MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING PILOT SCENARIO 2: MARINE · PDF fileMARINE SPATIAL PLANNING PILOT SCENARIO 2: MARINE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION (Final) MSPP Consortium, November 2005 MSPP Consortium

MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING

PILOT

SCENARIO 2: MARINE AGGREGATE

EXTRACTION (Final)

MSPP Consortium, November 2005MSPP Consortium 12/08/05 v1.0 1

1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this scenario is to use information within the Irish Sea Regional Plan to identify preferred locations for marine aggregate extraction activities in the plan area which minimise conflict with other current and future use-related activities. 2. POLICY AND TARGETS FOR MARINE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION The goals and objectives for the marine aggregates sector have been identified through consideration of the policies for the UK (as specified within MMG1 and MPG6), policies for the devolved administrations (Interim Marine Aggregate dredging policy and MTAN1, Wales; regional planning guidance (RPG) for North West England RPG13; and the RPG for North Wales, and based on guidelines (or ‘working aims’ for supply of aggregates from marine sources, where these were available. Additionally, informal consultation with industry companies indicated that the tonnages sourced from the Irish Sea area were anticipated to increase over the next 10 years. Although no actual targets for marine-sourced aggregates exist for the area, nor indeed for the rest of the UK generally, a working aim of supplying 4 million tonnes of marine aggregate to North West Aggregate Planning Region between 2001 to 2016) is made within the National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregate Production in England 2001-2016. Additionally, RPG13 states an aim of supplying 467,000 tonnes p.a. of marine won sand and gravel by 2006. Land-based sources of natural sand and gravel are generally in decline in NW England, and marine aggregate landings have increased in recent years from 359,136t in 2000 to 653,871t in 2004. The industry has opened new wharves at Barrow-in-Furness, Heysham and Garston over this period and the upward trend in landings is expected to continue. There is considerable scope, in terms of demand, for increased production, and one industry prediction is for marine-won aggregate supply to double present supply to over 1.2 million tonnes/year by 2015. Current licensed areas are considered to be capable of supplying demand over the next few years, but additional areas will be required if the industry is to satisfy anticipated demand in the period beyond this. Aggregate extraction can only occur where resources of sands and gravels of economically exploitable volume and quality occur naturally and as such, the industry is potentially susceptible to the sterilization of such resources through developments or spatial allocation of seabed to other sectoral interests. It is therefore important to identify areas of good aggregate resource which can be safeguarded from sterilization by other activities in order to guarantee future supply. For the purposes of the MSP Pilot study, a draft policy for the marine aggregates sector has been developed and is presented below. 3. MSPP POLICY FOR MARINE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION The supply of marine aggregate to the North West Aggregate Planning Region will be maintained, with rates of production subject to review of national and regional requirements and market demand. Existing locations of aggregate extraction will be protected, where this remains consistent with the principles of sustainable development and subject to monitoring information demonstrating

MSPP Consortium 12/08/05 v1.0 2

the acceptability of impacts. Areas for potential future supply and areas subject to current licence applications will be safeguarded against developments which would potentially sterilise the mineral resource. 4. DEFINITION OF TARGET For the purposes of this study, a target for marine aggregate production from the pilot study area has been developed. As no official targets exist for the Irish Sea area, the estimate has been based on the predicted doubling of aggregate production to NW wharves over the next 10 years. The allocation of sufficient sea bed area to facilitate this increase in production has been made based on the assumption that the areas identified for potential future exploitation can deliver the same tonnage per unit area as current production areas. It is acknowledged that this may not be the case in reality, licence areas each potentially being unique in terms of production rates etc. However, in lieu of any more detailed information on the quality and depth of resource, or the period over which the resource areas can be worked, both in terms of economic viability and within the remit of limiting any adverse environmental impacts, this is considered to be an acceptable assumption at this stage. Currently, a total of 55.99km2 of seabed is licensed for aggregate extraction within the study area. This does not, however, represent the area from which production occurs as not all of the seabed within the licensed area is dredged. This may be due to a number of reasons including zoning of the licensed area to avoid particular areas, for example a wreck site, or zoning for the focussed extraction of resource from areas within the licensed block which provide the best quality resource. The area of active extraction may change over the period of the licence or, resource and extraction rate permitting, may remain within one general region of the license block for the duration of the license. Currently, extraction takes place over an active dredge area of 19.91km2 within the total (55.99km2) licensed area (although the area actually dredged in 2004 was only 2.66km2). The total production from these sites is taken as being that landed at North West wharves, most recent (2004) figures being 653,871 tonnes. Based on the size of the active dredge area and a production rate equivalent to the 2004 value, the long term annual average production from each unit area would be 32,841 tonnes per km2 per year. It is recognised that this is a simplification (for example in 2004, based on the area actually dredged, extraction would equate to 245,816t per km2 per year) but for long-term planning purposes and in the absence of more detailed information, it is reasonable to assume that the long-term intensity of extraction in new areas will probably be similar to existing areas. Assuming for the purposes of this scenario, that this relationship between area and production is constant, an active dredged area of approximately 36.5km2 would therefore be required in order to extract aggregates at a rate of 1.2 million tonnes/year. Assuming a similar relationship between licensed and actively dredged areas as exists currently for area, the total area to be licensed might be approximately 103 km2. 5. ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions have been made for the current scenario testing for the Marine Aggregates Sector:

