Fisheries Management Measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) - Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the submarine structures to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. Furthermore, the submarine structures themselves are in effect irreplaceable. If the carbonate substrate were damaged or removed from the site then recovery would be virtually impossible. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[200]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[201]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms are vulnerable to mobile fishing gear (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[202]; Sewell & Hiscock, 2005^[203]). Recovery is likely to be slow (Foden et al., 2010^[204]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of demersal mobile fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Mechanical impacts of static gear (e.g. weights and anchors hitting the seabed, hauling gear over seabed, rubbing/entangling effect of ropes) can damage some species (Eno et al., 1996^[205]). Other species appear to be resilient to individual fishing operations by static gear but the effects of high fishing intensity are unknown (Eno et al., 2001^[206]). Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[207]). The individual impact of a single demersal static fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001 ^[208]; Foden et al., 2010^[209]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is currently only undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be low, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a very low level of non-UK vessel that is involved in demersal fishing activity within the protected site. According to EMODnet data, the site consists solely of deep circalittoral mud habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud and submarine structures made by leaking gases occur within the protected area. GeMS species data suggest the protected area supports populations of anglerfish, burrowed mud, ocean quahog, saithe and whiting. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing is assessed as having an immediate minor benefit to the feature of interest of the SAC as the area that will be protected has a low intensity of fishing activity and contains a feature that is irreplaceable if damaged and biological communities associated with the feature that have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

There is no difference between the proposed management measure and Option 2.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[210] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[211]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[212]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[213]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[214]; Hillborn, 2017^[215]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[216]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[217]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

There is evidence to suggest that cod use the protected area for spawning at unknown densities. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[218]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the protected site. The proposed management measure will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected area.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the low level of current fishing activity and the relatively small area that is protected, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the site are assessed as negligible beneficial.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

It is considered that the relatively low number of vessels (18 UK vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) that will be impacted by the proposed management measures can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as low and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. As the displacement is likely to be to an area already fished, the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as negligible adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The only existing fishing method that occurs within the SAC is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low to moderate. This activity will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The potential environmental impact of increased fishing effort from other gear types not targeted by the proposed measures is considered negligible given that other gear types are not currently used at this site. Furthermore, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the SAC and within the surrounding ICES rectangle where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the site in future. For example, this may include midwater trawling which currently takes place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish species but is unlikely to affect features identified for protection which are all demersal. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered highly unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the fisheries management measure is expected to have an immediate overall minor beneficial effect on the environment. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is low, and the prohibition of all demersal gear will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement will be negligible as the amount of effort displaced will be low and the areas into which effort is likely to be displaced are nearby and already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site and protection of very sensitive habitats and associated species. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I submarine structures made by leaking gases which are found in the immediate area. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site and the irreplaceable nature of the submarine structures at this site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and indirect effects from resuspension and redistribution of sediments associated with a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long-term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the mud habitat to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). The mud habitat within the site is characterised by sea-pens, burrows made by crustaceans such as mud shrimp Callianassa subterranea and Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus, as well as tall sea-pen Funiculina quadrangularis which is rarely found in the northern North Sea. The burrowing activity of megafauna creates a complex habitat, providing deep oxygen penetration. Studies have shown that areas of burrowed mud subject to mobile fishing activity support a modified biological community with lower diversity, reduction or loss of long-lived filter-feeding species and increased abundance of opportunistic scavengers (Tuck et al., 1998^[219]; Ball et al., 2000^[220]). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006^[221]). This effect was greatest in the more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that severity of impact is related to the intensity of fishing (Ball et al., 2000^[222]). The distribution of the seapen Funiculina quadrangularis in Scottish waters may have been reduced as a result of Nephrops norvegicus trawling (Hughes, 1998^[223]). Nephrops norvegicus may be an important component of the benthic community so fisheries that greatly alter its abundance or size composition may have a negative impact.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal seines and demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. The intensity and importance of demersal trawling fishing activity is high, whereas the intensity and importance of demersal seine fishing activity is moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a moderate level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels, mainly originating from Denmark. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of deep circalittoral mud and deep circalittoral sand habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the proposed management areas. GeMS species data suggest the areas support populations of anglerfish, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, blue whiting, burrowed mud, burrowing sea anemone, cod, harbour porpoise, horse mackerel, ling, Norway pout, ocean quahog, saithe, sandeel and whiting. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing from roughly 40% of the protected site is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of interest within the MPA and the wider community as the areas that will be protected experience a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the mud habitat to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). The mud habitat within the site is characterised by sea-pens, burrows made by crustaceans such as mud shrimp Callianassa subterranea and Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus, as well as tall sea-pen Funiculina quadrangularis which is rarely found in the northern North Sea. The burrowing activity of megafauna creates a complex habitat, providing deep oxygen penetration. Studies have shown that areas of burrowed mud subject to mobile fishing activity support a modified biological community with lower diversity, reduction or loss of long-lived filter-feeding species and increased abundance of opportunistic scavengers (Tuck et al., 1998^[224]; Ball et al., 2000^[225]). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006^[226]). This effect was greatest in the more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that severity of impact is related to the intensity of fishing (Ball et al., 2000). The distribution of the seapen Funiculina quadrangularis in Scottish waters may have been reduced as a result of Nephrops norvegicus trawling (Hughes, 1998^[227]). Nephrops norvegicus may be an important component of the benthic community so fisheries that greatly alter its abundance or size composition may have a negative impact.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal seines and demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. The intensity and importance of demersal trawling fishing activity is high, whereas the intensity and importance of demersal seine fishing activity is moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a moderate level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels, mainly originating from Denmark. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of deep circalittoral mud and deep circalittoral sand habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within the protected site. GeMS species data suggest the protected site supports populations of anglerfish, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, blue whiting, burrowed mud, burrowing sea anemone, cod, harbour porpoise, horse mackerel, ling, Norway pout, ocean quahog, saithe, sandeel and whiting. Option 2This option will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

Option 2 is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of interest within the MPA and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature have a high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[228] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[229]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[230]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[231]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[232]; Hillborn, 2017^[233]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[234]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[235]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for whiting and cod. Furthermore the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, cod, anglerfish, and blue whiting (Coull et al., 1998^[236]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected area, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from 40% of the site are assessed as minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[237] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[238]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[239]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[240]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[241]; Hillborn, 2017^[242]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[243]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[244]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for whiting and cod. Furthermore, the MPA may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, cod, anglerfish, and blue whiting (Coull et al., 1998). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the protected site. The exclusion of demersal fishing from the entire MPA will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected area, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from the entire site are as assessed as minor beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the demersal trawling activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. However, the existing moderate level of demersal seine fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or Clean and Safe Seas Evidence Group (CSSEG) region. This existing fishing activity will need to travel further or use new grounds not previously fished, leading to higher potential environmental impact.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of demersal trawling vessels and scale of this existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. The number of vessels and scale of existing demersal seine fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate and will need to travel far to existing fishing grounds or use new grounds not previously fished. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Overall, the environmental impact of the displacement is assessed as moderate adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

A relatively high number of vessels (153 UK vessels, 11 Danish vessels and an undisclosed number of other non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, which cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region. It is considered that this existing fishing activity will need to travel further or use new grounds not previously fished with associated greater potential environmental impact.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as high and will need to travel far to existing fishing grounds or use new grounds not previously fished. Overall, the environmental impact of the displacement of fishing activities is considered to be moderate adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is high. There is also a lower level of demersal seine fishing that takes place within the proposed management measures. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls which currently take place both within and outside of the proposed management areas, as well as surrounding nets which take place near to but outside of the boundaries of the proposed management areas. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is high. There is also a lower level of demersal seine fishing that takes place within the site. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the protected site is midwater trawling at low levels and surrounding nets at very low levels. However, it is possible that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as the fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the site in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls and surrounding nets which currently take place both within and near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, given the size of the protected site and scale of activity that will be displaced, Option 2 has the potential to result in a minor increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is expected that there will be immediate overall moderate beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from 40% of the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and also provide potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as moderate as the amount of effort displaced cannot be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, involving fishing vessels travelling further to access existing grounds or new grounds being fished which will result in impacts on undisturbed areas. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection brought about by the measures is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is expected that there will be immediate overall minor beneficial effects on the environment as a result of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear across the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and also provide potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as moderate as the amount of effort displaced will be large and cannot be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, involving fishing vessels travelling further to access existing grounds or new grounds being fished which will result in impacts on undisturbed areas. There are also minor adverse effects associated with a potential change in gear type being used as result of Option 2. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be only marginally greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and change in gear type under Option 2.

The proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across 40% of the protected site despite some potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will help protect and improve the status of the seapens and burrowing megafauna Threatened and/or Declining habitat in OSPAR regions II and III which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will help protect and improve the status of the seapens and burrowing megafauna Threatened and/or Declining habitat in OSPAR regions II and III which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across 40% of the protected site despite some potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing across the entire protected site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA objective 3 is assessed at most minor beneficial. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with high fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future my providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with high fishing activity within the site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities in the entire site.

The proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity in 40% of the site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity throughout the site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

The proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a further beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The exclusion of mobile demersal fishing gears throughout the site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across the site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise dredge, beam and demersal trawling gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with offshore deep-sea muds and ocean quahog aggregations on sands and gravels to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g., siltation increases). Studies have shown that areas of mud habitats (which include offshore deep-sea muds) 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^[245]; Tuck et al., 2000^[246]). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006^[247]). This effect was greatest in the more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that severity of impact is related to the intensity of fishing (Ball et al., 2000^[248]). Evidence has demonstrated that ocean quahog can be caught or damaged by beam trawls (Witbaard and Klein, 1994^[249]; Klein and Witbaard, 1993^[250]), with an individual pass of the gear causing around 20% mortality (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[251]). Population density has been found to be inversely related to beam trawling effort (Craeymeersch et al., 2000^[252]). The East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA lies within a relatively shallow sediment plain comprised mainly of sand and gravel habitats that support a range of benthic species including ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) (Witbaard and Bergman, 2003^[253]; Sabatini and Pizzolla, 2008^[254]). These animals can live for more than 400 years and are one of the longest living creatures on Earth (Ridgway and Richardson, 2011^[255]). The MPA also protects a coherent example of deep-sea mud. This is one of the few examples of Atlantic-influenced offshore deep-sea mud habitats on the continental shelf in this region. Many types of polychaete and mollusc live buried in the mud and provide an important food resource for passing fish. Three seapen species are present across the MPA with the phosphorescent seapen (Pennatula phosphorea) being most abundant, but mainly restricted to sandy areas. Virgularia mirabilis is found across the entire site and the tall seapen (Funiculina quadrangularis) is mainly found in the sandy sediments. There are also indirect pressures associated with the dredge and beam trawling fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g., siltation increases). The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species (Freese et al., 1999^[256]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[257]). Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[258]). The individual impact of a single trawling fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[259]; Foden et al., 2010^[260]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas use demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate to high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the management areas. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management area, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate to high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management areas by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of deep circalittoral coarse sediment, deep circalittoral mud and deep circalittoral sand habitat. GeMS habitat data are not available for this area. GeMS species data suggest the proposed management areas support populations of anglerfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, cod, horse mackerel, ling, Norway pout, ocean quahog, saithe, spiny dogfish and whiting. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The prohibition of dredge and beam trawling fishing throughout the site and the prohibition of demersal trawls in the west of the site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of interest of the MPA and the wider community. This is because the areas that will be protected have a moderate to high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise dredge, beam and demersal trawling gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with offshore deep-sea muds and ocean quahog aggregations on sands and gravels to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g., siltation increases). Studies have shown that areas of mud habitats (which include offshore deep-sea muds) 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^[261]; Tuck et al., 2000^[262]). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006^[263]). This effect was greatest in the more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that severity of impact is related to the intensity of fishing (Ball et al., 2000^[264]). Evidence has demonstrated that ocean quahog can be caught or damaged by beam trawls (Witbaard and Klein 1994^[265]; Klein and Witbaard, 1993^[266]), with an individual pass of the gear causing around 20% mortality (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[267]). Population density has been found to be inversely related to beam trawling effort (Craeymeersch et al., 2000^[268]). The East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA lies within a relatively shallow sediment plain comprised mainly of sand and gravel habitats that support a range of benthic species including ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) (Witbaard and Bergman, 2003^[269]; Sabatini and Pizzolla, 2008^[270]). These animals can live for more than 400 years and are one of the longest living creatures on Earth (Ridgway and Richardson, 2011^[271]). The MPA also protects a coherent example of deep-sea mud. This is one of the few examples of Atlantic-influenced offshore deep-sea mud habitats on the continental shelf in this region. Many types of polychaete and mollusc live buried in the mud and provide an important food resource for passing fish. Three seapen species are present across the MPA with the phosphorescent seapen (Pennatula phosphorea) being most abundant, but mainly restricted to sandy areas. Virgularia mirabilis is found across the entire site and the tall seapen (Funiculina quadrangularis) is mainly found in the sandy sediments. There are also indirect pressures associated with the dredge and beam trawling fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g., siltation increases). The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species (Freese et al., 1999^[272]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[273]). Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[274]). The individual impact of a single trawling fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[275]; Foden et al., 2010^[276]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected area use demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate to high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the site consists of deep circalittoral coarse sediment, deep circalittoral mud and deep circalittoral sand habitat. GeMS habitat data are not available for this area. GeMS species data suggest the site supports populations of anglerfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, cod, horse mackerel, ling, Norway pout, ocean quahog, saithe, spiny dogfish and whiting. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

Option 2 of prohibiting dredge, beam and demersal trawling throughout the protected site is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of interest of the MPA and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[277] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[278]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[279]). Furthermore, the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[280]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site-dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[281]; Hillborn, 2017^[282]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[283]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[284]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g., current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for sandeel and cod. Furthermore, the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, plaice, mackerel, ling, herring, hake, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish.(Coull et al., 1998^[285]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected area, potential spill-over benefits from the prohibition of dredge and beam trawling throughout the site and demersal trawling from a zone west in the site are assessed as minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[286] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[287]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[288]). Furthermore, the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[289]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[290]; Hillborn, 2017^[291]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[292]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[293]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for sandeel and cod. Furthermore, the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, plaice, mackerel, ling, herring, hake, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[294]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected area, potential spill-over benefits from the prohibition of dredge, beam and demersal trawling throughout the site are assessed as moderate beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the MPA, and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at existing fishing grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is considered to be minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels (79 UK vessels and and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by the protected site, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at existing fishing grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling, The scale of this activity is moderate to high. This demersal activity will be targeted by the proposed management measures. Other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal seines at low levels and midwater trawls at moderate levels . However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the management areas, either within or beyond the boundaries of the MPA, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include midwater trawling which currently takes place both within, and near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. Furthermore, this also includes demersal seines that operate in higher densities outside the protected site boundaries, compared to lower densities within the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types that are not targeted by the proposed measures is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, given the size of the protected area and scale of activity that will be displaced, the proposed management measure has the potential to result in a minor increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is high. This demersal activity will be targeted by Option 2. Other fishing activity that currently occurs within the protected site is demersal seines at low levels and midwater trawls at moderate levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include midwater trawling which currently takes place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. Furthermore, this also includes demersal seines that operate in higher densities outside the protected site boundaries, compared to lower densities within the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types that are not targeted by Option 2 is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, given the size of the protected site and scale of activity that will be displaced, Option 2 has the potential to result in a minor increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is expected that there will be immediate minor beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the dredge, beam and demersal trawl gear types targeted by the management measures occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of dredges and beam trawling throughout the site, as well as prohibiting demersal trawling from a zone in the west of the site, will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and the potential increased fishing effort from other gear types that are not targeted is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated by other areas within the MPA, as well as nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be marginally greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and change in gear types.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is expected that that there will be immediate major beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the dredge, beam and demersal trawl gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is high, and the prohibition of dredges, beam trawling and demersal trawling throughout the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and allow for moderate spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and the potential increased fishing effort from other gear types that are not targeted is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced will be high but can be accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle, as well as nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and change in gear types under Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of dredge and beam trawling activity across the entire site, as well as prohibiting demersal trawling from a zone in the west of the site. This will help protect and improve the status of ocean quahog, considered to be Threatened and/or Declining in OSPAR Region II (Greater North Sea) which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate major beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a high volume of dredge, beam trawling and demersal trawling activity across the entire site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will help protect and improve the status of ocean quahog, considered to be Threatened and/or Declining in OSPAR Region II (Greater North Sea) which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 2 through the exclusion of moderate to high dredge and beam trawling fishing activity across the entire site, as well as the exclusion of moderate to high demersal trawls from the from a zone in the west of the protected site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate major beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 2 through the exclusion of high dredge, beam and demersal trawling fishing activity across the entire site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal fishing activities within the entire site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective byby providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA objective 3 is assessed as at most minor beneficial. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal trawling fishing activities within the entire site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and water quality effects associated with a moderate to high fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 4 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and water quality effects associated with a high fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal trawling fishing activities within the entire site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of dredge and beam trawling fishing activity across the entire site and demersal trawling from a zone in the west of the site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high volume of dredge, beam and demersal trawling activity across the entire site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal trawling fishing activities within the entire site.

The proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long-term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of dredge, beam and demersal trawling fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high level of dredge, beam and demersal fishing activity across the entire site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge, beam and demersal trawling fishing activities within the entire site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The MPA ranges in depth from 400 – 800 m, with five different water masses which have different temperatures and densities that meet in the Faroe-Shetland Channel. Peak benthic diversity and abundance in the MPA occurs in a similar depth range of 350 – 650m, and includes deep-sea sponge aggregations, polychaete worms and ocean quahog (Bett, 2000^[295]; Bett, 2001^[296]; Narayanaswamy et al., 2005^[297]; Narayanaswamy et al., 2010^[298]). Evidence has demonstrated that ocean quahog can be caught or damaged by beam trawls (Klein and Witbaard, 1993^[299]; Witbaard and Klein, 1994^[300]), with an individual pass of the gear causing around 20% mortality (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[301]). There is some evidence that otter trawl doors may impact ocean quahogs by bringing them to the surface (Rumohr and Krost, 1991^[302]), however there is insufficient evidence to assess the mortality caused by this gear at a population level. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges (Freese et al., 1999^[303]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[304]). Studies on deep-sea sponge aggregations have found that trawling damages, displaces and removes sponges through direct physical impact, as well as from disturbed sediment resettling and causing smothering beyond the path of the trawl itself (ICES, 2007^[305]; ICES 2010^[306]; OSPAR, 2010b^[307]). Deep-sea sponges have some capacity for recovery from mild damage, but significant disturbance, damage or smothering may result in sponges being unlikely to survive (ICES, 2007^[308]; ICES 2010^[309]). Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[310]). The individual impact of a single demersal static fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[311]; Foden et al., 2010^[312]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawls, hooks and lines and set nets. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate to high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Demersal trawl and set net fishing activity is considered moderate, whereas hooks and lines fishing activity is considered low. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a moderate level of demersal fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels, mainly from Norway. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the MPA consist of AArctic mid bathyal sandy mud, AArctic mid bathyal mixed substrata, AAtlanto-AArctic upper bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic bathyal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand and Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate deep-sea sponge aggregations, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the proposed management areas. GeMS species data suggest the areas support populations of ocean quahog and sandeels. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and static fishing from a zone in the south-eastern part of the site, and the proposal removal or mobile gears from the north-western part of the site, are assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of interest within the MPA and the wider community, as the areas that will be protected experience a moderate to high intensity of fishing activity, contain features that are irreplaceable if damaged, and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The MPA ranges in depth from 400 m – 800 m, with five different water masses which have different temperatures and densities that meet in the Faroe-Shetland Channel. Peak benthic diversity and abundance in the MPA occurs in a similar depth range of 350 - 650m, and includes deep-sea sponge aggregations, polychaete worms and ocean quahog (Bett, 2000; Bett, 2001; Narayanaswamy et al., 2005; Narayanaswamy et al., 2010). Evidence has demonstrated that ocean quahog can be caught or damaged by beam trawls (Klein and Witbaard, 1993^[313]; Witbaard and Klein, 1994^[314]), with an individual pass of the gear causing around 20% mortality (Bergman & van Santbrink, 2000^[315]). There is some evidence that otter trawl doors may impact ocean quahogs by bringing them to the surface (Rumohr and Krost, 1991^[316]), however there is insufficient evidence to assess the mortality caused by this gear at a population level. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges (Freese et al., 1999^[317]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[318]). Studies on deep-sea sponge aggregations have found that trawling damages, displaces and removes sponges through direct physical impact, as well as from disturbed sediment resettling and causing smothering beyond the path of the trawl itself (ICES, 2007^[319]; ICES 2010^[320]; OSPAR, 2010b^[321]). Deep-sea sponges have some capacity for recovery from mild damage, but significant disturbance, damage or smothering may result in sponges being unlikely to survive (ICES, 2007^[322]; ICES 2010^[323]). Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[324]). The individual impact of a single demersal static fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[325]; Foden et al., 2010^[326]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls, hooks and lines and set nets. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate to high for demersal gear taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the entire site. Demersal trawl and set net fishing activity is considered moderate, whereas hooks and lines fishing activity is considered low. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the entire site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate to high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a moderate level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the entire site by non-UK vessels, mainly from Norway. According to EMODnet data, the site consists of AArctic mid bathyal sandy mud, AArctic mid bathyal mixed substata, Atlanto-AAtlantoArctic upper bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic bathyal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand and Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate deep-sea sponge aggregations, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the site. GeMS species data suggest the areas support populations of ocean quahog and sandeels. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

Option 2 to remove demersal mobile and static fishing from the entire site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of interest within the MPA and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a moderate to high intensity of fishing activity and contains features that are irreplaceable if damaged and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[327] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[328]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[329]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[330]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[331]; Hillborn, 2017^[332]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[333]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[334]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for sandeel. Furthermore, the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[335]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected areas, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal mobile and static activity from a zone in the south-eastern part of the site and removal of demersal mobile activity from the north-western part of the site are assessed as minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[336] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[337]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[338]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[339]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[340]; Hillborn, 2017^[341]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[342]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[343]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for sandeel. Furthermore, the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[344]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the entire site are assessed as to be minor beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as be moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of vessels fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels (33 UK vessels, 10 Norwegian vessels and an undisclosed number of other non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate. There is also a low level of hooks and lines and moderate level of set nets that take place within the proposed management areas which are considered to be demersal static fishing gear. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. There are no other gear types currently used within the protected areas and, therefore, there is no potential environmental impact of increased fishing effort from other gear types not targeted by the proposed measures. Furthermore, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to a different method as there would still be areas outside the management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of the proposed management areas. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types that are not targeted by the proposed measures is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate. There is also a low level of hooks and lines and moderate level of set nets that take place within the protected site which are considered as demersal static fishing gear. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2. There are no other gear types currently used within the site and, therefore, there is no potential environmental impact of increased fishing effort from other gear types not targeted by Option 2. Furthermore, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to a different method as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types that are not targeted is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, Option 2 is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, the proposed measures are expected to have an immediate moderate beneficial impact on the environment. The scale at which the pressures associated with demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is moderate to high and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gears from a zone in the south-eastern part of the site and demersal mobile gears from the north-western part of the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and species associated within the MPA, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as minor as it is considered that the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, Option 2 is expected to have an immediate moderate beneficial impact on the environment. The scale at which the pressures associated with demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is moderate to high and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gears from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and species associated within the MPA, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

The proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal mobile and static gears from the southern eastern zone, and exclusion of demersal mobile gears from the north-western part of the site. This will help protect and improve the status of ocean quahog (found at the northern extent of its range) and offshore subtidal sands and gravel habitats (representing the Atlantic and Arctic influenced slope) (OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining habitats and species) in OSPAR region II. Deep-sea sponge aggregations, found between the 400 m and 600 m contours, are also listed as an OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining habitat and are also considered to be a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME). There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

Option 2 for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal mobile and static gears from the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of ocean quahog (found at the northern extent of its range) and offshore subtidal sands and gravel habitats (representing the Atlantic and Arctic influenced slope) (OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining habitats and species) in OSPAR region II. Deep-sea sponge aggregations, found between the 400 m and 600 m contours, are also listed as an OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining habitat and are also considered to be a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME). There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal mobile and static gears from the south eastern part and exclusion of demersal mobile gears prohibited from the north western part of the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal mobile and static gears from the protected site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most as minor. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most as minor. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial in seabed disturbance and water quality effects associated with a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement SEA Objective 4 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and water quality effects associated with a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity in the south eastern and north western parts of the site, and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity in the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a further beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity within the protected site. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise beam and demersal trawls and dredge gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The MPA covers an area of 2,130 km² and is composed of a series of underwater banks and mounds which are overlaid with a mix of sands and gravels. The mosaic of sands and gravels support a variety of species, including the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica). Ocean quahog aggregations are considered to be Threatened and/or Declining in OSPAR region II (Greater North Sea). The Wee Bankie and Berwick Bank are also considered to have wider functional significance to the overall health and biodiversity of Scotland’s seas; Wee Bankie for foraging seabirds (Daunt et al., 2008^[345]; Camphuysen et al., 2011^[346]) and grey seals (McConnell et al., 1999^[347], Jones et al., 2013^[348]), and Berwick Bank for foraging grey seals (Prime and Hammond, 1990^[349]; McConnell et al., 1999^[350]; Jones et al., 2013^[351]) and as a spawning ground for plaice, the larvae of which may be important source of recruits for the wider region (Lockwood and Lucassen, 1984^[352]). The MPA also represents a wide range of different types of offshore subtidal sand and gravel habitats on the continental shelf. It is considered to be a relatively isolated system and localised hydrodynamics have a positive effect on productivity in the area (Scott et al., 2010)^[353]. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile species (Freese et al., 1999^[354]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[355]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long-lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species, , the tolerance to disturbance is, however, linked to the energy levels of the area. In higher energy locations, fauna tend to be more adapted to disturbance and as a result tend to be more tolerant of fisheries related disturbance than lower energy locations (Dernie et al., 2003^[356]; Hiddink et al., 2006^[357]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[358]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[359]; Foden et al., 2010^[360]). Evidence has demonstrated that ocean quahog can be caught or damaged by beam trawls (Klein & Witbaard 1993^[361]; Witbaard and Klein 1994^[362]), and population density has been found to be inversely related to beam trawling effort (Craymeersch et al., 2000^[363]). Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[364]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of demersal mobile fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal mobile fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawls, mechanical dredges and suction dredges. The overall fishing intensity is considered high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. The demersal trawl and suction dredge activity is considered low, and the mechanical dredge activity is considered high within the proposed management areas. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggests that there is a very low level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the protected areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of deep circalittoral sand, deep circalittoral coarse sediment and deep circalittoral mixed sediments habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate offshore subtidal sands and gravels, burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea muds occur within the protected areas. GeMS species data suggest the protected area may support populations of anglerfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, cod, harbour porpoise, horse mackerel, Norway pout, ocean quahog, saithe, sandeels, spiny dogfish and whiting. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of beam trawling, demersal trawling and dredging from prohibited zones within the site is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the areas that will be protected experience a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise beam and demersal trawls and dredge gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The MPA covers an area of 2,130 km² and is composed of a series of underwater banks and mounds which are overlaid with a mix of sands and gravels. The mosaic of sands and gravels support a variety of species, including the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica). Ocean quahog aggregations are considered to be Threatened and/or Declining in OSPAR region II (Greater North Sea). The Wee Bankie and Berwick Bank are also considered to have wider functional significance to the overall health and biodiversity of Scotland’s seas; Wee Bankie for foraging seabirds (Daunt et al., 2008^[365]; Camphuysen et al., 2011^[366]) and grey seals (McConnell et al., 1999^[367], Jones et al., 2013^[368]), and Berwick Bank for foraging grey seals (Prime and Hammond, 1990^[369]; McConnell et al., 1999^[370]; Jones et al., 2013^[371]) and as a spawning ground for plaice, the larvae of which may be important source of recruits for the wider region (Lockwood and Lucassen, 1984^[372]). The MPA also represents a wide range of different types of offshore subtidal sand and gravel habitats on the continental shelf. It is considered to be a relatively isolated system and localised hydrodynamics have a positive effect on productivity in the area (Scott et al., 2010)^[373]. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile species (Freese et al., 1999^[374]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[375]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long-lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species, the tolerance to disturbance is, however, linked to the energy levels of the area. In higher energy locations, fauna tend to be more adapted to disturbance and as a result tend to be more tolerant of fisheries related disturbance than lower energy locations (Dernie et al., 2003^[376]; Hiddink et al., 2006^[377]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[378]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[379]; Foden et al., 2010^[380]). Evidence has demonstrated that ocean quahog can be caught or damaged by beam trawls (Klein and Witbaard 1993^[381]; Witbaard and Klein 1994^[382]), and population density has been found to be inversely related to beam trawling effort (Craymeersch et al., 2000^[383]). Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[384]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of demersal mobile fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal mobile fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls, mechanical dredges and suction dredges. The overall fishing intensity is considered high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. The demersal trawl and suction dredge activity is considered moderate, and the mechanical dredge activity is considered high within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a very low level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the protected site protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of deep circalittoral sand, deep circalittoral coarse sediment, deep circalittoral mud and deep circalittoral mixed sediments habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate offshore subtidal sands and gravels, burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea muds occur within the protected area. GeMS species data suggest the protected area may support populations of anglerfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, cod, harbour porpoise, horse mackerel, ling, Norway pout, ocean quahog, saithe, sandeels, spiny dogfish and whiting. The protected site will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam hat lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of beam trawling, demersal trawling and dredging from the protected site is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the area that will be protected have a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[385] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[386]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[387]). Furthermore, the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[388]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[389]; Hillborn, 2017^[390]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[391]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[392]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g., current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for whiting, sandeel, plaice and cod. Furthermore, the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, tope shark, spurdog, herring, spotted ray, sandeel, plaice, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[393]). In addition, landings data suggest Molluscs, crustaceans, Nephrops, demersal species and pelagic species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected zones, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of trawl and dredge fishing activity from zones within the site are assessed as minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[394] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[395]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[396]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[397]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[398]; Hillborn, 2017^[399]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[400]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[401]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for whiting, sandeel, plaice and cod. Furthermore, the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, tope shark, spurdog, herring, spotted ray, sandeel, plaice, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[402]). In addition, landings data suggest Molluscs, crustaceans, Nephrops, demersal species and pelagic species are present within the protected site. The exclusion of demersal fishing from the entire MPA will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of trawl and dredge fishing activity from the entire site are assessed as moderate beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

