eddystone reef camera survey report 2014 and... · eddystone reef camera survey report 2014 1...

Stephen K. Pikesley Holly Latham Jean-Luc Solandt Kimara Street Colin Trundle Matthew J. Witt March 2015 All data remain copyright of the project partners. Maps or data within this report may not be used or referenced without the explicit written consent of the data owners.

EDDYSTONE REEF

CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014

EDDYSTONE REEF CAMERA SURVEY REPORT 2014

1

Executive summary

New Marine Protected Areas are ideally monitored over

time to see the change in biological communities that are

attributable to management measures put in at the site.

The Eddystone reef is part of the Start Point to Plymouth

Sound and Eddystone Special Area of Conservation (SAC),

and management measures were put in place on the SAC

in December 2013 to prohibit bottom towed fishing gears

from using areas that host vulnerable reef-associated

species.

This project is a partnership collaboration between the

University of Exeter (Cornwall Campus) (UofE), Cornwall

Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (CIFCA) and

the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), and funded by the

Pig Shed Trust. The partners collaborated on the

experimental design of the project, with the MCS

identifying the funding partner and co-ordinating the

planning of the project, the CIFCA carrying out the surveys,

and UofE analysing photographs of the benthic

communities of the site.

Initial funding is for three years of surveillance of the site

(2014-2016). Year 1 surveys are outlined in this report and

were carried out between June and October 2014 at 3

sites, one inside the area recently closed to bottom towed

fishing gears, another (control) slightly outside the closed

area, and one far control site nearer to the coast. Initial

results (between 6 and 9 months after the closure to

bottom towed fishing) showed a greater density of seabed

species in the area recently closed to bottom towed fishing

gears.


2

Contents

Executive summary 1

Introduction 3

Aims & Objectives 3

Method 5

Results 6

Discussion 17

Appendix 1: CIFCA Survey Field Report v0.3

Appendix 2: Gallery of species

Appendix 3: Species identification confidence

Appendix 4: Survey plan for 2015


3

Introduction

The Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (CIFCA), the

responsible body for managing fishing and marine conservation in Cornish

waters, has recently protected1 significant areas within Special Areas of

Conservation (SACs) from bottom-towed fishing. The resultant management

recommendations have been widely accepted by local fishing stakeholders.

In some areas, CIFCA has been precautionary in their approach, and wish to

protect features that were previously towed over by demersal bottom-

towed fishing gear. One such area lies within the Eddystone Reef complex;

situated approximately 9 nautical miles off the southern coast of Cornwall

(South West UK). These benthic habitats provide a significant opportunity to

use of seabed video and photographic surveys to monitor the effects of

these restrictions and to quantify the recovery of these ecosystems. They

are too deep (at over 45m) to safely deploy survey divers.

A multi-partner collaborative consortium, led by the Marine Conservation

Society (MCS), with CIFCA and the University of Exeter (UofE), have

undertaken a funded project to survey these newly protected habitats to

monitor for any long-term changes as they are released from towed gear

fishing pressure. As well as gaining insight into the recovery of these

habitats it is anticipated this project will foster a new collaborative working

relationship between NGOs, regulators and others (such as Universities, and

Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies) that will provide a progressive, more

cohesive approach to UK marine conservation in years to come.

In this report we detail data collection and analysis activities for the first

year of the project at the Eddystone Reef complex.

Aims & Objectives

Aims of the project

1. To identify any changes to the seabed habitats of Eddystone Reef,

now subject to new management restrictions of bottom-towed fishing gears.

2. To use the results to identify changes in sessile and mobile species, habitat and commercial species that are recorded during seabed photographic surveys.

1 http://www.cornwall-

ifca.gov.uk/sitedata/Byelaw_review/CIFCA_byelaws_A5_bookletv1.pdf

http://www.cornwall-ifca.gov.uk/sitedata/Byelaw_review/CIFCA_byelaws_A5_bookletv1.pdf

http://www.cornwall-ifca.gov.uk/sitedata/Byelaw_review/CIFCA_byelaws_A5_bookletv1.pdf


4

3. To collaboratively report the results of the surveys to the local fishing industry to illustrate the results of the management measures on commercial and biodiversity interests in Cornish waters.

Objectives of the project

1. Analyse high-resolution imagery of habitats, and the change in the

extent and type of habitat over time that are subject to management measures.

2. To demonstrate to the southwest fishing industry that management of bottom towed fishing gears can result in changes in seabed species and habitats.

3. To foster greater co-ordinated working between regulators, conservation advisors and NGOs, in light of new progressive spatial management of heavy impact mobile fishing gears.


5

Method

Data collection

Still images were collected in accordance with the Cornwall Inshore Fisheries

and Conservation Authority (CIFCA) Survey Field Report v0.3 detailed in

Appendix 1. Images of very poor quality (image excessively blurred due to

camera movement or seabed obscured by sediment suspension) were

removed from the stills catalogue before transferring the data to the

University of Exeter (UofE).

Camera stills analysis

Analysis of the still images by the UofE was made as follows. Firstly, images

without spatial reference (missing lon/lat) or where no movement of the

frame had been recorded (no change in lon/lat between successive images)

were removed from the analysis.

Each image was then examined at full frame using a 1920 x 1080 pixel

monitor resolution. The substrate was described and classified using EUNIS

habitat classifications (i.e. mixed circalittoral sediment: 5.44). The substrate

was further categorised based on the dominant bottom type using a 4 part

classification system: rock (R), coarse (C), medium (M) and fine (F). Similarly,

the clarity of each image (image quality) was categorised using a three part

classification system: good, medium and poor. The number of lasers

present in each image was counted and the on-screen distance between

marks measured. See Table 1 for all survey tow metadata.