• Dredging depth capacity of dredging vessels currently in the area <35m1 • One cargo is supplied per tide (i.e. max 12 hour cycle time per cargo).


• From the above cargo cycle-time constraint, maximum distance of resource from wharf is assumed to be approximately 70km.

• Demand will double between 2005-2015, with more modest growth for the continuing period 2015-2025 resulting in a target production capacity from the study area of 1.2 million tonnes/year over the plan period.

• Resource areas are located within seabed areas identified from BGS data as sandy gravel, gravelly sand or slightly gravelly sand.

• Larger vessels with increased cargo capacities, and therefore longer sustainable cargo-cycles (with increased economic distance to port), could be employed in the area if sufficient demand and resource were identified as being economic. For example, a 5000t vessel could double (or more) the transit distance possible, based on 1 cargo every 24/36 hour period – as occurs elsewhere round the country.

Notes: 1 For the purposes of identifying future resource areas, a depth limit of 40m has been used in order to provide for future space allocation based on the presumption that larger vessel uses may become economically sustainable in the area. It is recognised that the use of larger vessels could open up potential aggregate resources out to the 60m contour. Further evaluation of potential aggregate resources between the 40m and 60m contours could be undertaken to explore the relative constraints associated with extraction further offshore. It should be noted that these assumptions have been made for the purposes of this scenario testing only. In particular, it must be highlighted that the BGS data is very general and, of itself, does not provide a sufficient basis on which to make allocations for safeguarding aggregate resources. There are also many additional factors which may come into play in the future for the marine aggregate sector including vessel size, which can influence both the dredging depth capacity and the distance from the point of unloading which is economically sustainable, thus bringing resources further offshore, or in marginally deeper water, into viable exploitation, improvements in technology, and increased (or decreased) demand for marine-sourced aggregate. This list, though not exhaustive, provides an indication of the relative uncertainty which must currently be associated with the sector. 6. TECHNOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS The economic supply of aggregates is a consequence of market demand against the economies of scale available for supply. For example, it is economic to supply 5000t of marine aggregate over 200km away from the point of production, but not 500t. The size of vessel capacity will dictate the distance over which the material dredged can be economically transported. If the resources are close to the market and the demand is relatively low (as in the Irish Sea) then the vessels employed will also be small. Currently within the Irish Sea study area, economic aggregate production is achievable on small vessels supplying one cargo per tide. This 12 hour cycle time includes transit to the licence area, loading, return to port and discharging of the cargo on the following high tide. As stated above, the use of larger vessels make the extension of cargo-cycle time economic, for example the use of larger vessels (5000-8000 tonnes capacity), as employed in the North Sea, result in companies being able to sustain 36 hour cycle times, as opposed to 12 hours for smaller vessels. While the marine aggregate sector is a mature industry, established over more than 30 years and generally has a good deal of information on resources within the marine environment, knowledge of resources in the Irish Sea is limited. The most comprehensive data on the general distribution of seabed sediments is held by BGS. While these data can indicate, in