A relatively high number of vessels (241 UK vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) is expected to be impacted by Option 2, which cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region. This existing fishing activity will need to travel further or use new grounds not previously fished with associated greater potential environmental impact.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is assessed as high and will need to travel far to existing fishing grounds or use new grounds not previously fished. Overall, the environmental impact of the displacement of fishing activities is assessed as moderate adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is mechanical dredges. The scale of this activity is high. There are also demersal trawls and suction dredges that take place within the within the proposed management area at lower levels. These fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The other fishing activities that currently occur within the areas protected by the proposed management measures, but which are not targeted, are demersal seines and pots and traps at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the proposed management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include demersal seines and pots and traps, which currently take place within and near the boundaries of the proposed management measures. In addition, there may be increased effort for midwater trawls which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of the proposed management areas and protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is mechanical dredges. The scale of this activity is high. There are also demersal trawls and suction dredges that take place within the within the protected site at lower levels. These fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2. The other fishing activities that currently occur within the site but are not targeted are demersal seines, pots and traps and midwater trawls at low levels. However, it is possible that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as the fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include demersal seines, pots and traps and midwater trawls, which currently take place within and near the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, given the site and scale of activity that will be displaced, Option 2 has the potential to result in a minor increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, the proposed measures are expected to have immediate major beneficial effects on the environment. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is high, and the prohibition of beam trawls, demersal trawls and dredges from the proposed management areas will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and also allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, Option 2 is expected to have immediate moderate beneficial effects on the environment. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is high, and the prohibition of beam trawls, demersal trawls and dredges from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and also allow for potential moderate spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement is assessed as moderate as the amount of effort displaced will be large and cannot be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, involving fishing vessels travelling further to access existing grounds or new grounds being fished which will result in impacts on undisturbed areas. There are also minor adverse effects associated with the potential use of other gear types that are not targeted. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is considered to be greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate major beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a high volume of beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity within the areas protected by the proposed management measures. This will help protect and improve the status of Ocean quahog aggregations that are considered to be Threatened and/or Declining in OSPAR region II. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a high volume of beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity throughout the protected site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will help protect and improve the status of Ocean quahog aggregations that are considered to be Threatened and/or Declining in OSPAR region II. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate major beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a high volume of beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity within the areas protected by the proposed management measures. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a high volume of beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity within the protected site but site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity fishing activities at this protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most as moderate beneficial. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity fishing activities at this site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most as minor. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity fishing activities.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 4 through reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with a high volume of fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 4 through reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with a high volume of fishing activity within the site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge activity within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high volume of beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high volume of beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge fishing activity throughout the protected site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high volume of beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a further beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high volume of beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge fishing activity throughout the protected site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future beam trawl, demersal trawls and dredge fishing activities within the protected site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g., siltation increases). Up to 50 sponge species can be found within the sponge fields, many of which are different to those found in the surrounding areas. Boreal ‘ostur’ sponge aggregations typically have a high abundance of species of giant sponge (Demospongia). The boreal ostur variant of deep-sea sponge aggregations has only been recorded in the North Sea in Scottish waters. The deep-sea sponge aggregations conform to the OSPAR definition of this Threatened and / or Declining habitat (OSPAR, 2010b^[403]). They are also classed as a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) according to FAO international guidelines (FAO, 2009^[404]). Therefore, this MPA makes a contribution to global commitments to protect VMEs. Studies on deep-sea sponge aggregations have found that trawling damages, displaces and removes sponges through direct physical impact as well as from disturbed sediment resettling and causing smothering beyond the path of the trawl itself (OSPAR, 2010b^[405]; ICES, 2007^[406]; ICES, 2010^[407]). Deep-sea sponges have some capacity for recovery from mild damage, but significant disturbance, damage or smothering may result in sponges being unlikely to survive (ICES, 2007^[408]; ICES, 2010^[409]). In lower energy locations, such as muddy sands and sand in deep water, sediments tend to be more stable and their associated fauna less tolerant of disturbance (Hiddink et al., 2006^[410]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[411]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[412]; Foden et al., 2010^[413]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long-lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992^[414]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[415]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[416]). Deep-sea sponge aggregations are considered to be sensitive to static gear activity. While the extent of damage caused by individual static gear fishing events is likely to be lower than that from trawling (Pham et al., 2014^[417]), the effect of cumulative damage may be significant.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be low taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a high level of demersal fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels, mainly from Norway. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site comprise Arctic upper abyssal mud, Arctic lower bathyal mud, Arctic lower bathyal mixed substrata, Arctic lower bathyal sandy mud, Arctic mid bathyal mud, Arctic mid bathyal sandy mud, Arctic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlanto-Arctic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud and Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand. GeMS habitat data indicate deep-sea sponge aggregations, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within the protected area. GeMS species data do not cover the proposed management area. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as deep-sea sponge aggregations.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing from the proposed management areas is assessed as having an immediate minor benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the areas that will be protected experience a moderate intensity of fishing and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). Up to 50 sponge species can be found within the sponge fields, many of which are different to those found in the surrounding areas. Boreal ‘ostur’ sponge aggregations typically have a high abundance of species of giant sponge (Demospongia). The boreal ostur variant of deep-sea sponge aggregations has only been recorded in the North Sea in Scottish waters. The deep-sea sponge aggregations conform to the OSPAR definition of this Threatened and / or Declining habitat (OSPAR, 2010b^[418]). They are also classed as a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) according to FAO international guidelines (FAO, 2009^[419]). Therefore, this MPA makes a contribution to global commitments to protect VMEs. Studies on deep-sea sponge aggregations have found that trawling damages, displaces and removes sponges through direct physical impact as well as from disturbed sediment resettling and causing smothering beyond the path of the trawl itself (OSPAR, 2010b^[420]; ICES, 2007^[421]; ICES, 2010^[422]). Deep-sea sponges have some capacity for recovery from mild damage, but significant disturbance, damage or smothering may result in sponges being unlikely to survive (ICES, 2007^[423]; ICES, 2010^[424]). In lower energy locations, such as muddy sands and sand in deep water, sediments tend to be more stable and their associated fauna less tolerant of disturbance (Hiddink et al., 2006^[425]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[426]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[427]; Foden et al., 2010^[428]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long-lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992^[429]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[430]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[431]). Deep-sea sponge aggregations are considered to be sensitive to static gear activity. While the extent of damage caused by individual static gear fishing events is likely to be lower than that from trawling (Pham et al., 2014^[432]), the effect of cumulative damage may be significant.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be low taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a high level of fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels, mainly from Norway. According to EMODnet data, the protected site comprise Arctic upper abyssal mud, Arctic lower bathyal mud, Arctic lower bathyal mixed substrata, Arctic lower bathyal sandy mud, Arctic mid bathyal mud, Arctic mid bathyal sandy mud, Arctic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlanto-Arctic upper bathyal mixed substrata, Atlanto-Arctic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud and Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand. GeMS habitat data indicate deep-sea sponge aggregations, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within the protected area. GeMS species data do not cover the protected site. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as deep-sea sponge aggregations.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing from the protected site is assessed as having an immediate minor benefit to the interest features of the MPA and the wider community as the protected site will have a low to moderate intensity of fishing and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[433] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[434]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[435]). Furthermore, the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[436]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[437]; Hillborn, 2017^[438]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[439]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[440]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g., current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are not used for spawning and that the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for blue whiting (Coull et al., 1998^[441]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the low level of current fishing activity and the size of the protected areas, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the proposed management areas are assessed as negligible beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[442] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[443]). verspill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[444]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[445]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[446]; Hillborn, 2017^[447]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[448]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[449]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicates that the protected site is not used for spawning and that the site may provide a nursery area for blue whiting (Coull et al., 1998^[450]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the protected site. The exclusion of demersal fishing from the entire MPA will help support nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the low level of current fishing activity and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from the entire site are assessed as negligible beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

As a relatively low number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is low and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as negligible adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

As a relatively low number of vessels (6 UK vessels, 13 Norwegian vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced is low and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as negligible adverse.

A main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low. This fishing activity will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to other methods as there would still be areas outside the management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include set nets which currently are deployed near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site, as well as midwater trawling which takes place within the proposed management areas. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the use of other gear types that are not targeted by the proposed measures is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

A main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low. This fishing activity will be targeted by Option 2. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by Option 2 is midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to another other methods as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include set nets which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site, as well as midwater trawling which takes places within the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types that are not targeted is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, Option 2 is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate minor beneficial on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is low, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gears from a zone deeper than 700m, and demersal mobile and demersal static gears from a zone south of the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as negligible as the low amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be marginally greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate minor beneficial on the environment following the implementation of alternative option. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is low, and the prohibition of demersal mobile and demersal static gears from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement is assessed as negligible as the low amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be marginally greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

The proposed fishery management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will help protect and improve the status of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) deep-sea sponge aggregations which are a Threatened and / or Declining habitat and are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity across the entire protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) deep-sea sponge aggregations that are Threatened and / or Declining habitat which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity within the protected site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and, integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this protected site.

The proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished . There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished . There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this protected site.

The proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long-term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long-term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity within the protected site. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this protected site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise dredges, beam trawls, demersal trawls and demersal seines. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. This protected site supports communities of starfish, crabs, and the long-lived ocean quahog (Arctica islandica). Ocean quahog are caught or damaged by beam trawls (Klein & Witbaard, 1993^[451]; Witbaard and Klein, 1994^[452]) with an individual pass of the gear causing around 20% mortality (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[453]). There is some evidence that otter trawl doors may impact ocean quahogs by bringing them to the surface (Rumohr and Krost, 1991^[454]), there is, however, insufficient evidence to assess the mortality caused by this gear at a population level. As with demersal trawls and dredges, demersal seines may impact the structure and function of sedimentary habitats and the long-term survival of their associated species. There are currently no direct studies on the physical impacts of demersal seines. Modelling studies suggest that demersal seines have a large overall footprint (i.e., the surface area covered during one hour fishing) (Eigaard et al., 2016^[455]). Hiddink et al. (2017)^[456] suggest that depletion of biota is highly correlated with seabed penetration depth by trawls. Seines lack the heavy gear components (e.g., otter doors, trawl shoes) of other demersal mobile gears (Suuronen et al., 2012^[457]) and therefore, despite the relatively large footprint, impacts associated with penetration into the sediment are likely to be lower. Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[458]). The individual impact of a single demersal static fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[459]; Foden et al., 2010).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal activity by the UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal seines and demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered moderate to high, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Both demersal seine and demersal trawl activity is considered moderate intensity. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2019 also suggests that there is a very low level of demersal fishing activity from non-UK vessel within the areas protected under the proposed management measures. According to EMODnet data, the site consists of deep circalittoral sand and deep circalittoral coarse sediment habitat. GeMS habitat data dos not cover the protected area. GeMS species data suggest the protected areas support populations of Norway pout and ocean quahog. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from dredging, trawling and seine fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of dredges, beam trawls and demersal trawls from the whole site and demersal seines from the north of the site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the MPA as the area that will be protected has a moderate to high intensity of fishing and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise dredges, beam trawls, demersal trawls and demersal seines This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. This protected site supports communities of starfish, crabs, and the long-lived ocean quahog (Arctica islandica). Ocean quahog are caught or damaged by beam trawls (Klein and Witbaard, 1993^[460]; Witbaard and Klein, 1994^[461]) with an individual pass of the gear causing around 20% mortality (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[462]). There is some evidence that otter trawl doors may impact ocean quahogs by bringing them to the surface (Rumohr and Krost, 1991^[463]), however there is insufficient evidence to assess the mortality caused by this gear at a population level. As with demersal trawls and dredges, demersal seines may impact the structure and function of sedimentary habitats and the long-term survival of their associated species. There are currently no direct studies on the physical impacts of demersal seines. Modelling studies suggest that demersal seines have a large overall footprint (i.e. the surface area covered during one hour fishing) (Eigaard et al., 2016^[464]). Hiddink et al. (2017)^[465] suggest that depletion of biota is highly correlated with seabed penetration depth by trawls. Seines lack the heavy gear components (e.g. otter doors, trawl shoes) of other demersal mobile gears (Suuronen et al., 2012^[466]) and therefore, despite the relatively large footprint, impacts associated with penetration into the sediment are likely to be lower. Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[467]). The individual impact of a single demersal static fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[468]; Foden et al., 2010).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal activity by the UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal seines and demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered moderate to high, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Both demersal seine and demersal trawl activity is considered moderate intensity. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low to moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2019 also suggests that there is a very low level of demersal fishing activity from non-UK vessel within the areas protected under the proposed management measures. According to EMODnet data, the site consists of deep circalittoral sand and deep circalittoral coarse sediment habitat. GeMS habitat data does not cover the protected area. GeMS species data suggest the protected site support populations of Norway pout and ocean quahog. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal mobile fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile gears from the entire site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the MPA as the area that will be protected has a moderate to high intensity of fishing and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[469] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[470]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[471]). Furthermore, the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[472]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[473]; Hillborn, 2017^[474]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[475]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[476]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g., current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for cod. Furthermore, the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, plaice, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, cod, blue whiting, anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[477]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the small areas that will be protected, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of dredges, beam trawls and demersal trawls from the whole site and demersal seines from the north of the site are likely to be negligible beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[478] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[479]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[480]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[481]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[482]; Hillborn, 2017^[483]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[484]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[485]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for cod. Furthermore the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, plaice, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, cod, blue whiting, anglerfish Coull et al., 1998^[486]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the protected area. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the small size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal mobile gears are likely to be negligible beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity will be minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels (27 UK vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity will be minor adverse.

