Seabed restoration: Do the benefits justify the costs?
- Reference:
- 09/P115
- Organisation:
- Cefas
- Amount Funded:
- £123,085
- Status:
- Current
To date, relatively few marine aggregate extraction licences
have been relinquished. As a result, there is currently no
clear policy, from the regulatory perspective, on how to deal with
these sites post extraction. For example:
Is the current requirement for the seabed to be left in a
similar physical condition realistic?
- Are persistent impacts significant in terms of ecosystem
health?
- What action is required by the legislation
- What is the purpose of the final seabed survey undertaken post
extraction?
- should it be undertaken immediately, or left for a suitable
period to allow for natural recovery?
- should its focus be on assessing the physical or biological
status of the site (or both)?
- is it possible to adequately distinguish between natural and
dredging induced changes?
- what constitutes a suitable survey design?
- where impacts remain, should further monitoring be
required?
- Where the final survey shows major persistent impacts (i.e.
changes beyond the limits of natural variability), what should
happen?
- Is it technically possible to restore the seabed in response to
these impacts (see Bellew & Drabble, 2004; Cooper et al., (in
prep) and Collins, K and Mallinson, J., 2008)?
- Can the benefits of restoration justify the costs (financial
and environmental)?
A likely future increase in the number of licences being
given up means there is a clear and urgent need to provide an
unbiased assessment of the questions raised above. The output
from this study, in the form of a position paper, will help the
regulator, and their advisors to formulate sensible policy on how
to deal with extraction sites on cessation of dredging.