Images were then viewd at full width and panned from top to bottom and

the presence of all conspicuous species noted. These species were then

identified to their highest taxonomic level (i.e. Eunicella verucosa), if this

was not possible species were classified by highest generic common name

(i.e. branched sponge, burrowing anemone, branched bryozoa). If required

the image was zoomed further to aid identification. Confidence in species

identification was recorded on the following scale: low confidence (C1),

moderate confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3). The total number of

each species within the image was recorded. Where species were encrusting

or turf forming a visual assessment of the percentage coverage of these

species were made with the image at full frame. A relative abundance

SACFOR score, adapted from the Marine Nature Conservation Review

(MNCR) SACFOR abundance scales (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/), was then


6

assigned for the species. To investigate species diversity between survey

areas (see Appendix 1 for description of survey method and stratification)

we calculated Simpson's index of diversity for each substrate type.

Results

The 2014 Eddystone Reef camera surveys (Fig. 1) generated 226 images

captured from survey boxes 1, 2 and 3 (east to west). Of these images, 2

were without spatial reference and 4 had duplicated spatial references,

these images were not analysed.

Fig. 1. Eddystone Special Area of Conservation (SAC) study area. (a) Eddystone SAC (grey

polygon) in relation to Cornwall Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (CIFCA)

district boundary (broken line polygon). Part (a) is located according to the inset (b). (c)

Eddystone SAC detailing areas closed to bottom towed gear (red hatched polygon) and

areas with no gear restrictions (green hatched polygon). In all parts 50 m isobath is drawn

and labelled; survey boxes are drawn as blue polygons and labelled in part (c). All map parts

are drawn to differing spatial scales. Maps drawn to Projected Coordinate System: British

National Grid Transverse Mercator.


7

No images were rejected as a result of poor image quality. However, 15

images were removed from the stills catalogue prior to transferring the data

to UofE. The number of tows/images per survey box were; box 1 (tows (n =

8): images (n = 137)), box 2 (tows (n = 4): images (n = 72)) and box 3 (tows (n

=1): images (n = 11)), (Fig. 1, 2 and metadata in Table 1).

Fig. 2. Eddystone Special Area of Conservation (SAC) survey box data. (a) box 1, images (n =

137), (b) box 2, images (n = 72) and (c) box 3, images (n = 11). Metadata for each tow are

detailed in Table 1. In all parts survey boxes are drawn as blue polygons (0.44 km2). The

number of species (as defined by 'Species description' column in Table 2) per image are

drawn as a weighted circle using the grey/green/amber/red colour ramp shown in the

figure legend. Average (mean and standard deviation (sd)) depth of image capture per box

are detailed in the legend. In part (a) areas closed to bottom towed gear within the SAC

(grey hatched polygons), reef features (stippled polygon). All map parts are drawn to the

same spatial scale. Maps drawn to Projected Coordinate System: British National Grid

Transverse Mercator.


8

Table 1.

Metadata for survey tows. Tows are described by survey box, date, start lon/lat, end lon/lat, depth (m: mean and sd), total distance of tow (m: image to image), tow speed

(ms-1: mean), tow speed (knots: mean), camera frame, images (n), distance between images (m), maximum and minimum distance between images (m), recorded number

of unique species (n) and total number of species counted. The 2014 Eddystone Reef camera surveys generated 226 images captured from survey boxes 1, 2 and 3. Of

these, two images were without spatial reference and four had duplicated spatial reference, these images were not analysed. There were no images rejected as a result of

poor image quality. Longitude and latitude are given in decimal degrees WGS84.

Survey Box

Tow ID Date Start lon Start lat End lon End lat Depth (mean)

Depth (sd)

Total distance (m)

Tow speed (m/s) (mean)

Tow speed (knots) (mean)

Camera frame

Images (n)

Dist. between images (m) (mean)

Max. dist. between images (m)

Min. dist. between images (m)

Species (n) (unique)

Unique species / images (n)

Species (n) (total)

Total species / images (n)

1 ED_140716_Box_1_1 16/07/2014 -4.32852 50.21685 -4.33410 50.21797 51.0 0.7 423 0.50 0.98 SeaSpyder 14 33 76 17 2 0.1 11 0.8

ED_140716_Box_1_2 16/07/2014 -4.33228 50.21420 -4.33740 50.21585 49.7 0.2 423 0.27 0.52 SeaSpyder 23 19 95 4 7 0.3 9 0.4

ED_140716_Box_1_3 16/07/2014 -4.32695 50.21490 -4.32768 50.21543 54.1 2.2 80 0.20 0.40 SeaSpyder 7 13 27 7 10 1.4 23 3.3

ED_140731_Box_1_1 31/07/2014 -4.33697 50.21650 -4.33410 50.21650 52.6 0.2 210 0.18 0.36 Kongsberg 20 11 18 7 9 0.5 19 1.0

ED_140731_Box_1_2 31/07/2014 -4.33663 50.21448 -4.33412 50.21477 51.2 0.2 187 0.13 0.26 Kongsberg 22 9 19 6 6 0.3 12 0.5

ED_140731_Box_1_3 31/07/2014 -4.33688 50.21812 -4.33605 50.21833 51.5 0.2 71 0.08 0.15 Kongsberg 16 5 9 2 9 0.6 30 1.9

ED_140731_Box_1_4 31/07/2014 -4.33173 50.21713 -4.33132 50.21660 51.8 0.1 119 0.15 0.30 Kongsberg 14 9 17 2 6 0.4 22 1.6