The main fishing methods that occur within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate to high. There is also a lower level of demersal seine fishing that takes place within the proposed management areas. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. There is no other fishing activity that takes place within areas protected by the proposed management measures. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls, which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types that are not targeted by the proposed measures is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

The main fishing methods that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity moderate to high. There is also a lower level of demersal seine fishing that takes place within the protected site. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2. There is no other fishing activity that takes place within the protected site. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measure would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site. For example, this may include midwater trawls, which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types that are not targeted is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the protected site is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate minor beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with gear types targeted by the management measures occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of dredges, beam trawls and demersal trawls from the entire site, and demersal seines from the north of the site, will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be only marginally greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate minor beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gears will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measure restricts new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be only marginally greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of dredges, beam trawls and demersal trawls across the entire site and demersal seines from the north of the site. This will help protect and improve the status of ocean quahog, considered to be Threatened and/or Declining in OSPAR Region II which are found in the area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of ocean quahog, considered to be Threatened and/or Declining in OSPAR Region II which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect and water quality effects associated with a moderate to high volume of fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect and water quality effects associated with a moderate to high volume of fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the prohibition of dredges, beam trawls and demersal trawls from the entire site, and demersal seines from the north of the site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the prohibition of demersal mobile gears throughout the site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long-term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity through the protected site. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). Whilst it is unlikely that demersal mobile gear can affect the long-term natural distribution of bedrock and stony reef features, there is evidence to indicate that the use of demersal mobile gears can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long-term survival of its associated species. The use of demersal mobile fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals through abrasion and siltation/smothering pressures (Freese et al., 1999^[487]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[488]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[489]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[490]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[491]). The individual impact of a single demersal static fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[492]; Foden et al., 2010^[493]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management area is undertaken using demersal seines and demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management area. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management area, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a moderate level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measure by non-UK vessels, mainly from France. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management area within the protected site consists of deep circalittoral sand, deep circalittoral coarse sediment, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep moderate energy circalittoral rock, deep circalittoral mixed sediments and deep circalittoral mud habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate northern sea fan and bedrock and stony reef occur within the protected area. GeMS species data suggest the protected area supports populations of anglerfish, Atlantic mackerel, cod, horse mackerel, ling, Norway pout, saithe, sandeels, spiny dogfish, white cluster anemone and whiting. The proposed management measure will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile gears from a zone covering most of the site is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of the MPA as the area that will be protected has a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). Whilst it is unlikely that demersal mobile gear can affect the long-term natural distribution of bedrock and stony reef features, there is evidence to indicate that the use of demersal mobile gears can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long-term survival of its associated species. The use of demersal mobile fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals through abrasion and siltation/smothering pressures (Freese et al., 1999^[494]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[495]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[496]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[497]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Recovery may be slow, resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species (Foden et al., 2010^[498]). The individual impact of a single demersal static fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[499]; Foden et al., 2010^[500]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal seines and demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a moderate level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measure by non-UK vessels, mainly from France. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of deep circalittoral sand, deep circalittoral coarse sediment, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep moderate energy circalittoral rock, deep circalittoral mixed sediments and deep circalittoral mud habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate northern sea fan and bedrock and stony reef occur within the protected site. GeMS species data suggest the protected site supports populations of anglerfish, Atlantic mackerel, cod, horse mackerel, ling, Norway pout, saithe, sandeels, spiny dogfish, white cluster anemone and whiting. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile gears from the entire protected site (which is only an additional small area of the site compared to the proposed management measure) is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of the MPA as the area that will be protected has a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[501] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[502]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[503]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[504]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[505]; Hillborn, 2017^[506]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[507]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[508]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measure is used as a spawning area for whiting, sandeel and cod. Furthermore the proposed management area may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[509]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the proposed management area. The proposed management measure will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management area (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking into account the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the small size of the protected area, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal mobile gears from a zone covering most of the site are considered to be minor beneficial given the existing high scale of fishing activity that would be restricted.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[510] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[511]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[512]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[513]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[514]; Hillborn, 2017^[515]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[516]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[517]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for whiting, sandeel and cod. Furthermore the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[518]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking into account the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the small size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal mobile gears from the entire site are considered to be minor beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed measure, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be high but it likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the SAC that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is considered to be minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels (76 UK vessels, 8 French vessels and an undisclosed number of other non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be high but it likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Overall the environmental impact of the displacement of fishing activities is considered to minor adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measure is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is high. There is also demersal seine fishing at lower levels. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measure. The other fishing activities that currently occur within the area protected by the proposed management measure are set nets at high levels and hooks and lines at moderate levels which are considered demersal static gear, and midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measure would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the management area and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management area in future. For example, this may include set nets, hooks and lines and midwater trawling, which currently take place both inside and near to the boundaries of the proposed management areas. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear from the proposed management area.

Overall, the proposed management measure is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is high. There is also demersal seine fishing at lower levels. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2. The other fishing activities that currently occur within the protected site are set nets at high levels and hooks and lines at moderate levels which are considered a demersal static gear, and midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include set nets, hooks and lines and midwater trawling, which currently take place both inside and near to the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, Option 2 is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate moderate beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measure. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal mobile gear types targeted by the management measure occurs is high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from a zone covering most of the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and potential use of other gear types that are not targeted by the measures is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate moderate beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of alternative option. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal mobile gear types targeted by Option 2 occurs is high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and potential use of other gear types that are not targeted by the measures is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across the prohibited zone of the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of bedrock and stony reef which contribute to the MPA Network for Annex I reef habitat. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across the prohibited zone of the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of bedrock and stony reef which contribute to the MPA Network for Annex I reef habitat. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the exclusion of a high volume of demersal fishing activity from a zone covering most of the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and, integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the exclusion of a high volume of demersal fishing activity from the entire site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and, integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measure management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most minor beneficial. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most minor beneficial. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

SEA Objective 4 - To avoid pollution of the marine water environment

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measure is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with high fishing activity within the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with high fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

SEA Objective 5 - To maintain or work towards achieving ‘Good Environmental Status’ of water bodies

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of demersal mobile fishing activity from a zone covering most of the site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of demersal mobile fishing activity from the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

SEA Objective 6 - To preserve and enhance existing marine carbon stocks and carbon sequestration potential

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management area. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high volume of demersal fishing activity within protected site and displacing this activity to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measure comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the submarine structures to abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The pockmarks were created by the expulsion of shallow methane gas and have been maintained by active gas seepage. At the base of the pockmarks, blocks of ‘methane derived authigenic carbonate’ (MDAC) have been recorded. These carbonate rocks, formed by the precipitation of calcium carbonate and cementation of the surrounding sediment, have been identified as the Annex I habitat ‘submarine structures made by leaking gases’ (Habitats Directive feature H1180). Species associated with MDAC include the gutless nematode Astomonema southwardorum, which may derive some of its nutrition from chemosynthetic bacteria (Austen et al., 1993^[519]) and the bivalves Thyasira sarsi and Lucinoma borealis, which are associated with the gas seepage in the pockmarks. Direct evidence of impacts of demersal mobile gears to submarine structures made by leaking gasses is limited. However, the biological communities that develop on exposed structures typically include many of the same species that can be found on subtidal rocky habitats in similar environmental conditions, and it is likely that the effects of fishing will be similar. The use of demersal mobile fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[520]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[521]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms are vulnerable to mobile fishing gear (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[522]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[523]). There is no direct evidence from which to determine impacts of demersal static gears on submarine structures made by leaking gases. Mechanical impacts of static gear (e.g. weights and anchors hitting the seabed, hauling gear over seabed, rubbing/entangling effect of ropes) can damage some species (Eno et al., 1996^[524]). Recovery is likely to be slow (Foden et al., 2010^[525]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be low to moderate, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management area. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management area, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low to moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is no demersal fishing activity taking place within the protected site by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the site consists solely of deep circalittoral mud habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud, offshore deep sea muds and submarine structures made by leaking gases within the proposed management area. GeMS data indicates burrowed mud occurs within the proposed management area. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and static fishing from the entire site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the feature of the SAC as the area that will be protected has a low to moderate intensity of fishing activity but contains an feature that is irreplaceable if damaged and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[526] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[527]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[528]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[529]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[530]; Hillborn, 2017^[531]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[532]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[533]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for cod. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[534]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the proposed management area. The proposed management measure will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species both within and outside of the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the small size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the site are likely to be negligible beneficial.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels (25 UK vessels and no non-UK vessels) will be impacted by the proposed management measure, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access the already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be low to moderate and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low to moderate. This demersal activity will be targeted by the proposed management measure. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the protected area is midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measure would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the management area and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is minimal potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management area in future, as no other fishing activity currently take place near to or outside the boundaries of the protected site.

Overall, the proposed management measure is considered highly unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate minor beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measure. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measure occur is low to moderate, and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gear types from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as minor adverse as the amount of effort displaced will be low to moderate and can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management area. This will help protect and improve the status of the Annex I feature submarine structures made by leaking gases which are found in the immediate area of the proposed management area. There will also be a further beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management area. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a further beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed within the proposed management area is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most minor beneficial. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low to moderate fishing activity within the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management area. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

Sandeels are targeted using small-mesh demersal trawl gear. Most of the catch consists of Ammodytes marinus, but other sandeel species are caught as well. Industrial trawl fisheries targeting sandeels can cause local depletion and alter the age and size composition of the sandeel population. Depletion of the stocks may lead to reduced recruitment and export of larvae to other areas and reduced availability of prey for predators. Sandeels play an important role in the wider North Sea ecosystem, providing a vital source of food for seabirds such as Atlantic puffin Fratercula Arctica and black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla, fish such as plaice Pleuronectes platessa and marine mammals such as dolphins, so it is important to maintain sandeel abundance at a level high enough to provide food for a variety of predator species. The availability of this importance food source may also potentially help to support the resilience of bird populations to avian influenza.

There is currently no targeted sandeel fishing in the UK fleet, however there is potential for impact from a very low number of non-UK vessels. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 indicates that there is one Danish vessel which has spent a low amount of time sandeel fishing at this site. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of deep circalittoral sand and deep circalittoral coarse sediment habitat. GeMS habitat data suggests offshore subtidal sands and gravels can be found within the proposed management area. GeMS species data suggest the protected site supports populations of harbour porpoise and sandeels. The proposed management measure will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from sandeel fishing activity.

The proposed removal of sandeel fishing activity from the protected site is assessed as having an immediate minor benefit to the features of the SAC. This is because the area that will be protected is considered to have a potential low intensity of fishing activity from non-UK vessels that may be targeting sandeels, and the feature and biological communities associated with the feature have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[535] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[536]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[537]). Furthermore, the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[538]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[539]; Hillborn, 2017^[540]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[541]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[542]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the proposed management area is used as a spawning area for whiting, sandeel, plaice and cod. Furthermore, the proposed management area may provide a nursery area for whiting, tope shark, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, plaice, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[543]). The proposed management measure has the potential to help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species both within and outside of the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the low level of current fishing activity, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of sandeel fishing activity within the site are likely to be negligible beneficial.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

The scale of any displacement of fishing activity, as a worst case is anticipated to be minor and not significant. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing sandeel fishing activity that will be displaced is anticipated to be minor and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is thought to be minor adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measure is mechanical dredging at moderate levels, demersal seine fishing and midwater trawling at low levels. However, no sandeel quota has been issued to UK vessels and, therefore, there is considered to be no risk of a potential change in gear type to one of the other methods.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the management area in future. For example, this may include mechanical dredges, midwater trawls and demersal seines, which currently take place both within and near to the site boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of sandeel fishing.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate negligible neutral effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measure. The scale at which the pressures associated with the sandeel fishing targeted by the management measure occur is considered to be at worst low, and the prohibition of this fishing activity from the site will protect and support the recovery of sandeels and associated species within the MPA. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area for sandeel fishing. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be balanced by the negative impacts associated with displacement.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management area. This will help protect and improve the status of sandeel which are found in the immediate area of the protected site and are considered to be a priority in terms of marine conservation in Scotland’s seas. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal trawling fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management area. There will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal trawling fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and selling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most negligible beneficial. There will also be a potential beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal trawling fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low fishing activity within the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing trawling activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low level of demersal trawling fishing activity across the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low level of demersal trawling fishing activity across the proposed management area. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future targeted fishing for sandeel activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measure comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the Annex I reef to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There is evidence to indicate that the use of bottom contacting mobile gears can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The animal communities found on bedrock and stony reefs on seamounts tend to be composed of erect and fragile species that are sensitive to physical disturbance, particularly deep-sea stony corals, gorgonians and black corals, sea anemones, hydroids and sponges (Clark and Tittensor, 2010^[544]; Clark et al., 2010^[545]) The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[546]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[547]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[548]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[549]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Recovery from such damage is estimated to be measured on a decadal scale pending on the environmental conditions (Clark et al., 2010^[550]; ICES, 2010^[551]). Mobile bottom contact gears reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The passage of towed fishing gear may increase mortality of the coral by crushing, burying or wounding corals, increasing susceptibility to infection and epifaunal recruitment that may eventually smother corals (Fosså et al., 2002^[552]). The passing of a heavy trawl reduces the three-dimensional structure of the coral to rubble, decreasing the complexity of the habitat with impacts on the associated community composition (Koslow et al., 2001^[553]; Fosså et al., 2002). Indirect impacts on cold-water coral reefs from trawling are from increased levels of suspended particles in the water column causing smothering and polyp mortality (Larsson and Purser, 2011^[554]). Static bottom contact gears are likely to reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The impacts are considered to be lower than for mobile gear types (Pham et al., 2014^[555]), however impacts to habitats and biota may occur during certain conditions. For example, hooks, lines, nets and ropes entangle corals and may pluck them during hauling (Grehan et al., 2004^[556]; ICES, 2010^[557], Sampaio et al., 2012^[558]). Physical damage to the seabed has been observed which may be caused by dragged anchors (Grehan et al., 2004^[559]; ICES, 2010^[560]). The individual impact of a single fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage can be significant. Given the slow growth rate of the reefs, they may take centuries to recover from damage, if at all (ICES, 2010^[561]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management area is undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be low taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a very low level of demersal fishing activity within the protected area by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the site consists of Atlantic lower bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic lower bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic upper abyssal mixed substrata, Atlantic lower bathyal mixed substrata and Atlantic lower bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic lower bathyal rock or other hard substrata. GeMS habitat data indicate offshore subtidal sands and gravels, seamount communities, coral gardens and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within the proposed management area. GeMS species data do not indicate specific species within the proposed management area. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal mobile and static fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and static fishing is assessed as having an immediate negligible benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a low intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[562] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[563]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[564]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[565]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[566]; Hillborn, 2017^[567]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[568]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[569]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicates that the protected site may be used as a spawning area for mackerel but does not serve as a nursery area for fish species (Coull et al., 1998^[570]). Landings data suggests demersal species are present within the protected site. The proposed management measure will help support spawning fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the low level of current fishing activity, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal mobile and static activity within the site are likely to be negligible beneficial.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively low number of vessels (an undisclosed number of UK and non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by the proposed management measure, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding CSSEG region and, therefore the distance needed to access the already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be low and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the potential adverse environment impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is considered to be negligible adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The only fishing method that is known to occur within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low, and it is targeted by the proposed management measure. No other fishing gear types are currently present within the protected site. The potential environmental impact of increased fishing effort from other gear types not targeted by the proposed measure is, therefore, considered to be negligible. Furthermore, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to another method as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the CSSEG region, where they can continue fishing using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management area in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls which currently takes place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measure is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate negligible neutral effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measure. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measure occur is low, and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gear from the proposed management area will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as negligible as the amount of effort displaced will be low and can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall negligible benefit of protection is likely to be slightly balanced by the negligible adverse impacts associated with displacement.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low level of demersal fishing activity across proposed management area. This will help protect and improve the status of the hard bedrock reef of low topographic-complexity, stony reef, and biogenic L. pertusa reef in the deep circalittoral to bathyal zone of the protected site, making a contribution to the UK Network for Annex I reef habitat. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low level of demersal mobile and static fishing in the proposed management area. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and, integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the proposed management area is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low fishing activity within the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management area. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. Studies have shown that areas of mud habitats (which include burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea mud) subject to mobile fishing activity 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^[571]; Tuck et al., 1998^[572]). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006^[573]). This effect was greatest in the more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that severity of impact is related to the intensity of fishing (Ball et al., 2000^[574]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992^[575]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[576]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[577]). The net result is benthic communities modified to varying degrees relative to the un-impacted state (Bergman & van Santbrink, 2000^[578]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[579]). The species associated with seamount communities tend to be composed of erect and fragile species that are sensitive to physical disturbance, particularly deep-sea stony corals, gorgonians and black corals, sea anemones, hydroids and sponges (Clark & Tittensor, 2010^[580]; Clark et al., 2010^[581]). Trawling can cause mortality to species by disturbance on the seabed or by bringing them to the surface resulting in a reduction in abundance (Kaiser et al., 1996^[582], Jennings and Kaiser, 2008^[583]; ICES, 2010^[584]). Recovery from such damage is estimated to be measured in decades, depending on the environmental conditions (Clark et al., 2010^[585]; ICES, 2010^[586]). Only the seamount communities featured within the Barra Fan and Hebrides Terrace Seamount MPA are considered to be sensitive to static gear. No studies providing evidence of the effects of static gears on Scottish seamounts were found, however impacts occurring on analogous vulnerable habitats and species, such as sponges and corals in Scottish waters are applicable (Muñoz et al., 2010^[587]). Impacts can arise from hooks, lines, nets and ropes becoming entangled with corals and other fragile species, including ‘plucking’ them from the seabed during hauling (Mortensen et al., 2005^[588]; Muñoz et al., 2010^[589]; OSPAR, 2010b^[590]). While the extent of damage caused by individual static gear fishing events is likely to be lower than that for trawling (Pham et al., 2014^[591]), the effect of cumulative damage may be significant.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be low to moderate taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a high level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas by non-UK vessels, mainly from Norway and France. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of deep circalittoral coarse sediment, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal mixed substrata and Atlantic upper abyssal sandy mud habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels and seamount communities occur within the proposed management areas. GeMS species data suggest the proposed management areas support populations of orange roughy. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and demersal static gear from the prohibited zones is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the MPA as the area that will be protected has a low to moderate intensity of fishing and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. Studies have shown that areas of mud habitats (which include burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea mud) subject to mobile fishing activity 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^[592]; Tuck et al., 1998^[593]). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006^[594]). This effect was greatest in the more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that severity of impact is related to the intensity of fishing (Ball et al., 2000^[595]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992^[596]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[597]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[598]). The net result is benthic communities modified to varying degrees relative to the unimpacted state (Bergman & van Santbrink, 2000^[599]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[600]). The species associated with seamount communities tend to be composed of erect and fragile species that are sensitive to physical disturbance, particularly deep-sea stony corals, gorgonians and black corals, sea anemones, hydroids and sponges (Clark & Tittensor, 2010^[601]; Clark et al., 2010^[602]). Trawling can cause mortality to species by disturbance on the seabed or by bringing them to the surface resulting in a reduction in abundance (Kaiser et al., 1996^[603], Jennings and Kaiser, 2008^[604]; ICES, 2010^[605]). Recovery from such damage is estimated to be measured in decades, depending on the environmental conditions (Clark et al., 2010^[606]; ICES, 2010^[607]). Only the seamount communities feature within the Barra Fan and Hebrides Terrace Seamount MPA is considered to be sensitive to static gear. No studies providing evidence of the effects of static gears on Scottish seamounts were found, however impacts occurring on analogous vulnerable habitats and species, such as sponges and corals in Scottish waters are applicable (Muñoz et al., 2010^[608]). Impacts can arise from hooks, lines, nets and ropes becoming entangled with corals and other fragile species, including ‘plucking’ them from the seabed during hauling (Mortensen et al., 2005^[609]; Muñoz et al., 2010^[610]; OSPAR, 2010b^[611]). While the extent of damage caused by individual static gear fishing events is likely to be lower than that for trawling (Pham et al., 2014^[612]), the effect of cumulative damage may be significant.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low to moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a high level of demersal fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels, mainly from Norway and France. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of deep circalittoral coarse sediment, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal mixed substrata and Atlantic upper abyssal sandy mud habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels and seamount communities occur within the protected site. GeMS species data suggest the protected area supports populations of flapper skate and blue skate, Norway pout and orange roughy. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and demersal static gear from the entire site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the MPA as the area that will be protected has a moderate intensity of fishing and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[613] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[614]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[615]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[616]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[617]; Hillborn, 2017^[618]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[619]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[620]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for mackerel and hake. Furthermore the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[621]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected areas, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the prohibited zones of the site are considered to be minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[622] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[623]). verspill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[624]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[625]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[626]; Hillborn, 2017^[627]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[628]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[629]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for mackerel and hake. Furthermore the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[630]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from the protected site are considered to be minor beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be low to moderate and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore, the environmental impact of the displacement is considered to be negligible adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels (6 UK vessels, 7 French vessels, 9 Norwegian vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding CSSEG region and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact the displacement is considered to be minor adverse.