general terms, areas that may be attractive for aggregate exploitation, more subtle factors, such as the distribution of specific qualities of resource, for example coarse sand, normally govern locational choice. The majority of marine aggregate extraction occurs in waters of less than 30m, though larger vessels do have the capacity to dredge in depths of 50-60m. Additionally the technology exists within the capital dredging industry to dredge at depths of 100m or more. There are practical limitations, however, due to the economics of using larger vessels, or the operational limitations for large vessels, i.e. due to lack of port/wharf access for large vessels, which limit extraction activities to small vessels. In the Irish Sea area, dredging vessels are limited to smaller vessels with a maximum dredging depth capacity of 35m. Should larger vessels become economic in the area, however, as a result of larger wharf provision and/or the identification of valuable resources further offshore, the potential depth for economic aggregate extraction also increases, making deposits in, for example 40m, economically viable to exploit. Aggregate production can only take place where the resources are naturally present. In this respect, the spatial footprint or extent of the industry is limited by the geological distribution of the resource. Additional specific considerations for successful (economic) exploitation of areas within the Irish Sea include provision of wharf area for discharge of cargo. For example, although the use of a larger vessel may not preclude entrance to a port, the wharf and wharf infrastructure is often tailored to the vessel currently using it, hence modification of wharf facilities, or even relocation of the wharf may be necessary to accommodate larger vessels and increased cargo volume deliveries. 7. CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY OTHER USES The map of aggregate resource within the Irish Sea pilot area was developed following discussion with BMAPA and industry representatives. Potential limiting factors, including depth of resource and distance to port/wharf for unloading of aggregate were used in order to determine the areas of aggregate resource which could potentially be safeguarded for future exploitation, including consideration of the constraints of the industry noted above. As insufficient data from the industry was available with regard to sites offering economically exploitable resource, for the purposes of this study aggregate resource areas have been identified with reference to the geological data maps produced by the British Geological Survey (BGS), available as BGS charts. For this study, digital BGS chart data have been used (DiGSBS250 for the Irish Sea). This data is at a very low level of resolution (both seismic coverage and sample data) compared to the investigations undertaken by industry, therefore extreme caution should be used when relying upon this information to define potential resource areas. Currently, aggregate extraction within the study area is undertaken on grounds comprising either gravelly sand (Area 392/393 and Area 331 (part)) or sandy gravel (Area 331 (part)). It is reasonable to assume that since these are the resources currently exploited in the study area, the provision of future, safeguarded, areas for future supply will also be focussed on similar resources within the region. Consequently, the process of identification of resources has been made for these two general seabed types, with the addition of ‘slightly gravelly sand’. Other


resources may also be exploitable within the area, but in general any seabed areas identified as containing significant proportions of fine sediments (muds, silts or clays) are considered unsuitable for extraction. Once the areas of potentially economic aggregate resource had been identified, the available spatial data, collated during the MSPP project, was overlain to investigate the other sectoral areas/constraints which occupy, or had potential issues for, these aggregate resource areas. Each sectoral use map was sequentially overlaid on the aggregate resource map and areas of intersection were marked. In the first instance, all sectoral uses were considered in order to investigate whether any cells would remain free of constraint following the even-handed application of spatial allocation for existing use, without recourse to prioritisation protocols to arbitrate conflicting demands at a given location. The following section illustrates the approach taken in the establishment of the locations of least constraint for the provision of areas for exploitation of aggregate resources within the study area. Figure 1 below shows the areas identified as being both within the physical and logistical constraints of the industry and offering potentially viable aggregate resource. The assumptions used in the selection of these areas are given above. It is recognised that alternative criteria may be used for site selection, but the environmental requirements used in this scenario test are considered to be broadly in-line with the requirements of the industry as currently understood. However, operational, commercial and policy drivers can change rapidly, for example, as has been experienced in South Wales where dredging activity is relocating from nearshore banks to offshore deepwater (50m+) sand deposits. Seabed areas comprised of gravelly sands occur widely within the study area off the coasts of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, with the most extensive areas located off the coast of North Wales and west of the coast of England in the southern half of the study area (see Figure 1). The current licence areas outside those located within the Liverpool Bay area are all generally sited on this resource type, although areas of sandy gravel are also targeted within these licensed grounds. It should be noted that although areas of potential resource occur within the territorial seas around the Isle of Man, these areas have been removed from this scenario run as the Isle of Man has been excluded from the Pilot Study.