ED_140731_Box_1_5 31/07/2014 -4.33812 50.21597 -4.33767 50.21428 49.2 1.6 220 0.21 0.41 Kongsberg 21 11 27 1 17 0.8 66 3.1

2 ED_140619_Box_2_1 19/06/2014 -4.36707 50.22742 -4.36628 50.22535 53.0 0.1 259 0.17 0.32 Kongsberg 28 10 20 4 10 0.4 15 0.5

ED_140619_Box_2_6 19/06/2014 -4.36978 50.22557 -4.36957 50.22288 49.3 2.7 301 0.39 0.75 Kongsberg 14 23 30 19 11 0.8 34 2.4

ED_140731_Box_2_1 31/07/2014 -4.36297 50.22550 -4.36300 50.22622 51.7 0.2 82 0.10 0.19 Kongsberg 15 6 10 2 3 0.2 3 0.2

ED_140731_Box_2_2 31/07/2014 -4.36400 50.22300 -4.36420 50.22397 53.1 0.1 120 0.14 0.28 Kongsberg 15 9 15 2 5 0.3 8 0.5

3 ED_140716_Box_3_1 16/07/2014 -4.50338 50.24462 -4.50777 50.24443 49.4 0.6 316 0.46 0.90 SeaSpyder 11 32 50 15 3 0.3 4 0.4


9

Distance between images per individual tow varied (Fig. 3), primarily due to

drift speed of the surveying vessel. Depth of image capture was fairly

consistent, survey box 1: 51.2 m ± 1.5 m (mean ± sd), survey box 2: 52 m ±

1.9 m and survey box 3: 49.4 m ± 0.6 m (Fig. 2, 4).

Fig. 3. Distance (m) between images by individual tow. Plotted boxes show median (bold

line) and inter-quartile ranges; box widths are proportional to the square-roots of the

number of observations in the box, outliers are drawn (open circles). Tails extend to the

approximate 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles.

Fig. 4. Depth (m) of images per individual tow. Plotted boxes show median (bold line) and

inter-quartile ranges; box widths are proportional to the square-roots of the number of

observations in the box, outliers are drawn (open circles). Tails extend to the approximate

2.5th and 97.5th percentiles.

The proportion of images captured per box by substrate type was variable

(Fig. 5). The number of lasers present per image was variable, survey box 1

and survey box 3 had the highest proportion of images with 2 or more lasers

present, survey box 2 had the highest proportion of images with only 1 laser


10

present (Fig. 6). Image quality across all survey boxes was predominately

moderate/good with less than ~10% of images per survey box being

classified as ‘poor’ (Fig. 7). See Fig.8 for examples of substrate type and

image quality.

Fig. 5. Proportion of images, categorised by substrate composition, per survey box.

Substrate composition is identified as follows: fine (F), medium (M), coarse (C) and rock (R).

Fig. 6. Proportion of images, categorised by number of lasers present in the image, per

survey box.

Fig. 7. Proportion of images, categorised by image quality, per survey box. Image quality is

identified as follows: poor, moderate (mod) and good.


11

Fig. 8. Substrate and image quality. The dominant substrate type for each image was

categorised using a 4 part classification system: rock, coarse, medium and fine. The clarity

of each image (image quality) was categorised using a 3 part classification system: good,

medium and poor. Examples for each of these categories is shown above.


12

There were 23 species from eight Phyla identified in survey box 1; 16 species

from 7 Phyla in survey box 2, and 3 species from 3 phyla in survey box 3 (Fig.

9, 10, Table 2); see Appendix 2 for a photo gallery of key species. There was

some variation in species assemblages, by Phyla, among substrate type and

between survey boxes 1 and 2 (Fig. 10).

Fig. 9. Species assemblages, identified to Phylum, by survey box and substrate composition.

For each box/substrate type the total number of images taken, together with the total

number of species recorded is given.


13

Fig. 10. Eddystone Special Area of Conservation (SAC) study area detailing areas closed to

bottom towed gear (red hatched polygon), areas with no gear restrictions (green hatched

polygon) and reef features (red polygons). Reef feature data: SeaStar Survey (2006). 50 m

isobath is drawn and labelled, survey boxes are drawn as blue polygons and labelled. For

survey box 1 and 2 species assemblages, identified to Phylum, are drawn as pie charts. The

total number of images, species, and unique species per box are given. Maps drawn to

Projected Coordinate System: British National Grid Transverse Mercator.


14

Table 2.

(a) Species list for survey box 1 described by Phylum, species description, common name,

binomial name (scientific name), number of images in which the species were present and

breakdown of images by substrate type, F/M: fine/medium, C: coarse and R: rock.

