1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

including important shipping channels, restricted military zones and exclusive uses (e.g., wind farms) and nature conservation areas (Natura 2000 sites, national parks, seal sanctuaries etc.). Potential sites for future fish farms, offshore wind-farms and nature conservation areas were selected using the decision support tool Marxan and incorporated into the zoning plan. The selected sites were complementary to the already designated Natura 2000 SACs (“locked in” planning units), and together formed a representative sample of all the marine landscape types and important habitats. Sites that were found unsuitable for MPA designation, such as areas with a high level of threat or several conflicting interests, were avoided when equal conservation values could be found elsewhere. Combining classified maps with a decision support tool such as Marxan in the selection of candidate sites for conservation will increase the likelihood that the selected sites fulfill the whole range of predefined ecological and socio-economic targets in the most suitable locations while simultaneously securing a spatially efficient design of the network (Ekebom et al. 2008). The original zoning map was improved by including some of the Marxan suggestions to the map, leading to a more efficient and consistent zoning scheme (Figure 11). As a result, some targeted management zone areas were expanded by including new “selected planning unit” sites. Also, a potential fish spawning area, initially defined as a targeted management zone, was relocated to an area which also was selected as a potential candidate for protection by Marxan. 1.10.4.2 Multiple-Use Zoning in the Irish Sea, UK In 1999, the Irish Sea Pilot was initiated to examine the feasibility of beginning systematic and coordinated marine spatial planning in the UK. The Irish Sea was selected as an 32
appropriate place to investigate feasibility of MSP as it experiences a wide range of human uses that compete for space and exhibits a very complex mosaic of management activities, jurisdictions and legal mechanisms (Boyes et al. 2007). Uses included aggregate extraction, archaeology, dredging and dredge disposal, military activities, nature conservation, oil and gas exploration, ports and harbors, recreation, sea fisheries, shipping, submarine cables and pipelines, and wind farm developments. Based on the jurisdictional area, a zoning map of the Irish Sea was proposed which defined zones where types of multiple-use, exclusive use or partial use policies applied. As a feasibility study, the zoning scheme was not intended to be an objective-based comprehensive multiple-use zoning scheme for this regional sea. The proposed zones (Figure 12) from the least to highest protection were: Zone 1. General use zone with two subzones: Zone 1A. Minimal Management (MM) and Zone 1B. Targeted Management (TM); Zone 2. Conservation Priority Zone (CPZ); Zone 3. Exclusion Zone (EZ) with sub-zones of Zone 3A. Limited Exclusion (LE) and Zone 3B. Significant Exclusion (SE) and Zone 4. Protected Zone (PZ) (defined in Boyes et al. 2007). The proposed zoning scheme was then tested against the Irish Sea Pilot’s collated data on protected areas, seascapes and features (habitats and species) of national importance. The extent of existing protected areas designated in the UK under the Habitats and Species Directive (SACs) and Wild Birds Directive (SPAs) and Marine Nature Reserves (mostly nearshore sites) have been used to identify the location of important natural resources that are priorities for protection. The marine mapping project is a partnership initiative of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to provide seascape maps for the UK Sea area (Connor et al. 2006), including all waters out to 200 nm. Seascapes included benthic and pelagic classes and the five rarest seascapes were used to evaluate the proposed zoning scheme. These included gas 33
Page 1 and 2: 1.10 Application of estuarine and c
Page 3 and 4: SYNOPSIS Coastal and marine classif
Page 5 and 6: government and non-governmental man
Page 7 and 8: paucity of species and habitat data
Page 9 and 10: and many sub-catastrophic disturban
Page 11 and 12: conservation practitioners, industr
Page 13 and 14: levels of the hierarchy are defined
Page 15 and 16: distributions, both within and surr
Page 17 and 18: In a hierarchical framework for the
Page 19 and 20: 1.10.2.3 Australian Coastal Classif
Page 21 and 22: Ecological theory predicts that the
Page 23 and 24: outbreaks in the late 1970s (Green
Page 25 and 26: intertidal zones, and shallow coast
Page 27 and 28: 1.10.3.1 Identifying Priority Conse
Page 29 and 30: y the Massachusetts Oceans Act (200
Page 31: eight color coded zones to provide
Page 35 and 36: 1.10.4.3 Massachusetts Ocean Plan T
Page 37 and 38: One of the foundational concepts un
Page 39 and 40: ecosystems has shown that considera
Page 41 and 42: In May 2004, Germany was the first
Page 43 and 44: improve the design and interpretati
Page 45 and 46: NOAA’s CoastWatch Change Analysis
Page 47 and 48: ground resolution of 30 m. Each cla
Page 49 and 50: also be used to assess the role of
Page 51 and 52: States (Gundlach and Hayes 1978). T
Page 53 and 54: information at the species level. I
Page 55 and 56: 1.10.8.4 Classifying and Mapping Hu
Page 57 and 58: map of the entire Australian shorel
Page 59 and 60: within 11 regions, leading to an ov
Page 61 and 62: enhancement of certain functions in
Page 63 and 64: achieved by identifying barriers to
Page 65 and 66: ecosystem service values extracted
Page 67 and 68: 1.10.12 FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND PRIOR
Page 69 and 70: 1.10.12.1 Linking Patterns and Proc
Page 71 and 72: approach. New classifications will
Page 73 and 74: Arundel, H. and Mount, R. 2007. Nat
Page 75 and 76: Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in t
Page 77 and 78: Duke. N.C., Meynecke, J.O., Dittman
Page 79 and 80: Green, A.L., C.E. Birkeland, R.H. R
Page 81 and 82: Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaise
Page 83 and 84:
Kostylev, V., Todd, B.J., Fader, G.
Page 85 and 86:
Maxwell, D.L., Stelzenmüller, V.,
Page 87 and 88:
Spatial and temporal patterns in fi
Page 89 and 90:
Sharples, C. 2006. Indicative Mappi
Page 91 and 92:
Wells, S., Ravilous, C., Corcoran,
Page 93 and 94:
FIGURE LEGENDS Figure 1. A) Classes
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 10. Ecological evaluation in
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 21. Combining 'intolerance'
Page 99 and 100:
selected planning units in gray ins
Page 101 and 102:
Box 2. Classifications as thematic
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 1. 1
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 3. 3
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 5. 5
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 7. 7
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 9. 9
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 11. 11
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 13. 13
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 15. Fishing effort (hrs/day)
Page 119 and 120:
Figure 17. 17
Page 121 and 122:
Figure 19. 100% Conversion. 80% 60%
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 21. 21
Page 125 and 126:
Figure 23. 23
Page 127 and 128:
Figure 25. 25
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 27. 27
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 29. 29
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 31. 31
Page 135:
Figure 33. 33
show all

1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?