Figure 1 Distribution of Gravelly Sands resource within the Study Area The occurrence of sandy gravel is also fairly widespread, often occurring adjacent to the gravelly sand areas identified. The most extensive areas of sandy gravel occur off the coast of North Wales, though substantial areas off Luce Bay, Scotland are also apparent. Figure 2 presents the spatial distribution of this resource within the study area.

Figure 2 Distribution of Sandy Gravel resource within the Study Area


There is also widespread occurrence of slightly gravelly sands within the study area, with the most extensive areas again occurring off the coast of North West England and North Wales, though substantial areas are also evident off the coasts of Scotland and Northern Ireland (Figure 3)

Figure 3 Distribution of Slightly Gravelly Sand resource within the Study Area Figure 4, below, indicates the distribution of these three seabed types within the study area and shows the locations of existing licensed areas. Also included in this figure is an area currently subject to an application for aggregate dredging.


Figure 4 Base Map showing combined distribution of Sandy Gravel, Gravelly

Sand and Slightly Gravelly Sand aggregate resource within the Study Area.

The areas of seabed types which generally satisfy the resource type criteria were then delimited according to depth constraints for the industry. Although the current working maximum for ships currently working the licensed grounds within the Irish Sea are limited to a maximum dredging depth of 35m, the areas have been delimited by the 40m contour allowing for the potential use of larger vessels, with associated increased dredging depth capacity, in order to provide for some future exploitation. Although it is recognised that this is out-with current practice, one of the principles of marine spatial planning will be the safeguarding of areas for possible future exploitation, so this was considered to be a reasonable step to take at the present time. {As noted previously, the introduction of larger vessels would also open up aggregate resources out to 60m contour]. The areas of these three seabed types, boundaried by the 40m contour are presented below in Figure 5. It is against this baseline of potentially exploitable resource that the process of constraint mapping within the study area for the marine aggregates sector was then carried out.


Figure 5 Base Map showing study area and locations of potential aggregate

resource satisfying selection criteria of <40m depth. Each map of other sectoral use within the study area was then overlaid in turn to highlight the points at which the aggregate resource areas and other sectoral use areas were coincident, or indicated an overlap which comprised a conspicuous constraint to the extraction of marine sand and gravel at a given location. The order of the following sections is not intended to infer any priority in the importance or significance of the sectors. The Figure below (Figure 6) shows the location of designated Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) within the study area. When this GIS layer is superimposed upon the resource areas it is evident that there are protected sea areas which intersect various areas of seabed which are noted as comprising potentially suitable aggregate resource.


Figure 6 Locations of SACs within the Study Area, showing intersection with

potential aggregate resource areas. The inshore limits of areas of potential resource, for example to the west of Anglesey, are clearly within an area designated as an SAC and are thus considered to be subject to constraint. Similarly, small patches of potential resource are located within the SAC area within the Solway Firth. The identification of this spatial constraint allows the potential aggregate resource areas to be highlighted where other sectoral pressures (in this case SAC designation) would make application for aggregate extraction rights more difficult, and these zones are systematically removed from the total potential resource area. In this manner, the areas of least constraint can be identified. The following figure (Figure 7) shows the areas identified as being subject to military activities within the study area.


Figure 7 Locations of military danger, practice and exercise zones within the

Study Area, showing intersection with potential aggregate resource areas

Again, there are clear areas of overlap apparent with regard to the various areas subject to constraint from military activities. Perhaps of greatest note in this example are the MOD Danger Areas located within Luce Bay and offshore of Abbey Head, Scotland. These areas potentially sterilize the resource grounds at these locations and so the majority of the potential aggregate grounds in these areas is removed in order to focus in on less constrained zones. Interestingly, the area identified as a firing range offshore of the Cumbrian coast (Eskmeals range) encompasses an existing (and active) aggregate production area, Area 331. Evidently there is scope for ‘multiple use’ between these two activities in this area and this provides a good example of one of the aims of marine spatial planning, that of allocating areas where possible to allow for non-conflicting multiple use where practical. The successive overlaying of sectoral use maps on the base map of aggregate resource areas resulted in an increasing percentage of these areas being selected as potentially limited in terms of providing opportunity for extraction licensing. Figure 8 illustrates the resource areas intersected by renewable energy developments.