Survey

box

Phylum Species description Species Id. Scientific name Images (n) Images (n) per

substrate

F/M C R

Box 1 Annelida fan worm sand mason Lanice conchilega 2 0 2 0

fan worm organ pipe worm Serpula vermicularis 1 0 0 1

fan worm no sp id 8 6 2 0

Bryozoa branched bryozoa Cellaria spp Cellaria spp 8 2 2 3

branched bryozoa no sp id 26 13 7 6

encrusting bryozoa no sp id 7 1 0 6

finger bryozoa finger/sea chevril Alcyonidium diaphanum 22 13 7 2

ross coral ross coral Pentapora foliacea 6 2 2 2

spiral bryozoa Bugula spp Bugula spp 1 1 0 0

Chordata sea squirt football sea squirt Diazona violacea 1 0 1 0

Cnidaria anemone sandy creeplet Epizoanthus couchii 18 10 8 0

anemone no sp id 3 2 1 0

burrowing anemone burrowing anemone Peachia cylindrica 1 0 1 0

burrowing anemone burrowing anemone Ceranthus lloydii 2 1 1 0

burrowing anemone no sp id 1 0 1 0

cup coral devonshire cup-coral Caryophyllia smithii 18 2 6 10

dead men's fingers dead men's figers Alcyonium digitatum 9 0 0 9

hydroid no sp id 23 7 12 4

pink sea fan pink sea fan Eunicella verrucosa 12 1 4 7

Crustacea barnacle no sp id 3 1 0 2

Echinoderm feather star common feather star Antedon bifida 1 0 0 1

sea urchin common sea urchin Echinus esculentus 1 0 0 1

starfish seven armed starfish Luidia ciliaris 1 0 0 1

starfish no sp id 2 1 0 1

Mollusca limpet white tortoiseshell limpet Tectura virginea 1 1 0 0

scallop king scallop Pecten maximus 1 1 0 0

sea slug no sp id 3 1 2 0

Porifera boring sponge boring sponge Cliona celata 2 0 0 2

branched sponge no sp id 8 1 2 5

hedgehog sponge hedgehog sponge Polymastia boletiformis 1 1 0 0


15

(b) Species list for survey box 2 described by Phylum, species description, species Id.,



Survey box Phylum Species

description

Species Id. Scientific name Images (n) Images (n) per

substrate

F/M C R

Box 2 Annelida fan worm no sp id 3 1 2 0

Bryozoa branched bryozoa no sp id 8 3 2 3

finger bryozoa finger/sea chevril Alcyonidium diaphanum 2 1 1 0

Cnidaria anemone cloak anenome Adamsia carciniopados 2 0 2 0

anemone sandy creeplet Epizoanthus couchii 4 3 1 0

anemone no sp id 1 0 0 1

cup coral Devonshire cup-coral Caryophyllia smithii 6 1 0 5

dead men's fingers dead men's figers Alcyonium digitatum 2 0 0 2

hydroid no sp id 8 2 1 5

stalked hydroid solitary stalked hydroid Corymorpha nutans 3 3 0 0

Cnidaria pink sea fan pink sea fan Eunicella verrucosa 6 2 0 4

Crustacea barnacle no sp id 1 1 0 0

crab harbour crab Liocarcinus depurator 1 1 0 0

hermit crab anemone hermit crab Pagurus prideaux 1 0 1 0

hermit crab common hermit crab Pagurus bernhadus 1 0 1 0

Echinoderm sea urchin common sea urchin Echinus esculentus 1 0 0 1

starfish common starfish Asterias rubens 4 0 4 0

starfish seven armed starfish Luidia ciliaris 1 1 0 0

Mollusca scallop king scallop Pecten maximus 1 1 0 0

scallop queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis 2 1 1 0

scallop no sp id 1 1 0 0

snail painted top-shell Calliostoma zizyphinum 1 0 0 1

(c) Species list for survey box 3 described by Phylum, species description, species Id.,



Survey box Phylum Species description Species Id. Scientific name Images (n) Images (n) per

substrate

F/M C R

Box 3 Bryozoa branched bryozoa no sp id 1 1 0 0

Cnidaria hydroid no sp id 2 2 0 0

Mollusca scallop no sp id 1 1 0 0


16

The substrate 'rock' had the highest average (mean) number of species and

Phyla per image for both survey box 1 and 2 (Fig. 11, 12). There was little

variability in species diversity among substrate type, or between survey

boxes 1 and 2 (Table 3).

Fig. 11. Species (n) per image, by substrate type, per survey box. Bar graphs are drawn with

mean and standard error bars.

Fig. 12. Phylum (n) per image, by substrate type, per survey box. Bar graphs are drawn with

mean and standard error bars.

Table 3.

Simpson's index of diversity for survey box1 and 2 by substrate type, the greater the value

of the index, the greater the diversity. Insufficient data were collected in survey box 3 to

facilitate a meaningful comparison.

Substrate Box 1 Box 2

fine/medium 0.89 0.95

coarse 0.91 0.93

rock 0.92 0.87


17

Discussion

The amount of species per unit area (photo) is greatest from box 1 – the

area that is closed to mobile fishing gear. The actual diversity of life – as

analyses using Simpson’s diversity index differs little between the treatment

(no trawling) box 1 and the near control (box 2). Box 2 did however have a

greater amount of echinoderms in the images that are often linked to areas

that are fished, as many echinoderms are scavengers (particularly starfish on

coarse and finer sediments), and predate on damaged seabed species after

the passage of bottom trawls. There were more upright benthic sessile filter

feeders in box 1 than box 2 per image on gravel and finer sand and muddy

sediments that would indicate either naturally better conditions for growth

of these species, or perhaps an impact from towed fishing gears in adjacent

box 2, suppressing the growth of upright seabed life. In box 1 there was a

considerably higher abundance of bryzoans compared to in box 2 (near

control) where trawling takes place. Further surveys in future years will offer

an insight as to whether these are trends that become apparently more

significant over time, as the communities in the managed area begin to

adopt different species densities in the absence of use by heavy fishing gear.

The camera equipment used by the project would be able to pick up

recruitment of some species within this timeframe.

The surveys met the target for gathering still images from box 1 (the

treatment site), and in box 2 (near control). The partners worked

constructively to identify adequate sampling units that were ecologically

similar in the amount of reef, the aspect of the reef, and the relative

quantity of sand and coarse sand. Partners were made aware of the

opportunity to undertake a good control study area in Box 3 at a late stage

in project planning, but because of poor weather and logistical issues, it was

difficult to visit this site and carry out the required number of transects.

