped that a
preferred set of management measures will be recommended. This will form the basis of
management measure proposals to be submitted to the EU under the Common Fisheries
Policy.
9. Further information
The following documents relevant to the East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA are
available:
 The Site Summary Document, Detailed Assessment against the MPA Selection
Guidelines, Data Confidence Assessment and Management Options Paper are all
available on the East of Gannet page on the JNCC website
 Offshore deep-sea muds Fisheries Management Guidance document
 Draft Ocean quahog Fisheries Management Guidance document
10. References
Adey, 2007. Aspects of the sustainability of creel fishing for Norway lobster, Nephrops
norvegicus (L. ), on the west coast of Scotland. Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, to the
Faculty of Biomedical & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow.
Ball, B.J., Fox, G. and Munday, B.W. 2000. Long- and short-term consequences of a
Nephrops trawl fishery on the benthos and environment of the Irish Sea. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, 57: 1315–1320.
Bergmann, M.J.N. and Van Santbrink, J.W. 2000. Fishing mortality and populations of
megafauna in sandy sediments. In: Kaiser M.J. and de Groot S.J. (eds.) Effects of fishing on
non-target species and habitats. Blackwell, Oxford.
Craeymeersch, J.A., Piet, G.T., Rijnsdorp, A.D. & Buijs, J., (2000). Distribution of
macrofauna in relation to the micro-distribution of trawling effort. In Effects of Fishing on
Non-Target Species and Habitats, (ed. M.J. Kaiser & S.J de Groot), pp.187-197. Oxford:
Blackwell Science.
Eno, N, C., MacDonald, D, A., Kinnear, J. A. M., Amos, C. S., Chapman, C, J., Clark, R. A.,
Bunker, F., and Munro, C. 2001. Effects of Crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 58: 11-20.
Eno, N. C., MacDonald, D. S., and Amos, S. C. (eds) 1996. A study on the effects of fish
(Crustacea/Mollusc) traps on benthic habitats and species. King’s Lynn. Eastern Sea
Fisheries Joint Committee. Report to the European Commission Directorate General XIV,
Study Contract No.94/076.
Foden, J., Rogers, S.I. and Jones, A.P. 2010. Recovery of UK seabed habitats from benthic
fishing and aggregate extraction- towards a cumulative impact assessment. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 411: 259–270.
Hiddink, JG, Jennings, S, Kaiser, M. J, Queirós, AM, Duplisea, DE and Piet, G. J (2006)
Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production, and
species richness in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
63 (4). pp. 721-736. ISSN 0706-652X.
Hughes, D. J., 1998. Sea pens and burrowing megafauna (vol. III): an overview of dynamics
and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of Marine SACs. Scottish
Association of Marine Science (UK Marine SAC’s Project), 105 pp.
Kinnear, J.A.M., Barkel, P.J., Mojseiwicz, W.R., Chapman, C.J., Holbrow, A.J., Barnes, C. &
Greathead, C.F.F., 1996. Effects of Nephrops creels on the environment. Fisheries
Research Services Report No. 2/96.
Klein, R. and Witbaard, R. 1993. The appearance of scars on the shell of Arctica islandica L.
(mollusca, Bivalvia) and their relation to bottom trawl fishery. NIOZ-rapport, 1993(12).
Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek der Zee: Den Burg. 28 pp
Tuck, I. D., Hall, S. J., Robertson, M. R., Armstrong, E. and Basford, D. J., 1998. Effects of
physical trawling disturbance in a previously unfished sheltered Scottish sea loch. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 162: 227-242.
Witbaard, R., and Klein, R. (1994). Long-term trends on the effects of the southern North
Sea beamtrawl fishery on the bivalve mollusc Arctica islandica L. (Mollusca, bivalvia). ICES
Journal o f Marine Science 51, 99-105.