Figure 8 Locations of Renewable Energy developments (existing and potential)

within the Study Area, showing intersection with potential aggregate resource areas

The resource areas intersected by SAC designation, MOD danger areas and renewable energy projects were combined to produce a cumulative constraints map, highlighting resource areas potentially sterilized by these three sectoral uses. This initial ’combined constraints’ map is presented below in Figure 9.


Figure 9 Combined constraints map (SAC designations, MOD Danger Areas and

Renewable Energy Projects). This process was undertaken for each of the sectoral use maps, each being used to identify areas where existing uses of the sea potentially precluded the allocation of sea areas for the exploitation of aggregate resources. Adding cultural heritage sites to the resource map showed a number of locations intersecting with potential aggregate resource areas. The data on location of wreck sites has not, in this instance, been limited to sites with protected wrecks (and exclusion zones), but includes all listed wreck sites. The aggregates industry commonly deals with restrictions regarding wreck sites within licence areas, with buffer zones established around the wreck sites to avoid unnecessary disturbance. This being the case for future licensing, it has been assumed that the presence of a wreck site within the general vicinity of a potential aggregate resource area will not automatically preclude dredging activities, although effort has been made to avoid particularly dense areas of wrecks. Wreck sites with protected status have been totally avoided. The occurrence of wreck sites is presented in Figure 10 below.


Figure 10 Locations of wreck sites within the study area The process of overlaying constraints continued with the inclusion of the following sectors:

• Submarine Cables • Geological and Nature Conservation • Fishing • Fish Nursery and Spawning Grounds • Mariculture • Marine Recreation (part) • Military Activities • Oil and Gas Exploration/Production • Oil and Gas Interconnectors • Ports and Navigation • Renewable Energy • Potential offshore Natura 2000 sites (Annex I habitats and Liverpool Bay SPA)

The inclusion of these constraints enabled the production of a map of areas which were identified as being subject to low constraint and were thus deemed to be preferred areas for potential marine aggregate extraction. When all sectoral interests were overlaid on the aggregate resource area map, it was apparent that there were no areas which are currently totally free from other use constraint. This is largely a result of the high level of use characterising the Irish Sea area. The inclusion of sectoral constraints such as ‘areas for general recreational sailing’ and ‘demersal trawling areas’ led to the obvious identification of entire areas of inshore seabed for species such as Plaice and Herring. These sectoral uses, though of importance for each specific sector, occur over very wide areas (as evidenced by the ‘blanket’ selection of the inshore areas). There is


thus no definite limitation to the areas available for these activities to continue, within certain constraints including areas where the fish are present and economic distance to port and so on. The wide area over which such activities occur, therefore, allow a degree of flexibility in determining whether there is scope for zoning of such activities away from specific areas (which represent a minor proportion of the total area available for exploitation by the sectors in question) in order to provide small areas of sea for sectors which are geographically constrained by the occurrence of resource, in this case, suitable sea bed type. With regard to the marine recreation sector, some aspects were excluded in the initial mapping exercise, specifically General Recreational Sailing areas, Recreational Cruising routes and RYA Racing areas, as, in common with the fishing sector, these areas over which such activities occur are very wide ranging, predominantly within the nearshore zone. One additional constraint was added for the purposes of this exercise, that of distance from port/wharf. It has been assumed that areas of approximately equal distance from wharf locations in the area to those currently worked will be acceptable for future area. It is likely that should larger vessels be brought to work in the Irish Sea, thus allowing exploitation of resources at marginally greater depths than those currently worked (increase from 35 to 40m depth), then the greater cargo capacity, and thus the longer economic cargo cycle times applicable, will allow greater flexibility in terms of cargo discharge locations (i.e. resources further from port will be economic to exploit). With the fishing and recreational constraints omitted and the distance constraints applied, the following map of areas of least constraint for provision of exploitable aggregate resource was produced (Figure 11).