There was an opportunity to undertake further surveys in this area in

October, but it was felt that this would potentially offer erroneous data

(pseudoreplication), as all other sites had data collected in summer months,

when upright seasonal life (such as hydroids) grow to their maximum extent.

Building on the success of 2014, several modifications will be made to the

equipment and techniques to further enhance data collection, whilst

ensuring that 2014 remains the baseline to which all subsequent data will be

compared. It is proposed that a greater number of images will be captured

during the 2015/2016 surveys, with a similar number of images being

recorded within each survey box. It is also envisaged that with the


18

procurement of a new vessel and camera array by CIFCA, that survey

hardware will be standardised across all subsequent surveys. It is also

anticipated that all boxes will be surveyed within a shorter period of time

and earlier in the season, weather permitting. The collection of these data

will subsequently allow for the use of further advanced statistical

approaches to examine changes and difference in seabed community

composition in later years as the dataset grows.

Appendix 1: CIFCA Survey Field Report v0.3

Survey Field Report

Eddystone Reef Monitoring 2014

Document History

Author/s K Street, C Trundle

Version Date Author Change

0.1 21/10/14 K Street Document creation compiling

all field reports

0.2 22/10/14 C Trundle Review and amendments

0.3 16/12/14 K Street Update SeaSpyder spec

Contents

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................... 21

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 22

1.1 Staff ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

1.2 Geological and Biological Context (Brief summary of origins and development) ............................... 22

2 Aims and objectives ................................................................................................................................ 24

2.1 Aims ................................................................................................................................................... 24

2.2 Objectives......................................................................................................................................... 24

3 Cruise Narrative....................................................................................................................................... 24

3.1 ED140619 .......................................................................................................................................... 24

3.2 ED140716 .......................................................................................................................................... 25

3.3 ED140731 .......................................................................................................................................... 25

4 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 27

5 Sample stills ............................................................................................................................................ 28

6 Quality Control ........................................................................................................................................ 33

6.1 Positioning and Bathymetry ........................................................................................................ 33

6.2 Seabed video and stills ................................................................................................................. 33

7 Human Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 33

8 Health and safety events ......................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX 1 – Equipment Calibration .............................................................................................................. 34

APPENDIX 2 – Vessels and Equipment Used .................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX 3 Offsets ......................................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX 4 Daily progress reports .................................................................................................................. 41

APPENDIX 5 Survey metadata.......................................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX 6 Lessons Log .................................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX 7 Full breakdown of survey operation time ...................................................................................... 4

Executive summary

Cornwall IFCA, University of Exeter’s Environmental Sustainability Institute (ESI), and the

Marine Conservation Society (MCS) have established a joint project to monitor changes to

reef epifaunal assemblages following closure to bottom towed fishing gears in parts of the

Eddystone reefs. Cornwall IFCA is responsible for data collection and thus far has conducted

three DDV surveys capturing a total of 288 still images and 5hr: 33min of video data.

All partners were present on the first survey to initiate the project, agree the methodology

and review the quality of the data collected. Two of the surveys were plagued with

equipment failures resulting in a reduction of the expected numbers of sites completed

during each survey. Combined with limited vessel and crew availability during favourable

weather windows data from the Far Control site is still to be collected. Cornwall IFCA is

planning one further DDV survey day within the next month to complete the practical work

for 2014.

1 Introduction

1.1 Staff

Cornwall IFCA’s Senior Scientific Officer (Colin Trundle) and Scientific Officer (Kimara Street)

were both present for all survey days with various members of the Cornwall IFCA team

contributing time to assist in the survey operation.

The survey crew for ED140619 were:

SIC & Winch Operator Colin Trundle

Data Recorder Kimara Street

Deck Crew Nigel Beswetherick

Daniel McIntyre




Deck Crew Nigel Beswetherick

Daniel McIntyre

Gavin Purcell




Deck crew Sam Davis

1.2 Geological and Biological Context (Brief summary of origins and development)

On the 1st of January 2014 Cornwall IFCAs Closed Areas (European Marine Sites) Byelaw

came into force; prohibiting the use of bottom towed gears in European Marine Sites within

the District. The Eddystone section of the Start Point to Plymouth Sound and Eddystone

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) has been zoned to protect site features, including a

260m buffer zone, and allow fishing activity to continue in areas with little possibility of gear

interaction (figure 1).

Figure 1: Survey Location

Cornwall IFCA, ESI and MCS, with funding from the Pig Shed Trust (Figure 2), have

established a collaborative project with the aim of assessing changes to epifaunal

assemblages following the prohibition of bottom towed fishing gears.

Figure 2: Project partners present on ED140619

2 Aims and objectives

2.1 Aims

To acquire high quality biological data of a suitable resolution to detect changes to

epifaunal assemblages over a period of 3 years in the first instance.

2.2 Objectives

Follow the agreed methodology in undertaking DDV survey work within selected

survey boxes.

Provide all data and field report to ESI and MCS.

3 Cruise Narrative

3.1 ED140619

Saint Piran departed Newlyn at 0900 and steamed to Fowey where the project partners

were picked up by RIB. The first tow commenced at 1315 when the vessel was in position.

The first tow, Box 2 Tow 1, followed the planned tow and was completed successfully, with

mainly mixed sediment being recorded. This tow was expected to contain reef habitats,

based on available evidence, so it was therefore decided to conduct the next tow to the

west, closer to the reef, with the aim of capturing the reef edge. This tow was also largely

successful; however the camera became snagged on static fishing gear making it difficult to

recover. As a result the connection between the camera and the umbilical became

damaged and the camera system was no longer operational, therefore the survey was

halted for the day.