The main demersal fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is activity is low to moderate. This demersal activity will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type as there would still be areas outside the MPA management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is also potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include midwater trawling, which currently takes place both within and near to the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

The main demersal fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is activity is moderate. There is also a very low level of hooks and lines that takes place within the proposed site (outside the proposed management areas). These demersal activities will be targeted by Option 2. The other fishing activity that currently occurs within protected site is midwater trawling at low to moderate levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type as there would still be areas outside the MPA management areas and within the surrounding CSSEG region, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include of midwater trawling, which currently takes place both within and near to the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, Option 2 has the potential to result in a minor increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate major beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is low to moderate, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from specified zones will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and a potential change in non-targeted gear types are assessed as negligible as the low to moderate amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negligible impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate minor beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is moderate, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and a potential change in non-targeted gear types are assessed as minor as the moderate amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly greater than the impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate major beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the areas protected by the proposed measures and potential minor spillover benefits. This will help protect and improve the status of seapens and burrowing megafauna, orange roughy and seamounts are listed by the OSPAR Commission as Threatened and/or Declining which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the protected site and minor adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site and a potential change in gear type. This will help protect and improve the status of seapens and burrowing megafauna, orange roughy and seamounts are listed by the OSPAR Commission as Threatened and/or Declining which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity in the prohibited zones of the site . This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing from the entire site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and the settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most moderate beneficial. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and the settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as at most negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 through reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low to moderate fishing activity within the proposed management areas. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 through reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with moderate fishing activity within the site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low to moderate level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate level of demersal fishing activity across the entire site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or to new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this protected site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measure comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the Annex I reef to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. Mobile bottom contact gears reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The passage of towed fishing gear may increase mortality of the coral by crushing, burying or wounding corals, increasing susceptibility to infection and epifaunal recruitment that may eventually smother corals (Fosså et al., 2002^[631]). The passing of a heavy trawl reduces the three-dimensional structure of the coral to rubble, decreasing the complexity of the habitat with impacts on the associated community composition (Koslow et al., 2001^[632]; Fosså et al., 2002^[633]). Indirect impacts on cold-water coral reefs from trawling are from increased levels of suspended particles in the water column causing smothering and polyp mortality (Larsson & Purser, 2011^[634]). Corals are slow growing so any damage will take many years to repair (ICES, 2010^[635]). Static bottom contact gears are likely to reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The impacts are considered to be lower than for mobile gear types (Pham et al., 2014^[636]), however impacts to habitats and biota may occur during certain conditions. For example, hooks, lines, nets and ropes entangle corals and may pluck them during hauling (Grehan et al., 2004^[637]; ICES, 2010^[638], Sampaio et al., 2012^[639]). Physical damage to the seabed has been observed which may be caused by dragged anchors (Grehan et al., 2004^[640]; ICES, 2010^[641]). The individual impact of a single fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage can be significant. Given the slow growth rate of the reefs, they may take centuries to recover from damage, if at all (ICES, 2010^[642]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that there is no demersal activity by UK vessels within the protected site. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of demersal fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of Atlantic mid bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic mid bathyal mud and Atlantic mid bathyal sand or muddy sand habitat. GeMS habitat data does not cover the proposed management area. GeMS species data suggest the protected area supports populations sandeels. The proposed management measure will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and static fishing is assessed as having no immediate effect on the features of the SAC as the area that will be protected has no known current demersal fishing activity. There is, however, the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[643] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[644]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[645]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[646]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[647]; Hillborn, 2017^[648]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[649]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[650]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for mackerel and hake. Furthermore, the protected site may provide a nursery area for blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[651]). The proposed management measure will help support spawning and nursery fish, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

Given that there is no existing demersal fishing activity within the protected site, there is considered to be no impact on the environment associated with potential spill-over benefits.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

There is no known current demersal fishing activity at the protected site and therefore there is considered to be no impact from displacement.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The only fishing method that occurs within the protected site is midwater trawls. The scale of this activity is very low and is not targeted by the proposed management measure. Given that there is no existing demersal fishing activity that is targeted by the proposed measures, there is considered to be no potential for fishing effort from other gear types to change and result in an adverse effect.

Overall, the proposed management measure is considered unlikely to result in a change in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore there is considered to be no impact on the environment.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

Given that there is no known current demersal fishing activity that takes place within the SAC, there is considered to be no immediate effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. There is the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in no immediate contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of demersal fishing activity across the entire site. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in no immediate contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in no immediate contribution to SEA Objective 3. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in no immediate contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in no immediate contribution to SEA Objective 5. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in no immediate contribution to SEA Objective 6. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the stony, bedrock and biogenic reef to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[652]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[653]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[654]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[655]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Demersal towed gears reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The passage of towed fishing gear may increase mortality of the coral by crushing, burying or wounding corals, increasing susceptibility to infection and epifaunal recruitment that may eventually smother corals (Fosså et al., 2002^[656]). The passing of a heavy trawl reduces the three-dimensional structure of the coral to rubble, decreasing the complexity of the habitat with impacts on the associated community composition (Koslow et al., 2001^[657]; Fosså et al., 2002^[658]). Indirect impacts on cold-water coral reefs from trawling are from increased levels of suspended particles in the water column causing smothering and polyp mortality (Larsson and Purser, 2011^[659]). Corals are slow growing so any damage will take many years to repair (ICES, 2010^[660]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawls, demersal seines and set nets. The overall fishing intensity associated with demersal mobile gear is considered to be moderate to high and the overall intensity of demersal static gear is low, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Demersal trawl and set net fishing activity is deemed moderate and demersal seine activity is considered to be low. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground for demersal mobile fisheries is deemed moderate and the importance for demersal static fisheries is low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of demersal fishing activity within the areas protected by the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic mid bathyal mud, Atlantic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic upper bathyal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic upper bathyal mud and Atlantic upper bathyal mixed substrata habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate cold-water coral reefs, coral reefs, deep-sea sponge aggregations, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected areas. GeMS species data suggest the protected areas support populations of orange roughy and blue ling. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing from the proposed management areas is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the areas that will be protected experience a moderate to high intensity of demersal mobile fishing activity and low intensity of demersal static fishing activity, and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile and static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the stony, bedrock and biogenic reef to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[661]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[662]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[663]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[664]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Demersal towed gears reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The passage of towed fishing gear may increase mortality of the coral by crushing, burying or wounding corals, increasing susceptibility to infection and epifaunal recruitment that may eventually smother corals (Fosså et al., 2002^[665]). The passing of a heavy trawl reduces the three-dimensional structure of the coral to rubble, decreasing the complexity of the habitat with impacts on the associated community composition (Koslow et al., 2001^[666]; Fosså et al., 2002^[667]). Indirect impacts on cold-water coral reefs from trawling are from increased levels of suspended particles in the water column causing smothering and polyp mortality (Larsson and Purser, 2011^[668]). Corals are slow growing so any damage will take many years to repair (ICES, 2010^[669]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls, demersal seines and set nets. The overall fishing intensity associated with demersal mobile gear is considered to be moderate to high and the overall intensity of demersal static gear is moderate, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Demersal trawl and set net fishing activity is deemed moderate and demersal seine activity is considered to be low. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground for demersal mobile fisheries is deemed moderate and the importance for demersal static fisheries is low to moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of demersal fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consist of Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic mid bathyal mud, Atlantic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic upper bathyal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic upper bathyal mud and Atlantic upper bathyal mixed substrata habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate cold-water coral reefs, coral reefs, deep-sea sponge aggregations, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected site. GeMS species data suggest the protected site supports populations of orange roughy and blue ling. The protected site will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing from the protected site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the areas that will be protected experience a moderate to high intensity of demersal mobile fishing activity and low intensity of demersal static fishing activity, and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[670] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[671]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[672]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[673]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[674]; Hillborn, 2017^[675]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[676]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[677]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for mackerel. Furthermore, the proposed management areas provide a nursery area for ling and blue whiting. In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected areas, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the proposed management areas are considered to be minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[678] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[679]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[680]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[681]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[682]; Hillborn, 2017^[683]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[684]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[685]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for mackerel. Furthermore, the protected site provides a nursery area for ling and blue whiting. In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the protected site are considered to be minor beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high for demersal mobile gear and low for demersal static gear but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the SAC that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels (23 UK vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the demersal mobile fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle (demersal trawls) or CSSEG region (demersal seines) and therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. However, demersal static fishing activity cannot be displaced to the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region and, this fishing activity may need to travel further or use new grounds not previously fished with associated greater potential environmental impact.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing demersal mobile fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. The number of vessels and scale of existing demersal static fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate and will need to travel far to existing fishing grounds or use new grounds not previously fished. Overall the environmental impact of the displacement of fishing activities is considered to be moderate adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate. There is also a moderate level of set nets and a low level of demersal seine fishing that takes place within the proposed management areas. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. No other fishing currently takes place within the site and, therefore, there is considered no potential environmental impact of increased fishing effort from other gear types not targeted by the proposed measures. Furthermore, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the proposed management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is little potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future as no other gear types operate outside of the boundaries of the protected site.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in any change in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore there is considered to be no impact on the environment.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. There is also a moderate level of set nets and a low level of demersal seine fishing that takes place within the proposed management areas. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2 . No other fishing currently takes place within the site and, therefore, there is considered no potential environmental impact of increased fishing effort from other gear types not targeted by the proposed measure. Furthermore, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using demersal mobile gears that are targeted by the proposed measure would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles or CSSEG regions, where they can fish using their existing gears. It is possible that fisheries using demersal static gears that are targeted by Option 2 could alter their gear type to one of the other methods as the fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region.

There is considered to be little potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types that are not targeted to occur within the protected site in future as no other gear types operate outside of the boundaries of the protected site.