Figure 11 Resource areas identified as having ‘least constraint’ for provision of

future marine aggregate dredging licensing together with areas currently licensed (or applied for).


From this map it is evident that scope for provision of aggregate extraction exists even with areas discounted as a result of sectoral interests and constraints, though the areas are perhaps less extensive than might have been assumed from the initial stages of the mapping where large areas of potentially suitable seabed type were identified extending across wide areas of seabed. In total, the areas identified comprise some 228km2. It is acknowledged that these area estimates do not currently take into consideration the actual resource which may or may not be suitable for economic commercial extraction. Detailed site investigation works would be required prior to the initiation of the licence application procedure and actual production phase, and such a level of detail for actual site selection within even relatively well defined areas would be beyond the remit of any marine spatial plan. Description of ‘conflicts’ within the aggregate resource areas identified. The following table indicates areas of conflict for each of the sectors where an overlap in terms of sea area occurred for the three seabed types considered.


Seabed Type Sector Conflict Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Slightly Gravelly Sand Cables Intersection with various telecoms cables (Fibre-optic)

Intersection with various telecoms cables (Fibre-optic) Intersection with various telecoms cables (Fibre-optic)

Cultural Heritage Intersection (& proximity to further) wrecks

Intersection (& proximity to further) wrecks Intersection with (& proximity to further) wrecks

Fisheries Intersection with Cod, Haddock, Herring, Plaice, Roker, Skate, Saihte, Sole and Whiting, grounds.

Intersection with Cod, Haddock, Herring, Plaice, Roker, Skate, Sole and Whiting grounds.

Intersection with Cod, Haddock, Herring, Plaice, Roker, Skate, Sole, and Whiting grounds.

Geol/Nature Conservation Overlap with SAC designations, SPA Areas, and Ramsar sites. Intersection with Scare Rocks SSSI

Overlap with SAC designations, SPA Areas, and Ramsar Sites. Intersection with Scare Rocks SSSI

Overlap with SAC designations, SPA Areas and Ramsar Sites. Intersection with Scare Rocks SSSI

Potential N2K Sites(Offshore) Partial overlap with area of potential Annex I Sand Bank habitat east of the IOM

Partial overlap with area of potential Annex I Sand Bank habitat east of the IOM

Partial overlap with area of potential Annex I Sand Bank habitat east of the IOM

Mariculture

Military Activities Intersection with MOD Danger Areas within Luce Bay. Partial intersection with exercise areas at Luce Bay Bombing/Air to Air Firing, Partial intersection with Eskmeals firing range area (Cumbria) Intersection with Ardglass and Peel practice areas for submarines, aircraft and ships

Intersection with MOD Danger Areas within Luce Bay, offshore of Wigtown Bay, Scotland and offshore of Drigg Point, Cumbria. Partial intersection with exercise areas at Luce Bay Bombing/Air to Air Firing, Partial intersection with Firing, demolition firing (Kircudbright) Partial intersection with Eskmeals firing range area (Cumbria) Intersection with Ardglass and Peel practice areas for submarines, aircraft and ships

Intersection with MOD Danger Areas within Luce Bay, offshore of Wigtown Bay, Scotland and offshore of Drigg Point, Cumbria Intersection with exercise areas at Luce Bay Bombing/Air to Air Firing, Partial intersection with Firing, demolition firing (Kircudbright) Partial intersection with Eskmeals firing range area (Cumbria) Intersection with Ardglass and Peel practice areas for submarines, aircraft and ships

Oil & Gas Exploration/Production Intersection with various exploration and production wells.