3.2 ED140716

Saint Piran departed Newlyn at 10:00 and the first tow commenced at 14:18. The first tow

was conducted along the southern edge of Box 3; the Far Control box. It was not possible

to conduct any tows further within the box due to the visible static fishing gear markers

within the area, indicating a high number of pots/nets and therefore a high risk of

loss/damage of the camera.

Saint Piran then steamed to Box 1 to commence the second camera tow of the day at 15:30.

This was a successful tow achieving 15 stills, mainly recording mixed sediment. During the

second tow in Box 1 the winch stopped working. Whilst the engineer tried to solve the

problem the data recorder continued to take opportunistic stills and stills at 1 minute

intervals, however as there was no control over the height of the camera some of the stills

are out of focus as the camera was moving. The camera was recovered manually to the

deck with all deck crew helping to haul the camera.

The winch issue was believed to be resolved and so a third tow within Box 1 commenced,

however the winch temporarily failed again and it was decided to end the survey.

In total fifty stills were collected in Box 1 and eleven on Box 3.

3.3 ED140731

Wave Chieftain departed Mylor at 08:30 and equipment was set up on the steam out to the

site. Winds were force 4 to 5 SW causing the slightly choppy conditions, this along with big

spring tides, meant that some of the drift speeds were slightly faster than would normally

be desirable, and caused some lurching of the camera frame away from the seabed. This

did not affect the quality of the still images collected.

As the team were working on an unfamiliar vessel it was decided to conduct the first tows in

Box 4 far from the reef. The vessel was on site at 10:00. Four tows were conducted in Box

4, the prevailing conditions dictated that the direction of the tow was from west to east.

The tows were planned around the static gear set within the box.

At 12:24 the vessel was on site in Box 1 where a further five tows were conducted. Again

the tows were planned to avoid static gear in the area, working with the prevailing

conditions and aiming for the best coverage possible over the reef edge and flat ground out

to the east of the reef.

At 15:40 the vessel was on site at Box 2 where two tows were conducted as two tows had

previously been completed (ED 140619). The previous two tows were close to the reef edge

so it was therefore decided to gap fill with two more tows further out from the reef.

At 18:50 the vessel arrived back at Mylor.

4 Results

In total 288 stills have been collected and 5hours and 33minutes of video data. At least four

tows have been conducted in the Treatment and Near Control sites, however the Far

Control site remains to be completed (Figure 3). Camera tows have also been completed

within a fourth survey box; an area of distinctly different habitat which is now closed to

towed gear.

Figure 3: Stills locations from all surveys to date.

5 Sample stills

Tow ID Approx.

Length

(meters)

Number of Stills

Sample Still

ED141619_

Box2_1

265 28

ED140619_

Box2_2

300 14

ED140716_

Box3_1

350 11

ED140716_

Box1_1

500 15

ED140716_

Box1_2

430 (including

90m of no stills

data only video)

24

ED140716_

Box1_3

100 11

ED140731_

Box4_1

540 18

ED140731_

Box4_2

430 20

ED140731_

Box4_3

180 10

ED140731_

Box4_4

150 14

ED140731_

Box1_1

220 20

ED140731_

Box1_2

200 22

ED140731_

Box1_3

70 16

ED140731_

Box1_4

80 14

ED140731_

Box1_5

200 21

ED140731_

Box2_1

100 15

ED140731_

Box2_2

120 15

6 Quality Control

6.1 Positioning and Bathymetry

GPS positioning was calibrated with known positions at the start of each day (as outlined in

annex 1), and offsets on GPS antenna position and deployment area were recorded (annex

3).

6.2 Seabed video and stil ls

At the time of image capture, notes were made of any image ‘defects’ if they were

identified. Many defects were only noticed during the cataloguing process. Accordingly, the

stills log spreadsheet contains a field to describe image faults.

7 Human Activities

No obvious changes to habitat were noted due to anthropogenic activity on survey sites.

8 Health and safety events

There were no health and safety events to report or near misses.

APPENDIX 1 – Equipment Calibration

At the start of each day, all timing devices were synched to the time from the Furuno GP32

GPS, i.e. the one that was displayed in the Olex. This was set at UTC + 1.

On all surveys, it proved impossible to change the date/time on the camera so all timings

were referenced to that on the GP 32.

GPS positioning was calibrated every day at the start of the survey against an object of

known position.

APPENDIX 2 – Vessels and Equipment Used

Three survey days have been carried out to date using two different vessels and two

different camera systems. Both vessels and camera systems are described below with the

relevant cruise code.

Equipment Specifications

Kongsberg System (ED140619 and ED140713)

Kongsberg OE 14-208 video/stills camera

Kongsberg OE 11-142 Flash unit

4 Seatronics SEA LED lights

200m umbillical and ‘Y’ splice

Topside camera and light control unit

LS Electronics GPS video overlay unit, with remote GPS antenna

Scaling; 2 x Z Bolt battery lasers pointers (for image scaling). ED 140619 set at

120mm spacing, ED140713 set at 200mm spacing.