Overall, Option 2 is considered unlikely to result in any change in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore there is considered to be no impact on the environment.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate moderate beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gear from the prohibited zones will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC, and also allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate minor beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gear from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC, and also allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as moderate as some of the effort displaced cannot be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, involving fishing vessels travelling further to access existing grounds or new grounds being fished which will result in impacts on undisturbed areas. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly higher compared to the negative impacts associated with displacement.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I reef subtypes, as well as OSPAR listed Threatened and/or Declining habitats Deep-sea sponge aggregations and coral gardens, which are all found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I reef subtypes, as well as OSPAR listed Threatened and/or Declining habitats Deep-sea sponge aggregations and coral gardens, which are all found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across the protected site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as minor beneficial. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with a moderate to high fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with a moderate to high fishing activity within the protected site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity in the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity in the protected site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across the site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal fishing activities at this site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). Studies have shown that areas of mud habitats (which include burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea mud) subject to mobile fishing activity 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^[686]; Tuck et al., 1998^[687]). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006^[688]). This effect was greatest in the more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that severity of impact is related to the intensity of fishing (Ball et al., 2000^[689]). In lower energy deep water locations such as the Barra Fan and the Hebridean Slope, sediments tend to be more stable and their associated fauna less tolerant of disturbance (Hiddink et al., 2006^[690]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[691]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[692]; Foden et al., 2010^[693]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou & Robertson, 1992^[694]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[695]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman & van Santbrink, 2000^[696]). The net result is benthic communities modified to varying degrees relative to the un-impacted state (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[697]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[698]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate to high, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is high level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels, mainly from France and Spain. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of Atlantic lower bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic mid bathyal mud, Atlantic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, deep circalittoral coarse sediment and deep circalittoral sand habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea mud, offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the proposed management areas. GeMS species data suggest the protected areas supports populations of orange roughy and sandeels. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile fishing from the protected areas is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the areas that will be protected experience a moderate to high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). Studies have shown that areas of mud habitats (which include burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea mud) subject to mobile fishing activity 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^[699]; Tuck et al., 1998^[700]). Furthermore, modelling studies suggest that the greatest impact is produced by the first pass of a trawl (Hiddink et al., 2006^[701]). This effect was greatest in the more heavily fished offshore areas suggesting that severity of impact is related to the intensity of fishing (Ball et al., 2000^[702]). In lower energy deep water locations such as the Barra Fan and the Hebridean Slope, sediments tend to be more stable and their associated fauna less tolerant of disturbance (Hiddink et al., 2006^[703]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[704]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[705]; Foden et al., 2010^[706]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou & Robertson, 1992^[707]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[708]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman & van Santbrink, 2000^[709]). The net result is benthic communities modified to varying degrees relative to the un-impacted state (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[710]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[711]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate to high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is high level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels, mainly from France and Spain. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of Atlantic lower bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic mid bathyal mud, Atlantic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, deep circalittoral coarse sediment and deep circalittoral sand habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud and offshore deep-sea mud and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the site. GeMS species data suggest the protected site supports populations of flapper skate and blue skate, Norway pout, orange roughy and sandeels. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile fishing from the protected site is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the protected site has a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the features have high sensitivities to fishing related pressures. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[712] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[713]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[714]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[715]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[716]; Hillborn, 2017^[717]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[718]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[719]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the management measures are used as a spawning area for mackerel and hake. Furthermore, the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[720]). In addition, landings data suggest pelagic and demersal species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking into account the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected zones, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from the proposed management areas within the site are considered to be minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[721] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[722]). verspill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[723]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[724]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[725]; Hillborn, 2017^[726]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[727]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[728]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for mackerel and hake. Furthermore, the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[729]). In addition, landings data suggest pelagic and demersal species are present within the protected site. The protected site will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking into account the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from the protected site are considered to be moderate beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is considered to be minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

It is considered that a high number of vessels (30 UK vessels, 10 French vessels, 10 Spanish vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2 which cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region. This existing fishing activity will need to travel further or use new grounds not previously fished with associated greater potential environmental impact.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be high and will need to travel far to existing fishing grounds or use new grounds not previously fished. Overall the environmental impact of the displacement of fishing activities is considered to be moderate adverse.

The main demersal mobile fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate to high. This demersal fishing activity will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The other main fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is hooks and lines at high levels which are considered a demersal static gear and midwater trawling at moderate levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include hooks and lines and midwater trawling which currently take place both within, and near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. In addition, there is potential for increased effort from pots and traps which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

The main demersal mobile fishing method that occurs within the areas protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is high. This demersal fishing activity will be targeted by Option 2. The other main fishing activity that currently occurs within the protected site is hooks and lines at high levels which are considered a demersal static gear and midwater trawling at moderate levels. It is possible that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as the fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include hooks and lines and midwater trawling which currently take place both within, and near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. In addition, there is potential for increased effort from pots and traps which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, given scale of activity that will be displaced, Option 2 has the potential to result in a minor increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as moderate adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate minor beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from the proposed management areas will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The potential change in use to other gear types that are not targeted by the measures is also considered minor. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be only slightly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate minor beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear across the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and allow for potential moderate spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as moderate as the amount of effort displaced will be high and cannot be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, involving fishing vessels travelling further to access existing grounds or new grounds being fished which will result in impacts on undisturbed areas. There is also the potential for moderate adverse effects associated with the use of other gear types. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be only slightly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types under Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will help protect and improve the status of OSPAR threatened and/or declining sea-pen and burrowing megafauna community habitats which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of OSPAR threatened and/or declining sea-pen and burrowing megafauna community habitats which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with moderate to high fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with high fishing activity within the protected site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across the site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high level of demersal fishing activity across the site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities at this site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. Whilst it is unlikely that demersal towed gears can affect the long-term natural distribution of stony reef features, there is evidence to indicate that their use can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[730]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[731]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[732]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[733]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Demersal towed gears reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The passage of towed fishing gear may increase mortality of the coral by crushing, burying or wounding corals, increasing susceptibility to infection and epifaunal recruitment that may eventually smother corals (Fosså et al., 2002^[734]). The passing of a heavy trawl reduces the three-dimensional structure of the coral to rubble, decreasing the complexity of the habitat with impacts on the associated community composition (Koslow et al., 2001^[735]; Fosså et al., 2002^[736]). Indirect impacts on cold-water coral reefs from trawling are from increased levels of suspended particles in the water column causing smothering and polyp mortality (Larsson and Purser, 2011^[737]). Corals are slow growing so any damage will take many years to repair (ICES, 2010^[738]). Mechanical impacts of static gear (e.g. weights and anchors hitting the seabed, hauling gear over seabed, rubbing/entangling effects of ropes) can damage some species (Eno et al., 1996^[739]). Recovery will be slow (Foden et al., 2010^[740]) resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species. The individual impact of a single fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[741]; Foden et al., 2010^[742]). Static bottom contact gears are likely to reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management area is undertaken using demersal trawls, set nets and demersal seines. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate to high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management area. Demersal trawl fishing activity is deemed moderate and demersal seine and set net activity is considered to be low. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management area, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate to high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management area within the protected site consist of deep circalittoral mud, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic upper bathyal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal rock or other hard substrata, and Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate cold-water reefs, deep-sea sponge aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected area. GeMS species data do not show species present within the protected area. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and static gears fishing from the zones within the protected site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a moderate to high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. Whilst it is unlikely that demersal towed gears can affect the long-term natural distribution of stony reef features, there is evidence to indicate that their use can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[743]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[744]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[745]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[746]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Demersal towed gears reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The passage of towed fishing gear may increase mortality of the coral by crushing, burying or wounding corals, increasing susceptibility to infection and epifaunal recruitment that may eventually smother corals (Fosså et al., 2002^[747]). The passing of a heavy trawl reduces the three-dimensional structure of the coral to rubble, decreasing the complexity of the habitat with impacts on the associated community composition (Koslow et al., 2001^[748]; Fosså et al., 2002^[749]). Indirect impacts on cold-water coral reefs from trawling are from increased levels of suspended particles in the water column causing smothering and polyp mortality (Larsson and Purser, 2011^[750]). Corals are slow growing so any damage will take many years to repair (ICES, 2010^[751]). Mechanical impacts of static gear (e.g. weights and anchors hitting the seabed, hauling gear over seabed, rubbing/entangling effects of ropes) can damage some species (Eno et al., 1996^[752]). Recovery will be slow (Foden et al., 2010^[753]) resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species. The individual impact of a single fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[754]; Foden et al., 2010^[755]). Static bottom contact gears are likely to reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral (biogenic reef) features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management area is undertaken using demersal trawls, set nets and demersal seines. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate to high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Demersal trawl fishing activity is deemed moderate and demersal seine and set net activity is considered to be low. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate to high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of deep circalittoral mud, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, Atlantic upper bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic upper bathyal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal rock or other hard substrata, and Atlantic upper bathyal sand or muddy sand habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate cold-water reefs, deep-sea sponge aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected area. GeMS species data do not show species present within the protected area. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and static gears fishing from the zones within the protected site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a moderate to high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[756] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[757]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[758]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[759]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[760]; Hillborn, 2017^[761]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[762]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[763]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicates that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are not used as a spawning area and may provide a nursery area for ling and blue whiting (Coull et al., 1998^[764]). In addition, landings data suggest molluscs and demersal species are present within the proposed management area. The proposed management measures will help support nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management area (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected area, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within prohibited zone are likely to be minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[765] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[766]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[767]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[768]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[769]; Hillborn, 2017^[770]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[771]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[772]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicates that the protected area is not used as a spawning area and may provide a nursery area for ling and blue whiting (Coull et al., 1998^[773]). In addition, landings data suggest molluscs and demersal species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from the protected site are likely to be minor beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the SAC that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels (26 UK vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate. There is also a lower level of demersal seine and set net fishing that takes place within the proposed management area. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. There are no other gear types that are currently used within the protected areas and, therefore, there is considered to be no potential environmental impact of increased fishing effort from other gear types not targeted by the proposed measures. Furthermore, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the management area and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is minimal potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management area in future as no other gear types operate outside of the boundaries of the protected site.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in any change in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore there is considered to be no impact on the environment.

The main fishing method that occurs within protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate. There is also a lower level of demersal seine and set net fishing that takes place within the protected site. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2. There are no other gear types that are currently used within the protected areas and, therefore, there is considered to be no potential environmental impact of increased fishing effort from other gear types not targeted by alternative option. Furthermore, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is minimal potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future as no other gear types operate outside of the boundaries of the protected site.

Overall, Option 2 is considered unlikely to result in any change in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore there is considered to be no impact on the environment.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate moderate beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measure. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measure occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from the specific zones within the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate moderate beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by alternative option occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement is assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management area. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I reef and VME indicator species/habitats which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I reef and VME indicator species/habitats which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management area. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and, integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and, integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the proposed management area is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as minor. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as minor. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 4 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 4 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management area and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management area.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high level of demersal fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed fishery management measures for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity within the protected site. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and demersal static fishing activities within the site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise dredges and demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. Whilst it is unlikely that demersal mobile gear can affect the long-term natural distribution of bedrock and stony reef features, there is evidence to indicate that the use of such gears can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals through abrasion, and siltation/smothering (Freese et al., 1999^[774]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[775]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[776]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[777]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by the UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawls, demersal seines and mechanical dredges. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Demersal trawl activity is considered high, whereas demersal seines and mechanical dredge activity is considered moderate. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a very low level of non-UK fishing activity with the targeted gear within the areas protected under the proposed management measures. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas consist of deep circalittoral coarse sediment, sponge communities on deep circalittoral rock, circalittoral fine sand or Circalittoral muddy sand, faunal communities on deep moderate energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, deep circalittoral sand, deep circalittoral sediment, Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circalittoral rock, shallow circalittoral sediment, Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock and circalittoral coarse sediment habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the proposed management areas. GeMS species data suggest the protected area may support populations of cod, flapper skate and blue skate, harbour porpoise, ling, northern feather star, Norway pout, Risso’s dolphin, saithe, sandeels and whiting. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of dredges and other demersal fishing gears from the proposed management areas is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise dredges and demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. Whilst it is unlikely that demersal mobile gear can affect the long-term natural distribution of bedrock and stony reef features, there is evidence to indicate that the use of such gears can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals through abrasion, and siltation/smothering (Freese et al., 1999^[778]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[779]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[780]; Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[781]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that dredge and demersal fishing activity by the UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls, demersal seines and mechanical dredges. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high, taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Demersal trawl activity is considered high, whereas demersal seines and mechanical dredge activity is considered moderate. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a very low level of non-UK fishing activity with the targeted gear within the protected site. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of deep circalittoral coarse sediment, sponge communities on deep circalittoral rock, circalittoral fine sand or circalittoral muddy sand, faunal communities on deep moderate energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, deep circalittoral sand, deep circalittoral sediment, Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circalittoral rock, shallow circalittoral sediment, Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock and circalittoral coarse sediment habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected site. GeMS species data suggest the protected area may support populations of cod, flapper skate and blue skate, harbour porpoise, ling, northern feather star, Norway pout, Risso’s dolphin, saithe, sandeels and whiting. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of dredges and other demersal fishing gears from the protected site is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[782] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[783]). verspill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[784]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[785]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[786]; Hillborn, 2017^[787]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[788]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[789]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as spawning areas for sandeel and mackerel. Furthermore, the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, tope shark, thornback ray, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[790]). In addition, landings data suggest molluscs and demersal species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures could? Help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the small size of the areas protected by the proposed measures, potential spill-over benefits are likely to be minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[791] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[792]). verspill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[793]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[794]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[795]; Hillborn, 2017^[796]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[797]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[798]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as spawning areas for sandeel and mackerel. Furthermore, the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, tope shark, thornback ray, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[799]). In addition, landings data suggest molluscs and demersal species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the small size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits under Option 2 are likely to be minor beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region. This existing fishing activity will need to travel further or use new grounds not previously fished with associated greater potential environmental impact.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be high and will need to travel far to existing fishing grounds or use new grounds not previously fished. Overall, the environmental impact of the displacement of fishing activities is assessed as moderate adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels (42 UK vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region. This existing fishing activity will need to travel further or use new grounds not previously fished with associated greater potential environmental impact.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be high and will need to travel far to existing fishing grounds or use new grounds not previously fished. Overall, the environmental impact of the displacement of fishing activities is considered to be moderate adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is high. There is also demersal seine fishing and mechanical dredging that takes place within the proposed management measures at moderate levels. These activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is pots and traps at high levels. It is possible that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as the fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include pots and traps and demersal seines (during the approved time of year) which currently take place both inside and near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures has the potential to result in a direct increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as moderate adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is high. There is also demersal seine fishing and mechanical dredging that takes place within the protected site at moderate levels. These activities will be targeted by Option 2. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by Option 2 pots and traps at high levels. It is possible that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as the fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region.

There is the potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include pots and traps which currently take place both inside and near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, Option 2 has the potential to result in a direct increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as moderate adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between the beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate negligible neutral effects on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is high, and the prohibition of dredges and beam trawls from the site, demersal trawls and seines from zones within the site, and demersal trawls and seines during the time specified, will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and the potential use of other gear types that are not targeted by the measures are assessed as moderate as the amount of effort displaced will be large and cannot be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, involving fishing vessels travelling further to access existing grounds or new grounds being fished which will result in impacts on undisturbed areas. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be balanced by the negative impacts associated with displacement and use of other gear types.