Intersection with Douglas Oil field, and Hamilton Gas Field Various exploration and production wells

Intersection with Asland, Calder, Dalton, Hamilton, and Lennox Gas fields, and with Lennox and Douglas Oil fields Various exploration and production wells

Oil & Gas Interconnectors/ Pipelines Intersection with interconnectors off Wigtown Bay (Gas) Intersection with Hamilton/ Douglas Complex (Oil and

Intersection with Hamilton/ Douglas Complex (Oil and Gas)

Intersection with Burlington Gas connectors (to Barrow), and Hamilton/ Douglas Complex (Oil and Gas)


Seabed Type Sector Conflict Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Slightly Gravelly Sand

Gas) Ports & Navigation Intersection with Traffic Separation Scheme off

Anglesey Intersection with High Speed Craft Areas off Luce Bay, Area south east of IOM and west of Anglesey Intersection and proximity to shipping routes

Intersection and proximity to Shipping Route Intersection with Mersey Docks and Harbour limits Intersection with High Speed Craft Areas off Luce Bay, Area south east of IOM, and west of Anglesey

Intersection and proximity to Shipping Route Intersection with Mersey Docks and Harbour limits

Renewables Intersection with potential tidal stream device placements off Anglesey, and Luce Bay Intersection with Rhyll Flats and North Hoyle Offshore Wind Farms (Round I

Intersection with potential tidal stream device placements off Luce Bay Intersection with Gwynt-y-Mor Round II Offshore Wind Farm, Rhyll Flats OWF (Round I)

Intersection with potential tidal stream device placements off Luce Bay Intersection with Burbo Bank Offshore Wind Farm (Round I) Rhyll Flats OWF (Round I), Intersection with Gwynt-y-Mor Round II Offshore Wind Farm

Recreation Intersection with recreational Sailing area, RYA Racing areas and recreational Cruising route(s)

Intersection with recreational Sailing area, RYA Racing areas and recreational Cruising route(s)

Intersection with recreational Sailing area, RYA Racing areas and recreational Cruising route(s)

Dredging and Disposal Intersection with disposal grounds

Intersection with disposal grounds

Intersection with disposal grounds

Table 1 Identified Constraints


The map of resource areas with least constraint was built upon the conflicts identified in the tables above, and following the process described in the earlier sections with the omission of the Fishing sector and Marine Recreation layers as noted previously. These issues are discussed below. When the fishing activity layers are overlaid on the resource map, the majority of fisheries show intersection largely as a result of the wide area of sea bed included in the general ‘sandy gravel, gravelly sand and slightly gravelly sand’ descriptive classes. In terms of the areas identified for potential future provision, however, the intersection of sectoral constraints is more specific. There is overlap between cod fishing grounds and the aggregate resource areas to the east of the Isle of Man. This intersection includes the current active licence area 331. The allocation of space for aggregate resource exploitation would result in a reduction in total cod ground area of some 102km2, representing approximately 0.8% of the total 12,630km2 area available for cod fishing within the Irish Sea. A smaller area, approximately 80km2, of Haddock fishing ground is also affected, at the same locations as the Cod ground intersections, which could represent a reduction in haddock ground of approximately 2.3%. Herring grounds occupy much of the inshore zone to the east of the study area, in addition to inshore areas off the southern parts of the coast of Northern Ireland. Intersection of these areas occurs only in the vicinity of the existing licence block 392/393 north of Mostyn. The area concerned is very small in comparison with the total area of herring fishing ground, amounting to some 21km2 from a total of 9,821km2 of marked fishing ground (approximately 0.2%). Plaice fishing grounds again intersect with the aggregate resource areas, in fact all of the areas are contained within the broad inshore areas identified as ‘plaice grounds’, as are all of the existing licensed grounds. The percentage again is very small, being marginally in excess of 1.4%. Whiting grounds could be reduced by up to 2.1%, with Sole grounds potentially be reduced by 2.3% should the areas identified for aggregate resource exploitation be safeguarded. A higher proportion of areas fished for Skate and Roker would be affected, amounting to around 3%, though this would still be considered as representing a minor proportion of the total fisheries resource available for the exploitation of these species. It is important to note that all of these area estimates are the maximum areas that would be affected over the lifetime of the extraction site and that in any given year a much smaller area of the resource would be affected, because only a small proportion of the active dredge area is dredged in any given year. It is recognised that some areas within marked fishing grounds for various species may be more important, or more productive, than others and also that not all fishing fleets have equal access to all fishing grounds, i.e. fishermen based in Fleetwood are unlikely to fish grounds off Luce Bay, Scotland. Discussion with fishermen and fishing organisations would be required, therefore, prior to the allocation of any areas for marine aggregate exploitation within fishing areas to ensure any adverse effects on individuals or on specific sites of primary importance to the industry are minimised. However, on the basis of the generally small proportions of wide ranging fishing grounds which are anticipated to be affected in order to safeguard areas for aggregate resource exploitation, it is considered likely that there is sufficient scope to allocate these relatively discrete areas. Resource areas identified as conflicting with marine recreational activities have been included within areas safeguarded for aggregate extraction activities at this stage. It is likely that the allocation of some of these areas for multiple use will be possible, as the working of dredgers in an areas would not necessarily preclude the use of the area for recreational sailing. The same