Cornwall IFCA aluminium camera frame {1000mm (l) x 750mm (w) x 750mm (h)}

Samsung NX550P laptop PC to capture streamed video

Acer laptop running Kongsberg GUI to control still image capture

Samsung NX550P laptop as back for other laptops

Pinnacle video capture hardware/software

Panasonic Toughbook operating Olex Navigation software

Evermore SA 320 GPS (position data for Olex)

Figure 4: Camera, strobe and light set up

within the drop frame

Figure 5: Camera, strobe and light set up

within the drop frame

Seaspyder System (ED140716)

Camera System

STR Seaspyder 18Mp U/W digital still camera (18 mega pixels)

STR Seaspyder High power U/W camera flash

4 STR Seaspyder 20W High intensity LED light

2 STR Seaspyder Subsea scaling laser (Red; 100mm spacing)

Seaspyder camera frame (Figure 6)

Recording Equipment

Seaspyder top side equipment ( 2 monitors and 2 PCs) running SeaSpyder software

1 Lap top with Pinnacle video capture hardware/software

Pro forma recording sheet

Figure 6: SeaSpyder Camera System

Figure 7: Lab set up

Saint Piran (ED140619 and ED140716)

Length 27.07m Beam 6.75m Draught 1.7m Construction Aluminium, double chine Propulsion 2x 38 000cc twin turbo Cummins KTA38-M2 engines Speed Cruising 16/18 knots, max speed 22 knots

Figure 6: FPV Saint Piran

Wave Chieftain (ED140731)

Length 12.8m Beam 5.18m Speed 28 knots top speed, 18 knots cruising speed

Figure 8: Wave Chieftain (Source: http://www.cornishfishing.co.uk)

Survey Method and Crew Responsibilities

Helm Winch Operator Scribe Deck Crew

Before

tow

Fill header data into

recording sheet; tow

number etc

Type video file name

When

on

site

Notify all crew vessel

is in position for start

of tow

Hold clapper board

to camera

Take still and short

video of clapper

board file

Start

of tow

Control vessel along

camera tow

Lower camera

pausing under the

deck crews direction

Note time and

position of

deployment

Start video recording

Start ‘Track’ on Olex

Tape umbilical to

back line every 5m

(approx.)

First

still

Control vessel along

camera tow

Communicated to

crew when camera is

on the seabed

(observe second

monitor)

Take a still and Add a

‘Mark’ on the Olex .

Record; time,

position (from Olex

mark), depth,

comments.

Label Olex mark

Monitor rope and

umbilical

Repeat for each still at 60 second intervals to the end of tow

End of

tow

Manoeuvre vessel

for safe recovery of

camera.

Position vessel for

next camera tow

Directly after last still

winch camera to

surface.

Secure camera cage .

Record end of tow

End video recording.

Finish the Olex

‘Track’

Monitor rope and

umbilical.

Secure camera cage.

Repeat whole process for each tow

APPENDIX 3 Offsets

Camera deployment area

ED140619 and ED140716 on ‘Saint Piran’ the camera was deployed to the stern

of the vessel on the starboard side.

ED140731 on ‘Wave Chieftain’ the camera was deployed over the starboard side

just aft of the wheel house.

Video Overlay GPS and GP32

Accuracy

The GP32 for the Olex (Evermore SA320) is accurate to 3m. The GPS for the

video overlay is accurate to less than 10m.

Position

Both GPS antenna were positioned as close to the camera deployment area as

possible. On ‘Saint Piran’ within 4m of the deployment area (forward and 1m

inboard), on Wave Chieftain was less than a meter to port from the deployment

area.

APPENDIX 4 Daily progress reports

Figures 9, 10 and 11 below shows the locations of stills collected per day.

Figure 9 ED140619

Figure 10 ED140716

Figure 11: ED140731

APPENDIX 5 Survey metadata

Tow_ID Date Time of SOL

Time of EOL

Video Length

(min:sec)

No of Stills

SOL Latitude

SOL Longitude

EOL Latitude

EOL Longitude

ED_140619_Box_2_1 19/06/2014 13:13:33 13:39:35 00:26:02 28 50.22742 4.36707 50.30020 5.20540

ED_140619_Box_2_6 19/06/2014 14:08:07 14:21:09 00:13:02 14 50.22557 4.36978 50.29840 5.20809

ED_140716_Box_3_1 16/07/2014 14:31:43 14:43:05 00:11:22 11 50.24462 4.50338 50.31967 5.34204

ED_140716_Box_1_1 16/07/2014 15:31:13 15:45:11 00:13:58 15 50.21685 4.32852 50.28899 5.16667

ED_140716_Box_1_2 16/07/2014 16:00:22 16:26:34 00:26:12 24 50.21420 4.33228 50.28640 5.17039

ED_140716_Box_1_3 16/07/2014 17:30:30 17:37:01 00:06:31 11 50.21490 4.32695 50.28702 5.16507

ED_140731_Box4_1 31/07/2014 10:10:39 10:28:43 00:18:04 18 50.20035 4.39223 50.27355 5.23013

ED_140731_Box4_2 31/07/2014 10:53:30 11:12:34 00:19:04 20 50.19883 4.40083 50.19905 4.39515

ED_140731_Box4_3 31/07/2014 11:25:43 11:34:44 00:09:01 10 50.20403 4.40318 50.20392 4.40115

ED_140731_Box4_4 31/07/2014 11:54:43 12:08:45 00:14:02 14 50.19473 4.40362 50.19472 4.40203

ED_140731_Box1_1 31/07/2014 12:32:08 12:51:12 00:19:04 20 50.21650 4.33697 50.21650 4.33410

ED_140731_Box1_2 31/07/2014 12:13:02 13:36:08 01:23:06 22 50.21448 4.33663 50.21477 4.33412

ED_140731_Box1_3 31/07/2014 13:56:02 14:11:02 00:15:00 16 50.21812 4.33688 50.21833 4.33605

ED_140731_Box1_4 31/07/2014 14:22:57 14:36:01 00:13:04 14 50.21713 4.33173 50.21660 4.33132

ED_140731_Box1_5 31/07/2014 15:05:56 15:23:26 00:17:30 21 50.21597 4.33812 50.21428 4.33767

ED_140731_Box2_1 31/07/2014 15:45:07 15:59:10 00:14:03 15 50.22550 4.36297 50.22622 4.36300

ED_140731_Box2_2 31/07/2014 16:09:45 16:23:48 00:14:03 15 50.22300 4.36400 50.22397 4.36420

Total 05:33:08 288

APPENDIX 6 Lessons Log

ED140619

What went well; learnt from previous surveys

Equipment set up and crew all worked well; as tested previously. The

camera angle and lighting also worked well in the CIFCA frame resulting in

clear, well lit stills.