Overall, when considering the balance between the beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate negligible neutral effects on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is high, and the prohibition of dredges, beam trawls, demersal trawls and demersal seines from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and potential use of other gear types that are not targeted are assessed as moderate as the amount of effort displaced will be large and cannot be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, involving fishing vessels travelling further to access existing grounds or new grounds being fished which will result in impacts on undisturbed areas. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be balanced by the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a high level of dredge and demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I reef subtypes hard bedrock reef and stony reef which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a high level of dredge and demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I reef subtypes hard bedrock reef and stony reef which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the exclusion of a high level of dredge and demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and, integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the exclusion of a high level of dredge and demersal fishing activity across the protected site but greater potential adverse effects associated with displacement outside the site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and resuspension and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and resuspension and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with high fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with high fishing activity within the protected site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high level of dredge and demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high level of dredge and demersal fishing activity across the protected site and displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high level of dredge and demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high level of dredge and demersal fishing activity across the protected site but displacing this activity to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredge and demersal fishing activities within the protected site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). Five small areas have been identified within the site that are regularly fished by demersal trawlers targeting Nephrops norvegicus but do not contain Annex I reef features. It is not considered likely that fishing within these areas will have a significant effect on the Annex I features. The remainder of the site is not currently fished by these gears but if fishing were to occur in the future, it is likely that there would be a significant effect: whilst it is unlikely that demersal towed gears can affect the long-term natural distribution of granite bedrock reef features, there is some evidence to indicate that the use of bottom contacting mobile gears can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Løkkeborg, 2005^[800] and Freese et al., 1999^[801]. Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[802], Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[803]). Recovery is likely to be slow (Foden et al., 2010^[804]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawling. The overall fishing intensity is considered low taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of deep circalittoral sand, deep circalittoral coarse sediment, circalittoral coarse sediment, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep moderate energy circalittoral rock, deep circalittoral sediment, sponge communities on deep circalittoral rock, Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock, sublittoral sediment and deep circalittoral mud habitats. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected areas. GeMS species data suggest the protected area supports populations of basking shark, northern feather star, tall sea-pen, northern sea fan and sponge communities. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing within the proposed management areas is assessed as having an immediate minor benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the areas that will be protected has a low intensity of fishing activity and contain biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. There are also indirect pressures associated with these fishing methods that habitats and species are sensitive to (e.g. siltation increases). Five small areas have been identified within the site that are regularly fished by demersal trawlers targeting Nephrops norvegicus but do not contain Annex I reef features. It is not considered likely that fishing within these areas will have a significant effect on the Annex I features. The remainder of the site is not currently fished by these gears but if fishing were to occur in the future, it is likely that there would be a significant effect: whilst it is unlikely that demersal towed gears can affect the long-term natural distribution of granite bedrock reef features, there is some evidence to indicate that the use of bottom contacting mobile gears can impact the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Løkkeborg, 2005^[805] and Freese et al., 1999^[806];). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[807], Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[808]). Recovery is likely to be slow (Foden et al., 2010^[809]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawling. The overall fishing intensity is considered low taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of demersal mobile fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of deep circalittoral sand, deep circalittoral coarse sediment, circalittoral coarse sediment, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep moderate energy circalittoral rock, deep circalittoral sediment, sponge communities on deep circalittoral rock, Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock, sublittoral sediment and deep circalittoral mud habitats. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud, offshore deep-sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected site. GeMS species data suggest the protected area supports populations of basking shark, , northern feather star, tall sea-pen, northern sea fan and sponge communities. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing within the protected site is assessed as having an immediate minor benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the areas that will be protected has a low intensity of fishing activity and contain biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[810] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[811]). verspillll-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[812]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[813]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[814]; Hillborn, 2017^[815]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[816]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[817]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for mackerel. Furthermore, the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[818]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basic of available evidence, taking account of the low level of current fishing activity and the small size of the protected zones, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from the proposed management areas are considered to be negligible beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[819] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[820]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[821]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[822]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[823]; Hillborn, 2017^[824]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[825]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[826]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for mackerel. Furthermore, the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[827]). In addition, landings data suggest Nephrops and other demersal and commercial species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basic of available evidence, taking account of the low level of current fishing activity and small size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity from the protected site are considered to be negligible beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be low to moderate and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of vessels fishing activity into the part of the SAC that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as negligible adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels (21 UK vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by alternative option, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be low to moderate and is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as negligible adverse.

The only demersal mobile fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low. This demersal fishing activity will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The other fishing activities that currently occur within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is midwater trawling at very low levels and pots and traps at moderate levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the SAC management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls and pots and traps, which currently take place both inside and near to, but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

The only demersal mobile fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low to moderate. This demersal fishing activity will be targeted by Option 2. The other fishing activities that currently occur within the areas protected by the protected site is midwater trawling at very low levels and pots and traps at moderate levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls and pots and traps, which currently take place both inside and near to, but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, Option 2 is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate minor beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is low, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from zones across most of the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and a potential change in non-targeted gear types are assessed as negligible as the low amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate minor beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is low, and the prohibition of demersal mobile gear from zones across the site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and a potential change in non-targeted gear types are assessed as negligible as the low amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I rocky and stony reef features which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of Annex I rocky and stony reef features which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low level of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low level of demersal fishing activity across the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the protected site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile fishing activities within the protected site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and demersal static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected features to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The species associated with seamount communities tend to be composed of erect and fragile species that are sensitive to physical disturbance, particularly deep-sea stony corals, gorgonians and black corals, sea anemones, hydroids and sponges (Clark and Tittensor, 2010^[828]; Clark et al., 2010^[829]). Trawling can cause mortality to species by disturbance on the seabed or by bringing them to the surface resulting in a reduction in abundance (Kaiser and Spencer, 1996^[830]; Jennings and Kaiser, 1998^[831]; ICES, 2010). Recovery from such damage is estimated to be measured in decades, depending on the environmental conditions (Clark and Tittensor, 2010^[832];ICES, 2010^[833]). Mobile bottom contact gears reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral reef, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species. The passage of towed fishing gear may increase mortality of the coral by crushing, burying or wounding corals, increasing susceptibility to infection and epifaunal recruitment that may eventually smother corals (Fosså et al., 2002^[834]). Studies on deep-sea sponge aggregations have found that trawling damages, displaces and removes sponges through direct physical impact, as well as from disturbed sediment resettling and causing smothering beyond the path of the trawl itself (ICES, 2007^[835]; ICES, 2010^[836]; OSPAR, 2010a^[837]). Deep-sea sponges have some capacity for recovery from mild damage, but significant disturbance, damage or smothering may result in sponges being unlikely to survive (ICES, 2007^[838]; ICES, 2010^[839]). In lower energy locations, such as muddy sands and sand in deep water (such as in the West of Scotland MPA), sediments tend to be more stable and their associated fauna less tolerant of disturbance (Hiddink et al., 2006^[840]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[841]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[842]; Foden et al., 2010^[843]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992^[844]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[845]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[846]). The net result is benthic communities modified to varying degrees relative to the un-impacted state (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[847]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[848]). No studies providing evidence of the effects of static gears on Scottish seamounts were found, however impacts occurring on analogous vulnerable habitats and species, such as sponges and corals in Scottish waters are applicable (Muñoz et al., 2010^[849]). Impacts can arise from hooks, lines, nets and ropes becoming entangled with corals and other fragile species, including ‘plucking’ them from the seabed during hauling (Mortensen et al., 2005; Muñoz et al., 2011^[850]; OSPAR, 2010a^[851]). While the extent of damage caused by individual static gear fishing events is likely to be lower than that for trawling and mobile gear types (Pham et al., 2014^[852]), the effect of cumulative damage may be significant. The deep-sea sponge aggregation feature is considered to be sensitive to static gear activity, notably because sponges may become caught or entangled in static gears and damaged on the seabed or brought to the surface. In certain conditions, for example during retrieval, static gears may move laterally across the seabed resulting in impacts (Sampaio et al., 2012^[853]).; Ewing and Kilpatrick, 2014^[854]). Static bottom contact gears are likely to reduce the long-term natural distribution of cold-water coral reef features, as well as impacting the structure and function of the habitat and the long term survival of its associated species.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawling, set nets and hooks and lines. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate to high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate to high. The intensity and importance of demersal trawling fishing activity is moderate, whereas the intensity and importance of set nets and hooks and lines fishing activity is considered low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a high level of demersal fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measure by non-UK vessels, mainly from Norway, Faroes and France. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of Atlantic mid bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic mid bathyal mud, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic mid bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic mid bathyal mud, Atlantic mid bathyal seabed, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sandy mud or Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal sand or muddy sand, Atlantic upper bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic lower bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic lower bathyal mud, Atlantic lower bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic lower bathyal mixed substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic upper abyssal sandy mud, Atlantic upper abyssal mud, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment and communities of deep-sea corals, Atlantic lower bathyal mixed substrata and Atlantic mid bathyal seabed habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate burrowed mud, cold-water reefs, coral gardens, deep-sea sponge aggregations, offshore deep-sea muds, offshore subtidal sands and gravels and seamount communities within the protected area. GeMS species data suggest the protected area supports populations blue ling, orange roughy and sandeels. The site also supports other protected feature species including leafscale gulper shark, gulper shark, Portuguese dogfish and round-nose grenadier. The proposed management measure will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal mobile and static fishing is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a moderate to high intensity of fishing activity but contains features and biological communities associated with the features that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[855] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[856]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[857]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[858]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[859]; Hillborn, 2017^[860]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[861]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[862]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected area is used as a spawning area for mackerel and hake. Furthermore, the protected area may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[863]). In addition, landings data suggest molluscs and demersal species are present within the protected area. The proposed management measure will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected area.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the site are likely to be minor beneficial.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here .

Although a relatively high number of vessels (26 UK vessels, 13 Faroese, 10 French, 6 German, 8 Irish, 5 Dutch, 28 Norwegian and an undisclosed number of other non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by the proposed management measure, it is considered that demersal mobile fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. However, existing low level of demersal static fishing activity will need to travel further or use new grounds not previously fished, leading to higher potential environmental impact.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high, but demersal mobile activity is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds, whereas a low level of demersal static activity is likely to be displaced to further grounds or to use new areas that have not been fished. Overall, the environmental impact of the displacement of fishing activities is considered to be minor adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected area is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate. There is also set nets and hooks and lines at low levels. These activities will be targeted by the proposed management measure. The only other fishing activity that currently occurs within the protected site is midwater trawling at moderate levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using demersal mobile gears that are targeted by the proposed measure would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the MPA and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing demersal mobile gears. It is possible that fisheries using mobile static gears that are targeted by the proposed measure would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as this fishing activity cannot be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle or CSSEG region. However, the existing level of demersal static fishing in the protected site is low.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management area in future. For example, this may include midwater trawls that take place within the protected area, as well as pots and traps which currently take place near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measure is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be an immediate minor beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measure. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measure occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gear from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The overall negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and the potential increased fishing effort from other gear types are assessed as minor as the main method of fishing by demersal mobile gear is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Only a low level of demersal static activity is likely to be either displaced to further grounds, to use new areas that have not been fished or result in the alteration of gear type. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and other gear types.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the entire site. This will help protect and improve the status of burrowed mud, deep-sea sponge aggregations, coral gardens, cold-water coral reefs, offshore deep-sea muds, offshore sands and gravels and seamount communities, all listed as OSPAR Threatened and/or Declining habitats or species, which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the entire site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity site of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as minor beneficial. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with moderate to high fishing activity within the proposed management area and displacing this activity to nearby areas that are already fished, or to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the entire site and displacing this activity to nearby areas that are already fished, or to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The implementation of the proposed management measure for this site is expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the entire site and displacing this activity to nearby areas that are already fished, or to existing grounds located some distance away or new grounds potentially being fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

There is no difference between the proposed management measures under Option 1 and Option 2.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise dredges, trawling and demersal mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. In lower energy locations, such as muddy sands and sand in deep water, sediments tend to be more stable and their associated fauna less tolerant of disturbance (Hiddink et al., 2006^[864]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[865]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[866]; Foden et al., 2010^[867]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992^[868]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[869]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[870]). As with demersal trawls and dredges, demersal seines may impact the structure and function of sedimentary habitats and the long-term survival of their associated species. There are currently no direct studies on the physical impacts of demersal seines. Modelling studies suggest that demersal seines have a large overall footprint (i.e. the surface area covered during one hour fishing) (Eigaard et al. 2016^[871]). Hiddink et al. (2017^[872]) suggest that depletion of biota is highly correlated with seabed penetration depth by trawls. Seines lack the heavy gear components (e.g. otter doors, trawl shoes) of other mobile gears (Suuronen et al. 2012^[873]) and therefore, despite the relatively large footprint, impacts associated with penetration into the sediment are likely to be lower. Eigaard et al. (2016^[874]) modelled surface (<2cm) and subsurface (>2cm) impacts and found that demersal seines have some of the smallest proportions of subsurface impact.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawls and demersal seines. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be moderate to high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Demersal trawl activity within the proposed management area is considered high, and demersal seine fishing activity is considered to be very low. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed moderate to high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of fishing activity using the targeted gears within the areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep moderate energy circalittoral rock, deep circalittoral sediment, deep circalittoral sand and deep circalittoral coarse sediment habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate Northern sea fan and sponge communities, and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within the proposed management areas area. GeMS species data suggest the protected areas may support populations of anglerfish, burrowed mud, flapper skate and blue skate, harbour porpoise, ling, Norway pout, ocean quahog, sandeels, white beaked dolphin and whiting. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of dredges, trawling and demersal mobile fishing from the proposed management areas is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a moderate to high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise dredges, trawling and demersal mobile gear types mobile gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities associated with the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. In lower energy locations, such as muddy sands and sand in deep water, sediments tend to be more stable and their associated fauna less tolerant of disturbance (Hiddink et al., 2006^[875]; Kaiser et al., 2006^[876]). Stable gravels often support a ‘turf’ of fragile species which are easily damaged by trawling and recover slowly (Collie et al., 2005^[877]; Foden et al., 2010^[878]). Trawling and dredging tend to cause increased mortality of fragile and long lived species and favour opportunistic, disturbance-tolerant species (Eleftheriou and Robertson, 1992^[879]; Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[880]). Some particularly sensitive species may disappear entirely (Bergman and van Santbrink, 2000^[881]). As with demersal trawls and dredges, demersal seines may impact the structure and function of sedimentary habitats and the long-term survival of their associated species. There are currently no direct studies on the physical impacts of demersal seines. Modelling studies suggest that demersal seines have a large overall footprint (i.e. the surface area covered during one hour fishing) (Eigaard et al. 2016^[882]). Hiddink et al. (2017^[883]) suggest that depletion of biota is highly correlated with seabed penetration depth by trawls. Seines lack the heavy gear components (e.g. otter doors, trawl shoes) of other mobile gears (Suuronen et al. 2012^[884]) and therefore, despite the relatively large footprint, impacts associated with penetration into the sediment are likely to be lower. Eigaard et al. (2016^[885]) modelled surface (<2cm) and subsurface (>2cm) impacts and found that demersal seines have some of the smallest proportions of subsurface impact.