caveat for this sector would be applicable as that used for the fishing sector interests, that is should any of the resource areas which overlap with recreational use be considered to be sterilizing a prime area for recreation, the proposed area could be modified to take account of recreational sailing needs. In developing preferred locations for marine aggregate dredging, we have also been mindful of the potential for designation of offshore Natura 2000 sites. The data on possible areas for SACs was provided by JNCC as a series of potential Annex I habitat polygons which were used in the same way as the other sectoral constraint areas, being overlaid on the resource map in order to establish whether there were any areas of intersection or overlap. Information has also been provided by English Nature on the possible location for a Liverpool Bay SPA. Although these areas have no current protected status, a pragmatic view was adopted assuming that these areas, or at least either some or some parts of these areas, would be subject to development constraint due to the presence of habitats of conservation value. The lack of actual designation for such areas currently means that there is a degree of uncertainty as to what the restrictions on potential development or exploitation of seabed environs within these areas may be. Greater clarity for both Plan makers and project developers will result once more information on the status or likelihood of designation of such areas, is made available. In the scenario, the possible areas for SAC and SPA designation have been avoided as far as possible. However, one of the proposed locations for future extraction is located within an area identified for a possible Liverpool Bay SPA. It is not possible at this stage to determine whether aggregate extraction at this location might compromise the conservation objectives of the possible SPA. Should this possibility arise, it may be necessary to remove the safeguarded area from the plan. However, it is equally possible that the proposed use would not compromise the conservation objectives for the possible SPA and the allocation might therefore be retained in the plan for the time being, pending clarification of the potential conflicts. The scenario has also taken account of potential areas for inclusion in a possible MPA network (scenario 3) and areas identified for safeguarding for future tidal stream power generation (scenario 1). These areas have been avoided in making the proposed allocations for aggregate extraction. 8. CONCLUSIONS The total area identified during the spatial constraint mapping exercise as being less constrained for potential aggregate extraction activities was found to be approximately 228km2. This figure compares favourably with the target figure estimated for the sector within the study area of 103km2, representing 220% of the target area. The scenario has demonstrated that it is possible to identify areas of potentially suitable resource where known constraints from other uses are lower. However, the robustness of the proposed allocations is highly dependent on the quality of data on aggregate resources and on other use constraints. Precise locations for some uses such as fishing and recreational sailing are not well resolved in the plan. It is likely that potential conflicts with these sectors would best be dealt with through consultation to refine provisional allocations made on the basis of plan data.


It was not the intention of this scenario to delimit all potential future aggregate extraction areas, merely to identify some areas which were considered to be potentially exploitable within the remit of minimising conflicts with other sectoral uses of the sea area. The actual provision of areas for economic exploitation of aggregate resources will depend heavily on sufficient information being available (or collected) on the site-specific nature of the resource (depth of deposit (i.e. thickness of sand/gravel), quality, underlying strata, ecological value, etc), the lack of which limits the certainty of any provision of space for the sector. Additionally, the areas proposed for safeguarding are not intended to limit the rights of aggregate dredging companies to explore other possible locations within the plan area, although it might be assumed that these other locations may be subject to greater constraints from existing activities. As more information becomes, or is made, available, the degree of certainty for both planners and the industry sector will increase, thus providing for safeguarding of prime areas in order to minimise the likelihood of potential reserves being sterilized by other sectoral use.


Documents

MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING PILOT SCENARIO 2: MARINE · PDF fileMARINE SPATIAL PLANNING PILOT SCENARIO 2: MARINE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION (Final) MSPP Consortium, November 2005 MSPP Consortium