Adaptations that worked well

NA

Adaptations for next survey

The camera became caught on a pot rope that hadn’t been visible on the

video, this was totally unforeseen, and all crew worked calmly and

effectively to recover the camera. In the future, as is the case with all

surveys, all crew will continue to keep a look out for pot buoys to try to

prevent this happening again. Back up kit could be carried on future

surveys, e.g. umbilical and camera, to could prevent lost time whilst kit is

down for any reason, e.g. damage or malfunction. This is dependent on

price, availability and space on the vessel.

ED140716

The Seaspyder kit was used because this is the kit that will be readily

available to Cornwall IFCA in the future to use for surveys, which will make

survey planning a lot easier. The camera has higher resolution stills the

Kongsberg camera and the added benefit of being able to download images

straight from the camera without taking the camera out of the frame

minimising the risk of losing data.

As this was the first time of using the camera the survey team were

unfamiliar with the camera functions and could not get perfect quality stills.

To try to minimise this effect an engineer came with the camera, however

his expertise was in the hardware not the software. This issue will be

resolved with practice, however may have been a bit optimistic for the first

time using new equipment.


Deck and lab set up.


The lights were lowered in the frame to provide better lighting for the video

and stills. This was seen to be an improvement on the previous trial with

this camera.


Saint Piran can no longer be used for camera work as the winch is not

designed for such repetitive, continuous use and has obviously been

struggling. Therefore in future other survey vessels will be used with

suitable winches or haulers.

The lasers seemed to be working intermittently, possibly due to them not

being tightened up enough, or batteries fading. New batteries will be used

for every survey, and the tightness of the seal checked.

ED140731


NA


The equipment set up worked well on Wave Chieftain; top side set up

worked well in the wheelhouse and the winch operator could view the

monitor from the winch.


The conditions were slightly challenging with strong tides and choppy seas,

this may have been exasperated by working on a mono-hull boat with less

stability than a catamaran. Cornwall IFCA is looking to purchase a new

catamaran research vessel which will be used in future surveys when ready.

This may alleviate some of the lurching of the camera, and allow the team to

choose better weather days, rather than having to book a week in advance

of the survey.

APPENDIX 7 Full breakdown of survey operation time

ED140619 - 19/06/2014

Time Activity

0800-0900 Load equipment on Saint Piran and begin mobilisation

0900-1130 Steam to Fowey river mouth

1130-1200 2 trips for Lyonesse to ferry guests from Fowey

1200-1230 Steam to 1st survey site, introductions and safety brief

1230-1515 On station, carry out 2 tows before damaging equipment, time spent trying to rectify the issue. Unresolvable so survey abandoned

1700-1730 Return to Fowey river mouth

1730-1800 Ferry guests ashore.

1800-2345 Fishery patrol from Eddystone to Lizard Point then return to Newlyn

2345-0000 Secure vessel and away.

ED140716 – 16/07/14

Time Activity

0900-1100 Load equipment on Saint Piran and begin mobilisation

1100-1400 Steam to first station

1400-1745 On station, 4 tows completed before winch failed. Repair attempts failed so survey abandoned

1800-2230 Fishery patrol from Eddystone area to Lizard Point then return to Newlyn

2230-2245 Secure vessel and away.

ED140731– 31/07/14

Time Activity

0630-0715 Travel from Penzance to Mylor, meet Wave Chieftain

0715-0745 Load equipment and mobilise

0745-0930 Steam to first station

0930-1630 On station, 11 tows completed before survey abandoned due to increasing wind

1645-1900 Return to Mylor, demobilise and ashore

1900-2000 Return to Penzance

Appendix 2: Gallery of species

Images are identified as follows: i.e. 0716[date: mmdd], B1_1[Survey box 1, tow number 1],

004[image number]. Species are identified by common name and where possible, binomial

name (scientific name). An indication of confidence in identification is given: low confidence

(C1), moderate confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3). See Appendix 3 for species

identification confidence proportions per box.

Images are identified as follows: i.e. 0716[date: mmdd], B1_1[Survey box 1, tow number 1],

004[image number]. Species are identified by common name and where possible, binomial

name (scientific name). An indication of confidence in identification is given: low confidence

(C1), moderate confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3). See Appendix 3 for species

identification confidence proportions per box.

Appendix 3: Species identification confidence

Species identification confidence per survey box. Confidence in species

identification was recorded on the following scale: low confidence (C1), moderate

confidence (C2) and high confidence (C3).

The total number of species (n) are identified by confidence classification, and

expressed as a percentage (%) per survey box.

Low Moderate High

(n) (%) (n) (%) (n) (%)

Box 1 30 16 115 60 47 24

Box 2 3 5 35 58 22 37

Box 3 0 0 4 100 0 0

Appendix 4: Survey plan for 2015

eddystone reef camera survey report 2014 and... · eddystone reef camera survey report 2014 1...

Documents