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawls and demersal seines. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be high taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Demersal trawl activity within the protected site is considered high, and demersal seine fishing activity is considered to be very low. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed high. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is a low level of fishing activity using the targeted gears within the protected site by non-UK vessels. According to EMODnet data, the protected site consists of faunal communities on deep low energy circalittoral rock, faunal communities on deep moderate energy circalittoral rock, deep circalittoral sediment, deep circalittoral sand and deep circalittoral coarse sediment habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate Northern sea fan and sponge communities, and offshore subtidal sands and gravels within protected site. GeMS species data suggest the protected area may support populations of anglerfish, burrowed mud, flapper skate and blue skate, harbour porpoise, ling, Norway pout, ocean quahog, sandeels, white beaked dolphin and whiting. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity, such as ocean quahog which is a filter feeding clam that lives in the seabed.

The proposed removal of dredges, trawling and demersal fishing from protected site is assessed as having an immediate major benefit to the features of the MPA and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a high intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[886] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[887]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[888]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[889]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[890]; Hillborn, 2017^[891]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[892]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[893]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for sandeels, mackerel and hake. Furthermore the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[894]). In addition, landings data suggest pelagic and demersal species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected areas, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the proposed management areas are likely to be minor beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[895] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[896]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[897]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[898]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[899]; Hillborn, 2017^[900]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[901]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[902]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for sandeels, mackerel and hake. Furthermore the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, spotted ray, sandeel, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[903]). In addition, landings data suggest pelagic and demersal species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the protected site are likely to be moderate beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be moderate to high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of fishing activity into the part of the MPA that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively high number of vessels (64 UK vessels and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be high but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is assessed as minor adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate to high. There is also a lower level of demersal seine fishing that takes place within the proposed management areas. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is midwater trawling at moderate levels, pots and traps at high levels and hooks and lines at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the MPA management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include, midwater trawls, pots and traps and hooks and lines, which currently take place both within and near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is moderate to high. There is also a lower level of demersal seine fishing that takes place within protected site. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2. The other fishing activity that currently occurs within the protected site is midwater trawling at moderate levels, pots and traps at high levels and hooks and lines at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include, midwater trawls, pots and traps and hooks and lines, which currently take place both within and near to but outside the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish and demersal species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, Option 2 is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the MPA, and therefore the impact on the environment is assessed as minor adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate minor beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the dredges, trawling and demersal mobile gear types targeted by the management measures occur is moderate to high, and the prohibition of these gears from the proposed management areas will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and the potential use of other gear types that are not targeted by the measures are assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly greater than the impacts associated with displacement and use of other gear types.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate moderate beneficial effect on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the dredges, trawling and demersal mobile gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is high, and the prohibition of these gears from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the MPA, and allow for potential moderate spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement and the potential use of other gear types that are not targeted by the measures are assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement and use of other gear types.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will help protect and improve the status of the offshore subtidal sand and gravel habitats in OSPAR Regions II and III which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a high volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will help protect and improve the status of the offshore subtidal sand and gravel habitats in OSPAR Regions II and III which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a high volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as minor beneficial. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and water quality effects associated with a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of alternative option for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 4 through a reduction in seabed disturbance and water quality effects associated with a high volume of demersal fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a high volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a moderate to high volume of demersal fishing activity within the proposed management areas. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a high volume of demersal fishing activity within the protected site. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future dredges, trawling and demersal fishing activities at this site.

The fishing activities that are targeted by the proposed management measures comprise demersal mobile and static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[904]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[905]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[906], Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[907]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Mechanical impacts of static gear (e.g. weights and anchors hitting the seabed, hauling gear over seabed, rubbing/entangling effects of ropes) can damage some species (Eno et al., 1996^[908]). Other species appear to be resilient to individual fishing operations but the effects of high fishing intensity are unknown (Eno et al., 2001^[909]). Recovery will be slow (Foden et al., 2010^[910]), resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species. The individual impact of a single fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[911]; Foden et al., 2010^[912]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the proposed management areas is undertaken using demersal trawling and hooks and lines. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be low to moderate taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the proposed management areas. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the proposed management areas, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is high level of demersal fishing activity within the areas protected under the proposed management measures by non-UK vessels, mainly from the Faroes. According to EMODnet data the proposed management areas within the protected site consist of Arctic mid bathyal coarse sediment, Arctic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic mid bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud and Atlantic upper bathyal rock or other hard substrata habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate deep-sea sponge aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected areas. GeMS species data suggest the protected area supports populations of sandeels. The proposed management measures will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing from the prohibited zones is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a low to moderate intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

The fishing activities that are targeted by Option 2 comprise demersal mobile and static gear types. This is based on the sensitivity of the biological communities that develop on the protected feature to damage or death by abrasion as a result of direct physical contact. The use of towed fishing gears is likely to cause damage or death of fragile, erect species, such as sponges and corals (Freese et al., 1999^[913]; Løkkeborg, 2005^[914]). Other species such as hydroids, anemones, bryozoans, tunicates and echinoderms may also be vulnerable (McConnaughey et al., 2000^[915], Sewell and Hiscock, 2005^[916]). Where fragile, slow growing species occur, even low levels of fishing have the potential to change the structure and function of the habitats and may result in the loss of some characteristic species. Mechanical impacts of static gear (e.g. weights and anchors hitting the seabed, hauling gear over seabed, rubbing/entangling effects of ropes) can damage some species (Eno et al., 1996^[917]). Other species appear to be resilient to individual fishing operations but the effects of high fishing intensity are unknown (Eno et al., 2001^[918]). Recovery will be slow (Foden et al., 2010^[919]), resulting in significant reduction or even loss of characteristic species. The individual impact of a single fishing operation may be slight but cumulative damage may be significant (Eno et al., 2001^[920]; Foden et al., 2010^[921]).

VMS data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that the demersal fishing activity by UK vessels within the protected site is undertaken using demersal trawling and hooks and lines. The overall fishing intensity is considered to be low to moderate for demersal mobile gear and moderate to high for demersal static gear taking account of the overall volume (weight) of landings, indicative time fishing and number of fishing vessels located within the protected site. Considering the value of catch and number of fishing vessels within the protected site, the overall importance of the fishing ground is deemed low for demersal mobile gear and low to moderate for demersal static gear. VMS data from 2015 to 2020 also suggest that there is high level of demersal fishing activity within the protected site by non-UK vessels, mainly from the Faroes. According to EMODnet data the protected site consists of Arctic mid bathyal coarse sediment, Arctic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic mid bathyal coarse sediment, Atlantic mid bathyal rock or other hard substrata, Atlantic mid bathyal sandy mud and Atlantic upper bathyal rock or other hard substrata habitat. GeMS habitat data indicate deep-sea sponge aggregations and offshore subtidal sands and gravels occur within the protected site. GeMS species data suggest the protected site supports populations of sandeels. Option 2 will benefit species and habitats that are sensitive to the direct or indirect pressures from demersal fishing activity.

The proposed removal of demersal fishing from the protected site is assessed as having an immediate moderate benefit to the features of the SAC and the wider community as the area that will be protected has a low to moderate intensity of fishing activity and biological communities associated with the feature that have a high sensitivity. There is also the potential for future benefits as any new fishers will be restricted from setting up a fishery using the targeted gear types in future.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, which can lead to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[922] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[923]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[924]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[925]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[926]; Hillborn, 2017^[927]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[928]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[929]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the areas protected by the proposed management measures are used as a spawning area for mackerel and hake. Furthermore, the proposed management areas may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[930]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the proposed management areas. The proposed management measures will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species outwith the proposed management areas (both within and outside of the protected site).

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the small size of the protected areas, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the proposed management areas are assessed as negligible beneficial.

One of the benefits of restricting fishing effort in sensitive areas is the potential spill-over of species from protected areas into unprotected areas, leading to increased community complexity and species diversity (Buxton et al., 2014^[931] and Schratzberger et al., 2019^[932]). Spill-over occurs when there is a surplus of stock in the protected area and the carrying capacity of that area is surpassed. As the protected area cannot support all of the individuals present, a migration away from the more densely populated area will occur and this movement may be outwith the area of protection. This migration can result in a net increase in the number of species outwith the protected area (Kerwath et al., 2013^[933]). Furthermore the increases in biomass of the formerly exploited species can lead to increased production of their eggs and larvae within the protected area (Schratzberger et al., 2019^[934]). There is, however, variation in the level of effectiveness and scale of benefits that a fisheries closure can have and these are site dependent (Starr et al., 2015^[935]; Hillborn, 2017^[936]; Lenihan et al., 2021^[937]; and Pantzar et al., 2018^[938]). The present conditions encountered within a site (e.g. current stock level, species present, and nursery and spawning areas for those species, level of fishing activity/pressure prior to exclusion/restrictions being implemented) need to be characterised in order to be able to undertake a detailed assessment of the potential for spill-over benefits to occur.

Data indicate that the protected site is used as a spawning area for mackerel and hake. Furthermore, the protected site may provide a nursery area for whiting, spurdog, mackerel, ling, herring, European hake, common skate, cod, blue whiting and anglerfish (Coull et al., 1998^[939]). In addition, landings data suggest demersal species are present within the protected site. Option 2 will help support spawning and nursery fish, as well as commercially targeted fish species, which in turn may increase the opportunity for larval dispersal and a net increase in the number of these fish species both within and outside of the protected site.

On the basis of available evidence, taking account of the nature and scale of current fishing activity and the size of the protected site, potential spill-over benefits from the removal of demersal activity within the protected site are assessed as minor beneficial.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the proposed management areas is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels will be impacted by the proposed management measures, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access the already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be low to moderate but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. There may be increased displacement of vessels fishing activity into the part of the SAC that is not covered by the proposed fishery management measures. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is considered to be minor adverse.

The existing intensity of fishing activity within the protected site is described above and, therefore, not repeated here.

Although a relatively moderate number of vessels (15 UK vessels, 16 Faroese, 6 Dutch, 6 Norwegian and an undisclosed number of non-UK vessels due to small numbers of less than 5 vessels) will be impacted by Option 2, it is considered that the fishing activity can be displaced and accommodated within the surrounding ICES rectangle and, therefore, the distance needed to access the already exploited fishing areas is small. It is possible that the fishing activity could potentially be displaced to new unfished areas, including areas that are important for other protected features (e.g. PMFs outside of MPAs). However, it is considered more likely that displacement will be to areas that are already fished leading to the intensification of activities in areas where these pressures already occur.

There is potential for the fishing intensity at current grounds to increase or for new grounds to be established as a direct result of the displacement. The number of vessels and scale of existing fishing activity that will be displaced will be low to moderate for demersal mobile gear and moderate to high for demersal static gear but is likely to be accommodated within nearby fishing grounds. Any displacement of fishing is more likely to be to an area already fished, therefore the environmental impact of additional vessels and fishing activity is considered to be minor adverse.

The main demersal fishing method that occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is demersal trawling. The scale of this activity is low to moderate. There is also a low to moderate level of hooks and lines that takes place within the proposed management areas. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by the proposed management measures. The other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by the proposed management measures is midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by the proposed measures would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the management areas and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the proposed management areas in future. For example, this may include midwater trawling, which currently takes place both within and near to the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, the proposed management measures are considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

The main fishing method that occurs within the protected site is hooks and lines. The scale of this activity is moderate to high. There is also a low to moderate level of demersal trawling that takes place within the protected site. These demersal fishing activities will be targeted by Option 2. The other fishing activity that currently occurs within the areas protected by Option 2 is midwater trawling at low levels. However, it is considered unlikely that fisheries using gears that are targeted by Option 2 would alter their gear type to one of the other methods as there would still be areas outside the protected site and within the surrounding ICES rectangles, where they can fish using their existing gears.

There is potential for an increased fishing effort from other gear types to occur within the protected site in future. For example, this may include midwater trawling, which currently takes place both within and near to the boundaries of the protected site. This could result in potential adverse effects on targeted pelagic fish species. However, the potential adverse impact on habitats and species from an increase in the other gear types is considered to be less than the benefit that would result from the prohibition of demersal fishing gear.

Overall, Option 2 is considered unlikely to result in a significant increase in the intensity of non-targeted fishing gears within the SAC, and therefore the potential adverse impact on the environment is assessed as negligible adverse.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate minor beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of the fisheries management measures. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by the management measures occur is low to moderate, and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gears from the specified zones will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds, some of which may be within the site, and which are already fished, thus having a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be slightly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

Overall, when considering the balance between beneficial and adverse effects, it is considered that there will be immediate moderate beneficial effects on the environment following the implementation of Option 2. The scale at which the pressures associated with the demersal gear types targeted by Option 2 occur is low to moderate, and the prohibition of demersal mobile and static gears from the entire site will protect and support the recovery of vulnerable habitat and associated species within the SAC, and allow for potential minor spill-over benefits. There is also the potential for future benefits as the measures restrict new fishers utilising the area with the targeted gear types. The negative impacts on the environment due to displacement are assessed as minor as the amount of effort displaced can be accommodated at nearby fishing grounds which are already fished and thus have a community composition that is already characterised by fishing pressures. The grounds to which the activity is displaced to may also be less productive and thus require more effort per unit landed. Despite this, the overall benefit of protection is likely to be significantly greater than the negative impacts associated with displacement.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will help protect and improve the status of stony and bedrock reef which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 1 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site This will help protect and improve the status of stony and bedrock reef which are found in the immediate area of the protected site. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate moderate beneficial contribution to the achievement of SEA Objective 2 through the direct exclusion of a low to moderate volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. This will significantly reduce disturbance of the seabed, therefore protecting the character and integrity of the seabed. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the contribution to SEA Objective 3 through a reduction in the redistribution and settling of any contaminated seabed sediments that are disturbed. It is, however, considered unlikely that the seabed sediment in the protected site is significantly contaminated, and therefore the contribution to SEA Objective 3 is assessed as negligible. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low to moderate fishing activity within the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 4 by reducing seabed disturbance and indirect water quality effects associated with low to moderate fishing activity within the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low to moderate volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management areas and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 5, particularly in relation to Descriptors 1 (biological diversity) and 6 (sea-floor integrity), by supporting the potential recovery of benthic communities and the integrity of the seabed through the exclusion of a low to moderate volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site and potentially displacing this activity to new unfished areas or more likely to nearby areas that are already fished. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.

The implementation of the proposed management measures for this site are expected to result in an immediate negligible contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low to moderate volume of demersal fishing activity across the proposed management area. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities within the proposed management areas.

The implementation of Option 2 for this site is expected to result in an immediate minor beneficial contribution to SEA Objective 6 by reducing the disturbance of seabed sediments and potentially supporting the long term storage of carbon locked within these sediments within this site, through the exclusion of a low to moderate volume of demersal fishing activity across the protected site. The potential displacement of fishing activity to new unfished areas may release stored carbon. The more likely displacement of fishing activity to nearby areas that are already fished is unlikely to release additional significant stores of carbon as these areas are already subject to these pressures. There will also be a beneficial contribution to this SEA objective in the future by providing enhanced protection to the environment from future demersal mobile and static fishing activities at this site.